002 Tacr en

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report
Project Number: 49204-002

September 2019
Indonesia: Pilot Carbon Capture and Storage Activity

in the Natural Gas Processing Sector
Prepared by Mark Kelly, Joel Main, David Jackman, and Joe Lundeen
Batelle
Ohio, United States
For Directorate General of Oil and Gas, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Republic
of Indonesia (DG MIGAS)
This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and
ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical
assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
TA-9189 INO: Pilot Carbon Capture and Storage Activity in the
Natural Gas Processing Sector
Gundih Block Feasibility Design and

Costing
Prepared for:
Asian Development Bank
Project Manager – Shannon Cowlin, SCowlin@adb.org
ADB Contract – 137806-S53178
Executing Agency – Directorate General of Oil and Gas, Ministry of Energy and
Mineral Resources, Republic of Indonesia (DG MIGAS)
Prepared by:
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Principal Investigator – Dr. Neeraj Gupta, gupta@battelle.org
Project Manager – Jared Walker, walkerJL@battelle.org
Primary Authors – Mark Kelley, kelleym@battelle.org; Joel Main, main@battelle.org;

David Jackman, david.jackman@serentitywestpacific.com; Joe Lundeen,
Joe.lundeen@trimeric.com
Battelle Project: 100116698
With Contributions from – Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) and PT Elnusa
September 27, 2019

Disclaimer
Battelle does not engage in research for advertising, sales promotion, or endorsement of our
clients’ interests including raising investment capital or recommending investments decisions, or
other publicity purposes, or for any use in litigation.
Battelle endeavors at all times to produce work of the highest quality, consistent with our
contract commitments. However, because of the research and/or experimental nature of this
work the client undertakes the sole responsibility for the consequence of any use or misuse of,
or inability to use, any information, apparatus, process or result obtained from Battelle, and
Battelle, its employees, officers, or Directors have no legal liability for the accuracy, adequacy,
or efficacy thereof.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Gundih CCS Pilot Design Overview .............................................................................. 3
1.2 New Injection Well Location........................................................................................... 6
Section 2. Surface Facilities Design ........................................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Basis of Design ............................................................................................................ 11
2.3 Design Specification .................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Process Description ..................................................................................................... 13
Equipment Description................................................................................................. 14
2.5 Control Philosophy....................................................................................................... 15
Section 3. Transport Facilities Design ........................................................................................ 17
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Basis of Design ............................................................................................................ 18
3.3 Design Specification .................................................................................................... 18
Section 4. Subsurface Facilities Design ...................................................................................... 21
4.1 Geologic Overview of the Injection Well Location........................................................ 21
4.2 Injection Well Basis of Design ..................................................................................... 25
4.2.1 Location and Trajectory ................................................................................... 26
4.2.2 Well Size .......................................................................................................... 27
4.2.3 Materials of Construction ................................................................................. 27
4.2.4 Operational considerations .............................................................................. 28
4.2.5 Other Considerations ....................................................................................... 28
4.3 Site Characterization ................................................................................................... 28
4.3.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................ 28
4.3.2 Existing Data .................................................................................................... 28
4.3.3 Open Boreole Geophysical Logging Program ................................................. 31
4.3.4 Coring Program................................................................................................ 32
4.3.5 Reservoir Hydraulic and Geotechnical Testing ................................................ 33
4.4 Injection Well Design ................................................................................................... 34
4.4.1 Directional Drilling Plan .................................................................................... 35
4.4.2 Casing Design.................................................................................................. 38
4.4.3 Completion Details ........................................................................................... 42
4.4.4 Well Plugging and Abandonment..................................................................... 45
4.5 Operations and Maintenance....................................................................................... 46
4.6 CO2 Monitoring Program ............................................................................................. 48
Section 5. Cost Information......................................................................................................... 49
5.1 Surface Facilities Costs ............................................................................................... 49
5.2 Transportation.............................................................................................................. 51
Battelle | September 2019 i

Table of Contents
5.3 Subsurface Costs ........................................................................................................ 51

5.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 54
Section 6. Environmental Safeguards & Regulatory Requirements ........................................... 55
References.................................................................................................................................. 57
Appendix A. Total Project Cost Estimates ................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B. Subsurface Authorization ..................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C. Drilling Prognosis Report ...................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D. Gundih Site Visit Report ....................................................................................... D-1
List of Tables
Page
Table 1-1. Components of the Gundih CCS pilot Project (ITB et al. 2015),
recommendations from Battelle (2018), and final design incorporated in the
current study................................................................................................................ 5
Table 4-1. Basis of design requirements for the Gundih pilot CO2 injection well. ....................... 25
Table 4-2. Summary of available general well data in the Gundih Field. .................................... 29
Table 4-3. Summary of the available geophysical log data in the Gundih Field. ........................ 30
Table 4-4. Summary of recommended petrophysical logs and logging intervals. ....................... 32
Table 4-5. Summary of proposed core acquisition details. ......................................................... 33
Table 4-6. Summary of proposed core analyses. ....................................................................... 33
Table 4-7. Prognosis for the geologic formations to be encountered during drilling. .................. 35
Table 4-8. Details for the directional drilling plan. ....................................................................... 36
Table 4-9. borehole and casing depths and diameters s for the pilot well in the Gundih
Field........................................................................................................................... 38
Table 4-10. Casing specifications. .............................................................................................. 39
Table 4-11. Proposed wellhead and Christmas Tree API design specifications. ........................ 43
Table 4-12. Subsurface Monitoring Objectives and Methods for the Gundhh Pilot-Scake
CCS Project............................................................................................................... 48
Table 5-1. Major purchased equipment cost data. ...................................................................... 49
Table 5-2. Total project cost estimates for 150 TPD scenario. ................................................... 50
Table 5-3. Annual Operating Costs for surface facility equipment. ............................................. 51
Table 5-4. Estimated cost for subsurface component of pilot project. ........................................ 52
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1-1. Conceptual schematic of the original Gundih Pilot Project Design (from ITB
et al., 2015). ................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 1-2. Gundih gas processing plant schematic showing possible tap points for the
pilot-scale treatment system. ....................................................................................... 5
Battelle | September 2019 ii

Table of Contents
Figure 1-3. Location of the Gundih Area showing the three gas fields KTB, RBT, and
KDL. ............................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 1-4. The three candidate injection well locations evaluated by ITB (2019): INJ-2
(directional well), INJ-3 (directional well) and INJ-4 (vertical well). ............................. 7
Figure 1-5. Total mole fraction CO2 case 2C kv/kh 0.5 (a) initial; (b) end of injection
2021; (c) end of contract 2035; (d) after 100 years (source: ITB, 2019). .................... 8
Figure 1-6. Total mole fraction CO2 case 2B kv/kh 0.5 (a) initial; (b) end of injection 2021;
(c) end of contract 2035; (d) after 100 years (source: ITB, 2019) ............................... 9
Figure 1-7. Total mole fraction CO2 case 2A kv/kh 0.5 (a) initial; (b) end of injection 2021;
(c) end of contract 2035; (d) after 100 years (source: ITB, 2019). ............................ 10
Figure 2-1. Process arrangement displaying H2S absorber outlet as CO2 tapping point. ........... 11
Figure 2-2. Surface equipment process flow. ............................................................................. 12
Figure 2-3. Diagram displaying the process flow of the surface facilities associated with
the pilot project. ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3-1. Layout of Pipelines (yellow line) from Gundih CPP to the INJ-2 injection well. ........ 17
Figure 3-2. Elevation Profile Route from the INJ-2 injection site to the Gundih CPP.................. 17
Figure 3-3. Diagram displaying pipe and valve arrangement for flow measurement at
each project location. ................................................................................................ 19
Figure 4-1. The Gundih Block is comprised of three structural culminations (KDL, RBT,
KTB) within the Randublatung physiographic province of east Java. The
contoured structural map of the Kujung Formation surface reveals three
reefal structures......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 4-2. Stratigraphic column for the Gundih Block with caprock and reservoir
depicted. Depth indicated is for top of Kujung Formation. Actual CO2 storage
depth is potentially deeper depending on injection location within or adjacent
to the reef. ................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 4-3. Example well logs for the KTB site from the KTB-2 well. ......................................... 24
Figure 4-4. Example static earth models for the Gundih Block. At left, the water
saturation model implies where gas accumulation (orange color) occurs up-
dip within the reef structures. At right, the platform margin reef facies provide
good opportunity for CO2 storage. ............................................................................. 24
Figure 4-5. Trajectory and depth of proposed injection well at the INJ-02 location (ITB,
2019). (Note that the bottomhole delta MD value should be 4100 m rather
than 3600 m) ............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 4-6. Generalized Stratigraphy of the East Java Basin. .................................................... 35
Figure 4-7. Planned well deviation in cross-sectional view showing mud weights used for
wells KTB-1 and KTB-2. ............................................................................................ 37
Figure 4-8. Diagram of casing details for the Gundih Field pilot CO2 Injection well. ................... 40
Figure 4-9. Example wellhead and Christmas tree design. ........................................................ 44
Figure 4-10. Example Instrumentation Flange showing Penetration for Instrument Line. .......... 45
Figure 5-1. Injection Well Costs totaling $17,638,770 (does not include monitoring) ................. 53
Figure 5-2. Total Project Cost Estimate for the Gundih 2-year 150 t/d Pilot CCS Project .......... 54
Battelle | September 2019 iii

Executive Summary
Executive Summary
This document presents an updated feasibility study for the Gundih pilot carbon capture and
storage project, which is authorized under the Asian Development Bank (ADB) Technical
Assistance TA-9189 “Pilot Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Project in the Natural Gas
Processing Sector (49204-002)” for evaluation and development of carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technologies for mitigation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from anthropogenic
sources. This feasibility study provides a near-final design for a two-year, 100,000 tonne, CO2
capture and storage project at a site in Central Java, Indonesia. The project outlined in this
document represents a major revision to the original pilot project design, which was
documented in ITB (2015). The major differences are: the target CO2 mass for the two-year
project has been increased to 100,000 tonnes from 20,000 tonnes; CO2 will be transported from
the source (Gundih Central Processing Plant) to the injection site via pipeline rather than truck;
and injection will take place at a new location in close proximity to the CPP, requiring a new
injection well. Selection of a new injection site was conducted by ITB as part of their scope
under their Center of Excellence (COE) contract with ADB. This feasibility study document
provides a design, operations and maintenance requirements, subsurface monitoring plan, and
a cost estimate for the two-year pilot CCS project. The pilot system includes the following
functional components:
• Surface facility (source gas treatment (H2S removal, dehydration, and compression);
• Pipeline;
• Flow measurement facility;
• Injection well;
• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) control system (computers, networked
data communications and graphical user interfaces) for high-level process supervisory
management;
• Subsurface monitoring infrastructure (in-well and above-ground monitoring equipment and
instrumentation, multiple geophysical arrays cemented in shallow boreholes).
This Feasibility Study document is one of three documents that together provide an executable
plan for the Gundih pilot CCS project. The other two companion documents are:
• TA 9189 Gundih CCS Project – PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ASSURANCE PLAN

(project risk assessment, project delivery plans, and project assurance framework)
• TA 9189 Gundih CCS Project – CCS PILOT PROJECT TENDERING AND
PROCUREMENT BRIDGING STRATEGY (procurement documents suitable for soliciting
budgetary quotes).
Collectively, this information will enable the ADB Board to determine whether the project should
proceed to the field execution phase.
Battelle | September 2019 1

Section 1. Introduction
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is providing technical assistance to the Republic of
Indonesia under TA-9189 INO: Pilot Carbon Capture and Storage Activity in the Natural Gas
Processing Sector (49204-002) for evaluation and development of carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technologies for mitigation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from anthropogenic
sources. As part of this effort, Battelle (Battelle’s team members include Trimeric Corporation,
Elnusa, and Serenity West Pacific Corp.) was selected in April 2018 to provide technical
advisory support for the project. In the initial phase of work, Battelle conducted a due diligence
and state of readiness review of the proposed Gundih pilot storage project as described in the
original feasibility study for the project (ITB, 2015). As a part of the initial phase of work, Battelle
also reviewed other information and documents that became available after the 2015 feasibility
study was released that proposed modifications to the original project design. A list of
documents and information reviewed is provided in Battelle (2018).
Based on the recommendations made by Battelle (2018) following the initial project review, ADB
directed Battelle to conduct a more detailed due diligence assessment of the Gundih Project.
The primary objectives of the current phase of work are to: 1) update the Gundih pilot project
feasibility study (reference) to reflect changes in the injection well location and other aspects as
needed, 2) prepare a project risk assessment, project delivery plans, and a project assurance
framework consistent with the technical approach defined in the feasibility study; and 3) develop
procurement documents suitable for soliciting budgetary quotes (typically +/- 20% accuracy)..
Collectively, this information will enable the ADB Board to determine whether the projects
should proceed to field execution phase.
This document presents the updated feasibility study; the other requirements described above,
i.e., objective 2) (project risk assessment, project delivery plans, and a project assurance
framework and objective 3) (procurement documents suitable for soliciting budgetary quotes)
are each provided in a separate companion document to this feasibility study. This document
includes the following information:
• Surface facility design

• Transport facility design
• Injection site design
• Operation and monitoring requirements
• Cost estimate
1.1 Gundih CCS Pilot Design Overview

The concept of the Gundih CCS pilot project as described in the original Feasibility Study (ITB et al.,
2015) has three primary components as illustrated in Figure 1-1. These include CO2 capture (separation)
and treatment/conditioning for truck transport, transport to the injection well site via truck, and deep well
injection with monitoring. Battelle’s review/analysis of the feasibility study recommended modifications to
the design, which are identified in

Table 1-1, along with the final design decision incorporated in this document. Battelle (2018)
recommendations include identifying a new injection site that is closer to the CPP with
amenable properties for the injection test, so that the cost of CO2 pipeline transport would be
more comparable to truck transport, and the cost and risk associated with truck transport can be
reduced. Battelle also recommended a cost-benefit analysis to select the best-suited
transportation option. This was done as part of the current study, and as a result, the pipeline
option was selected. This reduces treatment at the central processing plant (CPP) because
liquefaction is eliminated, and handling requirements are essentially eliminated both at the CPP
and the injection site. In exchange, compression of the CO2 at the CPP is added for the pipeline
option. In this study, the “tap point” for obtaining CO2 at the Gundih CPP, a subject of extensive
discussion due to inconsistent performance of the Bio-SRU (sulfur removal unit), is downstream
of the H2S absorber so the source gas to the pilot project has a lower hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
concentration. This assumes that the Bio-SRU performance becomes consistent at its design
treatment H2S concentration of 3,000 ppm. ADB has indicated that they will not support the pilot
study if the Bio-SRU cannot be operated consistently to achieve this level.
Figure 1-1. Conceptual schematic of the original Gundih Pilot Project Design (from ITB et al., 2015).

Table 1-1. Components of the Gundih CCS pilot Project (ITB et al. 2015), recommendations from
Battelle (2018), and final design incorporated in the current study.
Key Component
• Capture 30 tonnes of CO2 per day (20,000 tonnes over two years) from the Gundih natural gas
central processing plant (CPP) in Central Java,
• Transport the CO2 via truck to the Jepon field about 60 km away where it would be injected into an
existing well (Jepon-1), and
• Conduct subsurface and surface monitoring in the vicinity of the injection site for two years.
Recommendations from Battelle (2018)
• The location of the tap point for the source gas will have a significant impact on the pilot project
design. Assuming the Bio-SRU performance becomes consistent at its design outlet H2S
concentration of 3,000 ppm, the tap point should be downstream of the H2S absorber (see location 2
in Figure 1-2) so the source gas to the Pilot Project has a lower H2S concentration. A lower H2S
concentration translates into lower operating costs and a better fit for a solid scavenger system. If the
operating costs can be kept reasonable, the lower capital cost of a scavenger system can be a good
fit for a pilot project.
• Transportation: trucking over large distances is not recommended; try to locate the new injection site
close to the CPP so that both trucking and pipeline are both viable;
• The Jepon-1 well is not recommended for use as the injection well due to integrity issues.
Furthermore, the geology of the area around the Jepon-1 well is not suitable for a pilot injection test.
A new injection site closer to the CPP needs to be selected so that CO2 transport via pipeline could
be considered as an alternative to trucking. In the case of the pipeline option, the CO2 capture
process would not require a liquefaction step and the dehydration method could be with glycol. Both
actions would result in less capital and operating cost for the pilot.
• Conduct subsurface and surface monitoring in the vicinity of the injection site for two years but adjust
monitoring design to new site geology/conditions.
Final Design Incorporated in the current Feasibility Study Document
• The tap point for the source gas will downstream of the H2S absorber (see location 1 in Figure 1-2).
• CO2 transport via pipeline
• A new injection site has been selected at the Gundih CPP. Injection rate for the Pilot increased from
30 t/d (20,0000 tonnes over 2 years) to 150 t/d (100,000 tonnes over 2 years).
• Subsurface and surface monitoring will be conducted in the vicinity of the injection site for two years.
Figure 1-2. Gundih gas processing plant schematic showing possible tap points for the pilot-scale
treatment system.

1.2 New Injection Well Location

The injection site for the Gundih CCS Pilot test is a critical component of the test. A site was
sought that is close to the source of CO2 so that transportation is affordable and that has
requisite reservoir properties (injectivity, thickness) necessary to minimize spreading of CO2
(i.e., plume area), which reduces monitoring requirements, and requisite caprock properties
(permeability, capillary pressure, thickness, absence of fractures and faults) to permanently
contain the plume within the intended injection reservoir. Selection of a new injection site was
conducted by ITB as part of their scope under their Center of Excellence (COE) contract with
ADB. The new site was visited by the project team and the report can be found in appendix D.
The new site is briefly described below and elsewhere in this document, however, the reader
interested in more details should consult the complete ITB (2019) study. As part of their study,
ITB (2019) conducted numerical modeling to simulate the injection, spreading, and containment
of 100,000 tonnes of CO2.
The location for the proposed Injection well is within the Gundih Area, which is comprised of
three separate gas fields: KTB (Kedung Tuban), RBT (Randu Blatung), and KDL (Kedung Lusi).
developed in the Kujung Formation. Figure 1-3 shows the location of the Gundih Area in Central
Java.
Figure 1-3. Location of the Gundih Area showing the three gas fields KTB, RBT, and KDL.
To determine the best location for the injection well, ITB (2019) modeled CO2 injection and
spreading at three locations each with multiple injection rates. The three candidate injection
locations were chosen based on properties of the reservoir, including i.e. porosity, permeability,
and distance of well to reservoir target. In all simulations, the CO2 was injected near the bottom
of the reservoir to minimize the potential for CO2 injection to adversely affect production of
methane gas from the upper portion of the reservoir. The three injection locations are referred to

as INJ-2, INJ-3, and INJ-4. Three injection rates were simulated for each of the three well
locations, including 0.57 MMSCFD for two years (30 tonnes/day), 2.85 MMSCFD for two years
(100 tonnes/day), and 15 MMSCFD for 10 years (800 tonnes/day). The second scenario (2.85
MMSCFD for two years) is the design case for the Pilot Test. The first rate (0.57 MMSCFD for
two years) was the injection design included in the original feasibility study (ITB et al., 2015) and
was reevaluated by ITB for the purpose of comparing the quality of the new sites under
consideration to the original Jepon-1 well site. The third injection rate (2.85 MMSCFD for 10
years) was evaluated by ITB to assess the feasibility of injecting 100% of the CPP plant CO2
emissions.
The surface location for all three candidate injection wells is the well pad for the existing KTB-4
production well; however, the trajectory for each of the wells is different and consequently so is
the bottomhole depth (total well depth includes horizontal and vertical lengths), and location, as
shown in Figure 1-4.
Figure 1-4. The three candidate injection well locations evaluated by ITB (2019): INJ-2 (directional well),
INJ-3 (directional well) and INJ-4 (vertical well).
The rationale for INJ-2 was to locate the injector well far from the productive gas zones,
although the permeability is not highly favorable (average permeability near INJ-2 well is 14
mD). On the other hand, INJ-3 and INJ-4 are both located in areas with better porosity and
permeability, but closer to the productive gas zone. The rationale for INJ-04 (vertical well) is to
minimize total well depth and therefore cost relative to INJ-2 and INJ-3.
Figure 1-5, Figure 1-6, and Figure 1-7 are the cross section of simulated CO2 movement for the
most conservative scenario for each of the three wells (plotted in CO2 mole fraction grid) for the
design injection rate of 100,000 tonnes over two years (2.85 MMSCFD for two years). The light
blue grid is the gas productive zone, the dark blue is the water zone / aquifer and the red is the
CO2 injected. Other model scenarios are provided in the ITB (2019) report. Based on these
results and other factors (e.g. proximity to the CPP, injection well INJ-02 was selected for the
purpose of developing an injection well design and cost estimate for this feasibility study)(note:
INJ-2 was selected because initially ITB only modeled this well location and the modeling
results for the INJ-3 and INJ-4 locations were not available in time to develop a well design for
this report. However, using the information provided in this report, a well design and cost
estimate could easily be developed for these other two locations).

Figure 1-5. Total mole fraction CO2 case 2C kv/kh 0.5 (a) initial; (b) end of injection 2021; (c) end of
contract 2035; (d) after 100 years (source: ITB, 2019).

Figure 1-6. Total mole fraction CO2 case 2B kv/kh 0.5 (a) initial; (b) end of injection 2021; (c) end of
contract 2035; (d) after 100 years (source: ITB, 2019)

Figure 1-7. Total mole fraction CO2 case 2A kv/kh 0.5 (a) initial; (b) end of injection 2021; (c) end of
contract 2035; (d) after 100 years (source: ITB, 2019).

Section 2. Surface Facilities Design

2.1 Introduction
The Gundih CPP is a significant source of CO2 that can be used for an injection project. The
CO2 is from the removal of CO2 and H2S from natural gas (NG) production by an acid gas
removal unit (AGRU). The AGRU vent has a CO2 flow rate of about 800 tpd and H2S
concentration of 2.5%. At the CPP, the majority of the H2S is removed in an H2S absorber and
then routed to a thermal oxidizer that converts the remaining H2S to SO2. This process
arrangement at the Gundih CPP is shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1. Process arrangement displaying H2S absorber outlet as CO2 tapping point.
Past studies have evaluated the process and cost benefits of selecting take-off location 1
(downstream of the H2S absorber) for the CO2 source or take-off location 2 (upstream of the
H2S absorber). The cost of H2S removal has been shown to be a significant component of the
pilot project and the H2S concentration at location 1 is about 10% of location 2. Using take-off
point 1 for the pilot takes advantage of the existing H2S treatment at the Gundih CPP and
reduces the overall equipment size and cost of H2S treatment required for the pilot project. The
CO2 source and process design outlined in this report represent a balance between capital and
operating costs for the pilot project, keeping the overall costs reasonable for a two-year injection
period.
2.2 Basis of Design

The surface equipment of the pilot project for the treatment and transport of the CO2 source
stream from the Gundih CPP was designed and evaluated for two (2) injection flow rates, 30
tons/day (0.58 MMSCFD) and 150 tons/day (2.85 MMsSCFD). Reservoir evaluation identified
an injection well for the project ~4.3 km from the Gundih CPP. A review of surface conditions
confirmed there was an existing right-of-way available for a pipeline. The use of a pipeline to
transport CO2 was selected based on previous transport analysis and the benefits of simplifying
the process and operations of the surface equipment.
The major equipment and process flow of the surface equipment is shown in Figure 2-2. The
compressor, H2S scavenging system, and glycol dehydration are available as equipment
packages; this can reduce the cost and schedule of site construction activities. The design and

specification of equipment for suppliers to develop commercial offerings is discussed in the next
section.
Figure 2-2. Surface equipment process flow.
The gas composition and conditions used for the surface equipment design is based on the data
in the 2017 ICoE report. The composition (dry basis) of this stream is shown in the figure, but
the stream is water saturated from the Gundih CPP.
The process equipment was also designed to meet the CO2 product specification of:
• Water content less than 30 lb H2O / MMscf

• H2S less than 50 ppmv
• Injection pressure and temperature: 2,000 psig /100o F.
In addition, available utilities at the plant site included power, fuel gas, and instrument air. Some
provisions for connecting to the infrastructure are assumed. The overall utility usage from the
pilot project is small in comparison to existing Gundih CPP operations.
2.3 Design Specification

Information developed during the design specification phase of a project depends on the type of
equipment associated with the process. In general, the level of information developed must be
sufficient to communicate the equipment details of the process such that a supplier can develop
budgetary cost proposals. The equipment types associated with the CO2 Pilot Project are
common in the oil and gas industry and are packaged by suppliers with a standard approach for
skid layout or equipment arrangement. The information developed included process description,
process simulation results, process flow diagrams, and technical scope documents for cost
proposals. The technical scope documents developed for suppliers can be found in the tender
documents prepared for this project.
An abbreviated description of the major equipment package skids and specific process details
are included in this discussion. The process flow diagram of the surface facilities associated
with the pilot project is shown in Figure 2-3. Material balance information for select streams is
shown based on process simulation results from Virtual Materials Group’s Simulator, VMGSim.
Internal checks of the CO2 property estimates have been done on previous CO2 projects and
there is a high confidence in the results.

Figure 2-3. Diagram displaying the process flow of the surface facilities associated with the pilot project.
2.4 Process Description

The CO2 source at the Gundih CCP is at low pressure (5 psig); therefore, an 8-inch diameter,
500 foot pipeline will be required to transport the gas from the source to the pilot facility to limit
pressure drop in the line. The first unit operation of the pilot project is compression. A 5-stage
reciprocating compressor will be used to raise the pressure from about 4 psig to about 2,100
psig. The sour CO2 stream will be compressed sequentially through four (4) stages and then
diverted after the stage 4 discharge cooler to the H2S scavenger and TEG dehydration units.
The interstage pressure for H2S and water removal is approximately 850 psig. H2S removal is
the first process step, because the scavenger material is more effective on a water saturated
stream.
The selected H2S removal method is a solid bed adsorbent scavenger; SulfaTreat 2242 material
is the basis for vessel design and operating cost. Liquids from the CO2 stream are removed in a
separator before entering the H2S removal system to prevent fouling of the material (gas should
be water saturated, but without any liquids). The H2S scavenger system consists of two (2)
pressure vessels operating in series in a lead-lag configuration, in the top and out the bottom of
each vessel. When H2S concentrations begin to approach 500 ppmv leaving the lead vessel,
plans should be made to change the lag vessel to serve as the lead vessel and to replace the
scavenger material in the original lead vessel. Each vessel will be capable of meeting the 50
ppmv limit on its own, therefore CO2 will be processed in a single bed while the spent material is
removed and replaced.
After H2S removal, water is removed from the CO2 in a triethylene glycol (TEG) dehydration
process. TEG systems are very common in natural gas processing applications, and those used
in CO2 service are similar with a few modifications to the materials of construction. The basic
configuration includes a contactor to remove water from the CO2 and a regenerator to remove
the absorbed water from the TEG so it can be returned to the absorber and reused. The wet gas
stream flows up the contactor (with internal trays or structured packing) while TEG flows down,

countercurrent to the gas flow in the vessel. Dehydrated CO2 leaves the top of the vessel, while
rich TEG (TEG that contains the dissolved water) leaves the bottom of the vessel. There is
typically a pressure reduction step in a flash vessel that releases some CO2 (usually vented, but
can be routed to lower suction stage of compressor), followed by one (1) or more heat
exchange steps between the rich TEG on its way to the regenerator and the lean TEG on its
way from the regenerator back to the absorber.
Following water removal, the dry CO2 stream from the contactor is routed back to the
compressor and the 5th stage of compression boosts the stream to 2,100 psig for transport to
the injection well. The discharge of the compressor is higher than the required injection pressure
of 2,000 psig to account for pressure drop loss that can occur in measurement and the pipeline.
The flow rate into and out of the pipeline will be measured to provide a means of continuously
monitoring the integrity of the line.
Equipment Description
Select process information is listed below for the major equipment to provide context to the
requirements of the surface equipment of the pilot project.
5-stage reciprocating compressor

• Boosts pressure from about 4 psig to about 2,100 psig, power requirement estimated at 915
HP.
• Each stage of compression consists of a vertical two-phase suction separator, suction
pulsation bottle, one (1) or more cylinders, discharge pulsation bottle, and an air-cooled heat
exchanger (intercooler for stages 1 through 4 and final cooler after stage 5).
• A typical setup for this application would be a 5-stage, 6-throw reciprocating compressor.
There would be two (2) cylinders for stage 1 and one (1) cylinder each for stages 2 through
5.
• The main driver could be an electric motor or NG engine. For estimating operating costs for
this equipment, a NG engine was used. Equipment costs would be similar for either driver
type.
• The skid will include a control panel, PLC (programmable logic controller), and instruments
such as pressure transmitters, temperature transmitters, and vibration sensors needed to
monitor and control the operation of the reciprocating compressor system.
• Materials of construction prior to H2S and water removal are typically 304L or 316L stainless
steel on the cold, suction side of each stage (upstream of the cylinder(s)). Carbon steel can
be used from the discharge of the cylinder(s) to the inlet to the air cooler, because the gas is
well above its water dew point
H2S Scavenger System

• Two (2) pressure vessels operating in series in a lead-lag configuration, CO2 flows down
through each bed.
• Vessel design and scavenger usage rates are based on Schlumberger SulfaTreat 2242
performance data
• Vessel size and change out frequency
• 8-ft diameter x 24-ft Seam to Seam (S/S), 19 day bed life for 150 TPD
• 6-ft diameter x 24-ft S/S, 45 day bed life for 30 TPD
• Operations to make plans for bed change out when H2S out of lead vessel at 500 ppmv

• Each vessel is designed to meet the 50 ppmv requirement on its own, flow through one (1)
vessel during bed change out
• Vessel isolation venting pressure for bed change out is manual operation
• Spent scavenger is disposed of following waste disposal testing; material is not regarded as
a hazardous waste in similar applications
• Two (2) bed system will handle upsets (periods of higher H2S levels) and still meet the
product specification, but the time between change outs would be reduced
• Materials of construction (MOC) for the scavenger vessels for sour, water saturated CO2 are
typically 304L or 316L stainless steel
TEG Dehydration System

• TEG dehydration systems are a common unit operation in oil and gas operations
• Size of the pilot unit equipment is small compared to standard units. Approximate sizing are
• 1-ft contactor diameter
• 1 gpm lean glycol flow
• 100,000 Btu/hr reboiler size
• Process configuration of TEG system for CO2 service is similar to natural gas service with the
addition of 316L SS material for vessel MOC and rich TEG streams.
• A PLC was included in the specification for monitoring TEG flow/pressure/temperature and
controlling reboiler operation. Many small dehydration units of this size operate as stand-
alone systems without PLC control, and this could be an option to consider during final
design
2.5 Control Philosophy

The control philosophy used to define the level of instrumentation for the pilot project was based
on common industry practice for operational control of equipment with consideration of safety
systems. The expected level of instrumentation detail was included in the technical scope
information provided to suppliers for budgetary equipment quotation. However, a formal review
of instrumentation or safety systems has not been performed for the project. In the next phase
of the project, cause and effect diagrams would be developed and process hazard review
meetings would occur to formally review the safety systems and instrumentation requirements
of the project.
The general approach taken for instrumentation and control of the surface equipment
associated with the pilot project is described below.
• No automation of the isolation valve at the take-off location inside the Gundih CPP facility. If
pilot plant operations shut down, manual valve to the pilot unit will be closed and CO2 source
flow will route to thermal oxidizer as today.
• Emergency shutdown valves (ESV) will be located on the inlet gas to the pilot process, at the
inlet to the pipeline, and at the outlet of the pipeline. These valves will operate to isolate the
system in case of an operational upset.
• Inlet H2S concentration will not be measured, the data from the Gundih CPP will be used to
track this parameter.
• The performance of the H2S treatment system will be monitored with an online analyzer in
the process area or at the pipeline inlet.
• The performance of the TEG dehydration system will be monitored with an online analyzer in
the process or at the pipeline inlet.

• The compressor package will include a PLC unit to monitor and control the operation.
• The H2S removal system will not have automation.
• The TEG dehydration system will include a PLC unit to monitor and control operation.
• The flow into and out of the pipeline will be measured through orifice meters and the surface
injection condition monitored at the well site.
• Data from the well site and the injection well will be transferred to the pilot surface facility
location via fiber optic cable.
• PLC data and instrumentation from site and injection location will be integrated into HMI
(human machine interface) screens for operators to monitor injection and a data historian will
pull and store required information.
The control approach will be further defined during the detailed engineering phase of the
project. In addition, the site specifications and company specifications (mechanical, electrical,
civil, instrumentation, and other areas) of Pertamina will be referred to in order to refine the
equipment packages and be the basis of the onsite work performed by the general contractor or
EPC.

Section 3. Transport Facilities Design

3.1 Introduction
A pipeline will transport CO2 from the surface equipment adjacent to the Gundih CPP to the
injection well (4.3 km distance). The surface equipment will condition and deliver the CO2 to the
pipeline at a design pressure of 2,100 psig. The project team performed several site visits and
determined an existing right-of-way could be used for routing the pipeline to the well. Figure 3-1
and Figure 3-2 depict the planned route of the flowline.
Figure 3-1. Layout of Pipelines (yellow line) from Gundih CPP to the INJ-2 injection well.
Figure 3-2. Elevation Profile Route from the INJ-2 injection site to the Gundih CPP.

3.2 Basis of Design

The pipeline design was based on the following conditions:
• Design pressure of 2,100 psig and temperature of 120o F

• Two (2) flow cases: 30 ton/day (TPD) (0.58 MMSCFD) and 150 TPD (2.9 MMSCFD)
• Hydraulic loss through the pipeline to be less than 20 psi
At this condition, the CO2 will be in the supercritical fluid phase. It will be important to confirm
flow measurement devices (flow computers) have a good thermodynamic properties package
and calculation method for adjusting to the correct CO2 density.
3.3 Design Specification

Hydraulic calculations performed identified a 2-in. diameter schedule 80 pipe would be sufficient
for transport of 30 TPD and a 3-in. schedule 80 pipe would be sufficient for transport of 150
TPD. For the purposes of this project, the pipe diameter was increased one (1) pipe size for
each for defining costs. The CO2 entering the pipeline contains less than 30 lb H2O/MMSCF,
allowing for normal carbon steel for materials of construction.
The following list provides an example scope of supply for the pipeline contractor:
• Mobilization, demobilization, loading, hauling, clearing, grading, stringing, cutting, beveling,

welding, valve installations, coating, holiday detection and repair, ditching, horizontal
directional drilling, lowering in, backfilling, hydrostatic testing, gauging, inspection,
dewatering, cleaning, drying, final cleanup, and right-of-way and site restoration.
• Furnish all labor, supervision, tools, equipment, and materials as required, except material
specifically furnished by Company. The pipeline contractor is expected to provide the
following items:
 All temporary and permanent fencing and gate materials
 All skids for use on the pipeline rights-of-way
 All water and pumps, blinds, gaskets, etc. required for pressure testing the pipeline and
related appurtenances
 All welding equipment and supplies, including oxygen, acetylene and welding rod
 All pigs and other material and equipment required for gauging, filling with water and
cleaning the pipeline
 All foam pigs, brush pigs, air compressors, dehydrators, monitors and controls required for
drying the pipeline
 All coating material and primer and/or fusion bond epoxy (FBE) coating machines, sand
blasting materials and epoxy powder required for field joints and coating repairs on FBE
coated line pipe including tools and equipment necessary for proper application
 All epoxy/urethane coating material including tools and equipment necessary for proper
application on field joints on FBE coated pipe used in auger bore, slick bore and horizontal
directional drilled installations and concrete coated pipe installations
 All coating material and equipment necessary for proper application on underground
fabricated piping
 All paint, primer and sandblast material required for the above grade portions of the
project
 All sack breakers
 All water and other material required for dust control in the pipeline right-of-way and on all
other construction sites

 All material required by the Environmental Control Plans

 All timber construction mats.
Examples of items furnished by the Company for projects of this type include:
• A central pipe/ware yard for execution of the project

• Radiographic and other nondestructive testing (NDT) of field welding during the fabrication
and construction of the pipeline. Contractor shall provide a sufficient amount of time to
company for scheduling NDT services
• Source of water for pipeline hydrotest.
The equipment required for CO2 measurement at either end of the pipeline and for the injection
of CO2 into the well is limited to mostly piping and valves that are connected to a flow meter.
Figure 3-3 shows the pipe and valve arrangement for flow measurement at each project
location. The flow measurement shown in the diagram consists of a Daniels type or similar
orifice meter tube. The specific design and size of the meter tube will depend on flow
conditioning devices and the flow capacity at each location. Each measurement tube will be
equipped with pressure and temperature instrumentation used to calculate the density of the
CO2 at the measurement location and the differential pressure across the orifice plate. A flow
computer associated with the meter tube uses the differential pressure across the plate and
calculates the density of the fluid at the locally measured temperature and pressure to calculate
the mass flow rate of CO2 through the meter. Flow and pressure data will be communicated via
fiber optic cable from the well location to the pilot plant data system to monitor conditions on the
pipeline and at the well.
Figure 3-3. Diagram displaying pipe and valve arrangement for flow measurement at each project
location.

Section 4. Subsurface Facilities Design

4.1 Geologic Overview of the Injection Well Location
A comprehensive description of the geology of the Gundih Block, including the proposed
injection well location, is provided in ITB (2019). A brief review of the geology is provided here.
The Gundih block (oilfield) is in the Randublatung physiographic province of east Java and is
composed of three reef structures developed in the Kujung Formation. From east to west and
increasing depth, these are KTB (Kedung Tuban), RBT (Randu Blatung), and KDL (Kedung
Lusi). The thicknesses of the Kujung in each reef structure are as follows: KTB ~2,300 ft.; RTB
~2,300 ft.; and KDL ~1,115 ft. Calciturbidites drape on the SW flank of some of these reef
buildups and compose of a secondary reservoir target. These calciturbidites form in the
lowermost section of the Tuban Formation, which overlies the Kujung, can be up to ~130 ft
thick, and are composed mostly of calcium carbonate. These form when tropical carbonate
platforms or reefs are flooded or exposed and cause a sharp increase in sedimentation. The
Tuban is over-pressured and the strata returns to normal lithostatic pressure in the Kujung.
Overpressure is seen in the KDL-1 well at 4,377 ft. MD in the Ngrayong and Tuban, based on
the sonic log detection and increase in mudweight. The KTB-1 well also saw overpressure in the
Tuban. Hydrocarbon (gas) production occurs from the Kujung Formation within these local
structural highs (Figure 4-1). In order to avoid disturbing gas production in the reefs, CO2
injection will occur in the water leg on the southern flank of the KTB reef. Figure 4-1 is a contour
map of the top of the Kujung Formation. The Gundih CPP (central processing plant) for
hydrocarbon production from the nearby well pads (Figure 4-1) is situated between the RBT and
KTB structures.

Figure 4-1. The Gundih Block is comprised of three structural culminations (KDL, RBT, KTB) within the
Randublatung physiographic province of east Java. The contoured structural map of the Kujung
Formation surface reveals three reefal structures.
Good CO2 storage potential exists at all three structures but the KTB area was selected to host
the CO2 injection well because of its close proximity to the Gundih CPP (less than 2 miles or 3.2
km). Additionally, the Kujung occurs at a shallower depth compared to the other two structures
(therefore well costs will be lower) yet deep enough so that the CO2 will exist as a supercritical
liquid when injected. (Figure 4-2). The reservoir rock is overlain by the Tuban Formation, an
interlayered claystone and limestone, which has served as a seal for hydrocarbons in this reef.
The stratigraphic column in Figure 4-2 shows the lithostratigraphy for this potential storage site.

Figure 4-2. Stratigraphic column for the Gundih Block with caprock and reservoir depicted. Depth
indicated is for top of Kujung Formation. Actual CO2 storage depth is potentially deeper depending on
injection location within or adjacent to the reef.
Example well logs for the KBT-2 well indicate that the reservoir rock in the vicinity of the
proposed injection well location is largely comprised of clean limestone (Figure 4-3). Effective
porosity (track 9 in Figure 4-3) averages 5% with frequent peaks as high at 10%. The gamma
ray log (track 4 in Figure 4-3) indicates an abrupt transition from the Kujung Formation into the
overlying Tuban claystone (caprock). Three drill stem tests (DSTs) were conducted in the KBT-2
well within the reservoir (tracks 2 and 3 in Figure 4-3); however, these were only for the purpose
of collecting fluid samples and not for determining reservoir hydraulic properties. The Tuban
caprock is generally lacking data. Formation testing, coring, advanced logging, and packer
testing will be conducted within the caprock and reservoir, if borehole conditions allow, to better
characterize the injectivity, storage, and containment potential of the formations.

