Laporan Final

HARI SAPUTRA NIDA NUR AINIYYAH
12213001 12213002
MARCELLINUS
HARYO PAMBUDI
CHRISNADA PUTRA
12213003
12213004
ADITYA PRAMADA
WICAKSONO
12213005
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 13

2. CHAPTER 2: REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...................................................................................... 14
2.1. Tectonic Setting .................................................................................................................... 14
2.1. Regional Statigraphy ............................................................................................................. 15
3. CHAPTER 3: SUBSURFACE EVALUATION ........................................................................... 16
3.1. Well Log Interpretation......................................................................................................... 16
3.2. Routine Core Analysis (RCAL) ............................................................................................ 35
3.2.1. Region of Rock Type ........................................................................................................ 35
3.2.2. Relative Permeability ........................................................................................................ 39
3.2.3. Capillary Pressure ............................................................................................................. 47
3.2.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 54
3.3. Reservoir Initial Condition.................................................................................................... 55
3.4. Fluid Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 55
3.5. Molecular Weight of Gas Mixture and Gas Specific Gravity Calculation ........................... 59
3.6. Fluid Properties ..................................................................................................................... 62
3.7. Formation Compressibility Calculation ................................................................................ 76
3.8. Well Test Interpretation ........................................................................................................ 78
3.8.1. DST 1 ................................................................................................................................ 78
3.8.2. DST 2 ................................................................................................................................ 83
3.8.3. Summary and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 89
3.9. Reserves Estimation and Classification ................................................................................ 92
3.9.1. Deterministic Method ....................................................................................................... 92
3.9.2. Probabilistic Method ......................................................................................................... 94
4. CHAPTER 4: NODAL ANALYSIS AND WELL OPTIMIZATION .......................................................... 96
4.1. Determining the Vertical Flow Correlation ........................................................................... 96
4.2. Determining Tubing Diameter ............................................................................................ 102
4.3. Determining gas Flow-rate and Flowing Bottom-hole Pressure ......................................... 106
4.4. Determining the Beam Choke Size...................................................................................... 107
4.5. Tubing Head Pressure Determination................................................................................. 110
5. CHAPTER 5: RESERVOIR SIMULATION AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY .................................... 114
5.1. Reservoir Model .................................................................................................................. 114
5.1.1. Static Model .................................................................................................................... 114
4
5.1.1.1. Reservoir Model .......................................................................................................... 114
5.1.1.2. Reservoir Property ...................................................................................................... 115
5.1.1.2.1. Porosity ....................................................................................................................... 115
5.1.1.2.2. Net to Gross ................................................................................................................ 116
5.1.1.2.3. Rock Typing ................................................................................................................. 116
5.1.1.3. Permeability Distribution ............................................................................................ 117
5.1.1.4. FZI Distribution ............................................................................................................ 118
5.1.2. Dynamic Model ............................................................................................................... 121
5.1.2.1. Fluid Modelling ........................................................................................................... 121
5.1.2.2. Permeability ................................................................................................................ 123
5.1.2.3. Capillary Pressure........................................................................................................ 124
5.1.3. Matching ......................................................................................................................... 125
5.1.3.1. Initial Gas in Place Matching ....................................................................................... 125
5.1.3.2. Production Data Matching .......................................................................................... 126
5.2. Development Strategy ........................................................................................................ 135
5.1.1. Number of Well Determination and Well Priority .......................................................... 135
5.2.1. Proposed Scenario .......................................................................................................... 138
5.2.1.1. Case 1 .......................................................................................................................... 138
5.2.1.2. Case 2 .......................................................................................................................... 141
5.2.1.3. Case 3 .......................................................................................................................... 142
5.2.1.4. Summary of Proposed Scenario .................................................................................. 143
6. CHAPTER 6: DRILLING OPERATION ............................................................................................ 145
6.1. Casing Setting Depth ........................................................................................................... 145
6.2. Mud Design ......................................................................................................................... 148
6.3. Cementing Operation Design .............................................................................................. 149
6.4. Casing Grade Design ........................................................................................................... 151
6.5. Drill String Design ................................................................................................................ 153
6.6. Rig Capacity ......................................................................................................................... 156
6.7. Tubing Design ...................................................................................................................... 157
7. CHAPTER 7: PIPELINE & SURFACE FACILITY DESIGN .................................................................. 158
7.1. Pipeline Design .................................................................................................................... 158
7.2. Pipeline Design Calculation ................................................................................................. 159
7.2.1. Calculate the optimum diameter size based on the input value .................................... 161
7.2.2. Schematic of Pipeline and the Condition ........................................................................ 163
7.2.3. Determining the Temperature ........................................................................................ 165
7.2.3.1. Determining the Pressure ........................................................................................... 166
5
7.2.4. Speed Evaluation............................................................................................................. 168
7.2.5. Thickness Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 168
7.3. Surface Facility Design ........................................................................................................ 169
7.3.1. Feed Gas Composition .................................................................................................... 169
7.3.2. Separator Selection ......................................................................................................... 171
7.3.3. Surface Facilities Scheme ................................................................................................ 173
7.3.4. Separator Size Calculation .............................................................................................. 173
7.4. Compressor Design ............................................................................................................. 176
8. CHAPTER 8: ECONOMIC EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 179
5.3. Investment .......................................................................................................................... 179
5.4. Abandonment and Site Restoration (ASR) .......................................................................... 180
5.5. PSC Case .............................................................................................................................. 180
5.6. Gross Split Case ................................................................................................................... 184
5.7. Proposed Scenario .............................................................................................................. 185
9. CHAPTER 9: HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT & CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ... 187
9.1. Study of Health, Safety, and Environment .......................................................................... 187
9.2. HSE Philosophies, Objectives and Goals ............................................................................. 188
9.3. Effect of Environment Monitoring and Management against the Effects of Any Activity . 188
9.4. Operations Risk Management ............................................................................................ 205
9.4.1. Risk Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 205
9.4.2. The Identification and Analysis of Potential Impacts on Occupational Health and Safety
211
9.5. Corporate Social Responsibility .......................................................................................... 212
10. CHAPTER 10: ABANDONMENT & SITE RESTORATION PLAN .................................................. 218
10.1. Plug and Abandonment .................................................................................................. 218
10.1.1. Plug and Abandonment Procedure ................................................................................. 218
10.1.1.1. Preparatory Work ....................................................................................................... 218
10.1.1.2. Shutdown .................................................................................................................... 219
10.1.1.3. Well Plugging and Abandonment ............................................................................... 219
10.2. Site Restoration ............................................................................................................... 221
11. CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 222
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Tectonic Framework of East Java Basinal Area ................................................................... 14

Figure 2.2: General Statigraphic Framework of East Java Basin (Bransden an Matthews 1992) ......... 15
Figure 3.1: Log Plot ............................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.2: PEF/RHOB Crossplot............................................................................................................ 17
Figure 3.3: NPHI/RHOB Crossplot for Zone 1 ........................................................................................ 18
Figure 3.4: NPHI/RHOP Crossplot for Zone 2 ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 3.5: NPHI/RHOB Crossplot for Zone 3 ........................................................................................ 20
Figure 3.6: NPHI/DTCRT Plot ................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 3.7: NPHI/DTCRT Plot for Zone 1 ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 3.10: Comparison of DN Porosity and RCAL Porosity ................................................................ 24
Figure 3.11: GR Method Relationship ................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.12: Clay Volume Parameter .................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.13: Clay Volume Plot ............................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3.14: Input for Porosity and Water Saturation Analysis ............................................................ 29
Figure 3.15: Input for Water Saturation Calculation ............................................................................ 29
Figure 3.16: Porosity and Water Saturation Plot .................................................................................. 30
Figure 3.17: Porosity-Permeability Plot from RCAL Data ...................................................................... 31
Figure 3.18: Cut-off values .................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 3.19: Reservoir Results............................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.20: Pay Results ........................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 3.21: Cut-off Plot ........................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 3.22: Gas-Water Contact Determination ................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.23: Probability of Permeability vs FZI ..................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.24: Porosity vs Permeability for Each Rock Type .................................................................... 38
Figure 3.25: Curve of Kr * vs Sw * Normalization Results.................................................................... 42
Figure 3.26: Curve of Krg@Swc vs Swc ................................................................................................. 43
Figure 3.27: Curve of Krw@Sgr vs Swc ................................................................................................. 43
Figure 3.28: Curve of Sgr vs RQI ............................................................................................................ 44
Figure 3.29: Curve of Swc vs RQI........................................................................................................... 44
Figure 3.30: Relative Permeability Curve for Each Region.................................................................... 47
Figure 3.31: J(sw) vs Sw ........................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 3.32: Equation of Normalization Pc for Each Rock Type ............................................................ 52
Figure 3.33: Pc vs Sw Each Region ........................................................................................................ 54
Figure 3.34: Phase Plot of Sample-1 ..................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3.38: Pressure vs Bg for Sample-1.............................................................................................. 67
Figure 3.39: Pressure vs z for Sample-1 ................................................................................................ 67
Figure 3.40: Pressure vs Viscosity for Sample-1 ................................................................................... 68
Figure 3.41: Pressure vs Compressibility for Sample-1......................................................................... 68
7
Figure 3.54: Ln Porosity vs Pressure Graph .......................................................................................... 77
Figure 3.55: DST 1 History Plot Build up 1 ............................................................................................ 78
Figure 3.56: Log-log DST 1 Build Up 1 ................................................................................................... 79
Figure 3.57: Log-log Plot Interpretation DST 1 Build Up 1 .................................................................... 79
Figure 3.58: Horner Plot DST 1 Build Up 1 ............................................................................................ 80
Figure 3.59: Horner Plot Interpretation DST 1 Build Up 1 .................................................................... 80
Figure 3.60: DST 1 Test Point ................................................................................................................ 80
Figure 3.61: Graph Pavg-Pf2 vs Q DST 1 ............................................................................................... 81
Figure 3.62: DST 1 Deliverability Parameters ....................................................................................... 81
Figure 3.63: History Plot DST 1 Build Up 2 ............................................................................................ 82
Figure 3.64: Log-log Plot DST 1 Build Up 2 ............................................................................................ 82
Figure 3.65: Interpretation Log-log Plot DST 1 Build Up 2 .................................................................... 83
Figure 3.66: Horner Plot DST 1 Build Up 2 ............................................................................................ 83
Figure 3.67: Horner Plot Interpretation DST 1 Build Up 2 .................................................................... 83
Figure 3.68: History Plot DST 2 Build up 1 ............................................................................................ 84
Figure 3.69: Log-Log Plot DST 2 Build up 1 ........................................................................................... 84
Figure 3.70: Log-Log Plot Interpretation for DST2 Build up 1 ............................................................... 85
Figure 3.71: Horner Plot for DST 2 Build up 1 ....................................................................................... 85
Figure 3.72: Horner Plot Interpretation DST 2 Build up 1..................................................................... 85
Figure 3.73: Test Point for DST 2........................................................................................................... 86
Figure 3.74: Graph Pavg2-Pf2 vs Q DST2 .............................................................................................. 86
Figure 3.75: DST 2 IPR Parameters........................................................................................................ 87
Figure 3.76: History Plot DST2 Build up 2 ............................................................................................. 87
Figure 3.77: Log-Log Plot DST2 Build up 2 ............................................................................................ 88
Figure 3.78: Log-Log Plot Interpretation DST2 Build up 2 .................................................................... 88
Figure 3.79: Horner Plot DST2 Build up 2 ............................................................................................. 89
Figure 3.80: Horner Plot Interpretation DST2 Build up 2...................................................................... 89
Figure 3.81: Fault Location from Geological Map ................................................................................. 92
Figure 3.82: Isopach Map of the Reservoir ........................................................................................... 93
Figure 3.83: Monte Carlo Simulation Result ......................................................................................... 95
Figure 4.1: Layout Model ...................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 4.2: Input of Properties Data ..................................................................................................... 97
Figure 4.3: Input of DST 2 Data ............................................................................................................. 98
Figure 4.4: Input of PVT Data ................................................................................................................ 98
Figure 4.5: Phase Envelope Plot ............................................................................................................ 99
Figure 4.6: Input of Tubing Data ......................................................................................................... 100
8
Figure 4.7: Input Survey Data ............................................................................................................. 101
Figure 4.8: The Matching Results from Several Correlation ............................................................... 101
Figure 4.9: Zoom in from The Matching Results ................................................................................. 102
Figure 4.10: Input of Available Tubing Size ......................................................................................... 103
Figure 4.11: Erosional Velocity Ratio Each Tubing Size....................................................................... 103
Figure 4.12: The Liquid Loading Condition of the Four Available Diameters ..................................... 104
Figure 4.13: IPR and TPR Each Tubing Size ......................................................................................... 104
Figure 4.14: IPR vs TPR for Tubing Diameter of 6.184 and THP 500 psi ............................................. 106
Figure 4.15: The Fluid Condition for Tubing Diameter of 6.184 ......................................................... 107
Figure 4.16: The vertical slug flow ...................................................................................................... 107
Figure 4.17: Input of beam size........................................................................................................... 108
Figure 4.18: Determining Choke size .................................................................................................. 109
Figure 4.19: Fluid Conition at the wellhead ........................................................................................ 109
Figure 4.20: Input THP sensitivity ....................................................................................................... 110
Figure 4.21: Result of Liquid Loading for THP Sensitivity.................................................................... 111
Figure 4.22: Operating Point for THP Sensitivity ................................................................................ 111
Figure 4.23: Fluid Condition at the Best Operating Condition for 1000 psi Reservoir Pressure......... 112
Figure 5.1: Reservoir 3D Model .......................................................................................................... 114
Figure 5.2: Reservoir Layering............................................................................................................. 115
Figure 5.3: Reservoir Property Distribution ........................................................................................ 115
Figure 5.4: Reservoir NTG Distribution ............................................................................................... 116
Figure 5.5: Permeability over Porosity as General.............................................................................. 117
Figure 5.6: Reservoir Permeability Distribution.................................................................................. 117
Figure 5.7: Histogram Chart of Reservoir Permeability ...................................................................... 118
Figure 5.8: Rock Type Distribution and Selection ............................................................................... 119
Figure 5.9: Reservoir FZI Value Distribution ....................................................................................... 119
Figure 5.10: Permeability over Porosity relationship ......................................................................... 120
Figure 5.11: Reservoir Rock Type Distribution.................................................................................... 121
Figure 5.12: Reservoir Phase Envelope ............................................................................................... 122
Figure 5.13: Well Logging Chart .......................................................................................................... 123
Figure 5.14: Relative Permeability over Water Saturation Each Rock Type ....................................... 124
Figure 5.15: Capillary Pressure over Water Saturation Each Rock Type............................................. 125
Figure 5.16: Reservoir HCPV Map ....................................................................................................... 126
Figure 5.17: Reservoir History Production and Pressure Data of DST 1 ............................................. 127
Figure 5.18 Reservoir production and pressure history of DST 2 ....................................................... 128
Figure 5.19: Well Perforation Profile .................................................................................................. 130
Figure 5.20: Well Perforation Profile after Squeezing ........................................................................ 130
Figure 5.21: Development Strategy for History Matching .................................................................. 131
Figure 5.22: Reporting Frequency....................................................................................................... 131
Figure 5.23: History Rate Control........................................................................................................ 131
Figure 5.24: Gas Production Rate before History Matching ............................................................... 132
Figure 5.25: Bottom Hole Pressure Before History Matching ............................................................ 132
Figure 5.26: Rock Type in Well Profile ................................................................................................ 133
Figure 5.27: Gas Production Rate after History Matching .................................................................. 134
Figure 5.28: Bottom Hole Pressure After History Matching ............................................................... 134
Figure 5.29: Reservoir HCPV Distribution ........................................................................................... 135
Figure 5.30: Reservoir Drainage Area for Well Propose ..................................................................... 136
Figure 5.31: RF vs Number of Well ..................................................................................................... 137
9
Figure 5.32: Cumulative Production for Each Well ............................................................................. 138
Figure 5.33: Case 1 of 10 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate and Production Volume ........................ 139
Figure 5.34 Case 1 of 12 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate and Production Volume.......................... 139
Figure 5.36: Case 1 of 10 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate for Each Well ......................................... 141
Figure 5.38: Case 2 of 10 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate for Each Eell ........................................... 142
Figure 5.40: Case 3 of 10 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate for Each Well ......................................... 143
Figure 6.1: Casing Setting Depth Determination of XX Well ............................................................... 147
Figure 6.2: Software Output of Surface Casing’s Cement................................................................... 150
Figure 6.3: Software Output of 1st Intermediate Casing’s Cement..................................................... 150
Figure 6.4: Software Output of 2nd Intermediate Casing’s Cement .................................................... 151
Figure 6.5: Software Output of Production Casing’s Cement ............................................................. 151
Figure 6.6: Surface Casing Grade ........................................................................................................ 152
Figure 6.7: 1st Intermediate Casing Grade ......................................................................................... 152
Figure 6.8: 2nd Intermediate Casing Grade ........................................................................................ 152
Figure 6.9: Production Casing Grade .................................................................................................. 152
Figure 6.10: Well Schematic of XX Well .............................................................................................. 153
Figure 6.11: Force Profile of String 1 .................................................................................................. 154
Figure 6.15: Ring Capacity of Running Drill String without Buoyancy ................................................ 156
Figure 6.16: Rig Capacity of Running Drill String with Buoyancy ........................................................ 156
Figure 6.17: Rig Capacity of Running Casing ....................................................................................... 157
Figure 7.1: Map of Gas Surface Facility Location ................................................................................ 158
Figure 7.2: Existing Pipeline in East Java ............................................................................................. 159
Figure 7.3: Pipe Schematic on the Field .............................................................................................. 164
Figure 7.4: Sea of Java Cost line .......................................................................................................... 165
Figure 7.5: Reference of Yield Strength with ID of 9.6 inch and OD of 10.75 inch ............................. 169
Figure 7.6: Specification of Sales Point ............................................................................................... 170
Figure 7.7: Horizontal Separator ......................................................................................................... 172
Figure 7.8: Horizontal Separator ......................................................................................................... 173
Figure 7.9: Compressor Selection Chart ............................................................................................. 176
Figure 8.1: PSC Diagram ...................................................................................................................... 182
Figure 8.2: Sensitivity of Contractor's NPV ......................................................................................... 183
Figure 8.6: Gross Split Diagram ........................................................................................................... 184
Figure 8.7: Gross Split Sensitivity of NPV ............................................................................................ 185
Figure 8.8: Gross spliit Sensitivitiy of IRR ............................................................................................ 185
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Zone Division Detail ............................................................................................................. 17

Table 3-2: Summary of Well Log Calculation and Analysis ................................................................... 34
Table 3-3 Table of Results for the Region of Rock Type Calculation .................................................... 36
Table 3-4: Correlation of Permeability and Porosity for Each Rock Type ............................................. 39
Table 3-5: Average of Permeability and Porosity for Each Rock Type .................................................. 39
Table 3-6: Result of Normalization Calculation .................................................................................... 40
Table 3-7: Sample of SCAL Data ............................................................................................................ 42
Table 3-8: End Point Each Rock Type .................................................................................................... 45
Table 3-9: Denormalization for Each Rock Type .................................................................................. 46
Table 3-10: IFT Data for Air-brine system ............................................................................................. 48
Table 3-11: The result of J(Sw), J(Sw)*.................................................................................................. 48
Table 3-12: Result of Normalization of Pc* each Rock Type................................................................. 50
Table 3-13: Equation of Normalization Pc for Each Rock Type ............................................................. 53
Table 3-14: Pc for each rock type.......................................................................................................... 53
Table 3-15: Compositional details of the reservoir fluid ...................................................................... 55
Table 3-16: Molecular Weight of Gas Mixture Sample-1 Calculation................................................... 59
Table 3-20: Fluid Properties Results of Sample-1 ................................................................................. 66
Table 3-21: Fluid Properties Results for Sample-1 ................................................................................ 68
Table 3-24: PVT Data Summary for the Initial Conditions .................................................................... 76
Table 3-25: DST Interval ........................................................................................................................ 78
Table 3-26: DST1 Well Test Interpretation Summary ........................................................................... 90
Table 3-27: DST 2 Well Test Interpretation Summary .......................................................................... 91
Table 3-28: Volumetric Calculation ....................................................................................................... 93
Table 3-29: Gross Bulk Volume ............................................................................................................. 94
Table 3-30: Net To Gross....................................................................................................................... 94
Table 3-31: Porosity of Reservoir .......................................................................................................... 94
Table 3-32: Gas Saturation of Reservoir ............................................................................................... 95
Table 3-33: Formation Volume Factor of Reservoir.............................................................................. 95
Table 4-1: FGS Data for THP 500 psi and Casing ID 7'' ........................................................................ 100
Table 4-2: Operating Point Each Tubing Size ...................................................................................... 105
Table 4-3: Liquid Hold up and Flow Pattern Each Tubing Size ............................................................ 105
Table 4-4: Operating point for tubing diameter of 6.184 and THP 500 psi ........................................ 107
Table 5-1: Equation of Permeability over Porosity and the Range ..................................................... 120
Table 5-2: Reservoir Composition ....................................................................................................... 121
Table 5-3: DST 1 Production History Data........................................................................................... 127
Table 5-4: DST 2Production History Data ........................................................................................... 127
Table 5-5: DST Interval and Date Data ................................................................................................ 128
Table 5-6: Perforation design for History Matching ........................................................................... 129
11
Table 5-7: Proposed Well Coordinate ................................................................................................. 136
Table 5-8: RF for Each Number of Wells ............................................................................................. 137
Table 5-9: Summary of Proposed Scenario ......................................................................................... 144
Table 10 Economic Summary for Each Case ....................................................................................... 144
Table 6-1: Casing Setting Depth Design of XX Well............................................................................. 147
Table 6-2: Casing Size and Hole Size of XX Well.................................................................................. 148
Table 6-3: Mud Design of Drilling XX Well .......................................................................................... 148
Table 6-4: Cement Density of Each Casing.......................................................................................... 149
Table 6-5: Drill Collar's Amount for Each String .................................................................................. 156
Table 7-1: Limitation of Each Correlation ........................................................................................... 160
Table 7-2: Input Data of Optimum Diameter Calculation ................................................................... 162
Table 7-3: Result of Optimum Diameter Calculation .......................................................................... 162
Table 7-4: Optimum Diameter Selection Based on API 5l .................................................................. 163
Table 7-5: Sea of Java Seabed Data .................................................................................................... 164
Table 7-6: Iteration for calculating temperature at 1 ......................................................................... 166
Table 7-7: Iteration for Calculating Temperature at 2 ........................................................................ 166
Table 7-8: The Iteration for Calculating Pressure at Position 1 .......................................................... 167
Table 7-9: The Iteration for Calculating Pressure at Position 2 .......................................................... 167
Table 7-10: Feed Gas Composition ..................................................................................................... 169
Table 7-11: Characteristic of Vertical, Horizontal, and Spherical Separator ...................................... 171
Table 7-12: Gas rate production data ................................................................................................. 173
Table 7-13: The value of K coefficient................................................................................................. 174
Table 7-14: The design of the separator ............................................................................................. 175
Table 7-15: Input Data for Centrifugal Compressor Design ................................................................ 177
Table 7-16: Summary of Compressor Determination ......................................................................... 178
Table 8-1: Total Development Cost .................................................................................................... 180
Table 8-2: PSC Calculation Result........................................................................................................ 181
Table 8-3: Gross Split Economic Correction ........................................................................................ 184
Table 8-4: Contract Type Comparison ................................................................................................ 186
Table 9-1: Environmental Impact and Efforts of Environmental Management and Monitoring of
Exploitation Activities ......................................................................................................................... 190
12
1. CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TM Field located in East Java Basin, at Madura strait, the south of Madura Island. The reservoir
of this field is located in X formation which is dominated by limestone. The reservoir contains
a dry gas fluid. The field has been explored by an existing well, TM-01.
The X formation is located at 3213 – 3658 ft TDSS, with pay thickness of 201.75 ft. The target
zone also Based on probabilistic method in volumetric analysis, TM field has gas reserve of
51.8 BSCF according to PTK POD determination (0.9 P90 + 0.5 [P90-P50]).
Based on the available data and interpretation, a static reservoir model of limestone was
modeled. The TM Field will be developed with 3 vertical development offshore wells with one
existing well and two infill wells using cased-hole completion method and 6.184 inches of
tubing ID. The existing well of exploration will be produced simultaneously, after surface
facility preparation, for 5 years. Addition of new well to be produced will begin at year of 2019
and 2022. As first 10-year, this field will be produced at 8 MMSCFD as its plateau rate. This
field also set its plateau rate of 4.4 MMSCFD for next 5-year of 20 years contract time. This
scenario will recover 71% of field’s reserve.
Treatment of produced gas will be conducted in Sapudi Island after all produced gas of each
wells being gathered in platform and compressed to surface facility along 20 km pipeline. The
gas will be treated to meet sales gas requirement by processing gas to Horizontal Separator and
Glycol Absorber Dehydrator. Tailing result of the process will be treated in a further process
to be disposed after adjusting the content of tailing. The treated gas will be transported to
market by using East Java pipeline network that is located beneath of Sapudi Island.
The gas recovered from TM field is subjected to Indonesian Gross Split system of 75.5:24.5
splitting between government and contractor. According to proposed scenario development,
the project is expected to have NPV Contractor and IRR of 26.2 MMUSD and 35%,
respectively.
13
2. CHAPTER 2
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
2.1. Tectonic Setting

Located at the southeastern margin of the Sunda land Craton, the East Java Basin has had an
active geodynamic history. The basin changed from an oceanic basin located to the south of a
subduction zone in the Late Cretaceous, to the present day back arc basin lying to the north of
the volcanic arc. Three main structural configurations can be established from north to south:
the Northern Platform, the Central Deep, and the Southern Uplift (Satyana, 2002b).
Two principal structural trends of Tertiary origin can be distinguished: a Paleogene northeast-
southwest extensional fault trend and an east-west sinistral wrench fault trend known as the
Rembang-Madura Kangean (RMK) or Sakala Fault Zone (Manur and Barraclough, 1994;
Satyana, 2002b). During the Plio-Pleistocene most of the areas became emergent and this
situation continues to the present day.
The basement of the East Java Basin was segmented into a number of horsts and grabens
trending roughly southwest-northeast. The segmented basement accommodated deposition of
the Paleogene synrift and postrift sediments as well as carbonate development (Figure 2.1)
Figure 2.1: Tectonic Framework of East Java Basinal Area
14
2.1. Regional Statigraphy
Figure 2.2 illustrates regional straigraphy of east Java basin onshore and offshore area. The
sedimentary rock succesion include pre-Ngimbang nonmarine siliciclastic, non-marine to
marginal marine rocks of early to middle Eocene Lower Ngimbang, Late Eocene to Early
Oligocene Upper Ngimbang and “CD” shales and carbonates, and late Oligocene to early
Miocene Kujung siliciclastics and carbonates. The time of peak carbonate sedimentation was
during the Early Miocene when the Kujung I/Tuban/Lower OK, and Rancak Formations were
deposited (Figure 2.2).
The Ngrayong sands/Upper OK and base Wonocolo Members were deposited in the lower
early Middle Miocene up to Pliocene times, transgressions and regressions were associated
with deposition of the Wonocolo, Mundu, Paciran, and Lidah Formations consisting of shales,
sandstones, carbonates and some coals. Volcaniclastic sediment influx peaked during the Plio-
Pleistocene.
Figure 2.2: General Statigraphic Framework of East Java Basin (Bransden an Matthews 1992)
15
3. CHAPTER 3
SUBSURFACE EVALUATION
3.1. Well Log Interpretation
Well logging interpretation is needed to determine which zone is feasible to produce by

evaluating the petrophysics parameters. Below is the displayed log plot:
Figure 3.1: Log Plot
From the plot above, based on the Gamma Ray reading value and the Neutron-Density
crossover, there are three zones, namely zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3. Zone 1 and zone 3 have
low Gamma Ray values, indicating zone 1 and zone 3 only contain shale in a little amount. On
the other side zone 2 has a high Gamma Ray value, indicating zone 2 contains a high shale,
because shale contains more radioactive than sand or carbonate rocks.
From resistivity log readings, zone 1 and zone 3 have high resistivity values, while at zone 2
the resistivity readings are low. This indicates that zone 1 and zone 3 contain hydrocarbons.
The hydrocarbon resistivity value is higher than freshwater/saltwater because hydrocarbons are
more resistant.
The NPHI (Neutron Porosity) log measures the concentration of hydrogen ions in the
formation. Neutron logs show gas as low porosity. NPHI log values are low in zone 1 and zone
3. The combination of neutron log (NPHI) and log density (RHOB) can be used to detect the
16
gas zone by observing the crossover. The effects of gas lead to high log density readings and
low porosity neutron logs. This occurs in zones 1 and 3, indicating the presence of hydrocarbon
gases in zone 1 and zone 3.
It can be concluded that the zones of interest are zone 1 and zone 3. The detail of zone division
is as follows:
Table 3-1: Zone Division Detail

Zone name Zone Top Zone Bottom Annotation
1 1855 1933 Limestone, fluid: Gas
2 1933.5 3212.5 Shale
3 3213 3658 Limestone, fluid: Gas
With the above data, we can calculate the total sand thickness for zone 1 and zone 3.
 Total sand thickness for zone 1 = 1933 ft - 1855 ft = 78 ft.

