2006-0000-0K-0001, SN Concept Selection Study, Rev A

Su Tu Nau Field Development
Block 15-1
Su Tu Nau Field Development
Concept Selection Study
June 2011
30 Jun 2011 A Report Issue CAR CAR

DATE REV. REVISION BY APP’VD
Document No: 2006-0000-0K-0001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary & Recommendation...........................................................3

1.1 Recommendation.............................................................................................3
1.2 Discussion .......................................................................................................4
2.0 Background .........................................................................................................5
3.0 Purpose and Objective ........................................................................................7
4.0 Basis of Analysis.................................................................................................7
4.1 General Assumptions & Comments................................................................7
4.2 Technical Analysis Basis ................................................................................8
4.3 CAPEX Assumptions......................................................................................9
4.4 OPEX Assumptions.........................................................................................9
4.5 Production Profiles........................................................................................10
4.6 Drilling CAPEX ............................................................................................11
5.0 Description and Discussion of Development Alternatives ...............................12
5.1 Case 1, Two Wellhead Platforms, 2014 First Oil .........................................13
5.2 Case 1A, Two Wellhead Platforms, 2015 First Oil.......................................16
5.3 Case 2, Small CPP with Booster Gas Compression (South) and WHP (North),
2015 First Oil ...................................................................................................18
5.4 Case 3, Small CPP with Lift Gas Compression (South) and WHP (North),
2015 First Oil ...................................................................................................22
5.5 Case 4, Two WHP Development and Relocate FPSO TVBN to SN Field...25
5.6 Case 5, Subsea Development ........................................................................29
6.0 Qualitative Risk Evaluation ..............................................................................30
7.0 Economic Analysis ...........................................................................................31
7.1 Results ...........................................................................................................32
7.2 Sensitivity Analysis.......................................................................................33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Summary of Costs and Configuration for Options Considered

Table 5.1 Description of Development Options Considered
Table 5.2 Summary of Costs and Configuration for Development Options
Evaluated
Table 6-1 Relative Weighted Risk Score for Su Tu Nau Concepts
Table 7.1 Measures of Merit for P50 Economic Analysis Su Tu Nau Concept
Development Cases
Table 7.2 Description of Sensitivity Analysis and Parameters Utilized
Table 7.3 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis, Case 1, Gross Project, PVEP Interest
(Incl. Gov’t.) and Foreign Parties Interest
(Incl. Gov’t.) and Foreign Parties Interest
(Incl. Gov’t.) and Foreign Parties Interest, Summary of Sensitivity
Analysis, Case 4
Table 7.6 Gross Project, PVEP Interest (Incl. Gov’t.) and Foreign Parties Interest
Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 1 of 45

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Block 15-1 Location Map

Figure 5.1 Field Layout, Case 1: Two Wellhead Platform Development
Figure 5.2 Field Layout, Case 2: Booster Compression CPP + WHP Development
Figure 5.3 Field Layout, Case 3: Lift Compression CPP + WHP Development
Figure 5.4 Field Layout, Case 4: Dual WHP Development with Relocated FPSO
Figure 7.1-1 Case 1 – Two WHP 2014 First Oil Target – Gross Project
Sensitivity Analysis – Su Tu Nau Concept Selection
Figure 7.1-2 Case 1 – Two WHP 2014 First Oil Target – PVEP Interest (incl Gov’t)
Figure 7.1-3 Case 1 – Two WHP 2014 First Oil Target – Foreign Party Interest
Figure 7.1-4 Case 2 – CPP/BGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – Gross Project
Figure 7.1-5 Case 2 – CPP/BGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – PVEP Interest (incl Gov’t)
Figure 7.1-6 Case 2 – CPP/BGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – Foreign Party Interest
Figure 7.1-7 Case 3 – CPP/LGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – Gross Project
Figure 7.1-8 Case 3 – CPP/LGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – PVEP Interest (incl Gov’t)
Figure 7.1-9 Case 3 – CPP/LGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – Foreign Party Interest
Figure 7.1-10 Case 4 – Two WHP+FPSO Relocation, 2015 First Oil – Gross Project
Figure 7.1-11 Case 4 – Two WHP+FPSO Relocation, 2015 First Oil – PVEP Interest
(incl Gov’t) Sensitivity Analysis – Su Tu Nau Concept Selection
Figure 7.1-12 Case 4 – Two WHP+FPSO Relocation, 2015 First Oil – Foreign Party
Interest Sensitivity Analysis – Su Tu Nau Concept Selection

1.0 Executive Summary & Recommendation
CLJOC performed a study to evaluate multiple development concepts for the

Su Tu Nau field. This report documents details and results of the study and
recommends a path forward for Preliminary Engineering. Five development
scenarios were considered:
Case 1: Two Wellhead Platforms, target 2014 first oil.

Case 2: Mini-CPP with Booster compression + WHP, 2015 first oil.
Case 3: Mini-CPP w/ Lift Gas compression + WHP, 2015 first oil
Case 4: Relocate FPSO to SN, use 2 WHP’s, 2015 first oil.
Case 5: Single Wellhead Platform + Subsea development.
1.1 Recommendation
CLJOC recommends proceeding with Case 1, Two Wellhead Platform

Development based on the following characteristics:
• Technically simplest solution.
• Lowest risk plan.
• Platforms can easily be constructed at domestic Vietnamese facilities.
• Lowest CAPEX for facilities, PMT and Drilling, in addition to being the
lowest overall development cost option.
• Lowest OPEX alternative.
• May realistically achieve 2014 first oil (subject to timely approval)
• Maximizes use of existing Block 15-1 offshore infrastructure without
additional over-building.
• Provides flexibility for future E-sequence production testing.
• Potential for further weight and cost reduction through use of multiphase
metering.
The total estimated Case 1 development CAPEX is $1,320.5MM, nearly 30%

below the more complex options evaluated. The CAPEX is comprised of
$706.6MM for facilities & infrastructure costs, $68.2MM for PMT/PPO costs,
and $545.7MM for an 18 well drilling program.
First oil from this option can be achieved in early Q4 2014, subject to timely
government and partner approvals.
Economic Measures of Merit (EMOM) for Case 1 are (gross basis):

$2,045.7MM NPV10, 72.5% AARR and a 4.7 PI. The project is forecast to
pay out in 4.5 years. Project EMOM are similarly favorable to PVEP and
Foreign Parties.
Case 1 offers the opportunity to reduce the weight and cost and simplify the
design of the two platforms, subject to terms of the metering and allocation
provisions in the Unitization Agreement. Platform cost and weight may be
reduced if all Unit parties agree to utilize multiphase metering on each

individual well. This issue will be further studied before Preliminary
Engineering.
1.2 Discussion
Table 1.1 below summarizes the CAPEX, OPEX, configuration and economic
measures of merit for the four primary cases evaluated. Case 5, Subsea
Development, was considered and dismissed without quantitative evaluation at
the recommendation of multiple reputable subsea equipment/service providers.
Table 1.1
Summary of Costs and Configuration for Options Considered
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Two Mini CPP Mini CPP Two WHP
WHP, w/ Booster w/ Lift Gas + Relocate
2014 First Gas Compr Compr + FPSO to
Oil + WHP WHP SN
Facilities CAPEX ($MM) $706.6 $985.5 $989.3 $935.4
PMT/PPO ($MM) $68.2 $95.4 $95.4 $90.4
Drilling CAPEX ($MM) $545.7 $612.9 $612.9 $556.5
Total Dev’t CAPEX ($MM) $1,320.5 $1,693.8 $1,697.6 $1,582.4
OPEX ($MM) $73.8 $166.3 $165.3 $91.9
Target First Oil Date Q4 2014 Q3 2015 Q3 2015 Q3 2015
North P/F Deck/Jacket Weight D: 1,724 D: 1,724 D: 1,671 D: 1,724
(mT) J: 1,098 J: 1,098 J: 1,098 J: 1,098
North Jacket Configuration 4 Pile 4 Pile 4 Pile 4 Pile
South P/F Deck/Jacket Weight D: 2,030 D: 5,218 D: 5,493 D: 1,724
(mT) J: 1,168 J: 2,167 J: 2,167 J: 1,098
South Jacket Configuration 4 Pile 6 Pile Box 6 Pile Box 4 Pile
Gross Project Economic Measures of Merit
NPV10 ($MM) $2,047.5 $1,662.2 $1,659.9 $1,677.9
AARR (%) 72.5% 56.4% 56.2% 55.1%
PI 4.68 3.23 3.22 3.14
Payout 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
PVEP Interests (Incl. Gov’t)
NPV10 ($MM) $1,657.8 $1,370.6 $1,369.1 $1,377.7
AARR (%) 92.9% 71.8% 71.5% 68.9%
PI 6.80 4.31 4.29 4.08
Payout 4.3 5.2 5.2 5.3
Foreign Parties Interest
NPV10 ($MM) $389.7 $291.6 $290.8 $300.2
AARR (%) 42.2% 32.1% 31.9% 32.5%
PI 2.44 1.87 1.87 1.89
Payout 4.9 6.1 6.1 6.1
Case 1 is the technically simplest scenario. Cases 2 and 3 facilities are more
complex, higher cost, and were only considered as a result of delays in
exporting the SN crude samples for flow assurance testing. (Tests showed that
Case 1 can be executed with high confidence and the higher cost, more
complex scenarios are not needed). Finally, Case 4 was addressed as it was
mentioned in 2009 by PVEP as a possible option.