Figure 4-3. Example well logs for the KTB site from the KTB-2 well.
Significant static earth modeling has already been conducted (ITB, 2019) for the Gundih block
and this work provides the necessary background for selecting a potential injection well location.
Water saturation modeling (Figure 4-4) reveals where hydrocarbons have accumulated in the
structural traps in the Kujung (below the Tuban claystone, not shown). Facies modeling for the
KTB site shows that it is largely comprised of platform marine reef carbonates (Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-4. Example static earth models for the Gundih Block. At left, the water saturation model implies
where gas accumulation (orange color) occurs up-dip within the reef structures. At right, the platform
margin reef facies provide good opportunity for CO2 storage.

4.2 Injection Well Basis of Design

This basis of design (BOD) for the Gundih CCS Pilot Injection well is a collection of requirements that
dictate the well’s design. The BOD requirements are presented in Table 4-1. As shown, the criteria
can be grouped into groups according to the aspect of the well that is affected – e.g., location, size
(diameter), materials of construction, operational considerations, and other requirements.
Table 4-1. Basis of design requirements for the Gundih pilot CO2 injection well.
Criteria Criteria Value
Location and • Inject into Kujung Formation Avoid injected CO2 from reaching gas zone
trajectory of but do not interfere with gas
injection well production
• Start from existing well pad at Well INJ-02 was chosen for the purpose of
Gundih field developing a well design for this feasibility study
(proposed location for INJ-02 is the well pad for
existing production well KTB-04 – see Figure 1-4
for location; see Figure 4-5 below for trajectory)
• Preferred bottomhole target Based on modeling (ITB, 2019)
location
• Well perforation interval – Based on modeling (ITB, 2019)
(3896 to 3916 m MD) –
Well size CO2 total injection amount 100,000 tonnes (2.85 MMSCFD; assumes 20,805
during two-year pilot study MMSCF/tonne)
Daily CO2 injection rate: 137 to 183 tonnes/day
• minimum daily injection rate
assumes continuous injection
over two-year period;
• upper bound daily injection
rate assumes well is
operational only 75% of the
time.
• Packer and tubing string Size (diam.) of (injection tubing must be able to
required accommodate design injection rate without
excessive friction head loss
• Accommodate subsurface (in- 2-7/8 in. diam tubing inside 5-1/2 in. diam. casing;
well) monitoring 8-1/2 in. diam. borehole.
instrumentation
̶ Real-time bottom-hole P/T
monitoring
̶ fiber optic cable outside
deep casing string
• Borehole large enough to Minimum 7-7/8 inch diam.
accommodate wireline testing
tools (e.g., Schlumberger
MDT; Baker RCX)

Table 4-1 (continued). Basis of design requirements for the Gundih pilot CO2 injection well.
Criteria Criteria Value

Materials of CO2 Injectate Composition CO2%; H2O%; H2S%, other %
construction • Required well service life 5 yrs (assumes 2 year injection period, 1 to 2 year
post-injection monitoring, well is installed 1 year
before injection begins)
• Casing materials based on Schlumberger well design software (DrillPlan)
mechanical load scenarios used to determine casing specs
• Bottomhole pressure and Based on modeling (ITB, 2019)
temperature
Operational Surface Pressure and Pressure and temperature will be such that CO2 is
Considerations Temperature of CO2 (wellhead) not gas phase when it enters the injection well.
Automatic shutdown (Control Injection wells must be able to halt injection
Philosophy)A automatically if criteria are met (e.g., injection
pressure exceeds threshold) Requires automated
vales on wellhead; requires that wellhead valves
are connected to common capture/injection
SCADA
Other Emplace continuous cement fill
Considerations from total depth to surface the
annulus between the 5-1/2 inch
casing and the 8-1/2 inch
borehole
Pore pressure, fracture
pressure, temperature
Characterization of caprock and
reservoir properties is required
during drilling, including
geophysical logging, coring, and
packer tests in the
Tuban, Calcitubidite, Kujung.
borehole
Inclination shall be <30˚ to allow
gravity conveyance of tools (i.e.,
avoid pipe-conveyed logging)
A. Data from the well site and the injection well will be transferred to the pilot surface facility location via fiber optic cable;
PLC data and instrumentation from site and injection location will be integrated into HMI (human machine interface)
screens for operators to monitor injection and a data historian poll and store required information.
4.2.1 Location and Trajectory

As previously mentioned in Section 1.4, well location INJ-2 was chosen as the preferred injection
well location and therefore was used to develop a well design for this feasibility study (proposed
location for INJ-2 is the well pad for existing production wells KTB-02 and KTB-04 – see Figure 1-4
for location). The target bottom-hole location for the well is horizontally offset from the well pad,
which is situated directly above the gas production zone, by a considerable distance and vertically
offset beneath the gas production zone to minimize the potential for CO2 mixing with the natural gas
resource. in fact, the proposed injection interval is near the bottom of the Kujung These
requirements necessitate that the injection well is deviated. It is desirable to keep the amount of
deviation below 30 degrees so that logging and testing tools can be conveyed by gravity. Figure 4-5
illustrates the trajectory and depth of the well based on the INJ-2 location.

Figure 4-5. Trajectory and depth of proposed injection well at the INJ-02 location (ITB, 2019). (Note that
the bottomhole delta MD value should be 4100 m rather than 3600 m)
4.2.2 Well Size

A major factor that affects the well size (diameter) is the amount (rate) of CO2 injection. It is
desirable for the tubing string to be large enough so that the frictional pressure drop is minimal.
For the planned rate of injection, a 2-7/8 inch outside diameter tubing string is sufficient. Other
factors that influence well diameter is the desire or need to install pressure gauges, temperature
gauges or other hardware in the well. in this case, one or more fiber optic cables will be installed
on the deepest casing string and real-time readout pressure and temperature sensors will be
placed in the annular space between the tubing and deepest casing. This necessitated a 5-1/2
inch outside diameter casing string. To accommodate the fiber optic cable and to allow wireline
logging and testing tools to be used in the deepest section of the well (i.e., across the reservoir),
the deepest borehole was specified as 8-1/2 inches.
4.2.3 Materials of Construction

The main factor that determines the materials of construction is the composition of the CO2
injection stream. CO2 in the presence of water will produce a corrosive environment.
Furthermore, H2S present in the CO2 stream is also corrosive. Although the CO2 will be
dehydrated before it is injected, selected components of the wellhead valves that come into
contact with the CO2 were specified to be made of CO2 corrosion resistant materials. No special

materials were specified for the tubulars (tubing, casing) because of the anticipated short
service life of the well and low levels of H2S (<50 ppm).
4.2.4 Operational considerations

To allow for the most efficient injection conditions, the pressure and temperature of the CO2 in
the pipeline will be maintained such that CO2 will be supercritical liquid when it enters the
injection well. this will ensure single phase flow in the tubing string and as the CO2 enters the
reservoir. Another important operational requirement is the ability of the injection well to halt
injection automatically if criteria are met (e.g., injection pressure exceeds threshold). This
requires automated vales on the wellhead (tree) and that the wellhead valves are connected to
a common capture/injection SCADA.
4.2.5 Other Considerations

Other well design constraints include, for example, the need to cement the fiber optic cable in
place, (by filling the annulus between the 5-1/2 inch casing and the 8-1/2 inch borehole from
total depth to surface) in order to achieve good acoustic coupling between the fiber and
formation. If it cannot be cemented to surface, the cement column should extend to above the
caprock at minimum. Characterization of caprock and reservoir properties is an important
objective during drilling, therefore, measures will be taken to facilitate logging, coring, and open
borehole testing, to the extent possible. For example, the borehole diameter shall be sufficient
to accommodate geophysical logging, coring, and packer testing tools in the Tuban,
Calcitubidite, and Kujung intervals intersected by the borehole. Similarly, the borehole
inclination shall be <30˚ to allow gravity conveyance of tools (i.e., avoid pipe-conveyed logging).
4.3 Site Characterization
4.3.1 Objectives
A geologic characterization program will be implemented in the injection well borehole during
drilling to better characterize the distribution of important reservoir and caprock properties.
These properties will be incorporated into the site-specific reservoir model, which will be used to
help decide certain well completion details (e.g., perforation intervals) and to forecast the lateral
and vertical spreading of the injected CO2. Because no monitoring wells are planned for this
project, extra reliance will be placed on the model to forecast/track the CO2 plume during the
operational period. Hence, it is essential that the model accurately represents the subsurface
geology, which requires detailed characterization data.
The objectives of this Site Characterization Plan are to summarize the existing data available to
the Gundih CCS project and to identify the types of data that will be collected for the project as
part of the borehole characterization effort. The rationale is to conduct a detailed
characterization of near wellbore geology to identify CO2 injection interval(s) and confining units
in support of the development of an accurate reservoir model. The borehole characterization
program elements include geophysical logging, coring, core testing and analysis, packer testing,
stress measurements (mini-frac testing), borehole seismic, and other reservoir testing methods.
4.3.2 Existing Data

Within the Gundih Field study area, there are nine existing wells that penetrate the formations of
interest (i.e., Tuban and Kujung Formations) and have varying degrees of geophysical and

reservoir data associated with them. In addition to the borehole data, 3D and 2D seismic data
exists across the study area and have been used, along with the borehole data, to generate the
initial static earth model created by ITB (2019). The tables below summarize the relevant
existing data in the Gundih field. These tables also identify data gaps that are to be filled by the
data collection program for the proposed injection well. A more complete overview of the
existing data in the Gundih Field and the modeling work that has been done to date can be
found in ITB (2019).
Table 4-2. Summary of available general well data in the Gundih Field.
Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well
KDL- KTB- KTB- KTB- KTB- KTB- RBT- RBT- RBT-
Data Type 1 1 2 3TW 4 6ST 1A 2 3ST
Petrophysical Well Logs ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
& Core Data Petrographic
✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Analysis
Scanning
Electron
Microscope & --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
X-ray Diffraction
Analysis
Mud Log ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Routine Core
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Analyses
Special Core
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Analysis
Well & Well Report:
Reservoir Cutting, Mud ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- ---
Data Drilling
Completion/Well
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- ✔
Design
Static Pressure
✔ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Survey
Well Test ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
PVT ✔ ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ---
*See section 8.4.4 Core Analyses for explanation of routine and special core analysis.

Battelle | September 2019

Table 4-3. Summary of the available geophysical log data in the Gundih Field.
Induction Resistivity Laterolog
Well Running Depth (m) GR CAL SP Deep Med. Shallow Deep Med RHOB NPHI DT PE
KDL-1 1848.45-238 ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
3335.88-1728.5 ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
3499.25-3207.4 ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- ✔ ✔ --- --- ✔ ---
3681.37-3316.22 ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- ✔
KTB-1 1600-328 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
2351.52-1506.89 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
2736.02-2208.72 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
3300-2585 ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
KTB-2 2830.3-1121 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
3020.7-2746.4 ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- ✔
KTB-3TW 1203.50-284 ✔ --- --- ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
2208.27-1119.70 ✔ --- --- ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
2734-2180 ✔ --- --- ✔ --- --- ✔ ✔ --- --- --- ---
2969.07-2685.28 ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- ✔
KTB-4 2772.97-1195 ✔ --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ---
2772.9-2185 ✔ --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ---
2969.66-2765 ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- ✔
KTB-6ST 2752.8-894 ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- ✔ ✔ --- ✔
RBT-1A 3092.95-2937.05 ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- ✔ ✔ --- --- --- ---
RBT-2 1484.4-252.6 ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ---
2948.79-1385.32 ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- ✔ --- ✔ ✔
3378-3236 ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
3236.5-2848.05 ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
RBT-3ST 3237.28-1494.43 ✔ ✔ --- ✔ ✔ --- --- --- --- --- ✔ ---
3662-3038.85 ✔ ✔ ✔ --- --- --- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ --- ✔
30
4.3.3 Open Borehole Geophysical Logging Program

A comprehensive suite of geophysical logs will be obtained during drilling. Geophysical logs will
be the main method used to identify potential CO2 injection intervals and caprock intervals for
subsequent packer testing and caprocks in the well. The petrophysical logging program will
build upon information from the existing wells in the field as well as the new characterization
well.
4.3.3.1 Mudlogging
A mud log will be compiled during drilling. Mud loggers inspect formation cuttings produced
during drilling and identify which formation was being drilled, approximate elevations for the
formation’s top and bottom, and the formation’s lithology. They work closely with the rig crew to
develop this information and to use it for more efficient drilling. The mud loggers also monitor
gas production from the well. This information is used by the mud engineers to formulate the
drilling fluid, and to help to ensure safety of the crews against the presence of harmful gasses.
4.3.3.2 Petrophysical Logging Program

The petrophysical logging program consists of basic and advanced log suites in a combination
of logging while drilling (LWD) and open hole wireline logging. The triple combo log suite (i.e.,
resistivity, neutron porosity, bulk density, caliper, gamma ray, and photo-electric factor logs) will
be logged while drilling to prevent any well integrity issues due to pressure differentials from
affecting the data quality. All other logs will be open hole or cased wireline logs. The triple
combo logs will be run a second time, pending sufficient well integrity, as open hole wireline
logs to capture the bottom ~100 ft. of the borehole that the long LWD tools cannot access. In
addition to the basic log suite, the following advanced wireline logs will be run open hole: dipole
sonic, resistivity imager, and elemental spectroscopy. Pulsed Neutron Capture logging will be
run after casing is set along with an ultrasonic cement imager and then again after tubing is set
to create two baseline measurements (all cement bond logs will be run after casing, prior to
tubing). Table 4-4 summarizes the logging program and includes formations that will be
encountered, and which logs will be run at each interval.

Table 4-4. Summary of recommended petrophysical logs and logging intervals.

Logging Tuban Kujung
Parameter Tool Wonocolo Ngrayong (Caprock) (Reservoir)
Basic Triple
petrophysical Combo
properties –
porosity,
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
permeability,
density, resistivity,
photo-electric
effect, etc.
Acoustic Dipole
velocities, rock Sonic
mechanical
properties,
horizontal stress
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
orientation
(azimuth) and
anisotropy, and
velocity modeling
update
Identification of Resistivity
depositional Imager
features, bedding
planes, dip,
vugular/secondary
porosity, --- --- ✔ ✔
fractures, faults,
stress orientation
(from break-outs
and drilling-
induced fractures)
Fluid Pulsed
type/saturation Neutron --- --- ✔ ✔
Capture
Cement Ultrasonic
evaluation Cement ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Imager
Additional geophysical borehole characterization data will be collected via a vertical seismic
profile (VSP) gather that will be performed post well completion.
4.3.4 Coring Program

Coring is a key element of the proposed characterization program. However, it is highly
uncertain pending an assessment of borehole stability during drilling whether core data would
be collected and used to calibrate geophysical logs in the determination of reservoir properties.
Such data include routine core analyses as well as special core analysis. Secondly,
measurements such as relative permeability and pore volume compressibility provide input for
reservoir computer simulation. Core analysis data are also used to determine injectivity and to
quantify acoustic rock properties.

The recommended coring program includes up to 240 ft of whole core and up to 120 sidewall
core samples from the caprock and reservoir intervals
Table 4-5. Summary of proposed core acquisition details.

Formation Whole Core Sidewall Core
Tuban Caprock (upper interval) 1 x 60 ft run 30 samples
Calciturbidite (lower interval) 1 x 60 ft run 30 samples
Kujung Upper Interval 1 x 60 ft run 30 samples
Lower Interval 1 x 60 ft run 30 samples
4.3.4.1 Core Analyses

Core samples, if they are able to be obtained, will be subjected to the array of core tests
described in Table 4-6. These tests will identify lithology/lithologic features and laboratory
analyses (i.e., routine and special core analyses) will be performed on both whole core and
sidewall core samples.
Routine core parameters include porosity, grain density, horizontal and vertical permeability,
and a lithologic description. Routine parameters will be measured at a high frequency (e.g.
every foot).
Table 4-6. Summary of proposed core analyses.

Tuban Kujung
Upper Upper Lower
Core Test / Analysis Purpose Caprock Calciturbidite Section Section
Standard core Identify depositional
descriptions for all environment, high porosity
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
whole core (macro zones, fractures, etc.
descriptions)
Petrographic analysis Mineral ID, porosity typing,
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
(micro descriptions) and porosity development
Routine core analyses Characterize porosity,
(whole and sidewall permeability of reservoir and
core) caprock; develop statistically
sound poro-perm transforms ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
for reservoir interval;
calibrate/verify porosity and
permeability logs
Specialized core tests Mercury injection capillary
(MICP, relative pressure (MICP) data is
permeability) needed to model fluid
diffusion into the caprock; ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
relative permeability to CO2
is an input model parameter
for the reservoir
Special core analysis refers to any measurements that are not part of routine core analysis.
Reservoir properties measured include relative permeability and capillary pressure.
Petrographic and mineralogical studies include thin sections and X-ray diffraction. These
measurements are usually made in selected intervals and formations.

The core analysis program for the Gundih CCS Project will build upon information from the
current wells at the Gundih Field.
4.3.5 Reservoir Hydraulic and Geotechnical Testing

If borehole stability is favorable, open borehole reservoir (packer) tests will be conducted in the
injection well to define reservoir properties needed to assess the viability of injecting and
storing the target CO2 quantity (approximately 100,000 tonnes over two years) and the ability of
the caprock system to contain the injected CO2 and prevent unwanted out-of-zone migration.
Therefore, testing will be necessary both in the reservoir intervals and the caprock. The Kujung
Formation is the primary candidate reservoir for this program and the calciturbidite interval near
the base of the Tuban Formation is a potential secondary candidate reservoir for this program.
The tests are referred to as packer tests because they entail using either a straddle (double)
packer or single packer to isolate a test interval for either hydraulic or stress (geomechanical)
hydraulic.
Geophysical logging data obtained for the open borehole section across the caprock and
reservoir will be used to identify zones for packer testing. The type(s) of reservoir packer tests to
be conducted varies for the reservoir and caprock. Reservoir tests, which are conducted with a
wireline-deployed straddle-packer tool, inflatable packers placed in the borehole, can be
designed to evaluate much longer (i.e., thicker) specialized core tests (MICP, relative
permeability). MICP data allows for more accurate water saturation model and provides inputs
for reservoir simulation. Relative permeability can be updated to refine the rock -fluid model
used in dynamic simulation for the reservoir and caprock.
4.4 Injection Well Design

As part of the Gundih pilot CCS project, a well will be installed to characterize the site and
eventually used for the injection of 20,000 MT of CO2. The pilot well will be drilled to evaluate
the CO2 storage potential of the Lower Kujung Formation (below the water contact depth),
Tuban reservoir-caprock system ( Figure 4-6). In addition, the calciturbidite sequence located at
the base of the Tuban Formation (at the transition between the Tuban and Kujung Formations)
will be evaluated for CO2 sequestration. See Appendix C for full drillling prognosis report. Table
4-7 presents the prognosis for the geologic formations of interest that will be encountered during
the drilling of the characterization/injection well. If the formations are stable enough to allow
open-borehole logging, coring and packer testing, specific characterization activities to be
performed during installation of the well would include:
• Collection of geophysical logs

• Collection of full-hole core or sidewall core samples.
• Measurement of fluid pressures.
• Injectivity testing of potential CO2 injection intervals identified from geophysical log data.
Additionally, formation resistivity will be monitored during the drilling of the well below the
surface casing using the Near-Bit Resistivity (NBR) tool, This will enable the identification of the
upper Kujung boundary before drilling proceeds beyond this depth so that the deep intermediate
(9-5/8 inch) casing can be set in the lowermost Tuban. The NBR tool is only applicable when
coupled with the rotary steering technology and is located approximately 1.5 m from the bit.

Figure 4-6. Generalized Stratigraphy of the East Java Basin.
Table 4-7. Prognosis for the geologic formations to be encountered during drilling.
Formation Name Pilot Well Prognosis RBT-01A Well
Lidah Surface Surface
Mundu NA 515.87 m TVD
Ledok NA 773.10 m TVD
Wonocolo 284 m TVD 1022.60 m TVD
Ngrayong 1006 m TVD 1528.90 m TVD
Tawun/Tuban 1596 m TVD 2151.0 m TVD
Kujung 2964 m TVD 2939.60 m TVD
Ngimbang 3490 m TVD NA
4.4.1 Directional Drilling Plan

The pilot well will be drilled from the KTB-2 well pad and will be oriented deviated to the
northeast (30 degrees) to reach the target the appropriate location in the injection zone. Table
4-8 presents the details of the directional drilling plan. After setting the surface casing, the well

will be deviated N30°E at an angle of 30° to achieve the correct trajectory. Figure 4-7 shows the
planned trajectory for the injection well at the INJ-2 location. Note that the well is vertical to a
depth of approximately 300 m below that depth and will be deviated using either a rotary
steerable or a downhole motor. A rotary steerable system (RSS) is preferred because it will drill
the well more efficiently and less time will be spent adjusting/orienting the tool face with
aggressive bit usage (issues with a motor when trying to control the tool-face) and maximizing
drilling parameters.
Table 4-8. Details for the directional drilling plan.

Parameters Well Detail
UTM Zone 49S Coordinates surface location: 9203232.44 m S 554412.83 m E
Azimuth: 30°
Vertical Section (KOP): 300 m TVD
Build Section: 300 m TVD 500 m TVD
Maximum Deviation: 30° 4.5°/30 m BUR
Tangent Section: 500 m TVD ~3,582.5 m TVD
Measured Total Depth: ~4,100 m MD
True Vertical Total Depth: ~3,582.5 m TVD
Target bottomhole Coordinates: 9204836 m S 555338.4 m E
Target Tolerance TBA

Figure 4-7. Planned well deviation in cross-sectional view showing mud weights used for wells KTB-1 and
KTB-2.

Sliding with a mud motor could pose challenges due to weight stacking. The weight stacking is
more profound when water-based mud (WBM) is used because the friction factor is higher than
the synthetic oil-based mud (SOBM). Another advantage of using a RSS is that it will result in a
smoother borehole and therefore make it easier to install casing. This will also aid in improved
borehole conditions, which is important for the extensive logging and formation evaluation
program. A mud motor creates "micro-doglegs" which increase the tortuosity of the hole section
which, depending on the severity, will increase the chance the drilling assembly becomes stuck
due to key-seating. RSS continuous rotation and higher rotating speed will also help improve
hole cleaning of the well.
4.4.2 Casing Design

The pilot well will consist of five casing strings to reach the Ngimbang Formation at
approximately 3,490m TVD. However, a sixth (contingency string) has been engineered and will
be installed if over-pressure zones are encountered in the Tuban Formation. If an over-pressure
situation is encountered, the 9 -inch casing would need to be set early due to potentially
unstable hole conditions. Table 4-9 and 4-13 present the casing plan for the well, including the
contingency string. The pilot well will be completed with a 5½-inch casing string in an 8½-inch
borehole at total depth to allow for the passage of characterization tools in the deep zone to
provide adequate annular space for fiber optic cable(s) on the outside of the 5-1/2 in. casing, to
accommodate a tubing string of sufficient diameter for efficiently injecting the CO2 (i.e., minimal
friction), and to accommodate real-time bottom-hole pressure/temperature sensor between the
tubing string and the 5-1/2 in. casing. (Figure 4-8).
Table 4-9. Borehole and casing depths and diameters for the pilot well in the Gundih Field.
Casing/Liner
Hole Size Diameter Shoe Depth Formation
(inches) (Inches) (m MD) Setting Depth
Driven/Drilled 30 30 Surface
26 20 300 Wonocolo
17 ½ 13 1094 Ngrayong
12¼ x 14¾. 11 ¾a TBD Tuban
12 ¼ 9 b 2346 - 3356 Tuban
8½ 5½ 0 – 4100 Kujung
a. Contingency casing liner
b. Casing liner

Battelle | September 2019

Table 4-10. Casing specifications.
OD ID Drift ID Start MD End MD TOC
Section Type Description in. in. in ft ft ft Grade Connection
36 in Conductor 30’ Casing 196.08 lbm/ft 30.000 28.750 28.5625 0.00 98.43 0.00 X52 MIJ
26 in Casing 20’ Casing 133 lbm/ft 20.000 18.730 18.5425 0.00 984.00 0.00 K55 BTC
17.5 in Casing 13.375’ Casing 77 lbm/ft 13.375 12.275 12.11875 0.00 3592.52 0.00 L80 MTC
14.75 in Liner 11.75’ Casing 71 lbm/ft 11.750 10.586 10.42975 3559.71 7729.66 3559.71 L80 BTC
12.25 in Liner 9.625’ Casing 53.5 lbm/ft 9.625 8.535 8.5 7696.85 11010.50 7696.85 P110 LTC
8.5 in Production 5.5’ Casing 23 lbm/ft 5.500 4.670 4.545 0.00 13451.44 500.00 P110 MTC
39
Figure 4-8. Diagram of casing details for the Gundih Field pilot CO2 Injection well.
Conductor Casing String

The conductor casing string will extend from the ground surface to approximately 30 m MD.
Installation of this string is necessary to isolate unconsolidated formations and protect against
shallow gas. The conductor casing string will consist of 30-inch X52 MIJ, 196 lb/ft casing (or
similar (e.g., 0-inch B, MIJ, 118.6 lb/ft ) inside of a 36-inch borehole.

The 36-inch borehole hole section will initially be drilled with a 17½-in. pilot hole using a WBM. It
will then be opened up with a 17½-in. bull nose x 26-in. x 36-in. hole opening assembly. At total
depth the hole will be back reamed and a 30 bbl Hi-Vis pill will be pumped and displaced with
WBM gel.
The conductor string section will be cemented with approximately 80 barrels (bbl) of 1.9 specific
gravity slurry, that will cement the entire length (surface to 30 m MD) of the casing string.
Surface Casing String

Surface string will extend from the land surface to 300 m MD. The purpose of surface string
casing is to provide protection from blowouts and prevent lost circulation. The casing material
will be 20-inch, K-55, BTC, 133 lb/ft or similar (e.g., 20-inch, K-55, BTC, 106.5 lb/ft) set in a 26-
inch diameter borehole.
The hole section will be drilled using 1.05 – 1.10 specific gravity potassium chloride (KCl)
partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA) polymer mud. The surface string will be cemented
throughout the entire length).
Shallow Intermediate Casing String

Shallow intermediate string casing will extend from the land surface to 1094 m MD. This casing
will be necessary to provide protection against the caving of potentially weak or abnormally
pressured formations. The casing material will be 13 -inch, L-80, MTC, 77 lb/ft (or similar) set
inside a 17¾-inch hole.
The borehole for the shallow intermediate string casing will be drilled with a saline OBM ranging
from 1.13 to 1.46 specific gravity. Casing for this section will be cemented throughout the entire
length.
Contingency Casing Liner

A contingency casing string may be required to be set near the base of the Tuban Formation
prior to penetrating the Kujung Formation. Installation of the contingency string casing may be
necessary to accommodate the downhole pressure increases that may occur in the transient
pressure zone. The exact placement (in terms of depth) of the contingency string casing will be
determined during well construction. Casing material will be 11¾-inch, L-80, BTC, 71 lb/ft liner
will be used as contingency string casing and will be set in a 14¾-inch diameter borehole.
Casing for this section will be cemented throughout the entire length of the liner.
Deep Intermediate Casing Liner

The deep intermediate casing (liner) string will extend from the bottom of the shallow
intermediate casing string (1,094 m MD) (if contingency string not used) to the base of the
Tuban Formation (3,356 m MD). If a contingency string is used, the deep intermediate casing
(liner) string will extend from the bottom of the contingency liner casing string to the base of the
Tuban Formation (3,356 m MD). The placement of the liner at this depth will reduce the
potential of significant mud loses. The liner string will consist of 9 -inch, P-1q10, 53.5 lb/ft, LTC
casing inside a 12¼-inch borehole.
Using the offset well drilling approach as a reference, this section of the well will likely be drilled
using a SOBM with a mud weight ranging from approximately 1.53 to 1.71 specific gravity. This
mud weight would be satisfactory to maintain well control and borehole stability if over-pressure
zones are not encountered and the contingency string is not needed. Due to the relatively high

temperature gradient in this well, a mud cooling unit may be needed in the deeper sections of
the well.
This section of the well will likely be cemented using a single stage cement job with a 1.68
specific gravity lead slurry followed by a 1.9 specific gravity tail slurry. The annular space will be
cemented along the entire length of the liner.
Injection Casing String

The deep/injection casing string will be completed to just below the base of the Kujung
Formation at a depth of approximately 3,917 m MD and will be used to case off the lower
portion of the well and allow for CO2 injection into the Kujung Formation. The casing material to
be used for this section will have the following specifications (or similar): 5½-inch, P-110, 23
lb/ft, MTC.
4.4.3 Completion Details
Perforations
The well will be perforated to allow communication/injection into the selected zones. The
perforation details, including depths, density [holes per foot], hole diameter and penetration
distance) will be determined after the well has been drilled and the characterization activities
have been completed.
Tubing
Using the U.S. EPA Class VI regulations as guidance, the CO2 will be injected into the desired
formation(s) through tubing. The tubing diameter will likely be 2 -inch to allow sufficient
injection into the reservoir and will be compatible with the carbon dioxide stream. The tubing will
also be designed with burst strength to withstand the injection pressure and the collapse
strength to withstand the pressure in the annulus between the tubing and the casing.
Consideration should be given to a metal-to-metal seal tubing connection due the higher than
normal temperature fluctuation that can occur in the Gundih Field. The precise length/depth of
tubing required will be determined once the injection zones have been selected.
Annular Fluid
The annular space above the packer between the 5½-inch injection casing and the 2 -inch
injection tubing will be filled with fluid to provide structural support for the injection tubing. If
required, a small positive pressure can be applied at the surface and continuously monitored to
ensure there are no leaks in the tubing, packer or casing. The maximum annulus surface
pressure will not exceed a value that would result in a pressure at the top of the packer that is
greater than the pressure inside the tubing when the bottom-hole injection pressure is at the
maximum allowable pressure.
The annular fluid will be a diluted salt solution such as KCl, NaCl, CaCl2, or similar. The fluid will
be mixed onsite using dry salt and clean fresh water or delivered pre-mixed. The fluid will also
be filtered to ensure that solids do not settle at the packer or other components installed in the
annulus. In addition, the annular fluid will contain additives and inhibitors including a corrosion
inhibitor, biocide/bactericide (to prevent harmful bacteria), and an oxygen scavenger

Wellhead
The wellhead and Christmas tree will meet the requirements of API SPEC 6A – Specification for
Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment Twenty-First Edition (2019) The wellhead and
Christmas tree will be composed of materials compatible with the injected fluid to minimize
corrosion. All components that are in contact with the CO2 injection fluid will be made of a
corrosion resistant alloy or a conventional material with a corrosion resistant inlay for flow
wetted component surfaces. The wellhead and Christmas tree will also be designed to
withstand the pressure and temperature conditions expected. Table 4-11 presents the
specifications for the wellhead and Christmas tree and Figure 4-9 presents an example diagram
of the wellhead/Christmas tree construction.
Table 4-11. Proposed wellhead and Christmas Tree API design specifications.
Bottom Top Pressure
Connection Connection Rating Material Temperature
Section (inches) (inches) (psi) Classification Rating
Section A 20 21 ¼ 3,000 TBD TBD
Section B 21 ¼ 11 5,000 TBD TBD
Section B2* 11 11 5,000 TBD TBD
Section C** 11 11 5,000 TBD TBD
1
THA*** 11 4 /16 5,000 TBD TBD
Xmas Tree 4 1/16 - 5,000 TDB TBD
*Section B2 Casing annulus monitoring instrumentation ported section
**Section C Tubing annulus monitoring instrumentation port access incorporated into tubing head
adapter and ported tubing hanger.
*** THA Tubing Head Adapter

Figure 4-9. Example wellhead and Christmas tree design.

The well will be equipped with fiber optic cable(s) outside the 5-1/2 in. casing and real-time
bottom-hole pressure and a temperature monitoring sensor on the outside of the tubing string.
This will require the inclusion of ported adaptor flange sections that will incorporate pressure
sealing ports. An example is shown in Figure 4-10.
Figure 4-10. Example Instrumentation Flange Showing Penetration for Instrument Line.
Well Monitoring Equipment

During the completion of the pilot well, the well will be equipped with monitoring systems to
examine the injection of CO2 during the operational phase. There will be two main data source
locations. The well will be equipped with a fiber optic cable(s) (containing fibers for
Distributed Temperature Sensing [DTS], Distributed Acoustic Sensing [DAS], and
Distributed Strain Sensing [DSS]) outside the 5-1/2 in. casing and real-time bottom-hole
pressure and temperature monitoring sensor on the outside of the tubing string. The annular
space outside of the 5½-inch casing will be cemented to the extent possible to surface,
permanently cementing the externally mounted fiber optic cable in the well. An electronic cable
will be mounted on the tubing string with the cable residing between the 2 -inch tubing and the
5½-inch casing. The cable will terminate on bottom a short distance above the packer into a
ported sub-assembly providing access to tubing pressure and temperature.
4.4.4 Well Plugging and Abandonment

At the termination of the CO2-injection pilot program, which is planned to last two years, the well
will be permanently plugged and abandoned.
Indonesia does not have regulations or requirements governing well plugging and
abandonment; therefore, guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI (CO2 Injection wells) Rule will be followed. These
requirements can be found in 40 CFR §146.92 “Injection Well Plugging”. The plugging
procedure and materials will be designed to prevent any unwanted fluid movement, to resist the

corrosive aspects of carbon dioxide/water mixtures, and protect any USDWs. Any necessary
revisions to the well plugging plan, to address new information collected during logging and
testing of the well will be made after construction, logging and testing of the well have been
completed.
After injection has been terminated, the well will be flushed with a kill weight brine fluid. A
minimum of three tubing volumes will be injected without exceeding the fracture
gradient/pressure. The bottom hole pressure will be measured, and the well will be logged and
pressure tested to ensure mechanical integrity, inside and outside the casing, prior to plugging.
At least one of the following logs, as described in 40 CFR §146.92(a), will be conducted to verify
external mechanical integrity prior to plugging operations:
• Temperature Log
• Noise Log
• Oxygen Activation Log
Should a loss of mechanical integrity be discovered, the well will be repaired prior to proceeding
with plugging operations. The anulus of all casing strings extending to surface will have been
cemented to surface during the well construction phase and will not be retrievable at
abandonment. When injection has been terminated permanently, the injection tubing and packer
will be retrieved and the well plugged with either, balanced cement plugs or a combination of
cement retainers and cement plugs. In the event the packer cannot be retrieved, the tubing will
be cut with an electric line tubing cutter leaving the packer in the well after which a cement
retainer will be used for plugging the injection formation below the packer.
All casing strings will be cut off approximately three feet subgrade, in accordance with
regulatory requirements, and a blanking plate with the well information welded to the cutoff
casing.
4.5 Operations and Maintenance

Once the pilot well, separation and compression system, and transfer piping have been
completed, the overall system will be ready for injection of CO2 into the potential reservoirs,
beginning the operation and maintenance phase.
In general, the O&M burden for the injection well should be minimal for a two-year injection
period. The equipment covered by the injection well O&M activity include all equipment
downstream of the Christmas Tree/pipeline connection, including wellhead and Christmas Tree
valves, downhole equipment (i.e., packers, tubing, seating nipples, etc.), and the
pressure/temperature monitoring equipment (surface and bottomhole). For a typical (e.g., >10-
year) injection program, a schedule detailing the timeline of operations and maintenance
activities would be developed and included as part of the Class VI UIC permit. Due to the short
duration of this project, an operations and maintenance schedule has not been developed.
Instead, O&M will be performed proactively or on an as-needed basis. The following text
describes potential O&M needs.
Wellhead Equipment
The wellhead (including Christmas Tree) components will need to be checked for leaks, proper
function, and general condition on a daily or weekly basis. This should be completed with visual
and audible inspections. The wellhead will be visually inspected for cracks, fluid flow out of the
wellhead, and the general condition of the wellhead components for oxidation or ill-fitting
connections. In addition, localized frost-covered equipment can provide an indication of a leak in

the wellhead or piping. Often even small leaks are audible, and the operator should listen to the
surface equipment for any indication of leaks. Automated valves controlling the flow of CO2 into
the well should also be checked for acceptable condition. Any leaks or improper function should
be reported. Periodically, the automated and manually operated valves should be checked for
proper operation. The valves should be fully closed and fully opened to confirm the valves hold
pressure and allow proper CO2 flow to the well. The electronic relays or physical actuators on
automated valves should be checked to confirm that they “trip” properly. The inspection of the
valves should be performed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. All moving parts
and seals should be properly lubricated according to the manufacturer’s specifications.
Downhole Equipment
Annular pressure monitoring/testing can provide data to monitor the integrity of the well. Annular
pressure testing is performed on the annular space between the injection tubing and injection
casing to examine the integrity of the tubing, packer, and long casing string before injection
commences and following any workover event that involves removing the tubing/packer.
Monitoring/testing can also be performed between the individual casing strings in order to
confirm the integrity of the outer casing strings and cement between the strings.
After the tubing string and packer have been set at the desired depth and the annular space has
been filled with fluid, an annular pressure test (mechanical integrity test) should be conducted to
confirm proper sealing of the equipment prior to commencing injection. During the test, the
tubing/casing annulus should be increased to an appropriate value (e.g., the U.S. EPA
regulations require a test pressure between 300 and 2,000 psi but is dependent upon the
maximum allowable injection pressure), an appropriate duration (e.g., 15 minutes to one hour)
to detect changes that could indicate leakage. A maximum pressure loss or gain of 5% would
indicate acceptable integrity.
During injection operations, annulus pressure will be maintained at a small positive pressure;
therefore, an annular pressure maintenance system is required to control the pressure in the
annular space. O&M activities should include regular inspection of the annular pressure
maintenance system components (e.g., air/nitrogen cylinders, tubing, gauges, transducer, data
logger, etc.).
The interior condition of the tubing must be maintained to prevent plugging and interference of
CO2 injection. Indicators of plugged tubing would be an increase in wellhead tubing pressure
without a corresponding increase in the tubing pressure at the depth of the reservoir. Depending
on the cause of the plugging (hydrates, lubricants from the compressors, or corrosion) actions
can be made to remedy the issue. Hydrates are often addressed with the injection of methanol
into the injection lines and organic lubricants can often be remedied with an organic solvent.
Corrosion of the tubing may require replacement of sections of the tubing or the entire tubing
string.
Pressure/Temperature Monitoring Equipment

The injection well will use an electronic P&T sensor with real-time surface readout capability to
monitor the surface and bottomhole (just above packer) pressure and temperature. These
sensors will be calibrated before installation. The surface sensor can be re-calibrated
periodically; however, the bottomhole sensor can only be recalibrated if the tubing/packer is
removed. Routinely, the data will be analyzed for evidence of drift (e.g., increasing/decreasing
trend). These systems generally are low maintenance devices and historically have only had
problems related to electrical power supply.

4.6 CO2 Monitoring Program

A subsurface monitoring program has been developed for the Gundih pilot CCS project that
includes multiple monitoring methods aimed at achieving several key monitoring objectives, as
outlined in Table 4-12. Upon ADB approval of this project to advance to the execution phase, a
detailed monitoring plan will be developed that provides more information about each monitoring
method.
The monitoring responsibility has been divided into two categories, including: monitoring
processes at the point of injection (i.e., in the injection well);and monitoring the subsurface
environment outside of/away from the injection well. Reportedly, funding for the latter category
will come from JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) whereas ADB will provide the
funding for the remainder of the monitoring program. Per discussions with ADB, ITB will be
responsible for executing the JICA funded monitoring methods, whereas, the ADB contractor
will implement the monitoring methods at/in the injection well.
Table 4-12. Subsurface Monitoring Objectives and Methods for the Gundih Pilot-Scale CCS
Project.
Monitoring Focus Objective Method
Point of Injection Monitor/document the chemical Periodically sample CO2 fluid and
composition and physical properties submit to commercial laboratory or
(e.g., pH, density, viscosity) of the analyze on site
injection fluid
Monitor/document surface and P&T sensors with real-time readout
bottomhole injection pressure and and data logging capability will be used
temperature data during the two-year to record continuous data stream
injection period
Monitor pressure buildup in the Injection fall-off tests conducted
injection reservoir periodically (e.g., every 3 months)
Monitor injection well skin for indication
of plugging or other obstructions
Detect vertical leakage of CO2 or brine Pulsed Neutron Capture log monitoring
from the injection reservoir to overlying or
layers via the well-formation annulus Continuous DTS monitoring for
temperature anomalies
Reservoir Monitor lateral and vertical spreading DAS; DSS; DTS
monitoring of CO2 in the injection reservoir
Detect changes in shallow Periodically collect and sample
groundwater aquifer chemistry due to samples of the shallow groundwater.
CO2 or brine leakage and analyze
Detect pressure/CO2 impact to existing Monitor produced fluids for increase in
gas-production well CO2
Detect induced seismicity Multiple shallow boreholes will be
instrumented with geophone array that
will continuously monitor seismicity.