 Total sand thickness for zone 3 = 3658 ft - 3213 ft = 445 ft.
Below is the PEF / RHOB crossplot:
Figure 3.2: PEF/RHOB Crossplot
From the above crossplot, it is seen that zone 1 and 3 data points converge around the limestone
line, indicating that the reservoir zones 1 and 3 consist of limestone. This is in accordance with
the results given from the RCAL data analysis.
17
To find the density porosity value, it is necessary to calculate the density of the matrix. Matrix
density can be estimated by making NPHI / RHOB crossplot.
 Zone 1
Figure 3.3: NPHI/RHOB Crossplot for Zone 1
From the above crossplot, it is seen that the matrix volume in zone 1 is about 35.5% of
the total volume of rock. The matrix consists of 70% limestone and 30% dolomite. The
density of the limestone is 2.7 g/cc, while the density of the dolomite is 2.88 g/cc. Thus,
the matrix density in zone 1 is calculated as follows:
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑠 = 0.7 𝜌𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 0.3 𝜌𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑠 = 0.7 𝑥 2.7 + 0.3 𝑥 2.88
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑠 = 2.754 𝑔/𝑐𝑐
18
 Zone 2
Figure 3.4: NPHI/RHOP Crossplot for Zone 2
From the above crossplot, it is seen that the matrix volume in zone 2 is about 44% of
the total volume of rock. The matrix consists of 100% dolomite. The density of the
dolomite is 2.88 g/cc. Thus, the matrix density in zone 2 is calculated as follows:
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 = 𝜌𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 = 2.88 𝑔/𝑐𝑐
19
 Zone 3
Figure 3.5: NPHI/RHOB Crossplot for Zone 3
From the above crossplot, it is seen that the matrix volume in zone 3 is about 37.5% of
the total volume of rock. The matrix consists of 65% limestone and 35% dolomite. The
density of the limestone is 2.7 g/cc, while the density of dolomite is 2.88 g/cc. Thus,
the matrix density in zone 3 is calculated as follows:
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 = 0.65 𝜌𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 0.35 𝜌𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 = 0.65 𝑥 2.7 + 0.35 𝑥 2.88
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 = 2.763 𝑔/𝑐𝑐
After the matrix densities are known, the porosity value from density log can be calculated by
the following equation:
𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 = 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 (1 − 𝜙) + 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝜙
𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 − 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 = 𝜙 (𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 − 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 )

𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 − 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
𝜙=
𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 − 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
It is assumed that the value of 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 is 1 g/cc (freshwater), and we have obtained the results of
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 calculation of 2,754 g/cc for zone 1 and 2,763 g/cc for zone 3. The 𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 value is
obtained from density log (RHOB). After calculation for porosity density values at various
20
depths, the average porosity density is 0.4071 for zone 1 and 0.5757 for zone 3. The NPHI
porosity value can be seen directly from the neutron porosity log. The average NPHI porosity
in zone 1 is 0.3413 and the average NPHI porosity for zone 3 is 0.2590. Meanwhile, sonic
porosity determination is using Δt data. Sonic porosity values are estimated using the Wyllie
typical values method:
Δ𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑔 − Δ𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
𝜙𝑆 =
Δ𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 − Δ𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
Because the fluid is assumed freshwater, the value of Δ𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 is 189 μs. Δ𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 can be
calculated using the following NPHI/DTCRT crossplot:
Figure 3.6: NPHI/DTCRT Plot
From the crossplot above, it can be seen that the value of Δ𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 of zone 1 and zone 2 is
almost the same. For zone 1 and zone 3 it is assumed that the value of Δ𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 is 47.5 μs for
limestone, from correlation Schlumberger Neutron/Sonic Wylie 189.
21
 Zone 1
Figure 3.7: NPHI/DTCRT Plot for Zone 1
 Zone 2
22
 Zone 3
After calculation, we get the value of average sonic porosity for zone 1 is 0.9297 and for zone
3 is 0.5981. The values obtained are still too large because they do not take into account the
effect of hydrocarbons on the delta-t values obtained from log results so as to account for the
effect of hydrocarbons, this sonic porosity needs to be corrected by multiplying with 0.7
constant.
𝜙𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 = 0.7 𝑥 𝜙𝑆
After correction, the average sonic porosity value for zone 1 is 0.6508 and for zone 3 is 0.4187.
To determine the porosity value of the log results, it is necessary to find the average porosity
value of the neutron-density porosity to be more accurate. The neutron-density porosity (𝜙𝐷𝑁 )
can be searched by the following equation:
𝜙𝐷2 + 𝜙𝑁2
𝜙𝐷𝑁 = √
2
If 𝜙𝐷 is the density porosity and 𝜙𝑁 is the porosity of NPHI, then for zone one, the average
porosity is 0.3793 and for zone 2 is 0.4607.
23
Here is a comparison of porosity results obtained from log data with porosity of RCAL data on
net overburden 1500 psig:
Porosity vs Depth
POROSITY (Fraction)
0.2 0.4 0.6
1800
2300
DEPTH (FT)
DN Porosity
2800
RCAL Porosity
3300
3800
Figure 3.10: Comparison of DN Porosity and RCAL Porosity
The plot above shows that the value of density-neutron porosity obtained from log with porosity
value obtained from RCAL data is matched. Meanwhile, the values of sonic porosity obtained
are still too high compared to the porosity of RCAL data although they have been corrected.
24
To find the shale volume (Vshale), we need to determine the minimum gamma ray value (GRmin
or GRsand) and the maximum gamma ray value (GRmax or GRshale). The value of GRshale is
95.0106 and the value of GRsand is 8,028. Vshale is calculated from the gamma ray index with
the following equation:
𝐺𝑅 − 𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐼𝐺𝑅 =
𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛
To calculate Vshale from IGR, we use a linear relationship:
𝑉𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑒 = 𝐼𝐺𝑅
Figure 3.11: GR Method Relationship
A linear equation is used because it gives the most pessimistic result (largest Vshale). After
calculation, the average value of Vshale for zone 1 is 0.1891 and for zone 3 is 0.1035.
The density shale porosity value is obtained when the GR value is maximal. The GRmax value
that has been obtained is 95.0106. The density porosity is calculated by using equation 𝜙 =
𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 −𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 −𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
. The value of 𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 at the time of GRmax or GRshale is 2.21122 g/cc. The value of
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 for shale (zone 2) has been obtained at 2.88 g/cc. Its density shale porosity is calculated
as follows:
𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 − 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑠
𝜙=
𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑎 − 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑠
25
2.2122 − 2.88
𝜙=
1 − 2.88
𝜙 = 0.3557
Thus, its density shale porosity is 0.3557. NPHI shale porosity value is the value of NPHI
porosity when GR=GRshale, equal to 0.36329. Sonic shale porosity value is calculated at
GR=GRshale, when Δtlog value is 156.9962 μs. Below is the calculation to get the sonic shale
porosity value:
Δ𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑔 − Δ𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
𝜙=
Δt𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 − Δ𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥
156.9962 − 47.5
𝜙=
189 − 47.5
𝜙 = 0.7738
Thus, we get the sonic shale porosity value of 0.7738.
Water saturation average is zone 1 and zone 3 calculation is using the following Archie
equation:
𝑛 𝑎 𝑅𝑤
𝑆𝑤 = √ 𝑥
𝜙 𝑚 𝑅𝑡
We assume that the value of a = 1, m = 2, and n = 2. We assume that the sand contained in the
formation is a clean sand.
 Zone 1
a = 1, m = 2, n = 2
log rw = 0.4122, then rw= 2.58345
The average value of rt is 196.2893
The value of average porosity is 0.3793
So, if we calculate average water saturation in zone 1 by Archie equation:
𝑛 𝑎 𝑅𝑤
𝑆𝑤 = √ 𝑥
𝜙 𝑚 𝑅𝑡
2 1 2.58345
𝑆𝑤 = √ 2
𝑥
0.3793 196.2893
26
𝑆𝑤 = 0.311615
Then, the value of average water saturation in zone 1 is 0.3116.
 Zone 3
a = 1, m = 2, n = 2
log rw =0.4381, then rw = 2.742206
The average value of rt is 163.3695
The value of average porosity is 0.4607
So, if we calculate average water saturation in zone 3 by Archie equation:
𝑛 𝑎 𝑅𝑤
𝑆𝑤 = √ 𝑥
𝜙 𝑚 𝑅𝑡
2 1 2.742206
𝑆𝑤 = √ 2
𝑥
0.4607 163.3695
𝑆𝑤 = 0.341572
Then, the value of average water saturation in zone 1 is 0.3416.
To get clay volume plot, we use Clavier Method because the method is suitable for tertiary
rock formation. Below is clay volume parameter:
Figure 3.12: Clay Volume Parameter
27
We can get clay volume plot as follows. The red line shows GRmin value, and the green line
shows GRmax value:
Figure 3.13: Clay Volume Plot
Below is average water saturation value calculation using the software. We also use Archie
equation for this calculation.
28
Figure 3.14: Input for Porosity and Water Saturation Analysis
Figure 3.15: Input for Water Saturation Calculation
29
Thus, we can get porosity and sw plot:
Figure 3.16: Porosity and Water Saturation Plot
To calculate net sand and net pay thickness, we use Vshale cut-off, porosity cut-off, and sw cut-
off. Porosity cut-off is determined by making porosity-permeability plot from RCAL data.
30
Figure 3.17: Porosity-Permeability Plot from RCAL Data
We can get the porosity cut-off value of 25%, when the permeability is 1 mD. Gas is considered
cannot flow if the permeability is below 1 mD. Based on the literature explaining the general
nature of carbonate formations (limestone) that produce gas, we use the following values:
Figure 3.18: Cut-off values
31
Then, we get the reservoir results as follow:
Figure 3.19: Reservoir Results
We also can get pay results as follow:
Figure 3.20: Pay Results
32
Below is the cut-off plot:
Figure 3.21: Cut-off Plot
33
Below is gas-water contact determination from log results:
Figure 3.22: Gas-Water Contact Determination
From the plot above, the gas-water contact (marked with yellow line) is estimated to be in zone
3 at a depth of 3658 ft. In zone 1, there is no gas-water contact.
Here is a summary of the calculation and analysis from well logging:
Table 3-2: Summary of Well Log Calculation and Analysis

Reservoir Hydrocarbon Total Sand Net Sand Net Pay
Top Bottom
Zone Type Thickness Thickness Thickness
1 1855 1933 Gas 78 57.5 57.5
3 3213 3658 Gas 445 201.75 201.75
Average
Reservoir GR GR Average Average Average
Por
Zone Shale Sand Vshale Por DEN Por NPHI
SONIC
1 95.0106 8.028 0.189069 0.4071 0.3413 0.6508
3 95.0106 8.028 0.103543 0.5757 0.2590 0.4187
34
Average
Reservoir Average Matrix Fluid
Water Δt Matrix Δt Fluid
Zone Porosity Density Density
Saturation
47.5 189
1 0.3793 0.3116 2.754 g/cc 1 g/cc
microsecond microsecond
47.5 189
3 0.4607 0.3416 2.763 g/cc 1 g/cc
microsecond microsecond
Por
Shale Por DEN Por NPHI
SONIC
Zone Shale Shale
Shale
2 0.3557 0.3633 0.7738
Por
Reservoir Oil-Water Gas-Oil Gas-Water Vshale Cut-
Cut- Sw Cut-Off
Zone Contact Contact Contact Off
Off
1 - - - 0.5 0.25 0.6
3 - - 3658 0.5 0.25 0.6
Cementati Saturation
Reservoir Lithology
on Factor, Exponent, Rw
Zone Parameter, a
m n
1 1 2 2 2.58345
3 1 2 2 2.742206
3.2. Routine Core Analysis (RCAL)
3.2.1. Region of Rock Type
The method used for determining the region of rock type is:
a. Identify the permeability and porosity data
The data is from well TM-01 and measured under NOB condition at 1500 psig.
b. Sort permeability data based on the value of a formation/facies.
FZI is calculated by using these equation:
𝑅𝑄𝐼
FZI = 𝑃ℎ𝑖 𝑧
35
𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝐷
RQI = 0.0314 x √𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
Phi z = 1−𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 for each sample
After the calculation is done, the sample is sorted by FZI value from lowest to
highest number (number 1 is the sample with the smallest FZI value). Next is to
calculate the probability of permeability (Z-value) for each ordered sample.
(𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒(𝑖)−0.5)
Z-value = 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐼𝑁𝑉(𝐶𝑂𝑈𝑁𝑇(𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (1)∶ (𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑛)))
Where i is the sample number of the data and n is the the highest FZI of number
sample.
c. Plot a graph FZI over Z-value

To conduct the region, it is necessary to plot a graph between FZI (Flow Zone
Indicator) over Permeability Probability (Z-value). Here are the table of results from
FZI, RQI, Phi z and Z-value calculation,
Table 3-3 Table of Results for the Region of Rock Type Calculation
No. Sample Depth Porosity Perm Phi RQI FZI Z-value
1 42 3711.0 0.375 0.055 0.6 0.012025 0.020042 -2.27799
2 44 3745.0 0.336 0.099 0.506024 0.017044 0.033683 -1.8238
3 30 3615.0 0.403 0.224 0.675042 0.02341 0.034679 -1.58206
4 32 3625.0 0.381 0.195 0.615509 0.022464 0.036496 -1.40814
5 41 3701.0 0.386 0.271 0.628664 0.02631 0.041851 -1.26871
6 45 3775.0 0.317 0.152 0.464129 0.021743 0.046847 -1.15035
7 37 3665.0 0.324 0.173 0.47929 0.022945 0.047872 -1.04623
8 38 3675.0 0.335 0.199 0.503759 0.024201 0.048041 -0.95237
9 34 3640.0 0.334 0.258 0.501502 0.027597 0.055029 -0.86623
10 49 3825.0 0.238 0.073 0.312336 0.01739 0.055678 -0.78608
11 29 3605.0 0.392 0.517 0.644737 0.036061 0.055931 -0.7107
12 33 3635.0 0.386 0.553 0.628664 0.037584 0.059783 -0.63915
13 46 3795.0 0.328 0.285 0.488095 0.029269 0.059967 -0.57073
14 31 3620.0 0.408 0.729 0.689189 0.041972 0.060901 -0.50489
15 36 3655.0 0.299 0.223 0.426534 0.027117 0.063576 -0.44117
16 43 3725.0 0.32 0.294 0.470588 0.030097 0.063957 -0.37919
17 25 3575.0 0.421 0.937 0.727116 0.046844 0.064425 -0.31864
18 28 3595.0 0.426 1.11 0.74216 0.050686 0.068295 -0.25923
36
No. Sample Depth Porosity Perm Phi RQI FZI Z-value
19 35 3645.0 0.338 0.473 0.510574 0.037145 0.072752 -0.20073
20 26 3580.0 0.388 0.922 0.633987 0.048404 0.076348 -0.14291
21 50 3830.0 0.325 0.505 0.481481 0.039141 0.081293 -0.08556
22 13 3475.0 0.456 2.85 0.838235 0.0785 0.093649 -0.02849
23 14 3480.0 0.375 1.27 0.6 0.057785 0.096309 0.028488
24 11 3455.0 0.465 3.32 0.869159 0.083902 0.096532 0.085558
25 27 3585.0 0.435 2.52 0.769912 0.075576 0.098162 0.142907
26 22 3545.0 0.383 1.49 0.620746 0.061933 0.099772 0.200731
27 47 3805.0 0.312 0.659 0.453488 0.045635 0.10063 0.259234
28 19 3515.0 0.453 3.98 0.828154 0.093073 0.112386 0.318639
29 10 3445.0 0.474 5.22 0.901141 0.104202 0.115633 0.379192
30 5 3405.0 0.471 5.1 0.890359 0.103325 0.116048 0.441169
31 18 3505.0 0.399 2.58 0.663894 0.079846 0.120269 0.50489
32 15 3485.0 0.468 5.70 0.879699 0.109583 0.124569 0.570731
33 16 3495.0 0.459 5.65 0.848429 0.110166 0.129847 0.639147
34 24 3565.0 0.425 4.00 0.73913 0.096331 0.13033 0.710696
35 12 3465.0 0.484 7.37 0.937984 0.12253 0.130631 0.786084
36 8 3425.0 0.478 7.66 0.915709 0.125698 0.137269 0.866231
37 20 3525.0 0.445 6.31 0.801802 0.11824 0.147468 0.952371
38 7 3415.0 0.46 7.43 0.851852 0.126196 0.148143 1.046231
39 21 3535.0 0.412 5.40 0.70068 0.113678 0.16224 1.150349
40 17 3500.0 0.467 12.2 0.876173 0.160491 0.183173 1.268707
41 23 3555.0 0.416 8.36 0.712329 0.140762 0.197609 1.408136
42 4 3395.0 0.509 34 1.03666 0.256632 0.247556 1.582058
43 3 3385.0 0.495 35.1 0.980198 0.264412 0.026975 1.823803
44 9 3435.0 0.394 17.8 0.650165 0.211053 0.324615 2.277988
37
Here is a graph of Z-Value versus FZI to determine the region of rock type:
Figure 3.23: Probability of Permeability vs FZI
Based on the analysis of the figure 3.23, there are 5 rock typing. To obtain a
relationship between the porosity and permeability of each rock typing, porosity is
plotted over permeability for each cases based on the FZI range. The graph is,
Permeabilitas vs Porositas
10
y = 14.243x0.8822
y = 212.25x4.9709
y = 84.418x4.63
1
RT1
Permeabilitas
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

y = 30.011x4.1468
RT2
RT3
y = 0.7361x1.2205
RT4
0.1
RT5
0.01
Porositas
Figure 3.24: Porosity vs Permeability for Each Rock Type
38
Hence correlation between permeability and porosity is:
Table 3-4: Correlation of Permeability and Porosity for Each Rock Type
Region Range of FZI Correlation
Rock type 1 FZI > 0.02 & FZI<= 0.055 k = 0.7361∅1.2205

Rock type 5 FZI > 0.13 k = 14.243∅0.8822
The average permeability value for each region can be calculated as:
Table 3-5: Average of Permeability and Porosity for Each Rock Type
Average
Rock Type Region Average Porosity fraction
Permeability (md)
1 0.354286 0.210286
2 0.360333 0.5035
3 0.386 1.38675
4 0.422857 3.532714
5 0.43325 6.875
3.2.2. Relative Permeability
The procedures to determine Sw, Krw, and Krg each region of rock type are:
a. Data Identification
The data is measured at NOB condition using Klinkenberg permeability and helium
porosity.
b. Normalization of Relative Permeability Curve
A curve that can represent all available data is made for each facies or
formation/reservoir. Normalization can be done using the following equation:
𝑆𝑤−𝑆𝑤𝑐
Sw* = 1−𝑆𝑤𝑐−𝑆𝑔𝑟
𝑘𝑟𝑔
krg* = 𝑘𝑔𝑜@𝑆𝑤𝑐
𝑘𝑟𝑤
krw* =𝑘𝑟𝑤@𝑠𝑔𝑟
39
The result of all data calculations can be seen in table below.
Table 3-6: Result of Normalization Calculation
Sample Data Normalization
Number Sw krw kro Sw* krw* kro*
0.497 0.0000 0.107 0 0 1
0.527 0.0002 0.0998 0.05964215 0.00016 0.92964
0.551 0.0004 0.0938 0.10735586 0.00043 0.87367
0.573 0.0009 0.0877 0.15109344 0.00088 0.81719
0.592 0.0015 0.0822 0.1888668 0.00153 0.76585
0.603 0.0021 0.0790 0.21073559 0.00206 0.7355
0.621 0.0032 0.0736 0.24652087 0.00324 0.68545
0.652 0.0066 0.0644 0.30815109 0.00658 0.60014
S-4
0.674 0.0104 0.0582 0.35188867 0.0104 0.54192
0.699 0.0168 0.0515 0.40159046 0.01679 0.47964
0.738 0.0326 0.0422 0.47912525 0.03256 0.39343
0.811 0.0873 0.0295 0.62425447 0.08727 0.27494
0.86 0.1475 0.0232 0.72166998 0.14755 0.21634
0.916 0.2627 0.0177 0.83300199 0.26274 0.1651
0.943 0.3626 0.0153 0.88667992 0.36256 0.14235
1 1.0000 0.0000 1 1 0
0.506 0.0000 0.1698 0 0 1
0.528 0.0004 0.1485 0.04453441 0.00038 0.87453
0.537 0.0005 0.1423 0.06275304 0.0005 0.83816
0.555 0.0008 0.1307 0.09919028 0.00081 0.76983
0.585 0.0016 0.1134 0.15991903 0.00161 0.66782
0.618 0.0031 0.0969 0.22672065 0.00309 0.57044
S-20 0.646 0.0051 0.0846 0.28340081 0.00513 0.49822
0.698 0.0124 0.0654 0.38866397 0.01235 0.38517
0.727 0.0198 0.0564 0.44736842 0.01976 0.33231
0.754 0.0304 0.0491 0.50202429 0.03035 0.2889
0.782 0.0470 0.0424 0.55870445 0.04697 0.24941
0.829 0.0951 0.0331 0.65384615 0.09507 0.19513
0.871 0.1698 0.0269 0.7388664 0.16985 0.1584
40
Sample Data Normalization
Number Sw krw kro Sw* krw* kro*
0.933 0.3604 0.0198 0.86437247 0.3604 0.11688
0.963 0.5210 0.0154 0.92510121 0.52096 0.09065
1 1.0000 0.0000 1 1 0
0.608 0 0.3900 0 0 1
0.651 0.0019 0.2996 0.10969388 0.0019 0.76837
0.67 0.0029 0.2610 0.15816327 0.00292 0.66942
0.69 0.0047 0.2238 0.20918367 0.00466 0.57401
0.712 0.0079 0.1869 0.26530612 0.00791 0.47933
0.733 0.0132 0.1555 0.31887755 0.01319 0.39879
0.744 0.0172 0.1405 0.34693878 0.01723 0.36035
0.764 0.0279 0.1157 0.39795918 0.02795 0.29681
0.787 0.0482 0.0910 0.45663265 0.04817 0.23347
0.797 0.0607 0.0815 0.48214286 0.0607 0.20902
0.811 0.0832 0.0693 0.51785714 0.08324 0.17777
0.826 0.1154 0.0577 0.55612245 0.1154 0.14796
0.854 0.2040 0.0397 0.62755102 0.20397 0.10174
0.879 0.3212 0.0272 0.69132653 0.32121 0.06976
0.912 0.5309 0.0152 0.7755102 0.53086 0.03894
0.928 0.6466 0.0109 0.81632653 0.64664 0.02797
S-29 1 1.0000 0.0000 1 1 0
41
Here is the curve of Kr* vs Sw* normalization result:
Krw* atau Krg* vs Sw*

1
y = 3.5326x4 - 4.7191x3 + 2.5769x2 - 0.4505x + 0.014
0.8 R² = 0.9225
0.6
Krw* atau Krg*
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-0.2 y = 1.6446x6 - 11.562x5 + 18.957x4- 11.44x3
+ 3.4353x2 - 2.0255x + 0.9941
R² = 0.956 Sw*
Figure 3.25: Curve of Kr * vs Sw * Normalization Results
c. Absolute and Relative of Permeability, Porosity, and Saturation data

The amount of absolute permeability, porosity is summarized in table below along
with Swirr, Swc, Sgr, krg @ Swc, krw @ Sgr for air-brine systems from existing
data (wells and/or samples).
Table 3-7: Sample of SCAL Data
Sample krg@
depth permeability porosity swc sgr krw@sgr RQI
number swi
4 3395.0 29.2 0.499 0.497 0.107 0 1 0.240199
20 3525.0 6.17 0.439 0.506 0.1698 0 1 0.117717
29 3605.0 0.484 0.389 0.608 0.3900 0 1 0.035025
d. Generate a Correlation / Relationship Between SCAL Data

This correlation is used to find the value of Swc, Sgr, Krg @ Swc, and Krw @ Sgr
of each region. Correlation between the relationships per facies is found as:
42
 Curve of Krg@Swc vs Swc
swc vs krg@swc
0.450
0.400 y = 2.3834x - 1.0573
0.350
0.300
Kro@Swc
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
Swc
Figure 3.26: Curve of Krg@Swc vs Swc
 Curve of Krw@Sgr vs Swc
swc vs krw@sgr
1.2
1 y=1
0.8
Krw@Sgr
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
Swc
Figure 3.27: Curve of Krw@Sgr vs Swc
43
 Curve of Sgr vs RQI
Sgr vs RQI
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Sgr
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
y=0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
RQI
Figure 3.28: Curve of Sgr vs RQI
 Curve of Swc vs RQI
RQI vs swc
0.700
0.600
0.500 y = -0.5037x + 0.6029

0.400
Swc
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
RQI
Figure 3.29: Curve of Swc vs RQI
e. Reconstruction of Relative Permeability Curve

Relative permeability curves is constructed for various rock types and various end-
point data (in example for gas fields at various prices of Swc, krg, krw, Sgr). The
value of porosity and permeability of each rock type is obtained from the average
of each value. The value of Swc, Sgr, Krw @ Sgr and Krg @ Swc are derived from
the correlations that is constructed from each of the graphs above (from 4 to 8).
Where,
 Swc is obtained from Figure 7
44
 Sor is obtained from figure 6
 Kro @ Swc is obtained from figure 4
 Krw @ Sor is obtained from Figure 5
And the results are:
Table 3-8: End Point Each Rock Type
Rock type data
Rock type Phi Perm RQI Swc Sgr krw@sor krg@swc

1 0.354286 0.210286 0.024191 0.590715 0 1 0.350609855
2 0.360333 0.5035 0.037117 0.584204 0 1 0.335091771
3 0.386 1.38675 0.059516 0.572922 0 1 0.308201574
4 0.422857 3.532714 0.090758 0.557185 0 1 0.270694655
5 0.43325 6.875 0.125083 0.539896 0 1 0.229487939
f. Denormalize and Construct the Curve of Kr Vs Sw

The results of denormalization is shown in the table below. Sw value is varied from
0 to 1 with 0.05 incremental. The Krw * and Kro * denormalization values are
obtained from the correlations of the Krw * and Kro * vs Sw * curves in figure 3.
The denormalization calculations are performed by manipulate the normalization
equations for Sw *, kro *, and krw * in the previous step. The formula is,
 Denormalization
Krg * = 1.6446*Sw ^6 - 11.562*Sw ^ 5 + 18.957* Sw ^ 4 - 11.44 * Sw ^ 3+
3.4353* Sw ^ 2 + 2.0255* Sw + 0.9941
Krw * = 3.5326*Sw ^4 - 4.7191*Sw ^ 3 + 2.5769* Sw ^ 2 + 0.4505* Sw +
0.014
Where Sw * is the result of variation from 0-1 with 0.05 interval
 To Denormalize each Rock Type
Sw = Sw * (1-Swc-Sgr) + Swc
Krg = Krg * krg @ Swc
Krw = Krw * krw @ Sgr
45
The results obtained from the tabulation and Kr vs Sw curves are:
Table 3-9: Denormalization for Each Rock Type
Denormalization Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5
Sw* Krw* kro* sw krw krg sw krw krg sw krw krg sw krw krg sw krw krg
0 0.014 0.981 0.591 0.000 0.344 0.584 0.000 0.329 0.573 0.000 0.302 0.557 0.000 0.265 0.540 0.000 0.225
0.05 -0.003 0.908 0.611 0.000 0.319 0.605 0.000 0.304 0.594 0.000 0.280 0.579 0.000 0.246 0.563 0.000 0.208
0.1 -0.010 0.829 0.632 0.000 0.291 0.626 0.000 0.278 0.616 0.000 0.256 0.601 0.000 0.224 0.586 0.000 0.190
0.15 -0.010 0.746 0.652 0.000 0.262 0.647 0.000 0.250 0.637 0.000 0.230 0.624 0.000 0.202 0.609 0.000 0.171
0.2 -0.005 0.662 0.673 0.000 0.232 0.667 0.000 0.222 0.658 0.000 0.204 0.646 0.000 0.179 0.632 0.000 0.152
0.25 0.002 0.581 0.693 0.002 0.204 0.688 0.000 0.195 0.680 0.002 0.179 0.668 0.002 0.157 0.655 0.002 0.133
0.3 0.012 0.503 0.714 0.012 0.176 0.709 0.012 0.169 0.701 0.012 0.155 0.690 0.012 0.136 0.678 0.012 0.115
0.35 0.023 0.432 0.734 0.023 0.151 0.730 0.023 0.145 0.722 0.023 0.133 0.712 0.023 0.117 0.701 0.023 0.099
0.4 0.035 0.367 0.754 0.035 0.129 0.751 0.035 0.123 0.744 0.035 0.113 0.734 0.035 0.099 0.724 0.035 0.084
0.45 0.048 0.311 0.775 0.048 0.109 0.771 0.048 0.104 0.765 0.048 0.096 0.756 0.048 0.084 0.747 0.048 0.071
0.5 0.064 0.263 0.795 0.064 0.092 0.792 0.064 0.088 0.786 0.064 0.081 0.779 0.064 0.071 0.770 0.064 0.060
0.55 0.084 0.223 0.816 0.084 0.078 0.813 0.084 0.075 0.808 0.084 0.069 0.801 0.084 0.060 0.793 0.084 0.051
0.575 0.096 0.206 0.826 0.096 0.072 0.823 0.096 0.069 0.818 0.096 0.064 0.812 0.096 0.056 0.804 0.096 0.047
0.6 0.110 0.191 0.836 0.110 0.067 0.834 0.110 0.064 0.829 0.110 0.059 0.823 0.110 0.052 0.816 0.110 0.044
0.625 0.126 0.178 0.847 0.126 0.062 0.844 0.126 0.060 0.840 0.126 0.055 0.834 0.126 0.048 0.827 0.126 0.041
0.65 0.145 0.166 0.857 0.145 0.058 0.854 0.145 0.056 0.851 0.145 0.051 0.845 0.145 0.045 0.839 0.145 0.038
0.675 0.166 0.156 0.867 0.166 0.055 0.865 0.166 0.052 0.861 0.166 0.048 0.856 0.166 0.042 0.850 0.166 0.036
0.7 0.191 0.147 0.877 0.191 0.052 0.875 0.191 0.049 0.872 0.191 0.045 0.867 0.191 0.040 0.862 0.191 0.034
0.725 0.220 0.139 0.887 0.220 0.049 0.886 0.220 0.046 0.883 0.220 0.043 0.878 0.220 0.038 0.873 0.220 0.032
0.75 0.252 0.131 0.898 0.252 0.046 0.896 0.252 0.044 0.893 0.252 0.040 0.889 0.252 0.036 0.885 0.252 0.030
0.775 0.290 0.124 0.908 0.290 0.043 0.906 0.290 0.042 0.904 0.290 0.038 0.900 0.290 0.034 0.896 0.290 0.028
0.8 0.334 0.117 0.918 0.334 0.041 0.917 0.334 0.039 0.915 0.334 0.036 0.911 0.334 0.032 0.908 0.334 0.027
0.825 0.383 0.109 0.928 0.383 0.038 0.927 0.383 0.037 0.925 0.383 0.034 0.923 0.383 0.030 0.919 0.383 0.025
0.85 0.439 0.101 0.939 0.439 0.035 0.938 0.439 0.034 0.936 0.439 0.031 0.934 0.439 0.027 0.931 0.439 0.023
0.875 0.502 0.092 0.949 0.502 0.032 0.948 0.502 0.031 0.947 0.502 0.028 0.945 0.502 0.025 0.942 0.502 0.021
0.9 0.573 0.081 0.959 0.573 0.028 0.958 0.573 0.027 0.957 0.573 0.025 0.956 0.573 0.022 0.954 0.573 0.019
0.925 0.653 0.068 0.969 0.653 0.024 0.969 0.653 0.023 0.968 0.653 0.021 0.967 0.653 0.018 0.965 0.653 0.016
0.95 0.743 0.053 0.980 0.743 0.018 0.979 0.743 0.018 0.979 0.743 0.016 0.978 0.743 0.014 0.977 0.743 0.012
0.975 0.843 0.034 0.990 0.843 0.012 0.990 0.843 0.011 0.989 0.843 0.011 0.989 0.843 0.009 0.988 0.843 0.008
1 0.954 0.012 1.000 0.954 0.000 1.000 0.954 0.000 1.000 0.954 0.000 1.000 0.954 0.000 1.000 0.954 0.000
46
From the tables above, the relative permeability graph vs water saturation can be
constructed:
Krg or Krw vs Sw
1.000
0.900
krg1
0.800
krw1
0.700
krw2
Krw atau Krg
0.600
krg2
0.500
krw3
0.400
krg3
0.300
krw4
0.200
krg4
0.100
krw5
0.000
0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 krg5
Sw
Figure 3.30: Relative Permeability Curve for Each Region
3.2.3. Capillary Pressure
A capillary pressure (Pc) relationship as a function of water saturation (Sw) for each
type of rock type is generated. The method is:
a. Data Identification
The data is from sample 4, 9, 12, 20, 27, 34. All of the samples came from the same
rock formations.
b. Calculations of J (Sw) and J (Sw *) for all samples
J (Sw) is calculated by:
0.21645 𝑃𝑐 𝑘
J(Sw) = 𝜎 cos 𝜃 𝑙𝑎𝑏 𝑥√𝜃
Where, Pc : Capillary Pressure, psi
σ : IFT
cos θ : IFT degree
k : (permeability of sample mD)
θ : Porosity of sample , Fraction
47
Using assumptions:
Table 3-10: IFT Data for Air-brine system
IFT Data of air brine

