Group K Final

REPORT
EVALUATING TECHNO-ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF

MODULE 4-MARLIM SUL FIELD, BRAZIL
[27/04/2011]
KRUDE Consultants Inc.

Athanasios Chatzisterkotis
Byongug Jeong
Ehab Alshareef
Ranjan Naik
Vijay Bhargavan
Report
Page |2
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4
2.
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 5
3.
Field Description ......................................................................................................... 6
3.1
Geographical Location ................................................................................................ 6
3.2
Weather Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6
3.3
Geotechnical Characteristic......................................................................................... 7
3.4
Reservoir Properties .................................................................................................... 7
4.
Technical proposal ...................................................................................................... 8
4.1
Objective ..................................................................................................................... 8
4.2
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 8
Factors Affecting the Various Development Phases ................................................. 10
5.1
The Exploration Phase .............................................................................................. 10
5.2
The Appraisal Phase .................................................................................................. 10
5.3
The Production Phase ................................................................................................ 11
5.4
The De-Commissioning Phase .................................................................................. 12
Technological Solutions ............................................................................................ 13
6.1
3D/4D Surveying....................................................................................................... 13
6.2
Extended well Test (EWTs) ...................................................................................... 14
6.3
Electrical Submersible Pumps ................................................................................... 14
6.4
Heavy Oil Processing ................................................................................................ 15
6.5
Crude Oil Pumping Systems ..................................................................................... 17
6.6
Stern Offloading System ........................................................................................... 17
6.7
Taut Leg Mooring System......................................................................................... 18
6.8
Pressure Maintenance: (Water Alternate Gas) WAG ............................................... 19
Project Strategy & Work Schedule ........................................................................... 20
7.1
Subsea Layout for Fields Development ................................................................... 22
7.2
Production Platform Details ...................................................................................... 23
7.3
Top Side Processing Facilities .................................................................................. 24
7.4
Project Schedule ........................................................................................................ 25
27/04/2011
Report
Page |3
7.5
Equipment Maintenance Schedule ............................................................................ 26
Political, Socio-Economic Consideration ................................................................. 27
8.1
Political background .................................................................................................. 27
8.2
Monopoly of Petrobras .............................................................................................. 28
8.3
Enhanced Safety Regulations .................................................................................... 29
Environmental Considerations .................................................................................. 30
9.1
Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 30
9.2
Environmental Policies of the Brazilian Government............................................... 30
10
Financial and Economic Overview ........................................................................... 33
10.1 General Data .............................................................................................................. 33

10.2 Feasibility Study........................................................................................................ 36
10.2.1 Scenario 1: Offloading to Existing Network via Pipelines ....................................... 37
10.2.2 Scenario 2 : Offloading to Shuttle Tankers Using CALM BUOY ........................... 39
10.2.3 Scenario 3 : Offloading by Aft Reel System on FPSO To Shuttle Tanker (Oil) &
Gas via Pipeline to Network ................................................................................................ 41
10.3 Uncertainty Consideration......................................................................................... 45
10.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 48
11
Decommissioning ...................................................................................................... 51
11.1 Regulation and Authority .......................................................................................... 52

12
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 53
13
Project Future priorities ............................................................................................. 54
14
References ................................................................................................................. 55
15
Appendix ................................................................................................................... 58
27/04/2011
Report
1.
Page |4
Introduction
The place of Oil & Gas in the worlds economy is ever on the increase as the present day
civilization largely depends on oil/gas for its everyday needs; as it is responsible for over
80% of the global industrial energy requirement. In recent years, oil & gas consumption has
skyrocketed unprecedentedly. In the International Energy Outlook 2010, world marketed
energy consumption increases by 49 percent from 2007 to 2035. Total energy demand in the
non-OECD countries increases by 84 percent, compared with an increase of 14 percent in the
OECD countries (IEO, 2010).
According to some current estimates, much of the so-called easy oil usually meaning
conventional resources onshore, in shallow water and in benign environments offshore has
already been found, and much has already been produced. At the same time, as stated earlier
the worlds demand for energy continues to grow. As a result of this expected growing
energy gap, new areas for exploration and production are increasingly being considered,
including deeper water and harsher environments. Another reason for growing interest in new
offshore areas is technology breakthroughs, including improvements in sub-salt seismic
imaging for deepwater and improved Health Safety Environment (HSE) measures for harsh
environments. Regardless of geographic area, deepwater exploration and production requires
technology investments, including floating facilities with appropriate riser and mooring
systems. Operations in harsh environments require investments to ensure regularity of
production, with design for HSE.
This report prepared by team KRUDE as consultants to WB and the IMF, attempts to
examine in detail the techno-economical potential for field development of offshore oil & gas
in the Module 4 of Marlim Sul Field, Campos Basin, Brazilian offshore region of the golden
triangle; within the associated activities of exploratory, production, transportation and
offshore support infrastructure phases. Basic considerations are also given on the economic,
environmental, socio/political as well as offshore safety issues. Working with the available
data & information received from the exploratory team, it seems obvious that the Brazilian
sector of the Campos basin has a lot to offer potential investors. Currently the basin accounts
for 85% of the Brazilian national oil production. Petrobras invested 67% of E&P budget from
2006-2010 in development of this basin (Silvestre et al, 2009). Petrobras is also the sole
operator for the Marlim Sul field.
27/04/2011
Report
2.
Page |5
Executive Summary
This report is commissioned to examine in detail the techno-economical potential for field
development of offshore oil & gas in the Module 4 of Marlim Sul Field, Campos Basin,
Brazil, including project design and management, planning and environmental management.
The paramount objective of KRUDE is to facilitate oil extraction from the sea bed in the most
economical and environmentally friendly way. It involves:
Identifying technical challenges in the various E&P phases.
Provide solutions to overcome them.
Study and analysis of various production scenarios.
Conducting cost analysis of the feasible scenarios and their comparison.
KRUDE identified that the main focus while providing technical solutions to the challenges
should be in the production phase of the field development programme. Also the
technological solutions proposed are currently under R&D and serves the purpose efficiently
in the ultra deep waters of the Campos Basin.
KRUDE has managed to make the methodology as foolproof as possible. In order to
determine the cost effectiveness of the venture, KRUDE has done a thorough comparison and
feasibility study between 3 possible scenarios. All scenarios have identical definition but
differ only in the following manner,
1. Offloading Oil to Existing Network via Pipelines.
2. Offloading Oil to Shuttle Tankers Using CALM Buoy.
3. Offloading Oil by Aft Reel System on FPSO to Shuttle Tanker & Gas via Pipeline to
Network.
From the feasibility study and the cost analysis conducted, KRUDE came to a conclusion that
Offloading Oil by Aft Reel System on FPSO to Shuttle Tanker & Gas via Pipeline to
Network would be the most fruitful option. The net profit expected from the venture is
expected to be $109,785,464,401 and with highest NPV, provided the oil prices maintain an
upward trend.
KRUDE then performed an uncertainty analysis considering decreasing trend for oil prices
and decrease in reservoir capacity for scenario 3. It was observed that the venture will retain
satisfactory net profits and NPV. All the calculation details can be found in the appendices.
27/04/2011
Report
3.
Field Description
3.1
Geographical Location
Page |6
Marlim Sul field is one of the lucrative fields located in the Campos basin, 140kms off the
northern coast of the Rio de Janeiro state in Brazil and is expected to reach its peak oil
production capacity of 390,000 bopd and compress 6 billion cubic meters of gas by 2013.
Module 4, which is currently in the exploration stage, is located south east of the field in
water depths of more than 2000 meters and well test results show that 13-17 API heavy oil is
expected from turbidite reservoirs .
Figure 3.1: Field Location
3.2
Weather Conditions
The following characterization of the region can be made in terms of its oceanic water
masses;
1. Temperature , 28C >T >20C,
2. Salinity, 36.4 >S >34.6, (in practical units) is observed in the surface layers.
3. Wind Speed, 1.5m/s <WS < 5.5 m/s (Bentz et al, 2004).
4. Significant Wave Height, Hs=5.7m (One-year Return)
5. Current Speed, U< 2m/s
27/04/2011
Report
3.3
Page |7
Geotechnical Characteristic
The geotechnical characteristic of the seabed comprises of soft, lightly over consolidated, fine
grained sediments, located on the lower continental slope where seafloor gradient is relatively
high (>10 degrees) with low sea bed temperatures typically around 4C (Mastrangelo et al,
2003) .
3.4
Reservoir Properties
Figure 3.1: Reservoir Properties

The reservoirs are shallow (< 5000m), which results in low reservoir temperatures, between
40 and 60C. The rock is usually unconsolidated sandstone, with high permeability, which
may compensate the high oil viscosity (13-17 API, 400cp), in terms of well productivities.
The field has turbidite reservoirs with good lateral continuity, relative scarce gas content, and
favourable characteristics of relative permeability. Small numbers of mostly horizontal wells,
with well spacing typically greater than 800-1,000m are expected. It is estimated that, for the
low API oil, temperatures between 120C and 150C would be required for the gravitational
separation and even higher for the electrostatic separation.
27/04/2011
Report
4.
Technical proposal
4.1
Objective
Page |8
A huge investment is involved in the development of the Module 4 of the Marlim Sul field.
The paramount fact here would be to make this investment fruitful and make sure that it is
carried out in the most cost-efficient manner.
KRUDE will initially conduct a review of the:
1. Technical challenges in the various E&P phases
2. Provide solutions to overcome them.
3. While doing so technical, political, social and environmental factors will also be
considered.
4. Various production scenarios will be studied and analyzed.
5. Cost analysis of feasible scenario will be conducted and compared.
6. Conclude by identifying and proposing the most technically feasible and cost effective
solution to be used in the Module 4 of Marlim Sul field development programme.
4.2
Methodology
The team KRUDE will start with identifying the technological challenges that could be faced
in processing the unconventional oil or heavy oil. The main focus while providing technical
solutions to the challenges would be in the production phase of the field development
programme. The use of horizontal drilling and artificial subsea pumping devises has been
studied for pilot projects; the team will study its suitability for module 4.
In the Campos basin, FPSOs have been widely used. The advantages of such an approach
are that ships are readily available for conversions, low CAPEX and ease of modifications.
The team will highlight the use of FPSO design developed by Petrobras for the Campos
basin. P-57 FPSO, which is based on this design, is currently operational in the neighbouring
Jubarte field. We will also study the FPSO used in the Siri Pilot project producing oil similar
to Module 4.This approach is necessary so as to combine the advantages of the two FPSOs
with respect to production and storage capacity of P-57 and heavy oil processing capability of
Siri Pilot project FPSO.
The production profile and number of wells for the subsea layout will be obtained from the
use of IHS Que$tor software and arrangements in the neighbouring modules.
27/04/2011
Report
Page |9
In terms of mooring systems, we will focus on the effectiveness of Taut Leg Mooring System
developed by Petrobras. Generally spread mooring has been used for production platforms in
Marlim Sul.
We will also study the technical and cost advantages of the use of shuttle tanker using stern
offloading system and evaluate its suitability for offloading operations in Module-4 and
networking solutions with the other production facilities within the field.
Economic maximization, production optimization, least CAPEX & OPEX requirements,
equipments reliability based maintenance approach; technical, environmental and political
issues are the cardinal focus of the project. Great emphasis will have to be laid on flow
assurance, heat management, separation process and impact on the environment. Assessment
of exploration and production options will primarily be based on technical feasibility. For
field development planning, reserves management, well planning, production logging and
most importantly production optimization with respect to field life, the approach shall be
examined in the course of this project for optimum production. Other aspects have also been
considered,
including
constructability,
capital
costs,
environmental
considerations,
operations, maintenance and repair, abandonment and decommissioning.

The cost and feasibility study will be performed for the use of FPSO, production scenarios
and available offloading options using IHS Que$tor software and cash flow analysis.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 10
Factors Affecting the Various Development Phases
The following potential factors have been identified, associated with each development Phase
of the project along with possible solutions depending on available R&D
5.1
The Exploration Phase
Activities during the exploration phase include seismic surveys, testing, and exploratory
drilling. Accurate data collected in this phase will benefit the development of the field.
Neighbouring modules indicates that the Module 4 lies in water depth of 2000 meters or more
and horizontal and high angle wells could be drilled into poorly consolidated reservoirs.The
subsurface terrain is uncertain and identifying the reservoirs properties accurately will be a
challenge.
Using latest technologies such as 3D/4D surveying available on Fugro-Geoteams flagship Cclass vessel Geo Carribean could be employed to obtain accurate reservoir data and with
presently developed software to provide a better human interface. The technology of 4D
seismic is expected to help the mapping of water paths, supporting future operations of
drilling (Bruhn et al, 2003).
It is worth mentioning that, for offshore heavy oil fields, the Value of Information of an
Extended Well Tests (EWT) is, in general, very high. EWTs are used to evaluate productivity
and characteristics of a reservoir. Clearly understanding the reservoir's potential helps
operators reduce risks. The EWT allows anticipating most of the production problems
formation damage mechanisms, artificial lift performance, processing plant performance, oil
storage, offloading and transportation. However, the logistics to perform a EWT, in
deepwater, may be very complex (Pinto et al, 2003).
5.2
The Appraisal Phase
validating the reservoirs geological and reservoir model obtained during the exploration
phase is crucial in this phase .In some cases it is necessary to evaluate the necessity of drilling
a horizontal well in the appraisal phase, to guarantee that a minimum productivity will be
reached, allowing the objectives of the well test to be achieved. Latest technological
advancement in horizontal drilling and Solid expandable technology in well design and
construction is aimed at improving drilling efficiency and enhancing evaluation, completion
and long term productivity .this innovative technology will provide more well bore room,
thus enabling use of logging tools, seismic profiling and enhance core operations. The data
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 11
acquired from these will help evaluate the well for development activities and determine
strategies.
5.3
The Production Phase
Large volumes of heavy (13-17API) and high viscosity (20-400 cp at the reservoir
conditions) oil have been found in the deep and ultra-deep water Campos Basin and
preliminary study predict the same for Module 4. The economic oil production from these
accumulations relies on a group of new production technologies including mainly long
horizontal or multilateral wells producing with high power Electrical Submersible Pumps
(ESPs), hydraulic pumps or submarine multiphase pumps (SMPs) to compensate the decrease
in productivity caused by the high oil viscosity. Efficient heat management systems, compact
oil-water separation systems, pumping and off loading systems on board FPSO are currently
being developed for heavy oils (Bruhn et al, 2003).
An alternative technology to cold recovery is also under R&D. The technology is designed to
extract heavy oil from formations such as tar/oil sands with a calculated recovery of 90% or
more. The process mechanically injects a heated solution delivered deep into the formation
by a proprietary tool that melts the heavy tar oil to a thin viscosity and then extracts it to
heated storage tanks on the surface.
Mooring of FPSO and shuttle tanker is also a key issue that needs to be addressed. The
weather conditions although benign, there is a constant flow of underwater currents. In
addition, the deeper we go, the higher the anchoring radius of conventional mooring pattern,
to face this problem, an alternative concept of mooring system is developed by Petrobras:
The Taut Leg Mooring System with polyester ropes. It provided the reduction of mooring
radius, reduction of installation time and cost (Mastrangelo et al, 2003).
Pressure Maintenance in deepwater projects, due to the intensive investments, oil production
must be high and remain constant during the first years of production. The wells must be
designed to allow high production rates in order to assure high productivity, pressure
maintenance must be efficient. Water injection has been selected in almost all fields of the
Campos basin as the pressure maintenance method, for its simplicity but may be
unfavourable for heavy oil production due to unfavourable mobility ration between the water
and oil phase. The use of polymer flooding and water-alternate gas (WAG) has been studied,
but so far these methods have not been implemented here (Bruhn et al, 2003).
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 12
Successful extended well tests (EWT) performed on the field during the previous stages will
determine the economic viability of this phase.
5.4
The De-Commissioning Phase
At the end of the production life, the project will be decommissioned and abandoned to
restore the site to a safe condition that minimises potential residual environmental impact and
permits reinstatement of activities such as fishing and unhindered navigation at the site. It is
estimated that the project life cycle is of 15 years, after which the FPSO could be dry docked
for future projects or scrapped. The ultimate disposition of the FPSO will depend upon its
condition at the end of the production life and upon the options available for further use.
Though the process facilities of these vessels are generally custom made for a specific
application, other major components including pressure vessels, piping, and equipment that
can be used on similar fields in future applications.
If initially designed with an eye towards an extended life, and the potential for expansion, the
equipment could more easily be converted and moved to another field with similar fluid
characteristics. FPSOs lend themselves readily to such conversions and movements because
of their ship shape. This minimizes the need for offshore work, since the vessels can quickly
travel to conversion yards under their own power and then travel to the new field. By
reducing offshore work, costs are also lowered (Kawase et al, 1997).
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 13
Technological Solutions
6.1
3D/4D Surveying
The extensive use of 3D seismic as a reservoir characterization tool has optimized well
location and allowed the reduction of geological risks. Integration of high-resolution
stratigraphic analysis with 3D seismic inversion, geostatistic (stochastic) simulation of
reservoir properties constrained by seismic, well log and core data, 3D visualization, and
voxel-based automatic interpretation has guided the positioning of horizontal wells through
reservoirs. Additionally, 3D visualization techniques have provided a new environment for
teamwork, where seismic, well log, and core data are interpreted and added to detailed 3D
geological models and, subsequently, to robust reservoir simulation models.
The deepwater subsea wells must be designed to allow high production rates (typically
>10,000-15,000 bopd), with lifetime completions to avoid costly interventions. In order to
assure high productivity, pressure maintenance must be efficient; if water injection is
planned, the hydraulic connectivity between injector and producer wells must be guaranteed
by high-quality 3D seismic, well log correlation, and observed pressure profiles. Detailed
studies have been made in order to define the distribution and number of wells, since the
number of wells strongly affects the net present value of deepwater projects (Bruhn et al,
2003).
Figure 6.1: 3D Reservoir Visualization

Studies are being done to enhance the continuous fluid monitoring of the reservoirs, coupling
the efforts in the 4D area with the new developments aiming the digital field of the future.
4D seismic is envisioned as the technology to reduce the uncertainties in the target oil
location, supporting the expensive subsea well operations.
27/04/2011
Report
6.2
P a g e | 14
Extended well Test (EWTs)
EWTs in offshore fields are the best

way to reduce uncertainties and mitigate
the
risks
before
approving
huge
investments. The stratigraphy of the

Marlim Sul field is complex, which
makes the prediction and identification
of the reservoir compartments important
but difficult tasks. To investigate the
reservoir performance and anticipate
production problems, Extended Well
Tests will be implemented for the field.
The test will also help ascertain the use
of Horizontal wells, Improved Oil
recovery
techniques
(IOR),
flow
assurance techniques, heating systems,

separation and treating systems, etc
(Pinto et al,2003).
Figure 6.2: Decision Tree of a Heavy Oil well Test
6.3
Electrical Submersible Pumps
As the heavy oil wells do not naturally

flow to the surface, efficient down hole
artificial devices ,such as progressive
cavity pump or an electrical submersible
pump(ESP) should be provided (Pinto et
al,2003). ESPs can be used, adding
energy to produced fluids, increasing
flow rates and turning feasible the
production with considerable distances
from
subsea
contributing
wells
for
lower
to
platforms,
capital
and
operational costs and higher recovery

factor (Paulo et al, 2005).
Figure 6.3 External ESP System
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 15
The installation of ESPs inside the production well has a series of disadvantages, besides the
high intervention costs. It blocks the access to the well, requires large holes and casings and
imposes conditions on horizontal well geometry. Also, the annular space is a very valuable
asset, the use of ESP inside the well hinders the alternate use of it, such as cables and lines.
Based on these constraints Petrobras developed and built a system where the ESP is installed
outside the well.
6.4
Heavy Oil Processing
Recent research shows that two new technologies are the most promising for heavy oil
separation: cyclones and electrostatic coalescers. Petrobras is presently taking part in the
R&D of these technologies. For offshore site evaluation of the technologies, P-34 Platform in
Jubarte field has been considered appropriate for testing systems sensitive to heavy oil field
conditions (WPC).
Cyclone Technology- has been famously used more recently for oily water separation with
hydrocyclones. Hydrocyclones, namely de-oilers, have become very popular due to their high
efficiency, compactness and absence of moving parts. Reduced residence time (1 to 2
seconds) and high efficiency (80 to 90%) in the treatment of oily waters with as much as
2,000 ppm of oil gives them a competitive edge when compared to gravity separators (low
efficiency and 5-10 minutes residence time).
Hydrocyclones operate under pressure. Fluid is directed tangentially into the hydrocyclone
Figure 6.4: Hydrocyclone Processing Concept

which causes it to spin. The spinning motion generates strong centrifugal forces which
induces the solid and liquid, or the two immiscible liquids, to separate. The centrifugal force
generated in a hydrocyclone varies over its length, and may reach a maximum of 2000g's.The
heavier phase is forced outward toward the wall of the hydrocyclone tube and this displaces
the lighter phase which migrates toward the center where it forms a core. By controlling the
pressure across the tube the core is forced to flow through the overflow and the heavier solids
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 16
or liquid are directed to the underflow. The result is a process with typically a 2-3 second
retention time. This process provides a simple but effective separator with no moving parts.
Field tests are being conducted to evaluate performance for a wide range of API gravities
(from 13 to 22), water cuts and temperatures. This will allow the determination of the
operational envelop for heavy and extra-heavy crudes (CDS, Statiol, FMC Technologies).
Electrostatic Technology -
Figure 6.5: Electrostatic Processing Concept

Electrostatic
Coalescers
uses
electric fields to promote waterin-oil
droplet
growth
and
emulsion breakdown to facilitate

effective
oil-water
separation.
High voltage power system and

process design results in higher
efficiency, more compact design
and lower high voltage power
consumption.
Figure 6.6: Intermediate separator
Electrostatic Coleascer (Pink)
(Grey),
27/04/2011
Report
6.5
P a g e | 17
Crude Oil Pumping Systems
Conventional pump rooms on FPSO demand significant hull space and structural steel. Its
location at the bottom of the hull requires additional safety and a dedicated bilge system.
These issues and more can be
solved
by
having
submersible
pumps.
Figure 5.7, Illustrates a typical
submersible
pump
arrangement.
The submerged pumping concepts

offers
improved
operational
reliability and eliminates potential

problems with inter tank pipeline
corrosion. The elimination of pipe
lines
penetrating
cargo
tank
bulkheads has benefits of full

isolation of tanks, enabling a
combination
of
tanks
to
be
effectively isolated for gas freeing.