Section 5. Cost Information

This section provides a summary of estimated costs for the pilot-scale CCS project. Costs are
summarized separately for surface facilities (i.e., capture, treatment), transportation (i.e.,
pipeline), and subsurface facilities (i.e., deep CO2 injection well).
5.1 Surface Facilities Costs

The purchased costs for the major equipment and skids were estimated based on budgetary
quotes and engineering estimates based on project experience. Budgetary quotes were
received from Indonesian suppliers for all major equipment except for compressors. As of the
time of this report, no response has been received from out of country vendors with operations
in Indonesia (Germany, France, and Austria), so the compressor cost shown is from a USA
project with import costs applied. Below is a summary of the cost basis for each equipment
package (150 ton/day basis):
• Compressor – USA quote basis from multiple CO2 compressor projects (include import duty)
• H2S removal – Vertis quote (four vessel system adjusted to represent two vessel system)
• Dehydration – Vertis quote
• Pipeline – Elnusa quote
Minor process components listed below were estimated based on previous project experience:
• Piping required between CPP Gundih and injection well (500-ft of 8-in. pipe for 150 TPD)
• Shutdown valve (SDV), moisture analyzer, and flow measurement for pipeline and injection
well site
• Piping and instrumentation costs for pipeline flow measurement and injection well site
• Fiber optic cable for installation into ditch during pipeline construction
A summary of the major purchased equipment cost data used in the cost analysis is shown
below in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Major purchased equipment cost data.

30 TPD 150 TPD Base Cost Base Scale Notes
Piping from CPP to $60,000 $72,500 $72,500 150 TPD 500-ft of 8" Sch. 10
Pilot Injection Site pipe
Compressor $731,100 $2,398,600 $2,398,600 150 TPD $2,230/HP (150
Package TPD), 3400/HP (30
TPD); + duty
H2S Scavenger $548,800 $775,000 $1,550,000 150 TPD Vertis quote was
System 2x size required
Dehydration $213,200 $560,000 $560,000 150 TPD Vertis quote for 1
gpm TEG system
Flow measurement $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 150 TPD Estimate for 2"
and SDVs (two Daniel meters /
locations) SDVs
Total capital - $1,553,100 $3,806,100
process area and
well location

The basis for budgetary quotes was 150 TPD, the equipment estimates for 30 TPD were
extrapolated using the ratio of design capacity or characteristic size to the 0.6 power (the 6/10
rule). For the H2S scavenging system the Vertis quote of four vessels was reduced by 50% to
serve as the cost basis. A two-vessel system would still have a bed life of 19 days; this change
out frequency is acceptable for a two-year test period, and the capital savings is significant. The
budgetary quote for the dehydration system was four to five times the expected cost for
equipment of this size based on USA project experience. A second quote was not available, so
the quote obtained is used for the project cost basis. Consideration should be given to
fabrication of the dehydration system in the USA if the Indonesian estimate does not change
significantly.
The total project costs were estimated using a conventional, early project phase factored
method. Factors are included for installation at the plant (piping, labor, etc.) as well as taxes,
freight, and fees; a 20% contingency is also included. The total project cost estimates are
summarized in Table 5-2 for 150 TPD. The spreadsheet calculations are provided in Appendix
A. Lower installation factors were applied to the equipment as most are packaged systems and
much of what would be installation costs (e.g., most of the piping, instrumentation, and
engineering) for loose equipment are included in the packaged system purchased costs.
At the lower end of the table, the initial fill of H2S scavenger and glycol are listed. These costs
and the pipeline costs are not part of the contingency that is listed below the subtotal of project
costs. A contingency of 20% is shown for the project to reflect the level of cost uncertainty and
not having full scope definition or firm quotes for all project components.
Table 5-2. Total project cost estimates for 150 TPD scenario.
150 TPD Capture Pipeline & Well Site
Costs Costs Total
Major Equipment
Piping from CPP to Pilot $72,500 $72,500
Compressor Package $2,398,600 $2,398,600
H2S Scavenger System $775,000 $775,000
Dehydration $560,000 $560,000
Metering $100,000 $100,000
Total Major Equipment $3,806,100 $100,000 $3,906,100
Installation
Site/Foundations $228,400 $40,000 $268,400
Structural/Lifts $304,500 $25,000 $329,500
Piping $570,900 $60,000 $630,900
Instrumentation $304,500 $40,000 $344,500
Electrical $228,400 $25,000 $253,400
Total Installation $1,636,700 $190,000 $1,826,700
Tax/Freight/Fees $939,200 $67,800 $1,007,000
Other
Engineering $255,300 $32,600 $287,900
Inspection/Oversight $127,600 $24, 500 $152,100
SulfaTreat 2242 Fill $140,600 $140,600
Glycol Fill $15,000 $15,000
Pipeline (TIC) $303,000 $303,000
Fiber Optic Cable $50,000 $50,000
Subtotal $6,920,500 $767,900 $7,688,400

Contingency $1,276,400 $81,600 $1,358,000
Total $8,196,900 $849,500 $9,046,400

The total project cost was also estimated for a pilot facility to capture and transport 30 TPD.
Although this flow rate is lower than the size required to inject 100,000 tons of CO2 in a two-year
test period, comparing costs of the different plant capacities provides some context for how
projects costs change with the different injection rates. For 30 TPD capacity, the installed cost
for the capture equipment was estimated at $4,190,000. For the pipeline and well location, the
installed cost was estimated at $761,900. The total installed project cost for the 30 TPD pilot
was estimated at $4,951,900. As shown in Table 5-2, the total project cost for 150 TPD was
estimated at $9,046,400. Although the flow rate of the 30 TPD pilot is 20% the rate of the 150
TPD pilot, the estimated cost is roughly 55% of the 150 TPD pilot.
The operating expenses estimated for the surface facility equipment include scavenger costs,
power costs (NG and electricity), and maintenance costs (Table 5-3). The largest of these costs
is for the scavenger used to remove H2S from the gas stream.
Table 5-3. Annual Operating Costs for surface facility equipment.

Annual Operating Costs 150 TPD 30 TPD
H2S Scavenger $1,811,000 $394,200
NG/Fuel Gas $116,500 $44,400
Power/kilowatts $56,100 $11,200
Labor $232,100 $96,900
Facilities $76,100 $31,100
Maintenance $152,200 $62,100
Total $2,444,000 $639,900
5.2 Transportation
The project costs for CO2 transport included two flow measurement facilities (inlet and outlet of
pipeline) and a 4.3 km pipeline. The installed cost for the pipeline was estimated by Elnusa
based on current material pricing and cost experience from similar pipeline projects. For the flow
measurement facilities, the total projects costs were estimated using the early project phase
factored method discussed previously. The total project cost estimates for the CO2 pipeline and
well site component of the pilot project are summarized above. Additional cost information for
the analysis is included in Appendix A.
5.3 Subsurface Costs

The subsurface component of the pilot project involves the drilling, completion, and operation
and maintenance of a CO2 injection well during the pilot project. The well will be used to inject
CO2 for a period of two years and to support various monitoring activities during the two-year
injection period and during a follow-on monitoring only period after completion of CO2 injection
(note – the post injection monitoring period was assumed to be one to two years in duration,
however, it may need to be longer if the injected CO2 plume is not stable after this time. The
total estimated cost for the subsurface facilities component of the pilot project is $22.7 million,
which includes $17.7 million for the injection well (installation and operation for two years and
plugging/abandonment at the end of the project) and $5 million for monitoring (Table 5-4).
Drilling/well work is inherently expensive and will involve multiple contractors. A breakdown of
costs associated with the injection well is shown in Figure 5-1 (same data is presented in Table
5-4). The biggest costs are drilling services, formation testing/evaluation (e.g., logging while
drilling, open-hole logging, sidewall coring), tangible items such as casing, wellhead, etc.,
drilling services, formation testing/evaluation (e.g., logging while drilling, open-hole logging,

sidewall coring), drilling rig fuel, completion, and monitoring. Cost estimates for the well
drilling/completion components were obtained from historical Pertamina authorization for
expenditure (AFE) documents and recent vendor quotes. A comprehensive and detailed cost
breakdown for the injection well is provided in Appendix B to this document. Note that the
monitoring costs included in the estimate in Table 5-4 ($5,000,000) is a lump sum estimate of all
monitoring (borehole seismic, surface seismic, microseismic, surface atmospheric monitoring,
pressure and temperature monitoring, etc.). The assumption is made that the funding for
monitoring would be provided by JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency).
Table 5-4. Estimated cost for subsurface component of pilot project.

Cost Element Cost $
casing and tubing 1,516,333
well equip. surface 313,548
well equip. subsurface 240,340
site prep. 128,180
contract rig/crew 4,918,325
drilling fluids/svc. 650,185
cement 1,507,900
casing installation 428,086
directional drilling 1,924,882
equip. rentals 506,595
bits, reamers, core heads 147,000
water, inspections 34,000
coring 269,950
mudlogging 282,874
open-hole logging 1,764,180
cased-hole logging 235,828
perforating 52,500
supervision 197,549
insurance, permits, fees 33,000
land/other transportation 55,085
fuel 1,339,187
camp facilities 51,331
overheads - field office/Jakarta 52,000
abandonment 989,913
Total Cost without monitoring 17,638,770
Monitoring costs 5,000,000
Total Estimated Cost with Monitoring 22,638,770

Figure 5-1. Injection Well Costs totaling $17,638,770 (does not include monitoring)

5.4 Summary
The total combined costs for the two-year 150 t/d pilot project is estimated to be $$36,573,170.
A breakdown of costs into major categories is provided in Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2. Total Project Cost Estimate for the Gundih 2-year 150 t/d Pilot CCS Project

Section 6. Environmental Safeguards & Regulatory Requirements
Section 6. Environmental Safeguards & Regulatory

Requirements
Details regarding environmental safeguards and regulatory requirements can be found in
Section 7 of the Gundih Project Management and Assurance Plan (Battelle, 2019).

References
References
American Petroleum Institute (API). (2019). Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree
Equipment Twenty-First Edition
Battelle (2018). “TA-9189 INO: Pilot Carbon Capture and Storage Activity in the Natural Gas
Processing Sector Review of Proposed Pilot CO2 Capture and Storage Project in Gundih
Field”; prepared for Asian Development Bank under ADB Contract – 137806-S53178,
Executing Agency – Directorate General of Oil and Gas, Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Resources, Republic of Indonesia (DG MIGAS).
Battelle (2019). Gundih Project Management and Assurance Plan for ADB.
Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB). (2015). Technical Report of CCS Gundih Pilot Project
Feasibility Study for ADB. ITB: Bandung.
Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) Indonesia Center of Excellence of CCS and CCUS. (2019).
ADB-ITB Knowledge Partnership Program. ITB: Bandung.

Appendix A. Total Project Cost Estimates
Appendix A. Total Project Cost Estimates
Battelle | September 2019 A-1

TITLE: Battelle - ADB: Gundih Pilot Project Ver 0 ########
DESC: Capital cost estimate for CO2 Capture and Treatment Trimeric Corporation
OPTION 1: 30 TPD Capacity
MAJOR EQUIPMENT AND COST (MEC) COMMENTS

TOTAL EQ COST $1,553,045 Vendor Budgetary Quotes, skidded equipment only
___________________________________
TOTAL = A $1,553,045
TYPICAL
INSTALLATION COSTS RANGE FACTOR
SITE/FOUNDATIONS 0.06-0.2 0.1 X A $155,305 Use low end of range, eq is skidded mostly
STRUCTURES 0.15-0.3 0.08 X A $124,244 Limited need for structure for skids, use low value
EQUIPMENT ERECTION 0.15-0.3 0.04 X A $62,122 Mostly putting skids in place, use low number
PIPING 0.4-1.1 0.2 X A $310,609 Limited piping needs, low value
INSULATION 0-0.06 X A $0
PAINT 0.05-0.1 0.04 X A $62,122 Skids should be painted, low end value
FIRE PROTECTION 0.01-0.06 0.015 X A $23,296 H2S present in existing plant at tie-in
INSTRUMENTS 0.4-0.8 0.15 X A $232,957 Low value, skids instrumented
ELECTRICAL 0.15-0.4 0.1 X A $155,305 skids pre wired, use lower value, but add some for switchgear
________________________________
TOTAL INSTALLATION $1,125,958
PIPELINE - CPP TO INJECTION
B = BASE COST = A + INSTALLATION = $2,679,003
VAT TAX + Income tax 0.1A+0.025(B-A) $183,453 default values
FREIGHT 0.05A $77,652 default values
CONTRACTORS FEES 0.2(B-A) $225,192 default values

____________________
$486,297 $486,297
C= SUBTOTAL = B+TAX+FREIGHT+FEES $3,165,300
ENGINEERING FACTOR = 0.06 X SUBTOTAL $189,918 use low value since skid cost includes vendor engr
INSPECTION/OVERSIGH FACTOR = 0.03 X SUBTOTAL $94,959
CONTINGENCIES FACTOR = 0.2 X SUBTOTAL $633,060 Use typical pre-FEED contingency
TOTAL C+ENGR+CONTINGENCIES $4,083,237
Additional Equipment without associated installation costs

Subtract the value here of any salvage used equipment
PROJECT COST - TIC *********************** $4,083,237 OVERALL FACTOR = .
SulfaTreat 2242 91,730

Glycol Fill 15,000
Installation
TOTAL PROJECT COST ****************************** $4,189,967


___________________________________
TOTAL = A $3,806,104
TYPICAL
INSULATION 0-0.06 X A
ELECTRICAL 0.15-0.4 0.06 X A $228,366 skids pre wired, use lower value, large engines to be NG drive
________________________________

____________________
$939,156 $939,156
CONTINGENCIES FACTOR = 0.2 X SUBTOTAL $1,276,377 Use typical pre-FEED contingency


Glycol Fill 15,000
Installation

Well Location

TOTAL EQ COST $100,000 Estimate of meter and SDV
Both Sites
___________________________________
TOTAL = A $100,000
TYPICAL
SITE/FOUNDATIONS 0.06-0.2 0.4 X A $40,000
STRUCTURES 0.15-0.3 0.15 X A $15,000 pipe supports or vent
EQUIPMENT ERECTION 0.15-0.3 0.1 X A $10,000
PIPING 0.4-1.1 0.5 X A $50,000 open area, limited piping
INSULATION 0-0.06 0 X A $0
PAINT 0.05-0.1 0.1 X A $10,000 limited piping
FIRE PROTECTION 0.01-0.06 0 X A $0
INSTRUMENTS 0.4-0.8 0.4 X A $40,000 flow and P/T msmst
ELECTRICAL 0.15-0.4 0.25 X A $25,000
________________________________
TOTAL INSTALLATION $190,000
Communication - Fiberoptic $50,000
B = BASE COST = A + INSTALLATION = $340,000

____________________
$67,750 $67,750
C= SUBTOTAL = B+TAX+FREIGHT+FEES $407,750
CONTINGENCIES FACTOR = 0.2 X SUBTOTAL $81,550.00 Use typical pre-FEED contingency
TOTAL C+ENGR+CONTINGENCIES $496,385

PROJECT COST - TIC *********************** $496,385 OVERALL FACTOR = .
TOTAL PROJECT COST ******************************* $496,385

Appendix B. Subsurface Authorization
Appendix B. Subsurface Authorization for Expenditure
Battelle | September 2019 B-1

SKK MIGAS SCHEDULE №. 19
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE - DRILLING AND WORKOVER
OPERATOR : Pertamina EP PROJECT TYPE : CCS Pilot Injection Well AFE № : TBA
CONTRACT AREA : Gundhi Field WELL NAME : CCS - 1
CONTRACT AREA № : Pertamina Asset IV WELL TYPE : Onshore CCS Pilot Injection Well DATE : 27-Aug-2019
PLATFORM/TRIPOD : Onshore Drilling Unit
FIELD/STRUCTURE : Gundih Field/Kedung Tuban
BASIN : Java Basin IN US DOLLARS
LOCATION : KTB-B W SURFACE LAT : 7°12'18.28"S LONGITUDE : 111°29'34.27"E SUBSURFACE LAT : TBA LONGITUDE : TBA
WATER DEPTH : N/A ELEVATION : TBA CONTRACTOR : TBA RIG NAME : TBA RIG TYPE : Land Rig
PROGRAM ACTUAL
SPUD DATE : TBA RIG DAYS : 70.42 days days
COMPLETION DATE : TBA TOTAL DEPTH (ft.) : 13,451 feet feet
PLACED IN SERVICE : TBA WELL COST PER FOOT : $1,230.90 US$/ft US$/ft
DRILLING DAYS : TBA WELL COST PER DAY : $235,114.23 US$/Day US$/Day
CLOSE OUT DATE : COMPLETION TYPE : CO2 Injection & Monitoring Completion WELL STATUS :
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES ACTUAL PERCENTAGE

WORK PROGRAM
LINE №
REVISED BUDGET FINAL BUDGET EXPENDITURE TO OVER /(UNDER) OVER /(UNDER)

DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET PRIOR YEARS COMMITTED
DATE BUDGET BUDGET
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 TANGIBLE COSTS
2 CASING 1,313,659 (1,313,659) (100.00)
3 CASING ACCESSORIES 58,570 (58,570) (100.00)
4 TUBING 144,104 (144,104) (100.00)
5 WELL EQUIPMENT - SURFACE 313,548 (313,548) (100.00)
6 WELL EQUIPMENT - SUBSURFACE 239,415 (239,415) (100.00)
7 OTHER TANGIBLE COSTS 0 0
8 0
9 TOTAL TANGIBLE COSTS $2,069,296 - - - - - (2,069,296) (100.00)
10
11 INTANGIBLE COSTS
12 PREPARATION AND TERMINATION
13 SURVEYS 6,000 (6,000) (100.00)
14 LOCATION STAKING AND POSITIONING 36,816 (36,816) (100.00)
15 WELLSITE AND ACCESS ROAD PREPARATION 65,000 (65,000) (100.00)
16 SERVICE LINES& COMMUNICATIONS 20,364 (20,364) (100.00)
17 WATER SYSTEMS 0 0
18 RIGGING UP / RIGGING DOWN 0 0
19 0
20 SUBTOTAL $128,180 - - - - - (128,180) (100.00)
21
22 DRILLING / WORKOVER OPERATIONS
23 CONTRACT RIG 4,918,325 (4,918,325) (100.00)
24 DRILLING RIG CREW / CONTRACT RIG CREW 0 0
25 MUD, CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES 650,185 (650,185) (100.00)
26 WATER 7,000 (7,000) (100.00)
27 BITS, REAMERS AND CORE HEADS 147,000 (147,000) (100.00)
28 EQUIPMENT RENTALS 506,595 (506,595) (100.00)
29 DIRECTIONAL DRILLING AND SURVEYS 1,924,882 (1,924,882) (100.00)
30 DIVING SERVICES 0 0
31 CASING INSTALLATION 428,086 (428,086) (100.00)
32 CEMENT, CEMENTING AND PUMP FEES 1,507,900 (1,507,900) (100.00)
33 INSPECTIONS 27,000 (27,000) (100.00)
34
35 SUBTOTAL $10,116,972 - - - - - (10,116,972) (100.00)
36
37 FORMATION EVALUATION
38 CORING 269,950 (269,950) (100.00)
39 MUD LOGGING SERVICES 282,874 (282,874) (100.00)
40 DRILLSTEM TESTS 0 0
41 OPEN HOLE ELECTRICAL LOGGING SERVICES 1,764,180 (1,764,180) (100.00)
42
43 SUBTOTAL $2,317,004 - - - - - (2,317,004) (100.00)
44
45 COMPLETION
46 CASING, LINER AND TUBING INSTALLATION 0 0
47 CEMENT, CEMENTING AND PUMP FEES 0 0
48 CASED HOLE ELECTRICAL LOGGING SERVICES 145,280 (145,280) (100.00)
49 PERFORATING AND WIRELINE SERVICES 52,500 (52,500) (100.00)
50 STIMULATION TREATMENT 0 0
51 PRODUCTION TESTS 0 0
52
53 SUBTOTAL $197,780 - - - - - (197,780) (100.00)
54
55 GENERAL
56 SUPERVISION 197,549 (197,549) (100.00)
57 INSURANCE 3,000 (3,000) (100.00)
58 PERMITS AND FEES 30,000 (30,000) (100.00)
59 MARINE RENTAL AND CHARTERS 0 0
60 HELICOPTERS AND AVIATION CHARGES 0 0
61 LAND TRANSPORTATION 30,000 (30,000) (100.00)
62 OTHER TRANSPORTATION 25,085 (25,085) (100.00)
63 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS 1,339,187 (1,339,187) (100.00)
64 CAMP FACILITIES 51,331 (51,331) (100.00)
65 ALLOCATED OVERHEADS - FIELD OFFICE 7,000 (7,000) (100.00)
66 ALLOCATED OVERHEADS - JAKARTA OFFICE 45,000 (45,000) (100.00)
67 ALLOCATED OVERHEADS - OVERSEAS 0 0
68 TECHNICAL SERVICES FROM ABROAD 0 0
69
70 SUBTOTAL $1,728,151 - - - - - (1,728,151) (100.00)
71
72 TOTAL INTANGIBLE COSTS $14,488,088 - - - - - (14,488,088) (100.00)
73
74 T O T A L C O S T S $16,557,383 - - - - - (16,557,383) (100.00)
75
76 TIME PHASED EXPENDITURES
77 THIS YEAR 2019 - - 0
78 FUTURE YEARS 2020 $16,557,383
79 TOTAL $16,557,383
OPERATOR APPROVED BY : REMARKS
POSITION :
DATE : CCS PILOT WELL DRILLING, EVALUATION &

SKK MIGAS APPROVED BY : COMPLETION BUDGETARY AFE (feet)
POSITION :
DATE : Revision Print Date: 27-Aug-19 SKK MIGAS
GUNDIH CCS - 1: PILOT CO2 INJECTION WELL
TIME VERSUS MEASURED DEPTH PLOT
0 ft
1,000 ft 20" @ 984 ft
2,000 ft
3,000 ft
4,000 ft
5,000 ft 13 " @ 4,911 ft
6,000 ft
7,000 ft
DEPTH (feet RTE MD)
8,000 ft
9,000 ft
10,000 ft
Side Wall Sampling

11,000 ft
9 " @ 11,132 ft
12,000 ft
Full Core 12,280 ft
13,000 ft
5½" @ 13,451 ft
14,000 ft
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
DAYS
PROGRAM ACTUAL
COMPLETION DATE : TBA TOTAL DEPTH (m.) : 4,100 meters meters
PLACED IN SERVICE : TBA WELL COST PER METER : $4,038.39 US$/m US$/m

WORK PROGRAM
LINE №

DATE BUDGET BUDGET
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 TANGIBLE COSTS
2 CASING 1,313,659 (1,313,659) (100.00)
4 TUBING 144,104 (144,104) (100.00)
8 0
10
11 INTANGIBLE COSTS
13 SURVEYS 6,000 (6,000) (100.00)
19 0
20 SUBTOTAL $128,180 - - - - - (128,180) (100.00)
21
23 CONTRACT RIG 4,918,325 (4,918,325) (100.00)
26 WATER 7,000 (7,000) (100.00)
33 INSPECTIONS 27,000 (27,000) (100.00)
34
35 SUBTOTAL $10,116,972 - - - - - (10,116,972) (100.00)
36
38 CORING 269,950 (269,950) (100.00)
42
43 SUBTOTAL $2,317,004 - - - - - (2,317,004) (100.00)
44
45 COMPLETION
52
53 SUBTOTAL $197,780 - - - - - (197,780) (100.00)
54
55 GENERAL
56 SUPERVISION 197,549 (197,549) (100.00)
57 INSURANCE 3,000 (3,000) (100.00)
58 PERMITS AND FEES 30,000 (30,000) (100.00)
64 CAMP FACILITIES 51,331 (51,331) (100.00)
69
70 SUBTOTAL $1,728,151 - - - - - (1,728,151) (100.00)
71
73
74 T O T A L C O S T S $16,557,383 - - - - - (16,557,383) (100.00)
75
77 THIS YEAR 2019 - - 0
78 FUTURE YEARS 2020 $16,557,383
79 TOTAL $16,557,383
POSITION :

SKK MIGAS APPROVED BY : COMPLETION BUDGETARY AFE (meters)
POSITION :
0.00 m
250.00 m
20" @ 300.00 m
500.00 m
750.00 m
1000.00 m
1250.00 m
1500.00 m
13 " @ 1497.00
m
1750.00 m
2000.00 m
DEPTH (meters RTE MD)
2250.00 m
2500.00 m
2750.00 m
3000.00 m
3250.00 m Side Wall Sampling

9 " @ 3393.00 m
3500.00 m
3750.00 m Full Core 3743.00 m
4000.00 m
5½" @ 4100.00 m
4250.00 m
4500.00 m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
DAYS
SKK MIGAS BUDGET SCHEDULE № 20
PRODUCTION SHARING CONTRACT
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE - DRILLING AND WORKOVER MATERIAL LIST
OPERATOR : Pertamina EP PROJECT TYPE : CCS Pilot Injection Well AFE No. : TBA
CONTRACT AREA : Gundhi Field WELL TYPE : Onshore CCS Pilot Injection Well
CONTRACT AREA : Pertamina Asset IV FIELD STRUCTURE : Gundih Field/Kedung Tuban DATE : 27-Aug-19
WELL NAME : CCS - 1
DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL OVER/UNDER SURPLUS MATERIAL

Line №
ISSUED FROM STOCK NEW PURCHASES
UNIT OF ISSUE QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY DISPOSITION
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
TANGIBLES
CASING
Size Grade Connection
1 30 inchCasing feet 90 $372.00 $33,480
2 30 inch Drive Sub each 1 $16,900.00 $16,900
3 Drive Shoe Joint each 1 $15,700.00 $15,700
4 20 inch Cas 133 ppf, K-55 BTC feet 1,082 $113.00 $122,311
5 20 inch Float Shoe BTC each 1 $11,300.00 $11,300
6 Float Shoe Stinger BTC each 1 $2,600.00 $2,600
7 13 inch Ca 68 ppf, K-55 BTC feet 4,993 $82.00 $409,418
8 9 inch line 53.5 ppf, N-80 LTC feet 6,629 $56.00 $371,230
with 500 ft overlap into 13 inch casing
9 5½ inch 20 ppf, P110 LTC feet 10,335 $32.00 $330,720

long string to surface
CASING COST $1,313,659
VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT) 0% $0
TOTAL FOR CASING $1,313,659
Operator SKK MIGAS
Approved By: Position: Date: August 27, 2019 Approved By: Position Date:
Approved By: Position: Date:
Revision Date : 8/27/2019 GUNDIH CCS Pilot Well Budgetary AFE.xlsx SCH20-1 Page 5 of 10
SKK MIGAS BUDGET SCHEDULE No. 20
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2 CASING ACCESSORIES
1 20 inch Stab-In Float Shoe each 1 3744 $3,744

2 20 inch Drill Pipe Centralizers each 8 329 $2,632
3 13 inch float shoe each 1 1,291 $1,291

4 13 inch float collar set 1 2,582 $2,582
5 13 inch top & bottom plugs set 1 1,911 $1,911
6 13 inch centralizers & stop collars each 20 359 $7,180
11-3/4 inch float shoe each 2,800 $0

11-3/4 inch floar collar & accessories set 3,250 $0
11-3/4 inch centralizers each 138 $0

9 9 inch positive stand-off centralizers each 40 228 $9,120
10 5½ inch float shoe each 1 2,000 $2,000

11 5½ inch float collar each 1 2,500 $2,500
12 5½ inch multi-tage cement collar each 1 15,000 $15,000
13 5½ inch cement plugs each 1 1,000 $1,000
14 5½ inch positive stand-off centralizers each 20 178 $3,560
CASING ACCESSORIES COST $58,570
TOTAL FOR CASING ACCESSORIES $58,570
Operator SKK MIGAS
Approved By: Position: Date: 27-Aug-19 Approved By: Position Date:
SKK MIGAS BUDGET SCHEDULE №. 20
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
3 TUBING
1 2 inch 8.6 ppf N-80, NUE ft 13,451 $10.71 $144,104
TOTAL TUBING $144,104
Operator SKK MIGAS
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
4 WELL EQUIPMENT SURFACE
1 Wellhead Casing Head Assembly set 1 35,732 $35,732

2 Unihead Assembly specified for CO2 injection & monitoring set 1 77,860 $77,860
2 Xmas Tree specified for CO2 injection & monitoring set 1 199,956 $199,956
TOTAL WELL EQUIPMENT SURFACE $313,548
Operator SKK MIGAS
Approved By: Position: Date
SKK MIGAS BUDGET SCHEDULE№. 20
OPERATOR : Pertamina EP PROJECT TYPE : CCS Pilot Injection Well AFE№. : TBA
CONTRACT AREA No. : Pertamina Asset IV FIELD STRUCTURE : Gundih Field/Kedung Tuban DATE : 27-Aug-19
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
UNIT OF GRAND
ISSUE QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL TOTAL QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY DISPOSITION
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
5 WELL EQUIPMENT SUB-SURFACE
1 Liner Hanger
9 x 13 inch Liner hanger, liner top packer & accessories set 1 $161,415.00 $161,415
2 Subsurface Safety Valve

SCSSSV - CO2 Injection Specification each 1 $50,000.00 $50,000
Control Line ¼ inch SS 316 foot 500
3 Packer
5½ inch Non-feed through CO2 Resistant, Re-settable 300 °F each 1 $28,000.00 $28,000
4 CO2 Monitoring Equipment

Downhole Pressure/Temperature Monitoring Gauges set
DAS Cable foot
Single Conductor Encapsulated DTS 200 °C foot
Cross-coupling Cable Protectors each
5 2 inch Completion Equipment

Shear Out Ball Seat Sub w/wireline re-entry guide each
Seating Nipplea (No-Go Profile) each
Sliding Sleeve each
Gauge Carrier each
TOTAL WELL EQUIPMENT - SUBSURFACE $239,415
Operator SKK MIGAS
PROGRAM ACTUAL
COMPLETION DATE : TBA TOTAL DEPTH (m.) : meters meters
PLACED IN SERVICE : TBA WELL COST PER METER : US$/m US$/m
CLOSE OUT DATE : COMPLETION TYPE : CO2 Injection Well Abandonment WELL STATUS : Abandoned

WORK PROGRAM
LINE №

DATE BUDGET BUDGET
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 TANGIBLE COSTS
2 CASING 0
3 CASING ACCESSORIES 0
4 TUBING 0
5 WELL EQUIPMENT - SURFACE 0
7 OTHER TANGIBLE COSTS 0
8 0
9 TOTAL TANGIBLE COSTS $50,000 - - - - - (50,000) (100.00)
10
11 INTANGIBLE COSTS
13 SURVEYS 0
14 LOCATION STAKING AND POSITIONING 0
16 SERVICE LINES& COMMUNICATIONS 0
17 WATER SYSTEMS 0
18 RIGGING UP / RIGGING DOWN 0
19 0
20 SUBTOTAL $29,250 - - - - - (29,250) (100.00)
21
23 CONTRACT RIG 491,832 (491,832) (100.00)
24 DRILLING RIG CREW / CONTRACT RIG CREW 0
26 WATER 0
27 BITS, REAMERS AND CORE HEADS 0
29 DIRECTIONAL DRILLING AND SURVEYS 0
30 DIVING SERVICES 0
31 CASING INSTALLATION 0
32 CEMENT, CEMENTING AND PUMP FEES 0
33 INSPECTIONS 0
34
35 SUBTOTAL $640,020 - - - - - (640,020) (100.00)
36
38 CORING 0
39 MUD LOGGING SERVICES 0
40 DRILLSTEM TESTS 0
41 OPEN HOLE ELECTRICAL LOGGING SERVICES 0
42
43 SUBTOTAL $0 - - - - - 0
44
45 COMPLETION
46 CASING, LINER AND TUBING INSTALLATION 0
47 CEMENT, CEMENTING AND PUMP FEES 128,172 (128,172) (100.00)
48 CASED HOLE ELECTRICAL LOGGING SERVICES 0
50 STIMULATION TREATMENT 0
51 PRODUCTION TESTS 0
52
53 SUBTOTAL $170,472 - - - - - (170,472) (100.00)
54
55 GENERAL
56 SUPERVISION 9,877 (9,877) (100.00)
57 INSURANCE 0
58 PERMITS AND FEES 0
59 MARINE RENTAL AND CHARTERS 0
60 HELICOPTERS AND AVIATION CHARGES 0
63 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS 66,959 (66,959) (100.00)
64 CAMP FACILITIES 8,726 (8,726) (100.00)
66 ALLOCATED OVERHEADS - JAKARTA OFFICE 0
67 ALLOCATED OVERHEADS - OVERSEAS 0
68 TECHNICAL SERVICES FROM ABROAD 0
69
70 SUBTOTAL $100,172 - - - - - (100,172) (100.00)
71
72 TOTAL INTANGIBLE COSTS $939,913 - - - - - (939,913) (100.00)
73
74 T O T A L C O S T S $989,913 - - - - - (989,913) (100.00)
75
77 THIS YEAR 2019 - - 0
78 FUTURE YEARS 2020 $989,913
79 TOTAL $989,913
POSITION :
DATE : CCS PILOT WELL ABANDONMENT BUDGETARY AFE

SKK MIGAS APPROVED BY : (meters)
POSITION :
Appendix C. Drilling Prognosis Report
Appendix C. Drilling Prognosis Report
Battelle | September 2019 C-1

GUNDIH CCS PILOT WELL
DRILLING PROGNOSIS
Contents
Preamble................................................................................................................................................. 4
Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Primary Objective ............................................................................................................................... 4
Secondary Objective ........................................................................................................................... 4
Generalized East Java Basin Stratigraphy .............................................................................................. 5
Pore Pressure.......................................................................................................................................... 6
Overpressure .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Geothermal Gradient ............................................................................................................................. 8
Formation Tops ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Well Sections .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Casing Design .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Casing Connections ............................................................................................................................. 9
Functional Aspects .......................................................................................................................... 9
Operational Aspects ...................................................................................................................... 10
Integral and Threaded/Coupled Connections............................................................................... 10
Integral Connections ..................................................................................................................... 10
Threaded and Coupled Connections ............................................................................................. 11
Thread Forms ................................................................................................................................ 11
Load Case Scenarios .......................................................................................................................... 12
20 inch, 133 ppf, K-55, BTC – Surface Casing ................................................................................ 12
13 inch, 68 ppf, K-55, BTC – Intermediate Casing..................................................................... 12
11¾ inch, 71 ppf, L-80, BTC – Contingency Liner .......................................................................... 13
9 inch, 53.5 ppf, P-110, LTC – Intermediate Liner ..................................................................... 13
5½ inch – 23 ppf, P-110, MTC – Production Casing...................................................................... 13
Evaluated Load Scenarios ................................................................................................................. 14
Casing Accessories ................................................................................................................................ 15
Float Equipment ................................................................................................................................ 15
Multi-Stage Cementing ..................................................................................................................... 15
Two – Stage Cementing ................................................................................................................ 15
Continuous Two-Stage and Three-Stage Cementing .................................................................... 15
Drilling Prognosis – Gundih CCS Pilot Well
Downhole Deployment Valve (DDV) and Rotating Control Device (RCD) .................................... 17
Liner Hanger ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Tubing ................................................................................................................................................... 17
Tubing Specifications & Load Cases .................................................................................................. 17
Tubing Packer ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Completion Equipment ........................................................................................................................ 18
Annular Fluid ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Wellhead and Xmas Tree ..................................................................................................................... 18
CO2 Downhole Well Monitoring Equipment ....................................................................................... 21
Distributed Acoustic Sensor (DAS)/Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) ................................... 21
Coaxial Pressure & Temperature Monitoring Cable ......................................................................... 22
Multi-Conduit and Monitoring Cable Flat-Pack ................................................................................ 22
Downhole Monitoring Equipment .................................................................................................... 23
Well Integrity ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Cement and Its Degradation Due to CO2 Injection ........................................................................... 24
Casing Pressure Testing .................................................................................................................... 25
GUNDIH CCS PILOT WELL – DRILLING PROGNOSIS | September 1, 2019

Formation Integrity Testing (FIT) ...................................................................................................... 25
Leak Off Test (LOT) ............................................................................................................................ 25
Annulus Pressure Test (APT) ............................................................................................................. 25
Cementing Program ............................................................................................................................. 26
Potential Drilling Constraints ............................................................................................................... 26
Drilling Unit ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Formation Temperature ................................................................................................................... 27
Drilling Fluids Conditioning ............................................................................................................... 27
Lost Circulation ................................................................................................................................. 27
Well Control ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Formation Injectivity Testing ............................................................................................................ 27
Toxic and Poisonous Gases ............................................................................................................... 28
Drilling Parameters and Well Data Monitoring ................................................................................ 28
Electric Logging ................................................................................................................................. 29
Casing Wear ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Casing and Annulus Pressure Testing ............................................................................................... 29
1 of 56
Hazardous Operations (HAZOP’s) ..................................................................................................... 29

Surface Location ................................................................................................................................... 30
Directional Drilling and Deviation ....................................................................................................... 31
Page
Directional Drilling Method Selection ............................................................................................... 31
\\Mac\Documents\BATTELLE\REPORTS TO BATELLE\01_GUNDIH\DRILLING PROGNOSIS\GUNDIH CCS DRILLING PROGNOSIS_Rev 1.docx

Formation Data .................................................................................................................................... 33

Geological Summary – Based on RBT – 1A Offset Well .................................................................... 33
Lidah Formation ................................................................................................................................ 33
36” Hole Section: Surface – 30m MD ............................................................................................ 33
26” Hole Section: 30 – 309m MD .................................................................................................. 33
Mundu Formation ............................................................................................................................. 34
17½“Hole Section: 309 – 1724m MD ............................................................................................ 34
Ledok Formation ............................................................................................................................... 34
Wonocolo Formation ........................................................................................................................ 34
Ngrayong Formation ......................................................................................................................... 34
12¼” Hole Section: 1724 – 2959m MD ......................................................................................... 34
Tuban Formation............................................................................................................................... 35
Kujung Formation ............................................................................................................................. 35
8 ” Hole Section: 2960 – 3112m MD .......................................................................................... 35
Operations Summary ........................................................................................................................... 36
Time – Depth Curve .......................................................................................................................... 38

Formation Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 39
Borehole Characterization ................................................................................................................ 39
Rationale ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Borehole Characterization Program Elements ................................................................................. 39
Open Borehole Logging Program ...................................................................................................... 39
17½ inch Hole Section - 13 inch Casing ..................................................................................... 39
14¾ inch Hole Section - 11¾ inch Contingency Liner .................................................................... 39
12¼ inch Hole Section - 9 inch Liner ......................................................................................... 40
8½ inch Hole Section - 5½ inch Production Casing ...................................................................... 41
Measurement While Drilling (MWD) ................................................................................................ 41
Resistivity Imaging While Drilling ...................................................................................................... 41
Coring & Sidewall Core Sampling......................................................................................................... 41
Full Hole Coring Primary Objective – Lower Kujung ..................................................................... 41
Side Wall Sampling Secondary Objective – Lower Tuban Calciturbidite ...................................... 42
Characterization Program .................................................................................................................... 42
Well and Reservoir Hydraulic and Geo-mechanical Testing ............................................................. 42
2 of 56
Well Schematic ..................................................................................................................................... 43

Well Suspension/Abandonment .......................................................................................................... 44
Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................................... 46
Page
References ............................................................................................................................................ 48


DOCUMENT CONTROL*
Rev 1 27 August 2019 Updated Completion Equipment David Jackman DJJ

Rev 0 22 August 2019 Final for Issue David Jackman DJJ
Rev D 17 August 2019 Updated Draft David Jackman DJJ
Rev C 28 June 2019 Updated Draft David Jackman DJJ
Rev B 2 June 2019 Updated Draft David Jackman DJJ
Rev A 27 May 2019 Draft David Jackman DJJ
Rev Date Amendment/Addition Author Initial
3 of 56
*Draft documents are designated Rev A, B C, D etc.

Final Document issued is Rev 0
Page
Revisions after Document 0 are designated Rev. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.

Preamble
The Gundih pilot CCS project is intended to store 20,000 MT up to 100,000 MT of CO2 over a two
year period. Gundih project assets are owned and operated by Pertamina EP Asset IV and the project
is funded by a Technical Assistance facility, Pilot Carbon Capture and Storage Activity in the Natural
Gas Processing Sector (49204-002) from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to the Republic of
Indonesia for the purpose of evaluation and development of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
technologies for mitigation of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
This drilling prognosis and conceptual well design is primarily based on KTB – 01, RBT – 03 & KDL - 01
well data and associated reports available and is intended to provide insight into the subsurface
drilling challenges that can be expected when drilling a well in the geological structures found in the
Gundih Field area.
In support in the selection of a bottom-hole target zone extensive subsurface geological modelling
has been conducted by Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) in conjunction with Battelle Memorial
Institute, in an effort to determine an optimum CO2 geological storage structure that will provide the
capability to monitor CO2 storage and retention.
Additionally, focus is placed on current casing, drilling and cementing practices and where significant
improvements can be made to enhance drilling performance and well integrity.
Objectives

Primary Objective
To drill, core and evaluate the carbon storage potential of the Kujung Formation below the
known water contact depth in the Lower Kujung. On successful evaluation the well is to
become a pilot carbon dioxide (CO2) injection well.
This will involve:
(a) Log analysis of any potential CO2 injection reservoir section(s).