𝝉 cos 𝝑
lab 72 1
res 50 1
Then a plot is made for all samples between J (Sw) and Sw:
J(Sw) vs Sw
10.0000
8.0000
6.0000
J(Sw)
y = 0.0091x-3.185
R² = 0.8919
4.0000
2.0000
0.0000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Sw
Figure 3.31: J(sw) vs Sw
From this plot, a trendline power is created to determine the value of J (Sw) on each
Sw, which is then referred as J (Sw *).
J(Sw*) = 0.0091𝑆𝑤 −3.185
J (Sw *) is calculated for each sample on each available Sw data. The result is:
Table 3-11: The result of J(Sw), J(Sw)*
No Pc
Sw J(Sw) J(Sw*)
Sample (psia)
1 0.915753 0.0235 0.0120
2 0.77666 0.0471 0.0204
4 0.617805 0.0942 0.0422
4 8 0.501226 0.1883 0.0821
15 0.384898 0.3531 0.1904
35 0.227204 0.8240 1.0206
75 0.155297 1.7656 3.4291
48
150 0.121809 3.5312 7.4328
200 0.114409 4.7083 9.0751
1 0.916946 0.0205 0.0120
2 0.783218 0.0410 0.0198
4 0.622725 0.0819 0.0411
8 0.488136 0.1639 0.0893
9 15 0.372905 0.3073 0.2106
35 0.284181 0.7169 0.5004
75 0.222114 1.5363 1.0970
150 0.185758 3.0726 1.9384
200 0.177352 4.0968 2.2465
1 0.8459 0.0118 0.0155
2 0.7162 0.0235 0.0263
4 0.6071 0.0471 0.0446
8 0.4728 0.0942 0.0989
12 15 0.3857 0.1766 0.1892
35 0.2953 0.4120 0.4430
75 0.2444 0.8828 0.8094
150 0.2134 1.7656 1.2460
200 0.1983 2.3541 1.5742
1 0.8940 0.0076 0.0130

2 0.7841 0.0152 0.0197
4 0.6797 0.0304 0.0311
8 0.5587 0.0609 0.0581
20 15 0.4212 0.1142 0.1429
35 0.3210 0.2664 0.3394
75 0.2547 0.5709 0.7091
150 0.2198 1.1417 1.1348
200 0.2078 1.5223 1.3553
1 0.9043 0.0030 0.0125
27
2 0.7861 0.0061 0.0196
49
4 0.6830 0.0122 0.0306
8 0.5724 0.0243 0.0538
15 0.4617 0.0456 0.1067
35 0.3620 0.1065 0.2315
75 0.2858 0.2282 0.4916
150 0.2466 0.4564 0.7866
200 0.2286 0.6085 1.0006
1 1.0229 0.0030 0.0085
2 0.9110 0.0061 0.0122
4 0.8116 0.0122 0.0177
8 0.7219 0.0243 0.0257
34 15 0.6594 0.0456 0.0343
35 0.5733 0.1065 0.0535
75 0.5022 0.2282 0.0816
150 0.4509 0.4564 0.1150
200 0.4269 0.6085 0.1369
c. Normalize Pc Using the Rock Type Data

Using the previous rock type (average permeability and porosity for each region)
data and J*(Sw), Pc can be calculated by:
𝐽(𝑆𝑤)∗ 𝜎 cos 𝜃𝑟𝑒𝑠

Pc res = 𝑘 0.5
0.21645∗( )
𝜃
𝑘
Where (𝜃) are from each type of region. The results are:
Table 3-12: Result of Normalization of Pc* each Rock Type
Pc
RT 1 RT 2 RT 3 RT 4 RT 5
3.60878 2.35202 1.46684 0.96190 0.69795
6.09872 3.97483 2.47891 1.62558 1.17950
12.64049 8.23843 5.13791 3.36926 2.44470
24.60464 16.03606 10.00091 6.55825 4.75859
57.05562 37.18596 23.19109 15.20789 11.03467
305.80261 199.30663 124.29791 81.51018 59.14284
1027.46539 669.64981 417.62821 273.86583 198.71388
50
2227.09479 1451.50738 905.23499 593.62112 430.72462
2719.15914 1772.20996 1105.24168 724.77844 525.89086
3.59385 2.34229 1.46077 0.95792 0.69506
5.93756 3.86980 2.41341 1.58263 1.14834
12.32512 8.03289 5.00972 3.28520 2.38370
26.76840 17.44628 10.88040 7.13498 5.17706
63.10806 41.13063 25.65118 16.82114 12.20523
149.94276 97.72508 60.94641 39.96650 28.99923
328.68370 214.21936 133.59826 87.60902 63.56809
580.79906 378.53536 236.07421 154.80912 112.32771
673.10908 438.69835 273.59495 179.41390 130.18065
4.64613 3.02811 1.88849 1.23840 0.89857
7.89486 5.14547 3.20898 2.10434 1.52688
13.36360 8.70972 5.43183 3.56200 2.58455
29.63724 19.31605 12.04649 7.89966 5.73190
56.69030 36.94786 23.04259 15.11052 10.96402
132.73777 86.51174 53.95319 35.38060 25.67175
242.52713 158.06688 98.57867 64.64441 46.90524
373.35107 243.33128 151.75396 99.51488 72.20685
471.66536 307.40755 191.71523 125.72007 91.22103
3.89657 2.53959 1.58382 1.03861 0.75360
5.91701 3.85641 2.40505 1.57715 1.14436
9.32815 6.07961 3.79156 2.48637 1.80408
17.41364 11.34932 7.07803 4.64152 3.36783
42.81685 27.90585 17.40353 11.41262 8.28087
101.68889 66.27566 41.33293 27.10467 19.66684
212.46591 138.47450 86.35985 56.63174 41.09134
340.03246 221.61590 138.21112 90.63397 65.76296
406.07879 264.66155 165.05662 108.23830 78.53646
3.75654 2.44832 1.52690 1.00129 0.72652
5.86915 3.82521 2.38560 1.56439 1.13511
9.18183 5.98425 3.73209 2.44737 1.77578
51
16.11994 10.50616 6.55218 4.29669 3.11763
31.95820 20.82873 12.98987 8.51830 6.18078
69.37112 45.21257 28.19690 18.49053 13.41651
147.30238 96.00422 59.87319 39.26272 28.48858
235.69377 153.61324 95.80115 62.82301 45.58365
299.80500 195.39769 121.86009 79.91154 57.98289
2.53692 1.65343 1.03117 0.67620 0.49064
3.66864 2.39103 1.49117 0.97786 0.70952
5.30175 3.45541 2.15497 1.41316 1.02537
7.69857 5.01754 3.12919 2.05202 1.48892
10.26968 6.69326 4.17426 2.73733 1.98618
16.04049 10.45438 6.51989 4.27551 3.10226
24.44772 15.93379 9.93713 6.51642 4.72824
34.45479 22.45588 14.00465 9.18375 6.66363
41.00939 26.72784 16.66886 10.93085 7.93130
d. Plot a Graph of Pc as a fungction of Sw

From the table above, a curve of Pc vs Sw for each rock type is generated:
By the trend line for each curves, the relationship between Pc and Sw is obtained
for each rock type:
Pc vs Sw
55.00000
1
45.00000 2
3
35.00000
Pc each RT
4
25.00000 y = 2.7266x-3.185 5
y = 0.7268x-3.185
Power (1)
15.00000y = 0.5273x-3.185
Power (2)
y = 1.7771x-3.185
5.00000 Power (3)
y = 1.1083x-3.185
Power (4)
-5.00000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Power (5)
Sw
Figure 3.32: Equation of Normalization Pc for Each Rock Type
52
Table 3-13: Equation of Normalization Pc for Each Rock Type
Rock Typing Equation
1 Pc = 2.7266*Sw-3.185
2 Pc = 1.7771*Sw-3.185
3 Pc = 1.1083*Sw-3.185
4 Pc = 0.7268*Sw-3.185
5 Pc = 0.5273*Sw-3.185
Using the trend and the equation created from the graph, Pc for each Sw that got
from the previous assignment (Sw in table 7 for each region) is calculated. The
results are:
Table 3-14: Pc for each rock type

RT 1 RT 2 RT 3 RT 4 RT 5
sw Pc sw Pc sw Pc sw Pc sw Pc
0.59 14.58 0.58 9.84 0.57 6.53 0.56 4.68 0.54 3.76
0.61 13.08 0.60 8.81 0.59 5.81 0.58 4.14 0.56 3.03
0.63 11.78 0.63 7.91 0.62 5.20 0.60 3.67 0.59 2.69
0.65 10.64 0.65 7.13 0.64 4.66 0.62 3.27 0.61 2.40
0.67 9.64 0.67 6.44 0.66 4.20 0.65 2.93 0.63 2.15
0.69 8.77 0.69 5.84 0.68 3.79 0.67 2.63 0.65 1.94
0.71 7.99 0.71 5.32 0.70 3.44 0.69 2.37 0.68 1.75
0.73 7.30 0.73 4.85 0.72 3.12 0.71 2.14 0.70 1.59
0.75 6.69 0.75 4.43 0.74 2.85 0.73 1.94 0.72 1.44
0.77 6.14 0.77 4.06 0.77 2.60 0.76 1.77 0.75 1.31
0.80 5.65 0.79 3.73 0.79 2.38 0.78 1.61 0.77 1.20
0.82 5.21 0.81 3.44 0.81 2.19 0.80 1.48 0.79 1.10
0.83 5.01 0.82 3.30 0.82 2.10 0.81 1.41 0.80 1.06
0.84 4.82 0.83 3.17 0.83 2.01 0.82 1.35 0.82 1.01
0.85 4.64 0.84 3.05 0.84 1.93 0.83 1.30 0.83 0.97
0.86 4.46 0.85 2.93 0.85 1.86 0.85 1.24 0.84 0.93
0.87 4.30 0.86 2.82 0.86 1.78 0.86 1.19 0.85 0.90
0.88 4.14 0.88 2.72 0.87 1.72 0.87 1.14 0.86 0.86
0.89 3.99 0.89 2.62 0.88 1.65 0.88 1.10 0.87 0.83
0.90 3.85 0.90 2.52 0.89 1.59 0.89 1.06 0.88 0.80
0.91 3.71 0.91 2.43 0.90 1.53 0.90 1.02 0.90 0.77
53
0.92 3.58 0.92 2.34 0.91 1.47 0.91 0.98 0.91 0.74
0.93 3.45 0.93 2.26 0.93 1.42 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.71
0.94 3.34 0.94 2.18 0.94 1.37 0.93 0.90 0.93 0.69
0.95 3.22 0.95 2.11 0.95 1.32 0.94 0.87 0.94 0.66
0.96 3.11 0.96 2.03 0.96 1.27 0.96 0.84 0.95 0.64
0.97 3.01 0.97 1.97 0.97 1.23 0.97 0.81 0.97 0.62
0.98 2.91 0.98 1.90 0.98 1.19 0.98 0.78 0.98 0.60
0.99 2.82 0.99 1.84 0.99 1.15 0.99 0.75 0.99 0.58
1.00 2.73 1.00 1.78 1.00 1.11 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.56
And the curve for Pc vs Sw for each rock type is:
Pc vs Sw each region
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00 RT 1
Pc (psia)
8.00 RT 2
6.00 RT 3
RT 4
4.00
RT 5
2.00
0.00
0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95
Sw (fraction)
Figure 3.33: Pc vs Sw Each Region
3.2.4. Conclusion
Based on the productive zone depth, RCAL test is performed to obtain permeability and
porosity values. The values are averaged to obtain the average porosity of 39.13% and
the average permeability of 2.5 md. If it is compared with the well logging result, it is
found that the porosity value is not much different. This difference however is due to
the RCAL being carried out on a reservoir resemblance condition and on a sample
where the coverage area are small while the well logging is greater.
54
3.3. Reservoir Initial Condition
The reservoir temperature and pressure has been estimated from the MDT data. For the purpose
of this field development study and subsequent work, the reservoir temperature is estimated as
142.142oF, while the reservoir average pressure is estimated as 1758 psi.
3.4. Fluid Analysis
Below are the composition details of the reservoir fluid components:
Table 3-15: Compositional details of the reservoir fluid

Gas Samples
No. 1 (A-01952) 2 (A-01961) 3 (A-01953) 4 (A-01957)
Component Mol% Mol% Mol% Mol%
Nitrogen N2 0.000 0.772 0.000 0.284
Carbon Dioxide CO2 1.174 1.184 1.136 1.167
Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Methane C1 97.665 96.833 97.747 97.392
Ethane C2 0.543 0.544 0.546 0.555
Propane C3 0.245 0.241 0.244 0.248
iso-Butane iC4 0.097 0.106 0.096 0.095
n-Butane nC4 0.066 0.076 0.061 0.083
iso-Pentane iC5 0.044 0.044 0.04 0.044
n-Pentane nC5 0.016 0.015 0.014 0.016
Hexanes C6 0.032 0.029 0.026 0.030
Heptanes C7 0.029 0.029 0.025 0.026
Octanes C8 0.056 0.078 0.039 0.038
Nonanes C9 0.033 0.049 0.026 0.022
Decanes C10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Undecanes plus C11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample Depth 3512'-3534' 3512'-3534' 3390'-3410' 3390'-3410'
Z at 14.73 psia, 60⁰F 0.9979 0.9979 0.9979 0.9979
From the data of the four samples taken, the main components that make up the fluid are
methane with a percentage above 96% for all four samples. This large amount of methane
55
indicates that the reservoir fluid type is dry gas. The hydrocarbons in the dry gas are in the form
of gas in the reservoir. On the surface, no liquid is formed.
Based on the composition above, we had constructed the phase envelope of the fluid reservoir
in TM Field as shown below:
 Sample-1 (A-01952)
Phase plot
Sample 1(A-01952)
140
120
100
Pressure (bar)
80
60
40
20
0
100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperatur (K)
Dew Line Buble Line

Fixed Vapor Fraction Line (V=0.50) Critical Point
Reservoir Condition Separator Condition
Figure 3.34: Phase Plot of Sample-1
Sample-1 was taken from the reservoir at a pressure of 1706 psi (117.6246 bar) and its
temperature was 142.7oF (334.65 K). On the phase diagram above, the pressure line is
not in the envelope phase. The condition of the separator pressure is 3.6183 barg and
the temperature is 313.89 K, so the separator condition is also outside the phase
envelope. This indicates that the fluid is a gas phase in the reservoir condition, and no
liquid is formed on the surface, so the fluid remains gas on the surface. It can be
concluded that the reservoir fluid is a dry gas fluid.
56
 Sample-2 (A-01961)
Phase plot
Sample 2 (A-01961)
140
120
100
Pressure (bar)
80
60
40
20
0
100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperatur (K)
Dew Line Buble Line

temperature was 142.7oF (334.65 K). On the phase diagram above, the pressure line is
not in the envelope phase. The condition of the separator pressure is 3.0964 barg and
57
 Sample-3 (A-01953)
Phase plot
Sample 3 (A-01953)
140
120
100
Pressure (bar)
80
60
40
20
0
100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperatur (K)
Dew Line Buble Line

temperature was 130.46oF (327.85 K). On the phase diagram above, the pressure line
is not in the envelope phase. The condition of the separator pressure is 8.2668 barg and
58
 Sample-4 (A-01957)
Phase plot
Sample 4 (A-01957)
140
120
100
Pressure (bar)
80
60
40
20
0
100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperatur (K)
Dew Line Buble Line

temperature was 130.46oF (327.85 K). On the phase diagram above, the pressure line
is not in the envelope phase. The condition of the pressure separator is 9.3148 barg and
3.5. Molecular Weight of Gas Mixture and Gas Specific Gravity Calculation
 Sample-1 (A-01952)
Table 3-16: Molecular Weight of Gas Mixture Sample-1 Calculation
Component Molecular Weight (Mi) Mole fraction (Yi) Yi x Mi

N2 28.013 0.00000 0.00000
CO2 44.010 0.01174 0.51668
H2S 34.076 0.00000 0.00000
C1 16.043 0.97665 15.66840
C2 30.070 0.00543 0.16328
59
C3 44.097 0.00245 0.10804
iC4 58.124 0.00097 0.05638
nC4 58.124 0.00066 0.03836
iC5 72.151 0.00044 0.03175
nC5 72.151 0.00016 0.01154
C6 84.000 0.00032 0.02688
C7 96.000 0.00029 0.02784
C8 107.000 0.00056 0.05992
C9 121.000 0.00033 0.03993
C10 134.000 0.00000 0.00000
Total (Ma) 16.74899382
From the calculation above, we get the molecular weight of the gas mixture of 16.75
lb/lbmol. To calculate gas specific gravity (γg), we use the value of water molecule
weight of 29 lb/lbmol.
𝑀𝑎 16.74899382
𝛾𝑔 = = = 0.577551511
29 29
The value of gas specific gravity is 0.5775.
 Sample-2 (A-01961)
Component Molecular Weight (Mi) Mole fraction (Yi) yi x Mi

N2 28.013 0.00772 0.21626036
CO2 44.010 0.01184 0.5210784
H2S 34.076 0 0
C1 16.043 0.96833 15.53491819
C2 30.070 0.00544 0.1635808
C3 44.097 0.00241 0.10627377
iC4 58.124 0.00106 0.06161144
nC4 58.124 0.00076 0.04417424
iC5 72.151 0.00044 0.03174644
nC5 72.151 0.00015 0.01082265
C6 84.000 0.00029 0.02436
C7 96.000 0.00029 0.02784
60
C8 107.000 0.00078 0.08346
C9 121.000 0.00049 0.05929
C10 134.000 0 0
Total (Ma) 16.88541629
𝑀𝑎 16.88541629
𝛾𝑔 = = = 0.582255734
29 29
 Sample-3 (A-01953)
Component Molecular Weight (Mi) Mole fraction (Yi) Yi x Mi

N2 28.013 0.00000 0.00000
CO2 44.010 0.01136 0.49995
H2S 34.076 0.00000 0.00000
C1 16.043 0.97747 15.68155
C2 30.070 0.00546 0.16418
C3 44.097 0.00244 0.10760
iC4 58.124 0.00096 0.05580
nC4 58.124 0.00061 0.03546
iC5 72.151 0.00040 0.02886
nC5 72.151 0.00014 0.01010
C6 84.000 0.00026 0.02184
C7 96.000 0.00025 0.024
C8 107.000 0.00039 0.04173
C9 121.000 0.00026 0.03146
C10 134.000 0.00000 0.00000
Total (Ma) 16.70252991
61
𝑀𝑎 16.70252991
𝛾𝑔 = = = 0.575949307
29 29
 Sample-4
Component Molecular Weight (Mi) Mole fraction (Yi) yi x Mi

N2 28.013 0.00284 0.07956
CO2 44.010 0.01167 0.51360
H2S 34.076 0.00000 0.00000
C1 16.043 0.97392 15.62460
C2 30.070 0.00555 0.16689
C3 44.097 0.00248 0.10936
iC4 58.124 0.00095 0.05522
nC4 58.124 0.00083 0.04824
iC5 72.151 0.00044 0.03175
nC5 72.151 0.00016 0.01154
C6 84.000 0.00030 0.0252
C7 96.000 0.00026 0.02496
C8 107.000 0.00038 0.04066
C9 121.000 0.00022 0.02662
C10 134.000 0.00000 0.00000
Total (Ma) 16.7581926
𝑀𝑎 16.7581926
𝛾𝑔 = = = 0.57786871
29 29
3.6. Fluid Properties
Below are the procedures we used to calculate the reservoir fluid properties:
 Pseudocritical Pressure and Temperature Calculation
62
The pseudocritical pressure and temperature calculations were using the equations
developed by Sutton. To calculate Pseudocritical Pressure (Ppc), the following equation
was used:
𝑃𝑝𝑐 = 756.8 − 131.0𝛾𝑔 − 3.6𝛾𝑔2
To calculate Pseudocritical Temperature (Tpc), the following equation was used:
𝑇𝑝𝑐 = 169.2 − 349.5𝛾𝑔 − 74.0𝛾𝑔2
Both of the equations have not been corrected against the presence of impurities in the
form of carbon dioxide, H2S, and N2. To account for these parameters, a correlation
developed by Wichert and Azis was used:
𝜀 = 120(𝐴0.9 − 𝐴1.6 ) + 15(𝐵0.5 − 𝐵4 )
The pseudocritical pressure and temperature equations that have been modified are as
follow:
′
𝑇𝑝𝑐 = 𝑇𝑝𝑐 − 𝜀
′
′
𝑃𝑝𝑐 𝑇𝑝𝑐
𝑃𝑝𝑐 =
(𝑇𝑝𝑐 + 𝐵(1 − 𝐵)𝜀)
 z-factor calculation
Before calculating the value of z, it is necessary to calculate the value of pseudoreduced
pressure (Ppr) and pseudoreduced temperature (Tpr) first:
𝑃
𝑃𝑝𝑟 =
𝑃𝑝𝑐
𝑇
𝑇𝑝𝑟 =
𝑇𝑝𝑐
To calculate the value of z, Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem correlation was used:
𝑧 = 1 + 𝑐1 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝜌𝑟 + 𝑐2 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝜌𝑟2 − 𝑐3 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝜌𝑟5 + 𝑐4 (𝜌𝑟 , 𝑇𝑝𝑟 )
Notes:
𝜌𝑟 = 0.27𝑃𝑝𝑟 /(𝑧𝑇𝑝𝑟 )
𝐴2 𝐴3 𝐴4 𝐴5
𝑐1 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 ) = 𝐴1 + + 3 + 4 + 5
𝑇𝑝𝑟 𝑇𝑝𝑟 𝑇𝑝𝑟 𝑇𝑝𝑟
𝐴7 𝐴8
𝑐2 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 ) = 𝐴6 + + 2
𝑇𝑝𝑟 𝑇𝑝𝑟
𝐴7 𝐴8
𝑐3 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 ) = 𝐴9 ( + 2)
𝑇𝑝𝑟 𝑇𝑝𝑟
𝜌𝑟2
𝑐4 (𝜌𝑟 , 𝑇𝑝𝑟 ) = 𝐴10 (1 + 𝐴11 𝜌𝑟2 ) ( 2)
3 ) 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝐴11 𝜌𝑟
𝑇𝑝𝑟
63
The constants used have the following values:
A1 = 0.3265
A2 = -1.0700
A3 = -0.5339
A4 = 0.01569
A5 = -0.05165
A6 = 0.5475
A7 = -0.7361
A8 = 0.1844
A9 = 0.1056
A10 = 0.6134
A11 = 0.7210
64
To solve this equation, it takes trial and error because the z-factor variable exists on
both sides of the equation.
𝐹(𝑧) = 𝑧 − (1 + 𝑐1 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝜌𝑟 + 𝑐2 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝜌𝑟2 − 𝑐3 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝜌𝑟5 + 𝑐4 (𝜌𝑟 , 𝑇𝑝𝑟 ))
The above formula was solved using secant method with the iteration formula:
𝑥𝑛 − 𝑥𝑛−1
𝑥𝑛+1 = 𝑥𝑛 − 𝑓𝑛 [ ]
𝑓𝑛 − 𝑓𝑛−1
 Formation Volume Factor Calculation
Gas formation volume factors (Bg) were calculated using the following equation:
𝑃𝑠𝑐 𝑧𝑇
𝐵𝑔 =
𝑇𝑠𝑐 𝑃
With Psc and Tsc are respectively pressure and temperature under standard conditions.
 Gas Density Calculation
Gas density was calculated using the following equation:
𝜌𝑤 𝑥 𝛾𝑔 𝑥 𝑃
𝜌𝑔 =
𝑧𝑅𝑇
 Gas Compressibility Calculation
Pseudoreduced compressibility value was calculated using equation developed by
Mattar, Brar, and Azis:
𝜕𝑧
( )
1 0.27 𝜕𝑃𝑟 𝑇
𝑝𝑟
𝑐𝑟 = − 2
𝑃𝑝𝑟 𝑧 𝑇𝑝𝑟 1 + (𝜌𝑟 ) ( 𝜕𝑧 )
[ 𝑧 𝜕𝑃𝑟 𝑇 ]
𝑝𝑟
Derivations of the equations developed by Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem resulted in:

𝜕𝑧 𝜕
( ) = 𝑐1 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 ) + 2𝑐2 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝜌𝑟 − 5𝑐3 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝜌𝑟4 + [𝑐 (𝜌 , 𝑇 )]
𝜕𝑃𝑟 𝑇 𝜕𝑃𝑟 4 𝑟 𝑝𝑟
𝑝𝑟
𝜕 2𝐴10
[𝑐4 (𝜌𝑟 , 𝑇𝑝𝑟 )] = 3 [1 + 𝐴11 𝜌𝑟2 − (𝐴11 𝜌𝑟2 )2 ]exp(−𝐴11 𝜌𝑟2 )
𝜕𝑃𝑟 𝑇𝑝𝑟
Formula to calculate the value of cg:
𝑐𝑟
𝑐𝑔 =
𝑃𝑝𝑐
 Gas Viscosity Calculation
Gas viscosity calculation was calculated using correlation developed by Lee, Gonzales,
and Eakin:
𝜇𝑔 = (10−4 )𝐾 exp(𝑋𝜌𝑌 )
Notes:
𝑝 𝑀𝑤
𝜌 = 1.4935(10)−3
𝑧𝑇
65
(9.4 + 0.02𝑀𝑤 )𝑇1.5
𝐾=
(209 + 19𝑀𝑤 + 𝑇)
986
𝑋 = 3.5 + + 0.01𝑀𝑤
𝑇
𝑌 = 2.4 − 0.2𝑋
Applying the above calculation, we can get the values of fluid properties of TM-Field at several
pressures. Understanding the behavior of reservoir fluids was essential in field development
process since the fluids properties are changing as gas was produced to surface.
 Sample-1 (A-01952)
Table 3-20: Fluid Properties Results of Sample-1
Gas
Formation Gas Gas
Pressure Gas Density
Volume z Viscosity Compressibility
(psia) (lbm/cf)
Factor (cP) (1/MMpsi)
(Rb/Mscf)
1706 1.5565 0.8834 4.997 0.01526 0.0005859
1600 1.6669 0.8873 4.666 0.01502 0.0006248
1500 1.7864 0.8914 4.354 0.01481 0.0006665
1400 1.924 0.8961 4.042 0.0146 0.0007141
1300 2.0839 0.9012 3.732 0.0144 0.0007690
1200 2.2715 0.9068 3.424 0.01421 0.0008331
1100 2.4944 0.9128 3.118 0.01403 0.0009089
1000 2.763 0.9192 2.815 0.01386 0.0009998
900 3.0927 0.926 2.525 0.0137 0.0011110
800 3.5061 0.9331 2.218 0.01354 0.0012500
700 4.039 0.9406 1.926 0.0134 0.0014280
600 4.751 0.9483 1.637 0.01327 0.0016660
500 5.7496 0.9564 1.353 0.01315 0.0020000
400 7.2493 0.9647 1.073 0.01304 0.0025000
300 9.7513 0.9732 0.798 0.01294 0.0033330
200 14.7594 0.9819 0.527 0.01286 0.0050000
100 29.7584 0.9909 0.261 0.01279 0.0100000
Based on the data above, these graphs below show the relation between the fluid
properties and pressures:
66
Pressure vs Bg (Sample-1)
35
30
25
Bg (Rb/Mscf)
20
15
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)
Figure 3.38: Pressure vs Bg for Sample-1
Pressure vs z (Sample-1)
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
z
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)
Figure 3.39: Pressure vs z for Sample-1
67
Pressure vs Viscosity (Sample-1)
0.0155
0.015
Viscosity (cp) 0.0145
0.014
0.0135
0.013
0.0125
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)
Figure 3.40: Pressure vs Viscosity for Sample-1
Pressure vs Compressibility (Sample-1)