A cost comparison of submersible
pump system showed significant
cost advantage over pump room
Figure 6.7: Submersible Pump
systems. Moreover, it also allows

for direct offloading system using
Hawser reel thus further enabling cost reductions over standard CALM buoy offloading
solution (OE, 2009).
6.6
Stern Offloading System
The stern offloading system is employed in the FPSO Marlim sul. The electro hydraulic
system consists of a mooring line reel for the shuttle tanker and the discharge hose reel.
Advantage of using such a system is that of cost over CALM buoy offloading solution. The
operation of the oil offloading system on the OKHA FSO (which operates offshore
Sakhalin Island) has proven that the reeling / unreeling of a floating offloading hose can be
done in a safe and economical manner. The Gusto Storage Reel can store the hose in two
layers which makes the reel unique. It uses little deck space on a crowded FPSO deck. The
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 18
delivery of this second Hose Reel was extended by the supply of a Mooring Hawser Storage
Reel, also installed on the aft of FPSO Marlim Sul. Both the Hose Reel and Hawser Reel
are connected to the same Hydraulic Power Unit.
Figure 6.8: Stern Offloading System
6.7
Taut Leg Mooring System
As water depth increases, conventional all-steel spread mooring systems show a number of
disadvantages: lower restoring efficiency, a high proportion of tether strength is consumed by
the vertical components of line tension, reduced pay-load of the vessel, large mooring radius
and
sea-floor
Taut
leg
and
footprint.
catenary
mooring systems based on

high efficiency polyester
(PET) fibre rope are very
attractive means of mooring
deep water rigs. Reduced
offset,
tensions,
wave
and
frequency
vertical
component of mooring line

tensions are obtained. Taut
leg systems greatly reduce
sea floor footprint and have
moderate
cost
as
Figure 6.9: Taut Leg Mooring
an
additional advantage.
27/04/2011
Report
6.8
P a g e | 19
Pressure Maintenance: (Water Alternate Gas) WAG
Offshore heavy oil reservoirs are a challenge for operators in Brazil. IOR (Improved Oil
Recovery) and EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) methods hold a key to economic feasibility of
heavy oil production. Chemical composition of the oil (inorganic salt deposition, mainly
Barium and Strontium sulphates and foaming tendency of heavy oil) is the key factor that
dictates the production challenge. Petrobras PRAVAP program has experimented with Water
Alternating Gas (WAG) method of enhancing heavy oil production. As the name implies, the
technique alternates injection of a suitable gaseous solvent and water. The gas serves as a
solvent to reduce the viscosity of the heavy oil while the water helps to push oil to the
producing well. Although the technique has been used to enhance recovery of light oil, WAG
has not yet been used for stimulating heavy oil production.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 20
Project Strategy & Work Schedule
Some of the assumptions made in deriving the project strategy are that on the recoverable oil
reserves. According to Petrobras recoverable oil reserve in Marlim Sul is 2.42 Billion barrels
(OE, 2009) and the major part is in Module 1, 2, 3. If it is assumed that 25% of the reserves
are in Module 4, we could have 700 Million Barrels of reserves as a base case. Economics of
this assumption have been dealt later.
Secondly, it is also assumed that the exploration has already begun and drilling of test wells
and appraisal wells will be completed by 2013 from then on the production will start.
Uncertainty in the reservoir capacity, production rate, and Oil price is a major concern, since
the technology required for heavy oil processing, flow assurance and pressure maintenance in
ultra deep waters is currently being developed for large fields but has proven technology for
marginal fields. This could lead to comparatively higher CAPEX and OPEX costs to
conventional oil field development.
The conceptual study is essential to the development strategy for which a FEED (Front End
Engineering Design) study is carried out. The basic characteristics of the field put into
consideration during FEED include water depth, recoverable reserve, and oil and gas export
routes available, type of platform to be used, reservoir pressure and temperature. Other basic
considerations are as follows:
Decisions on pre-drilling of production wells
Decisions on installation of Production facility
Decision on SURF (Subsea, Umbilical, Riser, Flow line)
Decisions on rating of the Subsea Production/Pumping Systems
Decisions on platform concept (FPSO): Initial production capacity, FPSO production and
storage capacity and field life.
Systems installation strategy: spanning from wellhead, jumpers, manifolds, templates,
flow lines, etc through risers to platform at the surface.

Available research data suggests that FPSO production facility is best suited for the module 4
since FPSOs readily allow for modifications and upgrades of processing facility. The use of
technological solutions mentioned earlier will help to reduce the CAPEX and OPEX
considerably. In the initial planning stage, a financial analysis study will be carried out to
show the feasibility of the entire project. Five production scenarios will be considered to
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 21
understand the economics for the field development plan. Three scenarios consisting of FPSO
and differ only in their offloading systems. Two scenarios highlighting the uncertainty .All 5
scenarios will be modelled in IHS Que$tor Software to obtain production profiles and then
perform Cash flow analysis to get the NPV.
Safety is one of KRUDEs concerns. We plan to apply Safety Management Systems (SMS)
on this venture. SMS will support controlling risk to protect company oil loss, ensure
employees and contractors personnel safety, controlling the effect of the project on the
environment putting in our consideration accidents happened in this field. To ensure this, the
safety regulation proposed by the Brazilian Government will be strictly followed.
Half way through the production phase of the project life cycle a study will be carried out to
decide on FPSO and field decommissioning. Feasibility study of available options will be
carried out later.
27/04/2011
Report
7.1
P a g e | 22
Subsea Layout for Fields Development
The main characteristics of the proposed field data for development are estimated as follows:
(Pinto C., 2003 and IHS Que$tor Software).
Recoverable reserves:
600-700 MMbbl
Expected Field life:
15 years
Oil Quality:
13-17 API, Gravity
Water depth:
2000M-2500M
Reservoir depth:
4000M-5000M (pre salt)
Reservoir thickness:
320-460M
Reservoir pressure:
60 Bar
Reservoir temperature:
40- 60 C
Production wells:
20
Water injection wells:
08
Gas injection wells:
03
Figure 7.1: Field Development Plan
27/04/2011
Report
7.2
P a g e | 23
Production Platform Details
Production Facility proposed for the Module 4 is that of an FPSO. This decision was taken
depending upon the suitability of FPSOBR design by Petrobras which is being specially
designed for operations in the Campos basin.
Also, the recent possibility of KEPPELs Brazilian shipyard BrasFELS to carry out the
conversion to FPSO successfully and provide post production support, thus fulfilling
Brazilian governments requirement to have 68 % local content in its offshore infrastructure,
helps our decision.
Technically, FPSOs with their large displacement can support large topsides hence enabling
subsequent additions for heavy oil processing. For benign environments, FPSOs may be
spread-moored, making very high riser counts possible. Conversions and reuse of the
facilities is also very common, reduced CAPEX and short lead times are advantageous for
early production systems. (OffshoreMarine, Sep-Oct-2010)
350-400 million USD (Data is similar to latest P57 FPSO by Petrobras/BrasFELS)
FPSO- (conversion),
Dimensions:
311m x 56m x 29m
Displacement
260,000 DWT
Production capacity:
180,000 bopd
Processing capacity:
300,000 barrels of liquids per day
Gas Compression
2 Million m3/day (assumption)
Storing capacity
1.6 MMbbl
Offloading:
Oil-to shuttle tanker or nearest production facility via pipeline

Gas- to nearest production facility @25Kms (partly re-injected)
Figure 7.2: FPSO P50/P57 Modularization

27/04/2011
Report
7.3
P a g e | 24
Top Side Processing Facilities
Siri pilot project in the Campos basin has been using FPSO Cidade de Rio das Ostras since
2008. The field has similar oil properties and hence we propose to use similar topside
processing plants. The plant design takes into consideration oil treatment (retention time,
process temperature, equipments and chemicals) and water treatment (flotation, hydro
cyclone, water properties). The processing plant meets the present requirement of 120-140C
operation temperatures making it a feasible choice (Sayd A.D, 2009)
Figure 7.3: Processing Plant Layout
27/04/2011
Report
7.4
P a g e | 25
Project Schedule
See Appendix for Full view:
27/04/2011
Report
7.5
P a g e | 26
Equipment Maintenance Schedule
The maintenance philosophy embraces the following:

Application of Risk Based Inspection to Inspection Planning
Application of Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) to predictive
and preventive maintenance.
Improved safety and quality conditions
Increased capacity and throughput
Reduced equipment downtime
Reduced maintenance cost
PreventiveMaintenanceScheduling
ACTIVITIES
WELLHEADVISUALINSPECTION
CHRISTMASTREEINSPECTION
SUBSEAMANIFOLD
PLEM
FLOWLINEINSPECTION
RISERS
PLET
MOORINGLINES
SPREADMOORING/TAUTMOORINGSYSTEM
FPSOHULLINSPECTION
FPSOBALLASTTANK
PROCESSFACILITIES
SHIPSYSTEMS
VALVES(TOPSIDE)
DEHYDRATIONCOLUMNS/VESSELS
LUBRICTIONCHECKSONTOPSIDEFACILITIES
VIBRATIONCHECKSONTOPSIDEFACILITIES
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Halfyearly
Annually
4years
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Figure 7.4: Preventive Maintenance Scheduling
27/04/2011
Report
Political, Socio-Economic Consideration
8.1
Political background
P a g e | 27
Petrobras, the largest Brazilian state-owned company, has dominated all aspects of Brazil's
oil and gas market from upstream to downstream until 1997, when the government opened
the offshore market to outside competition. Brazil enacted Federal Law No. 9474 to ensure
the flexibility of the state monopoly in the Brazil oil and gas industry. According to the law,
the bidding rounds are the key of the planning of the expansion of the Brazilian oil and
natural gas areas (Jacqueline M, 2007).
Nevertheless, with unstinted support of Brazilian government Petrobras continues to play a
role as the sole operator of most offshore oil and gas projects, with a few international
companies such as Shell, ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron and some Brazil-based companies
such as OGX participating (Silvestre B., 2011 ).
The government issued the proposed regulatory framework to govern development of its presalt fields in August 2009. The framework largely comprises four sections (Staff, 2010).
To establish new Production Share Agreements (PSAs) to exploit the pre-salt reserves, in
contrast with the concession framework used for existing resources.
Petrobras would be the sole operator of each PSA and would hold a minimum 30 percent
stake in the projects.
To establish a new agency, Petrosal, to administer the state's share of each PSA.
To allow the government to capitalize Petrobras by granting it pre-salt oil reserves that are
currently not otherwise licensed.
Under the third piece of legislation, the government would establish a new development fund
to manage government revenues from the pre-salt development. However, these new rules
would not affect existing operators in Brazil (Staff, 2010).
The law also designates a new royalty-payment system and a production-sharing system.
According to this production-sharing pact, companies working in the field will have to pay
the government $8.5 per barrel of oil extracted that means the consortium hands over a
percentage of oil to the Brazilian government (Gordon, 2010). As of 2004, the services
rendered by foreign companies to Brazilian companies, which have already been a taxable
event for the Income Tax (at a tax rate that can vary from 15% to 25%) and CIDE (at a tax
rate of 10%) are currently subject to the following taxes charged on the gross invoiced
amount:
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 28
City Service Tax (ISS), at a maximum tax rate of 5%;

Social Integration Contribution (PIS), at a tax rate of 1.65%,
Social Security Contribution ("COFINS"), at a tax rate of 7.6%. (Knight, 2008)
The Oil Act established a new regulatory framework for the industry and created the National
Petroleum AgencyANP .The new production-sharing regime of ANP fortified a politicallyprotected state capitalism with broad discretionary powers and little transparency. The rules
would also increase the government take of profits from oil production, possibly reducing the
incentive for private companies to participate. In addition, PSA structure proposed in the
legislation would give non-operating partners little influence over project decisions (Ocra
Worlwide, 2009).
All operating decisions, including contracting of personnel, suppliers and service providers,
would be subject to veto by political appointees in a new state company, PetroSal Petrleo,
created to supervise these ventures. The new law makes it mandatory that 68% of the project
content comes from within the local Brazilian market. This creates job opportunities for a
large part of the population.
8.2 Monopoly of Petrobras

The new laws allow Petrobras to take a 30% minimum stake of all exploration blocks in
deep-water areas estimating 149,000 km2. The law also designates Petrobras as the operator
of all projects in the pre-salt region (BanerjiHimadri, 2009), including Marlim Sul.
However, the proposed regulatory framework would have important implications for the
development of Brazil's oil sector. 1) The obligation that would overburden Petrobrass
already stretched manpower, financial and technical capacities. 2) Although competitive
biddings stimulated high production in the past a reinforced Petrobras monopoly would
reduce chances for competition and spreading risk among several companies.
According to Law 7.990/89, in terms of royalty rule, oil producers in Brazil must pay 10
percent of the production value as royalties to different government bodies (FJoana, 2010).
Nonetheless Petrobras won't have to pay the government royalties for producing this oil
(Gordon, 2010). In turn, the rule to distribute royalties from offshore fields was dramatically
simplified. 22% of the second parcel of royalty payments from offshore production is paid to
municipalities located in front of the field.
27/04/2011
Report
8.3
P a g e | 29
Enhanced Safety Regulations
The difficulties of petroleum exploration and production in deep waters were maximized in
April 2010 as the aftermath of the BPs oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The accident resulted
in many political, economic and ecological ramifications, including additional insurance and
credit costs for deep-water operations (Institute, 2011).
According to Petrobras, there were signals of more regulation prior to the spill in the Gulf,
and the inability of BP to stop the spill is likely to only accelerate the regulatory process.
Strengthened safety regulations will have a two-fold potential effect.
Petrobras is currently undertaking a $119 billion exploration and production project, the
largest of its kind. Tighter regulation may slow this project and significantly increase its
costs. Petrobras plans to pay for the project through an extremely large public offering. The
uncertainty and costs surround potential regulation have the potential of negatively impacting
the companys share price and, as a result, the amount of capital the company can be raised
through share offerings.On the other hands, the safety concerns about the deepwater and
ultra-deepwater drilling, as well as the role of the government in the whole process have been
reconsidered by BP incident. It is found in current Brazilian policy that Specialists point out
a few political flaws in what is considered to be the responsibilities of the Brazilian
government (Henriquefd, 2010).
The political challenge Brazil imposes is that the country does not have a National
Contingency Plan for Oil Spills (NCP). Though each platform has a local emergency plan,
the NCP is a national document that would consolidate and specify the duties of the oil
companies and of the government in case of emergencies .Given crimes for oil spilling,
Brazil is not a member in international fund for aid and rehabilitation. Much like in the US,
the Brazilian legislation determines that the responsibility for the environmental damage is
charged on the polluter. In other words, the company should pay for the all the costs to clean
the pollutions and fines.
However, considering BPs inability to deal with the spill,
governments will also have to tackle the accident head-on, since an oil company could not
afford to solve everything without help (Henriquefd, 2010).
27/04/2011
Report
Environmental Considerations
9.1
Environmental Impacts
P a g e | 30
The main concern regarding the environment is associated with the flawless extraction of oil.
Even a slight amount of oil spill can cause vast environmental pollution by affecting the
ecology. The area of the oil well inhabits around 832 species, including more than 200 fish,
200 birds, 100 molluscs, 100 crustaceans, 4 sea turtles, and 29 marine mammals. It includes
the endangered Kemps Ridley turtle, the Green turtle, the Loggerhead turtle, the Hawksbill
turtle, the Leatherback turtles, Dolphins and Whales (Ramires). KRUDE is well aware of the
fact that with the start of the project, the species that live in this area might be under threat
and necessary action will be taken in order to prevent any mishaps. About 10% of marine
pollution is caused by offshore drilling. The adverse affect on the environment if the
extraction technology falters during the project will be massive.
Machines used to clear the site and drill for oil create dust and harmful emissions, including
nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. These emissions reduce air quality, harm plants
and animals and sometimes cause an odour. The physical presence of the FPSO and other
drilling equipments can really disturb the wildlife of the place. (Madison, 2010).
Drilling for oil off shore sometimes causes oil spills, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, the worst in American history. Oil spills pollute the ocean, killing marine wildlife and
vegetation. Spills and pollution can also be caused by ship accidents and improper handling
of oil on land, such as improper disposal of used motor vehicle oil. (Richards, 2010) An oil
spill has such widespread effects throughout an ecosystem that it is impossible for humans to
remedy, although we can attempt to clean up the environment to some extent. Noise pollution
is another concern. Oil drilling produces by products that pollute the environment. These
include produced water, which contains toxins like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons;
greenhouse gases; and toxic metals such as mercury and lead. This is highly harmful to the
environment. (Richards, 2010)
9.2
Environmental Policies of the Brazilian Government
The Oil and Gas Division is one of four divisions within the Brazilian Department of Natural
Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals. The Division of Oil & Gas is the regulatory
authority in Brazil for permitting, drilling, operating, and plugging oil and gas production
wells. The Division implements the Brazilian Oil and Gas Act and enforces standards for the
construction and operation of related production equipment and facilities. (Rosado, 2009)
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 31
Government has imposed certain policies that are mandatory while drilling offshore Brazil.
The Oil and Gas Division of the Office of Mines and Minerals of the Brazilian Department of
Natural Resources regulates oil drilling in Brazil. The Oil and Gas Division sets restrictions
on drilling for responsible development of oil resources in the country without harming
residents and the environment. The Underground Injection Control Program of the Brazilian
Ministry regulates the injection of saltwater into disposal wells in Brazil. When pumped to
the surface, the oil usually contains large amounts of saltwater. This must have proper
disposal so it doesn't contaminate groundwater used for drinking (Hamilton, 2008).
According to the MARPOL 1973/78 Convention, the water that is associated with the oil
produced by the wells is discharged to the sea. The temperature of the cooling water
discharged will be a maximum of 40 degree Celsius. The Brazilian Government has
identified four international standards relating to Oil spill response plans (Mariano, 2007):
International Finance corporation Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines

(December 2000).
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, Contingency

planning for Oil Spills (March 2000).
BS ISO 15544:2000 Petroleum and natural gas industries: Requirements for emergency
response (2000).
International Maritime Organization: Manual on Oil pollution (1995).
Section 610 of the Brazilian Administrative Code regulates contracts for the plugging and
restoration of old oil wells. When a well is no longer commercially productive, its
management must not cause any damage to the environment. This work may include cleanup,
repair or plugging of oil wells. (Rosado, 2009). KRUDE abides by these policies on this
project
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 32
Figure 9.1: Environmental Licensing for E&P projects
27/04/2011
Report
10
P a g e | 33
Financial and Economic Overview
10.1 General Data

The profit from oil production varies depending on oil prices and taxation. The higher oil
prices leads to the more benefit from oil. Otherwise, the higher taxation produces the less
benefit of it. Thus, concise data is essential to evaluate correct results.
1)
Taxation = $8.5 / bbl
According to Global Finance Magazine, in terms of production-sharing pact, companies

working in the field will have to pay the government $8.5 per barrel of oil extracted that
means the consortium hands over a percentage of oil to the Brazilian government (Platt,
2010)
2)
Oil Prices
(1)
Liquid Oil Prices
i)
Historical Trend
Year
1978
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AVR.
Oil
Price
$13.08
$13.58
$18.91
$24.72
$16.22
$14.71
$12.37
$16.63
$19.61
$18.20
$11.76
$17.06
$27.04
$22.74
$23.47
$27.11
$34.64
$49.63
$60.41
$69.04
$95.31
$60.26
$76.81
$107.30
Figure 10.1 Past Oil Prices changes
27/04/2011
Report
ii)
P a g e | 34
Expected Oil Prices Trend
According to EIA2010, future oil prices are projected to a continuous increase to $170.0 as
follow (EIA, 2010).
OilPrices
$/bbl
$126.87
$133.21
$137.21
$141.33
$145.57
$149.93
$154.43
$157.52
$159.09
$160.69
$162.29
$163.92
$164.74
$165.56
$166.39
$167.22
$167.22
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Figure 10.2 Expected Oil Prices changes
(2)
i)
Natural Gas Prices

Historical Trend
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
$1.70
$1.63
$1.73
$2.03
$1.85
$1.55
$2.16
$2.32
$1.95
$2.19
$3.69
$4.01
$2.95
$4.88
$5.45
$7.32
$6.40
$6.26
$7.98
$3.66
2010
$4.16
Figure 10.3 Past NG Prices changes
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 35
ii) Expected NG Prices Trend

The Expected NG Prices are assumed as following the historical trends.
NaturalGas
Year
mmBUT
2011
$4.03
2012
$4.23
2013
$4.44
2014
$4.67
2015
$4.90
2016
$5.14
2017
$5.40
2018
$5.67
2019
$5.95
2020
$5.66
2021
$6.22
2022
$6.84
2023
$7.53
2024
$8.28
2025
$8.32
2026
$7.49
2027
$6.74
3)
Figure 10.4 Future NG Prices changes
Loan Considerations
KRUDE considers that the cash flow initiates in 2011, appraisal phase, by borrowing capital
for investment cost. The loan of each scenario varies equivalent to the initial investment cost.
The payback takes place from 2013, the first year of production, through 10 consecutive
years. According to WHICHWAYTOPAY.COM, The Worlds Price Comparison Website,
developers are required to pay 12% of interest on capital.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 36
10.2 Feasibility Study

KRUDE has to estimate the project profit and expenditures such as operating and capital cost
to decided if the project is economically viable. KRUDE has designed three possible
scenarios of the project to compare amongst each other to determine the economically
feasible option. Additional two scenarios have been considered to determine the economic
viability taking into consideration the uncertainties of crude oil price and estimated oil
reserves.
All Scenarios have the same basic definition as all use FPSO ,20 production wells, 8 water
injection wells, 3 gas injection wells, Subsea cluster layout, and reservoir properties (also see
project proposal) except for the offloading system in their respective cases and were
modelled for optimum production profile, CAPEX and OPEX using IHS Que$tor Software.
1.
Offloading to existing network via pipelines.
2.
Offloading to shuttle tanker via CALM Buoy.
3.
Offloading aft reel system on FPSO (oil) to shuttle tanker and gas via pipeline.
3.1.
Uncertainty: Drop in oil/Gas Prices.
3.2.
Uncertainty: Drop in estimated oil reserves.
FPSO / Production capacity
180,000 bopd
Processing capacity
300,000 barrels of liquids per day
Gas Compression
2 Million m3/day (assumption)
Storing capacity
1.6 MMbbl
Mooring System
Spread Mooring
Recoverable reserves
700 MMbbl
Recoverable reserves
400 MMbbl (considering uncertainty: 3.2 Scenario)
For all scenarios further assumptions have been considered, a liner increase in production
followed by a plateau period and then an exponential reduction of production. Such profiles
are ideal for marginal fields and are adopted from North Sea marginal fields development
technique (Fee D.A et al, 1986).
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 37
10.2.1 Scenario 1: Offloading to Existing Network via Pipelines

Scenerio 1 concideres all basic definitions except that the oil and gas is being offloaded using
25 km of pipeline to the nearest platform, from where oil and gas is further transported using
the existing network.
For daily production,the scenerion conciders 3 years to reach the maximum production rate of
180,000 bopd after which 7 years of pleatau period is assumed,then a steady decline is
observed.
Cost assumtion of the project is showin in the appendix. And the production rate for the
specific scenario is in the following Figure 10.5
Figure 10.5 - Production Rate Scenario 1
The total capital cost assumed for the project is $6,527,211,000.