(b) Full core or sidewall sampling of potential CO2 injection zones and effective sealing cap rock.
(c) Sampling of fluid pressures from potential CO2 injection, hydrocarbon and water bearing
zones.
(d) Comprehensive injectivity testing of any potential CO2 injection formations should analysis
prove encouraging.
Secondary Objective
Upon reaching the 12¼-inch hole section TD at the base of the Tuban Formation and prior
to setting the 9 -inch casing, evaluate the calciturbidite sequence typically found at the
transition between the Tuban and Kujung Formations for potential for CO2 sequestration.
This will involve:
(e) Log analysis of any potential CO2 injection reservoir section(s).

(f) Sidewall sampling of potential CO2 injection zones and effective sealing cap rock.
4 of 56
(g) Sampling of fluid pressures from potential CO2 injection, hydrocarbon and water bearing
zones.
(h) Comprehensive injectivity testing of any potential CO2 injection formations should analysis
prove encouraging.
Page
(i) Comprehensive evaluation of the sealing cap rock in the lower Tuban Formation.

Generalized East Java Basin Stratigraphy

5 of 56
Page
Figure 1 Generalized East Java Basin Stratigraphy

Pore Pressure

Figure 2 Pore Pressure/Mud Weight based on KTB-01 Well
Based on the KTB-1 Pressure Profile provided above, the overpressure commencing in the Wonocolo
and continuing through the Ngrayong and Tuban formations above the Kujung reservoir section,
could pose issues, in that event, 9 -inch casing would be required to be set early due to over-
pressured and potentially unstable hole conditions. Whereby drilling to TD would have to be
conducted in 6-inch hole and a 4½-inch liner run in which case any MDT or equivalent hole size
logging could not be conducted.
In this transient pressure zone (Wonocol-Nrayong-Tuban) it is felt an 11¾-inch contingency liner may
be required for potential setting at the onset of the second pressure increase, as indicated in Fig 2
above. In the KTB-01 well the pressure increase can be considered significant, based on mud weight.
Pore pressure then drops back to slightly above normal pressure in the Kujung. The 9 -inch casing is
required set at the base of the Tuban formation prior to penetrating the Kujung Formation in an
effort to avoid significant mud losses. The secondary objective calciturbidite transition sequence,
prior to the 8½-inch hole section, is required evaluated and either cored or, if not possible, side-wall
core samples obtained.
6 of 56
Page

Overpressure

Figure 3 Kujung Formation Tops Map
Overpressure onset depth (TVDSS) varies between the three main Gundih structures:
• Kedung Tuban KTB – 1 Well 1520 m

• Randu Blatung RBT – 3 Well 1805 m
• Kedung Lusi KDL – 1 Well 1350 m
7 of 56
Page

Geothermal Gradient
Based on the highest recorded Bottom Hole Static Temperature (BHST) of 165 °C (330 °F) in the KDL
– 01 Well and a surface ambient temperature of 28°C (82°F). The geothermal gradient has been
calculated to be;
• 3.836 °C/100 m
• 2.104 °F/100 ft.

Figure 4 Gundih Geothermal Gradient
Formation Tops
Prognosed Depth Offset Well Depth
Top of Formation
Pilot CCS Well RBT – 01A
Mundu 515.87m TVD
Ledok 773.10m TVD
Wonocolo 284 m TVD 1022.60m TVD
Ngrayong 1006 m TVD 1528.90m TVD
8 of 56
Tawun/Tuban 1596 m TVD 2151.0m TVD

Kujung 2964 m TVD 2939.60m TVD
Ngimbang 3490 m TVD
Page

Well Sections
It is planned that the well be drilled in 4 sections with a driven surface conductor and contingency
liner as summarized below:
Casing/Liner
Hole Size Shoe Depth Formation Setting
Size
(inches) (m TVD/MD) Depth
(Inches)
Driven/Drilled 30” 30 m Surface
12¼”/26” 20” 300 m Wonocolo
17 ½” 13 ” 1596 m /1776 m Ngrayong
12¼” x 14¾“* 11 ¾”* TBA Tuban
12 ¼” 9 ” 2964 m/3356 m Tuban
8 ½” 5 ½” 3490 m/3963 m Kujung
*Contingency Liner
Casing Design
The construction materials selected for the casing and the casing design must be appropriate
for the fluids and stresses encountered at the site-specific down-hole environment. Carbon
dioxide in combination with water forms carbonic acid, which is corrosive to many materials.
Native fluids can also contain corrosive elements such as brines and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). In

CO2 injection wells, the annular spaces between the long string casing and the intermediate
casing, and between the intermediate casing and the surface casing as well as between the
casings and the geologic formation are required to be filled with cement, along all casings.
Formation Tops have been based on existing offset wells in the area and will be revised on
completion of the static earth and dynamic geological modelling. Casing sizes and setting depths
have been selected from:
(a) Actual pore pressures and temperatures based on offset wells
(b) A requirement to have an 8 ½-inch hole to TD (Kujung Formation).
(c) Pressure and stress loading as a result of CO2 injection.
(d) CO2 (Carbonic Acid) corrosion resistance.
Casing Connections
Buttress Thread Connections (BTC) are typically used on the casing strings found in the Gundih
Field.
Casing connections should satisfy several functional and operational requirements.
Consideration should be given to a metal-to-metal seal casing connection for the

long/production casing string due the higher than normal temperature fluctuation that can
occur in the Gundih Field
9 of 56
Functional Aspects
• to provide a leak resistance to internal or external fluid pressures
•
Page
to have sufficient structural rigidity to transmit externally applied loads

• to have good geometry in order not to increase the outer diameter or reduce the inner
diameter of the casing string significantly
Operational Aspects
• easy to make-up in the field
• easy to break-out in the field
• reusable
To fulfil these aspects, the connections are provided, in almost all cases, with connection
threads. Connections based on welding or gluing techniques and snap-on connectors are
available for casing but will not be utilized, in this case.
For many years the API thread connections, with or without a resilient seal ring, have been the
standard in well casing strings. These standardized connections are:
• API round thread connection for casing application;

• API buttress thread connection for casing application;
• API extreme line connection for casing application.
However, during the last decades there has been a shift away from relatively simple and
inexpensive shallow wells to complicated completions for deep, often corrosive and high
pressure/temperature wells. This trend entailed the need for connections with better seals than
the API connections, and led to the development of the so-called Premium connections.

All connections that have one or more special features, such as higher strength, better sealing
properties, faster make-up, smaller outer diameter of the coupling, internally streamlined and
recess free, etc. as compared with API connections, are collectively called Premium connections.
Threaded casing connections can be divided in two groups, namely the integral connections and
the threaded and coupled connections. Each group can further be divided into several types,
depending on the sealing mechanism and the existence of a torque shoulder.
Integral and Threaded/Coupled Connections

In recent years there has been a move away from integral type connections, towards the use of
threaded and coupled connections. Listed below are the characteristics of the integral
connections and those of the threaded and coupled connections:
Integral Connections
• integral connections halve the number of threaded connections, and thus the number of
potential leakage paths.
• there is no possibility of receiving a coupling made of a different, and thus wrong, material
• in general, the integral type of connections has higher torque capacity than the threaded
and coupled connection. This is because integral connections are generally designed with an
10 of 56
external torque shoulder, while for most threaded and coupled connections the torque
shoulder is located at the pin nose.
• there is a risk of "ringworm" corrosion. This corrosion can occur at the upset region of joints
in the presence of CO2. During the upsetting process the pipe ends are heated and heavily
Page
deformed, which results in a difference in steel microstructure compared to the pipe. It has

been found that this microstructure is highly sensitive to CO2 corrosion so that pits can form
quite rapidly. The observed corrosion has a characteristic morphology called ringworm
attack. To avoid this problem it is necessary to use tubulars which have been fully heat
treated after upsetting.
Threaded and Coupled Connections

• threaded and coupled connections are generally cheaper to produce and the pipe ends can
be re-cut should the threads be damaged.
• the manufacturing process of threaded and coupled connections is a lot simpler than that of
integral connections as no upsetting or swaging is required.
• with threaded and coupled connections there is less risk of leakage due to geometric errors
in the machined connection parts. Generally, the geometric error in machined couplings is
smaller than the error in machined pipe ends. Pins and boxes, machined on long tubulars,
may show geometry errors in the shape of a clover leaf. This is usually caused by movements
of the long unsupported section of the casing joint.
• there has also been a move towards the use of more highly alloyed steel grades which
cannot be satisfactorily hot-worked to produce the upset pipe ends necessary for an integral
connection.
Thread Forms

The following thread forms are commonly manufactured today:
• API round type thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 30° and rounded
crests and roots.
• API buttress type thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 10° and 3°
respectively, and flat crests and roots, parallel to the thread cone.
• API extremeline thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 6°, and flat
crests and roots parallel to the pipe axis.
Modified buttress threads used for Premium connections. Several thread forms have been
developed which are provided with one of the following modifications or combinations thereof:
the thread profile has thread crests and roots parallel to the pipe axis rather than being parallel
to the thread cone; a clearance at the pin thread crest, in order to ensure a better control of the
thread friction during make-up; a change in the angle of the stabbing flank, ranging from +10° to
+45° in order to improve the connection stabbing performance; a change in the angle of the
loading flank, ranging from +3° to -15° in order to increase the tensile capacity of the
connection; a change in the pitch of the threads (single or double pitch change) in order to
provide a more uniform stress distribution in the connection threads under tensile or
compressive loads.
Two step thread has two sections of different diameter, each provided with free running, non-
11 of 56
interfering, threads either straight or tapered. A design with three shoulders which has the
advantage of an increased over-torque capacity. In contrast, a non-interfering thread has the risk
of inadvertently backing-out of the connection.
Page
Wedge shape thread is based on an interlocking dovetail thread profile. The loading flank is
machined with a greater pitch than the stabbing flank to produce a thread that wedges together

during make-up, eliminating the need for an additional torque shoulder. The applicable make-up
torques of these connections tend to be higher than that of connections with modified buttress
thread profiles and a shoulder.
Load Case Scenarios

20 inch, 133 ppf, K-55, BTC – Surface Casing
Load Case Burst Collapse Tension Compression Von Mises Buckling
As Cemented 8.39 37.40 16.61 19.19 No
⅓ replacement to gas(2) 6.30 15.49 68.55 7.06 No
Pressure Test(1) 2.73 9.56 2.97 No
Gas Kick(2) 6.72 13.86 2.06 2.42 No
⅓ replacement to gas circulating(2) 6.30 19.66 2.08 2.39 No
⅓ evacuation(2) 3.09 37.40 10.15 7.02 No
Green Cement Pressure Test 2.65 5.56 2.96 No
Minimum Design Factor 1.100 1.100 1.400 1.250 1.250
Depth
(1)
983.99 ft.
(2)
3592.52 ft.
13 inch, 68 ppf, K-55, BTC – Intermediate Casing

As Cemented 4.52 14.40 12.13 4.41 No
⅓ replacement to gas(2) 3.02 6.93 2.16 No
⅓ replacement to gas(4)
Pressure Test(3)
Gas Kick(2) 2.54 7.16 9.89 2.21 No
Gas Kick(3) 1.98 6.08 11.06 2.08 No
Gas Kick(4) 2.67 7.40 9.55 2.32 No
⅓ evacuation(2) 3.06 14.40 13.19 4.17 No
⅓ evacuation(3) 2.17 14.40 9.11 4.17 No
⅓ evacuation(4) 2.13 14.40 8.95 4.17 No
Depth
(1)
3592.52 ft.
(2)
7729.66 ft.
12 of 56
(3)
11010.50 ft.
(4)
13451.44 ft.
Page

11¾ inch, 71 ppf, L-80, BTC – Contingency Liner

As Cemented 11.60 16.10 8.73 8.52 No
⅓ replacement to gas(2) 3.62 184.10 5.42 4.35 4.01 No
Pressure Test(1) 1.65 3.94 7.31 1.82 No
Pressure Test(2) 1.75 4.03 6.62 1.93 No
Gas Kick(2) 2.11 5.22 2.34 No
Gas Kick(3) 2.98 5.97 55.48 3.29 No
⅓ replacement to gas circulating(2) 3.63 182.18 7.08 35.82 3.98 No
⅓ evacuation(2) 1.57 22.67 2.70 2.29 No
⅓ evacuation(3) 1.16 23.06 2.42 1.78 No
Green Cement Pressure Test 6.24 7.11 49.21 5.24 No
Depth
(1)
7729.66 ft.
(2)
11010.50 ft.
(3)
13451.44 ft.
9 inch, 53.5 ppf, P-110, LTC – Intermediate Liner


As Cemented 16.23 193.03 9.16 14.08 No
Pressure Test(2) 1.89 34.84 7.57 1.81 No
Gas Kick(3) 3.56 15.40 529.15 3.88 No
⅓ evacuation(3) 1.74 2.68 2.47 No
Depth
(1)
7729.66 ft.
(2)
11010.50 ft.
(3)
13451.44 ft.
5½ inch – 23 ppf, P-110, MTC – Production Casing

As Cemented 11.28 3.72 9.19 2.95 No
Surface Tubing Leak - Hot(1) 2.54 106.10 5.57 4.20 2.71 No
Surface Tubing Leak – Static(1) 2.62 106.10 1.97 4.20 1.81 No
Full Evacuation(1) 1.92 2.29 2.73 1.98 No
13 of 56
Depth
(1)
13451.44 ft.
Page

Evaluated Load Scenarios

Casing
Load Name Description
String
As Cemented Casing filled with drilling fluid at the density it
was run with; cement outside casing; static All
temperature profile
⅓ replacement to gas Casing is filled with 0.0 psi/ft. gas to a depth S, I
equal to one-third the depth of the next casing
point (below this, mud is present with weight
used to drill subsequent section) natural pore
pressure gradient outside of the casing; static and
circulating temperature profiles are both
considered.
Pressure Test Casing is filled with the mud weight with which S, I, P
the casing was run in and surface and surface
pressure applied that produces a pressure at the
casing shoe equal to the fracture pressure plus a
margin of safety (0.2 ppg); natural pore pressure
gradient outside the casing; static temperature
profile
Gas Kick (50 bbl) Simulates gas kick of specified volume; internal S, I
pressure profile depends on size of gas bubble
and natural pore pressure gradient outside the

casing; temperature profile is based on
correlation by Kutasov and Taighi (Schlumberger
2006)
⅓ replacement to gas circulating Casing is filled with 0.0 psi/ft. gas to a depth S, I, P
point while circulating; natural pore pressure
gradient outside of the casing; static and
considered.
⅓ evacuation Casing is filled with mud with weight it was run in
with; cement outside casing; static temperature
profile.
Surface Tubing Leak Surface Tubing Leak – The internal pressure P
profile is created by placing the shut-in tubing
pressure on top of the packer fluid from the
wellhead to the packer. Below the packer,
bottom-hole pressure conditions exist. Pore
pressure is used for the external pressure and
static temperature is used for the temperature
profile.
Green Cement Pressure Test Casing filled with drilling fluid at the density it All
was run with; un-hydrated cement outside
14 of 56
casing; static temperature profile

Full Evacuation Tubing is completely evacuated; external P
pressure is the hydrostatic pressure due to the
packer fluid in the annulus surrounding the
tubing; static temperature profiles.
Page
S = Surface Casing; I = Intermediate Casing; P = Production Casing; T = Tubing

Casing Accessories
Float Equipment
Casing float equipment and cement plugs required are to meet or exceed the casing
specification and temperature rating. Cement plugs are to be rated for the expected
temperature and casing test pressure of 80% of the maximum rated casing pressure.
Multi-Stage Cementing
In some cases, cementing along the well casing from the injection zone up to the ground
surface in a single stage may not be possible. The pressure exerted by the cement column
increases as the height of the column increases. In very deep wells the pressure may
become so great that the cement pumps can no longer maintain the pressure, or the
pressure from the cement column under construction may fracture weaker formations. In
some cases, highly fractured formations or formations with large voids may not allow
cement to circulate to the surface, as the cement will flow into the fractures and voids in
the formation instead of stacking vertically in a column up to the ground surface. If single
stage cementing cannot be successfully performed, multi-staged cementing may be used
[40 CFR §146.86(b) (4)]. Multi-staged cementing can be two-stage, three-stage, or
continuous two-stage cementing.
Two – Stage Cementing

Two-stage cementing is performed similarly to single stage cementing, except that a
cement collar with cement ports is installed at an appropriate point in the well. The
cement collar allows cement to be injected into the annulus between the casing and
formation at some point in the column under construction other than the bottom of the
well. Figure 5 shows a schematic of a two-stage cementing process. EPA recommends that
an appropriate point for the cement collar may be the halfway point of the well or just
above a fractured zone where the cement circulation might be lost.
To successfully accomplish two-stage cementing, the cement is pushed out of the well bore
using a fluid. Two plugs, often referred to as bombs because of their shape, are then
dropped. The first plug closes the section of the well below the collar and stops cement
from flowing into the lower portion of the well. The second plug (or opening bomb) opens
the cement ports in the collar allowing cement to flow into the annulus between the casing
and formation through the cement collar. Cement is then circulated down the well bore,
out the cement ports, into the annulus between the casing and formation, and up to the
ground surface. Once cementing is complete, a third plug is dropped to close the cement
ports (Lyons and Plisga, 2005). If the time between the first and second stage is long
enough for the cement to begin to set, care should be taken that the first stage is stopped
significantly below the cement ports.
Continuous Two-Stage and Three-Stage Cementing

15 of 56
In continuous two-stage cementing, there is no break between the injection of cement

between the first and second stages. Continuous two-stage cementing requires less time
than regular two- stage cementing, but it requires a more precise knowledge of the cement
level to avoid plugging the cement ports. Three-stage cementing is very similar to two-stage
Page
cementing, except that two cement collars are used instead of one. The method used will
largely be determined by the characteristics of the well bore. If there are two weak

formations where circulation is lost or the well is very deep, three-stage cementing may be
advantageous.

16 of 56
Figure 5Two - Stage Cementing Schematic

Page

Downhole Deployment Valve (DDV) and Rotating Control Device (RCD)

DDV’s coupled with an RCD have successfully been employed in the area and provided the
safety sought in similar well conditions, however, further planning is required to integrate
the technology into this particular well and geological environment.
Liner Hanger
There are no specific regulations for liner hangers in this application, however in this instance, the
regulatory requirements that govern the selection of packer materials and technical requirements is
applicable.
Tubing
U.S. EPA Class VI regulations require that injection occur through tubing. The tubing must be
compatible with the carbon dioxide stream [40 CFR §146.86(c) (1)]. Tubing materials are generally
similar to the casing well materials. The tubing should also be designed with the same types of
stresses in mind. The tubing must be designed with burst strength to withstand the injection
pressure and the collapse strength to withstand the pressure in the annulus between the tubing
and the casing [40 CFR §146.86(b) (1)]. Consideration should be given to a metal-to-metal seal
tubing connection due the higher than normal temperature fluctuation that can occur in the
Gundih Field.
Tubing Specifications & Load Cases

i h, . ppf, L-80, NUE, Seamless, R3 has been selected as the tubing to be utilized for CO2
injection. Tubing movement modelling has not been included in the casing Load Case Scenarios and
is required conducted upon selection of the tubing packer to model the packer loads in various
scenarios encountered during CO2 injection, well shut-in conditions and any potential flow. The
injection tubing is subject to contraction and expansion caused by variations in temperatures, and to
tension, compression, and hydraulic pulsation effects. Therefore, to comply with 30 TAC
§331.62(a)(1)(B)(vii), modelling of adequate safety factors is necessary when designing for tubing
and packer installation.
Tubing Packer
U.S. EPA Class VI regulations also require that injection occur through a packer, set opposite a
cemented interval at a depth approved by the UIC Program Director, and compatible with the
carbon dioxide stream [40 CFR §146.86(c)(1) and (2)].
Packers are often made from a hardened rubber such as Buna-N or nitrile rubbers and are nickel
plated. Proper materials for packers are important as they are likely to come into contact with
corrosive fluids such as carbon dioxide or corrosive brines at some point during the project life.
The packer must be compatible with any fluids it may come into contact with [40 CFR §146.86(c)
(1)]. Placement of the packer can also be an important consideration, influenced by numerous
factors. If the packer is placed above the confining layer, it will allow logs to be run next to the
17 of 56
casing through the confining layer without having to pull the tubing. Alternatively, placing the
packer close to the perforations may allow instruments used for carbon dioxide plume tracking,
such as geophones, to be placed closer to the expected plume. Packer placement can also affect
how mechanical integrity tests are conducted and may affect the stress placed on well
components. Consideration should be given to these factors, in order to select the best location
Page
for the packer according to project and site specific circumstances.

Completion Equipment
The well completion equipment, from bottom up, (Fig 6) will comprise:
• Shear Out Ball Seat Sub w/wireline re-entry guide

• Seating Nipple (No-Go Profile)
• Re-setta le x ½ inch packer
• Sliding Sleeve
• Gauge Carrier
• Single Conductor Encapsulated DTS 200 °C Working Temperature
• Surface Controlled Sub-surface Safety Valve (SCSSSV)
• SCSSSV Control Line
• Tubing hanger with Back Pressure Valve (BPV) profile.
Annular Fluid
The annular space above the packer between the 5½-inch long string casing and the
-inch injection tubing will be filled with fluid to provide structural support for the
injection tubing. If required, fluid pressure measure at the surface within the annulus
will be maintained so as to exceed the maximum injection pressure within the
injection tubing at the elevation of the injection zone. Under this requirement, the
maximum annulus surface pressure will not exceed a value that is more than ~200 psi

greater than injection pressure at surface. Alternatively, the maximum annulus surface
pressure will not exceed a value that would result in a pressure at the top of the
packer that is greater than the pressure inside the tubing when the bottom-hole
injection pressure is at the maximum allowable pressure.
The annular fluid will be a diluted saline solution such as potassium chloride (KCl),
sodium chloride (NaCl-), calcium chloride (CaCl2), or similar solution. The fluid will be
mixed onsite using dry salt and clean fresh water. The fluid is also to be filtered to
ensure that solids do not settle at the packer or on other components installed in the
annulus.
The annular fluid will contain additives and inhibitors including a corrosion inhibitor,
biocide/bactericide (to prevent harmful bacteria), and an oxygen scavenger.
Wellhead and Xmas Tree

API SPEC 6A – Specification for Wellhead and Xmas Tree Equipment Twenty-First
Edition (2019) is the specification required to be adhered to for the Wellhead and
Xmas Tree. Specifications listed below are defined in API Spec 6A:
• Material Class – with specific attention to wetted surfaces subject to CO2 and
H2S exposure.
o As defined by NACE MR 0175
18 of 56
• Performance Requirement (PR)

• Pressure Rating
• Product Specification Level (PSL)
• Temperature Classification
•
Page
Nonmetallic Requirements Figure 6: CCS Completion Schematic

The wellhead and Xmas tree will be composed of materials compatible with the injected fluid to
minimize corrosion. All components that are in contact with CO2 injection fluid will be made of a
corrosion resistant alloy or a conventional material with a corrosion resistant inlay for flow wetted
component surfaces.
Valve actuators are to be installed on those valves designated to be included in an automated

system to close the valve when certain criteria are met e.g. injection pressure.
Specific to CO2 monitoring requirements will be the inclusion of ported adaptor flange sections to
the wellhead that will incorporate pressure sealing ports for monitoring instrumentation and control
lines. An example is shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 7 Typical Instrumentation line penetrator wellhead flange
19 of 56
Page


20 of 56
Page
Figure 7 Example of CCS Multiple Monitoring Configured Conceptual Wellhead & Xmas Tree

Proposed Wellhead and Xmas Tree API 6A (Latest Edition) Specifications:
Bottom Top Pressure Material Temperature

Section PSL PR
Connection Connection Rating Classification Rating
Section A 20” 21 ¼ “ 2,000 psi DD U 3 2
Section B 21 ¼” 11” 5,000 psi EE U 3 2
1 11” 11” 5,000 psi EE U 3 2
Section B2
2 11” 11” 5,000 psi EE U 3 2
Section C
Tubing Hanger Assy. 5,000psi FF 1.5 X 3 2
THA3 11” 3 ” 5,000 psi FF X 3 2
Xmas Tree 3 ” 5,000 psi FF X 3 2F
1
Section B2 Spacer Spool monitoring instrumentation ported access section
2
Section C Tubing annulus monitoring instrumentation and SCSSSV ported access incorporated
into tubing head adapter and ported tubing hanger.
3
THA Tubing Head Adapter
CO2 Downhole Well Monitoring Equipment

Distributed Acoustic Sensor (DAS)/Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS)
At the time of writing this drilling prognosis, research and development of the monitoring plan
continued. Conceptually, there will be two (2) main data source locations; the first source will be
situated in the annulus of the 5½-inch x 9 /13 -inch casing strings with the 9 -inch casing run as a
liner in an effort to save time and reduce the number of wellhead sections. The 5½-inch casing will
be cemented as close as practically possible to surface, permanently cementing the externally
mounted Distributed Acoustic Sensor (DAS) reservoir monitoring cable in the well. This cable is the
sensor and is not typically run with any other equipment other than cross-coupling protectors similar
to the one shown in Figure 8 below. It should be noted that the typical temperature rating for fiber
optic cable in this application is 150 °C (302 °F). Bottomhole temperature in the Gundih Field can
extend above 150 °C (302 °F) as indicated in Geothermal Gradient page 9 of this document.
21 of 56
Page
Figure 8: Cross-coupling Cable Protector

Coaxial Pressure & Temperature Monitoring Cable

The second monitoring lo atio ill e the a ulus of the -inch tubing x 5½-inch casing where the
Coax Pressure & Temperature monitoring a le ill e strapped to the -inch tubing and extend,
from a ported carrier-assembly installed above the packer depth, to surface, providing access to
tubing pressure coupled with access to annulus pressure, along with temperature.
Figure 9: Examples of Single Permanent Downhole Monitoring (DTS) Cable

Multi-Conduit and Monitoring Cable Flat-Pack
In the event geophones are selected as part of the monitoring program and run, a more complex
flat-pack monitoring conduit may be utilized that incorporates the features as shown Figure 10
below.
22 of 56
Figure 10 Flat Pack Multi-Core Monitoring Cable

Page

Downhole Monitoring Equipment

23 of 56
Figure 11 Typical Geophone and Flat Pack Installation on CO2 injection tubing.
Page

Well Integrity
Cement and Its Degradation Due to CO2 Injection
Portland cement systems are used conventionally for zonal isolation in oil or gas production
wells. It is thus crucial to study how such cement behaves at depth in CO2-rich fluids and
understand the chemical interactions between injected CO2 and existing cements that could
potentially lead to leakage. Portland cement is thermodynamically unstable in CO2-rich
environments and can degrade rapidly upon exposure to CO2 in the presence of water. As
CO2-laden water diffuses into the cement matrix, the dissociated acid (H2CO3) reacts with
the free calcium hydroxide and the calcium-silicate-hydrate gel. The reaction products are
soluble and migrate out of the cement matrix. Eventually, the compressive strength of the
set cement decreases and the permeability and porosity increase leading to loss of zonal
isolation.
There are mainly three different chemical reactions involved in cement-CO2 interaction: (1)
formation of carbonic acid, (2) carbonation of calcium hydroxide and/or cement hydrates,
and (3) dissolution of calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
Cement is important for providing structural support of the casing, preventing contact of the
casing with corrosive formation fluids, and preventing vertical movement of carbon dioxide.
Some of the most current research indicates that a good cement job is one of the key factors
in effective zonal isolation.

The proper placement of the cement is critical, as errors can be difficult to fix later on.
Failing to cement the entire length of casing, failure of the cement to bond with the casing
or formation, not centralizing the casing during cementing, cracking, and alteration of the
cement can all allow migration of fluids along the wellbore. If carbon dioxide escapes the
injection zone through the wellbore because of a failed cement job, the injection process
must be interrupted to perform costly remedial cementing treatments. In a worst case
scenario, failure of the cement sheath can result in the total loss of a well.
During the injection phase, cement will only encounter dry CO2. However, after the injection
phase and all the free CO2 around the wellbore had been dissolved in the brine, the wellbore
will be attacked by carbonic acid (H2CO3). The carbonic acid will only attack the reservoir
portion of the production (long string) casing, therefore special consideration of CO2 cement
needs only to be considered for the reservoir, the primary seal and a safety zone above the
reservoir. Regular cement should be placed over the CO2-resistant cement. However since
two different cement slurries will be used, CO2-resistant cement that is compatible with
regular Portland cement has to be used to prevent flash setting. The cement must be able to
maintain a low permeability over lengthy exposure to reservoir conditions in a CO2 injection
and storage scenario. Long-term carbon sequestration conditions include a contact of set
cement with supercritical CO2 (>31 °C at 1059 psi) and brine solutions at increased pressure
and temperature and decreased pH.
24 of 56
Underground gas storage operations and CO2 sequestration in aquifers rely on both proper
wellbore construction and sealing function of the cap rock. The potential leakage paths are
the migration CO2 along the wellbore due to poor cementation and flow through the cap
rock. The permeability and integrity of the cement will determine how effective it is in
preventing leakage. The integrity of the cap rock is assured by an adequate fracture gradient
Page
and by sufficient cement around the casing across the cap rock and without a micro-annulus.

Well integrity has been identified as the biggest risk contributing to leakage of CO2 from
underground storage sites. Wellbore represents the most likely route for the leakage of CO2
from geologic carbon sequestration. Abandoned wells are typically sealed with cement plugs
intended to block vertical migration of fluids. In addition, active wells are usually lined with
steel casing, with cement filling the outer annulus in order to prevent leakage between the
casing and formation rock.
Several potential leakage pathways can occur along active injection well and/or abandoned
well. These include leakage: through deterioration (corrosion) of the tubing (1), around
packer (2), through deterioration (corrosion) of the casing (3), between the outside of the
casing and the cement (4), through deterioration of the cement in the annulus (cement
fractures) (5), leakage in the annular region between the cement and the formation (6),
through the cement plug (7), and between the cement and the inside of the casing (8) .
The permeability and integrity of the cement in the annulus and in the wellbore will
determine how effective the cement is in preventing fluid leakage.
The greatest risk for the escape of CO2 may come from other wells, typically for oil and gas,
which penetrate the storage formation. Such wells need to be properly sealed in order to
ensure that they do not provide pathways for the CO2 to escape into the atmosphere.
Planning for geologic storage must take such wells into account. The escaping of CO2
through water wells is much more unlikely since water wells are usually much shallower
than the storage formation.

Casing Pressure Testing
Casing is required to be pressure tested to 80% of the casing pressure rating after the top
plug has been bumped and prior to the cement setting. This procedure is in an effort to
reduce the potential for a micro-annulus being generated between the cement and casing
when test pressure is released after the cement has already hydrated. Casing pressure
testing using traditional methods is typically conducted after the cement setting time has
been achieved and increases the incidence of micro-annulus formation as the casing
contracts, as a result of the internal casing pressure being released.
Formation Integrity Testing (FIT)

A Formation Integrity Test will be conducted when it is decided to test the casing shoe and
immediate formation to a specific design pressure. The pressure is typically below the
formation fracture pressure and is the preferred method, reducing the potential of
damaging the cement bond and formation at the casing shoe thus reducing the potential for
uncontrolled sub-surface flow while continuing drilling to the hole section TD.
Leak Off Test (LOT)

In the event it is required to know the formation fracture gradient a Leak Off Test is
conducted where the pressure in the well below the previous casing shoe is increased to the
fracture point providing actual fracture pressure/gradient data.
25 of 56
Annulus Pressure Test (APT)

Standard Annulus Pressure Test to be conducted during well completion operations and
prior to commencing CO2 injection operations.
Page

Cementing Program
All casing strings, with the exception of liners, will be cemented back to surface in accordance with
the requirements EPA UIC Class VI regulations (10 CFR §146.87).
Positive stand-off casing centralizers will be used on casing strings that extend to surface and liners
exposed to annuli that extend to surface, in accordance with a centralizer spacing and placement
simulation, with the exception of the surface conductor and intermediate casing string. A
temperature rated, PDC drillable float/guide shoe will be run on the bottom of the first joint with a
temperature and casing test pressure rated double-float collar above the second casing joint to
provide sufficient separation between the cement slurry and displacement fluid. The minimum two
(2) joint shoe track is intended to ensure a competent and uniform cement slurry surrounds the
casing shoe.
All casing strings and liners with a potential for exposure to CO2, H2S and associated fluids will be
cemented with a CO2 corrosion resistant cement. In an effort to effectively remove drilling fluid filter
cake from both the casing and formation, and reduce the potential for micro-annulus formation, an
effective “Mud Removal Spacer Fluid” for both the OBM and Water Based drilling fluids is to be
included as part of the cementing program.
After running a casing string that extends to the deeper higher temperature formations of the well a
pre-determined casing circulating period is required in an effort to reduce formation temperature in
the immediate wellbore at that particular depth. This is in an effort to reduce any downhole

temperature anomalies that may be present.
The 5½-inch production casing is currently planned to be cemented back to surface in a multi-stage
process. The placement of a multi-stage cementing tool will be defined after further reservoir data
acquisition, engineering and analysis.
Note: As shown in the reservoir pressure profiles there is a distinct pressure regression (~1.54 SG –
1.00 SG [~12.86 ppg – 8.34 ppg]) after exiting the Tuban Formation and penetrating the Kujung. In
this case a full column of conventional weight cement, to surface, is not considered feasible.
A high temperature (~149 °C [~300 °F]), lite-weight, CO2 corrosion resistant cement slurry design is
required to cement the 5½-inch long string in a single stage cement job that exhibits the necessary
properties to conduct the cementation in a single stage whereby, eliminating the requirement for
multi-stage cementation of the 5½-inch casing string thus eliminating the potential for failure during
the multi-stage process and, a saving in rig time.
Potential Drilling Constraints

Drilling Unit
A well of this nature and depth requires the use of a heavy land drilling unit with a
drawworks hook load capacity to handle the casing weights, in dry air and, a minimum of
three (3) large capacity mud pumps that are capable of delivering continuously, 1,200
gallons per minute (gpm) at pump pressures up to 3,000 psig. Additionally, a Top Drive
26 of 56
System (TDS) is to be made available. The equipment is to be suitably prepared for the
formation temperatures expected encountered. It is important that the drilling contractor
be experienced in drilling wells of the type described in this prognosis.
Page

Formation Temperature
KDL-01 well, recorded a bottomhole temperature of 165 °C (330 °F). The geothermal
gradient for the area has been established at 3.836 °C/100 m (2.104 °F/100 ft.). Recorded
RBT – 01A well mud flowline temperature increased from 149 °C (300 °F) to 156 °C (313 °F)
through the Kujung interval (2962.0m MD/2939.6m TVD – 3112.0m MD/3090.3m TVD). Use
of a drilling fluid capable of withstanding these temperatures is a point for consideration.
Additionally, surface handling equipment (e.g. TDS, TDS hose, mud manifold, choke manifold
etc.) and surface pumping equipment and BOP elastomers are to be rated for temperatures
of this magnitude. Should drilling fluid temperature be deemed excessive consideration is to
be given to the installation of a mud cooling unit for the deeper sections of the well.
Temperature of this magnitude require that all equipment and materials used on the well be
“Fit for Purpose”.
Drilling Fluids Conditioning

Temperature and solids content are two factors with the greatest potential to cause serious
drilling fluid and well control issues. A “Mud Cooler” should be considered to provide the
reduction in drilling fluid circulating temperature required. The primary concern being the
temperature limitations of the BOP elastomers. Additionally, an effective solids control
system is also a requirement. In an effort to provide consistent fluid density during drilling
operations
Lost Circulation

The risk of a “blowout” increases significantly when severe lost circulation is encountered. The
potential for major drilling fluid cost overruns and drilling delays are substantially increased.
Alternative methods of combating lost circulation are to be made available at the drilling
location. Such systems are to be in place to allow fast replenishment of drilling mud, i.e. bulk
barite and bentonite storage, shearing equipment and additional surface drilling fluid storage.
Well Control
The combination of high pressure, high temperature, lost circulation and long hole sections
between casing points increases the risk of a well control incident. Procedures are to be
developed to handle risk management. In addition the provision of high rate water supply and
large reserve drilling mud storage.
Note: RBT – 01A recorded flowline temperature up to 156 °C (313 °F) when nearing TD of
the well. Standard BOP elastomers are rated for up to 93 °C (200 °F) with standard spherical
(annular) BOP elastomers rated for 77 °C (170 °F). BOP elastomers are to be rated for the
temperatures anticipated. High temperature BOP elastomeric components are available for
up to 177 °C (350 °F) and spherical (annular) BOP elastomer elements up to 107 °C (225 °F).
Formation Injectivity Testing

U.S. EPA Class VI Rule requires that the injection pressure not exceed 90 percent of the
injection zone fracture pressure except during stimulation [40 CFR §146.88(a)].
27 of 56
Maintaining the injection pressure below 90 percent of the injection zone fracture
pressure is a conservative requirement that prevents the injection zone from being
fractured and diminishes the likelihood of fracturing the confining zone which could result
in fluid movement out of the injection zone. In some cases, a well stimulation program
Page
may be necessary to achieve the desired injectivity of the Class VI injection well.

Stimulation usually occurs during completion of the well and may also be conducted if
injectivity decreases over the course of the injection project.
Some stimulation methods can induce and propagate fractures. If stimulation is to be

performed, the proposed stimulation method must demonstrate that it will not fracture
the confining zone or otherwise allow injection or formation fluids to endanger USDWs [40
CFR §146.88(a)]. This can be accomplished by modeling pressures and showing that the
fracture pressure of the confining zone is never exceeded.
The modeled pressures can be confirmed using technologies such as tilt-meters and micro-
seismic monitoring to monitor and refine the model; however, these technologies are still
experimental and may not be applicable in all circumstances. If additional chemicals are to
be used in stimulation it should be shown that they will not react with the confining layer.
Information on calculating the fracture pressure of a formation can be found in the Draft
UIC Program Class VI Well Site Characterization Guidance. The API Guidance Document
RF1 – Hydraulic Fracturing Operations – Well Construction and Integrity Guidelines also
contains information on ways to perform stimulation without fracturing the confining
layer. Additionally, the Draft UIC Program Class VI Well Testing and Monitoring Guidance
provides additional information on how to monitor injection pressure.
Injection between the casing and the formation is not allowed [40 CFR §146.88(b)], as it
would provide no barrier between the carbon dioxide and the formation. The Class VI Rule
requires the space between the casing and the formation to be cemented [40 CFR

§146.86(b)(2) and 146.86(b)(3)].
Toxic and Poisonous Gases

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are present in the Gundih Field. Equipment
is to be made available at the well site for the detection and monitoring of such gases.
Mud scavengers are also to be available as part of the drilling fluids program.
Surface and sub-surface equipment are to be “fit for purpose” in an environment containing
CO2 and H2S.
Safety equipment including 30 minute air-packs, 15 minute egress packs, breathing air
compressors, wind direction indicators and warning signs are to be made available for all
personnel on location.
H2S and toxic gas training of all relevant personnel is to be conducted.
A contingency plan with respect to the local population, surrounding farm and agricultural
life is to be developed.
Drilling Parameters and Well Data Monitoring

A mud logging unit and associated service personnel will be made available, on location,
while drilling the well. The purpose of which is to identify potential CO2 injection zones as
28 of 56
they are penetrated.
Additional parameters to be monitored include BOP/wellhead and flowline temperatures,

annulus pressures and solids control equipment performance.
RBT – 01A recorded flowline temperature up to 156 °C (313 °F) when nearing TD of the well.
Page
Standard BOP elastomers are rated for up to 93 °C (200 °F) with spherical (annular) BOP

elastomers rated for 77 °C (170 °F). BOP elastomers are to be rated for the temperatures
anticipated. High temperature BOP elastomeric components are available for up to 177 °C
(350 °F) and spherical (annular) BOP elastomer elements up to 107 °C (225 °F).
Electric Logging
The electric logging program is designed to confirm the identity of potential CO2 storage
zones. Tools and logging cable are to be suitable for high temperatures (>149 °C/300 °F). In
addition electric logging services may be required to conduct intermediate VSP’s and
pressure measurements of candidate zones.
Casing Wear
Procedures are required developed to check; steel recovery in the drilling fluid and tool joint
hard banding inspection specification. And, should casing wear be suspected a casing caliper
log and additional pressure testing of casing conducted.
Casing and Annulus Pressure Testing

Casing pressure testing is to be conducted when the last plug is bumped after the cement is
in place and prior to setting. This is in an effort to reduce the formation of a micro-annulus
between the casing and cement. Typically, the pressure test is to a minimum of 80% of
casing pressure rating.
Annulus Pressure Testing will be conducted in accordance with §40 CFR §146.8(b)(2)

Hazardous Operations (HAZOP’s)
Surface equipment is to be fit for purpose in an environment where H2S and CO2 are present.
Safety equipment including 30 minute air packs, 5 minute egress pack, breathing air
compressors, wind direction indicators, warning signs will be made available.
Training of all relevant personnel is to be conducted.
A contingency plan with respect to the local population and surrounding farm life is to be
developed.
All drilling personnel both office based and rig based involved in the decision making and/or
supervisory capacity are to have attended a recognized well control course. These courses,
typically well specific, are designed to provide the participants with a working knowledge of
the procedures and techniques required for a CO2 injection well. Generally, broken into two
training sessions, firstly for supervisory personnel and secondly training directed at drilling
crews and service company personnel. The second course will be conducted in the field and
cover drilling issues and well control procedures to be used plus, practical drills in
implementing procedures.
29 of 56
Page

Surface Location

30 of 56
Page
Figure 12: CCS-1: Pilot CO2 Injection Well Surface Location KTB-B well pad approximately 4.0 km east of Gundih CPP

The Gundih CPP and producing wells are located near the town of Cepu, Central Java. The area is
predominantly agricultural with rural villages that rely on ground water for irrigational and domestic
use. The proposed surface well location is approximately 4.0 km east of the Gundih CPP at the KTB –
B well pad.
Directional Drilling and Deviation

A deviated well (CCS – 1) is planned from the KTB – B well pad location designated with the following
surface location and sub-surface target parameters:
UTM Zone 49S Coordinates: 9203232.44 m S 554412.83 m E

Latitude/Longitude 7°12'18.28"S 111°29'34.27"E
Azimuth: 30° E
Measured Depth: ~4,100 m MD
True Vertical Depth: ~3,582.5 m TVD
Target Coordinates: 9204836 m S 555338.4 m E
Target Tolerance 200 m.