0.012
Compressibility (1/MMPSI)
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)
Figure 3.41: Pressure vs Compressibility for Sample-1
 Sample-2 (A-01961)
Table 3-21: Fluid Properties Results for Sample-1
Gas
Formation Gas Gas
(psia) (lbm/cf)
(Rb/Mscf)
1706 1.5574 0.8839 5.035 0.01526 0.0005859
1600 1.6678 0.8877 4.701 0.01502 0.0006248
1500 1.7873 0.8919 4.387 0.0148 0.0006664
68
1400 1.9249 0.8965 4.073 0.01459 0.0007141
1300 2.0848 0.9016 3.761 0.01439 0.0007690
1200 2.2724 0.9071 3.451 0.0142 0.0008332
1100 2.4952 0.9131 3.142 0.01401 0.0009089
1000 2.7639 0.9195 2.837 0.01384 0.0009998
900 3.0935 0.9262 2.535 0.01368 0.0011110
800 3.5069 0.9333 2.236 0.01353 0.0012500
700 4.0397 0.9407 1.941 0.01338 0.0014280
600 4.7518 0.9485 1.65 0.01325 0.0016660
500 5.7503 0.9565 1.364 0.01313 0.0020000
400 7.25 0.9648 1.081 0.01302 0.0025000
300 9.752 0.9733 0.804 0.01292 0.0033330
200 14.759 0.982 0.531 0.01283 0.0050000
100 29.7861 0.9909 0.263 0.01276 0.0100000
35
30
25
Bg (Rb/Mscf)
20
15
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)
69
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
z
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)

0.0155
0.015
0.0145
Viscosity (cp)
0.014
0.0135
0.013
0.0125
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)
70
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Pressure (psia)
 Sample-3 (A-01953)
Gas
Formation Gas Gas
(psia) (lbm/cf)
(Rb/Mscf)
1789 1.433 0.8705 5.413 0.01535 0.0005588
1600 1.6156 0.8778 4.801 0.01489 0.0006248
1500 1.7324 0.8824 4.477 0.01466 0.0006664
1400 1.1867 0.8876 4.154 0.01444 0.0007141
1300 2.0234 0.8932 3.833 0.01423 0.0007690
1200 2.207 0.8993 3.514 0.01403 0.0008331
1100 2.4252 0.9059 3.198 0.01384 0.0009089
1000 2.6883 0.9129 2.885 0.01366 0.0009998
900 3.0112 0.9203 2.576 0.01349 0.0011110
800 3.4161 0.928 2.27 0.01334 0.0012500
700 3.9382 0.9361 1.969 0.01319 0.0014280
600 4.6358 0.9445 1.673 0.01305 0.0016660
500 5.6141 0.9532 1.382 0.01293 0.0020000
400 7.0835 0.9621 1.095 0.01281 0.0025000
71
300 9.5347 0.9713 0.813 0.01271 0.0033330
200 14.4403 0.9807 0.537 0.01262 0.0050000
100 29.1623 0.9903 0.266 0.01255 0.0100000
35
30
25
Bg (Rb/Mscf)
20
15
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
z
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)
72
0.016
0.015
Viscosity (cp) 0.014
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.01
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)

0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)
 Sample-4 (A-01957)
Gas
Formation Gas Gas
(psia) (lbm/cf)
(Rb/Mscf)
1789 1.4333 0.8707 5.43 0.01535 0.0005588
1600 1.6159 0.8779 4.816 0.01489 0.0006248
1500 1.7327 0.8826 4.492 0.01466 0.0006664
73
1400 1.8673 0.8877 4.168 0.01444 0.0007141
1300 2.0237 0.8933 3.846 0.01423 0.0007690
1200 2.2073 0.8994 3.536 0.01403 0.0008331
1100 2.4255 0.906 3.209 0.01384 0.0009089
1000 2.6886 0.913 2.895 0.01366 0.0009998
900 3.0115 0.9203 2.584 0.01349 0.0011110
800 3.4164 0.9281 2.278 0.01333 0.0012500
700 3.9385 0.9362 1.976 0.01318 0.0014280
600 4.6361 0.9446 1.679 0.01304 0.0016660
500 5.6144 0.9532 1.386 0.01292 0.0020000
400 7.0838 0.9622 1.099 0.0128 0.0025000
300 9.535 0.9713 0.816 0.0127 0.0033330
200 14.4405 0.9807 0.539 0.01261 0.0050000
100 29.1625 0.9903 0.267 0.01254 0.0100000
35
30
25
Bg (Rb/Mscf)
20
15
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)
74
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
z
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)

0.016
0.015
0.014
Viscosity (cp)
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.01
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)
75
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)
To see the consistency of data, below is the PVT data summary obtained for the initial
conditions:
Table 3-24: PVT Data Summary for the Initial Conditions

Gas Gas
Fluid Pc Tc Mwa Bg Cg
Sample SG density viscosity z
type (bar) (K) (lb/lbmol) (RB/Mscf) (1/Mmpsi)
(lbm/cf) (cp)
1 Dry Gas 52.20 197.29 16.75 0.5775 1.5564 4.998 0.01526 5.86E-04 0.8833
2 Dry Gas 52.20 196.35 16.89 0.5822 1.5573 5.035 0.01526 5.86E-04 0.8839
3 Dry Gas 51.86 197.01 16.70 0.5759 1.4300 5.458 0.01536 5.59E-04 0.8687
4 Dry Gas 52.20 197.07 16.76 0.5779 1.4333 5.430 0.01535 5.88E-04 0.8707
Seen from the table above that the existing data is quite consistent. There are little differences
in fluid properties value because the samples are drawn from different depths. At different
depths, the pressure and temperature are also different so that the sample’s fluid properties are
slightly different.
3.7. Formation Compressibility Calculation
One of the input parameter in the well testing software is formation compressibility calculation.
This parameter could be calculated by using the Hall’s Correlation which is as function of
porosity.
𝑐𝑓 = 1.87 𝑥 10−6 𝑥 (∅)−0.415
76
Porosity value can be obtained from the RCAL Helium Porosity data. The average value of
porosity is equal to 39.98%. The following calculation shows the formation compressibility
calculation and its value.
𝑐𝑓 = 1.87 𝑥 10−6 𝑥 (0.3999)−0.415
𝑐𝑓 =2.73551 x 10-6 psi-1
Another method to approach the value of formation compressibility is by using the following
formula:
1 𝑑∅
𝐶𝑓 =
∅ 𝑑𝑃
Notes:
Cf : Formation compressibility
P : Pressure
∅ : Porosity
This equation can also represented as below:
𝑑∅
𝐶𝑓 𝑑𝑃 =
∅
𝑑∅
∫ 𝐶𝑓 𝑑𝑃 = ∫
∅
𝐶𝑟 𝑃 + 𝐶 = ln ∅
Based on the RCAL data, if we plot porosity vs pressure, we will get the following plot:
Ln porosity vs Pressure Graph

1.2
0.8
ln Porosity
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pressure (psi)
Figure 3.54: Ln Porosity vs Pressure Graph
77
Based on the equation above, the value of rock compressibility by using this method is equal
to 2 x 10-5. Since the formation compressibility value usually in range of 3 x 10-6 untill 6 x 10-
6
, then the value of rock compressibility that will be used is come from the Hall’s correlation.
3.8. Well Test Interpretation
TM Field has 2 DST data to be interpretated and each DST has 2 build up sections. Well test
Interpretation is done by using sapphire 3.20 software in order to achieve several reservoir
parameters like Permeability/permeability thickness, Skin factor, Wellbore storage, P*,
Reservoir model & Boundary, Radius of investigation, and AOFP. The DST data has interval
as shown below:
Table 3-25: DST Interval
Test Intervals
ft MD
DST 1 3512 - 3522
DST 2 3390 - 3410
3.8.1. DST 1
1) Buildup #1
The following picture shows history plot of DST 1
Figure 3.55: DST 1 History Plot Build up 1
78
For the Log-log plot of build up 1 DST 1 can be seen below:
Figure 3.56: Log-log DST 1 Build Up 1
From the Log-Log plot, we can achieve several parameters like skin,
permeability, initial pressure, and radius of investigation which values can be
seen below. The permeability value is 1.04 means that it is sufficient enough to
flow the gas. Unfortunately, the skin value is high (+9.99 S) which means that
the well needs to be stimulated in order to increase the production.
Results Log-log Plot
Permeability 1.04 md
Permeability thickness 294 md.ft
Skin factor 9.99
Wellbore storage 0.0523 bbl/psi
P* 1812.84 psia
Reservoir model Homogeneous
Reservoir boundary Infinite
Radius of Investigation 24.9 ft
AOFP 5841.02 Mscf/D
Figure 3.57: Log-log Plot Interpretation DST 1 Build Up 1
79
Following picture is representing the horner plot of build up 1 DST 1:
Figure 3.58: Horner Plot DST 1 Build Up 1
From this plot we also can obtain skin and permeability value. If we compare
the value of both skin and permeability from log-log plot and horner plot, we
can come to conclusion that both parameters have similar value which indicate
that our well testing interpretation.
Results Horner Plot
Skin factor 10.1
Figure 3.59: Horner Plot Interpretation DST 1 Build Up 1
To determine the deliverability of the well, the following test point from the
well testing data is used to determine the well C, n, and AOFP.
Figure 3.60: DST 1 Test Point
80
Figure 3.61: Graph Pavg-Pf2 vs Q DST 1
From these data, we could achieve AOFP value is 5841 MSCFD, with C value
is 0.0047 MSCF/D/PSI2, and n value equals to 0.94 which indicate the gas flow
is laminar flow.
Figure 3.62: DST 1 Deliverability Parameters
81
2) Build up #2
Following picture shows the build up 2 for DST 1 history plot.
Figure 3.63: History Plot DST 1 Build Up 2
For the log-log plot:
Figure 3.64: Log-log Plot DST 1 Build Up 2
For the build up 2, the parameters form log-log plot and Horner plot show
supporting value to the build up 1 result. The permeability, initial pressure, skin,
and radius of investigation consistent values indicate that this well have high
skin value, sufficient permeability.
82
Skin factor 10.2
P* 1794.03 psia
AOFP 5841.02 Mscf/D
Figure 3.65: Interpretation Log-log Plot DST 1 Build Up 2
Horner plot of the build up 2 DST 1 and its results are shown in the picture
below:
Figure 3.66: Horner Plot DST 1 Build Up 2
Results Horner Plot

Skin factor 10.6
Figure 3.67: Horner Plot Interpretation DST 1 Build Up 2
3.8.2. DST 2
DST 2 which is located higher than DST 1 also has 2 build up section.
1) Buildup #1
For build up 1, the history plot and log-log plot of it can be seen in the picture
below
83
Figure 3.68: History Plot DST 2 Build up 1
Figure 3.69: Log-Log Plot DST 2 Build up 1
The result of log-log plot show that DST 2 have a really good permeability
which value is 9.4 md. On the other hand, the skin value is tremendously high
which equals to 33.2. This value could be caused by bad completion design. The
permeability value also means that the interval DST 1 is good to be developed
as long as the stimulation program is scheduled as soon as possible.
84
Permeability 9.4
Skin factor 33.2
P* 1791.16 psia
Reservoir boundary One Fault
L-Constant P 205 ft
AOFP 19466.1 Mscf/D
Figure 3.70: Log-Log Plot Interpretation for DST2 Build up 1
To make sure that the parameters above is right, horner plot analysis is also
used. The horner plot of build up 1 DST 2 can be seen below:
Figure 3.71: Horner Plot for DST 2 Build up 1
From horner plot, it occurs that both skin and permeability values are really
high. These values also indicate that the well test parameters convince enough
to be used.
Results Horner Plot

Skin factor 36.4
Figure 3.72: Horner Plot Interpretation DST 2 Build up 1
85
To determine the deliverability of the well, the following test point from the
well testing data is used to determine the well C, n, and AOFP by using flow
after flow method.
Figure 3.73: Test Point for DST 2
Figure 3.74: Graph Pavg2-Pf2 vs Q DST2
From these data, we could achieve AOFP value is 19466.1 MSCF/D, with C
value is 0.0019 MSCF/D/PSI2, and n value equals to 1.07 which indicate the
gas flow is laminar flow.
86
Figure 3.75: DST 2 IPR Parameters
2) Buildup #2
DST 2 Build Up 2 history plot and Log-Log plot can be seen below:
Figure 3.76: History Plot DST2 Build up 2
87
Figure 3.77: Log-Log Plot DST2 Build up 2
For the build up 2, the parameters form log-log plot and Horner plot show
supporting value to the build up 1 result. The permeability, initial pressure, skin,
and radius of investigation consistent values indicate that this well have high
both skin value and permeability, but the radius of investigation which is really
near shows that there might be a fault near the well.
Skin factor 31
P* 1788.27 psia
L-Constant P 29.2
AOFP 19466.1 Mscf/D
Figure 3.78: Log-Log Plot Interpretation DST2 Build up 2
Horner Plot and the results by using this methods is shown below:
88
Figure 3.79: Horner Plot DST2 Build up 2
Results Horner Plot

Permeability 9.52
Skin factor 32.2
Figure 3.80: Horner Plot Interpretation DST2 Build up 2
3.8.3. Summary and Analysis
Table below shows the result summary for DST 1 and DST 2 for each build up by using
both log-log plot and also the horner plot method. From these data, our company
conclude that DST 2 is more prospective compared with the DST 1 because of the
permeability and AOFP values. We also suggest that the DST 2 well is stimulated to
reduce the skin value to lower values so it can maximized its production. Another thing
that our company suggest and will do is squeezing the DST 1. This action will be done
before the production starts. The DST 1 is not prospective because it has lower value
of permeabilities and also it is much more near with the gas water contact. This action
is also need to be done in order to prevent the water coning and also to maximize the
recovery factor.
89
Table 3-26: DST1 Well Test Interpretation Summary
DST1
Buildup #1
Results Log-log Plot Horner Plot
Permeability 1.04 md 1.04 md
Permeability thickness 294 md.ft 293 md.ft
Skin factor 9.99 10.1
P* 1812.84 psia
AOFP 5841.02 Mscf/D
Buildup #2
Permeability 1.02 md 1.04 md
P* 1794.03 psia
AOFP 5841.02 Mscf/D
90
Table 3-27: DST 2 Well Test Interpretation Summary
DST2
Buildup #1
Permeability 9.4 9.48 md
P* 1791.16 psia
L-Constant P 205 ft
AOFP 19466.1 Mscf/D
Buildup #2
Permeability 9.63 md 9.52
Skin factor 31 32.2
P* 1788.27 psia
L-Constant P 29.2
AOFP 19466.1 Mscf/D
Another thing that needs to be make sure is the quality of the data. Since we have
already got permeability from RCAL data, we can compare the value from RCAL and
well test. The DST 1 permeability from RCAL data is 5.15 md while from well testing
data is 1.04 md. On the other hand, in DST 2 from RCAL is 34.55 md and from well
testing is 9/63 md. Eventhough there is a significant difference between permeability
from RCAL and well testing, but the trend shows that DST 2 is more prospective
compared with DST 1. The difference between these values might also come from the
scope area for each testing, since RCAL data is only from a small core while well testing
shows an interpretation for more massive area. Because of the scope area too, we prefer
using a value from well testing for the design.
From the isopach map below, the well testing result is also confirmed by the fault near
the well which indicates that the low value of radius of investigation is caused by the
91
existence of this fault. Only around 30 ft of radius of investigation that is achieved from
well testing in both DST 1 and DST 2 results.
Figure 3.81: Fault Location from Geological Map
3.9. Reserves Estimation and Classification
The hydrocarbon in place is the amount of gas originally in place in the reservoir. To compute
the amount of hydrocarbon, there are two different approaches which are used for TM field:
i. Deterministic method
ii. Probabilistic method
The probabilistic method would encircle a range for each parameter, however the deterministic
method would encircle a value for each petrophysical parameters. Monte Carlo simulation will
be used in order to produce data for proved, probable and possible reserves by applying all the
parameters. Finally, the result from both estimation approach methods would be used to
compute the volume in simulation software.
3.9.1. Deterministic Method
In order to calculate the volume or initial gas in place in the reservoir, the bulk volume
must be known first. This value can be obtained by using both trapezoidal volume and
pyramid volume calculation.
92
i. Trapezoidal volume
𝑉 = ℎ 𝑥 ((𝐴1 + 𝐴2 )/2)
ii. Pyramidal volume

ℎ
𝑉 = ( ) 𝑥 (𝐴1 + 𝐴2 + √𝐴1 𝑥𝐴2 )
3
These formulas are used for calculating the reservoir volume based on the Isopach map
below, and it results the bulk volume equals to 1961 MMFt3
Figure 3.82: Isopach Map of the Reservoir
By using the bulk volume and both petrophysical from the well logging data and
reservoir fluid parameters. The IGIP can be calculated by using the following formula:
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑥 𝑁𝑇𝐺 𝑥 ∅ 𝑥 (1 − 𝑆𝑤 )

𝐼𝐺𝐼𝑃 =
𝐵𝑔
Based on the table below, the IGIP using the deterministic calculation method is equal
to 47.6 BSCF
Table 3-28: Volumetric Calculation

Gas
Parameter Value Unit
GBV 1961 MMft3
NTG 0.841 Fraction
Porosity 0.46 Fraction
93
Sw 0.33 Fraction
Bg 0.008543 ft3/SCF
IGIP 59.4971 BSCF
3.9.2. Probabilistic Method
Unlike deterministic method, probabilistic method will require a certain range of values
for several input which value is not fixed. In TM Field, the input value that will use a
range for its input are porosity, and hydrocarbon saturation.
i. Gross Bulk Volume

Gross bulk volume is using the fixed value from calculation above using
pyramid and trapezoid volume calculation.
Table 3-29: Gross Bulk Volume
Parameter Value
GBV (MMft3) 1961
ii. Net to Gross
Net to Gross is also using fixed value which is the average value of NTG in
the Well Logging.
Table 3-30: Net To Gross
Parameter Value
NTG (fraction) 0.841
iii. Porosity
Minimum and maximum values of porosity for each gas are determined
from the RCAL data.
Table 3-31: Porosity of Reservoir
Parameter Value
Minimum Porosity
(fraction) 0.238
Maximum Porosity
(fraction) 0.509
iv. Hyrocarbon Saturation
Minimum and maximum values of hydrocarbon saturation ar determined
from the Well Logging data.
94
Table 3-32: Gas Saturation of Reservoir
Parameter Value
Minimum Sg
(fraction) 0.307
Maximum Sg
(fraction) 0.82
v. Formation Volume Factor

Formation Volume Factor is using fixed value based on the reservoir fluid
data.
Table 3-33: Formation Volume Factor of Reservoir
Parameter Value
Bg
0.008543
(fraction)
The random value is then calculated for 5000 data sets and the results of the simulation
for P90 is equal to 34.7 BSCF, for P50 is equal to 68.98 BSCF, and P10 is 114.4 BSCF.
Based on the PTK POD 2010 the reserves of gas field is 90% of P90 + 50% of (P90-
P50) and the value for this field is equal to 51.8 BSCF. This result show that the reserve
value between probabilistic and deterministic method is not too difference, and we can
conclude that we can use this value for the simulation model IGIP.
Figure 3.83: Monte Carlo Simulation Result
95
4. CHAPTER 4
NODAL ANALYSIS AND WELL OPTIMIZATION
4.1. Determining the Vertical Flow Correlation
Before determine the flow correlation, the performance of reservoir or IPR must be
determined. The steps to determine IPR using PIPESIM:
a. Determine the layout model on the PIPESIM
Figure 4.1: Layout Model
b. Determining IPR model using back pressure equation

The backpressure equation:
𝑄 = 𝐶 ∗ (𝑃𝑟 2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 )𝑛
Where:
QSC = gas flowrate (mmscf/d)

Pr = average reservoir pressure (PSI)
Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure
C = flow coefficient (mmscf/day/psi2)
n = non-Darcy exponent
96
The C coefficient include variables of:
o Reservoir rock properties
o Fluid properties
o Reservoir flow geometry
The input data is:
Figure 4.2: Input of Properties Data
c. The C and n variable determination

Exponent n is a dimensionless number between 0.5 and 1.0. The determination of these
variables is important in order to determine gas IPR performance. The input data is
from the test pressure and gas flowrate in DST-2. DST-2 is selected because the data
properties are better and will be used as future reference data. The input is:
97
Figure 4.3: Input of DST 2 Data
The values are 5.88 x 10-6 mmscf / day / psi2 for C and 1 for n. The n = 1 indicates a
low flow rate with laminar flow. The backpressure model become:
𝑄 = 5.88 x 10 − 6 ∗ (𝑃𝑟 2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 )
d. Determination of Fluid Composition
Using PVT data, the input is:
Figure 4.4: Input of PVT Data
The phase envelope generated by pipesim is:
98
Figure 4.5: Phase Envelope Plot
The type of fluid is dry gas. The compositional fluid results will be used in the next
calculation, where the fluid composition changes to the pressure and temperature
depend on the characteristic itself.
99
e. Tubing data
The input for tubing size and depth based on the data is:
Figure 4.6: Input of Tubing Data
f. Survey data
From the previous data, a correlations for to the type and flow rate of the fluid is
generated using the Flowing gradient survey (FGS) data taken for wellhead pressure of
500 psi and the casing ID 7’’.
Table 4-1: FGS Data for THP 500 psi and Casing ID 7''
Depth (ft) Pressure (psi)
961.36 512.8
2895.2 537.21
100
The input on PIPESIM:
Figure 4.7: Input Survey Data
g. Matching results from several correlation

The matching results are:
Figure 4.8: The Matching Results from Several Correlation
101
To be more precise on determining the correlation, the figure above is zoomed in as
shown on the figure below:
Figure 4.9: Zoom in from The Matching Results
The correlations used, based on the correlation graphs above which are similar and
close enough to the measured data, is Tulsa Hagedorn-Brown correlation. This
correlation can indeed be used for vertical gas wells.
4.2. Determining Tubing Diameter
To maximize the usability of the tubing size in wells' performance, there are some constrains
cannot be ignored such as the erosional velocity ratio and the liquid loading. This work can be
done using PIPESIM simulator, as follow:
a. Sensitivity of available tubing diameter

The available tubing size IDs are 2.992”, 3.958”, 4.892”, and 6.184” this size is based
on the casing size. The input on PIPESIM:
102
Figure 4.10: Input of Available Tubing Size
b. Erosional velocity ratio

From the elevation vs. erosional velocity ratio graph, shown below:
Figure 4.11: Erosional Velocity Ratio Each Tubing Size
Erosion is one of potential problems in oil and gas production. Erosion can occur in the
free solids of the fluid, but usually it is caused by produced solids (sand). The constraint
of erosional velocity is that if the tubing produces an erosional velocity greater than 1,
then the erosion condition will occur faster and should be avoided. From the graph
above, the tubing diameter of 2.992 produces an erosional velocity> 1, hence the
selection of this tubing size will be eliminated.
103
c. Liquid loading
Liquid loading is initiated when gas velocity in the well declines to such a low value
that it cannot drag up the liquid being coproduced. From the PIPESIM simulator, liquid
loading conditions of the four available diameters can be seen.
Figure 4.12: The Liquid Loading Condition of the Four Available Diameters
Liquid loading lines in the graph can be interpreted as the minimum gas velocity or gas
rate being operated for the onset of liquid loading. Thus, it can be concluded that the
liquid loading still has not occurred in all tubing operating conditions owned.
d. The well performance
Using IPR generated before and Tubing Performance Relationship (TPR) each tubing
size, the performance of well can be seen.
Figure 4.13: IPR and TPR Each Tubing Size
104
The operating points (intersection of IPR and TPR) of each tubing are:
Table 4-2: Operating Point Each Tubing Size

Tubing Inside Operating gas flow Operating pressure
Diameter (inch) rate (mmscfd) (psi)
2.992 16.1919 579.0054
3.958 16.408 546.328
4.892 16.4513 539.5397
6.184 16.4675 536.9765
From the result above, it is seen that larger diameter of tubing produce more gas flow
rate. Tubing diameter selection is the tubing with the most gas flowrate, erosional
velocity less than 1 (one) and no liquid loading, which is the tubing with ID (inner
diameter) 6,184 in.
e. Fluid conditions on the surface
Table 4-3: Liquid Hold up and Flow Pattern Each Tubing Size
Tubing Inside Liquid Hold Up
Flow Pattern
Diameter (inch) (bbl)
2.992 0.422770 Gas
3.958 0.220660 Gas
4.892 0.839805 HB Slug
6.184 1.07402 HB Slug
Liquid holdup is defined as the ratio of the liquid volume in the pipe volume. In the gas
reservoir, the more liquid holdup formed, the gas will be more difficult to flow and the
onset of liquid loading is increasing which are an undesirable problem. Seen that, the
larger the diameter the smaller the liquid holdup formed or the more profitable.
For the tubing diameter of 2.992 inch and 3.958 inch which is smaller, the flow pattern
is gas or mist flow where the gas phase is a continuous phase and the liquid phase enters
the gas phase as a small droplets. The tubing diameter of 4,892 inch 6,184 inch, the
flow pattern is slug flow where the gas phase is shaped as a large bubble that separates
the liquid slug in the flow.
105
4.3. Determining gas Flow-rate and Flowing Bottom-hole Pressure
From the selection of tubing diameter before (6.184 inch), the gas flowrate obtained and the
bottom hole pressure required will be calculated using PIPESIM simulator. The tubing head
pressure (THP) is 500 psi.
a. IPR and TPR model
Figure 4.14: IPR vs TPR for Tubing Diameter of 6.184 and THP 500 psi
106
The operating point obtained from the intersection of the two line (IPR & TPR) is:
Table 4-4: Operating point for tubing diameter of 6.184 and THP 500 psi
Tubing Inside Operating gas Operating
Diameter (inch) flowrate (mmscfd) pressure (psi)
6.184 16.4675 536.9765
b. The fluid condition

The fluid condition for the selected tubing diameter of 6.184 in:
Figure 4.15: The Fluid Condition for Tubing Diameter of 6.184
The value of liquid hold up is 1.07402 bbl and the flow pattern that happened is slug.
There is no liquid at the surface.
Figure 4.16: The vertical slug flow
4.4. Determining the Beam Choke Size
To determine choke size, the gas flowrate of 16.4676 mmscfd (previous calculation) is used.
The manifold pressure (outlet pressure) is 450 psi and the horizontal distance is 500 ft with ID
of 6 inc. Generally, the size of choke ranges from 1-3 inch, hence the size of choke that inputted
13 1 9 1
to the simulator pipesim are 116 inch, 216 inch, 216 inch, dan 316 inch.
107
Figure 4.17: Input of beam size
Before determining the choke size, it is necessary to determine the flow type. Pressure ratio
over critical pressure ratio are compared. For natural gas, the critical pressure ration value is
about 0.55. To determine the pressure ratio, the value of downstream pressure over upstream
pressure are compared:
𝑃𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚
𝑃𝑢𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚
The value of pressure ratio obtained is 0.28634. This value is smaller than the critical pressure
ratio (0.55) so that the flow type is critical / sonic flow. Sonic flow occurs when the flowing
fluid velocity in the choke reaches the speed of sound under in-situ conditions. Under sonic
flow conditions, downstream pressure waves in the choke can not reach upstream through the
choke because the medium, which is fluid, travels in the opposite direction at the same speed.
Thus, there is a pressure discontinuity where downstream pressure changes can not be detected
from the upstream pressure gauge, and vice versa.
108
In general, the calculation of choke size under sonic flow conditions uses the following
equation:
𝐶𝑅 𝑚 𝑞
𝑃𝑤ℎ =
𝑆𝑛
Where C, m, and n are empirical constants. Q is the flow rate. R is a gas-liquid ratio. The size
of the choke is symbolized by S, with the unit of 1/64 in.
The result of elevation over pressure plot is:
Figure 4.18: Determining Choke size
From the graph above, the gas rate of 16.47716 mmscfd is obtained by the choke size of 1.8125
inch. The gas rate is slightly larger than the results obtained from the previous calculation,
which is 16.4675 mmscfd. Hence, the beam choke size of 1.8125 inch or 113/16 inch is
selected.
Figure 4.19: Fluid Conition at the wellhead
109
From the report above, it appears that up to the wellhead there is no liquid holdup and the flow
pattern is gas. The flow In the choke is critical flow. In the flowline, the flow pattern is
distributed with a liquid holdup of 0.004, so there is a liquid on the surface of 0.074 bbl.
4.5. Tubing Head Pressure Determination
The other way to optimize well performance is to sensitivity THP (Tubing Head pressure).
Using the best optimum diameter of 6.184 for THP of 500 before, the THP then is sensitivity
by using 50, 100, 200, 300, and 500 psi.
The input on PIPESIM:
Figure 4.20: Input THP sensitivity
110
The result:
Figure 4.21: Result of Liquid Loading for THP Sensitivity
From the graph above, there is no problem with liquid loading for all value of THP. The
operating point obtained from the intersection of the two line (IPR & TPR) from the graph
above is:
Figure 4.22: Operating Point for THP Sensitivity
Table 4-5: Operating point for tubing diameter of 6.184 and THP 500 psi
Tubing Head Operating gas Operating