Case 4, moving the FPSO to the SN field requires significant vessel
modifications due to the shallower water in the SN area. This will require
extensive dry-docking time and will reduce FPSO storage capacity. FPSO
relocation increases operational risk and operating costs without benefit.
Finally, a qualitative risk assessment on the four evaluated development
scenarios shows Case 1 as the lowest risk scenario for the following reasons:
• It is the only Case which can realistically achieve 2014 first oil, subject to
timely project approvals:
• Lowest Technical Risk
• Most favorable from a design/execution simplicity/flexibility perspective.
- Two nearly identical platforms could be built, offering the opportunity
to reduce cost with a “design one, build two” philosophy.
- Platforms can easily be built at domestic fabrication yards.
- If the view of the reservoir changes the development plan could be
revised to stage platform installation one or more years apart if
required.
• Lowest CAPEX alternative.
• Lowest OPEX alternative.
In addition, the economic analysis shown above demonstrates Case 1 to be the

favored scenario. All economic measures of merit, irrespective of party, favor
Case 1.
Note that the unitization interests were not considered as the unitization
agreement has yet to be finalized. However, from an economic perspective we
expect that the best development concept for the CLJOC partners is also be the
best economic option for new Unit participants.
Finally, Case 1 offers the potential to further reduce costs by utilizing

multiphase flow meters on each well. This is a critical issue as it depends
upon the Unit partners agreeing to a metering/allocation strategy which could
be accommodated by the use of multiphase meters. This issue should be
addressed by Block 15-1 partners and the prospective Unit partners prior to
starting Preliminary Engineering.
2.0 Background
The Su Tu Nau field is located at the north end of offshore Block 15-1 in the
Cuu Long Basin. Block 15-1 is located approximately 180km ESE of
HoChiMinh City. The field lies in 35-40m water depth and the fractured
granite basement is the primary producing horizon. Figure 2.1 below shows
the block location map.
Discovery well SN-1X was spudded on 26 July 2005 with the objective of
testing the Su Tu Nau basement structure. The well was completed on 19
September 2005 as an oil discovery and flowed 9,379 BOPD of 39.8o gravity
oil at 81scf/bbl from the basement. There was no flow from the clastics zones.

Well SN-2X was spudded on 28 September 2007 and completed on 12
November 2007. The objective of this well was to explore the fractured
granite basement. The well flowed 9,717 BOPD of 40°API oil with at 167
scf/bo.
Figure 2.1
Block 15-1 Location Map
Well SN-3X was spudded on 25 March 2010 and completed on 29 June 2010.
The objective of this well was to further delineate the fractured granite
basement and to evaluate the E-sequence zone above the basement. The well
flowed 10,781 BOPD of 40° API oil at 167 scf/bo from the basement. The E-
Sequence tested at a rate of 2,898 BOPD of 31° API oil.
A portion of the field extends into neighboring blocks 01/97, 02/97, 01 and 02
to the east of Block 15-1. Under the laws of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
the Su Tu Nau Field Development is subject to Unitization among all parties.
The Lam Son Joint Operating Company spudded well HXS-1X in the Ho Xam
South structure located in Block 01/97. The well was spudded on 4 April
2008 and completed on 10 May 2008. The well tested 5,414 BOPD of 39.4°
API oil with less than 1MMSCF/D of gas during the main flow period.
A Pre-Unitization agreement has been negotiated between all parties and

signed by the Prime Minister. The final agreement has not been completed, so
all analyses presented in this study are on a gross field basis.

3.0 Purpose and Objective
The purpose of this study is to analyze and review a variety of development

concepts for the Su Tu Nau field, and to recommend a single concept to be
carried forward into Preliminary Engineering.
All concepts evaluated were reviewed and analyzed using the following
criteria:
• Minimize schedule risk and retain the ability to achieve 2014 first oil.
• Minimize technical risks associated with high-paraffin/low GOR crude
transport over relatively long distances.
• Maintain simplicity of design and execution, duplication of design where
practical and utilization of common spares. This will potentially result in
lower design and operating costs.
• Minimize capital cost exposure and additional overbuilding of processing
capacity in Block 15-1.
• Minimize future operating costs where possible.
• Maximize flexibility for future development from Su Tu Nau facilities.
• Generate economically optimum performance on a gross basis.
4.0 Basis of Analysis
4.1 General Assumptions & Comments
The general assumptions used in analyzing the various concepts

include the following:
1. The Su Tu Nau field is evaluated incrementally to the balance of
the Block 15-1 Operation.
2. The Balance of the Block 15-1 operation consists of the Su Tu Den
Southwest field, the Su Tu Vang field, the Su Tu Den Northeast
field, the Su Tu Trang LTPTP, and Option 1 of the proposed Block
15-1 Reconfiguration Project.
3. This analysis assumes the Block 15-1 Reconfiguration Project has
been approved and is implemented. No costs for the
Reconfiguration project are included in the Su Tu Nau project.
4. This analysis is performed on a gross basis without discrimination
to either the Foreign Parties in CLJOC or the Unitization activities
with the offset operator. The best decision on a gross basis will be
the best decision for CLJOC Foreign Parties and future Unit
Partners.
5. The concepts shown here are limited to the Basement development.
The only concession for future potential development in this study
is the inclusion of an additional slot designed to accommodate two
wells per platform which will not specifically be dedicated to
Basement production.
6. For the purpose of this analysis the abandonment costs shown
below are assumed (all costs real 2011 dollar basis). Note that the

costs shown here are taken or derived from the CLJOC
Abandonment plan, and are thus consistent with that plan.
• Abandonment cost per well is $1.3MM
• Wellhead platform abandonment costs estimated at $23.7MM,
consistent with the proposed Wellhead Platform B
abandonment costs excluding the well P&A liability.
• The small CPP platform abandonment costs are estimate at
$24.2MM, consistent with the Su Tu Vang CPP abandonment
costs, excluding well P&A liability, and scaled to the 0.6 power
for the ratio of deck weights (~5,400mT for SN CPP vs.
~15,515mT for SV CPP).
• Based on the above numbers, the following abandonment costs
will be used for each of the cases:
- Cases 1, 1A, 4: $47.4MM facilities + 18 wells @
$1.3MM/well.
- Cases 2 and 3: $47.9MM facilities + 18 wells @
$1.3MM/well.
4.2 Technical Analysis Basis
1. The field will be developed using two platforms, which are

assumed to be located at the following coordinates:
North Platform: X: 876,612 Easting 1,172,874 Northing
South Platform: X: 872,304 Easting 1,168,617 Northing
2. The following assumptions apply to the well count for each of the
two platforms in the field:
- Well slots 8 (dual well slots)
- Well Count 16 (dual well slots, 2 wells/slot)
- Producing Wells 9 (all assumed to be gas lifted)
- Water Injection Wells 4
- Spare Slots/Wells 1 slot/2 wells (future
development)
3. Each platform equipped with production, test, injection water and
lift gas manifolds.
4. The well and test separation systems are based on the following
design parameters, similar to that of Su Tu Den Northeast:
- Maximum Well Flow Rate: 10,000 STBFPD per well
- Design Solution GOR: 120 SCF/BO
- FWHP: 165.5 barg (2,400 PSIG)
- FWHT: 115°C (239°F)
- WHSIP: 235.9 barg (3,420 PSIG)
- Reservoir Pressure: 330.6 barg (4,794 PSIG)
- Reservoir Temperature: 137°C (279°F)
5. SN Production Rates
- Maximum Field Oil Production: 50,000 SBOPD
- Maximum Fluid Production: ~60,000 SBFPD (approx)
- Maximum Produced Water: 43,350 SBWPD
- Maximum Associated Gas: 3.8 MMSCFD
- Sand Production Rate: None expected

6. SN Gas Lift Requirements
- Discharge pressure from CPP: 123 barg (1,784 PSIG)
- Water Content: 6lb H20/MMSCF
7. SN Water Injection Requirements
- Maximum Injection Rate Per Well: 10,000 SBWPD
- Discharge pressure from CPP: 172.4 barg (2,500 PSIG)
4.3 CAPEX Assumptions
The capital cost estimates shown in Appendices 1-4 were developed

using several sources.
• Engineering estimates were developed using current industry
metrics.
• Equipment costs were either scaled from recent previous projects
or order-of-magnitude estimates obtained from suppliers. An
appropriate escalation factor was applied to the estimate depending
upon its vintage.
• Bulks were estimated using factors and data from previous CLJOC
projects.
• Materials such as steel, line pipe, subsea pipeline insulation, etc
were taken from current projects.
• Fabrication rates were taken from the Su Tu Den Northeast and Su
Tu Trang LTPTP EPCI Contracts.
• Installation spread rates were taken from recent contracts and
validated by reputable contractors.
• HUC estimates were generated using historical data from CLJOC’s
previous projects.
• CAPEX estimates carry a 30% contingency, appropriate for the
current level of scope definition on the project.
The real 2011 dollar based costs were then allocated across the project
schedule in accordance with the expected expenditure, and escalation
factors applied to develop the nominal dollar cost estimate.
A unique estimate of Owners Project Management Team Costs and

Pre-Production Operations Costs were developed for each
development case analyzed here. Those costs are presented as a
separate line item with the project capital estimates.
The project CAPEX estimate, along with Project Management Team

(PMT) and Pre-Production Operations (PPO) Team costs, are given for
each case in Appendices 1 through 4.
4.4 OPEX Assumptions
The Operating Cost forecasts developed here are incremental to the

OPEX of the existing Block 15-1 operation.

The detailed operating cost forecasts were developed for each type of
platform using the approved 2011 operating budget as a starting point.
Each line of the approved budget was reviewed and adjusted
downward to reflect the size, capacity and complexity of the Su Tu
Nau platform of interest.
OPEX for the Wellhead Platform component of each development is

based on the Su Tu Den Northeast WHP-B budget. OPEX for cases
involving the Booster or Lift Gas Compression CPP were modeled on
the Su Tu Vang CPP OPEX budget. Every effort was made to
incorporate changes in logistics requirements. To simulate cost cutting
associated with lower production in the out years, a 10% reduction in
OPEX is assumed to occur in 2020, followed by a further 5% reduction
in 2022.
Complete details of the OPEX forecasts developed for this study are
given in Appendix 5.
4.5 Production Profiles
4.5.1 Su Tu Nau Profiles
Su Tu Nau field production profiles were provided by the

CLJOC Subsurface group. Two profiles were provided, a
nominal 61mmboe EUR case and a nominal 92mmboe EUR
case. Both profiles, as generated by CLJOC Subsurface Group,
had a first oil date of 1 January 2014.
For the purposes of the sensitivity analysis in this study only,

these two cases are assumed to be the mid and high reserve
cases.
The development group subsequently made two adjustments to

the profiles provided by the CLJOC Subsurface group:
1. The start-up timing of the 61 and 92mmboe EUR profiles
were adjusted to meet the specific project schedule for each
respective development case considered; for Case 1 this is
Q4 2014; for all other cases it is mid-year 2015.
2. The CLJOC development group then generated a nominal
low EUR case for use only in the sensitivity analysis in this
study. This low profile (equating to a 45mmboe EUR case)
was defined as 75% of the P50 profile.
4.5.2 Baseline Block 15-1 Profiles
The Baseline Block 15-1 Production Profile is shown in