27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 38
The operating cost for the entire project thus is assumed to be $ 2,505,994,000.
The total cost of the decommissioning $1,623,463,000
Year
Cumulative
Revenue
Revenue
Expenses
Cumulative
Expenses
Net Profit
2011
$7,027,211,000
$7,027,211,000
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$6,527,211,000
2012
$0
$7,027,211,000
$6,527,211,000
$7,027,211,000
$0
2013
$2,918,616,170
$9,945,827,170
$4,104,003,160
$11,131,214,160
-$1,185,386,990
2014
$6,010,488,902
$15,956,316,072
$2,036,567,162
$13,167,781,322
$2,788,534,749
2015
$9,283,400,788
$25,239,716,859
$2,385,599,045
$15,553,380,367
$9,686,336,492
2016
$9,564,157,682
$34,803,874,541
$2,574,252,833
$18,127,633,200
$16,676,241,341
2017
$9,853,450,026
$44,657,324,568
$2,871,833,036
$20,999,466,236
$23,657,858,331
2018
$10,054,248,019
$54,711,572,587
$2,968,513,063
$23,967,979,300
$30,743,593,287
2019
$10,160,011,089
$64,871,583,676
$3,217,247,934
$27,185,227,233
$37,686,356,442
2020
$10,253,388,772
$75,124,972,447
$3,450,212,669
$30,635,439,902
$44,489,532,545
2021
$10,367,639,619
$85,492,612,066
$1,153,923,475
$31,789,363,378
$53,703,248,689
10
2022
$10,484,204,671
$95,976,816,737
$984,138,475
$32,773,501,853
$63,203,314,884
11
2023
$8,640,550,401
$104,617,367,138
$561,949,472
$33,335,451,325
$71,281,915,813
12
2024
$5,749,599,633
$110,366,966,772
$423,717,129
$33,759,168,454
$76,607,798,318
13
2025
$3,819,971,700
$114,186,938,472
$742,275,897
$34,501,444,350
$79,685,494,122
14
2026
$2,533,189,075
$116,720,127,547
$563,141,530
$35,064,585,880
$81,655,541,667
15
2027
$1,671,953,620
$118,392,081,167
$518,620,237
$35,583,206,117
$82,808,875,050
16
2028
$0
$118,392,081,167
$324,692,600
$35,907,898,717
$82,484,182,450
17
2029
$0
$118,392,081,167
$324,692,600
$36,232,591,317
$82,159,489,850
Table 9.6 Net Profit of Scenario 1

As shown the table, KRUDE expects the oil production benefit from the second year (2014).
The final Net profit is estimated to $82,159,489,850 by the year 17th (2029). Decommission
is assumed to be initiated from year 13 to year 17.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 39
10.2.2 Scenario 2 : Offloading to Shuttle Tankers Using CALM Buoy

Scenerio 2 concideres all basic definitions except that the oil and gas is being offloaded to a
shuttle tanker using a CALM buoy
The FPSO is designed to have a storage capacity for 8.5 days. For daily production,the
scenerion conciders 2 years to reach the maximum production rate of 180,000 bopd after
which 7 years of pleatau period is assumed,then a steady decline is observed.

specific scenario is in the following Figure 10.7
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 40
The total capital cost assumed for the project is $ 7,298,115,000.

The operating cost for the entire project thus is assumed to be $ 4,985,443,000
The total cost of the decommissioning $ 1,844,543,000
Year
Cumulative
Revenue
Revenue
Cumulative
Expenses
Expenses
Net Profit
2011
$7,798,115,000
$7,798,115,000
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$7,298,115,000
2012
$0
$7,798,115,000
$7,298,115,000
$7,798,115,000
$0
2013
$2,912,778,584
$10,710,893,584
$6,739,176,144
$14,537,291,144
-$3,826,397,560
2014
$5,998,755,353
$16,709,648,937
$2,267,410,475
$16,804,701,619
-$95,052,682
2015
$9,265,712,463
$25,975,361,400
$2,685,271,327
$19,489,972,946
$6,485,388,454
2016
$9,545,584,941
$35,520,946,342
$2,844,183,601
$22,334,156,547
$13,186,789,795
2017
$9,833,948,649
$45,354,894,991
$3,506,742,748
$25,840,899,295
$19,513,995,696
2018
$10,033,771,573
$55,388,666,564
$3,281,393,192
$29,122,292,487
$26,266,374,077
2019
$10,138,510,820
$65,527,177,383
$3,617,251,410
$32,739,543,897
$32,787,633,487
2020
$10,232,963,516
$75,760,140,900
$3,829,414,093
$36,568,957,990
$39,191,182,910
2021
$10,345,171,838
$86,105,312,738
$1,655,800,712
$38,224,758,702
$47,880,554,037
10
2022
$9,256,797,146
$95,362,109,884
$1,064,740,809
$39,289,499,511
$56,072,610,373
11
2023
$7,257,661,783
$102,619,771,667
$649,413,439
$39,938,912,949
$62,680,858,718
12
2024
$5,690,903,679
$108,310,675,346
$530,630,878
$40,469,543,828
$67,841,131,519
13
2025
$4,456,523,939
$112,767,199,286
$1,253,845,411
$41,723,389,238
$71,043,810,048
14
2026
$3,484,353,501
$116,251,552,787
$739,201,665
$42,462,590,903
$73,788,961,884
15
2027
$2,711,313,127
$118,962,865,914
$743,906,788
$43,206,497,691
$75,756,368,223
16
2028
$0
$118,962,865,914
$368,908,600
$43,575,406,291
$75,387,459,623
17
2029
$0
$118,962,865,914
$368,908,600
$43,944,314,891
$75,018,551,023

The table above describes it is estimated to start to benefit from 3rd year. The final Net profit
is expected to $75,018,551,023 which is $ 7,140,938,827 lower than that of Scenario 1. As
same to Scenario 1, decommission initiates from year 13.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 41
10.2.3 Scenario 3 : Offloading by Aft Reel System on FPSO To Shuttle

Tanker (Oil) & Gas via Pipeline to Network
Scenerio 3 concideres all basic definitions except that the oil is being offloaded to a shuttle
tanker using a Aft Hose reel system mounted on the FPSO and gas is being offloaded using
25 km of pipeline to the nearest platform, from where gas is further transported using the
existing network.
The FPSO is designed to have a storage capacity for 8.5 days. For daily production,the
scenerion conciders 2 years to reach the maximum production rate of 180,000 bopd after
which 7 years of pleatau period is assumed,then a steady decline is observed.
specific scenario is in the following figure 3:
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 42
The Total Capital cost assumed for the project is $ 5,365,123,350.

The Operating Cost for the entire project thus is assumed to be $ 3,725,418,000
The Total Cost of the Decommissioning $ 1,178,161,000
Year
Cumulative
Revenue
Revenue
Expenses
Cumulative
Expenses
Net Profit
2011
$5,865,123,350
$5,865,123,350
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$5,365,123,350
2012
$0
$5,865,123,350
$5,365,123,350
$5,865,123,350
$0
2013
$3,508,569,356
$9,373,692,706
$5,088,683,381
$10,953,806,731
-$1,580,114,026
2014
$7,252,739,327
$16,626,432,032
$1,800,889,542
$12,754,696,274
$3,871,735,758
2015
$11,244,993,425
$27,871,425,457
$2,175,673,683
$14,930,369,956
$12,941,055,501
2016
$11,623,829,951
$39,495,255,408
$2,295,613,960
$17,225,983,916
$22,269,271,492
2017
$12,016,105,909
$51,511,361,317
$2,681,289,230
$19,907,273,146
$31,604,088,170
2018
$12,325,036,696
$63,836,398,012
$2,624,535,933
$22,531,809,079
$41,304,588,933
2019
$12,544,339,199
$76,380,737,211
$2,887,486,720
$25,419,295,799
$50,961,441,412
2020
$12,518,500,476
$88,899,237,688
$3,036,626,162
$28,455,921,961
$60,443,315,727
2021
$12,859,262,494
$101,758,500,182
$1,301,928,040
$29,757,850,001
$72,000,650,181
10
2022
$11,704,303,636
$113,462,803,818
$941,995,138
$30,699,845,139
$82,762,958,679
11
2023
$9,355,468,561
$122,818,272,378
$609,258,439
$31,309,103,577
$91,509,168,801
12
2024
$7,488,975,837
$130,307,248,216
$488,930,878
$31,798,034,455
$98,509,213,760
13
2025
$5,864,587,064
$136,171,835,280
$857,022,011
$32,655,056,466
$103,516,778,814
14
2026
$4,471,800,016
$140,643,635,296
$567,700,265
$33,222,756,731
$107,420,878,565
15
2027
$3,403,789,624
$144,047,424,920
$567,939,388
$33,790,696,119
$110,256,728,801
16
2028
$0
$144,047,424,920
$235,632,200
$34,026,328,319
$110,021,096,601
17
2029
$0
$144,047,424,920
$235,632,200
$34,261,960,519
$109,785,464,401
Figure 10.11 Expenses and Revenues of Scenario 3
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 43
Compared to other two scenarios, Scenario 3 is more lucrative and optimistic. The last year
Net profit is expected to $109,785,464,401 which is $ 27,625,974,551 higher than Scenario 1.
The figure below shows the Net Cash Flow for Scenario 3. KRUDE evaluated 5, 10, 15% of
Net Present Value. The table demonstrates NPV > 0 which means the project is worth
developing.
NCF
DiscountFactor&NPV
DiscountFactor&NPV
DiscountFactor&NPV
Year
NCF
CumulativeNCF
5%
NPV5%
CumulativeNPV
5%
10%
NPV10%
CumulativeNPV
10%
15%
NPV15%
CumulativeNPV
15%
2011
$5,865,123,350
$5,865,123,350
2012
$0
$5,865,123,350
1.000
$0
0.952
$3,341,494,62
4
0.907
$6,578,448,36
9
$9,919,942,993
$19,633,791,10
9
1
2
2013
$3,508,569,356
$9,373,692,706
$16,626,432,032
$0
$3,341,494,624
1.000
$0
0.909
$3,189,608,50
5
$0
0.826
$5,993,999,44
3
$9,183,607,949
0.751
$8,448,529,99
6
$17,632,137,94
5
$3,189,608,505
1.000
$0
$0
0.870
$3,050,929,87
4
$3,050,929,874
0.756
$5,484,112,91
2
$8,535,042,787
0.658
$7,393,765,71
0
$15,928,808,49
7
2014
$7,252,739,327
2015
$11,244,993,42
5
$27,871,425,457
0.864
$9,713,848,11
6
2016
$11,623,829,95
1
$39,495,255,408
0.823
$9,562,953,66
7
$29,196,744,77
6
0.683
$7,939,232,25
9
$25,571,370,20
4
0.572
$6,645,962,50
1
$22,574,770,99
8
2017
$12,016,105,90
9
$51,511,361,317
0.784
$9,414,933,39
9
$38,611,678,17
5
0.621
$7,461,056,37
9
$33,032,426,58
3
0.497
$5,974,128,30
7
$28,548,899,30
5
2018
$12,325,036,69
6
$63,836,398,012
0.746
$9,197,132,14
6
$47,808,810,32
1
0.564
$6,957,161,90
2
$39,989,588,48
5
0.432
$5,328,453,48
4
$33,877,352,78
9
2019
$12,544,339,19
9
$76,380,737,211
0.711
$8,915,027,66
8
$56,723,837,98
9
0.513
$6,437,229,49
8
$46,426,817,98
2
0.376
$4,715,881,74
6
$38,593,234,53
5
2020
$12,518,500,47
6
$88,899,237,688
0.677
$8,473,013,87
6
$65,196,851,86
4
0.467
$5,839,972,86
1
$52,266,790,84
4
0.327
$4,092,320,01
2
$42,685,554,54
7
2021
$12,859,262,49
4
$101,758,500,18
2
0.645
$8,289,195,26
0
$73,486,047,12
4
0.424
$5,453,582,59
8
$57,720,373,44
2
0.284
$3,655,404,97
4
$46,340,959,52
0
1
0
2022
$11,704,303,63
6
$113,462,803,81
8
0.614
$7,185,427,12
5
$80,671,474,25
0
0.386
$4,512,515,72
4
$62,232,889,16
6
0.247
$2,893,124,85
5
$49,234,084,37
5
1
1
2023
$9,355,468,561
$122,818,272,37
8
0.585
$5,469,948,70
7
$86,141,422,95
7
0.350
$3,279,034,65
7
$65,511,923,82
3
0.215
$2,010,894,56
2
$51,244,978,93
7
1
2
2024
$7,488,975,837
$130,307,248,21
6
0.557
$4,170,141,97
0
$90,311,564,92
7
0.319
$2,386,218,49
5
$67,898,142,31
8
0.187
$1,399,743,13
2
$52,644,722,06
9
1
3
2025
$5,864,587,064
$136,171,835,28
0
0.530
$3,110,115,73
3
$93,421,680,66
0
0.290
$1,698,761,97
4
$69,596,904,29
2
0.163
$953,159,352
$53,597,881,42
1
1
4
2026
$4,471,800,016
$140,643,635,29
6
0.505
$2,258,562,88
0
$95,680,243,54
0
0.263
$1,177,564,70
7
$70,774,469,00
0
0.141
$631,993,495
$54,229,874,91
6
1
5
2027
$3,403,789,624
$144,047,424,92
0
0.481
$1,637,281,00
7
$97,317,524,54
7
0.239
$814,840,174
$71,589,309,17
3
0.123
$418,306,974
$54,648,181,89
0
1
6
2028
$0
$144,047,424,92
0
0.458
$0
$97,317,524,54
7
0.218
$0
$71,589,309,17
3
0.107
$0
$54,648,181,89
0
1
7
2029
$0
$144,047,424,92
0
0.436
$0
$97,317,524,54
7
0.198
$0
$71,589,309,17
3
0.093
$0
$54,648,181,89
0
Table 10.12 NCF & NPV of Scenario 3

The relationship between Net Cash Flow and Net Present Values are determined as shown in
the graphs.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 44
Figure 10.13 NCF & NPV diagram for Scenario 3
Figure 10.14 Cumulative NCF & NPV diagram for Scenario 3
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 45
10.3 Uncertainty Consideration

1)
Oil Prices Drop
From the data above, it is obvious that Scenario 3 is the most profitable plan. Oil prices are
the most sensitive value to develop offshore oil field due to the value determines developers
profits. However, oil price is always unpredictable. In case, KRUDE computes Net profit
when oil prices drops to $40.0 / barrel. The prices of NG also follow the same trend of liquid
oil prices.
Year
Oilprice
NGprice
11
$126.87
$4.03
2012
$133.21
$4.23
2013
$106.57
$3.39
2014
$85.26
$2.71
2015
$68.21
$2.17
2016
$54.56
$1.73
2017
$43.65
$1.39
2018
$41.47
$1.32
2019
$41.47
$1.32
2020
$41.47
$1.32
2021
$41.47
$1.25
2022
$41.47
$1.25
2023
$41.68
$1.26
2024
$41.88
$1.26
2025
$42.09
$1.27
2026
2027
$42.30
$42.30
$1.28
$1.28
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Figure 10.15 Oil prices drop diagram in Scenario 3
Cumulative
Revenue
Revenue
$5,865,123,350
$0
$3,301,101,070
$5,281,761,711
$6,338,114,054
$5,070,491,243
$4,056,392,994
$3,853,573,345
$3,853,573,345
$3,853,573,345
$3,819,672,386
$3,380,464,254
$2,647,228,054
$2,073,033,715
$1,623,384,422
$1,271,265,856
$990,570,362
$0
$0
$5,865,123,350
$5,865,123,350
$9,166,224,420
$14,447,986,131
$20,786,100,185
$25,856,591,428
$29,912,984,422
$33,766,557,767
$37,620,131,111
$41,473,704,456
$45,293,376,842
$48,673,841,096
$51,321,069,150
$53,394,102,865
$55,017,487,287
$56,288,753,143
$57,279,323,505
$57,279,323,505
$57,279,323,505
Expenses
$500,000,000
$5,365,123,350
$5,088,683,381
$1,800,889,542
$2,175,673,683
$2,295,613,960
$2,681,289,230
$2,624,535,933
$2,887,486,720
$3,036,626,162
$1,301,928,040
$941,995,138
$609,258,439
$488,930,878
$857,022,011
$567,700,265
$567,939,388
$235,632,200
$235,632,200
Cumulative
Expenses
$500,000,000
$5,865,123,350
$10,953,806,731
$12,754,696,274
$14,930,369,956
$17,225,983,916
$19,907,273,146
$22,531,809,079
$25,419,295,799
$28,455,921,961
$29,757,850,001
$30,699,845,139
$31,309,103,577
$31,798,034,455
$32,655,056,466
$33,222,756,731
$33,790,696,119
$34,026,328,319
$34,261,960,519
NetProfit
$5,365,123,350
$0
$1,787,582,312
$1,693,289,857
$5,855,730,228
$8,630,607,512
$10,005,711,276
$11,234,748,688
$12,200,835,312
$13,017,782,495
$15,535,526,841
$17,973,995,957
$20,011,965,573
$21,596,068,409
$22,362,430,820
$23,065,996,412
$23,488,627,386
$23,252,995,186
$23,017,362,986
Table 10.16 Net Profit in Modified Scenario (3.1)

27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 46
Result
The table above demonstrates Net profit is proportional to oil prices. Considering original
scenario 3, the revised scenario 3 produces only $23,017,362,986. Considering NPV > 0
referredtotheappendix,thoughoilpricesdrasticallydropstheprojectisstillworthdoing.
2)
Oil Production Drop
The other uncertainty is considering the reservoir capacity, in this case it is assumed that the
recoverable reserves in reduced to 400 MMbbl of oil. The number of wells and peak
production rate is kept the same (same as scenario 3). production life has been reduced to 10
years including 3 years to reach a plateau period of 3 years and then an exponential decline.
Figure 10.17 Oil production diagram for Modified Scenario (3.2)
Hydrocarbon
liquids
production
Production
Units
Years
1
10
Daily
Mbbl/day
45.000
90.000
135.000
180.000
180.000
180.000
144.805
92.133
58.621
37.298
Annual
MMbbl/y
r
MMbbl
15.750
31.500
47.250
63.000
63.000
63.000
50.682
32.247
20.517
13.054
15.750
47.250
94.500
157.500
220.500
283.500
334.182
366.428
386.946
400.000
Cumulativ
e
Table 10.18 Liquid Oil production table for Modified Scenario (3.2)
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 47
Gas production
Years
Production
Units
Daily
MMsm/day
Annual
Cumulative
10
0.302
0.605
0.907
1.210
1.210
1.210
0.973
0.619
0.394
0.251
MMsm/yr
105.866
211.732
317.598
423.464
423.464
423.464
340.665
216.751
137.910
87.747
MMsm
105.866
317.598
635.197
1,058.661
1,482.125
1,905.590
2,246.255
2,463.006
2,600.916
2,688.663
Table 10.19 NG production table for Modified Scenario (3.2)
Result
Year
Cumulative
Revenue
Revenue
Expenses
Cumulative
Expenses
NetProfit
2011
$5,768,900,210
$5,768,900,210
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$5,268,900,210
2012
$0
$5,768,900,210
$5,268,900,210
$5,768,900,210
$0
2013
$2,631,427,017
$8,400,327,227
$3,714,898,135
$9,483,798,345
$1,083,471,119
2014
$5,439,554,495
$13,839,881,722
$1,682,524,762
$11,166,323,107
$2,673,558,614
2015
$8,433,745,069
$22,273,626,790
$2,003,764,103
$13,170,087,211
$9,103,539,580
2016
$11,623,829,951
$33,897,456,741
$2,248,129,246
$15,418,216,456
$18,479,240,285
2017
$12,016,105,909
$45,913,562,650
$2,651,914,845
$18,070,131,302
$27,843,431,348
2018
$12,325,036,696
$58,238,599,346
$2,592,313,637
$20,662,444,939
$37,576,154,407
2019
$10,091,555,956
$68,330,155,302
$2,747,378,815
$23,409,823,754
$44,920,331,548
2020
$6,407,624,261
$74,737,779,563
$2,720,736,360
$26,130,560,114
$48,607,219,449
2021
$4,187,889,090
$78,925,668,653
$1,128,709,812
$27,259,269,926
$51,666,398,727
10
2022
$2,740,367,699
$81,666,036,352
$752,547,648
$28,011,817,574
$53,654,218,777
11
2023
$0
$81,666,036,352
$417,688,400
$28,429,505,974
$53,236,530,377
12
2024
$0
$81,666,036,352
$231,905,400
$28,661,411,374
$53,004,624,977
13
2025
$0
$81,666,036,352
$231,905,400
$28,893,316,774
$52,772,719,577
Table 10.20 Net profit for Modified Scenario (3.2)

As the table above shows, Net profit is expected from production year 2 and the final Net
Profit is estimated to $52,772,719,577whichisalmosthalfofScenario3.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 48
Figure 10.21 Revenues and Expenses diagram for Modified Scenario (3.2)
10.5 Conclusion
Approaches to develop Marlim Sul field vary depending on techniques and machineries as
developers choose. KRUDE undertook three feasible scenarios to guide the most lucrative
direction to extract and transport oil and gas from the area.
Scenerio 1 concideres the oil and gas is being offloaded using 25 km of pipeline to the
nearest platform, from where oil and gas is further transported using the existing network. In
Scenerio 2, oil is being offloaded to a shuttle tanker using a CALM buoy and gas is being
offloaded using 25 km of pipeline to the nearest platform, from where gas is further
transported using the existing network. Scenerio 3 concideres that the oil is being offloaded
to a shuttle tanker using a Aft Hose reel system mounted on the FPSO and gas is being
offloaded using 25 km of pipeline to the nearest platform, from where gas is further
transported using the existing network.
Of those Scenarios, KRUDE concludes Scenario 3 is most profitable on the basis of cost
benefit analysis with graphs & tables above.
Nevertheless, profits from oil and gas production are significantly sensitive to oil price
change and the storage of oil and gas is uncertain. As an effort to reduce a risk from those
fluctuations, KRUDE also considered these two uncertainties and re-conducted cost benefit
analysis. In the first case, KRUDE assumed oil price drop to half of current value in 5 years.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 49
In the Second case, KRUDE assumed the oil production finishes in ten years due to less oil
storage than expectation.
Figure 10.22 Overall Cumulative NCF
Figure 10.23 Overall 5% Cumulative

27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 50

The graphs above show Net Present value of each Scenarios. KRUDE evaluated 5,10 and
15% of NPV for each scenarios being aware of decline in market value.
The evaluation shows that the third scenario is most profitable project with highest curves in
all graphs.
In oil prices sensibility, although Net Present Value decreased NPV kept
positive. This demonstrates the project is still productive.