Pressure (psi) flowrate (mmscfd) pressure (psi)
50 15.66 457.98
111
100 15.63 461.79
200 15.52 478.28
300 15.27 512.82
500 14.23 637.54
The best operating condition is THP of 50 psi with operating Q of 15.66 MMSCF / day.
This condition gives more gas flow rate compared to other conditions.
From the experiment of determining best operating at TM-01 well, the conclusion for
the best operating condition by using sensitivity is,
o Beam size choke of 3.0625 inches
o With the limitation of erosional velocity and liquid holding :
 The tubing ID of 6,184 inches with bigger size gives bigger flowrate
 Tubing head pressure of 50 psi with lower THP gives bigger flowrate
o Operating Q of 15.66 MMSCF / day
o Operating pressure of 457.958 psi
o The compressor used has a pressure capacity of 50 psi
In addition, the type of fluid and flow regime at the best operating conditions is gas
with slug flow up to wellhead and segregated on the pipeline. Here is the report of the
condition,
Figure 4.23: Fluid Condition at the Best Operating Condition for 1000 psi Reservoir Pressure
Based on the comparison between tubing head pressure condition above, we come to
conclusion that in order to keep the plateau rate as before, the tubing head pressure will
112
be decreased as our proposed scenario in development strategy. The tubing head
pressure can be decreased by considering the further design of the separator pressure or
by using a compressor.
113
5. CHAPTER 5
RESERVOIR SIMULATION AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
5.1. Reservoir Model
Based on the subsurface data, a model can be created which later will be used for predicting
reservoir performance and reservoir production profile. There are three main steps that we have
done to create the model. First of all is static model creation, after that is model initialization,
and finally we make sure the model is match with the real data by doing a history matching.
5.1.1. Static Model
5.1.1.1. Reservoir Model
Figure 5.1: Reservoir 3D Model
This model consists of 684000 grid cells (114 x 100 x 60). The model is divided
into two zones, zone 1 and zone 2. Zone 1 consists of 12 layers, while zone 2
consists of 48 layers.
114
Figure 5.2: Reservoir Layering
5.1.1.2. Reservoir Property
Two model of reservoir properties, namely, porosity, permeability and NTG were
modeled in Petrel. The porosity and NTG were based on the geologist input data,
and the value of those parameters is almost the same with the well logging and
RCAL data.
5.1.1.2.1. Porosity
Figure 5.3: Reservoir Property Distribution
The porosity values range from 0.1214 as the minimum value with maximum
value is 0.4823 with average porosity is 0.3820. This value is also match with
115
the porosity value that is achieved from both RCAL data and well logging
data.
5.1.1.2.2. Net to Gross
For the NTG property, the value is range between 0 until 1. As we can see from
Figure 5.4 the reservoir has highest NTG value at the center of the anticline
which is make a good area for development well drilling.
Figure 5.4: Reservoir NTG Distribution
5.1.1.2.3. Rock Typing
In this study, general permeability and porosity curve that is used was created
based on the first assignment report as the basic of FZI distribution.
Permeability data then is built by using log scale, while the RCAL data in some
samples that does not have permeability and porosity data will not be used in
the curve creation. The curve is shown in the picture below:
116
Permeability vs Porosity
100
y = 0.0002e22.658x
R² = 0.6979
10
Permeability
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.1
0.01
Porosity
Figure 5.5: Permeability over Porosity as General
Then, the general porosity and permeability equation that is used:

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦1 (𝑘1) = 0.0002𝑒 22.66∗𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
5.1.1.3. Permeability Distribution
Permeability in TM field is as shown below:
Figure 5.6: Reservoir Permeability Distribution
The range of permeability in TM field is from 0.0561-7.4296 mD with average

permeability 3.1559 mD. The graph below shows histogram of the permeability
distribution:
117
Figure 5.7: Histogram Chart of Reservoir Permeability
5.1.1.4. FZI Distribution
Derivation:
𝜙
𝑝ℎ𝑖 =
1−𝜙
𝑘1 0.5
𝑅𝑄𝐼 = 0.0314 ( )
𝑝ℎ𝑖
With the permeability from the equation before
𝐹𝑍𝐼 = 𝑅𝑄𝐼/𝑝ℎ𝑖
𝑘1 0.5
) (
𝑝ℎ𝑖
𝐹𝑍𝐼 = 0.0314
𝜙
1−𝜙
Flow zone indicator is then sorted from the smallest to the largest using Z-value.
(𝑁𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑟 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑙(𝑖)−0.5)
Z-value = 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐼𝑁𝑉(𝐶𝑂𝑈𝑁𝑇(𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (1)∶ ( 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝑛)))
118
FZI is then plotted against sample number to aggregate samples which have
similar FZI number.
Figure 5.8: Rock Type Distribution and Selection
FZI distribution in TM field is as shown below:
Figure 5.9: Reservoir FZI Value Distribution
After that, we plot permeability and porosity based on the regionalized rock type to
find the permeability-porosity transform.
119
Permeabilitas vs Porositas
10
y = 14.243x0.8822
y = 212.25x4.9709
y = 84.418x4.63
1
RT1
Permeabilitas
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

y = 30.011x4.1468
RT2
RT3
y = 0.7361x1.2205
RT4
0.1
RT5
0.01
Porositas
Figure 5.10: Permeability over Porosity relationship
We can conclude that there are 5 types of rock, with each equation is
Table 5-1: Equation of Permeability over Porosity and the Range
Region Rang of FZI Transform
Rock type 1 FZI > 0.02 & FZI<= 0.055 y = 0.7361x1.2205

Rock type 5 FZI > 0.13 y = 14.243x0.8822
120
Rock typing model in TM field is as shown below:
Figure 5.11: Reservoir Rock Type Distribution
5.1.2. Dynamic Model
The data needed for creating a dynamic model are fluid models, relative permeability,
and capillary pressure. All of these data can be achieved from the subsurface data
evaluation.
5.1.2.1. Fluid Modelling
The data needed for creating the fluid model are from PVT and fluid property
data, transform pore permeability, relative permeability and capillary pressure,
and Gas-Water Contact. Below are fluid compositional data:
Table 5-2: Reservoir Composition

Component Mole %
Nitrogen N2 0.284
Carbon Dioxide CO2 1.167
Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 0.000
Methane C1 97.392
Ethane C2 0.555
Propane C3 0.248
iso-Butane iC4 0.095
n-Butane nC4 0.083
121
iso-Pentane iC5 0.044
n-Pentane nC5 0.016
Hexanes C6 0.030
Heptane C7+ 0.086
From the data above, fluid phase envelope can be constructed:
Phase plot
140
120
100
Pressure (bar)
80
60
40
20
0
100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature (K)
Dew Line Buble Line

Figure 5.12: Reservoir Phase Envelope
From the data above, these value can be obtained:

 SG gas : 0.57837500
 Fluid Model : Dry Gas
Other data used are as follow:

 Initial Condition
o Pressure (bar) : 108.1250
o Datum Depth (ft) : -3625
o Water Contact Depth (ft) : -3625
o Pc @ water contact (bar) :0
122
Water contact depth is obtained from well logging interpretation
Figure 5.13: Well Logging Chart
 Water Property
o Salinity : 30000 PPM
 Gas Property
o Molecular weight : 99.5
o SG : 0.097
5.1.2.2. Permeability
Based on the releative permeability curve vs Sw which has been normalized based
on the rock type, the value of relative permeability is inputted to the model for each
rock type.
123
Krg atau Krw vs Sw
1.000
0.900
0.800 krg1
krw1
0.700
krw2
Krw atau Krg
0.600
krg2
0.500
krw3
0.400
krg3
0.300
krw4
0.200 krg4
0.100 krw5
0.000 krg5
0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Sw
Figure 5.14: Relative Permeability over Water Saturation Each Rock Type
5.1.2.3. Capillary Pressure
The graph below shows the relationship between capillary pressure and water
saturation after it is normalized based on the rock type. This value is also inputted
for each rock type.
124
Pc vs Sw
55.00000
45.00000
1
2
35.00000
3
4
Pc each RT
25.00000 5
y= 2.7266x-3.185 Power (1)
y = 0.7268x-3.185
Power (2)
15.00000
y = 0.5273x-3.185 Power (3)
Power (4)
y = 1.7771x-3.185
5.00000 Power (5)
y= 1.1083x-3.185
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-5.00000
Sw
Figure 5.15: Capillary Pressure over Water Saturation Each Rock Type
5.1.3. Matching
To make sure that our reservoir model is representative enough for the real field
development. We have done matching in both initial gas in place and also production
data that achieved from the DST well testing.
5.1.3.1. Initial Gas in Place Matching
The value of initial gas in place from the model is equal to 48.5 BSCF. If we
compared with the initial gas in place from volumetric method which value is 59.5
BSCF. The difference between volumetric calculation and petrel result is mainly
caused by the Reservoir Shape Assumption. This is because in volumetric
calculation, the shape of the reservoir is assumed as a simple grid model. But, in the
real case the reservoir has an anticlinal shape with the stratigraphic trap and also
water gas contact at the bottom. Another thing that can cause the overvalue of
volumetric IGIP is the distribution assumption. The assumption that is used in the
volumetric calculation is the reservoir has uniform distribution of porosity. This is
125
a very optimistic calculation, while the real reservoir has distribution of porosity
that based on the rock type.
The two assumptions above is the reason why we get a higher result in volumetric
calculation compared with the simulation result. This is because both assumptions
make a really optimistic calculation input, so the result will be higher. The following
picture also shows the distribution of the HCPV of gas map.
Figure 5.16: Reservoir HCPV Map
5.1.3.2. Production Data Matching
In this project, we are going to perform DST matching. History matching is the act
of adjusting a model of a reservoir until it closely reproduces the past behavior of a
reservoir. The production and pressures predicted by the dynamic model should
match the historical production and pressures.
Input Parameters
The input parameters we will use are described in project #12. In this DST
matching, we will use data from DST 1 and DST 2. Below are DST data that will
be matched with prediction from reservoir model:
 DST 1
Flow rate data from DST 1:
126
Table 5-3: DST 1 Production History Data
Duration (hours) Gas flow rate (MSCFD)
25.0728 0
4.3289 5700
3.0868 0
1.9988 4600
2.017 5300
5.041 5350
6.4032 0
15.0276 1
History plot for DST 1:
Figure 5.17: Reservoir History Production and Pressure Data of DST 1
 DST 2
Flow rate data from DST 2:
Table 5-4: DST 2Production History Data
Duration (hours) Gas flow rate (MSCFD)
22.585 0
127
2.1055 13600
3.3025 0
1.9986 6400
1.9981 10500
2.0022 12300
1.9997 13600
0.5514 12300
0.4561 10300
6.9543 0
15.2152 1
History plot for DST 2:
Figure 5.18 Reservoir production and pressure history of DST 2
 Depth intervals
The DST was performed in:
Table 5-5: DST Interval and Date Data
Intervals
Test Date
(ft MD)
DST 1 3512 - 3522 August 15-17, 2012
DST 2 3390 - 3410 August 18-20, 2012
128
 Completion Design
There are four perforation intervals:
Table 5-6: Perforation design for History Matching
Completion Depth (ft) Date
Perforation 1 3512.00 – 3522.00 August 15, 2012

Perforation 4 3265.05 - 3389.42 August 18, 2012
Squeeze 3493.68 - 3559.30 August 17, 2012
DST 1 was conducted on August 15 until August 17 in depth 3512-1522 feet.

As a result, we opened perforation 1 in 3512-3522 ft and perforation 2 in 3524-
3534 ft. DST 2 was conducted on August 18 until August 20 in depth 3390-
3410 feet. As a result, we opened perforation 3 in 3390-3410 ft and perforation
4 in 3265.05-3389.42 ft. When conducting DST 2, perforation in DST 1 depth
intervals should be closed. Therefore, we squeezed perforation 1 and perforation
2 on August 17 in 3493.68-3559.30 ft.
Below are the schematics:

Perforation:
129
Figure 5.19: Well Perforation Profile
Squeeze:
Figure 5.20: Well Perforation Profile after Squeezing
Development Strategy and Simulation Case

To get the production and pressure data from dynamic model, we simulate the
model in accordance with the DST, from August 15, 2012 to August 20, 2012.
130
Figure 5.21: Development Strategy for History Matching
The reporting frequency is set into per 20 minutes:
Figure 5.22: Reporting Frequency
History rate control rule is to control wells based on observed historical gas
production rates:
Figure 5.23: History Rate Control
Results and Analysis

 Gas Production Rate Plot
131
Figure 5.24: Gas Production Rate before History Matching
 Bottom Hole Pressure Plot
Figure 5.25: Bottom Hole Pressure Before History Matching
From gas production rate plot and bottom hole pressure plot above, we can see that
reservoir past behavior data (HM) and data from model simulation (History) have
not been match. It shows that the bottom hole pressures predicted by the dynamic
model are lower than the historical pressures from DST-1 and higher than the
historical pressures from DST-2. As a result, we need to change the permeability
equation of rock types around TM-01 perforations.
132
Below is the schematic of rock typing around the perforations:
Figure 5.26: Rock Type in Well Profile
Because the pressures predicted by dynamic model are lower for DST-1,
permeability of rock type 3 and 4 in the model should be higher. For DST-2, because
the pressures predicted by dynamic model are higher than historical data from DST-
2, permeability of rock type 5 should be lower.
After the permeability is changed, the gas production rate plot and the bottom
hole pressure plot are as below:
133
 Gas Production Rate Plot:
Figure 5.27: Gas Production Rate after History Matching
 Bottom Hole Pressure Plot:
Figure 5.28: Bottom Hole Pressure After History Matching
From gas production rate plot and bottom hole pressure plot above, we can see that
reservoir past behavior data (HM) and data from model simulation (History) have
been match. It shows that the bottom hole pressures predicted by the dynamic model
match the historical production and pressures. Therefore, we can use this model to
predict future performance with accuracy.
134
5.2. Development Strategy
To maximize the production of the reservoir, there are several development strategy that we
proposed. There are going to be 3 cases that we will propose in this project. But before we
propose the scenario, there are several parameter that we will try to optimize first. The
parameters are number of well and the prospect well priority.
5.1.1. Number of Well Determination and Well Priority
In order to determine the number of well, a curve that represents RF vs Number of Well
is required. Development wells are proposed based on the exploration well and also the
HCPV Map. The location of the exploration well and the HCPV map are shown below:
Figure 5.29: Reservoir HCPV Distribution
Since the fault type is leaking fault, while proposing the development well, the only
thing that is needed to determine the location is the drainage radius. Because of the
cumulative production of the well 1 is equal to 25.7 BSCF. The radius of drainage of
well 1 can be achieved from the following calculation
25.7 ∗ 𝐵𝑔
𝑟𝑒 =
(1 − 𝑆𝑤 ) ∗ ∅ ∗ 𝐺𝐵𝑉
𝑓𝑡3
25.7 𝐵𝑆𝐶𝐹 ∗ 0.008543 𝑆𝐶𝐹
𝑟𝑒 =
(1 − 0.33) ∗ 0.46 ∗ 1961 𝑀𝑀𝐹𝑡 3
𝑟𝑒 = 218 𝑚
135
Then the development well is proposed by the prospective area in the HCPV map, the
drainage radius based on well TM-01, and for the perforation the design also based on
the porosity and permeability. In the picture below, we can see the development well
that is proposed.
Figure 5.30: Reservoir Drainage Area for Well Propose
Table 5-7: Proposed Well Coordinate
Infill
X(m) Y(m)
Location
PROP0 550242 9189812
PROP1 549772 9190345
PROP2 550289 9190122
PROP3 550529 9189822
PROP4 550895 9189503
PROP5 550409 9189506
PROP6 549537 9189806
PROP7 549862 9189593
Future prediction was done by using Eclipse simulation software with constrain of rate
production control is 7.5 MMSCFD which is the 40% of AOF and Tubing Head
Pressure Limit 150 Psi in order to determine the maximum RF for each case. Besides,
136
the present of proposed wells are in the same time as existing wells (TM 01) in this
simulation case that will be runned. The result of the RF vs number of well can be seen
in the table and graph below:
RF vs Number of Well
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 5.31: RF vs Number of Well
Table 5-8: RF for Each Number of Wells

In Place (BSCF)
53.6
Well RF
1 55%
2 62%
3 66%
4 69%
5 72%
6 72%
7 72%
8 72%
9 72%
Based on the table above, we come to conclusion that the maximum number of well to
be drilled is 5 wells. On the other hand, by also assuming that infill well in the offshore
137
platform is expensive. We come to the conclusion that we also going to do a sensitivity
of number of drilled development well by comparing 3 production well and 5
production well in the simulation scenario.
NP for each Well

10.00
Cummulative Production (BSCF)
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Prop-1 Prop-2 Prop-3 Prop-4 Prop-7 Prop-5 Prop-6 TM-01 Prop-0
Well
Figure 5.32: Cumulative Production for Each Well
To determine the well that is going to be drilled, the analysis will be based on the
cumulative production for each well: Based on the graph above, the wells that are going
to be drilled by sequence based on the most prospective well with the highest value of
cumulative production.
5.2.1. Proposed Scenario
In the TM-Field development strategy, we propose 3 type of cases. The first case is
many wells production without compressor, the second case is few production wells
without compressor, and the last case is few production wells by using compressor. All
of these scenario might results in the best technical design, however the economical
consideration will also be considered in order to determine the selected scenario.
5.2.1.1. Case 1
In the first case, we only producing by using 3 production wells. The production
wells are TM-01, Prop-1, and Prop-5 which cumulative production value is the
biggest based on the design before. Our constrain in this production are rate
constrain with target, which value is around 40% AOF based on Brown production
138
rule of thumb, is around 7 MMSCFD, for the pressure constrain with tubing head
pressure limit is 150 psig, and the contract time is 15 years. In this scenario we also
have done an optimization based the plateau time and rate. The sensitivity is done
with plateau time at 10 years, which is the minimum rule of plateau time based on
PTK POD, at 12 years, and at 15 years. The result of our simulation by using Petrel
and Eclipse is shown at picture below.
Figure 5.33: Case 1 of 10 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate and Production Volume
Figure 5.34 Case 1 of 12 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate and Production Volume
139
For the plateau time 10 years, the production rate is equals to 8 MMSCFD and for
the last 5 years the production rate is 4.1 MMSCFD. In 12 years of plateau time, the
production rate is 7.1 MMSCFD and 4.4 MMSCFD for the last 3 years. While only
6 MMSCFD of plateau rate if we want to achieve 15 years of production plateau
time. The recovery factor for each plateau time sensitivity, drilling schedule, and its
cumulative production can be seen in the table below.
Based on the table below, the highest RF which is 76% is obtained when the plateau
time is only 10 years. It means that for the development scenario, the plateau time
that will be used is 10 years with high rate and 5 years with low rate. This scenario
is also good in terms of economically because the NPV would be higher if we
produce the higher rate in the initial production. For the further information,
production for each well can be seen in the graph below.
140
Figure 5.36: Case 1 of 10 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate for Each Well
5.2.1.2. Case 2
For case 2, our company propose to increase the plateau rate value by drilling more
wells. The wells that is going to be drilled are Prop-3 in 2018, Prop-1 in 2021, Prop-
0 in 2023, and finally Prop-2 in 2024. These wells are selected because the
cumulative production values are the biggest based on the design before. In this
case, our production constrain are 8.9 MMSCFD initial rate, with 150 psi tubing
head pressure limit, and contract time is 15 years. Based on these rules, a simulation
by using Petrel and Eclipse has been done and the results can be seen below
141
The production of this case is 8.9 MMSCFD for 10 years of plateau rate, and 3.9
MMSCFD for the last 5 years. With cumulative productions 39.63 BSCF, the RF
of this case is 81% and for the production for each well can be seen below.
Figure 5.38: Case 2 of 10 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate for Each Eell
5.2.1.3. Case 3
For this case, we propose the scenario by using only 3 production wells which are
TM-01, Prop-1, and Prop-5 but in order to increase the recovery factor, we are using
the compressor to reduce the abandonment pressure of the reservoir. In this case,
our production constrain are 8.1 MMSCFD initial rate, with 50 psi tubing head
pressure limit by using compressor, and contract time is 15 years. Based on these
rules, a simulation by using Petrel and Eclipse has been done and the results can be
seen below
142
The production of this case is 8.1 MMSCFD for 10 years of plateau rate, and 4.4
MMSCFD for the last 5 years. With cumulative productions 37.44 BSCF and the
RF of this case is 77% and for the production for each well can be seen below.
Figure 5.40: Case 3 of 10 Years Plateau over Gas Flowrate for Each Well
5.2.1.4. Summary of Proposed Scenario
Comparison of those 3 scenarios is can be seen in the table below. Based on the
table below, the highest RF is obtained from case 2 which is many wells without
using compressors.
143
Table 5-9: Summary of Proposed Scenario
However we also need to consider which case will give us the highest revenue.
Therefore in the table below, we also show the economical parameter for each case.
And based on the economical parameters and the technical parameters. We come to
conclusion that the case that we are going to propose is case 3 which has the highest
NPV.
Table 10 Economic Summary for Each Case
Gross Split PSC

NPV 10% (MMUSD) IRR (%) NPV 10% (MMUSD) IRR (%)
Case 1 25.71 34 13.3 21%
Case 2 24.23 37 13.5 21%
Case 3 26.23 35 13.6 21%
144
6. CHAPTER 6
DRILLING OPERATION
Recently, TM field only has TM-01 as its existing well. As determination of development
scenario, the field will be added by two wells which consist of Prop-1 and Prop-5. This chapter
will cover drilling design of Prop-1 and Prop-5 well according to offset well data. Assumption
of designing the operation both wells has similar depth to be penetrated. Further in this chapter,
both of Prop-1 and Pro-5 wells will be called XX well.
6.1. Casing Setting Depth
First of all, profile of pore pressure and fracture pressure (including trip margin and kick
margin) in ppg unit should be plotted along depth. This is meant to determine amount of casing
and its depth by selecting certain mud densities that fits along pressure profile. Then, the casing
depth is evaluated by examining problem of drilled section/formation that can occur. Thus, the
casing setting depth and the mud density should be readjusted based on the hazard analysis.
In determining pore pressure profile from a given data, d exponent and dc exponent is
calculated by using these equations:
𝑅
log( ) MWn
60𝑁
𝑑= 12𝑊 ; 𝑑𝑐 =d( )
log( 6 ) 𝑀𝑊𝑎
10 𝐵
After the d exponent and dc exponent was calculated, the pore pressure can be calculated by
using following equation:
To calculate the overburden gradient, this equation can be used:
𝜌 = 𝜌𝑟 (1 − ∅) + 𝜌𝑤 ∅
145
The value 𝜌𝑟 shows the density log result and the porosity, ∅ , can be obtained from the neutron
log. From all of these values, then the pore pressure gradient can be determined. The pore
pressure also needs to be compared with the ECD. If the pore pressure is value is higher that
the ECD pressure, then the pressure that will be used is the ECD pressure.
Besides, fracture pressure profile determination uses Eaton correlation. The correlation is
written as follows,
Numbers of pore pressure and fracture pressure are calculated along the depth, also account
trip margin and kick margin which are 0.5 respectively. Then, those numbers are plotted due
to depth in a form of mud density while hazards, can occur, are listed in the graph at certain
depth. The design of casing setting depth can be adjusted by plotting a line in the graph which
is shown below,
146
Figure 6.1: Casing Setting Depth Determination of XX Well
From the graph, design of casing setting depth of XX well consists of four casings. Since
surface casing is already in shallow depth due to gas intrusion, conductor casing will be set in
the above of surface casing by hamming it. The conductor will support surface casing to
withstand the hazard and prevent groundwater to be polluted. Detail of casing setting depth
design of XX well is shown in the table below,
Table 6-1: Casing Setting Depth Design of XX Well

Casing Shoe Depth
Casing Type Mud Weight (ppg)
(m)
Conductor (Hamming) 20
Surface Casing 10.2 71
1st Intermediate
10.4 2039
Casing
147
2nd Intermediate
11 3290
Casing
Production Casing 11.8 3720
Meanwhile, diameter of casing will be adjusted to inner diameter tubing that is used in
development scenario. Inner diameter of tubing in simulation is assigned at 6”. Hence, the size
of each casings and size of hole size are listed in the table below,
Table 6-2: Casing Size and Hole Size of XX Well
Casing Type Hole Size (in) OD of Casing (in)
Conductor 36 30
Surface Casing 26 20
1st Intermediate 17.5 13.375
Casing
2nd Intermediate 12.25 9.625
Casing
Production Casing 8.5 7.75
6.2. Mud Design
Based on casing setting depth determination, mud density to be used to drill at certain depth
can be established. However, use of mud’s additive is adjusted to formation that will be
penetrated and potential hazard that can happen. Since vast majority of penetrated formation
contain clay, the chemical will be added is KCl as inhibitor of swelling that could cause tight
hole and stuck pipe. Meanwhile, filtration loss will be added to the mud at potential loss
circulation zone. Type of mud that will be used is mostly water based mud as it is more
economical and reliable in environment than others. Detail of the mud design at following
depth is shown below,
Table 6-3: Mud Design of Drilling XX Well

Mud Weight
Depth (m) Type of Mud Additive
(ppg)
0 – 71 WBM 10.2 Inhibitor KCL
71 – 2039 WBM 10.4 Inhibitor KCL
148
2039 – Filtration Loss + Inhibitor
WBM 11
3290 KCL
3290 –
WBM 11.8 Inhibitor KCL
3720
6.3. Cementing Operation Design
Design of cement use calculation in cementing operation software. The software will evaluate
value of cement’s density with certain circumstances which depend on casing type, size of
casing, and density of mud being used. Outcome from the software will state whether cement’s
density will cause problem (collapse and burst) or the cementing operation will succeed. In this
design, several assumptions are used, such as length of shoe joint is 42 feet, top of cement will
be at 10 feet for all of casing, and excess of cement that should be accounted is 25 %. The
cementing process that uses in the operation is single stage process (lead slurry has the same
density as tail slurry) because the selected cement’s density will not cause formation to fracture.
Thus, cement’s densities for each casing are shown below,
Table 6-4: Cement Density of Each Casing

Cement Slurry
Casing Type
Density (ppg)
Surface Casing 10.5
1st Intermediate 11
Casing
2nd Intermediate 11.5
Casing
Production Casing 12
On the other side, the needs of cement sack for each operation are shown as follows,
149
 Surface
Figure 6.2: Software Output of Surface Casing’s Cement
 1st Intermediate
Figure 6.3: Software Output of 1st Intermediate Casing’s Cement
150
 2nd Intermediate
Figure 6.4: Software Output of 2nd Intermediate Casing’s Cement
 Production
Figure 6.5: Software Output of Production Casing’s Cement
6.4. Casing Grade Design
Determining grade of casing is based on calculation of burst rating, collapse rating, and tension
by using design of the mud and the cement. The determination method uses a maximum load
method as it assures the casing being collapse and burst rather than minimum set method. Using
the software, grade of each casing type is listed in the table as follows,
151
 Surface
Figure 6.6: Surface Casing Grade
 1st Intermediate
Figure 6.7: 1st Intermediate Casing Grade
 2nd Intermediate
Figure 6.8: 2nd Intermediate Casing Grade
 Production
Figure 6.9: Production Casing Grade
152
Thus, well schematic of XX well is showed as follows,
Figure 6.10: Well Schematic of XX Well
6.5. Drill String Design
Specification of drill strings that are applied to drill XX well are:
 Drill collar spiral type with OD 6 ¾, adjusted weight 99.35 lb/ft, and connection
NC50
 Drill pipe Class 2 with grade S (135), OD 5 in, and nom weight 19.5 lb/ft
 Using Jar in 3rd string in a depth of 3019.5 – 3262.5 feet to prevent stuck pipe due
to tight hole
Drill string should be designed to have a normal point right at above of BHA (if it is not exist,
BHA means a bit) by adjusting amount of drill collar that is utilized in the string. This is meant
to give a compression force to the bottom string (BHA and/or bit) in contributing to give good
penetration. These are shown a profile of force in penetrating certain formations for each string,
153
String 1
Force (lbf)
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
50
100 Upper Steenkool