Appendix 6, section A6-3. The baseline profile consists of
components from the following constituent fields and projects:
• Su Tu Den Southwest Field

• Su Tu Vang Field
• Su Tu Den Northeast Field
• Su Tu Trang LTPTP
• Block 15-1 Reconfiguration Project Case 1
Appendix 6 contains the detailed Su Tu Nau Production

Profiles, along with the baseline Block 15-1 profiles used in
this analysis.
4.6 Drilling CAPEX
The drilling CAPEX was estimated by the CLJOC drilling department

in conjunction with input from Reservoir Engineering, Geologists and
Geophysicists.
The Drilling Engineer developed a cost estimate for “typical” short,

medium and long reach wells, both in dry tree configuration and for a
mudline suspend/tie-back/recomplete configuration.
The mudline suspend/tie-back/recomplete configuration was necessary

for two reasons:
1. The SN-3X appraisal well was TA’d and will be re-used in the
development plan, and,
2. Cases 2 and 3 require predrilled wells from the South platform to
be mudline suspended, then tied back and recompleted at a later
date.
The overall program cost estimate for each development case was
based on 18 wells, split evenly between the Su Tu Nau North and
South platforms. The cost estimate includes costs for location
remediation, mobilization/demobilization of the drill rig, and moving
on/off the platforms throughout the overall program.
Drilling costs presented here include a 20% contingency.
In accordance with the philosophy developed here to minimize

production ramp-up time, jacket will be set a year early and a drilling
campaign will be conducted to pre-drill some wells; the rig will move
to other Block 15-1 work the following summer while the platform
decks are set, and return to resume a drilling program after the field
becomes operational with the first 6 or 7 wells.
The well cost breakdown, including the phasing of the drilling

expenditures for each case are given in Appendix 7.

5.0 Description and Discussion of Development Alternatives
CLJOC has considered five development alternatives for the Su Tu Nau field
as summarized below in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Description of Development Options Considered
Case Name Description Reference
1 Dual WHP Install two unmanned wellhead platforms and tie Appendix 1
back to existing infrastructure through WHP-B.
2 BGC CPP + Install a manned, mini-CPP equipped with booster Appendix 2
WHP gas compression & wells in the south and an
unmanned wellhead platform in the north.
3 LGC CPP + Install a mini-CPP with lift gas compression & Appendix 3
WHP wells in the south and an unmanned wellhead
platform in the north.
4 Dual WHP Install two unmanned wellhead platforms; modify Appendix 4
+ FPSO & relocate the FPSO to the SN field and connect
Relocation the SV CPP to the FPSO by dry oil pipeline.
5 Partial Install unmanned wellhead platform in the south, N/A
Subsea develop north area using subsea equipment.
Option 1 is the technically simplest alternative. Options 2 and 3 were

analyzed for the event the basement crude flow assurance could not be
handled through a free-flow system. Option 4 was included only because it
was suggested by PVEP staff in 2009.
Case 5 considered the use of a subsea development. This was investigated at a

high level and eliminated at the suggestion of the reputable industry subsea
equipment and service providers engaged to help study this issue.
The basis for this elimination was advice from reputable companies that in
shallow water subsea developments consisting of more than 3-4 wells would
not be economically viable. Given that developing even one area of the field
(such as the north) with a subsea template and tying it back to a platform in the
South would involve at least 10 and possibly as many as 16 wells, the industry
advice was respected.
Table 5.2 below describes the development alternatives and costs associated
with each. Case 1 is the simplest development alternative and has the lowest
project CAPEX, overall development CAPEX and OPEX. It is the only
option considered which can realistically achieve 2014 first oil. Case 1A is a
delay case to Case 1.

Table 5.2
Summary of Costs and Configuration for Development Options Evaluated
Case 1 Case 1A Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Two WHP Delay Case Mini CPP Mini CPP Two WHP
Development to Case 1 w/ Booster w/ Lift Gas Development
2014 First Gas Compr Compr + + Relocate
Oil + WHP WHP FPSO to SN
Facilities CAPEX ($MM) $706.6 $727.8 $985.5 $989.3 $935.4
PMT/PPO ($MM) $68.2 $78.6 $95.4 $95.4 $90.4
Subtotal Project CAPEX $774.8 $806.4 $1,080.9 $1,084.7 $1,025.8
($MM)
Drilling CAPEX (18 wells) $545.7 $556.5 $612.9 $612.9 $556.5
($MM)
Total Development $1,320.5 $1,361.9 $1,693.8 $1,697.6 $1,582.4
CAPEX ($MM)
OPEX ($MM) $73.8 $68.6 $166.3 $165.3 $91.9
Target First Oil Date Q4 2014 Q3 2015 Q3 2015 Q3 2015 Q3 2015
North P/F Deck/Jacket 1,724 1,724 1,671 1,671 1,710
Weight (mT) 1,098 1,098 1,098 1,098 1,098
North Jacket Configuration 4 Pile 4 Pile 4 Pile 4 Pile 4 Pile
South P/F Deck/Jacket 2,030 2,030 5,218 5,493 1,710
Weight (mT) 1,168 1,168 2,167 2,167 1,098
South Jacket Configuration 4 Pile 4 Pile 6 Pile Box 6 Pile Box 4 Pile
5.1 Case 1, Two Wellhead Platforms, 2014 First Oil
5.1.1 Description & Discussion
Figure 5.1 below is a schematic of Block 15-1 after the Su Tu Nau

field has been developed with Case 1.
This development option consists of installing two unmanned wellhead

platforms in the Su Tu Nau field, each capable of accommodating up
to 16 wells from 8 slots. Each platform will be equipped with
production, test, injection water and lift gas manifolds. Injection water
and lift gas will be supplied via pipeline from existing infrastructure
and will be metered for usage by the Unit.
Both platforms will be equipped with a three phase test separator, and,
because the SN field will be unitized, the conceptual design
incorporates a large allocation separator and metering system on the Su
Tu Nau South platform through which all production from the Su Tu
Nau field will flow.
The Su Tu Nau North (SN-N) and Su Tu Nau South (SN-S) platforms

will be equipped with helidecks, a building with combined control and
MCC/Switchgear rooms. Main power will be generated by a gas
engine driven generator and back-up power will be supplied by a diesel
engine generator.

.
Figure 5.1
Field Layout, Case 1: Two Wellhead Platform Development
SN-N
Communications Umbilical x 6.4km WHP
12.750" x 6.4km insulated

multiphase production
pipeline
8.625" x 6.4km
SN-S lift gas pipeline
WHP
6.625" x 6.4km injection
water pipeline
Communications
Umbilical x 10.6km
water pipeline

pipeline
10.750" x 13.8km lift
gas pipeline
SDNE
WHP-B
WHP-B to SSTI-4 Production Line

24.000" OD x 22.500" ID x 7,679m lg
Inj. Water, CPP to SDNE WHP-B

16.000" OD x 14.126" ID x 13,317m lg.
Lift Gas, SSTI-2 to WHP-B
10.750" OD x 9.750" ID x
6,863m lg.
14.000" OD x 13.188" ID x 2,400m long (to PLEM) L.P. Gas

14.000" OD x 13.188" ID x 2,400m long (to PLEM) Oil/Water
SDSW
8.625" OD x 7.875" ID x 2,400m long (to PLEM) Lift Gas FPSO
WHP-A
12.750" OD x 11.126" ID x 2,400m long (to PLEM) Injection Water
LP Gas (Reconfigured)
18.000" x 7.2km WHP-A to CPP
SSTI-4 @ 583m Dry Oil to FPSO

from WHP-A. 12.750" OD x 12.000" ID x Lift Gas to SSTI-2
Liquid Line (Reconfigured) 6,540m lg CPP to SSTI-3 10.750" OD x 9.750" ID x
18.000" x 7.2km WHP-A to CPP 6,672m lg CPP to SSTI-2
WHP-A to CPP Transfer Line

24.000" OD x 22.500" ID x 7,498 m L.
Total Length from WHP-A to CPP
Dry Oil to FSO

Note: This diagram depicts the Su Tu Nau Field 12.750" OD x 12.000" ID x 2,482m FSO Queensway
Development with the Block 15-1 Pipeline Su Tu Vang lg CPP to FSO PLEM Released
CPP
Reconfiguration project implemented. Q4 2013
Note that significant potential cost and weight savings may be realized
during design optimization if the allocation separator and metering
skid (as well as test manifolds and test separators on both the North
and South Platform) can be eliminated in favor of multiphase flow
meters on individual wells. This would allow the the North and South
platform deck designs to be virtually identical, reducing both design
and fabrication costs. However, in order for this to occur the Unit

Partners must come to agreement on the application and use of
multiphase meters,
Production from the north platform will flow via multiphase pipeline to
the south, where it will be combined with production from the south
and via multiphase under back pressure to WHP-B, at which point the
fluid will be combined with production from SDNE WHP-B and
pipelined to the Su Tu Vang CPP for processing.
5.1.2 Project Schedule
Refer to Appendix A, Figure A1-2. By this schedule Preliminary

Engineering and the EPCI bidding process will be conducted from
September 2011 through mid-year 2012. The EPCI Contract would be
awarded in mid-year 2012 with the two jackets being installed in Q3
2013. The pipeline installation program would be executed just after
jacket installation is complete.
Jackets will be installed a year early to enable dry-tree drilling of six or

more wells prior to deck installation. This will facilitate HUC
activities and allow the field to start production at relatively high rates.
Decks for both platforms would be installed and commissioned in Q3

2014 with first oil achieved early Q4 2014. Following start-up,
additional wells would be drilled from the two platforms using a jack-
up rig.
5.1.3 Weights and CAPEX
This development consists of two separate wellhead decks installed on

four-pile jackets. Decks and jackets will be installed using lift barges.
North Platform South Platform

Deck Weight, mT 1,724mT 2,030mT
Deck Installation Method Lift Lift
Jacket Weight, mT 1,098mT 1,168mT
Configuration 4-pile battered 4-pile battered
Jacket Installation Method Lift Lift
Approximately 54.2km of new pipeline is required for this case:

- 10” nom. x 10.6km water injection line, WHP-B to SN-S
- 6” nom. x 6.4km water injection line, SN-S to SN-N
- 10” nom. x 13.8km lift gas line, SSTI to SN-S
- 8” nom. x 6.4km lift gas line, SN-S to SN-N
- 12” nom. x 6.4km insulated production line, SN-N to SN-S
- 18” nom. x 10.6km insulated production line, SN-S to WHP-B.
In addition, approximately 17km of fiber optic communications cable

would be installed with this case.