Given oil production drops, KRUDE re-evaluated the NCP as well as NPV. In this case, Net
Profit was confirmed to $52,772,719,577 which is almost half of Scenario 3. However, as
same to oil prices drop, NPV kept positive at the end (See the NCP & NPV appendices).
As shown the diagrams above, it is analysed that Scenario 3 has the highest NCF and NPV in
all cases. Through the project with development Scenario 3, KRUDE expects more than
$140,000,000,000 of NCF at the end of project year. In all Scenarios, NPV is higher than 0
this means all the cases are productive.
27/04/2011
Report
11
P a g e | 51
Decommissioning
Decommissioning and abandonment will be carried out in accordance with the regulations of
the Brazilian government, good practice standards and licence requirements at the time.
KRUDEs plan will include details on all aspects of facility and well decommissioning and
abandonment. The plan will also address issues identified by a health and safety risk
assessment of the decommissioning itself and the abandonment phase for the long term
prospect. Potential environmental and social risks will also be addressed (McGennis
E.,2007).
During the time of abandonment, the following infrastructure is of concern:
FPSO vessel
20 production wells,8 water injection wells,3 gas injection wells
Moorings legs from the FPSO
Subsea Equipment
Risers
Manifolds
Decommissioning simply means uninstalling all the components used in the project. Subsea
facilities above the seafloor will be purged. The flexible risers up to the FPSO will be
detached from the riser bases and recovered by reeling onto a lay vessel. The umbilical will
be recovered to the surface as well as the termination boxes and other subsea control
equipment. All the discharges and waste that is produced during the decommissioning phase
will meet the same discharge criteria like the whole project.
The ultimate disposition of the FPSO will depend upon its condition at the end of the
production life and upon the options available for further use. If the decision is made to
decommission the FPSO, it will be towed from the site to where it will be scrapped.
Depending on the condition of the FPSO it could be refurbished and re-used at another
location worldwide. When the FPSO is decommissioned, some of the materials will be
recycled, such as steel, some materials will be disposed and finally the vessel is broken down
(Jubille field, Tullow Ghana Limited, 2009).
The two most important tips for the operators faced with decommissioning their wells are
listed below:
During the decommissioning procedure, the cement must be kept as deep as possible into
the target areas by using the production tubing if possible.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 52
All the available well data must be examined in advance, for existing information which
will guarantee the best possible resolution in the decommissioning problem.
11.1 Regulation and Authority

The decommissioning process of ships is becoming more complex. In general, all these ships
contain many types of hazardous materials such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead
and cadmium. International conventions pertaining to the decommissioning of oil and gas
projects cover both the removal of installations and disposal of wastes (Dimakopoulos, 2005)
They include:
The United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas, 1982.
The 1989 IMO guidelines on the decommissioning.
The Oslo and Paris Conversion for the Protection of the Marine Environment.
Occupational Safety and Health in the Iron and Steel Industry, 1983
Safety in the Use of Asbestos, 1984
Radiation Protection of Workers (lionising Radiations), 1987
Safety in the Use of Chemicals at Work, 1993
Recording and Notification of Occupational Accidents and Diseases, 1995
27/04/2011
Report
12
P a g e | 53
Conclusion
1. As stated earlier conventional reserves are now getting exhausted and so developing the
fields of unconventional nature hold a great challenge. Module 4 of the Marlim Sul which
has 14-17 API of unconventional oil will require technological solution as that of using
Horizontal drilling, use of artificial pumping devices like ESPs, heating solutions, heavy
oil processing technologies like electrostatic technology or cyclone technology. These
technological solutions and their continuous development hold the key to offshore heavy
oil field development.
2.
It was observed that drilling costs account for 50-60% of the production costs thus
indicating that clear understanding of reservoir properties using latest seismic technology
and the data gathered form EWTs hold the key to successful project planning,
implementation and economics.
3. Brazilian government is dedicated towards its people and their safety and environment.
68% of the infrastructure that will be used in Brazilian oil fields will have to be locally
made, thus generating thousands of jobs. The government is presently considering
passing strict regulations for the offshore oil and gas exploration. New licensing laws and
strict production sharing agreements will have significant effects on the earnings of the
operator.
4. It is possible that the new machineries will cost more thus increase the overall project
costs but it is possible to reduce the CAPEX to some extent by using FPSOs, since they
are readily available for conversions and upgrades. Innovative pumping devices like that
of submerged centrifugal pumps and offloading systems like the aft hawser reel system
for the FPSOs if employed could reduce CAPEX and OPEX.
5. As observed with Module 4 economics, although all production scenarios yielded positive
NPV, team KRUDE will suggest scenario 3: FPSO using aft Hawser Offloading reel, as
the best option for field development having the highest NPV.
6. It was also observed that although uncertainties in the fuel oil price and available oil
reserves exists the venture would still yield profits even if the recoverable reserves was
halved to 400 MMbbl or the crude oil price reduced dramatically to US $40.
27/04/2011
Report
13
P a g e | 54
Project Future priorities
1. The production facilities at Module 4 will require technological innovations or

improvement in the existing ones, because of the unconventional oil properties of the
reservoir. This will add up to the project costs as new sophisticated machineries become
available in the market. Our study does not consider this rise in CAPEX. The IHS
Que$tor software does not show significant difference between CAPEX of 16 API and
25 API oil (difference is 100 million $). Possibility to overrun the budget exists.
2. Successful production procedures at Module 4 will help Petorobras to further develop this
technology to a mature level and economically develop fields having unconventional oil
within Brazilian waters and elsewhere. This will also help other operators around the
world to study this technology and prepare themselves to the challenge of heavy oil
production as convention oil reserves decrease globally.
27/04/2011
Report
14
P a g e | 55
References
1. Bruhn C., Gomes J., Lucchese C. ,Johann P.; 2003. Petrobras E&P, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
OTC 15220, Campos Basin: Reservoir Characterization and Management Historical
Overview and Future Challenges.
2. Pinto C., Branco M. , J.S. de Matos, Vieira P.M., S. da Silva Guedes, Pedroso C., Coelho
D., Ceciliano M.M., 2003. Petrobras S. A.:OTC 15283, Offshore Heavy Oil in Campos
Basin: The Petrobras Experience.
3. Da Costa Fraga C.T., Borges F.A, Bellot. C., Beltro R., M.I. Assayag; 2003; OTC 15219;
Campos Basin - 25 Years of Production and its Contribution to the Oil Industry; Petrleo
Brasileiro S.A
4. Mastrangelo C. F., SPE; Barusco P. J.; Formigli J. M., SPE; Dias R., 2003. Petrobras,
OTC 15224, From Early Production Systems to the Development of Ultra Deepwater Fields
Experience and Critical Issues of Floating Production Units, Petrleo Brasileiro S.A
5. Fukai A.,Alberto C.,Oliveira F.; 2007; OTC 19084; A Vessel Created for Innovation;
Petrobras.
6. Henriques C.C.D, Brandao F.N.;2007; OTC 18681; From P-34 to P-50: FPSO Evolution
7. Santos A.B., Henriques C.C.D,Alvares J.M.H.; 2004; OTC 16705; Improvements
Achieved in the Project of P-50,
8. Salies J. B.; New technologies for field development in 3000m of water depth, Block 1forum 1 paper, Petrobras
9. Alvarado V., Manrique E., 2010; Enhanced Oil Recovery: An Update; Energies 2010, 3,
1529-1575; doi:10.3390/en3091529
10. Silvestre B.,TavaresDalcolP.R.,2009;Geographicalproximityandinnovation:Evidences
From The Campos Basin Oil & Gas Industrial AgglomerationBrazil Technovation 29
(2009) 546561.
11. Kawase M., H. B. Skeels, and P. A. Stemmler, DOT 1997; "Design and Evaluation of
Floating Production Storage Offload (FPSO) Systems for Decommissioning and Reuse
Deep Offshore Technology conference paper.
12. Ithaca Energy (UK) Ltd, October 2010; Environmental statement Athena BW Carmen
FPSO Development,
13. EIA,US ,2010: International Energy Outlook,2010 ,US Energy Information Agency,US
Department of Energy.
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 56
14. F, J. M., 2010; Does Oil Make Leaders Unaccountable? Evidence from brazil's oil shore
oil boom Department of Economics, Pontif cia Universidade Cat olica do Rio de Janeiro
(PUC-Rio). Brazil.
15. Jacqueline M, A. E., 2007; Oil and gas exploration and production activities in Brazil:
The consideration of environmental issues in the bidding rounds promoted by the National
Petroleum Agency,. Energy Policy 35 , 2899-2911.
16. Moritis, G. ,2002; Offshore Abandonment. Oil and Gas Journal .
17. Fee D.A,ODea J.,1986;Technology for Developing Marginal Offshore Fields,Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers.
18. Banerji, H.; 2009 May 04, The Mega Oil Find In Pre Salt Basin Sets Brazil To Change
Oil Exploration Policy. Retrieved April 07, 2011, from Intelligently connection:
http://www.glgroup.com/News/The-Mega-Oil-Find-In-Pre-Salt-Basin-Sets-Brazil-ToChange-Oil-Exploration-Policy-38309.html
19. Ellsworth, B., 2009 July 06 ; ANALYSIS-Congress battle looms in Brazil offshore oil
push. Retrieved April 06, 2011, from ForexPros: http://www.forexpros.com/news/generalnews/analysis-congress-battle-looms-in-brazil-offshore-oil-push-69062
20. Gordon, P., 2010, Oct; Petrobras Sale Clears Way for IPOs. Retrieved April 07,
2011,fromCBSNEWS:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3715/is_201010/ai_n56228092/
21. Henriquefd., 2010, June 18;. Brazil reviews its regulations for offshore drilling because
of
Gulf
of
Mexico
oil
spill.
Retrieved
April
06,
2011,
from
ATS:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread584911/pg1
22. Institute, B.,2011, January 31; Oil in deep waters. Retrieved March 06, 2011, from
BRAZIL PORTAL: http://brazilportal.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/oil-in-deep-waters-2/
23. Marshall, S. G., 2009, July; ANALYSIS-Congress battle looms in Brazil offshore oil
push.
Retrieved
March
06,
2011,
from
FOREXPROS:
http://www.forexpros.com/news/general-news/analysis-congress-battle-looms-in-braziloffshore-oil-push-69062
24. Ocra Worlwide.,2009, September; Investing in South America. Retrieved October 10,
2009,
from
Ocra
Worldwide
website:
http://www.ocra.com/solutions/brazil.asp?LeftFrameName=21&UseReferer=1&referer=inve
st
25. Silvestre, B. S., 2011 March; Petrobras. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras
27/04/2011
Report
P a g e | 57
26. Staff, R., 2010, June; Analysis: Pre-Salt Could Brighten Offshore Brazil. Retrieved April
06, 2011, from Rigzone: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=94647
27. Gray, J.,2007; March. Environmental Impacts of the Decommissioning of Oil and Gas
Installations
in
the
North
Sea.
Retrieved
from
UEA:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e130/cuttings.htm
28. Patin, S. ,2006;. Decommissioning, abandonment and removal off obsolete offshore
installations.
Retrieved
from
Off
shore
Environment:
http://www.offshore-
environment.com/abandonment.html
29. McGennis E.; 2007; Subsea Well Decommissioning Techniques Lower Costs; Petroleum
Africa.
30. Jubille field, Tullow Ghana Limited, [2009], Decommissioning and abandonment,
Environmental
Resources
Management,
Environmental
Impact
Assessment,
http://www.erm.com/Global/Ad_Hoc_Sites/Tullow_Jubilee/UpdateJan2010/Jubilee_Field_EI
A_Chapter_8_23Nov09.pdf?epslanguage=en
31. Dickenson, A.; 2007; Recycling former navy ships in the 21st century. Defence
Magazine , 44-45.
32. Dimakopoulos, S.; 2005; The IMO's work on ship recycling. Recycling of ships & other
marine structures (pp. 7-14). London: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
27/04/2011
Report
15
P a g e | 58
Appendix
27/04/2011
OFFSHORE PROJECT SUMMARY

Scen.1: Offloading by pipelines 25 Km
Latin America
Brazil
Campos Basin
Project name
Region
Country
Basin
Procurement strategy
Offshore
Contingency
Equipment
Materials
Fabrication
Linepipe
Installation
Design & PM
Opex
Certification
Freight
Brazil
S. America
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
S. America
Gulf of Mexico
S. America
S. America
S. America
S. America
S. America
Technical database
S. America
Currency Rate/$
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
Oilfield
Oil
FPSO + Subsea
Unit set
Development type
Development concept
Overall input
Design oil production flowrate
Design associated gas flowrate
Design gross liquids flowrate
Water injection capacity factor
Design water injection flowrate
Design gas injection rate
Gas oil ratio
Design factor
Fluid characteristics
Oil density @ STP
CO2 content
Initial water cut
Production profile characteristics
Plateau rate
Productivity
Peak well flow
Maximum drilling stepout
Export methods
Oil export method
Distance to delivery point
Number of wells
Production wells
Water injection wells
Field level miscellaneous data
Distance to operations base
Maximum ambient temperature
180.00
78.40
200.00
1.10
220.00
78.40
435.00
1.10
Mbbl/day
MMscf/day
Mbbl/day
Mbbl/day
MMscf/day
scf/bbl
16.00 API
0.30 %
10.00 %
180.00
16.00
6.00
3.00
Mbbl/day
MMbbl/well
Mbbl/day
km
via existing production platform

25.00 km
H2S content
Gas molecular weight
Years to plateau
Plateau duration
Field life
Onstream days
Gas export method

Gas injection wells
20
8
175.00
175.00
3.00
35.00
Reserves
Water depth
Reservoir depth
Reservoir pressure
Reservoir length
Reservoir width
km
km
km
C
700.00
2000.00
7000.00
193.00
11.80
4.50
MMbbl
m
m
bara
km
km
0.00 ppm
30.00
2.00
8.00
15.00
350.00
year
year
year
day

20.00 km
Conversion
Today's Price
mmBTU
GJ
GJ
mmBTU
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
1.00
1.05
1.00
26.80
1.00
28.26
NG
4.03
$/mmBTU
NG
142.59
$/1000m
Oil
126.87
$/bbl
Oil
797.99
$/m
Oil bbl
Oil bbl
1.00
158.99
1.00
1,000.00
1.00
6.29
Item
Item
2014 Price
Item
Scenario 1: Offloading to Existing Network

via Pipelines
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
NG
7.00
$/mmBTU
NG
Item
247.67
$/1000m
Oil
85.00
$/bbl
Oil
534.63
$/m
Sensitivity Analysis (Factor for oil price per bbl)
From yr -5 - 1
5.00%
From yr 5 - 6
2.00%
From yr 11 - 14
0.50%
From yr 16 - 20
0.00%
From yr -5 - 3
0.50%
From yr 8
-5.00%
From yr 12 - 13
0.50%
From yr 1 - 5
3.00%
From yr 6 - 10
1.00%
From yr 14 - 16
0.00%
From yr 20
0.00%
From yr 4 - 7
5.00%
From yr 9 -12
10.00%
From yr 14 - 15
-10.00%
Depreciation
750,000
bbl
119,240
Tax
FPSO Capacity
$8.50
Exploreation phase
Production Year
Year
Economic Life
Apprasal phase
-6
-5
-4
-3
2007
2008
2009
2010
Oil price per bbl

NG price per mmBTU
-2
15
years
Start Value
-$7,027,211,000
USD
End of economic life Value
-$2,262,573,870
USD
Production phase
-1
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$126.87
$133.21
$137.21
$141.33
$145.57
$149.93
$154.43
$157.52
$159.09
$160.69
$4.03
$4.05
$4.07
$4.09
$4.11
$4.32
$4.53
$4.76
$5.00
$4.75
Daily liquids productionin bpd (bbl)
60,000
120,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
Yearly Production in bbl
21,000,000
42,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
Gas production mmBTU)
26,118
52,235
78,353
78,353
78,353
78,353
78,353
78,353
Yearly Gas Production
9,141,155
18,282,310
27,423,466
27,423,466
27,423,466
27,423,466
27,423,466
27,423,466
Opening Balance
$0
$6,527,211,000
-$1,185,386,990
$2,788,534,749
$9,686,336,492
$16,676,241,341
$23,657,858,331
$30,743,593,287
$37,686,356,442
$7,027,211,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,918,616,170
$6,010,488,902
$9,283,400,788
$9,564,157,682
$9,853,450,026
$10,054,248,019
$10,160,011,089
$10,253,388,772
$7,027,211,000
$0
$2,918,616,170
$6,010,488,902
$9,283,400,788
$9,564,157,682
$9,853,450,026
$10,054,248,019
$10,160,011,089
$10,253,388,772
-$500,000,000
-$6,527,211,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$234,533,000
-$14,452,000
-$15,661,000
-$17,151,000
-$17,151,000
-$17,151,000
-$17,151,000
-$16,536,000
$0
$0
-$522,543,000
-$33,067,000
-$33,067,000
-$33,067,000
-$33,067,000
-$33,417,000
-$45,986,000
-$33,067,000
$0
$0
-$143,220,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
$0
$0
-$409,380,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
$0
$0
-$305,104,000
$0
$0
$0
-$89,452,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$425,518,000
-$22,545,000
-$22,847,000
-$23,219,000
-$45,582,000
-$23,307,000
-$26,449,000
-$23,066,000
4,152
Loan
$0
Exploration Period
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
Cash Payments
CAPEX
OPEX
Logistics and consumables
Inspection and maintenance
Operating personnel
Insurance
Wells
Exploration Period
Field/ project costs

Tariff costs
$0
$0
-$465,696,000
-$20,930,000
-$41,860,000
-$62,790,000
-$62,790,000
-$62,790,000
-$62,790,000
-$51,685,000
Loan repayments
$0
$0
-$1,101,866,685
-$1,234,090,687
-$1,382,181,569
-$1,548,043,358
-$1,733,808,561
-$1,941,865,588
-$2,174,889,459
-$2,435,876,194
Tax payments
$0
$0
-$178,500,000
-$357,000,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
Depreciation
$0
$0
-$317,642,475
-$317,642,475
-$317,642,475
-$317,642,475
-$317,642,475
-$317,642,475
-$317,642,475
-$317,642,475
Total Payments
-$500,000,000
-$6,527,211,000
-$4,104,003,160
-$2,036,567,162
-$2,385,599,045
-$2,574,252,833
-$2,871,833,036
-$2,968,513,063
-$3,217,247,934
-$3,450,212,669
Cash Book Balance
$6,527,211,000
$0
-$1,185,386,990
$2,788,534,749
$9,686,336,492
$16,676,241,341
$23,657,858,331
$30,743,593,287
$37,686,356,442
$44,489,532,545
$6,527,211,000
-$6,527,211,000
-$1,185,386,990
$3,973,921,739
$6,897,801,743
$6,989,904,849
$6,981,616,990
$7,085,734,956
$6,942,763,155
$6,803,176,103
$6,527,211,000
$0
-$1,185,386,990
$2,788,534,749
$9,686,336,492
$16,676,241,341
$23,657,858,331
$30,743,593,287
$37,686,356,442
$44,489,532,545
Net Cash Flow