Depth (ft)
150
200
250
Figure 6.11: Force Profile of String 1
String 2
Force (lbf)
-50000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
0
1000
Upper Steenkool
2000
Middle Steenkool
3000
Depth (ft)
Lower Steenkool
4000
Kais
5000
6000
7000
8000
154
String 3
Force (lbf)
-100000 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
0
2000
Kais
4000
Faumai
Depth (ft)
Daram
6000
Jass
8000
10000
12000
String 4
Force (lbf)
-100000 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
0
2000
Jass
4000
Sebyar
Ayot
Depth (ft)
6000
Upper Vorwata
8000 Lower Vorwata
10000
12000
14000
155
As the figure above, trend of one string that penetrates more than one formation has several
normal points depending on penetrated formation. Determination of the exact value of normal
point is based on the last formation being penetrated. Hence, needs of drill collar for each string
are listed down in the table below,
Table 6-5: Drill Collar's Amount for Each String

String ID Number of Drill Collar
1 5
2 26
3 28
4 38
6.6. Rig Capacity
From the design that has done previously, capacity of rig to drill XX well can be establish. The
establishment of rig capacity is adjusted to maximum load given to the rig that will be occurred
in running production casing or production string. The calculation of rig capacity also should
account load of rig when running the string with or without buoyancy effect, also running the
casing. Assumption that is used in this calculation is the use of duplex pump in circulating mud.
Hence, the rig capacity can be shown below,
 Running Drill String without Buoyancy effect
Figure 6.15: Ring Capacity of Running Drill String without Buoyancy
 Running Drill String with Buoyancy effect
Figure 6.16: Rig Capacity of Running Drill String with Buoyancy
156
 Running Casing
Figure 6.17: Rig Capacity of Running Casing
6.7. Tubing Design
Design of tubing can be observed by analyzing optimum performance in Nodal Analysis. From
Nodal Assessment, size of inner diameter and outer diameter is 6.184 and 6.626 inches,
respectively. Therefore, type of completion being used in XX well is cased-hole completion.
157
7. CHAPTER 7
PIPELINE & SURFACE FACILITY DESIGN
7.1. Pipeline Design

The gas transmission pipeline will be designed to transport produced gas from the offshore
platform to the gas surface facility in Gayam, Sumenep Regency, East Java (Sapudi Island).
The distance from the platform to gas surface facility is around 20 km. Sapudi Island is an
island that lie between Madura Island and the Kangean islands of Indonesia. It is part of the
Greater Sunda Islands and is located in the Java Sea. The Sapudi Island is administered in the
East Java Province.
Sapudi Island
GAS SURFACE
FACILITY
TM FIELD
Figure 7.1: Map of Gas Surface Facility Location
The processed gas from gas surface facility in Sapudi Island will be flowed through the existing
pipeline to Java Island or to the gas buyer.
158
Figure 7.2: Existing Pipeline in East Java
Since proposed case is case 3, there is a schematic of pipeline network from each wells to
surface facility as shown below,
Figure 7.3: Pipeline Network Schematic
7.2. Pipeline Design Calculation

In this section will be discussed about design of pipe from platform to Surface Facility area
which is located at onshore. While there is pipeline from each well to platform, the pressure
159
loss can be assumed to be negligible as location of each wells is juxtaposed. The optimum
diameter of pipe is determined by adjusting the value of Qg obtained in Pipesim according to
Qg of calculation by a certain formula. In the process, the correlation used is Weymouth
correlation, because
 Input value
o Wellhead pressure of 133 psi
o Wellhead temperature of 142 OF
o Qg of 8 MMSCF / D
o Gas phase only
 Limitation
Table 7-1: Limitation of Each Correlation
WEYMOUTH PANHANDLE A PANHANDLE B BLASIUS

Modified
6
Re 5 x 10 dan 11 x Panhandle A
Diameter < 16” Re up to 105
106 equation for long
pipe
Diameter size up
to 36 inch,
Only one phase Turbulent flow
pressure > 1000
psi
Modified
D 12-60 inch,
Panhandle A
pressure of 800-
equation for long
1500 psi
pipe
From the evaluation of limitation to the input data, the Weymouth correlation is the most
suitable for calculation the diameter of pipeline. In the calculation with Weymouth's
correlation, there are some assumption made:
o n =1
o Ce = 0.055 US$/kwh
o Hy = 8760 hr/yr
o E = 0.8
(The design of the pipe has elevation and inclination despite the fluid in the form of dry
gas)
o Cfp = 0.2
o Rp = 1.4
o Cp = 0.45 US$/ft
160
o Lfp = 0.35
o Tsep = 107 OF
(The Separator Test at the depth of the reservoir fluid and corresponding to the depth
of the production target).
The determination of the diameter is done by iteration at the separator pressure. The steps
are:
7.2.1. Calculate the optimum diameter size based on the input value
𝑇𝑍
𝐷𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 2.352 𝑄𝑔 0.439 (( )0.293 0.293
𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 )(𝑆𝐺)𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝑃
2 𝑃13 − 𝑃23
𝑃̅ = ( )
3 𝑃12 − 𝑃22
𝑇1 + 𝑇2
𝑇̅ =
2
a. Evaluate the Qg suitability from this formula with the optimum diameter obtained
by the effective pipe length of 19.05 km. The use of effective pipe length is
because the slope is not uniform from platform to separator. The effective pipe
length calculation :
𝑒 𝑠1 − 1 𝑒 𝑠1 (𝑒 𝑠2 − 1)
𝐿𝑒 = 𝐿1 + 𝐿2
𝑠1 𝑠2
𝑛 𝑖−1
𝑒 𝑠1+𝑠2 (𝑒 𝑠3 − 1) 𝑒 ∑𝑗=1 𝑠𝑗 (𝑒 𝑠𝑖 − 1)
+ 𝐿2+. . + ∑ 𝑥
𝑠3 𝑠𝑖
𝑖=1
0.0375𝛾𝑔∆𝑧
𝑠𝑖 =
𝑇𝑧
Because there are only two un-uniform slope in our design, the calculation is:
𝑒 𝑠1 − 1 𝑒 𝑠1 (𝑒 𝑠2 − 1)
𝐿𝑒 = 𝐿1 + 𝐿2
𝑠1 𝑠2
With:
 L1 = 0.0286 miles
161
 S1 = -0.0057
 L2 = 12.43 miles
 S2 = 0.002
The Le obtained is 12.40 miles
If the value of calculated Qg is not the same as simulation Qg, separator pressure
is set to a certain value until the value matched. The Weymouth formulation:
𝑇𝑏 1 0.5 𝑃12 − 𝑃22 2.5
𝑄𝑔 = 3.23 ( ) ( )𝐷
𝑃𝑏 𝑓 𝛾𝑔 𝑇𝐿𝑧
0.032
𝑓= 1
𝐷3
The Input data:
Table 7-2: Input Data of Optimum Diameter Calculation
Pb 14.7 psia
o
Tb 520 R
o
T rata 597.5 R
T1 601.9805 oR
o
T2 593 R
Q 8 MMSCFD
P1 133 psia
Le 19.96 kilometer
Le 12.4 mile
SG 0.578375
b. The Result
Table 7-3: Result of Optimum Diameter Calculation
Dopt Prata Qg
Fm P1 (psia) P2 (psia) z
(inch) (psia) (MMSCFD)
9.426 0.015 150.000 101.500 117.955 0.989 8.013
9.425 0.015 150.000 101.540 117.973 0.989 8.008
162
From the the calculation, the optimum pipe diameter size and the separator pressure
are:
 Psep of 101.54 psia
 Dopt of 9.425 in
c. Optimum Diameter Pipe based on 5-L API
The diameter of pipe to be used based on the optimum diameter reference and the
size of the pipe on the market. The Weymouth correlation formula is used by
matching the calculated Qg with Qg simulation under conditions of separator
pressure of 101.54 psi. Based on the API 5L, an inner diameter size close to the
optimum diameter is 9.65, 9.5inches. Then, the diameter is used in calculation Q.
The result:
Table 7-4: Optimum Diameter Selection Based on API 5l
Dopt Prata Qg
Fm P1 (psia) P2 (psia) z
(inch) (psia) (MMSCFD)
9.5 0.015 150.000 101.500 117.955 0.989 8.032
9.625 0.015 150.000 101.540 117.973 0.989 8.414
The similar value to calculated Qg with the optimum diameter reference is the pipe
inner diameter of 9.5 inches.
7.2.2. Schematic of Pipeline and the Condition

The schematic of the pipeline and the conditions are determined in each pipe section
(including pressure, temperature, and pipe length). The following is more explanation
about the determination of each conditions,
a. Determination of Pipe Length

The determination based on the sea depth data, long shoreline, and map
(indicating distance from shore to separator). Based on the data collected, it is
known that the sea depth of 262.467 ft and the length of the Coast of 50 km.
With these data, the length of the pipes from each section can be determined
from the total pipe length (20 km).
163
 Pipe Schematic on the Field
Platform 2 . Separator
H=114.829 ft
Figure 7.3: Pipe Schematic on the Field
The total length of the pipe is 20.035 km. The pipe is divided into 2 parts,
namely part 1and part 2 or Separator. The distance from the platform to the gas
processing site in Sapudi Island is 20 km. Part 1 pipe is a vertical pipe with a
length of 35 meters or 114.829 ft. This figure is taken from the depth of the
average Java sea, which is shown below (figure 4). Pipe of part 2 is from the
sea floor to the coastline which have length of 65731.728 ft. Determination of
the length and slope of section 1 and 2 of the pipe is taken from the depth of the
seabed data as below:
Table 7-5: Sea of Java Seabed Data
Distance (km) Depth (m)
0.98 0.00
1.37 5.00
1.57 10.00
8.02 11.00
16.34 25.00
18.98 30.00
20.54 35.00
24.46 40.00
27.39 45.00
30.52 50.00
32.28 55.00
164
34.04 60.00
35.61 65.00
39.72 70.00
45.00 73.65
46.96 75.00
Jarak (km)
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
Depth (m)
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
Figure 7.4: Sea of Java Cost line
Because of the length from platform to the surface facilities in the Sapudi Island
is only 20 km, based on the data above, the vertical pipe length on part 1 is
calculated with 35 m height and pipe of part 2 from the sea floor to the coastline
length is 65731.728 ft (using pythagoras theorem).
7.2.3. Determining the Temperature

The determination of temperature uses the formula below:
𝑇1 − 𝑇𝑠 𝐷𝑈𝐿
𝐿𝑜𝑔 ( )=
𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑠 𝐴𝑄𝐺𝐶𝑝
Where
 D = 10.75 in
 A = 674
 Ts @ sea = 77OF
 Ts @ land = 60 OF
 U = 0.6 kJ/h m2 OC
 Q = 16.78 MMSCF/D
165
 G = 0.578375
 Cp = 0.582558 Btu/lb OF (Evaluated from the composition of the
produced fluid)
The determination is performed for each position from Wellhead in the platform to
Separator in the land.
The temperature on each section:
 At the Platform to position 1
The known temperature at wellhead is 142 OF, using the equation, temperature
at position 1 is 141.9832 OF
Table 7-6: Iteration for calculating temperature at 1
T2(L) 141.9832194 F
L 114.828 ft
T1 142 F
Ts 68.5 F
 At Position 1 to position 2
The known temperature in position 1, using the equation, temperature at
position 2 is 132.9963 OF
Table 7-7: Iteration for Calculating Temperature at 2
T2(L) 132.9962546 F
L 65616.10046 ft
T1 141.9832 F
Ts 68.5 F
7.2.3.1. Determining the Pressure

Determination of pressure using Weymouth formula that evaluates the pressure at
each position from Wellhead to Separator. Because on the schematic design there
is no horizontal phase, the Weymouth equation used is only for non-horizontal. The
equation for non-horizontal Weymouth:
3.23𝑇𝑏 (𝑃12 − 𝑒 𝑠 𝑃22 )𝑑 5

𝑞ℎ = √
𝑃𝑏 𝑓𝑚 𝛾𝑔 𝑇̅𝑧̅𝐿
166
0.0375𝛾𝑔 ∆𝑧
𝑠=
𝑇̅𝑧̅
0.032
𝑓𝑚 = 1
𝑑3
The calculation method is similar to the calculation of the previous separator

pressure, d optimum obtained previously used as a fixed parameter (9.5 inch) and
the value of the pressure (P) determined to be reviewed resulting in a constant gas
flowrate at the initial condition of 8 MMSCFD.
a. The Calculation
 The pressure at position 1 from wellhead
Table 7-8: The Iteration for Calculating Pressure at Position 1
P1 P2 Pbar Z S Q Qg
150.000 150.322 133.161 0.988 -0.006 334859.096 8.037
150.000 150.322 133.161 0.988 -0.006 333358.915 8.001
P1 is well head pressure and P2 is the pressure to be calculated.
 The pressure at position 2 (separator) from 1

Table 7-9: The Iteration for Calculating Pressure at Position 2
P1 P2 Pbar Z S Q Qg
150.32 104.50 119.493 0.989 0.002 337181.28 8.092
150.32 104.87 119.664 0.989 0.002 335249.12 8.046
b. Summary of the pipe design calculation

 Platform – 1
Pressure @ 1 : 150.322 psia
Temp @ 1 : 141.9832 OF
Pipe Length : 114.829 ft
Ts : 77 OF
 1–2
Pressure@ 2 : 104.872 psia
Temp @ 2 : 132.9963 OF
Pipe Length : 65616.10046 ft
Ts : 68.5 OF
167
7.2.4. Speed Evaluation
This evaluation is conducted to determine whether the gas flow rate in the pipeline
causes the pipe to erode. This evaluation uses the following formula:
𝑇𝑍𝑄𝑔
𝑉𝑔 = 60
𝑃𝑑 2
Where Vg is gas velocity (ft/s).
Based on the composition of the flowing gas fluid (containing 1 - 2% CO2), the allowed
flow rate limit is 50 ft / s. In addition, the rate of erosion only evaluated at the end of
the pipe (the separator) because this condition has a maximum flow rate. The
calculations is:
 Input
Qg = 8 MMSCF/D
z = 0.982
T = 592.9963 OR
P = 104.872 psi
Dinner = 9.5 in
 Ouput
Vg = 28.921 ft/s
Since the calculated Vg is less than 50 ft / s, the gas flow rate in this pipe does not cause
the pipe to erode.
7.2.5. Thickness Evaluation

The determination of pipe thickness is using API 5 L reference. From the reference, the
pipe thickness is 1 inch (outer diameter of 10.75 inch). Then, the minimum yield
strength value of pipe required on this pipe design by evaluating the conditions at
Wellhead is evaluated. The calculation:
𝑃𝑑𝑜
𝑡=
2 (𝐹𝐸𝑇𝑆)
Where
168
 T =1
 F = 0.5
 E =1
 do = 10.75 in
 P = 133 psi
 t =1
From the calculation, the S (minimum yield strength) value is 3.94E-05 psi. Hence, the
specification of this pipe is fulfilled because the entire pipe class has a yield strength
above its value. The following is the reference of yield strength of each pipe class with
an inner diameter of 9.5 inches and an outer diameter of 10.75 inches,
Figure 7.5: Reference of Yield Strength with ID of 9.6 inch and OD of 10.75 inch
7.3. Surface Facility Design

7.3.1. Feed Gas Composition
Table 7-10: Feed Gas Composition
Component Mole %
Nitrogen N2 0.142
Carbon Dioxide CO2 1.1515
Sulfide Acid H2S 0
Methane C1 97.5695
Ethane C2 0.5505
Propane C3 0.246
Iso-Butane iC4 0.0955
n-Butane nC4 0.072
Iso-Pentane iC5 0.042
n-Pentane nC5 0.015
Hexane C6 0.028
169
Heptane C7 0.0255
Octane C8 0.0385
Nonane C9 0.024
Decane C10 0
Undecane plus C11+ 0
The input gas conditions in the first separator has value of:
 The pressure of 104.872 psi
 The ambient temperature is 60 OF
In determining the level of separation on separator, there are several things that are
assumed such as:
 The pressure, right before compressor inlet, is 80 psi before compressed to 700 psi
to meet requirement
In determining the separation system it is necessary to consolidate some of the content

on the gas feed composition which can lower the selling price, hence the content needs
to be separated. Here are the provisions of gas composition that can be sold to the sale
point,
Figure 7.6: Specification of Sales Point
170
Based on the provision above, the determination of a separation system in this operation
is to use a dehydrator and a low-pressure operating level separator. This is because of
the vapor composition (through flashing analysis on PIPESIM simulator) is 0.02%, so
it needs to be dehydrated. In addition, the low-pressure separation rates is used, due to
the relatively low separator inlet pressure.
7.3.2. Separator Selection

Selection of separator type is based on several factors including characteristics of
production steam to be treated, floor space availability at the facility site, transportation,
and cost. Based on the characteristic of vertical, horizontal, and spherical separator:
Table 7-11: Characteristic of Vertical, Horizontal, and Spherical Separator
Vertical Separator Horizontal Separator Spherical Separator

Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Disadvantage
Can handle Have larger The fluid
relatively boundaries level setting is Fluid level
Cheaper
large liquid of gas- very setting is very
More than
slugs liquid important, important for
expensive to vertical or
without interface, and the room spherical
fabricate. horizontal
carryover allowing for foam is separator
separators.
into the gas higher gas somewhat efficiency.
outlet. velocities. limited.
Have room
Sizes are for foaming
small, and and a limited
Can handle provide fluid
More difficult
large better deposition
to clean, not
More amounts of bottom- section. Due
Can handle recommended
expensive to gas in an draining to inner space
more sand for use in
transport to economical and limitations,
problem. sand-
location. and draining spherical
producing
efficient facilities separators are
wells.
way. than difficult to
vertical use for three-
separators. phase
separation.
Are
For the same cheaper to Can be
Liquid level capacity is build and used for
control is usually larger ship to well with
not really than a locations low to
critical. horizontal than medium
separator. vertical GOR.
separators.
Often used Are easier
on low to and less
intermediate expensive
gas-oil ratio to install
(GOR). and repair.
171
The
tendency of
the liquid to
re
evaporated
Minimizes
is also
turbulence
minimized,
and
because less
foaming.
surface area
is available
to the liquid
for
evaporation.
It
Always
occupation
used on
on an
wells with
offshore
high GOR,
platform
and
where floor
separation
area is at a
of liquids.
premium.
The field is an offshore gas field with surface facilities located on the onshore. The
separator used is a horizontal separator considering that the location has a bigger space
on onshore and the reservoir has a High GLR condition.
Figure 7.7: Horizontal Separator
By using horizontal separator that has a larger gas-liquid interface boundary, it is

allowing higher gas speeds and we can handle large amounts of gas in an economical
and efficient way. In addition, a horizontal separator is cheaper to install and repair and
easier to create and deliver to the site than the vertical separator. However, the liquid-
level control placement is more critical than in a vertical separator because of limited
surge space. The horizontal separator is also more difficult to clean and needs a large
horizontal room.
172
7.3.3. Surface Facilities Scheme
The gas from separator will be treated by glycol absorber because of the provision of
sales point specification and our fluid composition. We use glycol absorber as a
dehydrator to minimize water vapor contain. The other fluid (water and a little bit of
gas) from separator will be treated on degasser to separate the fluid and improve our
gas recovery with the gas will be transported to glycol dehydrator and the water will
then be treated on water treatment plant. The glycol used will then accumulate and by
using reboiler for re-using for dehydrator. The gas then will be transported by using
compressor to meet the specification of sales point (the compressor power is calculated
below) otherwise will be flared. To dispose waste of water, the water left will be treated
on water treatment plant for HSE control.
Degasser Water treatment plant
Disposal
Figure 7.8: Horizontal Separator
7.3.4. Separator Size Calculation

The calculation of the separator size will be based on the gas rate production data
obtained previously. The data is:
Table 7-12: Gas rate production data
Gas Flow Rate (MMSCFD) 8

Inlet pressure separator (psia) 104.872
Ambient Temperature (oF) 60
173
Based on the pressure, temperature, and by using PVT calculator, the gas deviation
factor is 0.9904 and the gas density is 0.275 lbm / ft3. The value of the liquid density is
62.297 lbm / ft3 which is a mixture of condensate and water. The calculation is:
1. Separator Diameter
The equations used:
2.40𝐷2 𝐾𝑃 𝜌𝑙 − 𝜌𝑔
𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 = √
𝑧(𝑇 + 460) 𝜌𝑔
𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 𝑧 (𝑇 + 460) 𝜌𝑔
𝐷2 = √
2.4 𝐾 𝑃 𝜌𝑙 − 𝜌𝑔
The value of K is the separation coefficient whose value is:
Table 7-13: The value of K coefficient
Separator Type Range of K The most usable K

0.117 without mist extractor
Vertical 0.65-0.35
0.167 with mist extractor
Horizontal and 0.35 with mist extractor
0.4-0.5
Spherical 0.382 with mist extractor
The K value selected is 0.35 according to the original design.

From the existing data, the value of diameter separator is 37.3714 inch. Based on
the horizontal separator consideration, the minimum diameter that must be fulfilled
is 26 inch. Because of the diameter size obtained is greater than 26 inch, the design
of the separator diameter is 37.3714 inch.
2. Deposition of Liquid Volume (Vl)
𝑊𝑡
𝑉𝑙 =
1440
W (liquid capacity) is obtained from the gas flowrate Qg of 8 MMSCFD times with
LGR obtained from the PIPESIM simulation which is 10,928 bbl / mmscf. The
retention time is obtained based on the consideration of fluid separation for of oil-
gas-water separation under low pressure conditions. It takes about 28 minutes. By
entering all available data, the Vl value is 1.7 bbl.
174
3. Separator Length
For horizontal separator with one pipe, the formula Vl is
𝐿
𝑉𝑙 = 0.1399𝐷2
2
The equation is manipulated to find L (length) by entering the existing data, The
value of L / D equal obtained is 0.45. Based on the consideration of the horizontal
separator design, the L / D value is in the range of 3-8, since the L / D result is <3,
then the L / D value is changed to 3. Hence, the L value is obtained by multiplying
L / D with the previous diameter and the value is 9.3429 Ft. The design of the first
separator size is
Table 7-14: The design of the separator
Diameter (inch) 38
Length (ft) 10
4. Calculation of Glycol Absorber Pressure

One of the method to determine the optimum separator pressure is to assume the
same ratio of pressure between each levels.
𝑃1 1
𝑟 = ( )𝑛
𝑃2
Where:
o r : pressure ratio
o n : number of separation levels
o p1 : pressure on the first separator
o ps : pressure on the stock tank / pressure right before compressor inlet
The number of separation levels of the design is 3 (n = 3) starting from separator -
glycol absorber – pressure check point before using compressor. The pressure on
the first separator is 104.872 psia, and the pressure on last point is 80 psia. So we
get r value equal to 1.094.
Based on this relationship, the following general relationships is used:
𝑃𝐼 = 𝑃𝑠 𝑟 𝑛−𝐼+1
Where I is the level of separator. Hence, for the glycol absorber (level 2 separator),
the pressure obtained is 95.82 psi.
175
7.4. Compressor Design
In designing compressor for this development well, the design consists of designing
compressor to deliver gas from platform to surface facility and from surface facility to sales
point (existing pipeline).
For scenario 3, we will use 3 production wells which are TM-01, Prop-1, and Prop-5 but in
order to increase the recovery factor, we are using the compressor to reduce the abandonment
pressure of the reservoir. In this case, our production constrain are 8.1 MMSCFD initial rate,
with 50 psi tubing head pressure limit by using compressor, and contract time is 15 years.
Proper selection of the compressor type and number of stages can be accomplished only after
considering a number of factors. The graphic below (Dresser-Rand) shows our compressor
selection by considering the required volume flow and discharge pressure.
Figure 7.9: Compressor Selection Chart
Based on the chart above, it can be seen that in general, centrifugal compressors are appropriate
for high flow applications, and reciprocating compressors are better suited to low flow rates.
For discharge pressure of 133.32 psia and inlet volume flow 6250 ACFM, we will use
centrifugal compressor. In a centrifugal compressor, energy is transferred from a set of rotating
impeller blades to the gas. In a centrifugal compressor, the gas flow is radial, and the energy
176
transfer is caused from a change in the centrifugal forces acting on the gas. Centrifugal
compressors deliver high flow capacity per unit of installed space and weight, have good
reliability, and require significantly less maintenance than reciprocating compressors. The
physical size (diameter) of a centrifugal compressor is determined by the volumetric flow rate
at the inlet. The compression ratio (or head) determines the number of stages (length). Below
are input data we used to design the centrifugal compressor:
Table 7-15: Input Data for Centrifugal Compressor Design
Input Data Value Unit

Gas flow rate (qg): 8 MMscf/day
o
Inlet temperature (T1): 141.9832 F
Inlet pressure (p1): 50 psia
Gas specific gravity (gg): 0.578375
Discharge pressure (p2): 133.32 psia
Gas specific heat ratio (k): 1.25
o
Base temperature (Tb): 60 F
Base pressure (pb): 14.7 psia
The procedure of calculations for selection of centrifugal compressor is as follows:
 Calculate compression ratio based on the inlet and discharge pressures

𝑃2 133.32 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎
𝑟= = = 2.67
𝑃1 50 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎
 Estimate the gas capacity at inlet condition (q1) by ideal gas law, based on the
required gas flow rate under standard condition (q)
𝑃𝑏 𝑇1 14.7 141.9832 + 460 8
𝑞1 = 𝑞= 𝑥 𝑥 = 1.891 𝑠𝑐𝑓𝑚
𝑃1 𝑇𝑏 50 60 + 460 24 𝑥 60
 Find a value for the polytropic efficiency Ep based on q1.
𝐸𝑝 = 0.61 + 0.03 log 𝑞1 = 0.61 + 0.03 log 1.891 = 0.7116
 Calculate polytropic ratio (n-1)/n
𝑛−1 𝑘−1 1 1.25 − 1
𝑅𝑝 = = 𝑥 = 𝑥 0.7116 = 0.2811
𝑛 𝑘 𝐸𝑝 1.25
 Calculate discharge temperature
𝑇2 = 𝑇1 𝑟 𝑅𝑝 = (141.9832 + 460)𝑥 2.670.2811 = 333 𝑜 𝐹
177
 Estimate gas compressibility factor values at inlet and discharge conditions. Gas
compressibility factor is calculated using Hall-Yarborogh method.
z1 = 0.9992
z2 = 0.938
 Calculate gas capacity at the inlet condition q1 by real gas law
𝑧1 𝑃𝑏 𝑇1 0.9992
𝑞1 = 𝑞= 𝑥 2.104 = 2.014 𝑠𝑐𝑓𝑚
𝑧2 𝑃1 𝑇𝑏 1.0022
 Find a value for the polytropic efficiency Ep based on q1.
𝐸𝑝 = 0.61 + 0.03 log 𝑞1 = 0.61 + 0.03 log 2.014 = 0.7124
 Calculate polytropic ratio (n-1)/n
𝑛−1 𝑘−1 1 1.25 − 1
𝑅𝑝 = = 𝑥 = 𝑥 0.7124 = 0.2807
𝑛 𝑘 𝐸𝑝 1.25
 Calculate discharge temperature
𝑇2 = 𝑇1 𝑟 𝑅𝑝 = (141.9832 + 460)𝑥 2.670.2807 = 333 𝑜 𝐹
 Calculate gas horsepower by
𝑞1 𝑃1 𝑧1 + 𝑧2 𝑟 𝑅𝑝 2.014 𝑥 50 0.9992 + 0.938 2.670.2807 − 1
𝐻𝑃𝑔 = ( )( ) = ( )( )
229𝐸𝑝 2𝑧1 𝑅𝑝 229 𝑥 0.7124 2 𝑥 0.9992 0.2807
= 676 𝐻𝑃
𝐻𝑃𝑏 = 𝐻𝑃𝑔 + 𝐻𝑃𝑚 = 676 𝐻𝑃 + 50𝐻𝑃 = 726 𝐻𝑃
As a result, we will use a 726 HP compressor for case 3.
As well as designing compressor to deliver gas to sales point, it also uses centrifugal
compressor due to pressure requirement (minimum 700 psi) and plateau rate. By using the
calculation step, this compressor power to be needed is 2,313 HP to bring gas from facility to
sales point. The summary of compressor determination can be seen as follows,
Table 7-16: Summary of Compressor Determination
Rate P discharge
Compressor Type HP
(MMSCFD) (psi)
Platform to SF Centrifugal 8 150 726
SF to Sales Centrifugal 8 700 2313
178
8. CHAPTER 8
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Economic analysis for TM Field which has 53.5 BSCF reserves is determined by comparing
two type of contract. The first one is using Gross Split Calculation, while the other method is
by using Product Sharing Contract. In this study, these two cases calculation have been done
and the important parameters like NPV, IRR, and Pay Out times for both cases will be
compared to determine what type of contract should we propose.
5.3. Investment
The contract has been signed from 2011 and applied for 20 years. The investment for both of
these calculation will be based on these assumptions
 Contract Period : 20 years

 Production Period : 15 years
 PSC Split : After Tax (70:30)
 Tax : 44% (PSC); 40% (Gross Split)
 FTP : 20% Shareable
 Gas Price : 7USD/MMBTU
 Drilling Cost : 17MMUSD/Well
 Gross Heating Value : 1018 BTU/SCF
 OPEX : 1.4 USD/MMSCF
 Surface Facility Cost : 0.85 MMUSD/MMCFD
 Pipeline Cost : 13000 USD/KM/inch
 Compressor : 1,500 USD/HP
 Workover Cost : 500,000 USD
 Injection Pump : 80,000 USD
179
In this case, the gross heating value is obtained from the previous PVT calculation. For the total
development cost value can be seen below
Table 8-1: Total Development Cost
Cost Per Unit

number Description amount Total (US$ M)
(US$ M)
1 Surface Facility 1 6,885 6,885
2 Pipeline 1 2,080 2,080
3 Compressor 1 1,300 1,300
4 Infill drilling 3 17,000 51,000
5 Workover 1 500 500
Total Development Cost (US$ M) 61,765
5.4. Abandonment and Site Restoration (ASR)
ASR cost is divided into:
 Abandonment Cost : US$ 250000/well