The Case 1 PMT & PPO Costs, along with the Facilities CAPEX are
shown below on a real 2011 dollar basis and a nominal dollar basis.
PMT & PPO Cost ($MM/Yr) Infrastructure CAPEX ($MM/Yr)

Year Real Dollar Nominal Basis Real Dollar Nominal Basis
2011 Basis 2011 Basis
2011 $5.5 $5.5 $11.0 $11.0
2012 $13.6 $13.9 $150.9 $158.0
2013 $20.1 $21.2 $380.3 $417.1
2014 $19.5 $21.0 $107.7 $120.4
2015 $5.9 $6.6 $0.0 $0.0
2016 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Total $64.7 $68.2 $649.8 $706.6
5.1.4 Operating Costs
Background details for the OPEX for each case are given in Appendix
5. The OPEX profile for Case 1, on both real and nominal dollar bases,
is given below:
Year Real Dollar 2011 Basis Nominal Basis

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.0 $0.0
2014 $2.1 $2.2
2015 $6.2 $6.8
2016 $6.7 $7.6
2017 $7.3 $8.5
2018 $7.3 $8.7
2019 $6.6 $8.0
2020 $6.6 $8.2
2021 $6.6 $8.4
2022 $6.3 $8.2
2023* $5.2 $7.0
Total $60.9 $73.8
5.1.5 Drilling CAPEX
The drilling program phased CAPEX is summarized below on a real

2011 dollar and nominal dollar basis. Details of the drilling CAPEX is

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $93.5 $93.0
2014 $162.0 $165.1
2015 $209.1 $218.5
2016 $64.4 $69.0
2017 $0.0 $0.0
Total $529.0 $545.7
5.2 Case 1A, Two Wellhead Platforms, 2015 First Oil
5.2.1 Discussion and Description

Case 1A is identical to Case 1 in all aspects except the execution
schedule. The project schedule for this option is given in Appendix 1,
Attachment A1A-2.
5.2.2 Project Schedule
This schedule is premised on a delay (due to lack of approvals)

resulting in the work stopping or greatly slowing in Q3 2011 and not
resuming until 1 May 2012. The delay in resuming work is entirely
reasonable if manpower funding is not obtained, the existing staff
departs and replacement staff must be sourced only after funding is
restored.
First oil from this option is premised for 1 July 2015.
The platform and jacket weights, jacket configurations and installation

methods for Case 1A are identical to those shown for Case 1, above.
The CAPEX increases somewhat due to the premised delay is

primarily due to the time value of money resulting from the additional
delay. The total estimated nominal facilities costs is $727.8MM, plus
an additional $78.6MM for Owners PMT and PPO. The higher cost is
a consequence of the project being delayed at the front of the schedule
and costs stretching into 2015 for completion.

Year Real Dollar Nominal Real Dollar 2011
Nominal Basis
2011 Basis Basis Basis
2011 $4.4 $4.4 $0.5 $0.5
2012 $10.6 $10.9 $18.0 $18.7
2013 $17.1 $17.9 $147.1 $161.7
2014 $20.9 $22.5 $373.8 $420.3
2015 $17.9 $19.8 $110.4 $126.6
2016 $2.8 $3.1 $0.0 $0.0
Total $73.6 $78.6 $649.8 $727.8
5.2.4 OPEX
OPEX for this case are similar to that of Case 1, with the only
difference being the timing delay associated with Case 1A. Details of
the OPEX build-up are given in Appendix 7.

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.0 $0.0
2014 $0.0 $0.0
2015 $3.6 $4.0
2016 $6.7 $7.6
2017 $7.3 $8.5
2018 $7.3 $8.7
2019 $6.6 $8.0

2020 $6.6 $8.2
2021 $6.6 $8.4
2022 $6.3 $8.2
2023* $5.2 $7.0
Total $56.3 $68.8
The drilling program phased CAPEX is summarized below on a real

2011 dollar and nominal dollar basis. Details of the drilling CAPEX is

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.0 $0.0
2014 $131.9 $134.5
2015 $158.7 $165.8
2016 $209.6 $224.5
2017 $28.8 $31.6
Total $529.0 $556.5
5.3 Case 2, Mini-CPP with Booster Gas Compression (South) and

WHP (North), 2015 First Oil

field has been developed.
This development option consists of installing two platforms in the Su

Tu Nau field. The North platform, SN-N, will be a simple unmanned
wellhead platform designed to accommodate 16 wells from 8 slots and
will be equipped with production, test, and injection water and lift gas
manifolds. Injection water and lift gas will be supplied via pipeline
from existing infrastructure and will be metered for usage by the Unit.
Production from SN-N will be transported via multiphase insulated

pipeline to SN-S, where it will be mixed with fluid from SN-S
upstream of the production separator.
The South platform, SN-S, will be a small (relative to Su Tu Vang)

manned Central Processing Platform. The south platform will be
capable of drilling up to 16 wells from 8 slots. Equipment will include
production, test, lift gas and injection water manifolds, and a three
phase test separator.
The facility will also be equipped with a single stage, three phase
production separator which would function as an allocation separator.
This separator would be equipped with metering for oil, water and gas
for unit allocation purposes. After metering, produced water will be

Figure 5.2
Field Layout, Case 2: Booster Compression CPP + WHP Development
Communications & Power
SN-N
Umbilical x 6.4km WHP

pipeline
8.625" x 6.4km
SN-S BGC lift gas pipeline
CPP
water pipeline
Communications Umbilical
x 10.6km
water pipeline
12.750" x 10.6km
insulated multiphase
production pipeline
10.750" x 13.8km lift
gas pipeline
SDNE
WHP-B

24.000" OD x 22.500" ID x 7,679m lg

16.000" OD x 14.126" ID x 13,317m lg.
10.750" OD x 9.750" ID x
6,863m lg.

SDSW
WHP-A


24.000" OD x 22.500" ID x 7,498 m L.
Dry Oil to FSO

Note: This diagram depicts the Su Tu Nau Field 12.750" OD x 12.000" ID x FSO Queensway
Development with the Block 15-1 Pipeline Su Tu Vang 2,482m lg CPP to FSO PLEM Released
CPP
pumped into the pipeline for transfer to the Su Tu Vang CPP for
separation and treating.
The facility will also include oil and water offtake pumps, a production
heater and a heating medium system in order to maintain the pipeline
at temperature. Oil would be pumped back to WHP-B through a
multiphase pipeline.

A booster compressor will compress any excess associated gas and
imported lift gas back into the multiphase pipeline where it will flow to
the CPP via WHP-B with the oil and water and be recycled through the
system. Space will be left on the platform for future hydrocyclones
and flotation cells for local produced water treating for the event water
production exceeds forecasts and creates a hydraulic bottleneck.
The facility is also equipped with a nominal 20-bed living quarters,

helideck, control room, small laboratory and MCC/Switchgear
building. Power will be generated by dual-fuel turbine generators on
SN-S and transmitted by composite subsea cable to SN-N.
The Case 2 development consists of an unmanned four-pile wellhead

platform in the north, connected to a six pile manned CPP equipped
with booster gas compression. While current estimates indicate the
SN-S platform is in the range of lifting it with available equipment, the
potential for weight growth between this early definition phase and
execution is high.
Thus, a float-over configuration was selected as the conservative

installation method and to eliminate the risk associated with prolonged
offshore modular hook-ups.

Deck Installation Method Lift Float-over
Configuration 4-pile battered 6 pile box, float-over
Jacket Installation Method Lift Launch
The Case 2 PMT and infrastructure CAPEX are shown below. On a

nominal basis the non-drilling CAPEX exceeds $1,080MM.

2011 $6.0 $6.0 $11.9 $11.9
2012 $13.4 $13.7 $26.0 $27.1
2013 $22.7 $23.8 $218.8 $240.5
2014 $24.9 $26.8 $489.5 $550.9
2015 $19.8 $21.9 $135.3 $155.2
2016 $2.7 $3.1 $0.0 $0.0
Total $89.6 $95.4 $881.6 $985.5
Approximately 54.2km of new pipeline is required for this

development case:
- 10” nom. x 13.8km lift gas line, SSTI to SN-S

In addition, approximately 6.4km of control/power cable and 10.6km

of communications cable would be installed with this case.
5.3.3 OPEX
The Case 2 OPEX is summarized on both real 2011 dollar and nominal
dollar bases below. Note the OPEX for this case is substantially higher
than for Case 1 due to the fact that the South platform in Case 2 much
more complex than that in Case 1, and staffed around the clock.

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.0 $0.0
2014 $0.0 $0.0
2015 $9.5 $10.5
2016 $16.9 $19.1
2017 $17.5 $20.3
2018 $17.5 $20.8
2019 $15.8 $19.2
2020 $15.8 $19.7
2021 $15.8 $20.2
2022 $15.0 $19.6
2023* $12.5 $16.8
Total $136.2 $166.3
The capital costs associated with the Case 2 drilling program is

summarized below. This investment profile was developed
specifically to match the project execution schedule for Case 2.
Details are given in Appendix 7.
Drilling costs for this option are higher than that for Case 1 as this case
involves drilling and temporarily abandoning, then tying-back and
completing wells on the Su Tu Nau South CPP; this is a consequence
of the float-over configuration selected for that platform.

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.0 $0.0
2014 $149.0 $151.9
2015 $157.7 $164.8
2016 $209.6 $224.5
2017 $65.2 $71.6
Total $581.5 $612.9

5.4 Case 3, Mini-CPP with Lift Gas Compression (South) and WHP
(North), 2015 First Oil

field has been developed.
Figure 5.3
Field Layout, Case 3: Lift Compression CPP + WHP Development
Communications & Power
SN-N
Umbilical x 6.4km WHP

pipeline
6.625" x 6.4km
SN-S LGC
lift gas pipeline
CPP
water pipeline
x 10.6km
water pipeline
12.750" x 10.6km
insulated multiphase
6.625" x 13.8km production pipeline
supplemental gas
pipeline
SDNE
WHP-B

24.000" OD x 22.500" ID x 7,679m lg

16.000" OD x 14.126" ID x 13,317m lg.
10.750" OD x 9.750" ID x
6,863m lg.