Dog Leg Severity (DLS) 1.06°/30 m.
Directional Drilling Method Selection

Either rotary steerable or downhole motor will be considered for the directional drilling phase.
A Rotary Steerable System (RSS) will drill the well faster with less time wasted on orienting the tool
face with aggressive bit usage (issues with a motor when trying to control the tool-face), and
maximizing drilling parameters.
Sliding with a mud motor in could pose challenges due to weight stacking. The weight stacking is
more profound when Water Base Mud (WBM) is used as the friction factor is higher than the SOBM.
A highly experienced Directional Driller (DD) is required if it is selected to drill with a motor.
An RSS will result in a smoother borehole for casing run in both 12¼-inch and 8½-inch hole section
as doglegs are even distributed in the borehole. This will also aid in improved borehole conditions
for the extensive logging and formation evaluation program. A mud motor creates "micro-doglegs"
which increase the tortuosity of the hole section if not managed well. Micro-dogleg depending on
the severity will increase the chance of the drilling assembly becoming stuck due to key-seating.
RSS continuous rotation and higher rotating speed will improve hole cleaning of the well. Mud
motors, however, have rotary speed limitations due to the deviation. Improved hole cleaning will
31 of 56
reduce the risk of stuck pipe and enable faster tripping.
Near bit Resistivity While Drilling will enable the selection of an optimum geological point at the
base of the Tuban and casing setting point for the 9 -inch casing and is only applicable when
coupled with RSS technology. The RSS Near Bit Resistivity is approximately 1.5 m from the bit
Page
whereas when using a mud motor, the Resistivity Tool is at least 15.0 m above the bit.


32 of 56
Figure 13 Gundih Pilot CO2 Injection Well Trajectory, Geological Formations & Estimated Pressure Profiles
Page

Formation Data
Geological Summary – Based on RBT – 1A Offset Well
The location of Randublatung RBT-1A offset well was proposed to be drilled within the Blue
Horizon objective of the limestone reservoir layer in the Kujung Formation exhibiting a
porosity ranging from 19% - 24%. The reservoir trap is a barrier reef (reefal) shelf edge
increasingly controlled by basement faulting since the Eocene period.
Primary Ngimnbang formation hydrocarbon source migration occurred in Miocene – Mid-

Miocene where the structural trap of the Kujung Formation was formed. Faulting, in the
Middle Miocene penetrated the Kujung Formation. It is expected the shale formation that
matures in the Tuban Formation will provide an effective seal.
Offset Well: RBT – 1A
Formation Drilling
36” Hole Section: Surface – 30m MD
The 36” hole section was initially drilled with a 17½ pilot
hole using a water base gel mud then opened up with a
17 ½” bull nose x 26” x 36” hole opening assembly from
surface to 30m. At TD the hole was back reamed and a
30 bbl Hi-Vis pill was pumped and displaced with water

base gel mud. No gas was recorded due to pump and
dump mud returns. 30-inch B, MIJ, 118.6ppf casing was
run to 30m and cemented with 76 bbl 1.9 SG slurry
Lidah Formation 26” Hole Section: 30 – 309m MD

Surface – 518.0m The 26” hole section was drilled from 30m – 309m with
MD/515.87m TVD 1.05 – 1.10 SG KCl PHPA Polymer mud. Formation
Claystone interbedded encountered included sandstone interbedded with
with sandstone, siltstone claystone, limestone and siltstone.
and streaks of limestone Trace gas was recorded from 30m – 240m between 0 –
2 units. Below 240m gas increased from 2 – 8 units with
a gas composition comprising mostly methane. No
connection gas was recorded in this section. No
connection gas was recorded in this section. Maximum
trip gas recorded was 63 units after circulating bottoms
up prior to pulling out of the hole. 20-inch, K-55,
106.5ppf, BTC casing was run to 308m followed by 7 –
10bbls chemical wash, 50 bbls Mud Push II, lead slurry
268 bbls 1.62 SG, tail slurry 132 bbls, 1.90 SG then
displaced with 17 bbls water.
33 of 56
Page

Formation Drilling
Mundu Formation
518.0m MD/515.87m TVD – 17½“Hole Section: 309 – 1724m MD
787.0m MD/773.1m TVD This section was drilled from 309 – 1724m MD with
Sandstone interbedded 1.13 – 1.46 SG SOBM. Mud weight was increased at
with layers of siltstone, 354m from 1.13 – 1.25 SG, when background gas
claystone and marl. increased to 20 – 50 units. At 471m was increased from
1.25 – 1.4 SG as background gas increased and again
from 1.4 – 1.46 SG at 585m where background gas
stabilized between 60 – 80 units. From 585m MD to
hole section TD at 1724m MD background fluctuated
Ledok Formation between 50 – 120 units. Maximum gas recorded in this
section was217 units in a sandstone at 526m MD.
787.0m MD/773.1m TVD – Maximum recorded trip gas was 146 units while
1043.5m MD/1022.6m circulating the hole clean at 1456m MD. Gas in this
TVD. section consisted mostly of methane with traces of
Claystone interbedded with ethane and propane. At hole section TD (1724m MD)
sandstone and siltstone the mud weight was increased from 1.46 – 1.49 SG prior
to pulling out of the hole (POOH) and gas reduced to 25
units.

Wonocolo Formation Mud losses encountered were, 7 bbls of mud were lost
pulling out of the hole, 6 bbls at the centrifuge and 7
1043.5. MD/1022.6m TVD – barrels at the desilter.
1551.0m MD/1528.9m TVD The 17½“open hole logging suite comprised AITH-MCFL-
Predominantly claystone GR-PEX (Schlumberger). Two gyro run were also made.
interbedded with siltstone, The hole was then cased and cemented with 13⅜”, L-
sandstone and limestone. 80, 68ppf & 72ppf (connection type not available) with
the casing shoe being set at 1722.05m MD/1701.0m
TVD.
Ngrayong Formation
1551.0m DM/1528.9m TVD
– 2174.0m MD/2151.0m
TVD 12¼” Hole Section: 1724 – 2959m MD
Predominantly shale The 12 ¼” hole section was drilled from 1724 – 2959m
interbedded with MD with Saline Oil Base Mud (SOBM) ranging in mud
sandstone, claystone and weight from 1.55 – 1.61 SG. There is no record of the
siltstone in the upper LWD/MWD tools that were used to a depth of 2914m
portion and intercalation MD where tool failure occurred and drilling continued
with marl and limestone in without LWD/MWD. The tools used and data obtained
the middle and lower are not available A VSP was conducted at 2830m.
section. Background gas for the entire section ranged from 50 –
34 of 56
Page

Formation Drilling
Tuban Formation 150 units with a maximum gas reading of 297 units at
1907m MD and trip gas of 362 units at 2830m MD. At
2174.0m MD/2151.0m 2959.5m MD. Recovered samples showed
TVD 2962.0m approximately 50% limestone and 50% shale.
MD/2939.6m TVD Temperature increased with depth and ranged from 88
Shaley claystone and shale °C (191 °F) to 100 °C (212 °F) through the 12¼” hole
interbedded with section
sandstone and siltstone in The hole was cased with 9 ”, L-80, 53.5 ppf, BTC casing
upper portion with with the shoe set at 2959m MD.
intercalation shale, The cementing program comprised; 2 bbls water ahead,
siltstone and limestone 50 bbls Mud Push II, 239 bbls 1.68 SG Lead Slurry
streaks in the lower part. followed by 100 bbls 1.9 SG Tail slurry
8 ” Hole Section: 2960 – 3112m MD

The 8 ” hole section was drilled from 2960 – 3112m
MD with 5% KCl Polymer drilling fluid ranging in weight
from 1.35 – 1.1 SG. A flow check was conducted at
2973m MD due to dynamic losses of 20 bph at 450 gpm
and high gas of 3203 units from 3035m MD. An LCM pill
was spotted and POOH 6 stands. Static losses were 6

bph. RIH to 3045m MD and spotted cement plug.
Continued drilling from 3045 – 3095m MD. Total losses
encountered. Maximum gas encountered while drilling,
1309 units from 3079m MD. Pumped LCM and spotted
cement plug. Drilled out cement. Maximum gas, 4050
units from 3079m MD. Circulated to condition hole and
Kujung Formation monitored for losses, well static. Continued drilling to
2962.0m MD/2939.6m TVD 3112m MD. Maximum encountered 3096 units from
– 3112.0m MD/3090.3m 29776m MD, 3203 units from 3035m MD. Encountered
TVD. 60 bph losses that increased to 100 bph. Pumped LCM
Predominantly limestone to and spotted cement plug with Zone Lock solution to
occasional dolomite. combat losses. Drilled out cement, unsuccessful in
combating losses. Spotted another cement plug.
Reduced mud weight to 1.1 SG. Drilled out cement plug
and continued drilling with losses dropping from 0 – 9
bph.
Flowline temperature increased from 149 °C (300 °F) to
156 °C (313 °F) through the interval
Open hole logging conducted; Log # 1 DLL – SRT – SP –
CAL – GR, Log # 2 LDT – CNL – GR, Log # 3 DSI – GR, Log
# 4 FMI – GR, Log # 5 VSP
The 7”, L-80, 32.0 ppf, BTC liner was run to 3090 m MD
35 of 56
and the cement pumping program that followed

comprised; 30 bbl 1.24 SG Mud Push II, 30 bbls 1.38
LiteCRETE followed by 183 bbls of displacement mud.
Page

Operations Summary
Operations associated with the drilling of CCS Pilot Well can be broken down into the following
discrete steps:
1. Move in drilling unit and associated service equipment and rig up.
2. Drive 30-inch conductor or drill 36-inch hole and run 30-inch casing and cement. Install
diverter equipment if shallow gas is considered to be a possibility.
3. Drill 12¼-inch pilot hole to the 20-inch casing setting depth taking returns to the cellar with
cellar pump returns to mud system.
4. Log pilot hole as required.
5. Open pilot hole to 26-inch
6. Run and cement 20-inch casing using “water bushing” and drill pipe inner string.
7. Rig down diverter equipment, if it has been installed, cut off 30-inch conductor at cellar
floor. Cut off 20-inch casing at pre-determine height and weld on 21¼-inch 3,000 psi WP x
20-inch SOW casing head flange. Leak test weld. Install 21¼-inch, 3,000 psi BOP stack. Test
21¼-inch BOP stack and associated surface equipment in accordance with the approved
BOP Test Procedures.
8. Make-up 17½-inch drilling assembly. RIH and drill out the 20-inch casing shoe. Drill 4.0m of
new formation and perform a Formation Integrity Test (FIT) to the predetermined value.
9. Directionally drill 17½-inch hole to 13 -inch casing setting depth.
10. Conduct wiper trip to 20-inch casing shoe and POOH.

11. Log as required.
12. Run and cement 13 -inch casing.
13. Remove 21¼-inch 3,000 WP BOP’s and install the 21¼-inch x 13 -inch Casing Head
Assembly (CHA) and pressure test CHA cavities. Install 13 -inch 5,000 psi WP BOP stack and
associated surface equipment in accordance with the approved BOP Test Procedures.
14. Make up 12¼-inch drilling assembly. RIH and drill out 13 -inch casing shoe. Drill 4.0m of
15. Drill 12¼-inch hole to the base of the Tuban Formation.
16. 11¾-inch Contingency Liner
a. In the event hole conditions are unfavorable in this hole section, POOH, make up
14¾-inch hole opening drilling assembly and open up the hole to 14¾-inch to the
11¾-inch contingency liner setting depth.
b. Conduct wiper trip to 13Ǫ-inch casing shoe.
c. Log as required.
d. Run and cement the 11¾-inch contingency liner.
e. Make up 9⅞ x ¼-inch drilling assembly. RIH and drill out 11¾-inch contingency
liner shoe. Drill 4.0m of new formation and perform a Formation Integrity Test (FIT)
to the predetermined value. Drill to 9ǫ-inch casing setting depth at the base of the
Tuban Formation. POOH.
f. Conduct wiper trip to the 11¾-inch liner shoe.
17. Conduct wiper trip to the 13 -inch casing shoe.
36 of 56
18. Log as required and conduct formation dynamics tests of any potential CO2 injection
formations along with Side Wall Core (SWC) sampling.
19. Run and cement 9 -inch liner.
Page

20. Nipple down 13 -inch 5,000 psi WP BOP stack. Install 13 -inch 5,000 psi x 11-inch 5,000 psi
CHA and pressure test CHA cavities. Install 13 -inch 5,000 psi WP BOP stack and associated
surface equipment in accordance to the approved BOP Test Procedures.
21. Make up 8½-inch drilling assembly. RIH and drill out 9 -inch casing shoe. Drill 4.0 m of new
formation and perform a Formation Integrity Test (FIT) to the predetermined value.
22. Control drill 8½-inch hole and penetrate the Kujung Formation. Continue drilling to the
water zone, at the base of the Kujung Formation and prior to penetrating the Ngimbang
Formation, where it is planned to conduct full-hole coring of the target injection zone.
POOH.
23. RIH with core barrel assembly and core the lower portion of the Kujung Formation. POOH.
24. Conduct wiper trip from TD to the 9 -inch liner shoe. POOH
25. Log as required and conduct formation dynamics tests of potential CO2 injection formations
below the water contact.
26. Run 5½-inch “long string” casing and external down-hole monitoring equipment and cement
utilizing a multi-stage light weight cementing process. On completion of the first stage
cementation, land 5½ inch mandrel casing hanger and conduct second stage cementation
taking returns through wellhead Section B side outlets.
27. Nipple down 13 -inch 5,000 psi WP BOP stack. Install 11-inch 5,000 psi x 11-inch 5,000 psi
tubing hanger section with temperature and pressure ports. Install 13 -inch 5,000 psi WP
BOP stack and associated surface equipment in accordance to the approved BOP Test
Procedures.

28. Install bull plug in tubing No-Go nipple, ru -inch tubing, isolation packer, associated
completion equipment and tubing hanger pressure testing tubing every 5 stands.
29. Land tubing hanger in wellhead section, secure and set packer.
30. Pressure test tubing/packer annulus and temperature/pressure exit ports.
31. Retrieve bull plug from No-Go profile.
32. Install BPV in tubing hanger.
33. Nipple down BOP equipment.
34. Demobilize drilling unit and associated service equipment.
35. Install Xmas tree and pressure test. Including monitoring sensor DAS cable ports.
36. Rig Down and Rig Release
37. Restore site.
The well will be perforated at a later date on assessment and interpretation of the data acquired
over the zone of interest.
37 of 56
Page

Time – Depth Curve

38 of 56
Page
Figure 14 Estimated Time - Depth Curve with 30% NPT

Formation Evaluation
Borehole Characterization
Rationale
• Conduct a detailed characterization of near wellbore geology to identify CO2
injections interval(s) in support of the development of an accurate reservoir model.
• Model accuracy is critical in the prediction of CO2 spreading/behavior.
• Modelling is a monitoring method (particularly in the case, when monitoring wells
are not available).
Borehole Characterization Program Elements

• Geophysical logging.
• Coring, core sampling, core testing and analysis.
• Packer testing.
• Stress measurements (mini-frac testing).
• Borehole seismic (tentative).
• Data analysis, interpretation and modelling.
Open Borehole Logging Program

17½ inch Hole Section - 13 inch Casing
Log № - Parameters Hole Depth (TVD)/Formation

Basic Properties: Surface – 1,324 m TVD/1492 m MD
• Resistivity
• Neutron Porosity Logging Tools:
Wonocolo
• Bulk Density • Triple Combo or Platform
• Caliper Express*
• Gamma Ray • Dipole Sonic
• Photo-Electric Factor
Acoustic Velocities: Formation:
• Rock Mechanical Properties • Wonocolo
• Horizontal Stress Orientation (azimuth) and • Ngrayong
anisotropy Ngrayong
• Velocity Modelling Update
Log № A Cased Hole Logging
• Cement Evaluation Log
14¾ inch Hole Section - 11¾ inch Contingency Liner

Contingency Log Parameters Hole Depth (TVD)/Formation
Basic Properties: 1,324 m – TBA
• Resistivity
Ngrayong

39 of 56
Page


Acoustic Velocities:
• Rock Mechanical Properties Formation:
anisotropy • Tuban
Tuban
Identify depositional features, bedding, dip,
vugular porosity, fractures, faults and stress
orientation (if break-outs or drilling induced
fractures are present.
• Acoustic Resistivity
Contingency Cased Hole Logging

12¼ inch Hole Section - 9 inch Liner

Basic Properties: 1,324 – 2,932 m TVD
Ngrayong
• Resistivity
• Neutron Porosity
• Bulk Density

• Caliper Logging Tools:
• Gamma Ray • Triple Combo or Platform
• Photo-Electric Factor Express*
Acoustic Velocities: • Dipole Sonic
• Rock Mechanical Properties • Resistivity (LWD) geo-stop
• Horizontal Stress Orientation (azimuth) and
anisotropy
• Velocity Modelling Update Formation:
• Ngrayong
Tuban
vugular porosity, fractures, faults and stress • Tuban
Mineralogy
• Elemental Spectroscopy (tentative)
• Rotary Sidewall Core Sampling
40 of 56
Page

8½ inch Hole Section - 5½ inch Production Casing

Log № Para eters Hole Depth (TVD)/Formation
• Resistivity
• Bulk Density
• Caliper
• Gamma Ray
• Photo-Electric Factor Logging Tools:
Acoustic Velocities: • Triple Combo or Platform
• Rock Mechanical Properties Express*
• Horizontal Stress Orientation (azimuth) and • Dipole Sonic
anisotropy • NMR*
• Velocity Modelling Update • PNC*
Kujung
fractures are present. Formation:
• Acoustic Resistivity • Kujung
Permeability
• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Fluid Type/Saturation
• Pulsed Neutron Capture

Mineralogy
• Coring/Rotary Sidewall Core Sampling
*Schlumberger Nomenclature
Measurement While Drilling (MWD)

A Rotary Steerable System (RSS) is employed, in wells over 20° deviation, by the operator along with
the associated MWD requirements.
Resistivity Imaging While Drilling (LWD)

A minimum LWD requirement, Resistivity While Drilling is to be included with the selected
directional drilling method for the casing setting point identification e.g. Geo-stop (this tool has an
accuracy of 1.0 – 1.5 meters). Other LWD requirements are to be established on the availability of
tools.
Coring & Sidewall Core Sampling

Full Hole Coring Primary Objective – Lower Kujung
Coring operations are planned to be conducted in the target CO2 injection reservoir section.
41 of 56
All downhole coring equipment is to be temperature rated for reservoir conditions and
exposure to a CO2 and H2S environment.
The point at which coring will commence is to be determined in conjunction with the Drilling
Supervisor and Well Site Geologist and conveyed to Company for final concurrence. As with
Page
any coring operations, the utmost care is to be taken when operations are conducted in a

high temperature, H2S environment of this nature. As a primary concern, the well is to be
confirmed in a stable state prior to commencement of coring operations.
Upon recovery, the core is to be catalogued, packaged in an approved method and sent to a
laboratory for analysis.
Side Wall Sampling Secondary Objective – Lower Tuban Calciturbidite

Rotary sidewall core sampling is planned as part of the 12¼-inch hole section open hole
logging program to sample the calciturbidite sequence above the Kujung Formation as a
potential secondary CO2 injection zone prior to setting the 5½-inch production casing. As in
the full hole coring equipment is to be temperature rated and suitable for working in an H2S
and CO2 environment.
This phase will also include sidewall core sampling of the cap rock above the reservoir
section in the Tuban Formation.
Characterization Program
Well and Reservoir Hydraulic and Geo-mechanical Testing
Phase 1 – Flowmeter Logging (mechanical spinner meter logging tool) survey of the open
borehole section across the reservoir to identify candidate CO2 injection zones.
This phase of testing includes a baseline fluid logging survey conducted under static (no
injection) conditions and additional surveys conducted while injecting brine at increasing

rates (e.g. 2, 4 and 6 bpm).
Phase 2 – Straddle Packer Tests of candidate CO2 injection horizons and other discrete
intervals with the intervals being isolated utilizing a straddle packer testing tool.
This phase will include Hydraulic Pumping (withdrawal/build-up) tests to characterize

formation hydraulic properties (transmissibility, permeability).
Stress Test pumping (injection/fall-off) tests will be conducted to create mini hydraulic
fractures to characterize horizontal stress directions and formation fracture pressure.
42 of 56
Page

Well Schematic

43 of 56
Page
Figure 15 CCS Conceptual Well Schematic – Vertical Section

Well Suspension/Abandonment
At the termination of the CCS pilot program, that is expected to endure for approximately 2 years,
the decision to suspend or abandon the well will be made.
Should there be a potential for the well to either remain a CO2 injection well or a production well the
well will be suspended and left in a usable state, providing no safety or environmental concerns are
violated, i.e. Xmas Tree, production tubing, safety valve and completion packer remain in place.
In the event the well is plugged and abandoned, procedures will meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§146.92. Plugging procedure and materials will be designed to prevent any unwanted fluid
movement, to resist the corrosive aspects of carbon dioxide/water mixtures, and protect any
USDW’s. Any necessary revisions to the well plugging plan, to address new information collected
during logging and testing of the well will be made after construction, logging and testing of the well
minimum of three (3) tubing volumes will be injected without exceeding the fracture
gradient/pressure. Bottom hole pressure will be taken and the well will be logged and pressure
tested to ensure mechanical integrity, inside and outside the casing, prior to plugging. Should a loss
of mechanical integrity be discovered, the well will be repaired prior to proceeding with plugging
operations. A detailed plugging procedure is to be compiled. All casing strings extending to surface
will have been cemented to surface during the well construction phase and will not be retrievable at

cement retainers and cement plugs. In the event the packer cannot be retrieved, the tubing will be
cut with an electric line tubing cutter leaving the packer in the well after which a cement retainer
will be used for plugging the injection formation below the packer.
All casing strings will be cut off in accordance with regulatory requirements and a blanking plate with
the well information welded to the cutoff casing.
Company will record bottom hole pressure from a downhole pressure gauge to determine kill fluid
density. At least one (1) of the following logs, as required by 40 CFR §146.92(a), will be conducted to
verify external Mechanical Integrity (MI) prior to plugging operations:
• Temperature Log
• Noise Log
Cement formulated for plugging operations shall be resistant to the carbon dioxide stream.
The suspension or abandonment of the CCS – 1 Pilot Well is to adhere to Badan Standar Nasional
Indonesia SNI 13-6910 – 2002: Drilling Operation for Safe Conduct of Onshore and Offshore in
Indonesia – Implementation. Specifically, Article 6.10 Abandonment of Wells; Sub-sections 6.10.3
Permanent Abandonment and 6.10.4 Temporary Abandonment (Suspension). It should be pointed
44 of 56
out that a well that is temporarily abandoned (suspended) shall be permitted by Pertamina as per
Go er e t Regulatio № / 9 (Ref: SNI -6910 – 2002 Appendix C1)
Page

WELL ABANDONMENT – STANDAR NASIONAL INDONESIA SNI 13 – 9610 – 2002

SKK MIGAS
WELL ABANDONMENT Notice of Intent to include:

• Location/Type
• Justification
Surface Plug: • Logs
• 150 ft below ground level • Test Data
• 150 ft in length • Well Schematic
• In smallest casing string which Request Approval from
SKK MIGAS to • Cement Plugs/Retainers
extends to ground level • Kill Fluid
Abandon/Suspend well
• Perforations
• Pressure Testing
Annular Plugs:
• Casing Removal
• Any annular space
communicating with any open
hole and extending to ground
level
• To be plugged with a minimum
200 ft of cement
Fluid Left in Hole: OPTIONAL METHODS

• Kill weight fluid exceeding the
highest formation pressure in
the interval between plugs at the
time of abandonment Casing Stubs Optional Method 1:
• Cement Retainer or Permanent
Bridge Plug PLUG/RETAINER TESTING REQUIREMENTS
Casing Stubs/Liner Tops: • No lees than 50 ft above casing stub
• Cement Plug extending 100 ft • Capped with 50 ft of cement
Testing of Plugs
above and below the casing stub
– First Cement Plug below the Surface
or liner top
Plug (requires WOC):
• Minimum 1,000 psi with no more
Lowest Casing Shoe Cement Plug: than 10% pressure drop over 15

• Cement Plug extending 100 ft minutes or;
above and below lower most • Minimum 15,000 lbs set down weight
casing shoe Optional Method 1:
• Cement Retainer 50 – 100 ft inside
casing shoe
• With cement squeeze 100 ft below Testing of Plugs
Fluid Left in Hole: – Retainer/Bridge Plugs:
• Kill weight fluid exceeding the the retainer and,
• Cement 50 ft placed above the Minimum 15,000 lbs set down weight or
highest formation pressure in minimum 1,000 psi with no more tha 10%
the interval between plugs at cement retainer
pressure drop over 15 minutes on the:
the time of abandonment • Cement Retainer
• Bridge Plug
Isolation of Open Hole Zones:
• Cement Plug extending 100 ft Optional Method 2:
above and below hydrocarbon Lost Circulation: The cement placed above the
bearing or CO 2 injection. • Permanent Bridge Plug within 150 ft cement retainer or bridge plug is
zones inside casing shoe with;
• Cement Plug extending 100 ft • A minimum of 50 ft cement placed
NOT required to be tested
above and below fresh water on top of the bridge plug
bearing zones
LOCATION CLEARANCE
Clearance of Location:
• All wellheads, casing, piling and other obstructions
SKK MIGAS
shall be removed to a depth of:
o 3 ft underground for onshore operations
o 15 ft below the mud line for offshore operations
• All locations shall be cleared of all obstructions.
Report on Well
Abandonment or
The well pad location shall be cleared of all Suspension to be submitted
unnecessary obstructions other than the wellhead, within 30 days of
completion of the work;
Xmas Tree and transport pipeline and do not • Complete SKK MIGAS
constitute a hazard to legitimate users of the area Formulir IX-1
45 of 56
• To include any changes

while complying with Government environmental from the original plan
legislation.
Page
Figure 16: Well Suspension/Abandonment Flowchart

Nomenclature
API American Petroleum Institute
bbl Barrel
BHST Bottom Hole Static Temperature °C (°F)
BOP Blow-Out Preventer
bph Barrels per Hour
bpm Barrels per Minute
BPV Back Pressure Valve
BTC Buttress Thread Connection
BUR Build Up Rate
°C Degrees Celsius
CAL Caliper Log
Cap Rock The shale layers above a reservoir that provide geological isolation to upward
migration of CO2 and provide the primary seal
CBL Cement Bond Log

CHA Casing Head Assembly
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPP Central Processing Plant
DAS Distributed Acoustic System
DLS Dog Leg Severity
DST Drill Stem Test
DTS Distributed Temperature System
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
ft. feet
gpm gallons per minute
GR Gamma Ray Log
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HAZOPS Hazardous Operations
KCl Potassium Chloride
KOP Kick Off Point
46 of 56
LCM Lost Circulation Material

m meters
MD Measure Depth – m (ft.)
Page
MDT Modular Dynamic Tester (Schlumberger)

MI Mechanical Integrity
MMSCFD Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
MT Metric tons
NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Log
NPHI Neutron Porosity Log
OBM Oil Base Mud
PDC Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (drill bit)
PEF Litho-Density Log
PHPA partially-hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
PNC Pulsed Neutron Capture Log
POOH Pull Out Of Hole
ppf Pounds Per Foot
PR Performance Requirement
psig pounds per square inch, gauge

psi WP pounds per square inch Working Pressure
PSL Product Specification Level
OBM Oil Base Mud
RCX Reservoir Characterization Explorer (Baker)
RES Resistivity Log
RHOB Neutron Density Log
RIH Run In Hole
RSS Rotary Steerable System
RTE Rotary Table Elevation
SG Specific Gravity
SOBM Synthetic Oil Base Mud
SONIC Sonic Log
SOW Slip-on Weld
SSSCSV Sub Surface, Surface Controlled Safety Valve
SSV Surface Safety Valve
47 of 56
SWC Side Wall Core

TBA To be advised
TD Total Depth (measured) – m (ft.)
Page
TDS Top Drive System

TVD True Vertical Depth – m (ft.)

TVDSS True Vertical Depth, Sub Sea - m (ft.)
USIT Ultrasonic Imaging Tool
VDL Variable Density Log
VSP Vertical Seismic Profile
WBM Water Base Mud
WP Working Pressure
References
1. B.T.H. Marbun, S.Z. Sinaga, H.S. Lie, A. Promediaz, Insitut Teknologi Bandung. 2012.
“Northwest Java and East Natuna Field: Perspective to Apply Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) in Indonesia”. CMTC 151319.
2. Dr. Liane Smith, Dragan Milanovic, Dr. Chee Hong Lee, Dr. Billingham. 2012. “Establishing
and Maintaining the Integrity of Wells used for Sequestration of CO2”. C2012-0001376.
3. Talibuddin Syed, SPE, TSA Inc. and Thor Cutler, EPA. 2010. “Well Integrity and Regulatory
Considerations for CO2 Injection Wells”. SPE 125839.
4. P. D’Alesio, SPE, Pro Energy, R. Poloni, P. Valente and P.A. Magarini, ENI E&P. “Well Integrity

Assessment and Assurance: The Operational Approach for Three CO2 Storage Fields in Italy”.
SPE 133056.
5. C. Tiemeyer, SPE, T. Echt, SPE, M. Lesti and J. Plank, SPE, Technische Universitaet
Muenchen. 2013. “Sealing Quality of Cementing Systems To Be Used On Carbon Capture &
Storage (CCS) Wells”. SPE 164104.
6. Agbasimalo, N. and Radonjic, M. Craft & Hawkins Department of Petroleum Engineering,
Louisiana State University. 2012. “Experimental Study of Portland Cement/Rock Interface in
Relation to Wellbore Stability for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)”. ARMA 12-206.
7. Chen Erding, Wang Chengwen, Meng Renzhou, 2016. Drilling Engineering and Technology
Company of Sinopec Shengli Petroleum Engineering Co., Ltd., Dongying, Shandong 257064,
China. School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Huadong), Qingdao,
Shandong 266580, China. A New Type of Cementation Flushing Fluid for Efficiently Removing
Wellbore Filter Cake.
8. Zheng Youzhi, She Chaoyi, Yao Kunquan, Guo Xiaoyang, Zhang Huali, Yang Tao, Li Ming, Gas
Production Engineering Research Institute of Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company,
PetroChina, Chengdu, Sichuan 610500, China. Gas Production Engineering and Technology
Research Institute, National Energy R&D Center of High-sulfur Gas Reservoir Exploitation,
Guanghan, Sichuan 610083, China. Engineering and Technology Supervision Department of
Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, PetroChina, Chengdu, Sichuan 610051, China. School of
Material Science and Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, Sichuan
48 of 56
610050, China. Contamination Effects of Drilling Fluid Additives on Cement Slurry.

9. Nils van der Tuuk Opedal, Malin Torsæter, Torbjørn Vrålstad, Pierre Cerasi, SINTEF
Petroleum Research, SP Andersens vei 15b, Trondheim NO-7465, Norway. Potential Leakage
Paths along Cement – Formation Interfaces in Wellbores; Implications for CO2 Storage.
Page

10. Susan Carrolla, J. William Careyb David Dzombakc, Nicolas J. Huerta,d, Li LieTom Richarde,
Wooyong UmfStuart D. C. WalshaLiwei Zhangg. 2016.
a. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, United States
b. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, United States
c. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States
d. National Energy Technology Laboratory, Albany, OR 97322, United States
e. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States
f. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, United States
g. National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, United States
Review: Role of Chemistry, Mechanics, and Transport on Well Integrity in CO2 storage
Environments
11. D.P. Postler, SPE, Exxon Company. 1997. “Pressure Integrity Test Interpretation”. SPE/IADC
37589.
12. Koji Takase, Japan CCS Co., Ltd; Yogesh Barhate and Hiroyuki Hashimoto, SPE, Halliburton;
and Siddhartha F. Lunkad, Formerly Halliburton. 2010. “Cement-Sheath Wellbore Integrity
for CO2 Injection and Storage Wells”. SPE 127422.
13. F. Dugo jić-Bilić, SPE, C. Tiemeyer, SPE, and J. Plank, SPE, Technische Universitaet
Muenchen. 2011. “Study on Admixtures for Calcium Aluminate Phosphate Cement Useful To
Seal CCS Wells”. SPE 141179.

14. Ashok Santra* and Ronald Sweatman, Halliburton. 2011. “Understanding the Long-Term
Chemical and Mechanical Integrity of Cement in a CCS Environment”. GHGT-10.
15. Kru osla Sedić, Nediljka Gauri a-Medji ure , Bori oje Pašić, Faculty of Mining, Geology
and Petroleum Engineering, Pierottijeva 6, 10 000 Zagreb,Croatia. 2015. “Optimization of the
Cement Slurry Compositions with Addition of Zeolite for Cementing Carbon Dioxide Injection
Wells”. OMAE2015-41561.
16. Glen Benge ExxomMobil Development Company. 2009. “Improving Wellbore Seal Integrity
on CO2 Injection Wells”. GHGT-9.
17. Shaoran Ren (SPE), Baolun Niu, Bo Ren, Yongzhao Li, Wanli Kang, China University of
Petroleum, Guoli Chen, Hui Zhang, Hua Zhang, Jilin Oilfield Company, PetroChina. 2011.
“Monitoring on CO2 EOR and Storage in a CCS Demonstration Project of Jilin Oilfield China”.
SPE 145440.
18. R. Mireault, SPE, R. Stocker, D. Dunn, SPE, M. Pooladi-Darvish, SPE, Fekete Associates. 2010.
“Wellbore Dynamics of Carbon-Sequestration Injection-Well Operation”. SPE 135485.
19. Julie Ditkof*, Tip Meckel, Susan Hovorka, Gulf Coast Carbon Center, Bureau of Economic
Geology, Eva Caspari, Roman Pevzner and Milovan Urosevic, Curtin University, CO2CRC. 2012.
“Analysis of time lapse seismic signal for an EOR and CCS site, Cranfield, MS”.SEG 2012-0912.
20. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Research and Development 1990.
49 of 56
“Injection Well Mechanical Integrity” EPA/625/9-89/007

21. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2012. “Class I Underground Injection
Control Program: Study of the Risks Associated with Class I Underground Injection Wells” EPA
816-R-01-007.
Page
22. API Specification 5CT – Specification for Casing and Tubing

23. API RP 10B-2 – Recommended Practices for Testing Well Cements

24. API Specification 10A – Specifications on Cements and Materials for Well Cementing
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
a. Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI Well Construction Guidance
b. 40 CFR §146.86
c. 40 CFR §146.87
d. 40 CFR §146.88
e. 40 CFR §146.89
26. Kelley M, Mishra S, Mawalkar S, Place M, Gupta N, Abbaszadeh M, Pardini R. Reservoir
characterization from pressure monitoring during CO2 injection into a depleted pinnacle reef
– MRCSP commercial-scale CCS demonstration project. International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Austin, Texas, GHGT-12; 4-8 October 2014.
27. Conner A, McNeil C, Gerst J, Kelley M, Place M, Chace D, Abou-Saleh J, Kim Y, Pardini R,
Gupta N. Developing best practices for evaluating fluid saturations with pulsed neutron
logging across multiple active CO2-EOR fields. International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Technologies, Lausanne, Switzerland, GHGT-13; 14-18 November 2016.
28. Gerst J, Cumming L, Place M, Miller J, Larsen G, Gupta N, Modroo A. Using baseline
monitoring data to strengthen the geological characterization of a Niagaran pinnacle reef.

International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Austin, Texas, GHGT-12; 4-8
October 2014.
29. Haagsma A, Larsen G, Rine M, Sullivan C, Conner A, Kelley M, Modroo A, Gupta N. Static
earth modeling of diverse Michigan Niagaran reefs and the implications for CO2 storage.
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Lausanne, Switzerland, GHGT-
13; 14-18 November 2016.
30. Ravi Ganesh P, Mishra S, Mawalkar S, Gupta N, Pardini R. Assessment of CO2 injectivity and
storage capacity in a depleted pinnacle reef oilfield in Northern Michigan. Energy Procedia
2014; 63:2969-76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.319.
31. Mishra S, Ravi Ganesh P, Kelley M, Gupta N. Analyzing the performance of closed reservoirs
following CO2 injection in CCUS projects. International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
32. Pasumarti A, Mishra S, Ganesh PR, Mawalkar S, Burchwell A, Gupta N, Pardini R. Practical
metrics for monitoring and assessing the performance of CO2-EOR floods and CO2 storage in
mature reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 13 September 2016,
doi:10.2118/184068-MS.
33. Gupta N, Haagsma A, Howat E, Kelley M, Hawkins J, Fukai I, Conner A, Babrinde O, Larsen G,
Main J, McNeil C, Sullivan C. Integrated sub-basin scale exploration for carbon storage
targets: advanced characterization of geologic reservoirs and caprocks in the Upper Ohio
50 of 56
River Valley. International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Lausanne,

Switzerland, GHGT-13; 14-18 November 2016.
34. Eric R. Upchurch, Saad Saleem, and Ken Russel, Chevron Australia; Mauro G. Viandante,
Schlumberger. Geo-Stopping Using Deep Directional Resistivity LWD: A New Method for Well
Page
Bore Placement Using Below-the-Bit Resistivity Mapping. SPE/IADC-173169-MS 2015.

35. J. Seydoux, J. Tabanou, SPE, L. Ortenzi, SPE, J.M. Denichou, Y. De Laet, and D.Omeragic,
Schlumberger; M. Iversenand M. Fejerskov, Norsk Hydro. A Deep-Resistivity Logging-While-
Drilling Device for Proactive Geosteering. OTC 15126. Offshore Technology Conference 2003
36. Shell Canada Limited, Quest Carbon Capture and Storgae Project. Measurement, Monitoring
and Verification Plan. November 2010.