 Production Facility Cleaning Cost : 2% total invesment
 Reclamation Area Cost : 3% total investment
So that the Total cost for ASR for this field is:
ASR cost = (total well x Abandonment cost per well) + ((2%+3%) total investment)
5.5. PSC Case
The PSC system has been signed from 2012 and applied for 30 years. The provision and
assumption that will be used :
o PSC period : 30 tahun

o First Tranche Petroleum : 10 %
o Contractor Share (before tax) : 46.4 %
o Government Share (before tax) : 53.4 %
o Tax Rate : 40 %
o Depreciation : 5 tahun-25%
o DMO volume : 25 %
180
o DMO fee : 25 %
o Discount Rate : 10 %
Economic analysis for this TTM field has been done. This development plan will give income
to contractor and government with calculation based on PSC case can be seen below:
Table 8-2: PSC Calculation Result
No. Parameter Satuan Jumlah

1 Oil Production MBO -
2 Gas Production BSCF 37.60
3 Production Life Time Year 20
4 Oil Price US$/BBL 50.00
Gas Price US$/MSCF 7.00
5 Gross Revenue MUS$ 267,901.97
6 Investment MUS$ 61,228.20
- Tangible MUS$ 19,273.68
- Intangible MUS$ 41,954.52
7 Opex MUS$ 992.63
8 Cost Recovery MUS$ 47,178.23
(% thd. Gross Revenue) % 17.6%
Urecovered Cost MUS$ 15,042.60
(% thd. Gross Revenue) % 5.61%
9 FTP MUS$ 53,580.39
- Contr. FTP MUS$ 28,703.02
- Gov. FTP MUS$ 24,877.38
10 Equity to be Split MUS$ 167,143.34
- Contr. Equity MUS$ 89,538.69
- Gov. Equity MUS$ 77,604.65
11 Contractor:
- Net Cash Flow MUS$ 382.36
(% thd. Gross Rev.) % 0.14%
- IRR % 21%
- POT years 5.13
- NPV @10%DF MUS$ 13,634.55
12 Government
- Equity + FTP MUS$ 102,482.03
- Net DMO MUS$ 118,241.71
- Tax MUS$ 66,215.36
- Net Cash Flow MUS$ 1,638.43
(% thd. Gross Rev.) % 0.6%
As we can see from the table above, the main parameter that will be considered are NPV
contractor 10% is equal to 13,634 MMUSD with IRR equals to 21% and POT 5.13 Years.
For the PSC flowchart is shown by the following picture
181
Gross Revenue
267,902.0
53.57% 20% 46.43%
Contr. FTP FTP Gov. FTP
28,703.0 53,580.4 24,877.4
Cost Recovery
47,178.2
53.57% 46.43%
Contr. Equity Equity to be Split Gov, Equity
89,538.7 167,143.3 77,604.7
Contr. Share Government Share

118,241.7 102,482.0
Net DMO
-
Taxable Income
118,241.7
Tax
52,026.4
Contr Take
66,215.4
30.00%
GOI Take
154,508.4
70.00%
Figure 8.1: PSC Diagram
Determining the uncertainty of economy like investment cost for development cost (CAPEX),
Operating Expenditure (OPEX), and price of gas and condensate, the economic sensitivity for
Contractor NPV and Government NPV are constructed. The uncertainty varies from -30% to
+30%. The result is shown as below. From that sensitivity, the most affecting thing is Price.
182
SENSITIVITY OF CONTRACTOR'S NPV
40,000
35,000
CONTRACTOR'S NPV (M US$)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
Price
Capital Expenditure
5,000 Operating Cost
Production
0
80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Scale Factor
Figure 8.2: Sensitivity of Contractor's NPV
SENSITIVITY OF IRR
30%
25%
20%
IRR
15% Price
Capital Expenditure
Operating Cost
10% Production
5%
0%
80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Scale Factor
183
5.6. Gross Split Case
For gross split case, the base split of gas case is 52% for government and 48% for contractor.
However, there are several correction of split based on the following table.
Table 8-3: Gross Split Economic Correction
Field Status: POD I 5.00%

Field Location: Offshore 16.00%
Reservoir Depth: 1200 0.00%
Infrastructure Well Developed 0.00%
Reservoir Type Limestone 0.00%
CO2 1% 0.00%
H2S (ppm) 0 0.00%
SG (API) 113 0.00%
Local Content 20% 0.00%
Production Phase Primer 0.00%
Oil Price ($/BBL) 55 2.50%
Production Cumulative (MMBOE) 6.600677306 4.00%
Based on the table above we are going to add total 27,5% for the contractor share so the split
become 24.5% for government and 75.5% for contractor. Based on this split, the flowchart of
the gross split will follow the picture below:
Gross Revenue
Gov. Share Cont. Share
24.50% 75.50%
Cost
22.65%
Tax (40%) Taxable Income
21.14% 52.85%
Gov. Take Cont. Take

45.64% 31.71%
Figure 8.3: Gross Split Diagram
From those flowchart, the main economic parameters that can be achieved from this case is
NPV 10% Contractor is equal to 26.23 MMUSD with IRR 62% and NPV10% of government
is 48.61 MMUSD.
In this case, we also determining the uncertainty of economy like investment cost for
development cost (CAPEX), Operating Expenditure (OPEX), and price of gas and condensate,
184
the economic sensitivity for Contractor NPV are constructed. The uncertainty varies from -
50% to +50%. The result is shown as below. From that sensitivity, the most affecting thing for
NPV is Price and production while for IRR is CAPEX.
Figure 8.4: Gross Split Sensitivity of NPV
Figure 8.5: Gross spliit Sensitivitiy of IRR
5.7. Proposed Scenario
For the propose scenario, we will compare the important parameters from both cases. The
parameters are NPV contractor, NPV government, and IRR. The following table is showing
the parameters for each case
185
Table 8-4: Contract Type Comparison
Gross
Parameters PSC Unit
Split
NPV(10%)
26.2 13.6 MMUSD
Contractor
IRR Contractor 35 21 %
NPV(10%)
48.6 79.1 MMUSD
Government
Based on the table above, Escova propose to the government that our company prefer using the
Gross Split scenario because of the NPV and IRR would be more beneficial for our company.
186
9. CHAPTER 9
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT &
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
9.1. Study of Health, Safety, and Environment
The oil and gas industry requires high technology and high costs, as well as higher risk of
accidents. The environmental impact of oil and gas field development is inevitable. Thus, the
rules on Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) in the oil and gas industry must be enforced.
This rule is made to ensure the health and safety of those working on it, to maintain the
sustainability of the environment in which they work, and to prevent any harm that would occur
to the company in the event of an accident.
In the Law of the Republic of Indonesia number 22 of 2001 on Oil and Gas, Article 40
paragraph (2) states that Business Entities or Permanent Establishments ensure the safety and
health and environmental management and adhere to the provisions of laws and regulations
applicable in business activities of oil and gas."
HSE management systems can foster good morale in employees, avoid costs resulting from
workplace accidents, and increase productivity. In addition, the company's reputation and
customer satisfaction will grow well.
Based on the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) ethical code, a professional possesses and
implements competence, honesty, integrity, fairness, fairness and equity, and is responsible for
following applicable laws, protecting the environment and the welfare of the people.
On a bad HSE management system can cause unwanted incidents, and the impact on the poor
reputation of the company to a loss of material, profit, up to the bankruptcy of the company
itself. Thus indirectly, the good and bad HSE system a company can affect the performance of
the company itself. From this it can be concluded that the awareness to protect the environment
and prevent things that are undesirable is a shared responsibility.
187
9.2. HSE Philosophies, Objectives and Goals
The TM-Field subsea facilities shall be designed such that:

 The facilities design is to have the lowest impact practicable on safety, occupational
health and the environment throughout it lifecycle.
 Operation of the facilities or following a major incident, loss of life, damage to the
environment and damage to asset, loss of production is kept at a minimum.
 Emphasis shall be placed on prevention of incidents.
 Control and mitigation measures shall be incorporated in the design, aiming to limit the
extent of damage or control the effects to a level that is as low as reasonably achievable
(ALARP).
9.3. Effect of Environment Monitoring and Management against the Effects of Any
Activity
Any activities, both exploration and exploitation need to be identified due to the impacts
resulting from the effects on the environment and the living. Identification is done to prevent
or cope environmental pollution and other negative impacts.
The exploitation phase of oil and gas produced a variety of activities that become a source of
impact on the environment. Each source produces different kind of impact that has a massive
impact. The magnitude of the impact is a qualitative parameters stating how big the impact of
an activity on the environment and is divided into several levels (based on estimates) as
follows:
 Catastrophe
An activity that causes irreversible damage to the environment.
 Disaster
An activity that causes permanent damage that is local to the environment.
 Very Serious
An activity that causes environmental damage is not permanent.
 Serious
An activity causing adverse effects on the environment
 Important
An activity causing exhaust emissions within the premises, but still produce damage.
188
 Noticeable
Any activity causes mild loses on the environment.
The environmental impact and efforts of environmental management and efforts of

environmental monitoring can be seen in Table 9.1 below:
189
Table 9-1: Environmental Impact and Efforts of Environmental Management and Monitoring of Exploitation Activities
Environmental Period of Environmental Period of
Source of Type of Magnitude Responsible
No. Management Environmental Monitoring Environmental
Impact Impact of Impact Institutions
Program Management Procedures Monitoring
Pre-Operation Stage
1. Making Damaging Very ● Conduct an ● At any time ● Collecting ● During the ● Executor:
transportati natural serious inventory of during the reduced protected construction PT.
on ecosystems protected flora development flora and fauna in of ESCOVA
infrastructu around the site and fauna of the area transportation ● Inspector:
re of the means which might be transportation converted into a infrastructure BLH
of transport affected infrastructure means of Sumenep
● Doing to the drilling transport (road) ● Report
revegetation of location Recipient:
reefs coral and Local
sea plants Government
of Sumenep
Increased gas Serious ● Increase of ● At any time ● Monitoring of CO, ● Monitoring ● Executor:
emissions CO, greenery during the NO2, SO2 in air was done at PT.
N02, SO2 around the road development ambient around least 3 (three) ESCOVA
to the drilling of means of the construction months for ● Inspector:
location transportation site for the the BLH
● Using vehicles to the drilling manufacture of manufacture Sumenep
that passes location transportation is of ● Report
emissions tests done by PP transportation Recipient:
and fit for use 41/1999 do (Ministry Local
and check it of Government
periodically Environment of Sumenep
● Set the Decree No.
machine time 48 of 1996)
operation
190
Increased Serious ● Closing ● At any time ● To monitor the ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
content of vehicles during the content of TSP in conducted at PT.
TSP as a result transporting development ambient air around least 3 (three) ESCOVA
of the materials of of means of the site of the months for ● Inspector:
mobilization sand, stone and transportation means of transport the BLH
of material gravel with a to the drilling under Regulation manufacture Sumenep
tarp location 41/1999 through of ● Report
● Limiting the the monitoring transportation Recipient:
speed of station do (Ministry Local
vehicles of Government
● Doing watering Environment of Sumenep
embankment Decree No.
material in the 48 of 1996)
work of making
transportation
Increased in Noticeable ● Using heavy ● Management ● Monitoring of the ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
vibration, equipment is done at any level of noise with conducted at PT.
noise, and with low noise time during noise dose meter least 3 (three) ESCOVA
environment levels the or sound level months for ● Inspector:
temperature ● Setting development meter is based on the BLH
maximum of means of Decree 48/1996 manufacture Sumenep
Increased in limits of transportation LH of ● Report
ambient vehicle speed to the drilling ● Doing vibration transportation Recipient:
temperature ● Set the time location monitoring with do (Ministry Local
mobilization digital vibration of Government
of heavy meter by Ministry Environment of Sumenep
equipment is of Environment Decree No.
not in recess Decree 49 / 1996 48 of 1996)
or night ● To measure the
● Doing environmental
planting temperature before
vegetation and during the
(trees) in the manufacture of
191
surrounding transport
area
● Set time for
mobilization
of heavy
equipment and
vehicle
The Noticeable ● Conduct ● Management ● Socialization and ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
emergence of socialization made at any the withdrawal of conducted at PT.
civil unrest, to the public time during the aspirations of least 3 (three) ESCOVA
especially for regarding the the the local months for ● Inspector:
people who exploration development community the BLH
work near the and of means of regularly manufacture Sumenep
exploitation transportation of ● Report
area of
activities are to the drilling transportation Recipient:
exploration
conducted location do (Ministry Local
and ● Provides of Government
exploitation compensation Environment of Sumenep
to land owners Decree No.
who own the 48 of 1996)
area of
exploration
and
exploitation
2. Preparation Damaging Very ● Conduct an ● Management ● Collecting ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
of natural serious inventory of performed protected flora carried out at PT.
drilling(dril ecosystems protected flora each during and fauna in the least 3 (three) ESCOVA
ling area around the and fauna that the area converted months for ● Inspector:
clearing) location of the may be affected preparation into a means of the BLH
land ● Doing of drilling transport (road) manufacture Sumenep
revegetation of ● Report
acquisition
transportation Recipient:
do (Ministry Local
of Government
Environment of Sumenep
192
Decree No.
48 of 1996)
Increased gas Serious ● Using the ● management ● Monitoring of CO, ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
emissions CO, vehicle that is done each NO2,SO2 in carried out at PT.
N02, SO2 passes during the ambient air in the least 3 (three) ESCOVA
emissions tests preparation vicinity of the months for ● Inspector:
and fit for use process of development of the BLH
and check it drilling transportation manufacture Sumenep
periodically during the of ● Report
● Set the time manufacturing is transportation Recipient:
machine done by PP 41 / do (Ministry Local
operation 1999 of Government
Environment of Sumenep
Decree No.
48 of 1996)
Increased Serious ● Closing ● Management ● Monitored content ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
content of vehicles is done during of TSP in ambient conducted at PT.
TSP as a result transporting drilling air around the site least 3 (three) ESCOVA
of the land clearing preparation of the means of months for ● Inspector:
mobilization materials such transport under the BLH
of material as wood, soil, Regulation manufacture Sumenep
etc. 41/1999 through of ● Report
cleared from
● Limiting the the monitoring transportation Recipient:
land
speed of station do ( Ministry Local
vehicles with of Government
safety driver Environment of Sumenep
Decree No.
48 of 1996)
Increased Noticeable ● Using heavy ● management ● to monitor the ● monitoring is ● Executor:
vibration and equipment with is done each noise level with conducted at PT.
noise and low noise levels during drilling noise dose meter least 3 (three) ESCOVA
ambient and worthy life preparation or sound level months for ● Inspector:
temperature ● Setting meter is based on the BLH
maximum Decree 48/1996 manufacture Sumenep
limits of LH of ● Report
193
vehicle speed ● Doing vibration transportation Recipient:
● Set the time monitoring with do (Ministry Local
mobilization of digital vibration of Government
heavy meter by Ministry Environment of Sumenep
equipment is of Environment Decree No.
not in recess or Decree 49/1996 48 of 1996)
night ● to measure the
● Doing planting environmental
vegetation temperature
(trees) around
the area are
exempt
● Set time
mobilization of
heavy
equipment and
vehicle
The Noticeable ● Conduct ● management ● socialization and ● Monthly ● Executor:
emergence of socialization is done each withdrawal of the monitoring is PT.
civil unrest, to the public during the aspirations of the conducted ESCOVA
especially for about the preparation of local community during the ● Inspector:
people who activities of drilling periodically preparation BLH
work in the land process of Sumenep
acquisition drilling ● Report
field of
which do Recipient:
exploration
● not Local
and compensate Government
exploitation land owners of Sumenep
who used the
area of
exploration
and
exploitation
194
3. Creation of Water quality Serious ● Make ● Management ● Using dispersant ● Monitoring ● Executor:
water degradation assessment or is done each (IPIECA and and sampling PT.
source and water forecasts to during the IOGP, 2015) frequency ESCOVA
pollution determine the preparation ● Using mechanical depends on ● Inspector:
condition in process of recovery like the purpose of BLH
case of drilling skimmers and monitoring Sumenep
deterioration of sorbent parameters to ● Report
water quality be achieved Recipient:
and pollution Local
Government
of Sumenep
4. Transportin Increased Serious ● Closing the ● Management ● Monitored content ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
g drilling content of vehicles is done during of TSP in ambient conducted PT.
tools TSP as a result carrying the air around the site during the ESCOVA
of dredging materials transportation of the means of shipping of ● Inspector:
soil to make a ● Limiting the process transport under drilling tools BLH
pit speed of Regulation to location Sumenep
vehicles with 41/1999 through ● Report
safety driver the monitoring Recipient:
station Local
Government
of Sumenep
Increased in Noticeable ● Using heavy ● Management ● Monitoring of the ● Monthly ● Executor:

vibration and equipment with is done during level of noise with monitoring is PT.
noise low noise levels the device noise dose meter conducted ESCOVA
● Setting transportation or sound level during the ● Inspector:
maximum to the drilling meter is based on shipping BLH
limits of location Decree 48/1996 process tool Sumenep
vehicle speed LH to the drilling ● Report
● Set the time ● Doing vibration location Recipient:
mobilization of monitoring with Local
heavy digital vibration Government
equipment is meter by Ministry of Sumenep
195
not in recess of Environment
and night Decree 49/1996
Increased gas Serious ● Using the ● Management ● Monitoring of CO, ● Monitoring ● Executor:
emissions CO, vehicle that is done each NO2,SO2 in was done at PT.
N02, SO2 passes for ambient air in the least 3 (three) ESCOVA
emissions tests submission vicinity of the months for ● Inspector:
and fit for use tool to the development of delivery of BLH
and check it drilling transportation drilling tools Sumenep
periodically location during the made ● Report
● Set the manufacturing is (Ministry of Recipient:
machine time done by PP Environment Local
operation 41/1999 Decree No. Government
48 of 1996) of Sumenep
5. Constructio Increased Noticeable ● Using heavy ● Management ● Monitoring of the ● Monitoring ● Executor:
n of vibration and equipment with is done during level of noise with was done at PT.
facilities noise low noise levels the process of noise dose meter least 3 (three) ESCOVA
supporting ● Setting construction or sound level months for ● Inspector:
drilling maximum of facilities meter LH by the BLH
operations limits of Decree 48/1996 manufacture Sumenep
vehicle speed ● Conducting of drilling ● Report
(such as
● Set the time vibration operations Recipient:
drainage
mobilization of monitoring with support Local
systems, heavy digital vibration facilities Government
mess equipment is meter by Ministry (Ministry of of Sumenep
workers, not in recess of Environment Environment
unit and night Decree 49/1996 Decree No.
manageme 48 of 1996)
nt of
domestic
waste,
etc.),
preparation
of the
wellbore,
196
the
manufactur
e of surface
loading
hole,
installation
of drilling
equipment,
and
preparation
of mud
Increased gas Serious ● Using vehicle ● Management ● Monitoring of CO, ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
emissions CO, that pass is done during NO2,SO2 in carried out at PT.
N02, SO2 emissions the process of ambient air in the least 3 (three) ESCOVA
testing and fit construction vicinity of the months for ● Inspector:
for use and of facilities development of the BLH
check it transportation manufacture Sumenep
periodically during the of drilling ● Report
● Set the manufacturing is operations Recipient:
machine time done by PP support Local
operation 41/1999 facilities Government
(Ministry of of Sumenep
Environment
Decree No.
48 of 1996)
Emergence of Noticeable ● Conduct ● Management ● Socialization and ● Monitoring is ● Executor:
civil unrest, socialization conducted withdrawal of the conducted at PT.
especially for to the public during the aspirations of the least 3 (three) ESCOVA
people who about the development local community months for ● Inspector:
work in the activities of process periodic the BLH
field of land facilities manufacture Sumenep
acquisition of drilling ● Report
exploration
● Compensate operations Recipient:
land owners support Local
197
and who used the facilities Government
exploitation area of (Ministry of of Sumenep
exploration Environment
and Decree No.
exploitation of 48 of 1996)
Operation Phase
1. Drilling Wild bursts Very ● Provide, ● Management ● Checking the ● Monitoring ● Executor:
(formation serious operate, is done at any pressure in the was PT.
fluid as a maintain, and time during wellbore routinely conducted ESCOVA
result of the make the drilling ● Checks the quality during ● Inspector:
kick) improvements of drilling mud drilling BLH
to the blow-out used activities Sumenep
prevention ● Implementing ● Report
system drilling SOP Recipient:
● Implement Local
control well Government
pressure of Sumenep
● Installing
casing
Increased Serious ● Conduct an ● Management ● Monitoring of ● monitoring ● Executor:
emissions inventory of is done at any emissions (sO2, carried out PT.
(emissions in emissions time during NOX, O2, CO, and during the ESCOVA
the ● Provide, the drilling the flow rate) by drilling ● Inspector:
combustion operate, CEMS (the tool BLH
engine, maintain, and mounted on one Sumenep
make source of emission ● Report
fugitive, and
improvements combustion Recipient:
others)
to the means of process with a Minister,
prevention and capacity above 25 Governor,
treatment of MW) or manually BLH
emissions and by Ministry of Sumenep,
ensure the Environment and SKK
system work Decree 13/2009 Migas
well that ● Establish and
198
emissions meet maintain manual
quality document quality
standards control (quality
Ministry of control) and
Environment quality assurance
Decree (quality assurance)
13/2009 with the aim of
● Manage ensuring the
resources that quality CEMS
have the Data
potential as a ● Reporting
source of monitoring results
emissions to the minister
fugitive with a copy to the
through the agency
inventory and responsible for oil
calculating the and gas field
load of
pollutants as
well as perform
maintenance
equipment so
that emissions
of fugitive
reduced
Increased Noticeable ● Using heavy ● Management ● Doing the ● Monitoring ● Executor:
vibration and equipment with is done at any monitoring of was done at PT.
noise low noise levels time during noise levels, by least 3 (three) ESCOVA
● Setting the drilling Decree No. LH months ● Inspector:
maximum 48/1996 during BLH
limits of ● Monitoring drilling Sumenep
vehicle speed vibration, by (Decree No. ● Report
● Set the time Ministry of 48 of 1996 Recipient:
mobilization of Environment Environment Government
heavy Decree No. of the
199
equipment is 49/1996 Sumenep
not in recess
and night
2. Solid waste Soil Serious ● Collecting ● Management ● Conducting ● The ● Executor:
(garbage) contamination domestic solid is done at sampling of monitoring PT.
and waste in a any time as domestic waste was ESCOVA
domestic temporary long as there on a regular basis conducted ● Inspector:
liquid shelter. The is activity / in order to know during the BLH
waste from shelter is work in the the methods for domestic Sumenep
designed with area of proper waste ● Report
drilling
certain criteria drilling management generated Recipient:
support
in order to ● Conduct Directorate
activities avoid examinations of General for
contamination soil samples in Energy and
of the soil due the area of Mineral
to leachate. drilling at regular Resources,
Besides storage intervals (Law Government
differentiated No.18 of 2008) of the
according to Sumenep
criteria and
types of
garbage itself
Pollution of Serious ● Make a landfill ● Management ● Examining ● Monitoring ● Executor:
sea water due is closed and made at any groundwater was PT.
to leachate provide a layer time as long quality regularly, conducted ESCOVA
garbage and on shelters so as there is for example during the ● Inspector:
domestic that leachate activity / through domestic BLH
waste water does not work in the monitoring wells waste Sumenep
contaminate the area of around the area generated ● Report
surrounding drilling of drilling Recipient:
water ● Conducting Government
● Making water quality of the
supporting monitoring Sumenep
facilities such domestic waste
as toilets in accordance
200
● Make the with the quality
processing of standards set
domestic waste ● Report the results
locals such as of monitoring at
septic tanks least 3 months
and anaerobic once the
digester publisher of the
wastewater
discharge permit
(Ministry of
Environment
Decree 5 2014)
4. B3 Sea water Serious ● Build a ● During ● Doing Minimum of ● Executor:
(hazardous pollution due temporary drilling monitoring and 1 month in PT.
and toxic to solid waste storage area for activities recording the first year ESCOVA
materials), B3 B3 waste conducted B3(logbook or (Kep 4 / ● Inspector:
either solid ● Third parties balance) BAPEDAL / BLH
or liquid for further ● Perform B3 09/1995) Sumenep
processing waste reporting ● Report
under to ministers and Recipient:
Regulation local government LH
101/2014 ● Doing quality ministers
check the soil and local
around the government
source and of Sumenep
repositoryB3
Restoration
1. Closure Pollution of serious ● Coat the mud ● During ● Monitoring ● Do regularly: ● Executor:
Mud pit seawater pit with a layer closure seawater minimum 1 PT.
with low activities surrounding area month in the ESCOVA
permeability mud pit mud pit first year ● Inspector:
● Making mud (Kep 4 / BLH
pit as B3 waste BAPEDAL / Sumenep
and labeled 09/1995) ● Report
201
Recipient:
Government
of the
Sumenep
2. Displaceme Increased gas Serious ● Using the ● Management ● Monitoring of CO, ● Monitoring ● Executor:
nt drilling emissions CO, vehicle passes carried out NO2,SO2 in carried out PT.
tools N02, SO2 emissions tests during the ambient air in the during the ESCOVA
and unfit for removal tool vicinity of the transfer of ● Inspector:
use and check drilling development of drilling tools BLHD
it periodically transportation Sumenep
● Set the time during the ● Report
machine manufacturing is Recipient:
operation done by PP 41 / Local
1999 Government
of Sumenep
Increased Serious ● Closing the ● Management ● Monitored content ● Monitoring ● Executor:
content of vehicles carried out of TSP in ambient carried out PT.
TSP as a result ● Limiting the during the air around the site during the ESCOVA
of the speed of transfer of of the means of transfer of ● Inspector:
mobilization vehicles with drilling tools transport under drilling tools BLH
of material driver safety Regulation Sumenep
41/1999 through ● Report
cleaned from
the monitoring Recipient:
drilling sites
station Local
Government
of Sumenep
Increased Noticeable ● Using heavy ● Management ● To monitor the ● Monitoring ● Executor:

vibration and equipment Low carried out level of noise with carried out PT.
noise noise levels and during the noise dose meter during the ESCOVA
worthy life removal tool or sound level drilling tool ● Inspector:
● Setting limits drilling meter is based on removal BLH
vehicle speed Decree 48/1996 Sumenep
maximum LH ● Report
202
● Set the time ● Doing vibration Recipient:
3. Demolition Emissions of Serious ● Using the ● Management ● Monitoring of CO, ● Monitoring ● Executor:
CO, N02, SO2 vehicle that is done during NO2,SO2 in during PT.
passes demolition ambient air in the demolition ESCOVA
emissions tests activities vicinity of the activities ● Inspector:
and fit for use supporting development of BLH
and check it tool drilling transportation Sumenep
periodically during the ● Report
● Set the time manufacturing is Recipient:
machine done by PP 41 / Local
operation 1999 Government
of Sumenep
Increased Serious ● Closing the ● Management ● Monitored content ● Monitoring ● Executor:

content of vehicle is done during of TSP in ambient during PT.
TSP as a result ● Limiting the demolition air around the site demolition ESCOVA
of the speed of activities of the means of activities ● Inspector:
mobilization vehicles with supporting transport under BLHD
of material driver safety tool drilling Regulation Sumenep
41/1999 through ● Report
cleared from
the monitoring Recipient:
land
station Local
Government
of Sumenep
Increased Noticeable ● Using heavy ● Management ● To monitor the ● Monitoring ● Executor:

vibration and equipment Low is done during level of noise with carried out PT.
noise noise levels and demolition noise dose meter during the ESCOVA
worthy life activities or sound level demolition of ● Inspector:
● Setting limits supporting meter is based on a supporting BLH
203
vehicle speed tool drilling Decree 48/1996 tool drilling Sumenep
maximum LH Report
● Set the time ● Doing vibration Recipient:
4. Plug and Seawater Serious ● Closing the ● Management ● Monitor the ● Monitoring ● Executor:
Abandon pollution perforations carried out characteristics of carried out PT.
Well ● Using materials during the ground water during the ESCOVA
that have low well plug and periodically demolition of ● Inspector:
permeability abandon (Ministry of a supporting BLH
Environment tool drilling Sumenep
Decree no.5 2014) ● Report
Recipient:
Local
Government
of Sumenep
204
9.4. Operations Risk Management
Operations Risk Management is the cycle of risk management carried out in stages for
continuous improvement, as follows:
9.4.1. Risk Evaluation
1. The Identification of Potential Hazards