SDSW
WHP-A


24.000" OD x 22.500" ID x 7,498 m L.
Dry Oil to FSO

Note: This diagram depicts the Su Tu Nau Field 12.750" OD x 12.000" ID x FSO Queensway
Development with the Block 15-1 Pipeline Su Tu Vang 2,482m lg CPP to FSO PLEM Released
CPP

This development option consists of installing two platforms in the Su
Tu Nau field. The North platform, SN-N, will be an unmanned
wellhead platform designed to accommodate 16 wells from 8 slots.
The platform will be equipped with production, test, and injection
water and lift gas manifolds. Injection water and supplemental gas will
be supplied via pipeline from existing infrastructure and will be
metered for usage by the Unit.
Production from SN-N will be transported via multiphase insulated

pipeline to SN-S, where it will be mixed with fluid from SN-S
upstream of the production separator.
The South platform, SN-S, will be a small (relative to Su Tu Vang)

manned Central Processing Platform. The south platform will be
capable of drilling up to 16 wells from 8 slots. Equipment will include
production, test, lift gas and injection water manifolds, and a three
phase test separator and will also be equipped with a single stage, three
phase production separator which would function as an allocation
separator. This separator would be equipped with metering for oil,
water and gas for unit allocation purposes. After metering, produced
water will be pumped into the pipeline for transfer to the Su Tu Vang
CPP for separation and treating.
The SN-S platform will also include oil and water offtake pumps, a
production heater and a heating medium system in order to maintain
the pipeline at temperature. Oil would be pumped back to WHP-B
through a multiphase pipeline.
A 6” gas line will provide sufficient gas for fuel and kick-off gas to
initially lift the first few wells. A lift gas compressor will cycle gas to
wells on SN-S and SN-N, with any excess associated gas above fuel
requirements (or gas volumes needed to keep the export pipeline at 20-
25% in-situ volume fraction) being exported through the multiphase
pipeline where it will flow to the CPP via WHP-B with the oil and
water.
The lift gas system on SN-S will be equipped with a glycol

dehydration unit to dehydrate the lift gas to 6lb/mmscf maximum water
content and reduce the potential for hydrate formation.
Space will be left on the SN-S platform for future hydrocyclones and
flotation cells for local produced water treating in the event the
produce water rates exceed the forecast and create a hydraulic
bottleneck in the export pipeline.
The facility will be equipped with a nominal 20-bed living quarters,

helideck, control room, small laboratory and MCC/Switchgear
building. Power will be generated by dual-fuel turbine generators on
SN-S and transmitted by composite subsea cable to SN-N.

The Case 3 development consists of an unmanned four-pile wellhead

platform in the north, connected to a six pile manned CPP equipped
with lift gas compression. While current estimates indicate the SN-S
platform is in the range of lifting it with available equipment, the
potential for weight growth between this early definition phase and
execution is high. Thus, a float-over configuration was selected as the
conservative installation method and to eliminate the risk associated
with prolonged offshore modular hook-ups.

Deck Installation Method Lift Float-over
Configuration 4-pile battered 6 pile box, float-over
Jacket Installation Method Lift Launch
The Case 3 PMT and infrastructure CAPEX are shown below. On a

nominal basis the non-drilling CAPEX is about $1,085MM.

2011 $6.0 $6.0 $12.2 $12.2
2012 $13.4 $13.7 $26.8 $27.8
2013 $22.7 $23.8 $220.0 $241.7
2014 $24.9 $26.8 $490.0 $551.4
2015 $19.8 $21.9 $136.2 $156.1
2016 $2.7 $3.1 $0.0 $0.0
Total $89.6 $95.4 $885.0 $989.3
Approximately 54.2km of new pipeline is required for this case:

- 6” nom. x 13.8km supplemental gas line, SSTI to SN-S
In addition, approximately 6.4km of control/power cable and 10.6km

of communications cable would be installed with this case.
5.4.3 OPEX
Case 3 OPEX profile is summarized on both real 2011 dollar and

nominal dollar bases below. OPEX for this case, like Case 2, is
substantially higher than Case 1 because the South platform here is
manned and is of higher complexity than that in Case 1.

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.0 $0.0

2014 $0.0 $0.0
2015 $9.5 $10.5
2016 $16.8 $19.0
2017 $17.4 $20.2
2018 $17.4 $20.7
2019 $15.7 $19.1
2020 $15.7 $19.6
2021 $15.7 $20.1
2022 $14.9 $19.5
2023* $12.4 $16.7
Total $135.4 $165.3
The Case 3 drilling CAPEX profile is summarized below. This

investment phasing was developed specifically to match the project
execution schedule for Case 3. Details are given in Appendix 7.
Drilling costs for this option are higher than that for Case 1 as this case
involves drilling and temporarily abandoning, then tieing-back and
completing wells on the Su Tu Nau South CPP; this is a consequence
of the float-over configuration selected for the SN-S platform.

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.0 $0.0
2014 $149.0 $151.9
2015 $157.7 $164.8
2016 $209.6 $224.5
2017 $65.2 $71.6
Total $581.5 $612.9
5.5 Case 4, Two WHP Development and Relocate FPSO TVBN to SN

Field
5.5.1 Description and Discussion
This case is addressed only because it was raised by PetroVietnam

staff in 2009 as a potential development scenario. Refer to Figure 5.4,
below.
In this scenario the FPSO would be relocated for use in the Su Tu Nau
field, and the field would be developed with two unmanned wellhead
platforms similar in configuration to those in the other cases. Dead oil
and fuel gas would be pipelined from the Su Tu Vang CPP to the new
FPSO location.
The wellhead platforms would be unmanned and equipped with

production, test, injection water and lift gas manifolds, and configured
similar to WHP-A with test and production separators. Production
from each platform will be pipelined to the FPSO through separate LP

Figure 5.4
Field Layout, Case 4: Dual WHP Development with Relocated FPSO
6.625" x 3.2km FPSO to
SN-N
SN-N lift gas pipeline
WHP
SN-N water injection line 10.750" x 3.2km SN-N to
FPSO LP Gas return line
10.750" x 3.2km SN-N to
FPSO insulated liquid line
SN-S lift gas pipeline
6.625" x 3.2km FPSO to 3.2km FPSO to SN-N Power &
SN-S water injection line Communications Umbilical
10.750" x 3.2km SN-S to FPSO

FPSO LP Gas return line
SN-S 10.750" x 3.2km SN-S to FPSO
WHP insulated liquid line
3.2km FPSO to SN-N Power &
6.625" x 12.1km fuel gas

supply pipeline
14.000" x 23.4km
CPP to FPSO
insulated dry oil
pipeline
SDNE
WHP-B

24.000" OD x 22.500" ID x 7,679m lg

16.000" OD x 14.126" ID x 13,317m lg.
10.750" OD x 9.750" ID x
6,863m lg.

SDSW
8.625" OD x 7.875" ID x 2,400m long (to PLEM) Lift Gas
WHP-A
Dry Oil to FPSO

SSTI-4 @ 583m 12.750" OD x 12.000" ID x
from WHP-A. 6,540m lg CPP to SSTI-3 Lift Gas to SSTI-2
Liquid Line (Reconfigured) 10.750" OD x 9.750" ID x

24.000" OD x 22.500" ID x 7,498 m L.
Dry Oil to FSO

Note: This diagram depicts the Su Tu Nau Field 12.750" OD x 12.000" ID x 2,482m FSO Queensway
Development with the Block 15-1 Pipeline Su Tu Vang lg CPP to FSO PLEM Released
CPP
Gas and Liquid pipelines, and lift gas and injection water would be
supplied from the FPSO. Power will be generated on and supplied by
cable to the WHP’s from the FPSO.
There are several challenges associated with relocating the FPSO

TVBN, including the following:

• The draft and hull design of the FPSO TVBN are such that it
cannot be relocated to the Su Tu Nau area without modifications.
The water depth in the Northern part of Block 15-1 is 40m or less,
and relocating the vessel to that location would cause interference
between the hull and mooring chains. This would require the
vessel to be dry docked for modification of the hull bow chamfer to
a shallower angle. This will be a major hull modification and will
reduce the oil storage capacity of the FPSO.
• The estimated duration to remove, modify, and re-install the FPSO
TVBN in the Su Tu Nau field area is 106 days at a cost of
$55.6MM (see Appendix 4, Attachment A4-9).
• The FPSO turret and swivel will need to be modified to
accommodate the additional 6” fuel gas supply and 14” dry oil
pipeline from the CPP, plus power/communications cables to the
two new Su Tu Nau platforms.
• Included in the scope will be the procurement and replacement of
the four flexible risers as well as new piles and mooring chains and
PLEMS.
• If Case 4 were selected, the FPSO should be drydocked and
modified before the FSO Queensway is released in Q4 2013 in
order to minimize field downtime. In this scenario, the WHP-A
would be out of service for 106 days but the remainder of the
Block would be able to produce and sell oil through the FSO
Queensway. Production impairment due to the 106 day shut-in of
WHP-A is estimated at 1.39mmbo, or 3,821 BOPD in 2013.
• In addition to issues with the FPSO, several pipelines including
two major lines would need to be installed. A 6” x 12.1km fuel gas
supply line will need to be installed between a sub-sea connection
and the FPSO. Su Tu Nau does not produce adequate associated
gas to supply internal fuel needs, thus the supplemental pipeline
will be required to fuel the FPSO.
• The second major line is the 14” x 23.4km dry oil pipeline which
will transport all dry oil from the Su Tu Vang CPP to the FPSO for
storage. This line will need to be heavily insulated and will require
continuous treating with pour point depressant to prevent gelling
during a prolonged shutdown, resulting in increased OPEX of over
$2MM per year, in addition to logistical issues of transporting and
lifting the volume of chemical involved..
• Finally, implementing this option eliminates the possibility of
using the vessel as an FSO and thus reducing costs. This case
could lead to a premature abandonment of Block 15-1 as a
consequence of high operating costs.
Case 4 is not a favored development option simply because relocating

the FPSO increases both operating costs and operational risk while
providing no material benefit to Block 15-1 operations.

The Case 4 development consists of two four-pile wellhead platforms

linked by pipeline to the FPSO, relocated to the center of the Su Tu
Nau field.