Cumulative Net Cash Flow
Exploration Period
Production Year
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$162.29
$163.92
$164.74
$165.56
$166.39
$167.22
$167.22
$5.22
$5.74
$6.32
$6.95
$6.99
$6.29
$5.66
180,000
180,000
147,399
97,443
64,418
42,586
28,153
63,000,000
63,000,000
51,589,820
34,105,192
22,546,388
14,905,051
9,853,487
78,353
78,353
64,162
42,416
28,041
18,537
12,255
27,423,466
27,423,466
22,456,693
14,845,755
9,814,287
6,488,066
4,289,155
$44,489,532,545
$53,703,248,689
$63,203,314,884
$71,281,915,813
$76,607,798,318
$79,685,494,122
$81,655,541,667
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,367,639,619.11
$10,484,204,671.09
$8,640,550,400.76
$5,749,599,633.45
$3,819,971,700.47
$2,533,189,074.94
$1,671,953,619.72
$10,367,639,619
$10,484,204,671
$8,640,550,401
$5,749,599,633
$3,819,971,700
$2,533,189,075
$1,671,953,620
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$15,714,000
-$15,249,000
-$14,977,000
-$14,812,000
-$14,709,000
-$14,644,000
-$14,601,000
-$33,067,000
-$33,067,000
-$33,417,000
-$45,986,000
-$33,067,000
-$33,067,000
-$33,067,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
Year
Oil price per bbl
NG price per mmBTU
Opening Balance
Loan
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
Scenario 1: Offloading to Existing

Network via Pipelines
Cash Payments
Decommision
CAPEX
OPEX
Operating personnel
Insurance
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$27,292,000
-$126,200,000
$0
$0
$0
-$89,452,000
$0
$0
-$54,410,000
-$22,744,000
-$22,763,000
-$25,864,000
-$44,972,000
-$22,593,000
-$22,582,000
-$34,550,000
-$23,096,000
-$15,439,000
-$10,321,000
-$6,899,000
-$4,612,000
-$3,083,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tax payments
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$438,513,472
-$289,894,129
-$191,644,297
-$126,692,930
-$83,754,637
Depreciation
-$317,642,475
-$317,642,475
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$324,692,600
-$324,692,600
-$324,692,600
-$324,692,600
-$324,692,600
Total Payments
-$1,153,923,475
-$984,138,475
-$561,949,472
-$423,717,129
-$742,275,897
-$563,141,530
-$518,620,237
-$324,692,600
-$324,692,600
Cash Book Balance
$53,703,248,689
$63,203,314,884
$71,281,915,813
$76,607,798,318
$79,685,494,122
$81,655,541,667
$82,808,875,050
$82,484,182,450
$82,159,489,850
Net Cash Flow
$9,213,716,144
$9,500,066,196
$8,078,600,929
$5,325,882,505
$3,077,695,804
$1,970,047,545
$1,153,333,383
-$324,692,600
-$324,692,600
$53,703,248,689
$63,203,314,884
$71,281,915,813
$76,607,798,318
$79,685,494,122
$81,655,541,667
$82,808,875,050
$82,484,182,450
$82,159,489,850
Total loan
Payback
Remain
year 1
2011
-$7,027,211,000
$0
-$7,027,211,000
Wells
Tariff costs
Loan repayments
Decommission costs
Survey of the field
-$500,000,000
No. of years
10
Sub total
-$5,498,318,000
Interest Rate
12%
Contengency
-$1,028,893,000
year 2
2012
-$7,870,476,320
$0
-$7,870,476,320
Loan
-$7,027,211,000
year 3
2013
-$8,814,933,478
-$1,101,866,685
-$7,713,066,794
year 4
2014
-$8,638,634,809
-$1,234,090,687
-$7,404,544,122
year 5
2015
-$8,293,089,416
-$1,382,181,569
-$6,910,907,847
year 6
2016
-$7,740,216,789
-$1,548,043,358
-$6,192,173,431
year 7
2017
-$6,935,234,243
-$1,733,808,561
-$5,201,425,682
year 8
2018
-$5,825,596,764
-$1,941,865,588
-$3,883,731,176
year 9
2019
-$4,349,778,917
-$2,174,889,459
-$2,174,889,459
year 10
2020
-$2,435,876,194
-$2,435,876,194
$0
Discount Factor & NPV
5%
NPV 5%
Cumulative NPV 5%
10%
NPV10%
Cumulative NPV 10%
15%
NPV15%
Cumulative NPV 15%
2011
$6,527,211,000
$6,527,211,000
2012
-$6,527,211,000
$0
1.000
-$6,527,211,000
-$6,527,211,000
1.000
-$6,527,211,000
-$6,527,211,000
1.000
-$6,527,211,000
-$6,527,211,000
2013
-$1,185,386,990
-$1,185,386,990
0.952
-$1,128,939,991
-$7,656,150,991
0.909
-$1,077,624,537
-$7,604,835,537
0.870
-$1,030,771,296
-$7,557,982,296
2014
$3,973,921,739
$2,788,534,749
0.907
$3,604,464,163
-$4,051,686,828
0.826
$3,284,232,842
-$4,320,602,694
0.756
$3,004,855,758
-$4,553,126,538
2015
$6,897,801,743
$9,686,336,492
0.864
$5,958,580,493
$1,906,893,665
0.751
$5,182,420,543
$861,817,849
0.658
$4,535,416,614
-$17,709,924
2016
$6,989,904,849
$16,676,241,341
0.823
$5,750,612,018
$7,657,505,682
0.683
$4,774,199,063
$5,636,016,912
0.572
$3,996,500,784
$3,978,790,859
2017
$6,981,616,990
$23,657,858,331
0.784
$5,470,279,596
$13,127,785,279
0.621
$4,335,034,859
$9,971,051,771
0.497
$3,471,097,542
$7,449,888,402
2018
$7,085,734,956
$30,743,593,287
0.746
$5,287,484,521
$18,415,269,799
0.564
$3,999,712,658
$13,970,764,429
0.432
$3,063,358,759
$10,513,247,161
2019
$6,942,763,155
$37,686,356,442
0.711
$4,934,092,154
$23,349,361,953
0.513
$3,562,735,276
$17,533,499,705
0.376
$2,610,041,829
$13,123,288,990
2020
$6,803,176,103
$44,489,532,545
0.677
$4,604,657,373
$27,954,019,326
0.467
$3,173,731,861
$20,707,231,566
0.327
$2,223,970,336
$15,347,259,326
2021
$9,213,716,144
$53,703,248,689
0.645
$5,939,243,578
$33,893,262,904
0.424
$3,907,515,073
$24,614,746,639
0.284
$2,619,113,175
$17,966,372,501
10
2022
$9,500,066,196
$63,203,314,884
0.614
$5,832,216,547
$39,725,479,451
0.386
$3,662,686,771
$28,277,433,410
0.247
$2,348,271,071
$20,314,643,571
11
2023
$8,078,600,929
$71,281,915,813
0.585
$4,723,390,648
$44,448,870,099
0.350
$2,831,500,342
$31,108,933,752
0.215
$1,736,440,519
$22,051,084,090
12
2024
$5,325,882,505
$76,607,798,318
0.557
$2,965,650,663
$47,414,520,762
0.319
$1,696,990,297
$32,805,924,049
0.187
$995,445,521
$23,046,529,611
13
2025
$3,077,695,804
$79,685,494,122
0.530
$1,632,167,796
$49,046,688,558
0.290
$891,498,846
$33,697,422,895
0.163
$500,211,610
$23,546,741,221
14
2026
$1,970,047,545
$81,655,541,667
0.505
$995,007,881
$50,041,696,439
0.263
$518,775,091
$34,216,197,986
0.141
$278,424,176
$23,825,165,397
15
2027
$1,153,333,383
$82,808,875,050
0.481
$554,773,077
$50,596,469,516
0.239
$276,098,842
$34,492,296,828
0.123
$141,738,312
$23,966,903,710
16
2028
-$324,692,600
$82,484,182,450
0.458
-$148,745,421
$50,447,724,095
0.218
-$70,662,570
$34,421,634,258
0.107
-$34,698,200
$23,932,205,510
17
2029
-$324,692,600
$82,159,489,850
0.436
-$141,662,306
$50,306,061,789
0.198
-$64,238,700
$34,357,395,559
0.093
-$30,172,348
$23,902,033,162
Scenario 1: Offloading to
Existing Network via
Culmulative NCF VS NPV

$12,000,000,000
$80,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$70,000,000,000
-
2011
$7,027,211,000
$7,027,211,000
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$6,527,211,000
$60,000,000,000
Cumulative NCF
2012
$0
$7,027,211,000
$6,527,211,000
$7,027,211,000
$0
$50,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV 5%
$40,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV 10%
$6,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV 15%
$4,000,000,000
2013
$2,918,616,170
$9,945,827,170
$4,104,003,160
$11,131,214,160
-$1,185,386,990
2014
$6,010,488,902
$15,956,316,072
$2,036,567,162
$13,167,781,322
$2,788,534,749
$20,000,000,000
2015
$9,283,400,788
$25,239,716,859
$2,385,599,045
$15,553,380,367
$9,686,336,492
$10,000,000,000
2019
$10,160,011,089
$64,871,583,676
$3,217,247,934
$27,185,227,233
$37,686,356,442
2020
$10,253,388,772
$75,124,972,447
$3,450,212,669
$30,635,439,902
$44,489,532,545
2021
$10,367,639,619
$85,492,612,066
$1,153,923,475
$31,789,363,378
$53,703,248,689
10
2022
$10,484,204,671
$95,976,816,737
$984,138,475
$32,773,501,853
$63,203,314,884
$140,000,000,000
Total expenses VS
Revenue
$120,000,000,000
$100,000,000,000
NCF VS NPV
$12,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
Cumulative
Revenue
$8,000,000,000
Cumulative
Expenses
$4,000,000,000
11
2023
$8,640,550,401
$104,617,367,138
$561,949,472
$33,335,451,325
$71,281,915,813
12
2024
$5,749,599,633
$110,366,966,772
$423,717,129
$33,759,168,454
$76,607,798,318
$60,000,000,000
13
2025
$3,819,971,700
$114,186,938,472
$742,275,897
$34,501,444,350
$79,685,494,122
$40,000,000,000
14
2026
$2,533,189,075
$116,720,127,547
$563,141,530
$35,064,585,880
$81,655,541,667
$20,000,000,000
$0
15
2027
$1,671,953,620
$118,392,081,167
$518,620,237
$35,583,206,117
$82,808,875,050
$0
-$2,000,000,000
16
2028
$0
$118,392,081,167
$324,692,600
$35,907,898,717
$82,484,182,450
17
2029
$0
$118,392,081,167
$324,692,600
$36,232,591,317
$82,159,489,850
$80,000,000,000
-$20,000,000,000
2029
Net Profit
NCF
$6,000,000,000
NPV 5%
NPV10%
$2,000,000,000
-$4,000,000,000
-$6,000,000,000
-$8,000,000,000
NPV15%
2029
$30,743,593,287
2027
$23,967,979,300
2027
$2,968,513,063
2025
$54,711,572,587
2025
$10,054,248,019
-$20,000,000,000
2023
2018
$0
2023
-$10,000,000,000
2021
$23,657,858,331
2021
$20,999,466,236
2019
$2,871,833,036
2011
$44,657,324,568
2029
$9,853,450,026
2027
2017
2025
2023
$16,676,241,341
2021
$18,127,633,200
2019
$2,574,252,833
2017
$34,803,874,541
2015
$9,564,157,682
Expenses
$2,000,000,000
2013
2016
Revenue
$0
2011
$30,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
2019
Expenses
$90,000,000,000
Net Profit
2017
Cumulative
2013
Revenue
Expenses
2013
Cumulative
Revenue
2011
Year
Revenue & Expenses
2017
Cumulative NCF
2015
NCF
2015
NCF
Year
Natural Gas
$/bbl
Year
2011
$126.87
2012
$133.21
2013
$137.21
2014
$141.33
2015
$145.57
2016
$149.93
2017
$154.43
2018
$157.52
2019
$159.09
2020
$160.69
2021
$162.29
2022
mmBUT
2011
$4.03
2012
$4.05
2013
$4.07
2014
$4.09
2015
$4.11
2016
$4.32
2017
$4.53
2018
$4.76
2019
$5.00
2020
$4.75
2021
$5.22
$163.92
2022
$5.74
2023
$164.74
2023
$6.32
2024
$165.56
2024
$6.95
2025
$166.39
2025
$6.99
2026
$167.22
2026
$6.29
2027
$167.22
2027
$5.66
$/bbl
$180.00
$160.00
$140.00
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00
Taxation
Year
Amount
mmBUT
mmBUT
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Daily production of NG
Year
ABS Amount
General Data
mmBUT
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Oil Prices
Year
Liquid Oil Production
mmBUT / day
mmBUT
Year
bbl/day
m/day
bbl/year
m/year
2011
2012
2013
60,000
7,154
21,000,000
3,338,733
2014
120,000
14,309
42,000,000
6,677,466
2015
180,000
21,463
63,000,000
10,016,200
2016
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2017
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2011
$0
$0
2011
2012
$0
$0
2012
2013
-$178,500,000
$178,500,000
2013
26,118
2014
-$357,000,000
$357,000,000
2014
52,235
2015
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2015
78,353
2016
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2016
78,353
2017
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2017
78,353
2018
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2018
78,353
2018
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2019
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2019
78,353
2019
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2020
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2020
78,353
2020
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2021
180,000
28,618
27,423,466
4,359,983
2021
2022
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2021
2022
78,353
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Taxation
$600,000,000
78,353
$500,000,000
2022
180,000
28,618
27,423,466
4,359,983
2023
147,399
23,565
22,456,693
3,570,329
2023
-$438,513,472
$438,513,472
2023
64,162
$400,000,000
2024
-$289,894,129
$289,894,129
2024
42,416
$300,000,000
2024
97,443
15,766
14,845,755
2,360,286
2025
-$191,644,297
$191,644,297
2025
28,041
$200,000,000
2025
64,418
10,548
9,814,287
1,560,347
2026
-$126,692,930
$126,692,930
2026
18,537
$100,000,000
2026
42,586
7,057
6,488,066
1,031,520
2027
-$83,754,637
$83,754,637
2027
12,255
2027
28,153
4,721
4,289,155
681,921
$5,949,999,464
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Total Taxes paid
$0
Scenario 1: Offloading to
Existing Network via Pipelines
bbl/day
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027

Scen.2: Offloading by CALM Buoy to Shuttle Tanker
Latin America
Brazil
Santos Basin
Project name
Region
Country
Basin
Offshore
Contingency
Equipment
Materials
Fabrication
Linepipe
Installation
Design & PM
Opex
Certification
Freight
Brazil
S. America
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
S. America
Gulf of Mexico
S. America
S. America
S. America
S. America
S. America
Technical database
S. America
Currency Rate/$
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
Oilfield
Oil
FPSO + Subsea
Unit set
Development type
Development concept
Overall input
Gas oil ratio
Design factor
300.00
110.00
333.00
1.10
367.00
110.00
61.80
1.10
Oil density @ STP
CO2 content
Initial water cut
Number of wells
Production wells
Mbbl/day
MMscf/day
nm/m
16.00 API
0.30 %
10.00 %

Plateau rate
Productivity
Peak well flow
Export methods
Oil export method
Mbbl/day
MMscf/day
Mbbl/day
180.00
16000.00
6.00
3.00
Mbbl/day
Mbbl/well
Mbbl/day
km
ship to ship
0.10 km
km
km
km
C
700.00
2000.00
7000.00
193.00
11.80
5.92
H2S content
Gas export method

MMbbl
m
m
bara
km
km
0.00 ppm
30.00
Years to plateau
Plateau duration
Field life
Onstream days
Gas injection wells
20
8
130.00
130.00
3.00
28.00
Reserves
Water depth
Reservoir depth
Reservoir pressure
Reservoir length
Reservoir width
2.00
7.00
15.00
350.00
year
year
year
day
inject into reservoir

0.00 km
Conversion
Today's Price
mmBTU
GJ
GJ
mmBTU
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
1.00
1.05
1.00
26.80
1.00
28.26
NG
4.03
$/mmBTU
NG
142.59
$/1000m
Oil
126.87
$/bbl
Oil
797.99
$/m
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
NG
7.00
$/mmBTU
NG
247.67
$/1000m
Oil
85.00
$/bbl
Oil
534.63
$/m
Oil bbl
Oil bbl
1.00
158.99
1.00
1,000.00
1.00
6.29
Item
Item
2014 Price
Item
Scenario 2 : Offloading to Shuttle

Tankers Using CALM BUOY
Item
From yr -5 - 1
5.00%
From yr 5 - 6
2.00%
From yr 11 - 14
0.50%
From yr 16 - 20
0.00%
From yr -5 - 3
0.50%
From yr 8
-5.00%
From yr 12 - 13
0.50%
From yr 1 - 5
3.00%
From yr 6 - 10
1.00%
From yr 14 - 16
0.00%
From yr 20
0.00%
From yr 4 - 7
5.00%
From yr 9 -12
10.00%
From yr 14 - 15
-10.00%
Depreciation
FPSO Capacity
750,000
bbl
119,240
Tax
$8.50
Exploreation phase
Production Year
Year
Economic Life
Apprasal phase
-6
-5
-4
-3
2007
2008
2009
2010
Oil price per bbl

NG price per mmBTU
-2
15
years
Start Value
-$7,798,115,000
USD
-$2,510,784,326
USD
Production phase
-1
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$126.87
$133.21
$137.21
$141.33
$145.57
$149.93
$154.43
$157.52
$159.09
$160.69
$4.03
$4.05
$4.07
$4.09
$4.11
$4.32
$4.53
$4.76
$5.00
$4.75
60,000
120,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
21,000,000
42,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
22,020
44,040
66,060
66,060
66,060
66,060
66,060
66,060
7,707,000
15,414,000
23,121,000
23,121,000
23,121,000
23,121,000
23,121,000
23,121,000
-$3,826,397,560
-$95,052,682
$6,485,388,454
$13,186,789,795
$19,513,995,696
$26,266,374,077
$32,787,633,487
3,501
Opening Balance
$0
$7,298,115,000
$7,798,115,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,912,778,584
$5,998,755,353
$9,265,712,463
$9,545,584,941
$9,833,948,649
$10,033,771,573
$10,138,510,820
$10,232,963,516
$7,798,115,000
$0
$2,912,778,584
$5,998,755,353
$9,265,712,463
$9,545,584,941
$9,833,948,649
$10,033,771,573
$10,138,510,820
$10,232,963,516
-$500,000,000
-$7,298,115,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$214,232,000
-$13,310,000
-$13,949,000
-$14,573,000
-$14,573,000
-$14,573,000
-$14,573,000
-$14,573,000
$0
$0
-$743,417,000
-$46,621,000
-$46,621,000
-$46,621,000
-$46,621,000
-$46,768,000
-$68,525,000
-$46,621,000
Operating personnel
$0
$0
-$176,700,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
Insurance
$0
$0
-$875,775,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
Loan
Exploration Period
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
$0
Cash Payments
CAPEX
OPEX
Wells
Exploration Period
$0
$0
-$1,314,092,000
$0
-$40,060,000
$0
-$365,132,000
$0
-$40,060,000
$0
$0
$0
-$856,227,000
-$34,202,000
-$44,377,000
-$34,518,000
-$125,801,000
-$34,555,000
-$50,009,000
-$34,518,000
Tariff costs
$0
$0
-$805,000,000
-$24,150,000
-$48,300,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
Loan repayments
$0
$0
-$1,222,744,432
-$1,369,473,764
-$1,533,810,616
-$1,717,867,889
-$1,924,012,036
-$2,154,893,480
-$2,413,480,698
-$2,703,098,382
Tax payments
$0
$0
-$178,500,000
-$357,000,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
Depreciation
$0
$0
-$352,488,712
-$352,488,712
-$352,488,712
-$352,488,712
-$352,488,712
-$352,488,712
-$352,488,712
-$352,488,712
Total Payments
-$500,000,000
-$7,298,115,000
-$6,739,176,144
-$2,267,410,475
-$2,685,271,327
-$2,844,183,601
-$3,506,742,748
-$3,281,393,192
-$3,617,251,410
-$3,829,414,093
Cash Book Balance
$7,298,115,000
$0
-$3,826,397,560
-$95,052,682
$6,485,388,454
$13,186,789,795
$19,513,995,696
$26,266,374,077
$32,787,633,487
$39,191,182,910
$7,298,115,000
-$7,298,115,000
-$3,826,397,560
$3,731,344,878
$6,580,441,136
$6,701,401,340
$6,327,205,901
$6,752,378,381
$6,521,259,410
$6,403,549,423
$7,298,115,000
$0
-$3,826,397,560
-$95,052,682
$6,485,388,454
$13,186,789,795
$19,513,995,696
$26,266,374,077
$32,787,633,487
$39,191,182,910
Net Cash Flow

Exploration Period
Production Year
Year
Oil price per bbl
NG price per mmBTU
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$162.29
$163.92
$164.74
$165.56
$166.39
$167.22
$167.22
$5.22
$5.74
$6.32
$6.95
$6.99
$6.29
$5.66
159,303
124,129
96,721
75,365
58,724
45,758
Daily liquids productionin bpd (bbl) 180,000