51 of 56
Page

1. Supplementary Well Data

Figure 17: KDL-1 Well Data Profile
52 of 56
Figure 18: RBT-1A Well Data Profile

Page


Figure 19: RBT-2 Well Data Profile
53 of 56
Page
Figure 20: RBT-3Well Data Profile


Figure 21: KBT-1 Well Data Profile
54 of 56
Page

Figure 22: RBT-2 Mud Log

55 of 56
Page

Appendix D. Gundih Site Visit Report
Appendix D. Gundih Site Visit Report
Battelle | September 2019 D-1

Gundih CCS Site Visit Report
GUNDIH SITE VISIT REPORT

13 & 14th February 2019
Contents
Preamble ................................................................................................................................................. 2
RBT – A Well Pad: RBT-01A and RBT-03ST Wells .................................................................................... 3
KDL – A Well Pad: KDL-01 Well ............................................................................................................... 4
RBT – B Well Pad and RBT-02 Well ......................................................................................................... 6
KTB – A Well Pad: KTB-01, KTB-03TW & KTB-06ST Wells ....................................................................... 9
KTB – B Well Pad: KTB-02 & KTB-04 Wells ............................................................................................ 11
Gundih Central Processing Plant (CPP) ................................................................................................. 14
Page 1 of 15
Preamble
The second Gundih site visit took place 13th & 14th February 2019 and covered the well pad
locations, pipeline right-of-ways and Gundih Central Processing Plant.
The visit team comprised, representatives of Asian Development Bank, Battelle Memorial Institute,
Institute Technology Bandung, Elnusa and Pertamina.
Commencing, initially, with a meeting at Pertamina Asset Offices, Cepu, followed by a site visits to,
Gundih well pad locations and some pipeline right-of-ways and the central processing plant.
The site visit focused on potential candidate surface well locations for use as a CO2 pilot injection
well site. There are five (5) well pad locations in the Gundih Field; KDL, RBT – A, RBT – B, KTB – A and
KTB – B.
Figure 1: Gundih CPP, Well Pads and Pipeline ROWs
Page 2 of 15
RBT – A Well Pad: RBT-01A and RBT-03ST Wells

RBT Well Pad A is the closest well location west of the Gundih Central Processing Plant and is
approximately 32,269 m2 in size. The pipeline right of way is approximately 1,450 meters in length
and crosses the provincial highway at the entrance to both the CPP and RBT Well Pad A where;
producing well RBT - 01 and, water injector well RBT – 03 are located.
Three pipelines traverse this right of way, 2 – 6 inch steel pipelines and 1 – HDPE PN 110.
Figure 2: Pipeline ROW RBT-3ST to Gundih CPP and RBT-A Well Pad approximately 32,269 m2
Figure 3: Elevation Profile ROW: RBT-A Well Pad to Gundih CPP
Three pipelines traverse this right of way, 2 – 6

inch steel pipelines and 1 – HDPE PN 110.
Figure 4: ROW Cross Section RBT-A Well Pad to Gundih CPP
Page 3 of 15
Figure 5: Peting - Menden Provincial Road Crossing RBT-A to Gundih CPP
Figure 6: RBT-01 and RBT-03ST (water injection) Wellheads
KDL – A Well Pad: KDL-01 Well

The most western well pad KDL – A, 23,520 m2 in size, is currently not a viable option as a CO2
injection well location, however, it is shown to indicate the challenges of being selected as a
potential candidate.
A single 6 inch flowline is contained in the pipeline right of way that passes from KDL Well Pad A to
RBT Well Pad A, through a complex agricultural rural area and river crossings onto the CPP via the
access road pipeline right of way, a distance of approximately 6,470 meters.
Page 4 of 15
Figure 7: KDL-A Well Pad Location (23,520 m2) & Pipeline ROW
Figure 8: Pipeline ROW Elevation Profile: KDL-A Well Pad to RBT-A Well Pad
A single 6 inch flowline from KDL-01

traverses this ROW
Figure 9: ROW Cross Section: KDL-A Well Pad to RBT-A Well Pad
Page 5 of 15
Figure 10: KDL-o1 Wellhead and Controls
RBT – B Well Pad and RBT-02 Well

RBT Well Pad B, 24,950 m2 in area, is the next well location in close proximity to the CPP and is
where RBT – 02 well is located. This well pad is subject to flooding of up to 1.5 meters during the wet
season. Artificial water containment ponds have been constructed on the well pad areas closest in
proximity to a nearby tributary of the Bengawan Solo River.
Figure 11: RBT-B Well Pad Location & Pipeline ROW intersecting at Gundih CPP access road.
Page 6 of 15
Figure 12: RBT-B Pipeline Elevation Profile: RBT-B to Gundih CPP Junction Point
The associated pipeline right of way

is approximately 2,465 meters in
length and has a 4 inch single
flowline from RBT-02
The 4 inch RBT-02 flowline merges

with the 2 – 6 inch flowlines from
RBT – 3 and KDL-01 and the single
water injection HDPE line to RBT-03.
Figure 13: ROW Cross Section: RBT-B to

Gundih CPP Junction Point
Figure 14: RBT-02 Wellhead
Page 7 of 15
Figure 15: Elevated Well Control Panel & Water Containment Pond area.
Figure 16: RBT-B to Gundih CPP Provincial Road Crossing Point
Figure 17: ROW Cross Section KDL/RBT-A/RBT-B Junction Point to Gundih CPP
Page 8 of 15
KTB – A Well Pad: KTB-01, KTB-03TW & KTB-06ST Wells

KTB Well Pad A, an area of approximately 20,024 m2, is located north east of the CPP and is where
KTB – 01, KTB - 03 TW and KTB – 06 ST are located. The associated pipeline right of way from KTB
Well Pad A to the CPP crosses underneath the provincial rail way line.
Figure 18: KTB-A Well Pad Location and Pipeline ROW
Figure 19: KTB-A to Gundih CPP Elevation Profile
Page 9 of 15
Figure 20: KTB-01 & KTB-03TW Wellheads
Figure 21: KBT-A to Gundih CPP Pipeline ROW Underground Railway Crossing
Page 10 of 15
Figure 22: ROW Cross Section: KTB-A to Gundih CPP
Three 6 inch flowlines traverse the pipeline right of way from KTB Well Pad A to the CPP and cross
under the provincial railway line a distance of approximately 3,900 meters. These flowlines are from
KTB – 01, KTB- 03 TW and KTB – 06 ST wells.
KTB – B Well Pad: KTB-02 & KTB-04 Wells

KTB – B is the most eastern, well pad location, 24,134 m2 in area is where KTB – 02 & 04 wells are
located. The well pad is located in an agricultural area similar to KTB Well Pad A with an associated
pipeline right of way to the eastern perimeter of the CPP also, a distance of approximately 3,900
meters. The pipeline right of way merges with the KTB - A, flow lines along this route.
There are 2 – 6 inch flow lines from the wells at KTB – B Well Pad to the CPP.
KTB – B well pad location has been selected as the CO2 pilot injection candidate well location and all
planning both surface and subsurface have been made from this location.
Page 11 of 15
Figure 23: KTB-B Well Pad Location and Pipeline ROW
Figure 24: KTB-B to Gundih CPP Elevation Profile
Figure 25: ROW Cross Section: KTB-B to Gundih CPP
Page 12 of 15
Figure 26: ROW Cross Section KTB-A/KTB-B Junction Point to Gundih CPP
The flowlines from KTB – A & B well pads merge at the junction shown and five flowlines continue to
the CPP perimeter boundary and production manifold.
Figure 27: Gundih General Flowline & ROW Layout
Page 13 of 15
Gundih Central Processing Plant (CPP)

Construction of the Gundih CPP started June 2011 and operations commenced December 2013. The
CPP has now been operating for slightly over 4 years, at the time of writing, and is designed to
process 70 mmscfd. Typical feed gas comprises 23% CO2 and 6,000 ppm H2S (Varying values of H2S
concentration have been reported in the feed gas. Actual H2S values need to be confirmed for
process design purposes). 50 mmscfd of sales gas is piped to Tambaj Lorok Power Plant, Semarang
located approximately 140 kilometers from the Gundih CPP.
Gundih CPP is estimated to produce 800 metric tons per day (MT/day) of emitted CO2 (15.2
mmscfd). Prior to emitting acid gas to atmosphere it is passed through a Bio-Sulfur Recovery Unit
(Bio-SRU) process that converts the H2S to elemental sulfur that is bagged and packaged. The
remaining gases are oxidized in the Thermal Oxidizing System to comply with environmental
regulations for gas emissions (max. 2,600 ppm SO2). Bleed water from the Bio-SRU is treated in the
Wet Air Oxidization Unit along with the caustic spent in the Caustic Treatment Unit. This water is
then treated for disposal well injection along with produced water from the Gas Separation Unit.
Two CO2 streams have been identified, at Gundih CPP, as potential feed streams for CO2 capture.
These streams are the outlet of the Bio-SRU (Stream 1) and the outlet of the Thermal Oxidation Unit
(TOX) (Stream 2). The outlet stream of the Bio-SRU contains 95% CO2, though odorous sulfur
compounds (H2S and mercaptans) are present in small quantities and are required to be removed
before releasing the CO2 to the atmosphere. These odorous, sulfur compounds are oxidized
(converted to SO2) in the TOX. As it is the outlet of a combustion system, the stream consists of CO2
diluted with air (N2 and excess O2) and SO2 in small quantities.
The Bio-SRU (Stream 1) emits a high CO2 stream with diluted impurities although additional CO2
purification is required to remove odorous sulfur components and waste water before the CO2
conditioning unit. A post combustion capture unit such as an amine capture column is required
should the TOX (Stream 2) be selected to separate CO2 from the associated gases such as N2, O2 and
SO2. An economic evaluation is required, based on the outlet discharge of Stream 1 and 2 to
determine which method is the most feasible taking into account all operational factors.
Depending on the technically feasible option selected there is sufficient available land area to install
a CO2 Purification Unit, CO2 Compression/Liquefaction Unit, and CO2 storage along with the selected
mode of CO2 transportation at the Gundih CPP site. The exact location at the CPP site has yet to be
determined, however, there are a number of location options available within the CPP.
Page 14 of 15
Figure 28: Gundih CPP Layout

Page 15 of 15

___________________________________
TOTAL = A $1,553,045
TYPICAL
INSULATION 0-0.06 X A $0
ELECTRICAL 0.15-0.4 0.1 X A $155,305 skids pre wired, use lower value, but add some for switchgear
________________________________

____________________
$486,297 $486,297
CONTINGENCIES FACTOR = 0.2 X SUBTOTAL $633,060 Use typical pre-FEED contingency


Glycol Fill 15,000
Installation


___________________________________
TOTAL = A $3,806,104
TYPICAL
INSULATION 0-0.06 X A
ELECTRICAL 0.15-0.4 0.06 X A $228,366 skids pre wired, use lower value, large engines to be NG drive
________________________________

____________________
$939,156 $939,156
CONTINGENCIES FACTOR = 0.2 X SUBTOTAL $1,276,377 Use typical pre-FEED contingency


Glycol Fill 15,000
Installation

Well Location

TOTAL EQ COST $100,000 Estimate of meter and SDV
Both Sites
___________________________________
TOTAL = A $100,000
TYPICAL
SITE/FOUNDATIONS 0.06-0.2 0.4 X A $40,000
STRUCTURES 0.15-0.3 0.15 X A $15,000 pipe supports or vent
EQUIPMENT ERECTION 0.15-0.3 0.1 X A $10,000
PIPING 0.4-1.1 0.5 X A $50,000 open area, limited piping
INSULATION 0-0.06 0 X A $0
PAINT 0.05-0.1 0.1 X A $10,000 limited piping
FIRE PROTECTION 0.01-0.06 0 X A $0
INSTRUMENTS 0.4-0.8 0.4 X A $40,000 flow and P/T msmst
ELECTRICAL 0.15-0.4 0.25 X A $25,000
________________________________
TOTAL INSTALLATION $190,000
Communication - Fiberoptic $50,000
B = BASE COST = A + INSTALLATION = $340,000

____________________
$67,750 $67,750
C= SUBTOTAL = B+TAX+FREIGHT+FEES $407,750
CONTINGENCIES FACTOR = 0.2 X SUBTOTAL $81,550.00 Use typical pre-FEED contingency
TOTAL C+ENGR+CONTINGENCIES $496,385

PROJECT COST - TIC *********************** $496,385 OVERALL FACTOR = .
TOTAL PROJECT COST ******************************* $496,385

PROGRAM ACTUAL
COMPLETION DATE : TBA TOTAL DEPTH (ft.) : 13,451 feet feet
PLACED IN SERVICE : TBA WELL COST PER FOOT : $1,230.90 US$/ft US$/ft

WORK PROGRAM
LINE №

DATE BUDGET BUDGET
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 TANGIBLE COSTS
2 CASING 1,313,659 (1,313,659) (100.00)
4 TUBING 144,104 (144,104) (100.00)
8 0
10
11 INTANGIBLE COSTS
13 SURVEYS 6,000 (6,000) (100.00)
19 0
20 SUBTOTAL $128,180 - - - - - (128,180) (100.00)
21
23 CONTRACT RIG 4,918,325 (4,918,325) (100.00)
26 WATER 7,000 (7,000) (100.00)
33 INSPECTIONS 27,000 (27,000) (100.00)
34
35 SUBTOTAL $10,116,972 - - - - - (10,116,972) (100.00)
36
38 CORING 269,950 (269,950) (100.00)
42
43 SUBTOTAL $2,317,004 - - - - - (2,317,004) (100.00)
44
45 COMPLETION
52
53 SUBTOTAL $197,780 - - - - - (197,780) (100.00)
54
55 GENERAL
56 SUPERVISION 197,549 (197,549) (100.00)
57 INSURANCE 3,000 (3,000) (100.00)
58 PERMITS AND FEES 30,000 (30,000) (100.00)
64 CAMP FACILITIES 51,331 (51,331) (100.00)
69
70 SUBTOTAL $1,728,151 - - - - - (1,728,151) (100.00)
71
73
74 T O T A L C O S T S $16,557,383 - - - - - (16,557,383) (100.00)
75
77 THIS YEAR 2019 - - 0
78 FUTURE YEARS 2020 $16,557,383
79 TOTAL $16,557,383
POSITION :

SKK MIGAS APPROVED BY : COMPLETION BUDGETARY AFE (feet)
POSITION :
0 ft
1,000 ft 20" @ 984 ft
2,000 ft
3,000 ft
4,000 ft
5,000 ft 13 " @ 4,911 ft
6,000 ft
7,000 ft
DEPTH (feet RTE MD)
8,000 ft
9,000 ft
10,000 ft
Side Wall Sampling

11,000 ft
9 " @ 11,132 ft
12,000 ft
Full Core 12,280 ft
13,000 ft
5½" @ 13,451 ft
14,000 ft
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
DAYS
PROGRAM ACTUAL
COMPLETION DATE : TBA TOTAL DEPTH (m.) : 4,100 meters meters
PLACED IN SERVICE : TBA WELL COST PER METER : $4,038.39 US$/m US$/m

WORK PROGRAM
LINE №

DATE BUDGET BUDGET
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 TANGIBLE COSTS
2 CASING 1,313,659 (1,313,659) (100.00)
4 TUBING 144,104 (144,104) (100.00)
8 0
10
11 INTANGIBLE COSTS
13 SURVEYS 6,000 (6,000) (100.00)
19 0
20 SUBTOTAL $128,180 - - - - - (128,180) (100.00)
21
23 CONTRACT RIG 4,918,325 (4,918,325) (100.00)
26 WATER 7,000 (7,000) (100.00)
33 INSPECTIONS 27,000 (27,000) (100.00)
34
35 SUBTOTAL $10,116,972 - - - - - (10,116,972) (100.00)
36
38 CORING 269,950 (269,950) (100.00)
42
43 SUBTOTAL $2,317,004 - - - - - (2,317,004) (100.00)
44
45 COMPLETION
52
53 SUBTOTAL $197,780 - - - - - (197,780) (100.00)
54
55 GENERAL
56 SUPERVISION 197,549 (197,549) (100.00)
57 INSURANCE 3,000 (3,000) (100.00)
58 PERMITS AND FEES 30,000 (30,000) (100.00)
64 CAMP FACILITIES 51,331 (51,331) (100.00)
69
70 SUBTOTAL $1,728,151 - - - - - (1,728,151) (100.00)
71
73
74 T O T A L C O S T S $16,557,383 - - - - - (16,557,383) (100.00)
75
77 THIS YEAR 2019 - - 0
78 FUTURE YEARS 2020 $16,557,383
79 TOTAL $16,557,383
POSITION :

SKK MIGAS APPROVED BY : COMPLETION BUDGETARY AFE (meters)
POSITION :
0.00 m
250.00 m
20" @ 300.00 m
500.00 m
750.00 m
1000.00 m
1250.00 m
1500.00 m
13 " @ 1497.00
m
1750.00 m
2000.00 m
DEPTH (meters RTE MD)
2250.00 m
2500.00 m
2750.00 m
3000.00 m
3250.00 m Side Wall Sampling

9 " @ 3393.00 m
3500.00 m
3750.00 m Full Core 3743.00 m
4000.00 m
5½" @ 4100.00 m
4250.00 m
4500.00 m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
DAYS
SKK MIGAS BUDGET SCHEDULE № 20
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
TANGIBLES
CASING
Size Grade Connection
1 30 inchCasing feet 90 $372.00 $33,480
2 30 inch Drive Sub each 1 $16,900.00 $16,900
3 Drive Shoe Joint each 1 $15,700.00 $15,700
4 20 inch Cas 133 ppf, K-55 BTC feet 1,082 $113.00 $122,311
5 20 inch Float Shoe BTC each 1 $11,300.00 $11,300
6 Float Shoe Stinger BTC each 1 $2,600.00 $2,600
7 13 inch Ca 68 ppf, K-55 BTC feet 4,993 $82.00 $409,418
8 9 inch line 53.5 ppf, N-80 LTC feet 6,629 $56.00 $371,230
with 500 ft overlap into 13 inch casing
9 5½ inch 20 ppf, P110 LTC feet 10,335 $32.00 $330,720

long string to surface
CASING COST $1,313,659
TOTAL FOR CASING $1,313,659
Operator SKK MIGAS
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2 CASING ACCESSORIES
1 20 inch Stab-In Float Shoe each 1 3744 $3,744

2 20 inch Drill Pipe Centralizers each 8 329 $2,632

5 13 inch top & bottom plugs set 1 1,911 $1,911
6 13 inch centralizers & stop collars each 20 359 $7,180
11-3/4 inch float shoe each 2,800 $0

11-3/4 inch floar collar & accessories set 3,250 $0
11-3/4 inch centralizers each 138 $0

9 9 inch positive stand-off centralizers each 40 228 $9,120
10 5½ inch float shoe each 1 2,000 $2,000

11 5½ inch float collar each 1 2,500 $2,500
12 5½ inch multi-tage cement collar each 1 15,000 $15,000
13 5½ inch cement plugs each 1 1,000 $1,000
14 5½ inch positive stand-off centralizers each 20 178 $3,560
CASING ACCESSORIES COST $58,570
TOTAL FOR CASING ACCESSORIES $58,570
Operator SKK MIGAS
SKK MIGAS BUDGET SCHEDULE №. 20
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
3 TUBING
1 2⅞ inch 8.6 ppf N-80, NUE ft 13,451 $10.71 $144,104
TOTAL TUBING $144,104
Operator SKK MIGAS
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
4 WELL EQUIPMENT SURFACE
1 Wellhead Casing Head Assembly set 1 35,732 $35,732

2 Unihead Assembly specified for CO2 injection & monitoring set 1 77,860 $77,860
2 Xmas Tree specified for CO2 injection & monitoring set 1 199,956 $199,956
TOTAL WELL EQUIPMENT SURFACE $313,548
Operator SKK MIGAS
SKK MIGAS BUDGET SCHEDULE№. 20
OPERATOR : Pertamina EP PROJECT TYPE : CCS Pilot Injection Well AFE№. : TBA
CONTRACT AREA No. : Pertamina Asset IV FIELD STRUCTURE : Gundih Field/Kedung Tuban DATE : 27-Aug-19
WELL NAME : CCS - 1

Line №
UNIT OF GRAND
ISSUE QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL TOTAL QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY DISPOSITION
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
5 WELL EQUIPMENT SUB-SURFACE
1 Liner Hanger
9 x 13 inch Liner hanger, liner top packer & accessories set 1 $161,415.00 $161,415
2 Subsurface Safety Valve

SCSSSV - CO2 Injection Specification each 1 $50,000.00 $50,000
Control Line ¼ inch SS 316 foot 500
3 Packer
5½ inch Non-feed through CO2 Resistant, Re-settable 300 °F each 1 $28,000.00 $28,000
4 CO2 Monitoring Equipment

Downhole Pressure/Temperature Monitoring Gauges set
DAS Cable foot
Single Conductor Encapsulated DTS 200 °C foot
Cross-coupling Cable Protectors each
5 2⅞ inch Completion Equipment

Shear Out Ball Seat Sub w/wireline re-entry guide each
Seating Nipplea (No-Go Profile) each
Sliding Sleeve each
Gauge Carrier each
TOTAL WELL EQUIPMENT - SUBSURFACE $239,415
Operator SKK MIGAS
PROGRAM ACTUAL
COMPLETION DATE : TBA TOTAL DEPTH (m.) : meters meters
PLACED IN SERVICE : TBA WELL COST PER METER : US$/m US$/m
CLOSE OUT DATE : COMPLETION TYPE : CO2 Injection Well Abandonment WELL STATUS : Abandoned

WORK PROGRAM
LINE №

DATE BUDGET BUDGET
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 TANGIBLE COSTS
2 CASING 0
3 CASING ACCESSORIES 0
4 TUBING 0
5 WELL EQUIPMENT - SURFACE 0
7 OTHER TANGIBLE COSTS 0
8 0
9 TOTAL TANGIBLE COSTS $50,000 - - - - - (50,000) (100.00)
10
11 INTANGIBLE COSTS
13 SURVEYS 0
14 LOCATION STAKING AND POSITIONING 0
16 SERVICE LINES& COMMUNICATIONS 0
17 WATER SYSTEMS 0
18 RIGGING UP / RIGGING DOWN 0
19 0
20 SUBTOTAL $29,250 - - - - - (29,250) (100.00)
21
23 CONTRACT RIG 491,832 (491,832) (100.00)
24 DRILLING RIG CREW / CONTRACT RIG CREW 0
26 WATER 0
27 BITS, REAMERS AND CORE HEADS 0
29 DIRECTIONAL DRILLING AND SURVEYS 0
30 DIVING SERVICES 0
31 CASING INSTALLATION 0
32 CEMENT, CEMENTING AND PUMP FEES 0
33 INSPECTIONS 0
34
35 SUBTOTAL $640,020 - - - - - (640,020) (100.00)
36
38 CORING 0
39 MUD LOGGING SERVICES 0
40 DRILLSTEM TESTS 0
41 OPEN HOLE ELECTRICAL LOGGING SERVICES 0
42
43 SUBTOTAL $0 - - - - - 0
44
45 COMPLETION
46 CASING, LINER AND TUBING INSTALLATION 0
47 CEMENT, CEMENTING AND PUMP FEES 128,172 (128,172) (100.00)
48 CASED HOLE ELECTRICAL LOGGING SERVICES 0
50 STIMULATION TREATMENT 0
51 PRODUCTION TESTS 0
52
53 SUBTOTAL $170,472 - - - - - (170,472) (100.00)
54
55 GENERAL
56 SUPERVISION 9,877 (9,877) (100.00)
57 INSURANCE 0
58 PERMITS AND FEES 0
59 MARINE RENTAL AND CHARTERS 0
60 HELICOPTERS AND AVIATION CHARGES 0
63 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS 66,959 (66,959) (100.00)
64 CAMP FACILITIES 8,726 (8,726) (100.00)
66 ALLOCATED OVERHEADS - JAKARTA OFFICE 0
67 ALLOCATED OVERHEADS - OVERSEAS 0
68 TECHNICAL SERVICES FROM ABROAD 0
69
70 SUBTOTAL $100,172 - - - - - (100,172) (100.00)
71
72 TOTAL INTANGIBLE COSTS $939,913 - - - - - (939,913) (100.00)
73
74 T O T A L C O S T S $989,913 - - - - - (989,913) (100.00)
75
77 THIS YEAR 2019 - - 0
78 FUTURE YEARS 2020 $989,913
79 TOTAL $989,913
POSITION :
DATE : CCS PILOT WELL ABANDONMENT BUDGETARY AFE

SKK MIGAS APPROVED BY : (meters)
POSITION :
GUNDIH CCS PILOT WELL
DRILLING PROGNOSIS
Contents
Preamble................................................................................................................................................. 4
Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Primary Objective ............................................................................................................................... 4
Secondary Objective ........................................................................................................................... 4
Generalized East Java Basin Stratigraphy .............................................................................................. 5
Pore Pressure.......................................................................................................................................... 6
Overpressure .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Geothermal Gradient ............................................................................................................................. 8
Formation Tops ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Well Sections .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Casing Design .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Casing Connections ............................................................................................................................. 9
Functional Aspects .......................................................................................................................... 9
Operational Aspects ...................................................................................................................... 10
Integral and Threaded/Coupled Connections............................................................................... 10
Integral Connections ..................................................................................................................... 10
Threaded and Coupled Connections ............................................................................................. 11
Thread Forms ................................................................................................................................ 11
Load Case Scenarios .......................................................................................................................... 12
20 inch, 133 ppf, K-55, BTC – Surface Casing ................................................................................ 12
13 Ǫ inch, 68 ppf, K-55, BTC – Intermediate Casing..................................................................... 12
11¾ inch, 71 ppf, L-80, BTC – Contingency Liner .......................................................................... 13
9ǫ inch, 53.5 ppf, P-110, LTC – Intermediate Liner ..................................................................... 13
5½ inch – 23 ppf, P-110, MTC – Production Casing...................................................................... 13
Evaluated Load Scenarios ................................................................................................................. 14
Casing Accessories ................................................................................................................................ 15
Float Equipment ................................................................................................................................ 15
Multi-Stage Cementing ..................................................................................................................... 15
Two – Stage Cementing ................................................................................................................ 15
Continuous Two-Stage and Three-Stage Cementing .................................................................... 15
Downhole Deployment Valve (DDV) and Rotating Control Device (RCD) .................................... 17
Liner Hanger ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Tubing ................................................................................................................................................... 17
Tubing Specifications & Load Cases .................................................................................................. 17
Tubing Packer ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Completion Equipment ........................................................................................................................ 18
Annular Fluid ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Wellhead and Xmas Tree ..................................................................................................................... 18
CO2 Downhole Well Monitoring Equipment ....................................................................................... 21
Distributed Acoustic Sensor (DAS)/Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) ................................... 21
Coaxial Pressure & Temperature Monitoring Cable ......................................................................... 22
Multi-Conduit and Monitoring Cable Flat-Pack ................................................................................ 22
Downhole Monitoring Equipment .................................................................................................... 23
Well Integrity ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Cement and Its Degradation Due to CO2 Injection ........................................................................... 24
Casing Pressure Testing .................................................................................................................... 25

Formation Integrity Testing (FIT) ...................................................................................................... 25
Leak Off Test (LOT) ............................................................................................................................ 25
Annulus Pressure Test (APT) ............................................................................................................. 25
Cementing Program ............................................................................................................................. 26
Potential Drilling Constraints ............................................................................................................... 26
Drilling Unit ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Formation Temperature ................................................................................................................... 27
Drilling Fluids Conditioning ............................................................................................................... 27
Lost Circulation ................................................................................................................................. 27
Well Control ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Formation Injectivity Testing ............................................................................................................ 27
Toxic and Poisonous Gases ............................................................................................................... 28
Drilling Parameters and Well Data Monitoring ................................................................................ 28
Electric Logging ................................................................................................................................. 29
Casing Wear ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Casing and Annulus Pressure Testing ............................................................................................... 29
1 of 56
Hazardous Operations (HAZOP’s) ..................................................................................................... 29

Surface Location ................................................................................................................................... 30
Directional Drilling and Deviation ....................................................................................................... 31
Page
Directional Drilling Method Selection ............................................................................................... 31

Formation Data .................................................................................................................................... 33

Geological Summary – Based on RBT – 1A Offset Well .................................................................... 33
Lidah Formation ................................................................................................................................ 33
36” Hole Section: Surface – 30m MD ............................................................................................ 33
26” Hole Section: 30 – 309m MD .................................................................................................. 33
Mundu Formation ............................................................................................................................. 34
17½“Hole Section: 309 – 1724m MD ............................................................................................ 34
Ledok Formation ............................................................................................................................... 34
Wonocolo Formation ........................................................................................................................ 34
Ngrayong Formation ......................................................................................................................... 34
12¼” Hole Section: 1724 – 2959m MD ......................................................................................... 34
Tuban Formation............................................................................................................................... 35
Kujung Formation ............................................................................................................................. 35
8Ǫ” Hole Section: 2960 – 3112m MD .......................................................................................... 35
Operations Summary ........................................................................................................................... 36
Time – Depth Curve .......................................................................................................................... 38

Formation Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 39
Borehole Characterization ................................................................................................................ 39
Rationale ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Borehole Characterization Program Elements ................................................................................. 39
Open Borehole Logging Program ...................................................................................................... 39
17½ inch Hole Section - 13Ǫ inch Casing ..................................................................................... 39
14¾ inch Hole Section - 11¾ inch Contingency Liner .................................................................... 39
12¼ inch Hole Section - 9ǫ inch Liner ......................................................................................... 40
8½ inch Hole Section - 5½ inch Production Casing ...................................................................... 41
Measurement While Drilling (MWD) ................................................................................................ 41
Resistivity Imaging While Drilling ...................................................................................................... 41
Coring & Sidewall Core Sampling......................................................................................................... 41
Full Hole Coring Primary Objective – Lower Kujung ..................................................................... 41
Side Wall Sampling Secondary Objective – Lower Tuban Calciturbidite ...................................... 42
Characterization Program .................................................................................................................... 42
Well and Reservoir Hydraulic and Geo-mechanical Testing ............................................................. 42
2 of 56
Well Schematic ..................................................................................................................................... 43

Well Suspension/Abandonment .......................................................................................................... 44
Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................................... 46
Page
References ............................................................................................................................................ 48


DOCUMENT CONTROL*
Rev 1 27 August 2019 Updated Completion Equipment David Jackman DJJ

Rev 0 22 August 2019 Final for Issue David Jackman DJJ
Rev D 17 August 2019 Updated Draft David Jackman DJJ
Rev C 28 June 2019 Updated Draft David Jackman DJJ
Rev B 2 June 2019 Updated Draft David Jackman DJJ
Rev A 27 May 2019 Draft David Jackman DJJ
Rev Date Amendment/Addition Author Initial
3 of 56
*Draft documents are designated Rev A, B C, D etc.

Final Document issued is Rev 0
Page
Revisions after Document 0 are designated Rev. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.

Preamble
The Gundih pilot CCS project is intended to store 20,000 MT up to 100,000 MT of CO2 over a two
year period. Gundih project assets are owned and operated by Pertamina EP Asset IV and the project
is funded by a Technical Assistance facility, Pilot Carbon Capture and Storage Activity in the Natural
Gas Processing Sector (49204-002) from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to the Republic of
Indonesia for the purpose of evaluation and development of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
technologies for mitigation of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
This drilling prognosis and conceptual well design is primarily based on KTB – 01, RBT – 03 & KDL - 01
well data and associated reports available and is intended to provide insight into the subsurface
drilling challenges that can be expected when drilling a well in the geological structures found in the
Gundih Field area.
In support in the selection of a bottom-hole target zone extensive subsurface geological modelling
has been conducted by Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) in conjunction with Battelle Memorial
Institute, in an effort to determine an optimum CO2 geological storage structure that will provide the
capability to monitor CO2 storage and retention.
Additionally, focus is placed on current casing, drilling and cementing practices and where significant
improvements can be made to enhance drilling performance and well integrity.
Objectives

Primary Objective
To drill, core and evaluate the carbon storage potential of the Kujung Formation below the
known water contact depth in the Lower Kujung. On successful evaluation the well is to
become a pilot carbon dioxide (CO2) injection well.
This will involve:
(a) Log analysis of any potential CO2 injection reservoir section(s).

(b) Full core or sidewall sampling of potential CO2 injection zones and effective sealing cap rock.
(c) Sampling of fluid pressures from potential CO2 injection, hydrocarbon and water bearing
zones.
(d) Comprehensive injectivity testing of any potential CO2 injection formations should analysis
prove encouraging.
Secondary Objective
Upon reaching the 12¼-inch hole section TD at the base of the Tuban Formation and prior
to setting the 9 -inch casing, evaluate the calciturbidite sequence typically found at the
transition between the Tuban and Kujung Formations for potential for CO2 sequestration.
This will involve:
(e) Log analysis of any potential CO2 injection reservoir section(s).

(f) Sidewall sampling of potential CO2 injection zones and effective sealing cap rock.
4 of 56
(g) Sampling of fluid pressures from potential CO2 injection, hydrocarbon and water bearing
zones.
(h) Comprehensive injectivity testing of any potential CO2 injection formations should analysis
prove encouraging.
Page
(i) Comprehensive evaluation of the sealing cap rock in the lower Tuban Formation.

Generalized East Java Basin Stratigraphy

5 of 56
Page
Figure 1 Generalized East Java Basin Stratigraphy

Pore Pressure

Figure 2 Pore Pressure/Mud Weight based on KTB-01 Well
Based on the KTB-1 Pressure Profile provided above, the overpressure commencing in the Wonocolo
and continuing through the Ngrayong and Tuban formations above the Kujung reservoir section,
could pose issues, in that event, 9 -inch casing would be required to be set early due to over-
pressured and potentially unstable hole conditions. Whereby drilling to TD would have to be
conducted in 6-inch hole and a 4½-inch liner run in which case any MDT or equivalent hole size
logging could not be conducted.
In this transient pressure zone (Wonocol-Nrayong-Tuban) it is felt an 11¾-inch contingency liner may
be required for potential setting at the onset of the second pressure increase, as indicated in Fig 2
above. In the KTB-01 well the pressure increase can be considered significant, based on mud weight.
Pore pressure then drops back to slightly above normal pressure in the Kujung. The 9 -inch casing is
required set at the base of the Tuban formation prior to penetrating the Kujung Formation in an
effort to avoid significant mud losses. The secondary objective calciturbidite transition sequence,
prior to the 8½-inch hole section, is required evaluated and either cored or, if not possible, side-wall
core samples obtained.
6 of 56
Page

Overpressure

Figure 3 Kujung Formation Tops Map
Overpressure onset depth (TVDSS) varies between the three main Gundih structures:
• Kedung Tuban KTB – 1 Well 1520 m

• Randu Blatung RBT – 3 Well 1805 m
• Kedung Lusi KDL – 1 Well 1350 m
7 of 56
Page

Geothermal Gradient
Based on the highest recorded Bottom Hole Static Temperature (BHST) of 165 °C (330 °F) in the KDL
– 01 Well and a surface ambient temperature of 28°C (82°F). The geothermal gradient has been
calculated to be;
• 3.836 °C/100 m
• 2.104 °F/100 ft.

Figure 4 Gundih Geothermal Gradient
Formation Tops
Prognosed Depth Offset Well Depth
Top of Formation
Pilot CCS Well RBT – 01A
Mundu 515.87m TVD
Ledok 773.10m TVD
Wonocolo 284 m TVD 1022.60m TVD
Ngrayong 1006 m TVD 1528.90m TVD
8 of 56
Tawun/Tuban 1596 m TVD 2151.0m TVD

Kujung 2964 m TVD 2939.60m TVD
Ngimbang 3490 m TVD
Page

Well Sections
It is planned that the well be drilled in 4 sections with a driven surface conductor and contingency
liner as summarized below:
Casing/Liner
Hole Size Shoe Depth Formation Setting
Size
(inches) (m TVD/MD) Depth
(Inches)
Driven/Drilled 30” 30 m Surface
12¼”/26” 20” 300 m Wonocolo
17 ½” 13 Ǫ” 1596 m /1776 m Ngrayong
12¼” x 14¾“* 11 ¾”* TBA Tuban
12 ¼” 9 ǫ” 2964 m/3356 m Tuban
8 ½” 5 ½” 3490 m/3963 m Kujung
*Contingency Liner
Casing Design
The construction materials selected for the casing and the casing design must be appropriate
for the fluids and stresses encountered at the site-specific down-hole environment. Carbon
dioxide in combination with water forms carbonic acid, which is corrosive to many materials.
Native fluids can also contain corrosive elements such as brines and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). In

CO2 injection wells, the annular spaces between the long string casing and the intermediate
casing, and between the intermediate casing and the surface casing as well as between the
casings and the geologic formation are required to be filled with cement, along all casings.
Formation Tops have been based on existing offset wells in the area and will be revised on
completion of the static earth and dynamic geological modelling. Casing sizes and setting depths
have been selected from:
(a) Actual pore pressures and temperatures based on offset wells
(b) A requirement to have an 8 ½-inch hole to TD (Kujung Formation).
(c) Pressure and stress loading as a result of CO2 injection.
(d) CO2 (Carbonic Acid) corrosion resistance.
Casing Connections
Buttress Thread Connections (BTC) are typically used on the casing strings found in the Gundih
Field.
Casing connections should satisfy several functional and operational requirements.
Consideration should be given to a metal-to-metal seal casing connection for the

long/production casing string due the higher than normal temperature fluctuation that can
occur in the Gundih Field
9 of 56
Functional Aspects
• to provide a leak resistance to internal or external fluid pressures
•
Page
to have sufficient structural rigidity to transmit externally applied loads

• to have good geometry in order not to increase the outer diameter or reduce the inner
diameter of the casing string significantly
Operational Aspects
• easy to make-up in the field
• easy to break-out in the field
• reusable
To fulfil these aspects, the connections are provided, in almost all cases, with connection
threads. Connections based on welding or gluing techniques and snap-on connectors are
available for casing but will not be utilized, in this case.
For many years the API thread connections, with or without a resilient seal ring, have been the
standard in well casing strings. These standardized connections are:
• API round thread connection for casing application;

• API buttress thread connection for casing application;
• API extreme line connection for casing application.
However, during the last decades there has been a shift away from relatively simple and
inexpensive shallow wells to complicated completions for deep, often corrosive and high
pressure/temperature wells. This trend entailed the need for connections with better seals than
the API connections, and led to the development of the so-called Premium connections.