Deck Installation Method Lift Lift
Configuration 4-pile battered 4-pile battered
Jacket Installation Method Lift Lift
The Case 4 PMT and infrastructure CAPEX are shown below. The
nominal infrastructure portion of this case is exceeds $1,025MM.
PMT/PPO Cost ($MM/Yr) Infrastructure CAPEX ($MM/Yr)
Year Real Dollar Nominal Real Dollar 2011 Nominal
2011 Basis Basis Basis Basis
2011 $5.0 $5.0 $0.8 $0.8
2012 $12.2 $12.5 $22.3 $23.2
2013 $19.6 $20.6 $191.2 $210.3
2014 $24.0 $25.9 $486.3 $547.0
2015 $20.6 $22.7 $134.4 $154.1
2016 $3.2 $3.6 $0.0 $0.0
Total $84.7 $90.4 $835.1 $935.4
Approximately 61.1km of new pipeline is required for this

development case:
- 6” nom. x 3.2km FPSO to SN-S water injection line.
- 6” nom. x 3.2km FPSO to SN-N water injection line.
- 6” nom. x 3.2km FPSO to SN-S lift gas line.
- 6” nom. x 3.2km FPSO to SN-N lift gas line.
- 10” nom. x 3.2km SN-S to FPSO LP Gas line
- 10” nom. x 3.2km SN-N to FPSO LP Gas line
- 10” nom. x 3.2km SN-S to FPSO insulated produced liquid line
- 10” nom. x 3.2km SN-N to FPSO insulated produced liquid line
- 6” nom. x 12.1km SSTI to FPSO fuel gas supply line.
- 14” nom. x 23.4km SV CPP to FPSO insulated dry oil line.
In addition, approximately 6.4km of control/power cable would be

installed with this case.
5.5.3 OPEX
The forecast OPEX profile for Case 4 is summarized below. Details of

the OPEX estimate are given in Appendix 5.

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.6 $0.6
2014 $1.3 $1.4

2015 $6.6 $7.2
2016 $9.3 $10.5
2017 $9.6 $11.1
2018 $9.3 $11.1
2019 $8.4 $10.2
2020 $8.3 $10.3
2021 $8.2 $10.4
2022 $7.7 $10.1
2023* $6.6 $8.9
Total $75.7 $91.9
The Drilling CAPEX profile specific to this development case is

summarized below. Details of the plan are shown in Appendix 7.

($MM/Yr) ($MM/Yr)
2013 $0.0 $0.0
2014 $131.9 $134.5
2015 $158.7 $165.8
2016 $209.6 $224.5
2017 $28.8 $31.6
Total $529.0 $556.5
5.6 Case 5, Subsea Development
A subsea development was considered as a way to potentially develop a

portion of or the entire Su Tu Nau field. CLJOC initially considered
using a wellhead platform in the South area of the field combined with a
subsea template in the North area. The North would be tied back to the
South via pipeline and utilize well test and metering facilities on the
North platform.
Detailed discussion progressed with multiple subsea equipment and

service providers in an attempt to obtain order of magnitude estimates
for the subsea portion of such a development.
After several months of discussions and presentations, all of the subsea

equipment and service providers engaged here indicated that CLJOC
should not pursue a subsea development because subsea developments in
shallow water with more than 3 or 4 wells are generally uneconomic.
Their recommendation was to use a wellhead platform instead of a
subsea development.
Based on this position from all of the reputable subsea providers

consulted, CLJOC elected to drop this alternative from further
consideration.

6.0 Qualitative Risk Evaluation
The strengths, benefits and risks associated with each case proposed in this
study are summarized below.
Each of the concepts evaluated in this study were qualitatively assessed using
the five major evaluation criteria defined in Chapter 3 above. Table 6.1 below
shows the qualitative risk evaluation for the cases considered in this study.
Table 6-1
Relative Weighted Risk Score for Su Tu Nau Concepts
Relative Risk Ranking
Evaluation Criteria Case 1, Case 2, Case 3, Case 4,
Weighting
Two CPP w/ CPP w/ Two
WHP’s Bstr Lift WHP’s,
Comp. + Comp. + Relocate
WHP WHP FPSO
Schedule Risk – Ability to 25% 3 8 8 9
Achieve 2014 First Oil
Technical Risk (Flow 20% 6 4 4 9
Assurance)
Design & Execution Simplicity 20% 2 8 8 6
& Flexibility
Minimum CAPEX 25% 3 9 9 6
Minimum OPEX 10% 1 9 9 3
Weighted Composite Risk Rank 3.20 7.55 7.55 7.05
Un-weighted Composite Risk Rank 3.00 7.60 7.60 6.60
Each major evaluation criteria was given a weighting reflecting a relative level
of importance. For example, the ability to achieve 2014 first oil and minimum
CAPEX were deemed to be the most important, and these risks were weighted
25% each. Technical Risk and Design/Execution Simplicity & Flexibility
were deemed of equal importance, but somewhat less so than schedule risk
and CAPEX. Consequently these were each weighted at 20%. Finally,
minimizing OPEX was deemed critical, but somewhat less so than the other
criteria and was thus assigned a 10% weighting.
After the risk weighting is established for each of the five evaluation criteria,
each case is compared against the others on each evaluation criteria, and a
relative risk value is assigned. Lower numbers reflect lower relative risk, and
the lowest score is the best score. The highest score is the poorest, or least
favorable, score.
For example, Case 1 has a high probability of being able to achieve first oil in
2014, with the only major risk being delays in the approval process. However,
due to the complexity and need for long lead equipment such as gas
compressors and turbine-generators, it is highly unlikely cases 2 and 3 can
achieve 2014 first oil. Finally, Case 4 is viewed as less likely than cases 2 and
3 to be able to achieve 2014 first oil due to uncertainties and risks associated
with dry-docking and modifying the bow chamfer on the FPSO.

Similar comparisons were made for technical risk. Cases 2 and 3 have a lower
technical risk than case 1 at the cost of high facility complexity, CAPEX and
operating costs. Case 4 carries the highest technical risk due to the fact that a
14” pipeline will have to be continuously treated with pour point depressant
chemical if this case is implemented.
Case 1 is far and away the simplest design, and lends itself to a “design one,
build many” philosophy as, if the metering issues can be worked out with the
Unit partners and a multiphase metering solution be selected, the two
platforms would be nearly identical. In cases 2 and 3 the North and South
platforms are dissimilar and require completely independent designs. Case 4
involves the FPSO modifications and thus ranks lower than Case 1.
For CAPEX and OPEX, the cases are simply ranked according to their relative
costs against one another. Case 1 has the lowest CAPEX and OPEX of all
cases; Cases 2 and 3 have the highest CAPEX and OPEX, and these values are
nearly identical (thus the same ranking). Case 4 falls between Case 1 and
Cases 2 and 3.
Finally, the risk ranking for each evaluation criteria is multiplied by the
weighting assigned to each criterion, and the product is summed up for all
criteria for a given case. This results in the weighted composite risk rank for
each case. In addition, the un-weighted (or equally weighted) composite risk
rank is also shown, which is simply the average of the relative risk rank of
each criterion for a given case.
From this analysis we conclude that Case 1 - Dual Wellhead Platform

Development, is by far the lowest risk development scenario considered here,
both on a weighted and un-weighted basis.
7.0 Economic Analysis
This economic analysis is performed on a Gross Basis. While Gross, PVEP

and Foreign Party Interest values are shown in this section, no effort was made
to split the value between Block 15-1 partners and other potential Unit
partners. While a tentative agreement has been reached on the equity split
between Block 15-1 and non-Block 15-1 partners in the Su Tu Nau field, this
was not accounted for as 1) the agreement is not finalized, and 2) the Unitized
interest split is not relevant to making the development decision. As such, the
development recommendation will be made on a Gross Basis.
The economic analysis for the Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study was
performed using the ConocoPhillips Economic Model. This was done since
no CLJOC economist was available to run this analysis using the CLJOC
economic model.
Appendix 9 contains calculation details from the economic model for the
Gross, PVEP and Foreign Parties analysis. Appendix 10 contains input files
with all relevant information required for the individual CLJOC Partners to

run in their proprietary economic models. This information combined with
historical cost and production data and the respective partner’s view of future
Block 15-1 costs will be sufficient to make a thorough incremental economic
analysis of the Su Tu Nau opportunity.
The general basis used for the economics include the following parameters:
• Oil price in accordance with the Purvin & Gertz Minas Price forecast from
November 2010, provided in Appendix 8 of this report.
• Baseline Block 15-1 production profiles from the latest approved Block
15-1 Field Development Plan.
• 61mmboe EUR and 92mmboe EUR profiles as provided CLJOC Sub-
Surface, and a nominal 45mmboe EUR profile fabricated by CLJOC
Development group for the sole purpose of a downside sensitivity
comparison in this analysis.
• Discount rate of 10%.
• All analyses shown here are incremental to the baseline Block 15-1
production and investment profile containing Su Tu Den Southwest, Su Tu
Vang, Su Tu Den Northeast, Su Tu Trang LTPTP and Reconfiguration
Project.
7.1 Results
7.1.1 P50 Analysis, Measures of Merit
Table 7.1 below shows the measures of merit for all cases considered
here on a Gross, PVEP Interest and Foreign Party Interest basis.
Reserves, CAPEX and OPEX are also shown for each case considered.
Case 1 is clearly the best economic solution for developing the Su Tu

Nau field. This case recovers slightly more oil than all other cases and
has the lowest CAPEX and OPEX of all the cases considered, and can
achieve first oil 9 months faster than all other cases.
The Case 1 Development Plan has a Gross NPV10 of $2,047.5MM at

an AARR of 72.5% and a PI of 4.68. The project will pay out in 4.5
years. The Gross NPV10 of cases 2, 3 and 4 are in the range of
$1,660MM-$1,678MM range with AARR’s ranging from 55.1% to
56.4%. Cash PI’s range from 3.14 to 3.23 with an expected payout of
5.5 years for each case
Similarly, the PVEP share and FP share NPV10 is maximized by

implementing Case 1. Case 1 also has further upside potential through
cost reductions associated with replacing the allocation separator and
metering system with individual multiphase flow meters on individual
well flow lines.