63,000,000
55,755,894
43,444,993
33,852,339
26,377,742
20,553,537
16,015,316
66,060
58,464
45,555
35,497
27,659
21,552
16,793
23,121,000
20,462,413
15,944,312
12,423,808
9,680,631
7,543,148
5,877,621
$39,191,182,910
$47,880,554,037
$56,072,610,373
$62,680,858,718
$67,841,131,519
$71,043,810,048
$73,788,961,884
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,345,171,838.33
$9,256,797,145.85
$7,257,661,783.06
$5,690,903,679.36
$4,456,523,939.40
$3,484,353,501.30
$2,711,313,126.76
$10,345,171,838
$9,256,797,146
$7,257,661,783
$5,690,903,679
$4,456,523,939
$3,484,353,501
$2,711,313,127
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$14,573,000
-$14,573,000
-$14,474,000
-$14,307,000
-$14,176,000
-$14,075,000
-$13,996,000
-$46,621,000
-$46,621,000
-$46,768,000
-$68,525,000
-$46,621,000
-$46,621,000
-$46,621,000
Operating personnel
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
Opening Balance
Loan
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
Scenario 2 : Offloading to Shuttle

Tankers Using CALM BUOY
Cash Payments
Decommision
CAPEX
OPEX
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
-$11,780,000
Insurance
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
-$58,385,000
Wells
-$423,588,000
$0
-$40,060,000
$0
-$365,132,000
$0
-$40,060,000
-$140,415,000
-$34,518,000
-$44,545,000
-$39,927,000
-$125,702,000
-$34,393,000
-$44,389,000
Tariff costs
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$64,119,000
-$49,962,000
-$38,930,000
-$30,334,000
-$23,637,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tax payments
-$535,500,000
-$473,925,098
-$369,282,439
-$287,744,878
-$224,210,811
-$174,705,065
-$136,130,188
Depreciation
-$352,488,712
-$352,488,712
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$368,908,600
-$368,908,600
-$368,908,600
-$368,908,600
-$368,908,600
Total Payments
-$1,655,800,712
-$1,064,740,809
-$649,413,439
-$530,630,878
-$1,253,845,411
-$739,201,665
-$743,906,788
-$368,908,600
-$368,908,600
Cash Book Balance
$47,880,554,037
$56,072,610,373
$62,680,858,718
$67,841,131,519
$71,043,810,048
$73,788,961,884
$75,756,368,223
$75,387,459,623
$75,018,551,023
Net Cash Flow
$8,689,371,127
$8,192,056,337
$6,608,248,344
$5,160,272,801
$3,202,678,529
$2,745,151,836
$1,967,406,339
-$368,908,600
-$368,908,600
$47,880,554,037
$56,072,610,373
$62,680,858,718
$67,841,131,519
$71,043,810,048
$73,788,961,884
$75,756,368,223
$75,387,459,623
$75,018,551,023
Loan repayments
Decommission costs
Survey of the field

Sub total
Contengency
Loan
-$500,000,000 No. of years
10
Total loan
Payback
year 1
2011
-$7,798,115,000
-$1,161,756,000
year 2
2012
-$7,798,115,000
year 3
2013
year 4
year 5
-$6,136,359,000
Interest Rate
12%
Remain
$0
-$7,798,115,000
-$8,733,888,800
$0
-$8,733,888,800
-$9,781,955,456
-$1,222,744,432
-$8,559,211,024
2014
-$9,586,316,347
-$1,369,473,764
-$8,216,842,583
2015
-$9,202,863,693
-$1,533,810,616
-$7,669,053,078
year 6
2016
-$8,589,339,447
-$1,717,867,889
-$6,871,471,557
year 7
2017
-$7,696,048,144
-$1,924,012,036
-$5,772,036,108
year 8
2018
-$6,464,680,441
-$2,154,893,480
-$4,309,786,961
year 9
2019
-$4,826,961,396
-$2,413,480,698
-$2,413,480,698
year 10
2020
-$2,703,098,382
-$2,703,098,382
$0
Year
NCF
NCF
Cumulative NCF
5%
NPV 5%
Cumulative NPV 5%
10%
NPV10%
Cumulative NPV 10%
15%
NPV15%
Cumulative NPV 15%
$7,798,115,000
$7,798,115,000
$0
$7,798,115,000
1.000
$0
$0
1.000
$0
$0
1.000
$0
$0
$2,912,778,584
$10,710,893,584
0.952
$2,774,074,842
$2,774,074,842
0.909
$2,647,980,531
$2,647,980,531
0.870
$2,532,850,942
$2,532,850,942
$5,998,755,353
$16,709,648,937
0.907
$5,441,047,939
$8,215,122,781
0.826
$4,957,649,052
$7,605,629,583
0.756
$4,535,920,872
$7,068,771,814
$9,265,712,463
$25,975,361,400
0.864
$8,004,070,803
$16,219,193,584
0.751
$6,961,466,915
$14,567,096,497
0.658
$6,092,356,350
$13,161,128,164
$9,545,584,941
$35,520,946,342
0.823
$7,853,176,355
$24,072,369,939
0.683
$6,519,762,954
$21,086,859,452
0.572
$5,457,719,171
$18,618,847,335
$9,833,948,649
$45,354,894,991
0.784
$7,705,156,086
$31,777,526,025
0.621
$6,106,108,406
$27,192,967,858
0.497
$4,889,210,484
$23,508,057,820
$10,033,771,573
$55,388,666,564
0.746
$7,487,354,834
$39,264,880,859
0.564
$5,663,802,473
$32,856,770,331
0.432
$4,337,876,342
$27,845,934,162
$10,138,510,820
$65,527,177,383
0.711
$7,205,250,355
$46,470,131,214
0.513
$5,202,659,134
$38,059,429,465
0.376
$3,811,441,747
$31,657,375,909
$10,232,963,516
$75,760,140,900
0.677
$6,926,072,498
$53,396,203,712
0.467
$4,773,753,002
$42,833,182,467
0.327
$3,345,173,925
$35,002,549,834
$10,345,171,838
$86,105,312,738
0.645
$6,668,590,007
$60,064,793,719
0.424
$4,387,362,738
$47,220,545,205
0.284
$2,940,743,500
$37,943,293,334
10
$9,256,797,146
$95,362,109,884
0.614
$5,682,870,453
$65,747,664,172
0.386
$3,568,896,021
$50,789,441,226
0.247
$2,288,138,682
$40,231,432,016
11
$7,257,661,783
$102,619,771,667
0.585
$4,243,404,532
$69,991,068,704
0.350
$2,543,766,179
$53,333,207,406
0.215
$1,559,985,213
$41,791,417,229
12
#REF!
$5,690,903,679
$108,310,675,346
0.557
$3,168,908,112
$73,159,976,816
0.319
$1,813,297,293
$55,146,504,698
0.187
$1,063,670,589
$42,855,087,817
13
#REF!
$4,456,523,939
$112,767,199,286
0.530
$2,363,389,795
$75,523,366,610
0.290
$1,290,896,243
$56,437,400,941
0.163
$724,309,730
$43,579,397,547
14
#REF!
$3,484,353,501
$116,251,552,787
0.505
$1,759,835,290
$77,283,201,901
0.263
$917,539,178
$57,354,940,119
0.141
$492,439,004
$44,071,836,552
15
#REF!
$2,711,313,127
$118,962,865,914
0.481
$1,304,187,972
$78,587,389,873
0.239
$649,066,806
$58,004,006,925
0.123
$333,205,431
$44,405,041,982
16
2028
$0
$118,962,865,914
0.458
$0
$78,587,389,873
0.218
$0
$58,004,006,925
0.107
$0
$44,405,041,982
17
2029
$0
$118,962,865,914
0.436
$0
$78,587,389,873
0.198
$0
$58,004,006,925
0.093
$0
$44,405,041,982
Cumulative
Revenue
Revenue
Expenses
Cumulative
Expenses
Total
expenses VS
Revenue
Revenue & Expenses

Net Profit
$140,000,000,000
$12,000,000,000
$7,798,115,000
$7,798,115,000
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$7,298,115,000
$0
$7,798,115,000
$7,298,115,000
$7,798,115,000
$0
$2,912,778,584
$10,710,893,584
$6,739,176,144
$14,537,291,144
-$3,826,397,560
$5,998,755,353
$16,709,648,937
$2,267,410,475
$16,804,701,619
-$95,052,682
$120,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
Revenue
$6,000,000,000
$9,265,712,463
$25,975,361,400
$2,685,271,327
$19,489,972,946
$6,485,388,454
$9,545,584,941
$35,520,946,342
$2,844,183,601
$22,334,156,547
$13,186,789,795
$9,833,948,649
$45,354,894,991
$3,506,742,748
$25,840,899,295
$19,513,995,696
$10,033,771,573
$55,388,666,564
$3,281,393,192
$29,122,292,487
$26,266,374,077
$10,138,510,820
$65,527,177,383
$3,617,251,410
$32,739,543,897
$32,787,633,487
$10,232,963,516
$75,760,140,900
$3,829,414,093
$36,568,957,990
$39,191,182,910
$10,345,171,838
$86,105,312,738
$1,655,800,712
$38,224,758,702
$47,880,554,037
10
$9,256,797,146
$95,362,109,884
$1,064,740,809
$39,289,499,511
$56,072,610,373
11
$7,257,661,783
$102,619,771,667
$649,413,439
$39,938,912,949
$62,680,858,718
12
#REF!
$5,690,903,679
$108,310,675,346
$530,630,878
$40,469,543,828
$67,841,131,519
$140,000,000,000
13
#REF!
$4,456,523,939
$112,767,199,286
$1,253,845,411
$41,723,389,238
$71,043,810,048
$120,000,000,000
14
#REF!
$3,484,353,501
$116,251,552,787
$739,201,665
$42,462,590,903
$73,788,961,884
$100,000,000,000
15
#REF!
$2,711,313,127
$118,962,865,914
$743,906,788
$43,206,497,691
$75,756,368,223
$80,000,000,000
16
2028
$0
$118,962,865,914
$368,908,600
$43,575,406,291
$75,387,459,623
17
2029
$0
$118,962,865,914
$368,908,600
$43,944,314,891
$75,018,551,023
Cumulative
Revenue
$100,000,000,000
Expenses
$80,000,000,000
Cumulative
Expenses
$60,000,000,000
$40,000,000,000
Net Profit
$4,000,000,000
$20,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$0
$0
-$20,000,000,000
$12,000,000,000

Cumulative NCF
Cumulative NPV
5%
$60,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV
10%
$40,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV
15%
$20,000,000,000
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2029
Year
Scenario 2 : Offloading to
Shuttle Tankers Using CALM
BUOY
NCF VS NPV
$10,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
NCF
NPV 5%
$6,000,000,000
NPV10%
$4,000,000,000
NPV15%
$2,000,000,000
$0
0
0 2029
Taxation
Year
Amount
ABS Amount
Taxation
Year
mmBUT
2011
2012
90,000
2013
26,118
80,000
2014
52,235
70,000
2015
78,353
60,000
2016
78,353
50,000
2017
78,353
40,000
2018
78,353
2019
78,353
30,000
2020
78,353
2021
78,353
2022
78,353
2023
64,162
2011
$0
$0
2012
$0
$0
2013
-$178,500,000
$178,500,000
2014
-$357,000,000
$357,000,000
2015
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2016
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2017
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2018
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2019
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2020
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2021
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2022
-$473,925,098
$473,925,098
2023
-$369,282,439
$369,282,439
2024
-$287,744,878
$287,744,878
2024
42,416
2025
-$224,210,811
$224,210,811
2025
28,041
2026
-$174,705,065
$174,705,065
2026
18,537
2027
-$136,130,188
$136,130,188
2027
12,255
Total Taxes paid
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
$0
mmBUT
20,000
10,000
0
$5,949,998,478
Daily Production
Scenario 2 : Offloading to
Shuttle Tankers Using CALM
BUOY
bbl/day
Year
bbl/day
m/day
bbl/year
m/year
2011
200,000
2012
180,000
2013
60,000
7,154
21,000,000
3,338,733
160,000
2014
120,000
14,309
42,000,000
6,677,466
2015
180,000
21,463
63,000,000
10,016,200
140,000
2016
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2017
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2018
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
80,000
2019
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
60,000
2020
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
40,000
2021
180,000
28,618
27,423,466
4,359,983
20,000
2022
180,000
28,618
27,423,466
4,359,983
2023
147,399
23,565
22,456,693
3,570,329
2024
97,443
15,766
14,845,755
2,360,286
2025
64,418
10,548
9,814,287
1,560,347
2026
42,586
7,057
6,488,066
1,031,520
2027
28,153
4,721
4,289,155
681,921
120,000
100,000
bbl/day
mmBUT

Scen.3:Aft offloading reel+gas pipeline
Latin America
Brazil
Campos Basin
Project name
Region
Country
Basin
Offshore
Contingency
Equipment
Materials
Fabrication
Linepipe
Installation
Design & PM
Opex
Certification
Freight
Brazil 1
S. America
S. America
Gulf of Mexico
S. America
Gulf of Mexico
S. America
S. America
S. America
S. America
S. America
Technical database
S. America
Currency Rate/$
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
Oilfield
Oil
FPSO + Subsea
Unit set
Development type
Development concept
Overall input
Gas oil ratio
Design factor
300.00
71.20
333.00
1.10
367.00
71.20
40.00
1.10
Oil density @ STP
CO2 content
Initial water cut
Number of wells
Production wells
Mbbl/day
MMscf/day
nm/m
16.00 API
0.30 %
10.00 %

Plateau rate
Productivity
Peak well flow
Export methods
Oil export method
Mbbl/day
MMscf/day
Mbbl/day
180.00
16000.00
50.00
3.00
Mbbl/day
Mbbl/well
Mbbl/day
km
ship to ship
0.00 km
H2S content
Years to plateau
Plateau duration
Field life
Onstream days
Gas export method

Gas injection wells
20
8
110.00
150.00
3.00
28.00
Reserves
Water depth
Reservoir depth
Reservoir pressure
Reservoir length
Reservoir width
km
km
km
C
700.00
2000.00
7000.00
400.00
11.80
5.92
MMbbl
m
m
bara
km
km
0.00 ppm
30.00
2.00
7.00
15.00
350.00
year
year
year
day

25.00 km
Conversion
Today's Price
mmBTU
GJ
GJ
mmBTU
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
1.00
1.05
1.00
26.80
1.00
28.26
NG
4.03
$/mmBTU
NG
142.59
$/1000m
Oil
126.87
$/bbl
Oil
797.99
$/m
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
NG
7.00
$/mmBTU
NG
247.67
$/1000m
Oil
85.00
$/bbl
Oil
534.63
$/m
Oil bbl
Oil bbl
1.00
158.99
1.00
1,000.00
1.00
6.29
Item
Item
2014 Price
Item
Scenario 3 : Offloading by Aft Reel System on FPSO To

Shuttle Tanker (Oil) & Gas via Pipeline to Network
Item
From yr -5 - 1
5.00%
From yr 5 - 6
2.00%
From yr 11 - 14
0.50%
From yr 16 - 20
0.00%
From yr -5 - 3
0.50%
From yr 8
-5.00%
From yr 12 - 13
0.50%
From yr 1 - 5
3.00%
From yr 6 - 10
1.00%
From yr 14 - 16
0.00%
From yr 20
0.00%
From yr -2 - 7
5.00%
From yr 9 -12
10.00%
From yr 14 - 15
-10.00%
Depreciation
FPSO Capacity
750,000
bbl
119,240
Tax
$8.50
Exploreation phase
Production Year
Year
Economic Life
Apprasal phase
-6
-5
-4
-3
2007
2008
2009
2010
Oil price per bbl

NG price per mmBTU
-2
15
years
Start Value
-$5,865,123,350
USD
-$1,888,412,748
USD
Production phase
-1
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$126.87
$133.21
$137.21
$141.33
$145.57
$149.93
$154.43
$157.52
$159.09
$160.69
$4.03
$4.23
$4.44
$4.67
$4.90
$5.14
$5.40
$5.67
$5.95
$5.66
Daily liquids productionin bpd (bbl) 0
60,000
120,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
21,000,000
42,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
403
807
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
141,154,797
282,309,594
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
-$1,580,114,026
$3,871,735,758
$12,941,055,501
$22,269,271,492
$31,604,088,170
$41,304,588,933
$50,961,441,412
64
Opening Balance
$0
$5,365,123,350
$5,865,123,350
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,508,569,356
$7,252,739,327
$11,244,993,425
$11,623,829,951
$12,016,105,909
$12,325,036,696
$12,544,339,199
$12,518,500,476
$5,865,123,350
$0
$3,508,569,356
$7,252,739,327
$11,244,993,425
$11,623,829,951
$12,016,105,909
$12,325,036,696
$12,544,339,199
$12,518,500,476
-$500,000,000
-$5,365,123,350
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$257,816,000
-$13,888,000
-$15,970,000
-$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
$0
$0
-$614,439,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,692,000
-$56,717,000
-$38,511,000
Operating personnel
$0
$0
-$143,220,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
Insurance
$0
$0
-$548,730,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
Loan
Exploration Period
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
$0
Cash Payments
CAPEX
OPEX
Wells
Exploration Period
$0
$0
-$754,670,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
-$184,504,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
$0
$0
-$601,543,000
-$26,087,000
-$35,794,000
-$27,265,000
-$73,391,000
-$27,310,000
-$41,003,000
-$27,265,000
Tariff costs
$0
$0
-$805,000,000
-$24,150,000
-$48,300,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
Loan repayments
$0
$0
-$919,651,341
-$1,030,009,502
-$1,153,610,643
-$1,292,043,920
-$1,447,089,190
-$1,620,739,893
-$1,815,228,680
-$2,033,056,121
Tax payments
$0
$0
-$178,500,000
-$357,000,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
Depreciation
$0
$0
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
Total Payments
-$500,000,000
-$5,365,123,350
-$5,088,683,381
-$1,800,889,542
-$2,175,673,683
-$2,295,613,960
-$2,681,289,230
-$2,624,535,933
-$2,887,486,720
-$3,036,626,162
Cash Book Balance
$5,365,123,350
$0
-$1,580,114,026
$3,871,735,758
$12,941,055,501
$22,269,271,492
$31,604,088,170
$41,304,588,933
$50,961,441,412
$60,443,315,727
$5,365,123,350
-$5,365,123,350
-$1,580,114,026
$5,451,849,784
$9,069,319,742
$9,328,215,991
$9,334,816,679
$9,700,500,763
$9,656,852,479
$9,481,874,315
$5,365,123,350
$0
-$1,580,114,026
$3,871,735,758
$12,941,055,501
$22,269,271,492
$31,604,088,170
$41,304,588,933
$50,961,441,412
$60,443,315,727
Net Cash Flow

Exploration Period
Production Year
Year
Oil price per bbl
NG price per mmBTU
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2028
2029
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
$162.29
$163.92
$164.74
$165.56
$166.39
$167.22
$167.22
$6.22

180,000
$6.84
$7.53
$8.28
$8.32
$7.49
$6.74
159,303
124,129
96,721
75,365
58,724
45,758
63,000,000
55,755,894
43,444,993
33,852,339
26,377,742
20,553,537
16,015,316
1,210
1,071
834
650
507
395
308
423,464,392
374,771,995
292,022,340
227,543,809
177,302,137
138,153,826
107,649,462
$60,443,315,727
$72,000,650,181
$82,762,958,679
$91,509,168,801
$98,509,213,760
$103,516,778,814
$107,420,878,565
Opening Balance
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,859,262,494.38
$11,704,303,635.71
$9,355,468,560.58
$7,488,975,837.30
$5,864,587,064.01
$4,471,800,016.36
$3,403,789,623.77
$12,859,262,494
$11,704,303,636
$9,355,468,561
$7,488,975,837
$5,864,587,064
$4,471,800,016
$3,403,789,624
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Logistics and consumables -$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
-$17,956,000
-$16,968,000
-$16,290,000
-$15,818,000
-$15,483,000
Inspection and maintenance -$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,692,000
-$56,717,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
Loan
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
Scenario 3 : Offloading by Aft Reel System on FPSO To

Shuttle Tanker (Oil) & Gas via Pipeline to Network
Cash Payments
Decommision
CAPEX
OPEX
Operating personnel
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
Insurance
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
Wells
-$238,686,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
-$184,504,000
$0
-$36,744,000
-$86,937,000
-$27,265,000
-$36,335,000
-$31,409,000
-$72,814,000
-$26,570,000
-$35,672,000
Tariff costs
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$64,119,000
-$49,962,000
-$38,930,000
-$30,334,000
-$23,637,000
Loan repayments
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tax payments
-535500000
-473925097.5
-369282438.6
-287744878.2
-224210810.7
-174705064.9
-136130187.6
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
Total Payments
-$1,301,928,040
-$941,995,138
-$609,258,439
-$488,930,878
-$857,022,011
-$567,700,265
-$567,939,388
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
Cash Book Balance
$72,000,650,181
$82,762,958,679
$91,509,168,801
$98,509,213,760
$103,516,778,814
$107,420,878,565
$110,256,728,801
$110,021,096,601
$109,785,464,401
Net Cash Flow
$11,557,334,454
$10,762,308,498
$8,746,210,122
$7,000,044,959
$5,007,565,053
$3,904,099,751
$2,835,850,236
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
$72,000,650,181
$82,762,958,679
$91,509,168,801
$98,509,213,760
$103,516,778,814
$107,420,878,565
$110,256,728,801
$110,021,096,601
$109,785,464,401
Total loan
Payback
Remain
year 1
2011
-$5,865,123,350
$0
-$5,865,123,350
-$1,509,967,350
year 2
2012
-$6,568,938,152
$0
-$6,568,938,152
-$5,865,123,350
year 3
2013
-$7,357,210,730
-$919,651,341
-$6,437,559,389
year 4
2014
-$7,210,066,516
-$1,030,009,502
-$6,180,057,013
year 5
2015
-$6,921,663,855
-$1,153,610,643
-$5,768,053,213
year 6
2016
-$6,460,219,598
-$1,292,043,920
-$5,168,175,678
year 7
2017
-$5,788,356,760
-$1,447,089,190
-$4,341,267,570
year 8
2018
-$4,862,219,678
-$1,620,739,893
-$3,241,479,785
year 9
2019
-$3,630,457,360
-$1,815,228,680
-$1,815,228,680
year 10
2020
-$2,033,056,121
-$2,033,056,121
$0
Depreciation
Decommission costs
-$500,000,000 No. of years
Survey of the field