All connections that have one or more special features, such as higher strength, better sealing
properties, faster make-up, smaller outer diameter of the coupling, internally streamlined and
recess free, etc. as compared with API connections, are collectively called Premium connections.
Threaded casing connections can be divided in two groups, namely the integral connections and
the threaded and coupled connections. Each group can further be divided into several types,
depending on the sealing mechanism and the existence of a torque shoulder.
Integral and Threaded/Coupled Connections

In recent years there has been a move away from integral type connections, towards the use of
threaded and coupled connections. Listed below are the characteristics of the integral
connections and those of the threaded and coupled connections:
Integral Connections
• integral connections halve the number of threaded connections, and thus the number of
potential leakage paths.
• there is no possibility of receiving a coupling made of a different, and thus wrong, material
• in general, the integral type of connections has higher torque capacity than the threaded
and coupled connection. This is because integral connections are generally designed with an
10 of 56
external torque shoulder, while for most threaded and coupled connections the torque
shoulder is located at the pin nose.
• there is a risk of "ringworm" corrosion. This corrosion can occur at the upset region of joints
in the presence of CO2. During the upsetting process the pipe ends are heated and heavily
Page
deformed, which results in a difference in steel microstructure compared to the pipe. It has

been found that this microstructure is highly sensitive to CO2 corrosion so that pits can form
quite rapidly. The observed corrosion has a characteristic morphology called ringworm
attack. To avoid this problem it is necessary to use tubulars which have been fully heat
treated after upsetting.
Threaded and Coupled Connections

• threaded and coupled connections are generally cheaper to produce and the pipe ends can
be re-cut should the threads be damaged.
• the manufacturing process of threaded and coupled connections is a lot simpler than that of
integral connections as no upsetting or swaging is required.
• with threaded and coupled connections there is less risk of leakage due to geometric errors
in the machined connection parts. Generally, the geometric error in machined couplings is
smaller than the error in machined pipe ends. Pins and boxes, machined on long tubulars,
may show geometry errors in the shape of a clover leaf. This is usually caused by movements
of the long unsupported section of the casing joint.
• there has also been a move towards the use of more highly alloyed steel grades which
cannot be satisfactorily hot-worked to produce the upset pipe ends necessary for an integral
connection.
Thread Forms

The following thread forms are commonly manufactured today:
• API round type thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 30° and rounded
crests and roots.
• API buttress type thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 10° and 3°
respectively, and flat crests and roots, parallel to the thread cone.
• API extremeline thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 6°, and flat
crests and roots parallel to the pipe axis.
Modified buttress threads used for Premium connections. Several thread forms have been
developed which are provided with one of the following modifications or combinations thereof:
the thread profile has thread crests and roots parallel to the pipe axis rather than being parallel
to the thread cone; a clearance at the pin thread crest, in order to ensure a better control of the
thread friction during make-up; a change in the angle of the stabbing flank, ranging from +10° to
+45° in order to improve the connection stabbing performance; a change in the angle of the
loading flank, ranging from +3° to -15° in order to increase the tensile capacity of the
connection; a change in the pitch of the threads (single or double pitch change) in order to
provide a more uniform stress distribution in the connection threads under tensile or
compressive loads.
Two step thread has two sections of different diameter, each provided with free running, non-
11 of 56
interfering, threads either straight or tapered. A design with three shoulders which has the
advantage of an increased over-torque capacity. In contrast, a non-interfering thread has the risk
of inadvertently backing-out of the connection.
Page
Wedge shape thread is based on an interlocking dovetail thread profile. The loading flank is
machined with a greater pitch than the stabbing flank to produce a thread that wedges together

during make-up, eliminating the need for an additional torque shoulder. The applicable make-up
torques of these connections tend to be higher than that of connections with modified buttress
thread profiles and a shoulder.
Load Case Scenarios

20 inch, 133 ppf, K-55, BTC – Surface Casing
As Cemented 8.39 37.40 16.61 19.19 No
Gas Kick(2) 6.72 13.86 2.06 2.42 No
⅓ evacuation(2) 3.09 37.40 10.15 7.02 No
Depth
(1)
983.99 ft.
(2)
3592.52 ft.
13 Ǫ inch, 68 ppf, K-55, BTC – Intermediate Casing

As Cemented 4.52 14.40 12.13 4.41 No
⅓ replacement to gas(4)
Pressure Test(3)
Gas Kick(2) 2.54 7.16 9.89 2.21 No
Gas Kick(3) 1.98 6.08 11.06 2.08 No
Gas Kick(4) 2.67 7.40 9.55 2.32 No
⅓ evacuation(2) 3.06 14.40 13.19 4.17 No
⅓ evacuation(3) 2.17 14.40 9.11 4.17 No
⅓ evacuation(4) 2.13 14.40 8.95 4.17 No
Depth
(1)
3592.52 ft.
(2)
7729.66 ft.
12 of 56
(3)
11010.50 ft.
(4)
13451.44 ft.
Page

11¾ inch, 71 ppf, L-80, BTC – Contingency Liner

As Cemented 11.60 16.10 8.73 8.52 No
Pressure Test(1) 1.65 3.94 7.31 1.82 No
Pressure Test(2) 1.75 4.03 6.62 1.93 No
Gas Kick(2) 2.11 5.22 2.34 No
Gas Kick(3) 2.98 5.97 55.48 3.29 No
⅓ evacuation(2) 1.57 22.67 2.70 2.29 No
⅓ evacuation(3) 1.16 23.06 2.42 1.78 No
Depth
(1)
7729.66 ft.
(2)
11010.50 ft.
(3)
13451.44 ft.
9ǫ inch, 53.5 ppf, P-110, LTC – Intermediate Liner


As Cemented 16.23 193.03 9.16 14.08 No
Pressure Test(2) 1.89 34.84 7.57 1.81 No
Gas Kick(3) 3.56 15.40 529.15 3.88 No
⅓ evacuation(3) 1.74 2.68 2.47 No
Depth
(1)
7729.66 ft.
(2)
11010.50 ft.
(3)
13451.44 ft.
5½ inch – 23 ppf, P-110, MTC – Production Casing

As Cemented 11.28 3.72 9.19 2.95 No
Surface Tubing Leak - Hot(1) 2.54 106.10 5.57 4.20 2.71 No
Surface Tubing Leak – Static(1) 2.62 106.10 1.97 4.20 1.81 No
Full Evacuation(1) 1.92 2.29 2.73 1.98 No
13 of 56
Depth
(1)
13451.44 ft.
Page

Evaluated Load Scenarios

Casing
Load Name Description
String
As Cemented Casing filled with drilling fluid at the density it
was run with; cement outside casing; static All
temperature profile
⅓ replacement to gas Casing is filled with 0.0 psi/ft. gas to a depth S, I
point (below this, mud is present with weight
used to drill subsequent section) natural pore
pressure gradient outside of the casing; static and
considered.
Pressure Test Casing is filled with the mud weight with which S, I, P
the casing was run in and surface and surface
pressure applied that produces a pressure at the
casing shoe equal to the fracture pressure plus a
margin of safety (0.2 ppg); natural pore pressure
gradient outside the casing; static temperature
profile
Gas Kick (50 bbl) Simulates gas kick of specified volume; internal S, I
pressure profile depends on size of gas bubble
and natural pore pressure gradient outside the

casing; temperature profile is based on
correlation by Kutasov and Taighi (Schlumberger
2006)
⅓ replacement to gas circulating Casing is filled with 0.0 psi/ft. gas to a depth S, I, P
point while circulating; natural pore pressure
gradient outside of the casing; static and
considered.
⅓ evacuation Casing is filled with mud with weight it was run in
with; cement outside casing; static temperature
profile.
Surface Tubing Leak Surface Tubing Leak – The internal pressure P
profile is created by placing the shut-in tubing
pressure on top of the packer fluid from the
wellhead to the packer. Below the packer,
bottom-hole pressure conditions exist. Pore
pressure is used for the external pressure and
static temperature is used for the temperature
profile.
Green Cement Pressure Test Casing filled with drilling fluid at the density it All
was run with; un-hydrated cement outside
14 of 56
casing; static temperature profile

Full Evacuation Tubing is completely evacuated; external P
pressure is the hydrostatic pressure due to the
packer fluid in the annulus surrounding the
tubing; static temperature profiles.
Page
S = Surface Casing; I = Intermediate Casing; P = Production Casing; T = Tubing

Casing Accessories
Float Equipment
Casing float equipment and cement plugs required are to meet or exceed the casing
specification and temperature rating. Cement plugs are to be rated for the expected
temperature and casing test pressure of 80% of the maximum rated casing pressure.
Multi-Stage Cementing
In some cases, cementing along the well casing from the injection zone up to the ground
surface in a single stage may not be possible. The pressure exerted by the cement column
increases as the height of the column increases. In very deep wells the pressure may
become so great that the cement pumps can no longer maintain the pressure, or the
pressure from the cement column under construction may fracture weaker formations. In
some cases, highly fractured formations or formations with large voids may not allow
cement to circulate to the surface, as the cement will flow into the fractures and voids in
the formation instead of stacking vertically in a column up to the ground surface. If single
stage cementing cannot be successfully performed, multi-staged cementing may be used
[40 CFR §146.86(b) (4)]. Multi-staged cementing can be two-stage, three-stage, or
continuous two-stage cementing.
Two – Stage Cementing

Two-stage cementing is performed similarly to single stage cementing, except that a
cement collar with cement ports is installed at an appropriate point in the well. The
cement collar allows cement to be injected into the annulus between the casing and
formation at some point in the column under construction other than the bottom of the
well. Figure 5 shows a schematic of a two-stage cementing process. EPA recommends that
an appropriate point for the cement collar may be the halfway point of the well or just
above a fractured zone where the cement circulation might be lost.
To successfully accomplish two-stage cementing, the cement is pushed out of the well bore
using a fluid. Two plugs, often referred to as bombs because of their shape, are then
dropped. The first plug closes the section of the well below the collar and stops cement
from flowing into the lower portion of the well. The second plug (or opening bomb) opens
the cement ports in the collar allowing cement to flow into the annulus between the casing
and formation through the cement collar. Cement is then circulated down the well bore,
out the cement ports, into the annulus between the casing and formation, and up to the
ground surface. Once cementing is complete, a third plug is dropped to close the cement
ports (Lyons and Plisga, 2005). If the time between the first and second stage is long
enough for the cement to begin to set, care should be taken that the first stage is stopped
significantly below the cement ports.
Continuous Two-Stage and Three-Stage Cementing

15 of 56
In continuous two-stage cementing, there is no break between the injection of cement

between the first and second stages. Continuous two-stage cementing requires less time
than regular two- stage cementing, but it requires a more precise knowledge of the cement
level to avoid plugging the cement ports. Three-stage cementing is very similar to two-stage
Page
cementing, except that two cement collars are used instead of one. The method used will
largely be determined by the characteristics of the well bore. If there are two weak

formations where circulation is lost or the well is very deep, three-stage cementing may be
advantageous.

16 of 56
Figure 5Two - Stage Cementing Schematic

Page

Downhole Deployment Valve (DDV) and Rotating Control Device (RCD)

DDV’s coupled with an RCD have successfully been employed in the area and provided the
safety sought in similar well conditions, however, further planning is required to integrate
the technology into this particular well and geological environment.
Liner Hanger
There are no specific regulations for liner hangers in this application, however in this instance, the
regulatory requirements that govern the selection of packer materials and technical requirements is
applicable.
Tubing
U.S. EPA Class VI regulations require that injection occur through tubing. The tubing must be
compatible with the carbon dioxide stream [40 CFR §146.86(c) (1)]. Tubing materials are generally
similar to the casing well materials. The tubing should also be designed with the same types of
stresses in mind. The tubing must be designed with burst strength to withstand the injection
pressure and the collapse strength to withstand the pressure in the annulus between the tubing
and the casing [40 CFR §146.86(b) (1)]. Consideration should be given to a metal-to-metal seal
tubing connection due the higher than normal temperature fluctuation that can occur in the
Gundih Field.
Tubing Specifications & Load Cases

i h, . ppf, L-80, NUE, Seamless, R3 has been selected as the tubing to be utilized for CO2
injection. Tubing movement modelling has not been included in the casing Load Case Scenarios and
is required conducted upon selection of the tubing packer to model the packer loads in various
scenarios encountered during CO2 injection, well shut-in conditions and any potential flow. The
injection tubing is subject to contraction and expansion caused by variations in temperatures, and to
tension, compression, and hydraulic pulsation effects. Therefore, to comply with 30 TAC
§331.62(a)(1)(B)(vii), modelling of adequate safety factors is necessary when designing for tubing
and packer installation.
Tubing Packer
U.S. EPA Class VI regulations also require that injection occur through a packer, set opposite a
cemented interval at a depth approved by the UIC Program Director, and compatible with the
carbon dioxide stream [40 CFR §146.86(c)(1) and (2)].
Packers are often made from a hardened rubber such as Buna-N or nitrile rubbers and are nickel
plated. Proper materials for packers are important as they are likely to come into contact with
corrosive fluids such as carbon dioxide or corrosive brines at some point during the project life.
The packer must be compatible with any fluids it may come into contact with [40 CFR §146.86(c)
(1)]. Placement of the packer can also be an important consideration, influenced by numerous
factors. If the packer is placed above the confining layer, it will allow logs to be run next to the
17 of 56
casing through the confining layer without having to pull the tubing. Alternatively, placing the
packer close to the perforations may allow instruments used for carbon dioxide plume tracking,
such as geophones, to be placed closer to the expected plume. Packer placement can also affect
how mechanical integrity tests are conducted and may affect the stress placed on well
components. Consideration should be given to these factors, in order to select the best location
Page
for the packer according to project and site specific circumstances.

Completion Equipment
The well completion equipment, from bottom up, (Fig 6) will comprise:
• Shear Out Ball Seat Sub w/wireline re-entry guide

• Seating Nipple (No-Go Profile)
• Re-setta le x ½ inch packer
• Sliding Sleeve
• Gauge Carrier
• Single Conductor Encapsulated DTS 200 °C Working Temperature
• Surface Controlled Sub-surface Safety Valve (SCSSSV)
• SCSSSV Control Line
• Tubing hanger with Back Pressure Valve (BPV) profile.
Annular Fluid
The annular space above the packer between the 5½-inch long string casing and the
-inch injection tubing will be filled with fluid to provide structural support for the
injection tubing. If required, fluid pressure measure at the surface within the annulus
will be maintained so as to exceed the maximum injection pressure within the
injection tubing at the elevation of the injection zone. Under this requirement, the
maximum annulus surface pressure will not exceed a value that is more than ~200 psi

greater than injection pressure at surface. Alternatively, the maximum annulus surface
pressure will not exceed a value that would result in a pressure at the top of the
packer that is greater than the pressure inside the tubing when the bottom-hole
injection pressure is at the maximum allowable pressure.
The annular fluid will be a diluted saline solution such as potassium chloride (KCl),
sodium chloride (NaCl-), calcium chloride (CaCl2), or similar solution. The fluid will be
mixed onsite using dry salt and clean fresh water. The fluid is also to be filtered to
ensure that solids do not settle at the packer or on other components installed in the
annulus.
The annular fluid will contain additives and inhibitors including a corrosion inhibitor,
biocide/bactericide (to prevent harmful bacteria), and an oxygen scavenger.
Wellhead and Xmas Tree

API SPEC 6A – Specification for Wellhead and Xmas Tree Equipment Twenty-First
Edition (2019) is the specification required to be adhered to for the Wellhead and
Xmas Tree. Specifications listed below are defined in API Spec 6A:
• Material Class – with specific attention to wetted surfaces subject to CO2 and
H2S exposure.
o As defined by NACE MR 0175
18 of 56
• Performance Requirement (PR)

• Pressure Rating
• Product Specification Level (PSL)
• Temperature Classification
•
Page
Nonmetallic Requirements Figure 6: CCS Completion Schematic

The wellhead and Xmas tree will be composed of materials compatible with the injected fluid to
minimize corrosion. All components that are in contact with CO2 injection fluid will be made of a
corrosion resistant alloy or a conventional material with a corrosion resistant inlay for flow wetted
component surfaces.
Valve actuators are to be installed on those valves designated to be included in an automated

system to close the valve when certain criteria are met e.g. injection pressure.
Specific to CO2 monitoring requirements will be the inclusion of ported adaptor flange sections to
the wellhead that will incorporate pressure sealing ports for monitoring instrumentation and control
lines. An example is shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 7 Typical Instrumentation line penetrator wellhead flange
19 of 56
Page


20 of 56
Page
Figure 7 Example of CCS Multiple Monitoring Configured Conceptual Wellhead & Xmas Tree

Proposed Wellhead and Xmas Tree API 6A (Latest Edition) Specifications:
Bottom Top Pressure Material Temperature

Section PSL PR
Connection Connection Rating Classification Rating
Section A 20” 21 ¼ “ 2,000 psi DD U 3 2
Section B 21 ¼” 11” 5,000 psi EE U 3 2
1 11” 11” 5,000 psi EE U 3 2
Section B2
2 11” 11” 5,000 psi EE U 3 2
Section C
Tubing Hanger Assy. 5,000psi FF 1.5 X 3 2
THA3 11” 3ǩ” 5,000 psi FF X 3 2
Xmas Tree 3 ǩ” 5,000 psi FF X 3 2F
1
Section B2 Spacer Spool monitoring instrumentation ported access section
2
Section C Tubing annulus monitoring instrumentation and SCSSSV ported access incorporated
into tubing head adapter and ported tubing hanger.
3
THA Tubing Head Adapter
CO2 Downhole Well Monitoring Equipment

Distributed Acoustic Sensor (DAS)/Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS)
At the time of writing this drilling prognosis, research and development of the monitoring plan
continued. Conceptually, there will be two (2) main data source locations; the first source will be
situated in the annulus of the 5½-inch x 9ǫ/13Ǫ-inch casing strings with the 9ǫ-inch casing run as a
liner in an effort to save time and reduce the number of wellhead sections. The 5½-inch casing will
be cemented as close as practically possible to surface, permanently cementing the externally
mounted Distributed Acoustic Sensor (DAS) reservoir monitoring cable in the well. This cable is the
sensor and is not typically run with any other equipment other than cross-coupling protectors similar
to the one shown in Figure 8 below. It should be noted that the typical temperature rating for fiber
optic cable in this application is 150 °C (302 °F). Bottomhole temperature in the Gundih Field can
extend above 150 °C (302 °F) as indicated in Geothermal Gradient page 9 of this document.
21 of 56
Page
Figure 8: Cross-coupling Cable Protector

Coaxial Pressure & Temperature Monitoring Cable

The second monitoring lo atio ill e the a ulus of the -inch tubing x 5½-inch casing where the
Coax Pressure & Temperature monitoring a le ill e strapped to the -inch tubing and extend,
from a ported carrier-assembly installed above the packer depth, to surface, providing access to
tubing pressure coupled with access to annulus pressure, along with temperature.
Figure 9: Examples of Single Permanent Downhole Monitoring (DTS) Cable

Multi-Conduit and Monitoring Cable Flat-Pack
In the event geophones are selected as part of the monitoring program and run, a more complex
flat-pack monitoring conduit may be utilized that incorporates the features as shown Figure 10
below.
22 of 56
Figure 10 Flat Pack Multi-Core Monitoring Cable

Page

Downhole Monitoring Equipment

23 of 56
Figure 11 Typical Geophone and Flat Pack Installation on CO2 injection tubing.
Page

Well Integrity
Cement and Its Degradation Due to CO2 Injection
Portland cement systems are used conventionally for zonal isolation in oil or gas production
wells. It is thus crucial to study how such cement behaves at depth in CO2-rich fluids and
understand the chemical interactions between injected CO2 and existing cements that could
potentially lead to leakage. Portland cement is thermodynamically unstable in CO2-rich
environments and can degrade rapidly upon exposure to CO2 in the presence of water. As
CO2-laden water diffuses into the cement matrix, the dissociated acid (H2CO3) reacts with
the free calcium hydroxide and the calcium-silicate-hydrate gel. The reaction products are
soluble and migrate out of the cement matrix. Eventually, the compressive strength of the
set cement decreases and the permeability and porosity increase leading to loss of zonal
isolation.
There are mainly three different chemical reactions involved in cement-CO2 interaction: (1)
formation of carbonic acid, (2) carbonation of calcium hydroxide and/or cement hydrates,
and (3) dissolution of calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
Cement is important for providing structural support of the casing, preventing contact of the
casing with corrosive formation fluids, and preventing vertical movement of carbon dioxide.
Some of the most current research indicates that a good cement job is one of the key factors
in effective zonal isolation.

The proper placement of the cement is critical, as errors can be difficult to fix later on.
Failing to cement the entire length of casing, failure of the cement to bond with the casing
or formation, not centralizing the casing during cementing, cracking, and alteration of the
cement can all allow migration of fluids along the wellbore. If carbon dioxide escapes the
injection zone through the wellbore because of a failed cement job, the injection process
must be interrupted to perform costly remedial cementing treatments. In a worst case
scenario, failure of the cement sheath can result in the total loss of a well.
During the injection phase, cement will only encounter dry CO2. However, after the injection
phase and all the free CO2 around the wellbore had been dissolved in the brine, the wellbore
will be attacked by carbonic acid (H2CO3). The carbonic acid will only attack the reservoir
portion of the production (long string) casing, therefore special consideration of CO2 cement
needs only to be considered for the reservoir, the primary seal and a safety zone above the
reservoir. Regular cement should be placed over the CO2-resistant cement. However since
two different cement slurries will be used, CO2-resistant cement that is compatible with
regular Portland cement has to be used to prevent flash setting. The cement must be able to
maintain a low permeability over lengthy exposure to reservoir conditions in a CO2 injection
and storage scenario. Long-term carbon sequestration conditions include a contact of set
cement with supercritical CO2 (>31 °C at 1059 psi) and brine solutions at increased pressure
and temperature and decreased pH.
24 of 56
Underground gas storage operations and CO2 sequestration in aquifers rely on both proper
wellbore construction and sealing function of the cap rock. The potential leakage paths are
the migration CO2 along the wellbore due to poor cementation and flow through the cap
rock. The permeability and integrity of the cement will determine how effective it is in
preventing leakage. The integrity of the cap rock is assured by an adequate fracture gradient
Page
and by sufficient cement around the casing across the cap rock and without a micro-annulus.

Well integrity has been identified as the biggest risk contributing to leakage of CO2 from
underground storage sites. Wellbore represents the most likely route for the leakage of CO2
from geologic carbon sequestration. Abandoned wells are typically sealed with cement plugs
intended to block vertical migration of fluids. In addition, active wells are usually lined with
steel casing, with cement filling the outer annulus in order to prevent leakage between the
casing and formation rock.
Several potential leakage pathways can occur along active injection well and/or abandoned
well. These include leakage: through deterioration (corrosion) of the tubing (1), around
packer (2), through deterioration (corrosion) of the casing (3), between the outside of the
casing and the cement (4), through deterioration of the cement in the annulus (cement
fractures) (5), leakage in the annular region between the cement and the formation (6),
through the cement plug (7), and between the cement and the inside of the casing (8) .
The permeability and integrity of the cement in the annulus and in the wellbore will
determine how effective the cement is in preventing fluid leakage.
The greatest risk for the escape of CO2 may come from other wells, typically for oil and gas,
which penetrate the storage formation. Such wells need to be properly sealed in order to
ensure that they do not provide pathways for the CO2 to escape into the atmosphere.
Planning for geologic storage must take such wells into account. The escaping of CO2
through water wells is much more unlikely since water wells are usually much shallower
than the storage formation.

Casing Pressure Testing
Casing is required to be pressure tested to 80% of the casing pressure rating after the top
plug has been bumped and prior to the cement setting. This procedure is in an effort to
reduce the potential for a micro-annulus being generated between the cement and casing
when test pressure is released after the cement has already hydrated. Casing pressure
testing using traditional methods is typically conducted after the cement setting time has
been achieved and increases the incidence of micro-annulus formation as the casing
contracts, as a result of the internal casing pressure being released.
Formation Integrity Testing (FIT)

A Formation Integrity Test will be conducted when it is decided to test the casing shoe and
immediate formation to a specific design pressure. The pressure is typically below the
formation fracture pressure and is the preferred method, reducing the potential of
damaging the cement bond and formation at the casing shoe thus reducing the potential for
uncontrolled sub-surface flow while continuing drilling to the hole section TD.
Leak Off Test (LOT)

In the event it is required to know the formation fracture gradient a Leak Off Test is
conducted where the pressure in the well below the previous casing shoe is increased to the
fracture point providing actual fracture pressure/gradient data.
25 of 56
Annulus Pressure Test (APT)

Standard Annulus Pressure Test to be conducted during well completion operations and
prior to commencing CO2 injection operations.
Page

Cementing Program
All casing strings, with the exception of liners, will be cemented back to surface in accordance with
the requirements EPA UIC Class VI regulations (10 CFR §146.87).
Positive stand-off casing centralizers will be used on casing strings that extend to surface and liners
exposed to annuli that extend to surface, in accordance with a centralizer spacing and placement
simulation, with the exception of the surface conductor and intermediate casing string. A
temperature rated, PDC drillable float/guide shoe will be run on the bottom of the first joint with a
temperature and casing test pressure rated double-float collar above the second casing joint to
provide sufficient separation between the cement slurry and displacement fluid. The minimum two
(2) joint shoe track is intended to ensure a competent and uniform cement slurry surrounds the
casing shoe.
All casing strings and liners with a potential for exposure to CO2, H2S and associated fluids will be
cemented with a CO2 corrosion resistant cement. In an effort to effectively remove drilling fluid filter
cake from both the casing and formation, and reduce the potential for micro-annulus formation, an
effective “Mud Removal Spacer Fluid” for both the OBM and Water Based drilling fluids is to be
included as part of the cementing program.
After running a casing string that extends to the deeper higher temperature formations of the well a
pre-determined casing circulating period is required in an effort to reduce formation temperature in
the immediate wellbore at that particular depth. This is in an effort to reduce any downhole

temperature anomalies that may be present.
The 5½-inch production casing is currently planned to be cemented back to surface in a multi-stage
process. The placement of a multi-stage cementing tool will be defined after further reservoir data
acquisition, engineering and analysis.
Note: As shown in the reservoir pressure profiles there is a distinct pressure regression (~1.54 SG –
1.00 SG [~12.86 ppg – 8.34 ppg]) after exiting the Tuban Formation and penetrating the Kujung. In
this case a full column of conventional weight cement, to surface, is not considered feasible.
A high temperature (~149 °C [~300 °F]), lite-weight, CO2 corrosion resistant cement slurry design is
required to cement the 5½-inch long string in a single stage cement job that exhibits the necessary
properties to conduct the cementation in a single stage whereby, eliminating the requirement for
multi-stage cementation of the 5½-inch casing string thus eliminating the potential for failure during
the multi-stage process and, a saving in rig time.
Potential Drilling Constraints

Drilling Unit
A well of this nature and depth requires the use of a heavy land drilling unit with a
drawworks hook load capacity to handle the casing weights, in dry air and, a minimum of
three (3) large capacity mud pumps that are capable of delivering continuously, 1,200
gallons per minute (gpm) at pump pressures up to 3,000 psig. Additionally, a Top Drive
26 of 56
System (TDS) is to be made available. The equipment is to be suitably prepared for the
formation temperatures expected encountered. It is important that the drilling contractor
be experienced in drilling wells of the type described in this prognosis.
Page

Formation Temperature
KDL-01 well, recorded a bottomhole temperature of 165 °C (330 °F). The geothermal
gradient for the area has been established at 3.836 °C/100 m (2.104 °F/100 ft.). Recorded
RBT – 01A well mud flowline temperature increased from 149 °C (300 °F) to 156 °C (313 °F)
through the Kujung interval (2962.0m MD/2939.6m TVD – 3112.0m MD/3090.3m TVD). Use
of a drilling fluid capable of withstanding these temperatures is a point for consideration.
Additionally, surface handling equipment (e.g. TDS, TDS hose, mud manifold, choke manifold
etc.) and surface pumping equipment and BOP elastomers are to be rated for temperatures
of this magnitude. Should drilling fluid temperature be deemed excessive consideration is to
be given to the installation of a mud cooling unit for the deeper sections of the well.
Temperature of this magnitude require that all equipment and materials used on the well be
“Fit for Purpose”.
Drilling Fluids Conditioning

Temperature and solids content are two factors with the greatest potential to cause serious
drilling fluid and well control issues. A “Mud Cooler” should be considered to provide the
reduction in drilling fluid circulating temperature required. The primary concern being the
temperature limitations of the BOP elastomers. Additionally, an effective solids control
system is also a requirement. In an effort to provide consistent fluid density during drilling
operations
Lost Circulation

The risk of a “blowout” increases significantly when severe lost circulation is encountered. The
potential for major drilling fluid cost overruns and drilling delays are substantially increased.
Alternative methods of combating lost circulation are to be made available at the drilling
location. Such systems are to be in place to allow fast replenishment of drilling mud, i.e. bulk
barite and bentonite storage, shearing equipment and additional surface drilling fluid storage.
Well Control
The combination of high pressure, high temperature, lost circulation and long hole sections
between casing points increases the risk of a well control incident. Procedures are to be
developed to handle risk management. In addition the provision of high rate water supply and
large reserve drilling mud storage.
Note: RBT – 01A recorded flowline temperature up to 156 °C (313 °F) when nearing TD of
the well. Standard BOP elastomers are rated for up to 93 °C (200 °F) with standard spherical
(annular) BOP elastomers rated for 77 °C (170 °F). BOP elastomers are to be rated for the
temperatures anticipated. High temperature BOP elastomeric components are available for
up to 177 °C (350 °F) and spherical (annular) BOP elastomer elements up to 107 °C (225 °F).
Formation Injectivity Testing

U.S. EPA Class VI Rule requires that the injection pressure not exceed 90 percent of the
injection zone fracture pressure except during stimulation [40 CFR §146.88(a)].
27 of 56
Maintaining the injection pressure below 90 percent of the injection zone fracture
pressure is a conservative requirement that prevents the injection zone from being
fractured and diminishes the likelihood of fracturing the confining zone which could result
in fluid movement out of the injection zone. In some cases, a well stimulation program
Page
may be necessary to achieve the desired injectivity of the Class VI injection well.

Stimulation usually occurs during completion of the well and may also be conducted if
injectivity decreases over the course of the injection project.
Some stimulation methods can induce and propagate fractures. If stimulation is to be

performed, the proposed stimulation method must demonstrate that it will not fracture
the confining zone or otherwise allow injection or formation fluids to endanger USDWs [40
CFR §146.88(a)]. This can be accomplished by modeling pressures and showing that the
fracture pressure of the confining zone is never exceeded.
The modeled pressures can be confirmed using technologies such as tilt-meters and micro-
seismic monitoring to monitor and refine the model; however, these technologies are still
experimental and may not be applicable in all circumstances. If additional chemicals are to
be used in stimulation it should be shown that they will not react with the confining layer.
Information on calculating the fracture pressure of a formation can be found in the Draft
UIC Program Class VI Well Site Characterization Guidance. The API Guidance Document
RF1 – Hydraulic Fracturing Operations – Well Construction and Integrity Guidelines also
contains information on ways to perform stimulation without fracturing the confining
layer. Additionally, the Draft UIC Program Class VI Well Testing and Monitoring Guidance
provides additional information on how to monitor injection pressure.
Injection between the casing and the formation is not allowed [40 CFR §146.88(b)], as it
would provide no barrier between the carbon dioxide and the formation. The Class VI Rule
requires the space between the casing and the formation to be cemented [40 CFR

§146.86(b)(2) and 146.86(b)(3)].
Toxic and Poisonous Gases

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are present in the Gundih Field. Equipment
is to be made available at the well site for the detection and monitoring of such gases.
Mud scavengers are also to be available as part of the drilling fluids program.
Surface and sub-surface equipment are to be “fit for purpose” in an environment containing
CO2 and H2S.
Safety equipment including 30 minute air-packs, 15 minute egress packs, breathing air
compressors, wind direction indicators and warning signs are to be made available for all
personnel on location.
H2S and toxic gas training of all relevant personnel is to be conducted.
A contingency plan with respect to the local population, surrounding farm and agricultural
life is to be developed.
Drilling Parameters and Well Data Monitoring

A mud logging unit and associated service personnel will be made available, on location,
while drilling the well. The purpose of which is to identify potential CO2 injection zones as
28 of 56
they are penetrated.
Additional parameters to be monitored include BOP/wellhead and flowline temperatures,

annulus pressures and solids control equipment performance.
RBT – 01A recorded flowline temperature up to 156 °C (313 °F) when nearing TD of the well.
Page
Standard BOP elastomers are rated for up to 93 °C (200 °F) with spherical (annular) BOP

elastomers rated for 77 °C (170 °F). BOP elastomers are to be rated for the temperatures
anticipated. High temperature BOP elastomeric components are available for up to 177 °C
(350 °F) and spherical (annular) BOP elastomer elements up to 107 °C (225 °F).
Electric Logging
The electric logging program is designed to confirm the identity of potential CO2 storage
zones. Tools and logging cable are to be suitable for high temperatures (>149 °C/300 °F). In
addition electric logging services may be required to conduct intermediate VSP’s and
pressure measurements of candidate zones.
Casing Wear
Procedures are required developed to check; steel recovery in the drilling fluid and tool joint
hard banding inspection specification. And, should casing wear be suspected a casing caliper
log and additional pressure testing of casing conducted.
Casing and Annulus Pressure Testing

Casing pressure testing is to be conducted when the last plug is bumped after the cement is
in place and prior to setting. This is in an effort to reduce the formation of a micro-annulus
between the casing and cement. Typically, the pressure test is to a minimum of 80% of
casing pressure rating.
Annulus Pressure Testing will be conducted in accordance with §40 CFR §146.8(b)(2)

Hazardous Operations (HAZOP’s)
Surface equipment is to be fit for purpose in an environment where H2S and CO2 are present.
Safety equipment including 30 minute air packs, 5 minute egress pack, breathing air
compressors, wind direction indicators, warning signs will be made available.
Training of all relevant personnel is to be conducted.
A contingency plan with respect to the local population and surrounding farm life is to be
developed.
All drilling personnel both office based and rig based involved in the decision making and/or
supervisory capacity are to have attended a recognized well control course. These courses,
typically well specific, are designed to provide the participants with a working knowledge of
the procedures and techniques required for a CO2 injection well. Generally, broken into two
training sessions, firstly for supervisory personnel and secondly training directed at drilling
crews and service company personnel. The second course will be conducted in the field and
cover drilling issues and well control procedures to be used plus, practical drills in
implementing procedures.
29 of 56
Page

Surface Location

30 of 56
Page
Figure 12: CCS-1: Pilot CO2 Injection Well Surface Location KTB-B well pad approximately 4.0 km east of Gundih CPP

The Gundih CPP and producing wells are located near the town of Cepu, Central Java. The area is
predominantly agricultural with rural villages that rely on ground water for irrigational and domestic
use. The proposed surface well location is approximately 4.0 km east of the Gundih CPP at the KTB –
B well pad.
Directional Drilling and Deviation

A deviated well (CCS – 1) is planned from the KTB – B well pad location designated with the following
surface location and sub-surface target parameters:
UTM Zone 49S Coordinates: 9203232.44 m S 554412.83 m E

Latitude/Longitude 7°12'18.28"S 111°29'34.27"E
Azimuth: 30° E
Measured Depth: ~4,100 m MD
True Vertical Depth: ~3,582.5 m TVD
Target Coordinates: 9204836 m S 555338.4 m E
Target Tolerance 200 m.

Dog Leg Severity (DLS) 1.06°/30 m.
Directional Drilling Method Selection

Either rotary steerable or downhole motor will be considered for the directional drilling phase.
A Rotary Steerable System (RSS) will drill the well faster with less time wasted on orienting the tool
face with aggressive bit usage (issues with a motor when trying to control the tool-face), and
maximizing drilling parameters.
Sliding with a mud motor in could pose challenges due to weight stacking. The weight stacking is
more profound when Water Base Mud (WBM) is used as the friction factor is higher than the SOBM.
A highly experienced Directional Driller (DD) is required if it is selected to drill with a motor.
An RSS will result in a smoother borehole for casing run in both 12¼-inch and 8½-inch hole section
as doglegs are even distributed in the borehole. This will also aid in improved borehole conditions
for the extensive logging and formation evaluation program. A mud motor creates "micro-doglegs"
which increase the tortuosity of the hole section if not managed well. Micro-dogleg depending on
the severity will increase the chance of the drilling assembly becoming stuck due to key-seating.
RSS continuous rotation and higher rotating speed will improve hole cleaning of the well. Mud
motors, however, have rotary speed limitations due to the deviation. Improved hole cleaning will
31 of 56
reduce the risk of stuck pipe and enable faster tripping.
Near bit Resistivity While Drilling will enable the selection of an optimum geological point at the
base of the Tuban and casing setting point for the 9ǫ-inch casing and is only applicable when
coupled with RSS technology. The RSS Near Bit Resistivity is approximately 1.5 m from the bit
Page
whereas when using a mud motor, the Resistivity Tool is at least 15.0 m above the bit.


32 of 56
Figure 13 Gundih Pilot CO2 Injection Well Trajectory, Geological Formations & Estimated Pressure Profiles
Page

Formation Data
Geological Summary – Based on RBT – 1A Offset Well
The location of Randublatung RBT-1A offset well was proposed to be drilled within the Blue
Horizon objective of the limestone reservoir layer in the Kujung Formation exhibiting a
porosity ranging from 19% - 24%. The reservoir trap is a barrier reef (reefal) shelf edge
increasingly controlled by basement faulting since the Eocene period.
Primary Ngimnbang formation hydrocarbon source migration occurred in Miocene – Mid-

Miocene where the structural trap of the Kujung Formation was formed. Faulting, in the
Middle Miocene penetrated the Kujung Formation. It is expected the shale formation that
matures in the Tuban Formation will provide an effective seal.
Formation Drilling
36” Hole Section: Surface – 30m MD
The 36” hole section was initially drilled with a 17½ pilot
hole using a water base gel mud then opened up with a
17 ½” bull nose x 26” x 36” hole opening assembly from
surface to 30m. At TD the hole was back reamed and a
30 bbl Hi-Vis pill was pumped and displaced with water

base gel mud. No gas was recorded due to pump and
dump mud returns. 30-inch B, MIJ, 118.6ppf casing was
run to 30m and cemented with 76 bbl 1.9 SG slurry
Lidah Formation 26” Hole Section: 30 – 309m MD

Surface – 518.0m The 26” hole section was drilled from 30m – 309m with
MD/515.87m TVD 1.05 – 1.10 SG KCl PHPA Polymer mud. Formation
Claystone interbedded encountered included sandstone interbedded with
with sandstone, siltstone claystone, limestone and siltstone.
and streaks of limestone Trace gas was recorded from 30m – 240m between 0 –
2 units. Below 240m gas increased from 2 – 8 units with
a gas composition comprising mostly methane. No
connection gas was recorded in this section. No
connection gas was recorded in this section. Maximum
trip gas recorded was 63 units after circulating bottoms
up prior to pulling out of the hole. 20-inch, K-55,
106.5ppf, BTC casing was run to 308m followed by 7 –
10bbls chemical wash, 50 bbls Mud Push II, lead slurry
268 bbls 1.62 SG, tail slurry 132 bbls, 1.90 SG then
displaced with 17 bbls water.
33 of 56
Page

Formation Drilling
Mundu Formation
518.0m MD/515.87m TVD – 17½“Hole Section: 309 – 1724m MD
787.0m MD/773.1m TVD This section was drilled from 309 – 1724m MD with
Sandstone interbedded 1.13 – 1.46 SG SOBM. Mud weight was increased at
with layers of siltstone, 354m from 1.13 – 1.25 SG, when background gas
claystone and marl. increased to 20 – 50 units. At 471m was increased from
1.25 – 1.4 SG as background gas increased and again
from 1.4 – 1.46 SG at 585m where background gas
stabilized between 60 – 80 units. From 585m MD to
hole section TD at 1724m MD background fluctuated
Ledok Formation between 50 – 120 units. Maximum gas recorded in this
section was217 units in a sandstone at 526m MD.
787.0m MD/773.1m TVD – Maximum recorded trip gas was 146 units while
1043.5m MD/1022.6m circulating the hole clean at 1456m MD. Gas in this
TVD. section consisted mostly of methane with traces of
Claystone interbedded with ethane and propane. At hole section TD (1724m MD)
sandstone and siltstone the mud weight was increased from 1.46 – 1.49 SG prior
to pulling out of the hole (POOH) and gas reduced to 25
units.

Wonocolo Formation Mud losses encountered were, 7 bbls of mud were lost
pulling out of the hole, 6 bbls at the centrifuge and 7
1043.5. MD/1022.6m TVD – barrels at the desilter.
1551.0m MD/1528.9m TVD The 17½“open hole logging suite comprised AITH-MCFL-
Predominantly claystone GR-PEX (Schlumberger). Two gyro run were also made.
interbedded with siltstone, The hole was then cased and cemented with 13⅜”, L-
sandstone and limestone. 80, 68ppf & 72ppf (connection type not available) with
the casing shoe being set at 1722.05m MD/1701.0m
TVD.
Ngrayong Formation
1551.0m DM/1528.9m TVD
– 2174.0m MD/2151.0m
TVD 12¼” Hole Section: 1724 – 2959m MD
Predominantly shale The 12 ¼” hole section was drilled from 1724 – 2959m
interbedded with MD with Saline Oil Base Mud (SOBM) ranging in mud
sandstone, claystone and weight from 1.55 – 1.61 SG. There is no record of the
siltstone in the upper LWD/MWD tools that were used to a depth of 2914m
portion and intercalation MD where tool failure occurred and drilling continued
with marl and limestone in without LWD/MWD. The tools used and data obtained
the middle and lower are not available A VSP was conducted at 2830m.
section. Background gas for the entire section ranged from 50 –
34 of 56
Page

Formation Drilling
Tuban Formation 150 units with a maximum gas reading of 297 units at
1907m MD and trip gas of 362 units at 2830m MD. At
2174.0m MD/2151.0m 2959.5m MD. Recovered samples showed
TVD 2962.0m approximately 50% limestone and 50% shale.
MD/2939.6m TVD Temperature increased with depth and ranged from 88
Shaley claystone and shale °C (191 °F) to 100 °C (212 °F) through the 12¼” hole
interbedded with section
sandstone and siltstone in The hole was cased with 9ǫ”, L-80, 53.5 ppf, BTC casing
upper portion with with the shoe set at 2959m MD.
intercalation shale, The cementing program comprised; 2 bbls water ahead,
siltstone and limestone 50 bbls Mud Push II, 239 bbls 1.68 SG Lead Slurry
streaks in the lower part. followed by 100 bbls 1.9 SG Tail slurry
8Ǫ” Hole Section: 2960 – 3112m MD

The 8Ǫ” hole section was drilled from 2960 – 3112m
MD with 5% KCl Polymer drilling fluid ranging in weight
from 1.35 – 1.1 SG. A flow check was conducted at
2973m MD due to dynamic losses of 20 bph at 450 gpm
and high gas of 3203 units from 3035m MD. An LCM pill
was spotted and POOH 6 stands. Static losses were 6

bph. RIH to 3045m MD and spotted cement plug.
Continued drilling from 3045 – 3095m MD. Total losses
encountered. Maximum gas encountered while drilling,
1309 units from 3079m MD. Pumped LCM and spotted
cement plug. Drilled out cement. Maximum gas, 4050
units from 3079m MD. Circulated to condition hole and
Kujung Formation monitored for losses, well static. Continued drilling to
2962.0m MD/2939.6m TVD 3112m MD. Maximum encountered 3096 units from
– 3112.0m MD/3090.3m 29776m MD, 3203 units from 3035m MD. Encountered
TVD. 60 bph losses that increased to 100 bph. Pumped LCM
Predominantly limestone to and spotted cement plug with Zone Lock solution to
occasional dolomite. combat losses. Drilled out cement, unsuccessful in
combating losses. Spotted another cement plug.
Reduced mud weight to 1.1 SG. Drilled out cement plug
and continued drilling with losses dropping from 0 – 9
bph.
Flowline temperature increased from 149 °C (300 °F) to
156 °C (313 °F) through the interval
Open hole logging conducted; Log # 1 DLL – SRT – SP –
CAL – GR, Log # 2 LDT – CNL – GR, Log # 3 DSI – GR, Log
# 4 FMI – GR, Log # 5 VSP
The 7”, L-80, 32.0 ppf, BTC liner was run to 3090 m MD
35 of 56
and the cement pumping program that followed

comprised; 30 bbl 1.24 SG Mud Push II, 30 bbls 1.38
LiteCRETE followed by 183 bbls of displacement mud.
Page

Operations Summary
Operations associated with the drilling of CCS Pilot Well can be broken down into the following
discrete steps:
1. Move in drilling unit and associated service equipment and rig up.
2. Drive 30-inch conductor or drill 36-inch hole and run 30-inch casing and cement. Install
diverter equipment if shallow gas is considered to be a possibility.
3. Drill 12¼-inch pilot hole to the 20-inch casing setting depth taking returns to the cellar with
cellar pump returns to mud system.
4. Log pilot hole as required.
5. Open pilot hole to 26-inch
6. Run and cement 20-inch casing using “water bushing” and drill pipe inner string.
7. Rig down diverter equipment, if it has been installed, cut off 30-inch conductor at cellar
floor. Cut off 20-inch casing at pre-determine height and weld on 21¼-inch 3,000 psi WP x
20-inch SOW casing head flange. Leak test weld. Install 21¼-inch, 3,000 psi BOP stack. Test
21¼-inch BOP stack and associated surface equipment in accordance with the approved
BOP Test Procedures.
8. Make-up 17½-inch drilling assembly. RIH and drill out the 20-inch casing shoe. Drill 4.0m of
9. Directionally drill 17½-inch hole to 13Ǫ-inch casing setting depth.
10. Conduct wiper trip to 20-inch casing shoe and POOH.

