PROJECT INVESTMENT ANALYSIS AND FIELD DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR KAPPA FIELD - BRAVO RESERVOIR

• Main Author: Anggaraini, Hanny
• Format: Theses
• Language: Indonesia
• Subjects: Manajemen umum
• Online Access: https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/77431
• Institution: Institut Teknologi Bandung

Over more than 5 decades, ABC Company has been operating one of the biggest oil and gas concession in Indonesia. The company is well-known for its technology leading both waterflood and steamflood operation in Indonesia and worldwide. Kappa field is one of mature oil fields discovered by company in 1965 and started producing in 1971. Over time, field oil production naturally declined despite waterflood technology applied back in 1990. Kappa field peak production post-waterflood achieved over 30,000 barrels in 2001. Currently, Kappa field is still producing over 10,000 barrels of oil per day from 250 oil producers and 90 water injectors. One of the efforts to arrest field production decline is by conducting workover jobs in existing wells. This strategy was profoundly pursued by the company since 2018, when the block concession is nearly end and drilling new wells appears does not provide short term cashflow. However, the Q1 2020 post-execution result of workover job campaign in Bravo reservoir, Kappa Field, did not deliver good production results as expected. Investigation was conducted to understand the root cause of poor performance, using brainstorming session in company’s lookback process. Why Tree Diagram was used as a tool to enable team to understand all potential root causes. Pareto Chart also determine the major cause need attention. From seven (7) potential root causes, it was concluded that the main cause of failed workover job in Bravo reservoir caused by lower reservoir quality, thus the well need workover treatment such as fracturing job to enable more oil to be produced. Two alternatives solution were proposed and analyzed based on its production impact, cost and economic: (1) Conducting fracturing job in oil well, and (2) Increase water injection. Alternative 1 is expected to deliver 64 MBO oil volume for 1-year production with DPI of 1.7, NPV = $ 158M and Pay Out Time = 1.3 months. Meanwhile, Alternative 2 provides 37 MBO oil volume with DPI of 1.48, NPV = $ 84M and Pay Out Time = 1.9 months. In terms of production response, Alternative 1 is predicted to be delivered three months earlier compared to the other Alternative 2, means that oil can be recovered before the end of concession. Using DPI as economic cut-off, Alternative 1 is selected as best alternatives based on its economic and production impact.