Sub total
-$3,855,156,000
Contengency/Project cost
Loan
Interest Rate
10
12%
Year
NCF
NCF
Cumulative NCF
5%
NPV 5%
Cumulative NPV 5%
10%
NPV10%
Cumulative NPV 10%
15%
NPV15%
Cumulative NPV 15%
2011
$5,865,123,350
$5,865,123,350
2012
$0
$5,865,123,350
1.000
$0
$0
1.000
$0
$0
1.000
$0
$0
2013
$3,508,569,356
$9,373,692,706
0.952
$3,341,494,624
$3,341,494,624
0.909
$3,189,608,505
$3,189,608,505
0.870
$3,050,929,874
$3,050,929,874
2014
$7,252,739,327
$16,626,432,032
0.907
$6,578,448,369
$9,919,942,993
0.826
$5,993,999,443
$9,183,607,949
0.756
$5,484,112,912
$8,535,042,787
2015
$11,244,993,425
$27,871,425,457
0.864
$9,713,848,116
$19,633,791,109
0.751
$8,448,529,996
$17,632,137,945
0.658
$7,393,765,710
$15,928,808,497
2016
$11,623,829,951
$39,495,255,408
0.823
$9,562,953,667
$29,196,744,776
0.683
$7,939,232,259
$25,571,370,204
0.572
$6,645,962,501
$22,574,770,998
2017
$12,016,105,909
$51,511,361,317
0.784
$9,414,933,399
$38,611,678,175
0.621
$7,461,056,379
$33,032,426,583
0.497
$5,974,128,307
$28,548,899,305
2018
$12,325,036,696
$63,836,398,012
0.746
$9,197,132,146
$47,808,810,321
0.564
$6,957,161,902
$39,989,588,485
0.432
$5,328,453,484
$33,877,352,789
2019
$12,544,339,199
$76,380,737,211
0.711
$8,915,027,668
$56,723,837,989
0.513
$6,437,229,498
$46,426,817,982
0.376
$4,715,881,746
$38,593,234,535
2020
$12,518,500,476
$88,899,237,688
0.677
$8,473,013,876
$65,196,851,864
0.467
$5,839,972,861
$52,266,790,844
0.327
$4,092,320,012
$42,685,554,547
2021
$12,859,262,494
$101,758,500,182
0.645
$8,289,195,260
$73,486,047,124
0.424
$5,453,582,598
$57,720,373,442
0.284
$3,655,404,974
$46,340,959,520
10
2022
$11,704,303,636
$113,462,803,818
0.614
$7,185,427,125
$80,671,474,250
0.386
$4,512,515,724
$62,232,889,166
0.247
$2,893,124,855
$49,234,084,375
11
2023
$9,355,468,561
$122,818,272,378
0.585
$5,469,948,707
$86,141,422,957
0.350
$3,279,034,657
$65,511,923,823
0.215
$2,010,894,562
$51,244,978,937
12
2024
$7,488,975,837
$130,307,248,216
0.557
$4,170,141,970
$90,311,564,927
0.319
$2,386,218,495
$67,898,142,318
0.187
$1,399,743,132
$52,644,722,069
13
2025
$5,864,587,064
$136,171,835,280
0.530
$3,110,115,733
$93,421,680,660
0.290
$1,698,761,974
$69,596,904,292
0.163
$953,159,352
$53,597,881,421
14
2026
$4,471,800,016
$140,643,635,296
0.505
$2,258,562,880
$95,680,243,540
0.263
$1,177,564,707
$70,774,469,000
0.141
$631,993,495
$54,229,874,916
15
2027
$3,403,789,624
$144,047,424,920
0.481
$1,637,281,007
$97,317,524,547
0.239
$814,840,174
$71,589,309,173
0.123
$418,306,974
$54,648,181,890
16
2028
$0
$144,047,424,920
0.458
$0
$97,317,524,547
0.218
$0
$71,589,309,173
0.107
$0
$54,648,181,890
17
2029
$0
$144,047,424,920
0.436
$0
$97,317,524,547
0.198
$0
$71,589,309,173
0.093
$0
$54,648,181,890
Year
Cumulative
Revenue
Revenue
Expenses
Cumulative
Expenses
Scenario 3 :
Offloading by Aft Reel
System on FPSO To
Shuttle Tanker (Oil) &
Gas via Pipeline to
Network
Total
expenses VS
Revenue
Revenue & Expenses
Net Profit
2011
$5,865,123,350
$5,865,123,350
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$5,365,123,350
2012
$0
$5,865,123,350
$5,365,123,350
$5,865,123,350
$0
2013
$3,508,569,356
$9,373,692,706
$5,088,683,381
$10,953,806,731
-$1,580,114,026
2014
$7,252,739,327
$16,626,432,032
$1,800,889,542
$12,754,696,274
$3,871,735,758
2015
$11,244,993,425
$27,871,425,457
$2,175,673,683
$14,930,369,956
$12,941,055,501
2016
$11,623,829,951
$39,495,255,408
$2,295,613,960
$17,225,983,916
$22,269,271,492
2017
$12,016,105,909
$51,511,361,317
$2,681,289,230
$19,907,273,146
$31,604,088,170
2018
$12,325,036,696
$63,836,398,012
$2,624,535,933
$22,531,809,079
$41,304,588,933
2019
$12,544,339,199
$76,380,737,211
$2,887,486,720
$25,419,295,799
$50,961,441,412
2020
$12,518,500,476
$88,899,237,688
$3,036,626,162
$28,455,921,961
$60,443,315,727
2021
$12,859,262,494
$101,758,500,182
$1,301,928,040
$29,757,850,001
$72,000,650,181
10
2022
$11,704,303,636
$113,462,803,818
$941,995,138
$30,699,845,139
$82,762,958,679
11
2023
$9,355,468,561
$122,818,272,378
$609,258,439
$31,309,103,577
$91,509,168,801
$160,000,000,000
$14,000,000,000
$140,000,000,000
$12,000,000,000
Cumulative
Revenue
$120,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$100,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
Revenue
$80,000,000,000
Expenses
$60,000,000,000
Cumulative
Expenses
$40,000,000,000
Net Profit
$4,000,000,000
$20,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$0
$0
-$20,000,000,000
$14,000,000,000
$12,000,000,000
NCF VS NPV
$160,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
Cumulative NCF
$140,000,000,000
12
2024
$7,488,975,837
$130,307,248,216
$488,930,878
$31,798,034,455
$98,509,213,760
13
2025
$5,864,587,064
$136,171,835,280
$857,022,011
$32,655,056,466
$103,516,778,814
$8,000,000,000
NCF
14
2026
$4,471,800,016
$140,643,635,296
$567,700,265
$33,222,756,731
$107,420,878,565
$6,000,000,000
NPV 5%
15
2027
$3,403,789,624
$144,047,424,920
$567,939,388
$33,790,696,119
$110,256,728,801
NPV10%
$60,000,000,000
16
2028
$0
$144,047,424,920
$235,632,200
$34,026,328,319
$110,021,096,601
$4,000,000,000
NPV15%
$40,000,000,000
17
2029
$0
$144,047,424,920
$235,632,200
$34,261,960,519
$109,785,464,401
$2,000,000,000
$120,000,000,000
$100,000,000,000
$80,000,000,000
$20,000,000,000
$0
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
$0
Cumulative NPV
5%
Cumulative NPV
10%
Cumulative NPV
15%

Scen. 3.1:Aft reel + gas pipeline (400MMbbl)
Latin America
Brazil
Campos Basin
Project name
Region
Country
Basin
Offshore
Contingency
Equipment
Materials
Fabrication
Linepipe
Installation
Design & PM
Opex
Certification
Freight
Brazil 1
S. America
S. America
Gulf of Mexico
S. America
Gulf of Mexico
S. America
S. America
S. America
S. America
S. America
Technical database
S. America
Currency Rate/$
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
$
1.00
Oilfield
Oil
FPSO + Subsea
Unit set
Development type
Development concept
Overall input
Gas oil ratio
Design factor
300.00
71.20
333.00
1.10
367.00
71.20
40.00
1.10
Oil density @ STP
CO2 content
Initial water cut
Number of wells
Production wells
Mbbl/day
MMscf/day
nm/m
16.00 API
0.30 %
10.00 %

Plateau rate
Productivity
Peak well flow
Export methods
Oil export method
Mbbl/day
MMscf/day
Mbbl/day
180.00
16000.00
50.00
3.00
Mbbl/day
Mbbl/well
Mbbl/day
km
ship to ship
0.00 km
H2S content
Years to plateau
Plateau duration
Field life
Onstream days
Gas export method

Gas injection wells
20
8
110.00
150.00
3.00
28.00
Reserves
Water depth
Reservoir depth
Reservoir pressure
Reservoir length
Reservoir width
km
km
km
C
400.00
2000.00
7000.00
400.00
8.94
4.47
MMbbl
m
m
bara
km
km
0.00 ppm
30.00
3.00
3.00
10.00
350.00
year
year
year
day

25.00 km
Taxation
Year
Amount
ABS Amount
2011
$0
$0
2012
$0
$0
2013
-$178,500,000
$178,500,000
2014
-$357,000,000
$357,000,000
2015
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2016
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2017
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2019
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2020
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2021
-$535,500,000
$535,500,000
2022
-$473,925,098
$473,925,098
2023
-$369,282,439
$369,282,439
2024
-$287,744,878
$287,744,878
2025
-$224,210,811
2026
2027
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
Year
mmBUT
2011
2012
2013
403
2014
807
2015
1,210
2016
1,210
2017
1,210
2018
1,210
2019
1,210
2020
1,210
2021
1,210
2022
1,071
2023
834
2024
650
$224,210,811
2025
507
-$174,705,065
$174,705,065
2026
395
-$136,130,188
$136,130,188
2027
308
Total Taxes paid
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2018
Taxation
mmBUT
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
mmBUT
600
400
200
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
$5,949,998,478
Daily Production
Scenario 3 :
bbl/day
Year
bbl/day
m/day
bbl/year
m/year
2011
200,000
2012
180,000
2013
60,000
9,539
21,000,000
3,338,733
160,000
2014
120,000
19,078
42,000,000
6,677,466
140,000
2015
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
120,000
2016
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
100,000
2017
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2018
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2019
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2020
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2021
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
2022
159,303
25,327
55,755,894
8,864,479
2023
124,129
19,735
43,444,993
6,907,202
2024
96,721
15,377
33,852,339
5,382,092
2025
75,365
11,982
26,377,742
4,193,726
2026
58,724
9,336
20,553,537
3,267,751
2027
45,758
7,275
16,015,316
2,546,232
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Offloading by Aft Reel System on

FPSO To Shuttle Tanker (Oil) & Gas
via Pipeline to Network
bbl/day
Conversion
Today's Price
mmBTU
GJ
GJ
mmBTU
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
1.00
1.05
1.00
26.80
1.00
28.26
NG
4.03
$/mmBTU
NG
142.59
$/1000m
Oil
126.87
$/bbl
Oil
797.99
$/m
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
NG
7.00
$/mmBTU
NG
247.67
$/1000m
Oil
85.00
$/bbl
Oil
534.63
$/m
Oil bbl
Oil bbl
1.00
158.99
1.00
1,000.00
1.00
6.29
Item
Item
2014 Price
Item
Scenario 3 -1 : Oil Prices drop
Item

From yr -5 - 1
5.00%
From yr 1 - 5
-20.00%
From yr 6
-5.00%
From yr 11 - 14
0.50%
From yr -5 - 0
5.00%
From yr 7- 10
0.00%
From yr 15
0.00%
From yr 1- 5
-20.00%
From yr 6
-5.00%
From yr 11 - 14
0.50%
From yr 7-10
0.00%
From yr 15
0.00%
Depreciation
FPSO Capacity
750,000
bbl
119,240
Tax
$8.50
Exploreation phase
Production Year
Year
Economic Life
Apprasal phase
-6
-5
-4
-3
2007
2008
2009
2010
Oil price per bbl

NG price per mmBTU
-2
15
years
Start Value
-$5,865,123,350
USD
-$1,888,412,748
USD
Production phase
-1
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$126.87
$133.21
$106.57
$85.26
$68.21
$54.56
$43.65
$41.47
$41.47
$41.47
$4.03
$4.23
$3.39
$2.71
$2.17
$1.73
$1.39
$1.32
$1.32
$1.32
Daily liquids productionin bpd (bbl) 0
60,000
120,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
21,000,000
42,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
403
807
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
141,154,797
282,309,594
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
-$2,372,859,362
$171,569,527
$3,210,277,962
$5,086,169,696
$5,742,085,021
$6,287,893,416
$6,570,751,023
64
Opening Balance
$0
$5,365,123,350
$5,865,123,350
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,715,824,020
$4,345,318,431
$5,214,382,117
$4,171,505,694
$3,337,204,555
$3,170,344,327
$3,170,344,327
$3,170,344,327
$5,865,123,350
$0
$2,715,824,020
$4,345,318,431
$5,214,382,117
$4,171,505,694
$3,337,204,555
$3,170,344,327
$3,170,344,327
$3,170,344,327
-$500,000,000
-$5,365,123,350
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$257,816,000
-$13,888,000
-$15,970,000
-$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
$0
$0
-$614,439,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,692,000
-$56,717,000
-$38,511,000
Operating personnel
$0
$0
-$143,220,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
Insurance
$0
$0
-$548,730,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
Loan
Exploration Period
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
$0
Cash Payments
CAPEX
OPEX
Wells
Exploration Period
$0
$0
-$754,670,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
-$184,504,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
$0
$0
-$601,543,000
-$26,087,000
-$35,794,000
-$27,265,000
-$73,391,000
-$27,310,000
-$41,003,000
-$27,265,000
Tariff costs
$0
$0
-$805,000,000
-$24,150,000
-$48,300,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
Loan repayments
$0
$0
-$919,651,341
-$1,030,009,502
-$1,153,610,643
-$1,292,043,920
-$1,447,089,190
-$1,620,739,893
-$1,815,228,680
-$2,033,056,121
Tax payments
$0
$0
-$178,500,000
-$357,000,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
Depreciation
$0
$0
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
Total Payments
-$500,000,000
-$5,365,123,350
-$5,088,683,381
-$1,800,889,542
-$2,175,673,683
-$2,295,613,960
-$2,681,289,230
-$2,624,535,933
-$2,887,486,720
-$3,036,626,162
Cash Book Balance
$5,365,123,350
$0
-$2,372,859,362
$171,569,527
$3,210,277,962
$5,086,169,696
$5,742,085,021
$6,287,893,416
$6,570,751,023
$6,704,469,189
$5,365,123,350
-$5,365,123,350
-$2,372,859,362
$2,544,428,889
$3,038,708,435
$1,875,891,734
$655,915,325
$545,808,395
$282,857,607
$133,718,166
$5,365,123,350
$0
-$2,372,859,362
$171,569,527
$3,210,277,962
$5,086,169,696
$5,742,085,021
$6,287,893,416
$6,570,751,023
$6,704,469,189
Net Cash Flow

Exploration Period
Production Year
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Oil price per bbl
$41.47
$41.47
$41.68
$41.88
$42.09
$42.30
$42.30
NG price per mmBTU
$1.25
$1.25
$1.26
$1.26
$1.27
$1.28
$1.28
159,303
124,129
96,721
75,365
58,724
45,758
Year

180,000
63,000,000
55,755,894
43,444,993
33,852,339
26,377,742
20,553,537
16,015,316
1,210
1,071
834
650
507
395
308
423,464,392
374,771,995
292,022,340
227,543,809
177,302,137
138,153,826
107,649,462
$6,704,469,189
$8,544,995,074
$10,384,116,243
$11,952,738,876
$13,169,297,966
$13,647,838,336
$14,126,011,637
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,142,453,924.61
$2,781,116,307.60
$2,177,881,071.51
$1,705,489,967.71
$1,335,562,381.26
$1,045,873,565.95
$814,944,688.39
$3,142,453,925
$2,781,116,308
$2,177,881,072
$1,705,489,968
$1,335,562,381
$1,045,873,566
$814,944,688
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Logistics and consumables -$18,600,000
-$18,600,000
-$17,956,000
-$16,968,000
-$16,290,000
-$15,818,000
-$15,483,000
Inspection and maintenance-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,692,000
-$56,717,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
-$38,511,000
Operating personnel
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
Opening Balance
Loan
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
Cash Payments
CAPEX
Scenario 3 -1 : Oil Prices drop
Decommision
OPEX
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
Insurance
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
-$36,582,000
Wells
-$238,686,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
-$184,504,000
$0
-$36,744,000
-$86,937,000
-$27,265,000
-$36,335,000
-$31,409,000
-$72,814,000
-$26,570,000
-$35,672,000
Tariff costs
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$64,119,000
-$49,962,000
-$38,930,000
-$30,334,000
-$23,637,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tax payments
-$535,500,000
-$473,925,098
-$369,282,439
-$287,744,878
-$224,210,811
-$174,705,065
-$136,130,188
Depreciation
-$265,114,040
-$265,114,040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
Total Payments
-$1,301,928,040
-$941,995,138
-$609,258,439
-$488,930,878
-$857,022,011
-$567,700,265
-$567,939,388
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
Cash Book Balance
$8,544,995,074
$10,384,116,243
$11,952,738,876
$13,169,297,966
$13,647,838,336
$14,126,011,637
$14,373,016,938
$14,137,384,738
$13,901,752,538
Net Cash Flow
$1,840,525,884
$1,839,121,170
$1,568,622,633
$1,216,559,089
$478,540,371
$478,173,301
$247,005,301
-$235,632,200
-$235,632,200
$8,544,995,074
$10,384,116,243
$11,952,738,876
$13,169,297,966
$13,647,838,336
$14,126,011,637
$14,373,016,938
$14,137,384,738
$13,901,752,538
Loan repayments
Decommission costs
10%
NPV10%
Cumulative NPV 10%
15%
NPV15%
Cumulative NPV 15%
$5,865,123,350
$5,865,123,350
1.000
$0
$0
1.000
$0
$0
1.000
$0
$0
$8,580,947,370
0.952
$2,586,499,066
$2,586,499,066
0.909
$2,468,930,927
$2,468,930,927
0.870
$2,361,586,104
$2,361,586,104
$12,926,265,801
0.907
$3,941,331,910
$6,527,830,977
0.826
$3,591,172,257
$6,060,103,184
0.756
$3,285,685,014
$5,647,271,118
$18,140,647,918
0.864
$4,504,379,326
$11,032,210,303
0.751
$3,917,642,462
$9,977,745,647
0.658
$3,428,540,884
$9,075,812,002
$22,312,153,612
0.823
$3,431,908,058
$14,464,118,361
0.683
$2,849,194,518
$12,826,940,165
0.572
$2,385,071,920
$11,460,883,922
$25,649,358,167
0.784
$2,614,787,092
$17,078,905,453
0.621
$2,072,141,468
$14,899,081,632
0.497
$1,659,180,466
$13,120,064,388
$28,819,702,495
0.746
$2,365,759,750
$19,444,665,203
0.564
$1,789,576,722
$16,688,658,355
0.432
$1,370,627,341
$14,490,691,729
$31,990,046,822
0.711
$2,253,104,524
$21,697,769,726
0.513
$1,626,887,929
$18,315,546,284
0.376
$1,191,849,862
$15,682,541,591
$35,160,391,150
0.677
$2,145,813,832
$23,843,583,558
0.467
$1,478,989,027
$19,794,535,310
0.327
$1,036,391,184
$16,718,932,775
$38,302,845,074
0.645
$2,025,653,819
$25,869,237,377
0.424
$1,332,707,225
$21,127,242,536
0.284
$893,281,532
$17,612,214,308
$41,083,961,382
0.614
$1,707,364,161
$27,576,601,538
0.386
$1,072,240,730
$22,199,483,265
0.247
$687,449,417
$18,299,663,725
$43,261,842,454
0.585
$1,273,361,957
$28,849,963,494
0.350
$763,334,029
$22,962,817,294
0.215
$468,120,776
$18,767,784,501
$44,967,332,421
0.557
$949,680,630
$29,799,644,125
0.319
$543,421,663
$23,506,238,957
0.187
$318,768,270
$19,086,552,771
$46,302,894,802
0.530
$708,277,246
$30,507,921,370
0.290
$386,864,849
$23,893,103,806
0.163
$217,066,225
$19,303,618,996
$47,348,768,368
0.505
$528,237,221
$31,036,158,592
0.263
$275,411,198
$24,168,515,004
0.141
$147,811,907
$19,451,430,903
$48,163,713,057
0.481
$392,002,329
$31,428,160,921
0.239
$195,091,279
$24,363,606,283
0.123
$100,152,208
$19,551,583,111
$48,163,713,057
0.458
$0
$31,428,160,921
0.218
$0
$24,363,606,283
0.107
$0
$19,551,583,111
$48,163,713,057
0.436
$0
$31,428,160,921
0.198
$0
$24,363,606,283
0.093
$0
$19,551,583,111
Net Profit
Scenario 3 -1 : Oil
Prices drop
Total
expenses VS
Revenue
Revenue & Expenses
-$2,372,859,362
$12,926,265,801
$1,800,889,542
$12,754,696,274
$171,569,527
$18,140,647,918
$2,175,673,683
$14,930,369,956
$3,210,277,962
$22,312,153,612
$2,295,613,960
$17,225,983,916
$5,086,169,696
$25,649,358,167
$2,681,289,230
$19,907,273,146
$5,742,085,021
$28,819,702,495
$2,624,535,933
$22,531,809,079
$6,287,893,416
$31,990,046,822
$2,887,486,720
$25,419,295,799
$6,570,751,023
$35,160,391,150
$3,036,626,162
$28,455,921,961
$6,704,469,189
$38,302,845,074
$1,301,928,040
$29,757,850,001
$8,544,995,074
$41,083,961,382
$941,995,138
$30,699,845,139
$10,384,116,243
$43,261,842,454
$609,258,439
$31,309,103,577
$11,952,738,876
$6,000,000,000
$44,967,332,421
$488,930,878
$31,798,034,455
$13,169,297,966
$5,000,000,000
$46,302,894,802
$857,022,011
$32,655,056,466
$13,647,838,336
$47,348,768,368
$567,700,265
$33,222,756,731
$14,126,011,637
$33,790,696,119
$14,373,016,938
$3,000,000,000
$48,163,713,057
$235,632,200
$34,026,328,319
$14,137,384,738
$2,000,000,000
$48,163,713,057
$235,632,200
$34,261,960,519
$13,901,752,538
$30,000,000,000
Expenses
$20,000,000,000
Cumulative
Expenses
Net Profit
-$10,000,000,000
2029
2027
2025
2023
2021
2019
$0
NCF VS NPV