Table 7.1
Measures of Merit for P50 Economic Analysis
Su Tu Nau Concept Development Cases
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Reserves, Costs & Timing
Reserves, MMBOE 60.4 59.9 59.9 58.5
Fac/PMT CAPEX $774.8 $1,080.9 $1,084.7 $1,025.8
($MM)
Drilling CAPEX ($MM) $545.7 $612.9 $612.9 $556.5
Dev’ment CAPEX $1,320.4 $1,693.8 $1,697.5 $1,582.3
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) $73.8 $166.3 $165.3 $91.9
First Production Date Q4 2014 Q3 2015 Q3 2015 Q3 2015
Gross Project
NPV@10% ($MM) $2,047.5 $1,662.2 $1,659.9 $1,677.9
AARR (%) 72.5% 56.4% 56.2% 55.1%
Cash PI @10% 4.68 3.23 3.22 3.14
Breakeven (Yrs) 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
PVEP Share (incl. Gov’t)
NPV@10% ($MM) $1,657.8 $1,370.6 $1,369.1 $1,377.7
AARR (%) 92.9% 71.8% 71.5% 68.9%
Cash PI @10% 6.80 4.31 4.29 4.08
Breakeven (Yrs) 4.3 5.2 5.2 5.3
Foreign Parties Share
NPV@10% ($MM) $389.7 $291.6 $290.8 $300.2
AARR (%) 42.2% 32.1% 31.9% 32.5%
Cash PI @10% 2.44 1.87 1.87 1.89
Breakeven (Yrs) 4.9 6.1 6.1 6.1
7.2 Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed on each case using a consistent

basis across all cases. Table 7.2 below describes the scenario and
parameter used with each Variable evaluated.
Table 7.2
Description of Sensitivity Analysis and Parameters Utilized
Variable Value Assigned Scenario Definition
Downside Mid Upside Downside Mid Upside
Production/ 45mmboe 61mmboe 92mmboe Poor SSF Base SSF Upside
Reserves (EUR) Performance Case Case
Minas Oil Price $63.16 $80.58 $100.06 Low Price Expected High Price
(2011 Price) Scenario Price Scenario
Facility CAPEX +40% 0% -25% Appropriate Base Appropriate
ROU for Estimate ROU for
defined scope defined scope
Drilling CAPEX +50% 0% -33% 27 wells 18 wells 12 wells
OPEX +40% 0% -25% Appropriate Base Appropriate
ROU for Estimate ROU for
defined scope defined scope
First Oil Date* Q3 2015 Q4 2014 N/A Approval Base Not Possible
Delays Schedule

As described above, the production/reserves variable for the mid- and
high cases were provided by CLJOC Subsurface; the downside case
was generated by the CLJOC Development Group for the sole purpose
of this analysis, and was taken as 75% of the mid case. The oil price
range is taken from the Purvin & Gertz price forecast.
The facility CAPEX and OPEX ranges of +40%/-25% are industry

standard range of uncertainties used in this type of analysis given the
current level of project definition. The Drilling CAPEX range of
+50%/-33% around the base case represents 18 wells in the base case
and 27 wells in the high case (per CLJOC Subsurface Group).
Finally, the first oil date sensitivity was performed on case 1 only, and
it was simulated as a delay in production from Q4 2014 to Q3 2015,
representing a delay in the project approval process. The complexity
of cases 2, 3 and 4 precludes the possibility of first oil in 2014 in those
cases; if delayed, first oil for cases 2, 3 and 4 could slip into 2016.
7.2.1 Sensitivity Analysis, Case 1
Table 7.3 below summarizes the sensitivity analysis for Case 1, Two
Wellhead Platform Development Case. The table shows the sensitivity
range to NPV10 and the range of uncertainty used for each variable.
Data shown in Table 7.3 is on a Gross Project, PVEP Interest
(Including Government) and Foreign Parties Interest.
Table 7.3
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis, Case 1
Gross Project, PVEP Interest (Incl. Gov’t.) and Foreign Parties Interest
NPV10 ($MM) Parameter
Gross Project
Plow P50 Phigh Plow P50 Phigh
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $1,280.5 $2047.5 $3,454.8 45.3 60.4 92.1
Minas Oil Price, $/bbl $964.6 $2047.5 $3,080.8 $63.16 $80.58 $100.06
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $1,812.7 $2047.5 $2,194.3 $1,084.7 $774.8 $581.1
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $1,868.8 $2047.5 $2,166.5 $818.5 $545.7 $364.0
OPEX ($MM) $2,034.4 $2047.5 $2,055.7 $103.3 $73.8 $55.4
Delay $1,932.2 $2047.5 N/A 7/1/15 10/1/14 N/A
PVEP Interest (Incl. Gov’t)
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $1,062.9 $1,657.8 $2,756.3 24.5 32.7 50.0
Minas Oil Price, $/bbl $879.1 $1,657.8 $2,449.1 $63.16 $80.58 $100.06
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $1,498.9 $1,657.8 $1,758.9 $542.3 $387.4 $290.5
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $1,532.4 $1,657.8 $1,743.0 $409.3 $272.8 $182.0
OPEX ($MM) $1,648.1 $1,657.8 $1,663.9 $51.7 $3,6.9 $27.7
Delay $1,557.8 $1,657.8 N/A 7/1/15 10/1/14 N/A
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $217.5 $389.7 $698.5 20.8 27.7 42.2
Minas Oil Price, $/bbl $85.2 $389.7 $631.7 $63.16 $80.58 $100.06
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $313.8 $389.7 $435.4 $542.3 $387.4 $290.5
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $336.5 $389.7 $423.5 $409.3 $272.8 $182.0
OPEX ($MM) $386.3 $389.7 $391.7 $51.7 $36.9 $27.7
Delay $374.4 $389.7 N/A 7/1/15 10/1/14 N/A

The various party interests are shown graphically below in Figures 7.1-
1, 7.1-2 and 7.1-3, respectively. Note the delay case presented here
assumes the project approvals are delayed early in the process and first
oil is delayed from early Q4 2014 to early Q3 2015.
Figure 7.1-1
Case 1 - Two WHP 2014 First Oil Target – Gross Project
Sensitivity Analysis - Su Tu Nau Concept Selection
P50 NPV10 = $2,047MM
60.4 mmboe
Prod/Reserves
$3,455
(mmboe EUR) 45.3 mmboe $1,280 92.1 mmboe
$80.58
Minas Oil Price
($/bbl Q4 2010) $63.16 $965 $3,081 $100.06
Facility CAPEX
+40.0%
($MM) $1,813 $2,194 -25.0%
Drilling CAPEX
+50.0%
($MM) $1,869 $2,166 -33.0%
OPEX ($MM) +40.0%

-25.0%
$2,034 $2,056
Timing Mid-Year 2015

$1,932
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000

Upside Downside

Figure 7.1-2
Case 1 - Two WHP 2014 First Oil Target – PVEP Interest (incl Gov’t)
P50 NPV10 = $1,658MM
32.7 mmboe
Prod/Reserves 24.5 mmboe $1,063
(mmboe EUR) $2,756 50.0 mmboe
$80.58
Minas Oil Price
($/bbl Q4 2010) $63.16 $879 $2,449 $100.06
Facility CAPEX
($MM) +40.0% $1,499 $1,759 -25.0%
Drilling CAPEX
+50.0% $1,532 $1,743 -33.0%
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $1,648 $1,664 -25.0%
Timing Mid-Year 2015 $1,558
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
Upside Downside
Figure 7.1-3
Case 1 - Two WHP 2014 First Oil Target – Foreign Party Interest
P50 NPV10 = $390MM
27.7 mmboe
Prod/Reserves 20.8 mmboe 42.2 mmboe
(mmboe EUR) $218 $699
$80.58
Minas Oil Price
$63.16 $85 $632 $100.06
($/bbl Q4 2010)
Facility CAPEX +40.0% $314 $435 -25.0%

($MM)
Drilling CAPEX
+50.0% $336 $424 -33.0%
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $386 $392 -25.0%
Timing Mid-Year 2015 $374
($100) $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900
Upside Downside

Table 7.4 below summarizes the sensitivity analysis for Case 2, Small
CPP with Booster Gas Compression plus Wellhead Platform
Development Case.
The table shows the sensitivity range to NPV10 of all variables

considered, and the range of uncertainty utilized for each respective
variable. Data shown in Table 7.4 is on a Gross Project, PVEP Interest
4, 7.1-5 and 7.1-6, respectively.
No sensitivity analysis to project timing was performed on this case, as

the nature and complexity of the equipment on this facility precludes
the possibility of 2014 first oil. If approval delays were to occur on in
this scenario, first oil could be delayed into 2016.
Table 7.4
Gross Project
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $937.4 $1,662.2 $2,960.7 44.9 59.9 90.2
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $1,360.3 $1,662.2 $1,850.9 $1,513.3 $1,080.9 $810.7
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $1,477.4 $1,662.2 $1,785.3 $459.6 $612.9 $408.4
OPEX ($MM) $1,633.7 $1,662.2 $1,680.1 $232.8 $166.3 $124.7
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $814.7 $1,370.6 $2,381.6 24.3 32.4 48.9
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $1,173.6 $1,370.6 $1,498.3 $756.6 $540.5 $405.3
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $1,245.0 $1,370.6 $1,456.5 $540.5 $306.4 $204.4
OPEX ($MM) $1,349.7 $1,370.6 $1,383.8 $116.4 $83.1 $62.4
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $122.7 $291.6 $579.1 20.6 27.5 41.3
Minas Oil Price, $/bbl ($62.2) $291.6 $537.0 $63.16 $80.58 $100.06
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $186.6 $291.6 $352.7 $756.6 $540.5 $405.3
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $232.5 $291.6 $328.8 $540.5 $306.4 $204.4
OPEX ($MM) $284.0 $291.6 $296.3 $116.4 $83.1 $62.4

Figure 7.1-4
Case 2 – CPP/BGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – Gross Project
P50 NPV10 = $1,662MM
59.9 mmboe
Prod/Reserves
(mmboe EUR) 44.9 mmboe $937 $2,961 90.2 mmboe
$80.58
Minas Oil Price
$2,976
($/bbl Q4 2010) $63.16 $613 $100.06
Facility CAPEX
+40.0% $1,360 $1,851 -25.0%
($MM)
Drilling CAPEX $1,477 $1,785

+50.0% -33.0%
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $1,634 $1,680

-25.0%
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500

Upside Downside
Figure 7.1-5
Case 2 – CPP/BGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – PVEP Interest (incl Gov’t)
P50 NPV10 = $1,371MM
32.4 mmboe
Prod/Reserves 24.3 mmboe $815 $2,382 48.9 mmboe

(mmboe EUR)
$80.58
Minas Oil Price

$63.16 $676 $2,139 $100.06
($/bbl Q4 2010)
Facility CAPEX
($MM) +40.0% $1,174 $1,498 -25.0%
Drilling CAPEX
+50.0% $1,245 $1,457 -33.0%
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $1,350 $1,384 -25.0%
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
Upside Downside

Figure 7.1-6
Case 2 – CPP/BGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – Foreign Party Interest
P50 NPV10 = $292MM
27.5 mmboe
Prod/Reserves 20.6 mmboe $123 $579 41.3 mmboe

(mmboe EUR)
$80.58
Minas Oil Price

($/bbl Q4 2010) $63.16 ($62) $537 $100.06
Facility CAPEX $187 $353

($MM) +40.0% -25.0%
Drilling CAPEX
($MM) +50.0% $232 $329 -33.0%
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $284

$296 -25.0%
($200) ($100) $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800
Upside Downside
Table 7.5 below summarizes the sensitivity analysis for Case 3, Small
CPP with Lift Gas Compression plus Wellhead Platform Development
Case.