A hazard is a condition, a device or substance which can directly cause injury and
pain against humans, damage to assets, environmental damage and/or decrease in
the company's image. Potential hazard in the oil & Gas Companies in activities such
as:
a. Health Hazards
Health hazards are hazards that could potentially cause illness, health problems
and occupational diseases. The danger in the workplace all the time and exposes
workers during labor (8 hours a day or 40 hours a week) are generally in low
concentrations. The impact was not immediately apparent (it takes time) or so-
called chronic by considering the amount of concentration and dose.
1) Chemical Hazards
The dangers of chemical exposure is a chemical compound derived from the
material used during the work as well as the characteristics of the resulting
products that can harm health. Chemicals can be solid, liquid or gas (e.g.:
exposure, exposure to gas liquid HCl, Demulsifier, Amine, glycol, Toluene,
Benzene, Xylene, etc.)
2) Noise
Noise is noise exposure exceeds a threshold value arising from operating
activities.
3) Radiation
Radiation is exposure to radioactive substances in the work environment
that exceeds the threshold value.
4) Lighting
The lighting is the lighting conditions in the work area whose value does not
correspond to the threshold.
205
5) Vibration
Vibration is vibration exposure around the work area as well as to the
personnel that exceed the threshold values.
6) Extreme Temperature
Extreme temperature is a temperature in the work area which is worth less
is not appropriate thresholds.
7) Biology
Biology is the danger posed of flora and fauna (e.g. a thorn tree, snakes, wild
animals, mosquitoes, etc.) contained in the work area.
8) Food Hygiene
Food hygiene is aged arising from the management of food and beverage
are not in accordance with the requirements of (during storage, while
cooking, drinking water that does not meet the requirements, etc.)
9) Mishandling
Mishandling is health hazards arising from improper posture while working
(e.g. lifting with wrong position)
10) Ergonomics
Ergonomics is the health hazards arising from the mismatch between the
equipment’s designs with one's physique.
11) Stress
Stress is harmful effects of physical, mental, and emotional that can causes
mental and physical disorders
12) Air
The air quality inside and outside that does not comply with air quality
standards.
13) Alcohol and Narcotics
Additives are drugs and active ingredients which, when consumed by
someone can cause dependence or addiction that is difficult to stop and acts
want to use a continuous basis that if it is stopped to give effect to tired
exceptional or extraordinary pain. Narcotics are substances or drugs derived
from plants or not a plant, either synthetic or semi-synthetic which may
cause deterioration or alteration of consciousness, loss of taste, reduce to
206
relieve pain and can lead to dependence. Alcohol is not a drug but liquor is
divided into three groups, namely:
a) Group A, namely beverages containing levels of alcohol/ethanol 1% up
to 5% Volume/Volume at a temperature of 20oC
b) Group B, namely beverages containing alcohol/ethanol levels of 5% to
20% Volume/Volume at a temperature of 20oC
c) Group C, namely beverages containing alcohol/ethanol levels above
10% up to 55% Volume/Volume at a temperature of 20oC
Workers with a high risk of associated safety a priority examination
(Screening) of alcohol and narcotics, including but not limited to:
a) Heavy equipment operator
b) The driver of a vehicle
c) Workers who handle hazardous materials and toxic
d) Special work (ambulance, emergency response)
e) Construction equipment operators, such as but not limited to:
1. Tower cranes, mobile cranes, loading cranes
2. Workers who use equipment for working at height (scaffolders,
fixed or mobile platforms)
3. Mechanical and electrical
Alcohol content in the blood is permitted for workers in the area of
operations of PT Escova is 0.05%. If the alcohol levels exceeding 0.10%,
workers are considered not fit and not permitted to work. The workers are
allowed to return to work until the levels of alcohol in the blood of the 0%
and was declared fit for work by the HSE Department. (Table 8.8)
14) Smoking
Smoking is a hazard of smoking on health workers.
15) Water
Water is the quality of the water used for drinking purposes (maximum) and
the PUBLIC (at least) in the environment area office or area showing the
location of in accordance with the raw water quality. (Table 8.9)
16) Electromagnetic
Electromagnetic induction is the danger arising from electrical current.
b. Safety Hazards
207
Safety hazards are hazards that have the potential to cause disorder, disability,
injury on process and damage the tool. This danger exists in the working
environment. The impact inflicted directly visible and does not consider the
aspect of quantity concentrations and doses.
1) Engine that moves (e.g. pumps, rig, heavy equipment such as cranes,
backhoes, etc.)
2) Objects that move, falling or flying
3) Fall from a height (falling from a height of more than 1.8 meters)
4) Slip, stumble, fall on same level
5) Sinks
6) Fire
7) Explosions
8) Electrical Hazard
Electrical is a danger associated with electrical equipment and lightning
strikes.
9) Chemical Hazards
Chemical hazard is exposure to the chemical compound derived from
chemicals used during work and the characteristics of the products which
can endanger the safety of which is acute. Chemicals can be solids, liquids,
or gases (e.g. gas liquid HCl, CO, etc.)
10) A collision while driving
11) Mired or buried at the time of excavation work
12) Work alone (works on a closed room)
The dangers of working alone at the time which should be at least two people
doing the job together
13) Animal Attacks
14) Weather
Weather-related hazards are extreme weather conditions (e.g. heavy rain and
lightning)
15) Mishandling
Safety hazards of mishandling is incurred due to the inability of raised
resulting in injury suit while working (e.g. lifting stuff with the wrong
position).
c. Environmental Hazards
208
1) The use of hazardous materials and toxic
2) Use of excess resources
3) Air pollution (either from a source moving or not moving)
The main sources of greenhouse-gas emissions (point source and non-point
source) who originated from the offshore activities are as follows.
a) Combustion sources of power and heat generation
b) The use of compressors
c) The use of drill mud (SOBM)
d) Emissions from the combustion of gas (flaring)
e) The use of surface facilities (boilers, turbines, steam generators, heaters,
heater treater scrubber process)
Based on Ministry of Environment Decree No. 13 in 2009 then there is some
gas emissions resulting from the above sources in the form of Nitrogen
oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), Volatile
Organic Carbon (VOC), Particulate Matter (PM) and Formaldehyde
(HCHO) to do the processing.
4) Water Pollution (disposal of liquid waste into a body of water)
Liquid waste originating from the activities of exploitation and production.
Oil and gas reservoir contains water formation that would be carried away
typing produced water to surface during the production process. Produced
water contains lots of water, suspended oil, dissolved oil, suspended solid,
solid dissolved, dissolved gasses (CO, HS, and O) bacteria, and inorganic
material. Moreover, it can come from water injected into a reservoir that is
used to maintain the pressure and maximize production can be a liquid waste
when rising back to the surface.
To control the amount of produced water then the preventive action that can
be performed are:
 Well management when well completion
 Recompletion on wells that produce produced water big enough
 The use of the technique of fluid in wellbore separation
 Closing of wells are producing a lot of water
In addition there are a number of techniques to overcome the produced
water, including
209
 Reinjection into the well that has not been produced
 Water Technology DOS flooding, helping at the time of production
 Closed loop Technology concept, close the water zone on wellbore so
that water did not enter washed to the surface
5) B3 waste
B3 solid waste are produced from cutting drilling, sand reproduced,
completion, work-over fluid wells, and Naturally occurring Radioactive
Materials (NORM).
To prevent pollution of sea water B3 waste must be managed in the right
way. Management is done by reducing the quantity of waste generated, i.e.
reduce, reuse, recycle, recovery, and management of cradle to grave.
Countermeasures can be done by identifying the location of contamination
and remediation.
6) Non B3 waste
7) Contamination of soil and groundwater
8) Impact on flora and fauna
2. Risk Assessment
Risk is a measure of potential losses considering the amount of loss (severity) and
likelihood (probability). Especially for the impact of chronic health hazards have the
effect that a risk assessment carried out by considering the amount of loss (severity)
and the likelihood and the period of exposure.
3. Risk Control
Control of the risks of which is carried out by PT. ESCOVA as follows:
a. Removal (elimination); is to remove or negate the work
process/equipment/material that could pose a risk.
b. Substitution (substitution); is changing the work process/equipment/materials
at high risk with the work process/equipment/materials that do not risk/lower-
risk.
c. Technical Control (engineering); is doing modifications (design changes) on
material/equipment/materials/production facilities so that the level of risk
being reduced.
d. Marking/warning and/or Administrative Control; risk control is to do with
how to make the system work, the grammar of signs warning, setting the
210
working hours, the issuance of work passes, socialization, campaign, program
maintenance, etc.
e. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is controlling risk by wearing the self-
protective tools tailored to the potential dangers that exist so that the impact
of hazards for humans to be minimized.
9.4.2. The Identification and Analysis of Potential Impacts on Occupational
Health and Safety
Oil and gas industry is an activity that is at high risk to health and safety issues.
This is based on the fact that the oil and gas industry using modern technologies
that use various machines in the number and capacity that pose health hazards.
Occupational Health and Safety has been set up in Indonesia’ Law number 1 of
1970 which contains safety requirements aimed at protecting the rights of labor
safety in doing the work for the welfare and improve national productivity,
protect any person who is in the workplace on the right safety and production
resources are used and used safely and efficiently.
An exploration company Oil and Natural Gas is in the process of producing a

product or other products that could potentially have a negative impact on the
environment and especially on health, safety of workers and the public. An
exploration and exploitation activities shall be committed to safety, occupational
health, and environmental (K3L). The determination manifested in a
Management System with the aim of providing systematic, ongoing, and
eliminate and control the risks in order to achieve world-class performance.
Activities that occur in the area of exploration and exploitation can bring
potential dangers there are safety and health of workers in the process. Dangers
that are found in petroleum and waste. Therefore needs to be studied in the
Control of Potential Health Hazards Work to identify and analyze working
conditions in the area of exploration and exploitation of the company.
211
9.5. Corporate Social Responsibility
Sumenep Regency is a regency of East Java province, Indonesia. It has an area of 1,998.5 km²
and a population of 1,042,312 inhabitants according to the 2010 Census. The regency occupies
the eastern end of Madura Island and also numerous islands to the east, north, and south of
Madura. It is bordered by Pamekasan Regency to the west, Madura Strait to the south, and the
Java Sea to the north and east. The area of consists of settlement, forests, plantation, water, and
others. Sumenep Regency is a unique area because it consists of 126 islands. The number of
inhabited islands in Sumenep Regency is only about 40%, including Sapudi Island. It consists
of 27 districts.
The gas surface facility of TM-Field is located on the island of Sapudi, Gayam District, which
is part of the Sumenep Regency.
The following is potentials of Gayam District, Sapudi Island:

1. Marine Aquaculture
As seen from the environmental conditions and indications of the catch of large reef
fish, reef fish cultivation has the prospect to be developed in Sapudi Island waters.
Several things that can support the development of reef fish cultivation in Sapudi are
suitable potential areas for coral reef fish farming, low rainfall with high rainfall at
two months per year, are among the islands that do not eroded, and has stable water
quality.
2. Water Transportation
The centralization of transportation sector that has high competition value is found in
Pancor village. This village has the potential of competitive labor in the transportation
sector, and is the entrance and exit of the Sapudi Island. In addition, this village is a
haven for ships from other islands. This condition indicates that Sapudi Island has a
high locational rent as an inter-island port. The current transportation will facilitate
the inter-island trade flows so that it will increase the ability of Sapudi Island to reach
a better economic scale.
3. Marine tourism sector
Sapudi Island has the potential to be developed as a marine tourism place. There are
beaches that have the natural beauty of white sand and the beauty of coral reefs. So
212
far, the some beaches have not been utilized due to local culture that tends to reject
the development on the grounds can damage the morale of the local community.
The company understands that the welfare of the community surrounding the location of the
company's operations is an important pillar to support the sustainability company operations.
To that end, the company responsible for implementing community development programs
operating areas of the company. The program provides the principle that activities of
company’s operational is going, the benefits of the operations should be used to develop the
community. Business enterprise to manage natural resources into energy sources with
operational standards which give priority to environmental sustainability and social well-being.
CSR activities are also based on the cornerstone of the regulation listed in Indonesian Laws of
Limited Liability Company number 40 year 2007 Chapter V Article 74, which reads:
1. The company that runs its business activities in the field and/or concerned with
natural resources is obligated to carry out the social and environmental responsibility
2. Social and environmental responsibility is the company's budgeted and accounted for
the cost of the company that its implementation is done with attention to propriety
and reasonableness
3. The company who do not carry out obligations imposed sanctions in accordance with
the provisions of laws – invitation
ISO 26000:2010 is guidance on social responsibility that can assist industry and organizations
to conceive the principle – the principle of social responsibility activities and convert it into
effective actions. ISO 26000/2010 document also gives guidance on practices – global best
practices related to social responsibility. Refers to ISO 26000:2010, the principle of CSR
activity by companies:
1. In line with the principle of sustainable development
2. Involving all stakeholders and consider their aspirations
3. Legal and disability are not consistent with international norms
We are working on a program that will be summarized into the following program:
 Education and Knowledge
The strategy of education and knowledge built by PT ESCOVA is based on the
philosophy that oil and gas is non-renewable while human is a renewable resource. If
the company succeeds to enhance the quality of local people’s education, it expected
213
that the people will have been creative and independent to survive and achieve welfare
when the oil and gas resources are exhausted. To enable the people to be independent,
PT ESCOVA is committed to finish 12 year education as proclaimed by the
government. PT ESCOVA has also provided boarding houses to the students who live
in remote areas and do not have accesses of main roads and transportations. At the
houses, the students are provided with free accommodations and able to use library
facility from PT ESCOVA.
The following community development activities elaborated the works on the pillar of
education and Knowledge.
a. The 12-year compulsory education program aimed at providing supporting facilities
for students to finish the compulsory education for 12 years
b. School improvement program
c. Early year education for children
d. The improvement of the competence and professionalism of the teachers
e. The scholarship program
f. The smart House
 Health and Nutrition

PT ESCOVA conducted some efforts to improve the health quality of the people in
Gayam, Sapudi Island. The company’s health programs include malnutrition
prevention by providing additional foods for kids in villages developed by PT
ESCOVA. Furthermore, PT ESCOVA has undertaken rehabilitation of sub-health
centers (Puskesmas) and provided health facilities for Puskesmas, revitalization of
integrated service posts (Posyandu) through nutrition posts, as well as provisioned
sanitation access and water closet construction for the public. PT ESCOVA also
collaborated with Health Faculty of University of Indonesia and Health Office of Local
Government of Sumenep to hold implementer training in nutrition improvement
program through positive deviance approach in the villages mentored by PT ESCOVA.
Which has been properly running as described below:
a. Mother and Child Health, the mother and child health program has carried out the
following activities: Provide additional food, provide basic food stuff to isolated
214
indigenous communities with the goal of helping them to meet their needs, Provide
community health services and free medication.
b. Posyandu revitalization, conduct training for health cadres the purpose of this
program is to increase the knowledge and awareness of the people on clean and
healthy lifestyle, and make them ready to respond to health problems arising in their
villages.
c. Development of sanitation, where the company constructed toilets for families,
conducted endemic disease prevention and managed domestic waste.
d. Community Health service, the community health service was carried out in free
health checks and medical treatments.
e. Increase in quantity and competencies of the health workforce in Sayam so that
health issues can be addressed effectively and efficiently
 The Preservation of Culture

The company cares for the preservation of nature and culture in Gayam, Sapudi Island
by implementing activities such as preservation of local culture, the appearance of
traditional art, and the ethnic community empowerment program. The company will
participate in community activities to maintain solidarity and cooperation as well as the
family. The participation, among others, by providing awards for supporting art and
culture flourish and provide funds for religious purposes, stimulant museum and
register of historic places.
The development activities could focus on:

1. The preservation and development of local culture.
a. Support to arts and heritage participate in a festival organized by the
community.
b. Maintain and develop the arts by providing training in traditional dance and
music to the young generation
c. Cooperation with National Geographic Indonesia to develop a cultural
documentation book of Gayam, Sapudi Island.
2. Initiation and support the village Tourism in cooperation with related agencies to
identify potential tourism based on uniqueness, aesthetic, and religious aspects of
knowledge.
215
 Infrastructure
The condition of the infrastructure of a region is closely associated with the welfare of
the population in the region. Infrastructure is supporting the entire population of daily
activities so that the slightest change in infrastructure conditions will have an impact
on life in the area. Therefore, the development of infrastructure is one of the most
important basic things that can be given by the company as a form of social
responsibility. The development of infrastructure the latter are:
a. Repair of means of transport by land, air and sea ports (such as street lighting, paved
roads, airports);
b. Revitalizing public recreational facilities such as parks, squares and sports facility;
c. Improvement of the quality and quantity of mass transportation facilities;
d. Improvements to public facilities such as education and health;
e. Construction of facilities provision of safe drinking water with the drinking water
supply system (SPAM) that is able to meet the basic requirement of at least 60
liters/person/day through a network of piping;
 Capacity Building and Empowerment

Community development program by PT. ESCOVA do with is based on the concept of
"Sejahtera dari Mandiri". This concept more emphasis to how communities in order to
educate independent, so it can improve its economy.
Empowerment program that is run by this company has the principle to educate the
public that PT. ESCOVA don't provide help but give the empowerment program. This
program is devoted to the communities affected by the activity of the company. In
addition, the empowerment program implemented by the company have the uniqueness
of the program compared to the empowerment that is owned by another company. More
empowerment program puts the community as the main objective of the program.
Communities are empowered through training on the program. The public educated and
trained so that they have the ability to prosper in their own livelihood.
The following are some of the activities from the programs of Capacity Building and
Empowerment:
216
a. Agribusiness would be developed at some point. In addition, there will also be a
companion for farmers and cooperate with related agencies to supervise the
cultivation
b. Program the dairy farms are long term with the annual program begins with
cultivation training, development, procurement, maintenance and utilization of dirt
to its marketing. In addition to dairy farms, the company will also do the same to
the annual program in the sector of fisheries well farmed or caught.
 The Preservation of the Environment

PT. Escova CSR programs in the field of Environment is aimed as the management
commitments in the framework of corporate responsibility towards the environment
and the preservation of nature. The following programs will be executed:
a. Clean Up Escova
CSR activities of environmental clean-up of the beach. This activity was carried out
with a number of action, among other things, beach clean-up trash, educational
distribution of environmental conservation and planting of trees.
b. Escova Green Project
This activity will raise the issue of global warming in the form of global and also
socializing government programs especially in the field of sanitation with the goal
of 100% access to drinking water, 0% and 100% of the slums of decent sanitation.
The program aims to educate and engage the public to perform action save the Earth
and supporting the Government program for the sanitation. This program will
introduce the Save and manage water as source of life, manage waste with 5R (be
reused, reduce, recycle, rethink, replace) and of course activities that support for
government programs in the areas of Gayam environment.
217
10.CHAPTER 10
ABANDONMENT & SITE RESTORATION PLAN
10.1. Plug and Abandonment
Along with the expiration of the contract for TM Field, Operator must make a plan for
abandonment and site restoration. Abandonment operation is performed when the well will be
abandoned or not operating properly either permanently or temporarily. So abandonment
operation is divided by 2 type:
 Temporary Abandonment
This type is abandonment operation for a while and can be opened again sometime.
This type is done during long shut-down, waiting for workover, and waiting field
development or redevelopment.
 Plug and abandonment ( P&A )
This type is a permanent abandonment operation. The well that will be plugged and
abandoned must not be used again. This operation will be done when the reparation
cost for that well is not economic, relocate the the well, and when the top of that well
is used again for the other well.
The Indonesian Government who acts through The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
has declared the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Regulation No.1 Year 2011
regarding the technical instruction of the oil and gas offshore installation discharge. At Section
II subsection 6 shown that a contractor oil and gas must enclose the procedure for Plug and
Abandonment which The KKKS is responsible to create a site restoration, move all the tools
and installation that was previously built and rebuilding the affected areas during the
production and exploitation process of oil and gas corresponding with government policy
regarding environmental health.
10.1.1. Plug and Abandonment Procedure
10.1.1.1. Preparatory Work
Conduct detailed planning about that abandonment operation, operation

preparation, and manage the administration. there are a couple points that need to
be planned : plug thickness, plug position, plug pressure test that need to be conduct
218
to validate seal, identification well profile, and the location of radioactive
equipment that was left in the well.
10.1.1.2. Shutdown
The first action that need to be done in platform removal and abandonment process
is shutting down the production process that related to plug wells. Process:
1. Substitute the source energy to the imported fuel.
2. Shutdown the well’s flow through control valve.
3. Shutdown and isolate the export production pipe.
10.1.1.3. Well Plugging and Abandonment
Installation of the plug to the well is the next action. This operation is done by using
workover rig or mobile unit. There are some equipment that require for this
operation:
1. Cement pumping unit
2. Casing cutting (segmented) tools and spears
3. Plug setting tool
4. Wireline unit
5. BOP & Rams
6. Drill pipe and Collar
7. Tubular Handling Tools & Accessories
This operation begins by removing the downhole safety valve and other valve,
rigging up unit for cementing to conduct the swab valves operation and establishing
pump in rates down production tubing with sea water.
Another operation is removing the production tubing and casing, and build the
cement plug at predetermined depth with the approved procedure. After that the
plug pressure test is conducted to make sure that the well is sealed perfectly. if there
is a problem, the plug is needed to be repaired by using cementing tools and needed
2-3 additional days to fix and test that plug again.
References that used for the technical abandonment procedure in TM field are
NORSOK-D010R3 and SNI-13-6910-2002 regarding the drilling operation for
onshore and offshore in Indonesia.
1. The permanent abandonment of the well :

a. Plugging and isolating the perforation interval
219
Cement plug is installed by pushing it through all the part that
uncemented, cement plug reach the minimum 100 ft above the perforation
interval to 100 ft below the perforation interval or to the nearest packer.
Other method is by using the cement retainer ( have the efficient back
pressure control and installed 50-100 ft above top perforation interval, with
cement plug reach 100 ft below the perforation interval and 50 ft above the
retainer), permanent type bridge plug ( installed 150 ft above top perforation
interval with minimum 50 ft above the bridge plug).
b. Plugging the casing stump
For the well that cut or remove the casing, the casing stump is sealed
by cement plug 100 ft above and below the casing stump. Or using cement
retainer/permanent type bridge plug (installed 50 ft above stump and sealed
with cement minimum 50 ft)
1) Plugging the annulus
The annulus connected to the open hole that reached the mudline must
be plugged by cement with depth of 200 ft.
2) Plugging the surface
The cement plug is installed at the smallest casing that reached the
mudline with the long of cement plug is 150 ft and the top is located 150
below mudline.
3) Testing the plug
15,000 lbs minimum load test is conducted on the cement retainer plug
or bridge plug. For the cement plug, the test is conducted with minimum
pressure 10000 psi and 10% from pressure test for 15 minutes each
period.
4) Fluid placement in the hole
By filling with the high density fluid so exceed the highest pore pressure
on each interval.
5) Sweeping the location
Removing the wellhead, casing, driven pile, and other disturbance is
eliminated until 15 ft below the mudline.
2. The Temporary abandonment of the well :
a. Have the requirements for permanent abandonment
b. Cement plug is installed 100 ft at the bottom of the deepest casing string.
220
c. Each perforation interval must be isolated with cement retainer/cement plug
with length of 100 ft and installed 100 ft from top perforation interval.
10.2. Site Restoration
Site restoration program, adapting the regulation from SNI-13-6910-2002 about clearing the
location. This process is clearing all wellhead, casing, stump casing, and all the problem that
must be removed at least 15 ft below mud line and this location must safe from all trouble. The
requirement for removing all wellhead and other equipment can be reduced or eliminated if the
wellhead or other problem do not harm people around there.
Waste management will be done to ensure all the waste is well-handle. The potential for spills
from waste on all the equipment is prevented as much as possible. All the B3 waste is carried
by the third person before leaving the field. Besides that, stay alert about work safety when
transporting the heavy tools that not being used again.
Well condition is observed routinely. This is to know about present condition of the existing
well. If something bad happen and the well can be repaired immediately. Besides that,
observing the environment like testing the quality of sand and surface water are done with
observe the well condition at least once every six month. So the long term effect is being
reduced.
Possibility of public unrest like protest, claim, or demo can be prevented by doing some
socialization about the end of production activity and plug and abandonment has already done.
In that socialization, the waste management is also explained to the society.
221
11.CHAPTER 11
CONCLUSION
11.1. Conclusion
Based on the comprehensive study in TM Field development of X formation in Java basin, it

comes to these conclusions:
1. Prospect Zone (3rd zone) is limestone formation at 3213 – 3658 ft TVDSS with Pay
thickness 201.75 ft, average porosity 46.07%, and average S w 34.16% according to
logging analysis in exploration well (TM-01).
2. Fluid type of the zone is Dry Gas that contains 96% of methane in average according
to PVT analysis by separator test. It also has a consistent fluid’s properties.
3. Petro physic properties based on:
 Laboratory experiment shows the formation has five types of rock which have
average permeability ranging from 0.2 – 6.875 mD. It also shows the formation
has a characteristic of water-wet.
 Well test analysis has two sets of data, DST-1 (3512 – 3522 ft) and DST-2 (3390
– 3410 ft), which have average permeability, respectively, 1.04 and 9.6 mD.
Values of average skin of each testing data are 10.3 and 35. This test also
indicates a single fault around tested well.
4. IGIP evaluation based on deterministic and probabilistic method gives 59.5 and 51.8
BSCF, respectively, which is quite same and reasonable.
5. Specification of well due to nodal analysis of DST-2 data has beam size choke of 3.0625
inches, THP of 50 psi (as meant to optimize well production), tubing ID of 6.184 inches,
and AOF of 15.66 MMSCFD.
6. Proposed scenario to be developed in this field is produce gas from TM-01 well (by
squeezing DST-1 zone) and 2 infill wells (Prop-1 & Prop-5). The development scenario
gives plateau rate of 8 and 4 MMSCFD with duration of 10 and 5 years respectively.
7. Drilling operation for infill well is designed based on offset well data assessment. The
operation will conduct five series of casing with cased-hole completion type.
8. Surface facility will be located at Sapudi Island (± 20 km NE from platform). Gas will
be delivered from platform using 9.5 inches of pipeline ID and be compressed using
centrifugal with 726 HP to Horizontal separator (38 inches x 10 ft) with pressure of 104
222
psi. Gas will be processed in Surface Facility to meet sales gas requirement, then it will
be delivered to market by existing East Java pipeline network. Any contaminant that is
produced will be disposed by adjusting its content.
9. This scenario is using 20 years of project which consists of 3 years of exploration and
preparation, 15 years of production, and 2 years of site restoration and abandonment.
This company will also exhibit sustainable corporate social responsibility program that
consists of education, health, empowerment, and environment.
10. TM Field development scenario will make NPV Contractor and IRR of 26.2 MMUSD
and 35% according to Gross Split assessment. On the other hand, PSC assessment gives
NPV Contractor and IRR of 13.6 MMUSD and 21%, respectively. This company
propose to government to approve Gross Split assessment due to profit take for
company.
223

Laporan Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laporan Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARI SAPUTRA NIDA NUR AINIYYAH

1. CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 13

Figure 2.1: Tectonic Framework of East Java Basinal Area ................................................................... 14

Table 3-1: Zone Division Detail ............................................................................................................. 17

2.1. Tectonic Setting

Figure 2.1: Tectonic Framework of East Java Basinal Area

3.1. Well Log Interpretation

Well logging interpretation is needed to determine which zone is feasible to produce by

Figure 3.1: Log Plot

Table 3-1: Zone Division Detail

 Total sand thickness for zone 1 = 1933 ft - 1855 ft = 78 ft.

Figure 3.2: PEF/RHOB Crossplot

Figure 3.3: NPHI/RHOB Crossplot for Zone 1

Figure 3.4: NPHI/RHOP Crossplot for Zone 2

Figure 3.5: NPHI/RHOB Crossplot for Zone 3

𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 = 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 (1 − 𝜙) + 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝜙

𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 − 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 = 𝜙 (𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 − 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 )

Figure 3.6: NPHI/DTCRT Plot

Figure 3.7: NPHI/DTCRT Plot for Zone 1

Figure 3.8: NPHI/DTCRT Plot for Zone 2

Figure 3.9: NPHI/DTCRT Plot for Zone 3

Figure 3.10: Comparison of DN Porosity and RCAL Porosity

To calculate Vshale from IGR, we use a linear relationship:

Figure 3.11: GR Method Relationship

Thus, we get the sonic shale porosity value of 0.7738.

log rw = 0.4122, then rw= 2.58345

The average value of rt is 196.2893

The value of average porosity is 0.3793

So, if we calculate average water saturation in zone 1 by Archie equation:

Then, the value of average water saturation in zone 1 is 0.3116.

log rw =0.4381, then rw = 2.742206

The average value of rt is 163.3695

The value of average porosity is 0.4607

So, if we calculate average water saturation in zone 3 by Archie equation:

Then, the value of average water saturation in zone 1 is 0.3416.

Figure 3.12: Clay Volume Parameter

Figure 3.13: Clay Volume Plot

Figure 3.15: Input for Water Saturation Calculation

Figure 3.16: Porosity and Water Saturation Plot

Figure 3.18: Cut-off values

Figure 3.19: Reservoir Results

We also can get pay results as follow:

Figure 3.20: Pay Results

Figure 3.21: Cut-off Plot

Figure 3.22: Gas-Water Contact Determination

Here is a summary of the calculation and analysis from well logging:

Table 3-2: Summary of Well Log Calculation and Analysis

3.2. Routine Core Analysis (RCAL)

3.2.1. Region of Rock Type

c. Plot a graph FZI over Z-value

Figure 3.23: Probability of Permeability vs FZI

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 3.24: Porosity vs Permeability for Each Rock Type

Rock type 1 FZI > 0.02 & FZI<= 0.055 k = 0.7361∅1.2205

3.2.2. Relative Permeability

Krw* atau Krg* vs Sw*

Figure 3.25: Curve of Kr * vs Sw * Normalization Results

c. Absolute and Relative of Permeability, Porosity, and Saturation data

Table 3-7: Sample of SCAL Data

d. Generate a Correlation / Relationship Between SCAL Data

Figure 3.26: Curve of Krg@Swc vs Swc

 Curve of Krw@Sgr vs Swc

Figure 3.27: Curve of Krw@Sgr vs Swc

Figure 3.28: Curve of Sgr vs RQI