$60,000,000,000
Cumulative NCF
$50,000,000,000
NCF
$4,000,000,000
$567,939,388
Revenue
$10,000,000,000
$7,000,000,000
$48,163,713,057
Cumulative
Revenue
$40,000,000,000
NPV 5%
NPV10%
$40,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV 5%
$30,000,000,000
$20,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV
10%
$10,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV
15%
NPV15%
$1,000,000,000
$0
2029
2027
2025
2023
$0
2029
$10,953,806,731
2027
$5,088,683,381
$50,000,000,000
2025
$8,580,947,370
$7,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$5,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$3,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$0
2023
$0
2021
$5,865,123,350
2019
$5,365,123,350
2017
$5,365,123,350
$5,865,123,350
2015
$500,000,000
2013
$500,000,000
2011
$5,865,123,350
$60,000,000,000
2021
Cumulative
Expenses
2017
Expenses
2019
Cumulative
Revenue
2015
$5,865,123,350
$0
$2,715,824,020
$4,345,318,431
$5,214,382,117
$4,171,505,694
$3,337,204,555
$3,170,344,327
$3,170,344,327
$3,170,344,327
$3,142,453,925
$2,781,116,308
$2,177,881,072
$1,705,489,968
$1,335,562,381
$1,045,873,566
$814,944,688
$0
$0
Cumulative NPV 5%
2017
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
NPV 5%
2013
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Revenue
5%
2015
Year
Cumulative NCF
2013
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
NCF
$5,865,123,350
$0
$2,715,824,020
$4,345,318,431
$5,214,382,117
$4,171,505,694
$3,337,204,555
$3,170,344,327
$3,170,344,327
$3,170,344,327
$3,142,453,925
$2,781,116,308
$2,177,881,072
$1,705,489,968
$1,335,562,381
$1,045,873,566
$814,944,688
$0
$0
2011
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NCF
2011
Year
Taxation
Year
Amount
ABS Amount
2011
$0
$0
2012
$0
$0
2013
########
$178,500,000
2014
########
$357,000,000
2015
########
$535,500,000
2016
########
$535,500,000
2017
########
$535,500,000
2018
########
Taxation
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$535,500,000
$200,000,000
Year
mmBUT
2011
2012
2013
403
2014
807
2015
1,210
2016
1,210
2017
1,210
2018
1,210
2019
1,210
2020
1,210
2021
1,210
2022
1,071
2023
834
2024
650
2019
########
$535,500,000
2020
########
$535,500,000
2021
########
$535,500,000
2022
########
$473,925,098
2023
########
$369,282,439
2024
########
$287,744,878
2025
########
$224,210,811
2025
507
2026
########
$174,705,065
2026
395
2027
########
$136,130,188
2027
308
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
$0
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
mmBUT
600
400
200
0
201120132015201720192021202320252027
$5,949,998,478
Daily Production
Scenario 3 -1 : Oil
Prices drop
bbl/day
Year
bbl/day
m/day
bbl/year
m/year
2011
200,000
2012
180,000
2013
60,000
7,154
21,000,000
3,338,733
160,000
2014
120,000
14,309
42,000,000
6,677,466
140,000
2015
180,000
21,463
63,000,000
10,016,200
120,000
2016
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
100,000
2017
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
80,000
2018
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
60,000
2019
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
40,000
2020
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
20,000
2021
180,000
28,618
27,423,466
4,359,983
2022
159,303
28,618
27,423,466
4,359,983
2023
124,129
23,565
22,456,693
3,570,329
2024
96,721
15,766
14,845,755
2,360,286
2025
75,365
10,548
9,814,287
1,560,347
2026
58,724
7,057
6,488,066
1,031,520
2027
45,758
4,721
4,289,155
681,921
bbl/day
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Total Taxes paid
$100,000,000
mmBUT
Conversion
Today's Price
mmBTU
GJ
GJ
mmBTU
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
1.00
1.05
1.00
26.80
1.00
28.26
NG
4.03
$/mmBTU
NG
142.59
$/1000m
Oil
126.87
$/bbl
Oil
797.99
$/m
Price
Unit
Price
Unit
NG
7.00
$/mmBTU
NG
247.67
$/1000m
Oil
85.00
$/bbl
Oil
534.63
$/m
Oil bbl
Oil bbl
1.00
158.99
1.00
1,000.00
1.00
6.29
Item
Item
2014 Price
Item
Scenario 3 -2 : Oil Production drop
Item
From yr -5 - 1
5.00%
From yr 5 - 6
2.00%
From yr 11 - 14
0.50%
From yr 16 - 20
0.00%
From yr -5 - 3
0.50%
From yr 8
-5.00%
From yr 12 - 13
0.50%
From yr 1 - 5
3.00%
From yr 6 - 10
1.00%
From yr 14 - 16
0.00%
From yr 20
0.00%
From yr -2 - 7
5.00%
From yr 9 -12
10.00%
From yr 14 - 15
-10.00%
Depreciation
FPSO Capacity
750,000
bbl
119,240
Tax
$8.50
Exploreation phase
Production Year
Year
Economic Life
Apprasal phase
-6
-5
-4
-3
2007
2008
2009
2010
Oil price per bbl

NG price per mmBTU
-2
15
years
Start Value
-$5,768,900,210
USD
-$1,857,431,472
USD
Production phase
-1
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$126.87
$133.21
$137.21
$141.33
$145.57
$149.93
$154.43
$157.52
$159.09
$160.69
$4.03
$4.23
$4.44
$4.67
$4.90
$5.14
$5.40
$5.67
$5.95
$5.66
45,000
90,000
135,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
144,805
92,133
15,750,000
31,500,000
47,250,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
63,000,000
50,681,667
32,246,700
302
605
907
1,210
1,210
1,210
973
619
105,866,098
211,732,196
317,598,294
423,464,392
423,464,392
423,464,392
340,664,784
216,751,257
-$1,083,471,119
$2,673,558,614
$9,103,539,580
$18,479,240,285
$27,843,431,348
$37,576,154,407
$44,920,331,548
48
Opening Balance
$0
$5,268,900,210
$5,768,900,210
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,631,427,017
$5,439,554,495
$8,433,745,069
$11,623,829,951
$12,016,105,909
$12,325,036,696
$10,091,555,956
$6,407,624,261
$5,768,900,210
$0
$2,631,427,017
$5,439,554,495
$8,433,745,069
$11,623,829,951
$12,016,105,909
$12,325,036,696
$10,091,555,956
$6,407,624,261
-$500,000,000
-$5,268,900,210
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$164,977,000
-$13,453,000
-$14,852,000
-$16,568,000
-$18,602,000
-$18,602,000
-$18,602,000
-$17,535,000
$0
$0
-$399,787,000
-$38,139,000
-$38,139,000
-$38,139,000
-$38,139,000
-$38,320,000
-$56,355,000
-$38,139,000
Operating personnel
$0
$0
-$95,480,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
Insurance
$0
$0
-$359,250,000
-$35,925,000
-$35,925,000
-$35,925,000
-$35,925,000
-$35,925,000
-$35,925,000
-$35,925,000
Loan
Exploration Period
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
$0
Cash Payments
CAPEX
OPEX
Wells
Exploration Period
$0
$0
-$533,422,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
-$184,504,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
$0
$0
-$402,778,000
-$25,721,000
-$35,257,000
-$26,500,000
-$73,134,000
-$27,054,000
-$40,748,000
-$26,742,000
Tariff costs
$0
$0
-$460,001,000
-$18,113,000
-$36,225,000
-$54,338,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$72,450,000
-$58,284,000
Loan repayments
$0
$0
-$904,563,553
-$1,013,111,179
-$1,134,684,521
-$1,270,846,663
-$1,423,348,263
-$1,594,150,054
-$1,785,448,061
-$1,999,701,828
Tax payments
$0
$0
-$133,875,000
-$267,750,000
-$401,625,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$535,500,000
-$430,794,172
-$274,096,949
Depreciation
$0
$0
-$260,764,583
-$260,764,583
-$260,764,583
-$260,764,583
-$260,764,583
-$260,764,583
-$260,764,583
-$260,764,583
Total Payments
-$500,000,000
-$5,268,900,210
-$3,714,898,135
-$1,682,524,762
-$2,003,764,103
-$2,248,129,246
-$2,651,914,845
-$2,592,313,637
-$2,747,378,815
-$2,720,736,360
Cash Book Balance
$5,268,900,210
$0
-$1,083,471,119
$2,673,558,614
$9,103,539,580
$18,479,240,285
$27,843,431,348
$37,576,154,407
$44,920,331,548
$48,607,219,449
$5,268,900,210
-$5,268,900,210
-$1,083,471,119
$3,757,029,733
$6,429,980,965
$9,375,700,705
$9,364,191,063
$9,732,723,059
$7,344,177,141
$3,686,887,901
$5,268,900,210
$0
-$1,083,471,119
$2,673,558,614
$9,103,539,580
$18,479,240,285
$27,843,431,348
$37,576,154,407
$44,920,331,548
$48,607,219,449
Net Cash Flow

Exploration Period
Production Year
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$162.29
$163.92
$164.74
$165.56
$166.39
$167.22
$167.22
$6.22
$6.84
$7.53
$8.28
$8.32
$7.49
$6.74
Daily liquids productionin bpd (bbl) 58,621
37,298
Year
Oil price per bbl
NG price per mmBTU
20,517,274
13,054,314
394
251
137,910,079
87,746,619
$48,607,219,449
$51,666,398,727
$53,654,218,777
$53,236,530,377
$53,004,624,977
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,187,889,089.98
$2,740,367,699.08
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,187,889,090
$2,740,367,699
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$16,185,000
-$15,481,000
-$15,097,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$38,139,000
-$38,139,000
-$38,139,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Operating personnel
Opening Balance
Loan
Cash Revenue
TOTAL RECEIPTS
Cash Payments
CAPEX
Decommision
OPEX
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
-$9,548,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Insurance
-$35,925,000
-$35,925,000
-$35,925,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Wells
-$238,686,000
$0
-$36,744,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$86,076,000
-$26,228,000
-$35,318,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tariff costs
-$37,084,000
-$23,595,000
-$15,012,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-174396829.4
-110961665.9
Depreciation
-$260,764,583
-$260,764,583
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Decommission costs
-$231,905,400
-$231,905,400
-$231,905,400
-$231,905,400
-$231,905,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Payments
-$1,128,709,812
-$752,547,648
-$417,688,400
-$231,905,400
-$231,905,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
Cash Book Balance
$51,666,398,727
$53,654,218,777
$53,236,530,377
$53,004,624,977
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
Net Cash Flow
$3,059,179,278
$1,987,820,051
-$417,688,400
-$231,905,400
-$231,905,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$51,666,398,727
$53,654,218,777
$53,236,530,377
$53,004,624,977
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
$52,772,719,577
Loan repayments
Tax payments
NCF

Cumulative NCF
5%
NPV 5%
Cumulative NPV 5%
10%
NPV10%
Cumulative NPV 10%
15%
NPV15%
Cumulative NPV 15%
2011
$5,768,900,210
$5,768,900,210
2012
$0
$5,768,900,210
1.000
$0
$0
1.000
$0
$0
1.000
$0
$0
2013
$2,631,427,017
$8,400,327,227
0.952
$2,506,120,968
$2,506,120,968
0.909
$2,392,206,379
$2,392,206,379
0.870
$2,288,197,406
$2,288,197,406
2014
$5,439,554,495
$13,839,881,722
0.907
$4,933,836,277
$7,439,957,245
0.826
$4,495,499,583
$6,887,705,961
0.756
$4,113,084,684
$6,401,282,090
2015
$8,433,745,069
$22,273,626,790
0.864
$7,285,386,087
$14,725,343,332
0.751
$6,336,397,497
$13,224,103,458
0.658
$5,545,324,283
$11,946,606,373
2016
$11,623,829,951
$33,897,456,741
0.823
$9,562,953,667
$24,288,296,999
0.683
$7,939,232,259
$21,163,335,718
0.572
$6,645,962,501
$18,592,568,874
2017
$12,016,105,909
$45,913,562,650
0.784
$9,414,933,399
$33,703,230,397
0.621
$7,461,056,379
$28,624,392,097
0.497
$5,974,128,307
$24,566,697,180
2018
$12,325,036,696
$58,238,599,346
0.746
$9,197,132,146
$42,900,362,544
0.564
$6,957,161,902
$35,581,553,998
0.432
$5,328,453,484
$29,895,150,664
2019
$10,091,555,956
$68,330,155,302
0.711
$7,171,880,410
$50,072,242,954
0.513
$5,178,563,864
$40,760,117,863
0.376
$3,793,789,674
$33,688,940,339
2020
$6,407,624,261
$74,737,779,563
0.677
$4,336,932,317
$54,409,175,271
0.467
$2,989,204,007
$43,749,321,870
0.327
$2,094,663,737
$35,783,604,076
2021
$4,187,889,090
$78,925,668,653
0.645
$2,699,550,648
$57,108,725,918
0.424
$1,776,073,789
$45,525,395,659
0.284
$1,190,459,454
$36,974,063,530
10
2022
$2,740,367,699
$81,666,036,352
0.614
$1,682,348,050
$58,791,073,968
0.386
$1,056,530,377
$46,581,926,036
0.247
$677,376,984
$37,651,440,514
11
2023
$0
$81,666,036,352
0.585
$0
$58,791,073,968
0.350
$0
$46,581,926,036
0.215
$0
$37,651,440,514
12
2024
$0
$81,666,036,352
0.557
$0
$58,791,073,968
0.319
$0
$46,581,926,036
0.187
$0
$37,651,440,514
13
2025
$0
$81,666,036,352
0.530
$0
$58,791,073,968
0.290
$0
$46,581,926,036
0.163
$0
$37,651,440,514
Year
Revenue
Cumulative
Revenue
Expenses
Cumulative
Expenses
2011
$5,768,900,210
$5,768,900,210
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$5,268,900,210
$14,000,000,000
2012
$0
$5,768,900,210
$5,268,900,210
$5,768,900,210
$0
$12,000,000,000
2013
$2,631,427,017
$8,400,327,227
$3,714,898,135
$9,483,798,345
-$1,083,471,119
2014
$5,439,554,495
$13,839,881,722
$1,682,524,762
$11,166,323,107
$2,673,558,614
2015
$8,433,745,069
$22,273,626,790
$2,003,764,103
$13,170,087,211
$9,103,539,580
$8,000,000,000
2016
$11,623,829,951
$33,897,456,741
$2,248,129,246
$15,418,216,456
$18,479,240,285
$6,000,000,000
2017
$12,016,105,909
$45,913,562,650
$2,651,914,845
$18,070,131,302
$27,843,431,348
2018
$12,325,036,696
$58,238,599,346
$2,592,313,637
$20,662,444,939
$37,576,154,407
2019
$10,091,555,956
$68,330,155,302
$2,747,378,815
$23,409,823,754
$44,920,331,548
2020
$6,407,624,261
$74,737,779,563
$2,720,736,360
$26,130,560,114
$48,607,219,449
2021
$4,187,889,090
$78,925,668,653
$1,128,709,812
$27,259,269,926
$51,666,398,727
10
2022
$2,740,367,699
$81,666,036,352
$752,547,648
$28,011,817,574
$53,654,218,777
11
2023
$0
$81,666,036,352
$417,688,400
$28,429,505,974
$53,236,530,377
12
2024
$0
$81,666,036,352
$231,905,400
$28,661,411,374
$53,004,624,977
2025
$0
$81,666,036,352
$231,905,400
$28,893,316,774
Total expenses
VS Revenue
Revenue & Expenses
Net Profit
13
Scenario 3 -2 : Oil
Production drop
$52,772,719,577
$90,000,000,000
$80,000,000,000
$70,000,000,000
Revenue
Expenses
NCF VS NPV

$90,000,000,000
$80,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$70,000,000,000
NCF
NPV 5%
NPV10%
$2,000,000,000
$0
Net Profit
$0
$12,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$30,000,000,000
-$10,000,000,000
$0
$6,000,000,000
Cumulative
Expenses
$40,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
$50,000,000,000
$20,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$14,000,000,000
Cumulative
Revenue
$60,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
NCF
Year
NPV15%
Cumulative NCF
$60,000,000,000
$50,000,000,000
Cumulative NPV 5%
$40,000,000,000
$30,000,000,000
$20,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$0
Cumulative NPV
10%
Cumulative NPV
15%
Taxation
Year
Amount
ABS Amount
2011
$0
$0
2012
$0
$0
Year
2011
2012
$600,000,000
2013
403
1,200
2014
807
2015
1,210
1,000
$500,000,000
2016
1,210
800
2017
1,210
2018
1,210
600
2019
1,210
400
2020
1,210
2021
1,210
200
2022
1,071
2023
834
2024
650
2025
507
Taxation
2013
-$178,500,000 $178,500,000
2014
-$357,000,000 $357,000,000
2015
-$535,500,000 $535,500,000
2016
-$535,500,000 $535,500,000
2017
-$535,500,000 $535,500,000
2018
-$535,500,000 $535,500,000
2019
-$535,500,000 $535,500,000
2020
-$535,500,000 $535,500,000
2021
-$535,500,000 $535,500,000
2022
-$473,925,098 $473,925,098
2023
-$369,282,439 $369,282,439
2024
-$287,744,878 $287,744,878
2025
-$224,210,811 $224,210,811
2026
-$174,705,065 $174,705,065
2026
395
2027
-$136,130,188 $136,130,188
2027
308
Total Taxes paid
mmBUT
mmBUT
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
$0
1,400
mmBUT
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
##########

Daily Production
bbl/day
Year
bbl/day
m/day
bbl/year
m/year
2011
200,000
2012
180,000
2013
45,000
7,154
21,000,000
3,338,733
160,000
2014
90,000
14,309
42,000,000
6,677,466
140,000
2015
135,000
21,463
63,000,000
10,016,200
120,000
2016
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
100,000
2017
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
80,000
2018
180,000
28,618
63,000,000
10,016,200
60,000
2019
144,805
23,022
63,000,000
10,016,200
40,000
2020
92,133
14,648
63,000,000
10,016,200
20,000
2021
58,621
9,320
63,000,000
10,016,200
2022
37,298
5,930
55,755,894
8,864,479
bbl/day
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Group K Final

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Group K Final

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REPORT

EVALUATING TECHNO-ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 5

Field Description ......................................................................................................... 6

Geographical Location ................................................................................................ 6

Weather Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6

Reservoir Properties .................................................................................................... 7

Technical proposal ...................................................................................................... 8

Factors Affecting the Various Development Phases ................................................. 10

The Exploration Phase .............................................................................................. 10

The Appraisal Phase .................................................................................................. 10

The Production Phase ................................................................................................ 11

The De-Commissioning Phase .................................................................................. 12

Technological Solutions ............................................................................................ 13

Extended well Test (EWTs) ...................................................................................... 14

Electrical Submersible Pumps ................................................................................... 14

Heavy Oil Processing ................................................................................................ 15

Crude Oil Pumping Systems ..................................................................................... 17

Stern Offloading System ........................................................................................... 17

Taut Leg Mooring System......................................................................................... 18

Pressure Maintenance: (Water Alternate Gas) WAG ............................................... 19

Project Strategy & Work Schedule ........................................................................... 20

Subsea Layout for Fields Development ................................................................... 22

Production Platform Details ...................................................................................... 23

Top Side Processing Facilities .................................................................................. 24

Project Schedule ........................................................................................................ 25

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

Equipment Maintenance Schedule ............................................................................ 26

Political, Socio-Economic Consideration ................................................................. 27

Political background .................................................................................................. 27

Monopoly of Petrobras .............................................................................................. 28

Enhanced Safety Regulations .................................................................................... 29

Environmental Considerations .................................................................................. 30

Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 30

Environmental Policies of the Brazilian Government............................................... 30

Financial and Economic Overview ........................................................................... 33

10.1 General Data .............................................................................................................. 33

11.1 Regulation and Authority .......................................................................................... 52

Project Future priorities ............................................................................................. 54

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

Figure 3.1: Field Location

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

Figure 3.1: Reservoir Properties

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

operations, maintenance and repair, abandonment and decommissioning.

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

Factors Affecting the Various Development Phases

The Exploration Phase

The Appraisal Phase

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

The Production Phase

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

The De-Commissioning Phase

KRUDE Consultants Inc.

Figure 6.1: 3D Reservoir Visualization

Extended well Test (EWTs)

EWTs in offshore fields are the best

investments. The stratigraphy of the

assurance techniques, heating systems,