No sensitivity analysis to project timing was performed on this case, as

the nature and complexity of the equipment on this facility precludes
the possibility of 2014 first oil. If approval delays were to occur on in
this scenario, first oil could be delayed into 2016.

Table 7.5
Gross Project
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $935.1 $1,659.9 $2,958.3 44.9 59.9 90.2
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $1,356.6 $1,659.9 $1,849.3 $1,518.5 $1,084.7 $813.5
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $1,475.1 $1,659.9 $1,782.9 $919.3 $612.9 $408.8
OPEX ($MM) $1,631.5 $1,659.9 $1,677.6 $231.5 $165.3 $124.0
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $813.3 $1,369.1 $2,380.0 24.3 32.4 48.9
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $1,171.5 $1,369.1 $1,497.2 $759.3 $542.3 $406.7
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $1,243.5 $1,369.1 $1,454.9 $459.6 $306.4 $204.4
OPEX ($MM) $1,348.3 $1,369.1 $1,382.1 $115.7 $82.7 $62.0
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $121.8 $290.8 $578.3 20.6 27.5 41.3
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $185.3 $290.8 $352.1 $759.3 $542.3 $406.7
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $231.6 $290.8 $328.0 $459.6 $306.4 $204.4
OPEX ($MM) $283.2 $290.8 $295.5 $115.7 $82.7 $62.0
Figure 7.1-7
Case 3 – CPP/LGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – Gross Project
P50 NPV10 = $1,660MM
59.9 mmboe
Prod/Reserves
$80.58
Minas Oil Price
$2,674
($/bbl Q4 2010) $63.16 $611 $100.06
Facility CAPEX
+40.0% $1,357 $1,849 -25.0%
($MM)

+50.0% -33.0%
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $1,631 $1,678

-25.0%
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500

Upside Downside

Figure 7.1-8
Case 3 – CPP/LGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – PVEP Interest (incl Gov’t)
P50 NPV10 = $1,369MM
32.4 mmboe

(mmboe EUR)
$80.58
Minas Oil Price

$63.16 $674 $2,138 $100.06
($/bbl Q4 2010)
Facility CAPEX
($MM) +40.0% $1,171 $1,497 -25.0%
Drilling CAPEX
+50.0% $1,243 $1,455 -33.0%
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $1,348 $1,382 -25.0%
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
Upside Downside
Figure 7.1-9
Case 3 – CPP/LGC+WHP 2015 First Oil – Foreign Party Interest
P50 NPV10 = $291MM
27.5 mmboe

(mmboe EUR)
$80.58
Minas Oil Price

($/bbl Q4 2010) $63.16 ($63) $536 $100.06

($MM) +40.0% -25.0%
Drilling CAPEX
($MM) +50.0% $232 $328 -33.0%
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $283 $295 -25.0%
($200) ($100) $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800
Upside Downside

Table 7.6 below summarizes the sensitivity analysis for Case 4, Two
Wellhead Platform Development with the FPSO Relocated to the Su
Tu Nau Field.

No sensitivity analysis to project timing was performed on this case,

since this alternative offers no benefit, and in fact increases operational
risks as outlined above.
Table 7.6
Gross Project
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $952.6 $1,677.9 $2,976.8 43.5 58.5 88.8
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $1,393.3 $1,677.9 $1,855.8 $1,436.2 $1,025.8 $769.4
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $1,509.0 $1,677.9 $1,790.4 $834.7 $556.5 $371.2
OPEX ($MM) $1,661.7 $1,677.9 $1,688.0 $128.6 $91.9 $68.9
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $819.4 $1,377.7 $2,389.9 24.5 31.7 48.1
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $1,189.9 $1,377.7 $1,498.8 $718.1 $512.9 $384.7
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $1,261.7 $1,377.7 $1,456.8 $417.3 $278.2 $185.6
OPEX ($MM) $1,365.9 $1,377.7 $1,385.1 $64.3 $45.9 $34.4
Prod./Resvs, MMBOE $133.3 $300.2 $586.9 20.0 26.8 40.7
Fac. CAPEX ($MM) $203.3 $300.2 $357.0 $718.1 $512.9 $384.7
Drlg CAPEX ($MM) $247.3 $300.2 $333.6 $417.3 $278.2 $185.6
OPEX ($MM) $295.8 $300.2 $302.9 $64.3 $45.9 $34.4

Figure 7.1-10
Case 4 – Two WHP+FPSO Relocation, 2015 First Oil – Gross Project
P50 NPV10 = $1,678MM
58.5 mmboe
Prod/Reserves
$80.58
Minas Oil Price
$2,668
($/bbl Q4 2010) $63.16 $654 $100.06
Facility CAPEX
+40.0% $1,393 $1,856 -25.0%
($MM)

+50.0% -33.0%
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $1,662 $1,688

-25.0%
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500

Upside Downside
Figure 7.1-11
Case 4 – Two WHP+FPSO Relocation, 2015 – PVEP Interest (incl Gov’t)
P50 NPV10 = $1,378MM
31.7 mmboe
(mmboe EUR)
$80.58
Minas Oil Price

$63.16 $686 $2,130 $100.06
($/bbl Q4 2010)
Facility CAPEX
($MM) +40.0% $1,190 $1,499 -25.0%
Drilling CAPEX
+50.0% $1,262 $1,457 -33.0%
($MM)
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $1,366 $1,385 -25.0%
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
Upside Downside

Figure 7.-12
Case 4 – Two WHP+FPSO Relocation, 2015– Foreign Party Interest
P50 NPV10 = $300MM
26.8 mmboe

(mmboe EUR)
$80.58
Minas Oil Price
($/bbl Q4 2010) $63.16 ($32) $538 $100.06

($MM) +40.0% -25.0%
Drilling CAPEX
($MM) +50.0% $247 $334 -33.0%
OPEX ($MM) +40.0% $296 $303 -25.0%
($200) ($100) $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800
Upside Downside

2006-0000-0K-0001, SN Concept Selection Study, Rev A

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2006-0000-0K-0001, SN Concept Selection Study, Rev A

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Su Tu Nau Field Development

Su Tu Nau Field Development

Concept Selection Study

30 Jun 2011 A Report Issue CAR CAR

1.0 Executive Summary & Recommendation...........................................................3

Table 1.1 Summary of Costs and Configuration for Options Considered

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 1 of 45

Figure 2.1 Block 15-1 Location Map

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 2 of 45

CLJOC performed a study to evaluate multiple development concepts for the

Case 1: Two Wellhead Platforms, target 2014 first oil.

CLJOC recommends proceeding with Case 1, Two Wellhead Platform

The total estimated Case 1 development CAPEX is $1,320.5MM, nearly 30%

Economic Measures of Merit (EMOM) for Case 1 are (gross basis):

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 3 of 45

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 4 of 45

In addition, the economic analysis shown above demonstrates Case 1 to be the

Finally, Case 1 offers the potential to further reduce costs by utilizing

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 5 of 45

A Pre-Unitization agreement has been negotiated between all parties and

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 6 of 45

The purpose of this study is to analyze and review a variety of development

4.0 Basis of Analysis

4.1 General Assumptions & Comments

The general assumptions used in analyzing the various concepts

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 7 of 45

4.2 Technical Analysis Basis

1. The field will be developed using two platforms, which are

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 8 of 45

4.3 CAPEX Assumptions

The capital cost estimates shown in Appendices 1-4 were developed

A unique estimate of Owners Project Management Team Costs and

The project CAPEX estimate, along with Project Management Team

4.4 OPEX Assumptions

The Operating Cost forecasts developed here are incremental to the

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 9 of 45

OPEX for the Wellhead Platform component of each development is

4.5 Production Profiles

4.5.1 Su Tu Nau Profiles

Su Tu Nau field production profiles were provided by the

For the purposes of the sensitivity analysis in this study only,

The development group subsequently made two adjustments to

4.5.2 Baseline Block 15-1 Profiles

The Baseline Block 15-1 Production Profile is shown in

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 10 of 45

Appendix 6 contains the detailed Su Tu Nau Production

4.6 Drilling CAPEX

The drilling CAPEX was estimated by the CLJOC drilling department

The Drilling Engineer developed a cost estimate for “typical” short,

The mudline suspend/tie-back/recomplete configuration was necessary

In accordance with the philosophy developed here to minimize

The well cost breakdown, including the phasing of the drilling

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 11 of 45

Option 1 is the technically simplest alternative. Options 2 and 3 were

Case 5 considered the use of a subsea development. This was investigated at a

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 12 of 45

5.1 Case 1, Two Wellhead Platforms, 2014 First Oil

5.1.1 Description & Discussion

Figure 5.1 below is a schematic of Block 15-1 after the Su Tu Nau

This development option consists of installing two unmanned wellhead

The Su Tu Nau North (SN-N) and Su Tu Nau South (SN-S) platforms

Su Tu Nau Concept Selection Study Page 13 of 45

12.750" x 6.4km insulated

18.000" x 10.6km insulated