11. Log as required.
12. Run and cement 13Ǫ-inch casing.
13. Remove 21¼-inch 3,000 WP BOP’s and install the 21¼-inch x 13ǫ-inch Casing Head
Assembly (CHA) and pressure test CHA cavities. Install 13ǫ-inch 5,000 psi WP BOP stack and
associated surface equipment in accordance with the approved BOP Test Procedures.
14. Make up 12¼-inch drilling assembly. RIH and drill out 13Ǫ-inch casing shoe. Drill 4.0m of
15. Drill 12¼-inch hole to the base of the Tuban Formation.
16. 11¾-inch Contingency Liner
a. In the event hole conditions are unfavorable in this hole section, POOH, make up
14¾-inch hole opening drilling assembly and open up the hole to 14¾-inch to the
11¾-inch contingency liner setting depth.
b. Conduct wiper trip to 13Ǫ-inch casing shoe.
c. Log as required.
d. Run and cement the 11¾-inch contingency liner.
e. Make up 9⅞ x ¼-inch drilling assembly. RIH and drill out 11¾-inch contingency
liner shoe. Drill 4.0m of new formation and perform a Formation Integrity Test (FIT)
to the predetermined value. Drill to 9ǫ-inch casing setting depth at the base of the
Tuban Formation. POOH.
f. Conduct wiper trip to the 11¾-inch liner shoe.
17. Conduct wiper trip to the 13Ǫ-inch casing shoe.
36 of 56
18. Log as required and conduct formation dynamics tests of any potential CO2 injection
formations along with Side Wall Core (SWC) sampling.
19. Run and cement 9ǫ-inch liner.
Page

20. Nipple down 13ǫ-inch 5,000 psi WP BOP stack. Install 13ǫ-inch 5,000 psi x 11-inch 5,000 psi
CHA and pressure test CHA cavities. Install 13ǫ-inch 5,000 psi WP BOP stack and associated
surface equipment in accordance to the approved BOP Test Procedures.
21. Make up 8½-inch drilling assembly. RIH and drill out 9ǫ-inch casing shoe. Drill 4.0 m of new
formation and perform a Formation Integrity Test (FIT) to the predetermined value.
22. Control drill 8½-inch hole and penetrate the Kujung Formation. Continue drilling to the
water zone, at the base of the Kujung Formation and prior to penetrating the Ngimbang
Formation, where it is planned to conduct full-hole coring of the target injection zone.
POOH.
23. RIH with core barrel assembly and core the lower portion of the Kujung Formation. POOH.
24. Conduct wiper trip from TD to the 9ǫ-inch liner shoe. POOH
25. Log as required and conduct formation dynamics tests of potential CO2 injection formations
below the water contact.
26. Run 5½-inch “long string” casing and external down-hole monitoring equipment and cement
utilizing a multi-stage light weight cementing process. On completion of the first stage
cementation, land 5½ inch mandrel casing hanger and conduct second stage cementation
taking returns through wellhead Section B side outlets.
27. Nipple down 13ǫ-inch 5,000 psi WP BOP stack. Install 11-inch 5,000 psi x 11-inch 5,000 psi
tubing hanger section with temperature and pressure ports. Install 13ǫ-inch 5,000 psi WP
BOP stack and associated surface equipment in accordance to the approved BOP Test
Procedures.

28. Install bull plug in tubing No-Go nipple, ru -inch tubing, isolation packer, associated
completion equipment and tubing hanger pressure testing tubing every 5 stands.
29. Land tubing hanger in wellhead section, secure and set packer.
30. Pressure test tubing/packer annulus and temperature/pressure exit ports.
31. Retrieve bull plug from No-Go profile.
32. Install BPV in tubing hanger.
33. Nipple down BOP equipment.
34. Demobilize drilling unit and associated service equipment.
35. Install Xmas tree and pressure test. Including monitoring sensor DAS cable ports.
36. Rig Down and Rig Release
37. Restore site.
The well will be perforated at a later date on assessment and interpretation of the data acquired
over the zone of interest.
37 of 56
Page

Time – Depth Curve

38 of 56
Page
Figure 14 Estimated Time - Depth Curve with 30% NPT

Formation Evaluation
Borehole Characterization
Rationale
• Conduct a detailed characterization of near wellbore geology to identify CO2
injections interval(s) in support of the development of an accurate reservoir model.
• Model accuracy is critical in the prediction of CO2 spreading/behavior.
• Modelling is a monitoring method (particularly in the case, when monitoring wells
are not available).
Borehole Characterization Program Elements

• Geophysical logging.
• Coring, core sampling, core testing and analysis.
• Packer testing.
• Stress measurements (mini-frac testing).
• Borehole seismic (tentative).
• Data analysis, interpretation and modelling.
Open Borehole Logging Program

17½ inch Hole Section - 13Ǫ inch Casing

Basic Properties: Surface – 1,324 m TVD/1492 m MD
• Resistivity
Wonocolo
Acoustic Velocities: Formation:
• Rock Mechanical Properties • Wonocolo
anisotropy Ngrayong
14¾ inch Hole Section - 11¾ inch Contingency Liner

Contingency Log Parameters Hole Depth (TVD)/Formation
Basic Properties: 1,324 m – TBA
• Resistivity
Ngrayong

39 of 56
Page


Acoustic Velocities:
• Rock Mechanical Properties Formation:
anisotropy • Tuban
Tuban
Contingency Cased Hole Logging

12¼ inch Hole Section - 9ǫ inch Liner

Ngrayong
• Resistivity
• Bulk Density

• Caliper Logging Tools:
• Gamma Ray • Triple Combo or Platform
• Photo-Electric Factor Express*
Acoustic Velocities: • Dipole Sonic
• Rock Mechanical Properties • Resistivity (LWD) geo-stop
• Horizontal Stress Orientation (azimuth) and
anisotropy
• Velocity Modelling Update Formation:
• Ngrayong
Tuban
vugular porosity, fractures, faults and stress • Tuban
Mineralogy
• Rotary Sidewall Core Sampling
40 of 56
Page

8½ inch Hole Section - 5½ inch Production Casing

Log № Para eters Hole Depth (TVD)/Formation
• Resistivity
• Bulk Density
• Caliper
• Gamma Ray
• Photo-Electric Factor Logging Tools:
Acoustic Velocities: • Triple Combo or Platform
• Rock Mechanical Properties Express*
• Horizontal Stress Orientation (azimuth) and • Dipole Sonic
anisotropy • NMR*
• Velocity Modelling Update • PNC*
Kujung
fractures are present. Formation:
• Acoustic Resistivity • Kujung
Permeability
• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Fluid Type/Saturation
• Pulsed Neutron Capture

Mineralogy
• Coring/Rotary Sidewall Core Sampling
*Schlumberger Nomenclature
Measurement While Drilling (MWD)

A Rotary Steerable System (RSS) is employed, in wells over 20° deviation, by the operator along with
the associated MWD requirements.
Resistivity Imaging While Drilling (LWD)

A minimum LWD requirement, Resistivity While Drilling is to be included with the selected
directional drilling method for the casing setting point identification e.g. Geo-stop (this tool has an
accuracy of 1.0 – 1.5 meters). Other LWD requirements are to be established on the availability of
tools.
Coring & Sidewall Core Sampling

Full Hole Coring Primary Objective – Lower Kujung
Coring operations are planned to be conducted in the target CO2 injection reservoir section.
41 of 56
All downhole coring equipment is to be temperature rated for reservoir conditions and
exposure to a CO2 and H2S environment.
The point at which coring will commence is to be determined in conjunction with the Drilling
Supervisor and Well Site Geologist and conveyed to Company for final concurrence. As with
Page
any coring operations, the utmost care is to be taken when operations are conducted in a

high temperature, H2S environment of this nature. As a primary concern, the well is to be
confirmed in a stable state prior to commencement of coring operations.
Upon recovery, the core is to be catalogued, packaged in an approved method and sent to a
laboratory for analysis.
Side Wall Sampling Secondary Objective – Lower Tuban Calciturbidite

Rotary sidewall core sampling is planned as part of the 12¼-inch hole section open hole
logging program to sample the calciturbidite sequence above the Kujung Formation as a
potential secondary CO2 injection zone prior to setting the 5½-inch production casing. As in
the full hole coring equipment is to be temperature rated and suitable for working in an H2S
and CO2 environment.
This phase will also include sidewall core sampling of the cap rock above the reservoir
section in the Tuban Formation.
Characterization Program
Well and Reservoir Hydraulic and Geo-mechanical Testing
Phase 1 – Flowmeter Logging (mechanical spinner meter logging tool) survey of the open
borehole section across the reservoir to identify candidate CO2 injection zones.
This phase of testing includes a baseline fluid logging survey conducted under static (no
injection) conditions and additional surveys conducted while injecting brine at increasing

rates (e.g. 2, 4 and 6 bpm).
Phase 2 – Straddle Packer Tests of candidate CO2 injection horizons and other discrete
intervals with the intervals being isolated utilizing a straddle packer testing tool.
This phase will include Hydraulic Pumping (withdrawal/build-up) tests to characterize

formation hydraulic properties (transmissibility, permeability).
Stress Test pumping (injection/fall-off) tests will be conducted to create mini hydraulic
fractures to characterize horizontal stress directions and formation fracture pressure.
42 of 56
Page

Well Schematic

43 of 56
Page
Figure 15 CCS Conceptual Well Schematic – Vertical Section

Well Suspension/Abandonment
At the termination of the CCS pilot program, that is expected to endure for approximately 2 years,
the decision to suspend or abandon the well will be made.
Should there be a potential for the well to either remain a CO2 injection well or a production well the
well will be suspended and left in a usable state, providing no safety or environmental concerns are
violated, i.e. Xmas Tree, production tubing, safety valve and completion packer remain in place.
In the event the well is plugged and abandoned, procedures will meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§146.92. Plugging procedure and materials will be designed to prevent any unwanted fluid
movement, to resist the corrosive aspects of carbon dioxide/water mixtures, and protect any
USDW’s. Any necessary revisions to the well plugging plan, to address new information collected
during logging and testing of the well will be made after construction, logging and testing of the well
minimum of three (3) tubing volumes will be injected without exceeding the fracture
gradient/pressure. Bottom hole pressure will be taken and the well will be logged and pressure
tested to ensure mechanical integrity, inside and outside the casing, prior to plugging. Should a loss
of mechanical integrity be discovered, the well will be repaired prior to proceeding with plugging
operations. A detailed plugging procedure is to be compiled. All casing strings extending to surface
will have been cemented to surface during the well construction phase and will not be retrievable at

cement retainers and cement plugs. In the event the packer cannot be retrieved, the tubing will be
cut with an electric line tubing cutter leaving the packer in the well after which a cement retainer
will be used for plugging the injection formation below the packer.
All casing strings will be cut off in accordance with regulatory requirements and a blanking plate with
the well information welded to the cutoff casing.
Company will record bottom hole pressure from a downhole pressure gauge to determine kill fluid
density. At least one (1) of the following logs, as required by 40 CFR §146.92(a), will be conducted to
verify external Mechanical Integrity (MI) prior to plugging operations:
• Temperature Log
• Noise Log
Cement formulated for plugging operations shall be resistant to the carbon dioxide stream.
The suspension or abandonment of the CCS – 1 Pilot Well is to adhere to Badan Standar Nasional
Indonesia SNI 13-6910 – 2002: Drilling Operation for Safe Conduct of Onshore and Offshore in
Indonesia – Implementation. Specifically, Article 6.10 Abandonment of Wells; Sub-sections 6.10.3
Permanent Abandonment and 6.10.4 Temporary Abandonment (Suspension). It should be pointed
44 of 56
out that a well that is temporarily abandoned (suspended) shall be permitted by Pertamina as per
Go er e t Regulatio № / 9 (Ref: SNI -6910 – 2002 Appendix C1)
Page

WELL ABANDONMENT – STANDAR NASIONAL INDONESIA SNI 13 – 9610 – 2002

SKK MIGAS
WELL ABANDONMENT Notice of Intent to include:

• Location/Type
• Justification
Surface Plug: • Logs
• 150 ft below ground level • Test Data
• 150 ft in length • Well Schematic
• In smallest casing string which Request Approval from
SKK MIGAS to • Cement Plugs/Retainers
extends to ground level • Kill Fluid
Abandon/Suspend well
• Perforations
• Pressure Testing
Annular Plugs:
• Casing Removal
• Any annular space
communicating with any open
hole and extending to ground
level
• To be plugged with a minimum
200 ft of cement
Fluid Left in Hole: OPTIONAL METHODS

• Kill weight fluid exceeding the
highest formation pressure in
the interval between plugs at the
time of abandonment Casing Stubs Optional Method 1:
• Cement Retainer or Permanent
Bridge Plug PLUG/RETAINER TESTING REQUIREMENTS
Casing Stubs/Liner Tops: • No lees than 50 ft above casing stub
• Cement Plug extending 100 ft • Capped with 50 ft of cement
Testing of Plugs
above and below the casing stub
– First Cement Plug below the Surface
or liner top
Plug (requires WOC):
• Minimum 1,000 psi with no more
Lowest Casing Shoe Cement Plug: than 10% pressure drop over 15

• Cement Plug extending 100 ft minutes or;
above and below lower most • Minimum 15,000 lbs set down weight
casing shoe Optional Method 1:
• Cement Retainer 50 – 100 ft inside
casing shoe
• With cement squeeze 100 ft below Testing of Plugs
Fluid Left in Hole: – Retainer/Bridge Plugs:
• Kill weight fluid exceeding the the retainer and,
• Cement 50 ft placed above the Minimum 15,000 lbs set down weight or
highest formation pressure in minimum 1,000 psi with no more tha 10%
the interval between plugs at cement retainer
pressure drop over 15 minutes on the:
the time of abandonment • Cement Retainer
• Bridge Plug
Isolation of Open Hole Zones:
• Cement Plug extending 100 ft Optional Method 2:
above and below hydrocarbon Lost Circulation: The cement placed above the
bearing or CO 2 injection. • Permanent Bridge Plug within 150 ft cement retainer or bridge plug is
zones inside casing shoe with;
• Cement Plug extending 100 ft • A minimum of 50 ft cement placed
NOT required to be tested
above and below fresh water on top of the bridge plug
bearing zones
LOCATION CLEARANCE
Clearance of Location:
• All wellheads, casing, piling and other obstructions
SKK MIGAS
shall be removed to a depth of:
o 3 ft underground for onshore operations
o 15 ft below the mud line for offshore operations
• All locations shall be cleared of all obstructions.
Report on Well
Abandonment or
The well pad location shall be cleared of all Suspension to be submitted
unnecessary obstructions other than the wellhead, within 30 days of
completion of the work;
Xmas Tree and transport pipeline and do not • Complete SKK MIGAS
constitute a hazard to legitimate users of the area Formulir IX-1
45 of 56
• To include any changes

while complying with Government environmental from the original plan
legislation.
Page
Figure 16: Well Suspension/Abandonment Flowchart

Nomenclature
API American Petroleum Institute
bbl Barrel
BHST Bottom Hole Static Temperature °C (°F)
BOP Blow-Out Preventer
bph Barrels per Hour
bpm Barrels per Minute
BPV Back Pressure Valve
BTC Buttress Thread Connection
BUR Build Up Rate
°C Degrees Celsius
CAL Caliper Log
Cap Rock The shale layers above a reservoir that provide geological isolation to upward
migration of CO2 and provide the primary seal
CBL Cement Bond Log

CHA Casing Head Assembly
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPP Central Processing Plant
DAS Distributed Acoustic System
DLS Dog Leg Severity
DST Drill Stem Test
DTS Distributed Temperature System
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
ft. feet
gpm gallons per minute
GR Gamma Ray Log
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HAZOPS Hazardous Operations
KCl Potassium Chloride
KOP Kick Off Point
46 of 56
LCM Lost Circulation Material

m meters
MD Measure Depth – m (ft.)
Page
MDT Modular Dynamic Tester (Schlumberger)

MI Mechanical Integrity
MMSCFD Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
MT Metric tons
NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Log
NPHI Neutron Porosity Log
OBM Oil Base Mud
PDC Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (drill bit)
PEF Litho-Density Log
PHPA partially-hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
PNC Pulsed Neutron Capture Log
POOH Pull Out Of Hole
ppf Pounds Per Foot
PR Performance Requirement
psig pounds per square inch, gauge

psi WP pounds per square inch Working Pressure
PSL Product Specification Level
OBM Oil Base Mud
RCX Reservoir Characterization Explorer (Baker)
RES Resistivity Log
RHOB Neutron Density Log
RIH Run In Hole
RSS Rotary Steerable System
RTE Rotary Table Elevation
SG Specific Gravity
SOBM Synthetic Oil Base Mud
SONIC Sonic Log
SOW Slip-on Weld
SSSCSV Sub Surface, Surface Controlled Safety Valve
SSV Surface Safety Valve
47 of 56
SWC Side Wall Core

TBA To be advised
TD Total Depth (measured) – m (ft.)
Page
TDS Top Drive System

TVD True Vertical Depth – m (ft.)

TVDSS True Vertical Depth, Sub Sea - m (ft.)
USIT Ultrasonic Imaging Tool
VDL Variable Density Log
VSP Vertical Seismic Profile
WBM Water Base Mud
WP Working Pressure
References
1. B.T.H. Marbun, S.Z. Sinaga, H.S. Lie, A. Promediaz, Insitut Teknologi Bandung. 2012.
“Northwest Java and East Natuna Field: Perspective to Apply Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) in Indonesia”. CMTC 151319.
2. Dr. Liane Smith, Dragan Milanovic, Dr. Chee Hong Lee, Dr. Billingham. 2012. “Establishing
and Maintaining the Integrity of Wells used for Sequestration of CO2”. C2012-0001376.
3. Talibuddin Syed, SPE, TSA Inc. and Thor Cutler, EPA. 2010. “Well Integrity and Regulatory
Considerations for CO2 Injection Wells”. SPE 125839.
4. P. D’Alesio, SPE, Pro Energy, R. Poloni, P. Valente and P.A. Magarini, ENI E&P. “Well Integrity

Assessment and Assurance: The Operational Approach for Three CO2 Storage Fields in Italy”.
SPE 133056.
5. C. Tiemeyer, SPE, T. Echt, SPE, M. Lesti and J. Plank, SPE, Technische Universitaet
Muenchen. 2013. “Sealing Quality of Cementing Systems To Be Used On Carbon Capture &
Storage (CCS) Wells”. SPE 164104.
6. Agbasimalo, N. and Radonjic, M. Craft & Hawkins Department of Petroleum Engineering,
Louisiana State University. 2012. “Experimental Study of Portland Cement/Rock Interface in
Relation to Wellbore Stability for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)”. ARMA 12-206.
7. Chen Erding, Wang Chengwen, Meng Renzhou, 2016. Drilling Engineering and Technology
Company of Sinopec Shengli Petroleum Engineering Co., Ltd., Dongying, Shandong 257064,
China. School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Huadong), Qingdao,
Shandong 266580, China. A New Type of Cementation Flushing Fluid for Efficiently Removing
Wellbore Filter Cake.
8. Zheng Youzhi, She Chaoyi, Yao Kunquan, Guo Xiaoyang, Zhang Huali, Yang Tao, Li Ming, Gas
Production Engineering Research Institute of Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company,
PetroChina, Chengdu, Sichuan 610500, China. Gas Production Engineering and Technology
Research Institute, National Energy R&D Center of High-sulfur Gas Reservoir Exploitation,
Guanghan, Sichuan 610083, China. Engineering and Technology Supervision Department of
Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, PetroChina, Chengdu, Sichuan 610051, China. School of
Material Science and Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, Sichuan
48 of 56
610050, China. Contamination Effects of Drilling Fluid Additives on Cement Slurry.

9. Nils van der Tuuk Opedal, Malin Torsæter, Torbjørn Vrålstad, Pierre Cerasi, SINTEF
Petroleum Research, SP Andersens vei 15b, Trondheim NO-7465, Norway. Potential Leakage
Paths along Cement – Formation Interfaces in Wellbores; Implications for CO2 Storage.
Page

10. Susan Carrolla, J. William Careyb David Dzombakc, Nicolas J. Huerta,d, Li LieTom Richarde,
Wooyong UmfStuart D. C. WalshaLiwei Zhangg. 2016.
a. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, United States
b. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, United States
c. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States
d. National Energy Technology Laboratory, Albany, OR 97322, United States
e. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States
f. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354, United States
g. National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, United States
Review: Role of Chemistry, Mechanics, and Transport on Well Integrity in CO2 storage
Environments
11. D.P. Postler, SPE, Exxon Company. 1997. “Pressure Integrity Test Interpretation”. SPE/IADC
37589.
12. Koji Takase, Japan CCS Co., Ltd; Yogesh Barhate and Hiroyuki Hashimoto, SPE, Halliburton;
and Siddhartha F. Lunkad, Formerly Halliburton. 2010. “Cement-Sheath Wellbore Integrity
for CO2 Injection and Storage Wells”. SPE 127422.
13. F. Dugo jić-Bilić, SPE, C. Tiemeyer, SPE, and J. Plank, SPE, Technische Universitaet
Muenchen. 2011. “Study on Admixtures for Calcium Aluminate Phosphate Cement Useful To
Seal CCS Wells”. SPE 141179.

14. Ashok Santra* and Ronald Sweatman, Halliburton. 2011. “Understanding the Long-Term
Chemical and Mechanical Integrity of Cement in a CCS Environment”. GHGT-10.
15. Kru osla Sedić, Nediljka Gauri a-Medji ure , Bori oje Pašić, Faculty of Mining, Geology
and Petroleum Engineering, Pierottijeva 6, 10 000 Zagreb,Croatia. 2015. “Optimization of the
Cement Slurry Compositions with Addition of Zeolite for Cementing Carbon Dioxide Injection
Wells”. OMAE2015-41561.
16. Glen Benge ExxomMobil Development Company. 2009. “Improving Wellbore Seal Integrity
on CO2 Injection Wells”. GHGT-9.
17. Shaoran Ren (SPE), Baolun Niu, Bo Ren, Yongzhao Li, Wanli Kang, China University of
Petroleum, Guoli Chen, Hui Zhang, Hua Zhang, Jilin Oilfield Company, PetroChina. 2011.
“Monitoring on CO2 EOR and Storage in a CCS Demonstration Project of Jilin Oilfield China”.
SPE 145440.
18. R. Mireault, SPE, R. Stocker, D. Dunn, SPE, M. Pooladi-Darvish, SPE, Fekete Associates. 2010.
“Wellbore Dynamics of Carbon-Sequestration Injection-Well Operation”. SPE 135485.
19. Julie Ditkof*, Tip Meckel, Susan Hovorka, Gulf Coast Carbon Center, Bureau of Economic
Geology, Eva Caspari, Roman Pevzner and Milovan Urosevic, Curtin University, CO2CRC. 2012.
“Analysis of time lapse seismic signal for an EOR and CCS site, Cranfield, MS”.SEG 2012-0912.
20. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Research and Development 1990.
49 of 56
“Injection Well Mechanical Integrity” EPA/625/9-89/007

21. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2012. “Class I Underground Injection
Control Program: Study of the Risks Associated with Class I Underground Injection Wells” EPA
816-R-01-007.
Page
22. API Specification 5CT – Specification for Casing and Tubing

23. API RP 10B-2 – Recommended Practices for Testing Well Cements

24. API Specification 10A – Specifications on Cements and Materials for Well Cementing
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
a. Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI Well Construction Guidance
b. 40 CFR §146.86
c. 40 CFR §146.87
d. 40 CFR §146.88
e. 40 CFR §146.89
26. Kelley M, Mishra S, Mawalkar S, Place M, Gupta N, Abbaszadeh M, Pardini R. Reservoir
characterization from pressure monitoring during CO2 injection into a depleted pinnacle reef
– MRCSP commercial-scale CCS demonstration project. International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Austin, Texas, GHGT-12; 4-8 October 2014.
27. Conner A, McNeil C, Gerst J, Kelley M, Place M, Chace D, Abou-Saleh J, Kim Y, Pardini R,
Gupta N. Developing best practices for evaluating fluid saturations with pulsed neutron
logging across multiple active CO2-EOR fields. International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
28. Gerst J, Cumming L, Place M, Miller J, Larsen G, Gupta N, Modroo A. Using baseline
monitoring data to strengthen the geological characterization of a Niagaran pinnacle reef.

International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Austin, Texas, GHGT-12; 4-8
October 2014.
29. Haagsma A, Larsen G, Rine M, Sullivan C, Conner A, Kelley M, Modroo A, Gupta N. Static
earth modeling of diverse Michigan Niagaran reefs and the implications for CO2 storage.
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Lausanne, Switzerland, GHGT-
13; 14-18 November 2016.
30. Ravi Ganesh P, Mishra S, Mawalkar S, Gupta N, Pardini R. Assessment of CO2 injectivity and
storage capacity in a depleted pinnacle reef oilfield in Northern Michigan. Energy Procedia
2014; 63:2969-76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.319.
31. Mishra S, Ravi Ganesh P, Kelley M, Gupta N. Analyzing the performance of closed reservoirs
following CO2 injection in CCUS projects. International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
32. Pasumarti A, Mishra S, Ganesh PR, Mawalkar S, Burchwell A, Gupta N, Pardini R. Practical
metrics for monitoring and assessing the performance of CO2-EOR floods and CO2 storage in
mature reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 13 September 2016,
doi:10.2118/184068-MS.
33. Gupta N, Haagsma A, Howat E, Kelley M, Hawkins J, Fukai I, Conner A, Babrinde O, Larsen G,
Main J, McNeil C, Sullivan C. Integrated sub-basin scale exploration for carbon storage
targets: advanced characterization of geologic reservoirs and caprocks in the Upper Ohio
50 of 56
River Valley. International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Lausanne,

Switzerland, GHGT-13; 14-18 November 2016.
34. Eric R. Upchurch, Saad Saleem, and Ken Russel, Chevron Australia; Mauro G. Viandante,
Schlumberger. Geo-Stopping Using Deep Directional Resistivity LWD: A New Method for Well
Page
Bore Placement Using Below-the-Bit Resistivity Mapping. SPE/IADC-173169-MS 2015.

35. J. Seydoux, J. Tabanou, SPE, L. Ortenzi, SPE, J.M. Denichou, Y. De Laet, and D.Omeragic,
Schlumberger; M. Iversenand M. Fejerskov, Norsk Hydro. A Deep-Resistivity Logging-While-
Drilling Device for Proactive Geosteering. OTC 15126. Offshore Technology Conference 2003
36. Shell Canada Limited, Quest Carbon Capture and Storgae Project. Measurement, Monitoring
and Verification Plan. November 2010.

51 of 56
Page

1. Supplementary Well Data

Figure 17: KDL-1 Well Data Profile
52 of 56
Figure 18: RBT-1A Well Data Profile

Page


Figure 19: RBT-2 Well Data Profile
53 of 56
Page
Figure 20: RBT-3Well Data Profile


Figure 21: KBT-1 Well Data Profile
54 of 56
Page

Figure 22: RBT-2 Mud Log

55 of 56
Page

GUNDIH SITE VISIT REPORT

13 & 14th February 2019
Contents
Preamble ................................................................................................................................................. 2
RBT – A Well Pad: RBT-01A and RBT-03ST Wells .................................................................................... 3
KDL – A Well Pad: KDL-01 Well ............................................................................................................... 4
RBT – B Well Pad and RBT-02 Well ......................................................................................................... 6
KTB – A Well Pad: KTB-01, KTB-03TW & KTB-06ST Wells ....................................................................... 9
KTB – B Well Pad: KTB-02 & KTB-04 Wells ............................................................................................ 11
Gundih Central Processing Plant (CPP) ................................................................................................. 14
Page 1 of 15
Preamble
The second Gundih site visit took place 13th & 14th February 2019 and covered the well pad
locations, pipeline right-of-ways and Gundih Central Processing Plant.
The visit team comprised, representatives of Asian Development Bank, Battelle Memorial Institute,
Institute Technology Bandung, Elnusa and Pertamina.
Commencing, initially, with a meeting at Pertamina Asset Offices, Cepu, followed by a site visits to,
Gundih well pad locations and some pipeline right-of-ways and the central processing plant.
The site visit focused on potential candidate surface well locations for use as a CO2 pilot injection
well site. There are five (5) well pad locations in the Gundih Field; KDL, RBT – A, RBT – B, KTB – A and
KTB – B.
Figure 1: Gundih CPP, Well Pads and Pipeline ROWs
Page 2 of 15
RBT – A Well Pad: RBT-01A and RBT-03ST Wells

RBT Well Pad A is the closest well location west of the Gundih Central Processing Plant and is
approximately 32,269 m2 in size. The pipeline right of way is approximately 1,450 meters in length
and crosses the provincial highway at the entrance to both the CPP and RBT Well Pad A where;
producing well RBT - 01 and, water injector well RBT – 03 are located.
Three pipelines traverse this right of way, 2 – 6 inch steel pipelines and 1 – HDPE PN 110.
Figure 2: Pipeline ROW RBT-3ST to Gundih CPP and RBT-A Well Pad approximately 32,269 m2
Figure 3: Elevation Profile ROW: RBT-A Well Pad to Gundih CPP
Three pipelines traverse this right of way, 2 – 6

inch steel pipelines and 1 – HDPE PN 110.
Figure 4: ROW Cross Section RBT-A Well Pad to Gundih CPP
Page 3 of 15
Figure 5: Peting - Menden Provincial Road Crossing RBT-A to Gundih CPP
Figure 6: RBT-01 and RBT-03ST (water injection) Wellheads
KDL – A Well Pad: KDL-01 Well

The most western well pad KDL – A, 23,520 m2 in size, is currently not a viable option as a CO2
injection well location, however, it is shown to indicate the challenges of being selected as a
potential candidate.
A single 6 inch flowline is contained in the pipeline right of way that passes from KDL Well Pad A to
RBT Well Pad A, through a complex agricultural rural area and river crossings onto the CPP via the
access road pipeline right of way, a distance of approximately 6,470 meters.
Page 4 of 15
Figure 7: KDL-A Well Pad Location (23,520 m2) & Pipeline ROW
Figure 8: Pipeline ROW Elevation Profile: KDL-A Well Pad to RBT-A Well Pad
A single 6 inch flowline from KDL-01

traverses this ROW
Figure 9: ROW Cross Section: KDL-A Well Pad to RBT-A Well Pad
Page 5 of 15
Figure 10: KDL-o1 Wellhead and Controls
RBT – B Well Pad and RBT-02 Well

RBT Well Pad B, 24,950 m2 in area, is the next well location in close proximity to the CPP and is
where RBT – 02 well is located. This well pad is subject to flooding of up to 1.5 meters during the wet
season. Artificial water containment ponds have been constructed on the well pad areas closest in
proximity to a nearby tributary of the Bengawan Solo River.
Figure 11: RBT-B Well Pad Location & Pipeline ROW intersecting at Gundih CPP access road.
Page 6 of 15
Figure 12: RBT-B Pipeline Elevation Profile: RBT-B to Gundih CPP Junction Point
The associated pipeline right of way

is approximately 2,465 meters in
length and has a 4 inch single
flowline from RBT-02
The 4 inch RBT-02 flowline merges

with the 2 – 6 inch flowlines from
RBT – 3 and KDL-01 and the single
water injection HDPE line to RBT-03.
Figure 13: ROW Cross Section: RBT-B to

Gundih CPP Junction Point
Figure 14: RBT-02 Wellhead
Page 7 of 15
Figure 15: Elevated Well Control Panel & Water Containment Pond area.
Figure 16: RBT-B to Gundih CPP Provincial Road Crossing Point
Figure 17: ROW Cross Section KDL/RBT-A/RBT-B Junction Point to Gundih CPP
Page 8 of 15
KTB – A Well Pad: KTB-01, KTB-03TW & KTB-06ST Wells

KTB Well Pad A, an area of approximately 20,024 m2, is located north east of the CPP and is where
KTB – 01, KTB - 03 TW and KTB – 06 ST are located. The associated pipeline right of way from KTB
Well Pad A to the CPP crosses underneath the provincial rail way line.
Figure 18: KTB-A Well Pad Location and Pipeline ROW
Figure 19: KTB-A to Gundih CPP Elevation Profile
Page 9 of 15
Figure 20: KTB-01 & KTB-03TW Wellheads
Figure 21: KBT-A to Gundih CPP Pipeline ROW Underground Railway Crossing
Page 10 of 15
Figure 22: ROW Cross Section: KTB-A to Gundih CPP
Three 6 inch flowlines traverse the pipeline right of way from KTB Well Pad A to the CPP and cross
under the provincial railway line a distance of approximately 3,900 meters. These flowlines are from
KTB – 01, KTB- 03 TW and KTB – 06 ST wells.
KTB – B Well Pad: KTB-02 & KTB-04 Wells

KTB – B is the most eastern, well pad location, 24,134 m2 in area is where KTB – 02 & 04 wells are
located. The well pad is located in an agricultural area similar to KTB Well Pad A with an associated
pipeline right of way to the eastern perimeter of the CPP also, a distance of approximately 3,900
meters. The pipeline right of way merges with the KTB - A, flow lines along this route.
There are 2 – 6 inch flow lines from the wells at KTB – B Well Pad to the CPP.
KTB – B well pad location has been selected as the CO2 pilot injection candidate well location and all
planning both surface and subsurface have been made from this location.
Page 11 of 15
Figure 23: KTB-B Well Pad Location and Pipeline ROW
Figure 24: KTB-B to Gundih CPP Elevation Profile
Figure 25: ROW Cross Section: KTB-B to Gundih CPP
Page 12 of 15
Figure 26: ROW Cross Section KTB-A/KTB-B Junction Point to Gundih CPP
The flowlines from KTB – A & B well pads merge at the junction shown and five flowlines continue to
the CPP perimeter boundary and production manifold.
Figure 27: Gundih General Flowline & ROW Layout
Page 13 of 15
Gundih Central Processing Plant (CPP)

Construction of the Gundih CPP started June 2011 and operations commenced December 2013. The
CPP has now been operating for slightly over 4 years, at the time of writing, and is designed to
process 70 mmscfd. Typical feed gas comprises 23% CO2 and 6,000 ppm H2S (Varying values of H2S
concentration have been reported in the feed gas. Actual H2S values need to be confirmed for
process design purposes). 50 mmscfd of sales gas is piped to Tambaj Lorok Power Plant, Semarang
located approximately 140 kilometers from the Gundih CPP.
Gundih CPP is estimated to produce 800 metric tons per day (MT/day) of emitted CO2 (15.2
mmscfd). Prior to emitting acid gas to atmosphere it is passed through a Bio-Sulfur Recovery Unit
(Bio-SRU) process that converts the H2S to elemental sulfur that is bagged and packaged. The
remaining gases are oxidized in the Thermal Oxidizing System to comply with environmental
regulations for gas emissions (max. 2,600 ppm SO2). Bleed water from the Bio-SRU is treated in the
Wet Air Oxidization Unit along with the caustic spent in the Caustic Treatment Unit. This water is
then treated for disposal well injection along with produced water from the Gas Separation Unit.
Two CO2 streams have been identified, at Gundih CPP, as potential feed streams for CO2 capture.
These streams are the outlet of the Bio-SRU (Stream 1) and the outlet of the Thermal Oxidation Unit
(TOX) (Stream 2). The outlet stream of the Bio-SRU contains 95% CO2, though odorous sulfur
compounds (H2S and mercaptans) are present in small quantities and are required to be removed
before releasing the CO2 to the atmosphere. These odorous, sulfur compounds are oxidized
(converted to SO2) in the TOX. As it is the outlet of a combustion system, the stream consists of CO2
diluted with air (N2 and excess O2) and SO2 in small quantities.
The Bio-SRU (Stream 1) emits a high CO2 stream with diluted impurities although additional CO2
purification is required to remove odorous sulfur components and waste water before the CO2
conditioning unit. A post combustion capture unit such as an amine capture column is required
should the TOX (Stream 2) be selected to separate CO2 from the associated gases such as N2, O2 and
SO2. An economic evaluation is required, based on the outlet discharge of Stream 1 and 2 to
determine which method is the most feasible taking into account all operational factors.
Depending on the technically feasible option selected there is sufficient available land area to install
a CO2 Purification Unit, CO2 Compression/Liquefaction Unit, and CO2 storage along with the selected
mode of CO2 transportation at the Gundih CPP site. The exact location at the CPP site has yet to be
determined, however, there are a number of location options available within the CPP.
Page 14 of 15
Figure 28: Gundih CPP Layout

Page 15 of 15

002 Tacr en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

002 Tacr en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

002 Tacr en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

Project Number: 49204-002

Indonesia: Pilot Carbon Capture and Storage Activity

Gundih Block Feasibility Design and

Principal Investigator – Dr. Neeraj Gupta, gupta@battelle.org

Project Manager – Jared Walker, walkerJL@battelle.org

Primary Authors – Mark Kelley, kelleym@battelle.org; Joel Main, main@battelle.org;

Battelle Project: 100116698

With Contributions from – Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) and PT Elnusa

September 27, 2019

Battelle | September 2019 i

5.3 Subsurface Costs ........................................................................................................ 51

Battelle | September 2019 ii

Battelle | September 2019 iii

• TA 9189 Gundih CCS Project – PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ASSURANCE PLAN

Battelle | September 2019 1

• Surface facility design

1.1 Gundih CCS Pilot Design Overview

Battelle | September 2019 3

Battelle | September 2019 4

Battelle | September 2019 5

1.2 New Injection Well Location

Battelle | September 2019 6

Battelle | September 2019 7

Battelle | September 2019 8

Battelle | September 2019 9

Battelle | September 2019 10

Section 2. Surface Facilities Design

2.2 Basis of Design

Battelle | September 2019 11

Figure 2-2. Surface equipment process flow.

• Water content less than 30 lb H2O / MMscf

2.3 Design Specification

Battelle | September 2019 12

2.4 Process Description

Battelle | September 2019 13

5-stage reciprocating compressor

H2S Scavenger System

Battelle | September 2019 14

TEG Dehydration System

2.5 Control Philosophy

Battelle | September 2019 15

Battelle | September 2019 16

Section 3. Transport Facilities Design

Battelle | September 2019 17

3.2 Basis of Design

• Design pressure of 2,100 psig and temperature of 120o F

3.3 Design Specification

• Mobilization, demobilization, loading, hauling, clearing, grading, stringing, cutting, beveling,

Battelle | September 2019 18

 All material required by the Environmental Control Plans

• A central pipe/ware yard for execution of the project

Battelle | September 2019 19

Section 4. Subsurface Facilities Design

Battelle | September 2019 21

Battelle | September 2019 22

Battelle | September 2019 23

Battelle | September 2019 24

4.2 Injection Well Basis of Design