EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 1 of 10

MODULE DESCRIPTOR VERSION: VE1

No
Course Learning Outcomes Assessments
.
Evaluate economic models for petroleum exploration and Final Exam
1
production projects. (C5, PLO2)
Investigate the risk factor, uncertainty and impact on project Group
2
economies. (C4, PLO4) Assignment
Exemplify the ability to work effectively in a group on petroleum Group
3
Economics related activities. (A5, PLO9) Assignment

NO. Assignment Matrix LO VS Taxonomy

Task Cognitive Psychomotor Affective
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
CLO2 1-2     50 M
POM 100%
CLO3 3-5 50 M
POM 100%

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 2 of 10

Economic Case Study on Oil & Gas Company’s Project

Introduction
You are working with Helang Oil Sdn. Bhd. (HOSB) which is an operator in Malaysia. Initially,
PSB was offered to undertake economic and financial study on full field review for M4 field,
which is in offshore Sarawak. The hydrocarbon in M4 field is volatile oil. The subsea
production pipeline to nearby satellite Serai field was buckled and production was stopped in
2021. 3 options of action were proposed and PSB was required to investigate and exemplify the
best cost-effective option to stakeholders. For option 1, a new anti-buckling subsea pipeline will
be installed from M4 field to Serai field. For option 2, a new production platform will be
installed at M4 field. For option 3, a FPSO will be leased and installed at M4 field.

Students will be required to work in groups (Appendix E). Group A is required to conduct
economics evaluation to compare the feasibility between option 1 and option 2. Group B is
required to conduct economics evaluation to compare the feasibility between option 1 and option
3.

Task
A: Individual Component
1. Analyse the field cost structure of respective options described above using suitable
research technique for the given complex engineering problem.
2. Investigate the economic performance of the respective options using research technique
of feasibility study from the given complex engineering problem given in Appendix A.

B: Group Component
3. Exemplify the sensitivity analysis based on the feasibility study, as a team leader/team
member in a group.
4. Exemplify the best field to be deployed, as a team leader/team member in a group.
5. Defend the group’s findings in a 15 – 20 minutes group presentation, as a team
leader/team member in a group.

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 3 of 10

Grading Criteria
Organize your work in a report detailing your calculation and finding. You may include any
reference, calculation, picture, illustration, graph or table to support your case study. Present
your case study and conclusion of your finding. The presentation will last approximately 45
minutes, followed by questions and answers session (15 minutes) where you will be expected to
answer questions relating to the report/presentation. Students must organise their work into a 15
– 20 pages report detailing their findings (excluding cover page, table of figure, table of content
and abstract). Any relevant calculation, illustration, graph or table to support the work must be
included. Refer to Appendix B for general requirement on report, Appendix C for guidelines on
discussion, conclusion and references, and Appendix D for the marking scheme.

Your report shall be executed in a manner of engineer’s responsibilities, professionally and

ethically.

Individual Component

1. Analyse Field Cost Structure (CLO2, PLO4, C4) 20%

2. Investigate Feasibility Study (CLO2, PLO4, C4) 30%

Group Component

1. Exemplify Sensitivity Analysis (CLO3, PLO9, A5) 30%

2. Exemplify the Best Field (CLO3, PLO9, A5) 20%

3. Group Presentation (CLO3, PLO9, A5) 100%

Refer to Marking Scheme.

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 4 of 10

APPENDIX A

The production rate were given. Refer Excel file (File name: Field PSC and cost structure 2022)
for the term of PSC for respective group, which comprise the following data and information for
option 1 and option 2:
a) Cost structure or frame
b) Production rate
c) PSC term (table of profit sharing)
d) Royalty rate
e) Capital allowance method
f) Tax rate
g) WACC
h) Escalation rate for base case oil price
i) Escalation rate for total Opex
j) STOIIP
k) Threshold volume (THV)

Note:

Final Group Marks = (Group Section Report) x (Group Presentation %)

APPENDIX B

General Requirements on Report

The report should:

1. Be written in English.
2. Prepared using Microsoft Word as word processing software. Various other supporting
software such as Microsoft Excel can be used in preparing tables, graphs, mathematical
equation and pictures.
3. Excel working sheet which consist calculation of NPV and IRR.
4. Use font type Times New Roman, size 12, with 1.5 line spacing, Justify alignment.
5. Have a title and reference when expressing figures and tables.
6. Have Table of Content, List of Figure and List of Table.
7. Properly numbered (bottom centre).

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 5 of 10

Contents of Report

Introduction / Background
Project Economic Evaluation:
(a) Individual
i. Analyse field cost structure

ii. Investigate feasibility study

(b) Group
i. Exemplify Sensitivity analysis

ii. Exemplify best option

Discussion
Conclusion
References
Appendix:
i. Group development - Petroleum economy assessment tool (Excel program)

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 6 of 10

APPENDIX C

Instructions to Students on Discussion, Conclusion and References

Discussion
In the Discussion section you should give an overall evaluation of the results of your work,
including the validity of the results. It is here that you will have the best opportunity to
demonstrate your understanding of the work and to give a critical account of what challenges
you were facing and your solution to these challenges for the assignment completion. Discussion
must follow or approaching theory/hypothesis.

Conclusion
The Conclusion is a short summary of the results of your work (about 100 words). The
Conclusion should follow naturally from the Discussion. It should give a concise statement of
what has been achieved. Anticipated application of techniques developed should be summarized
very briefly. The Conclusion should be self-contained, i.e., it should not make reference to any
sections, figures, or references in the report.

References
All references to books, papers, and other publications must be fully and correctly quoted to be
useful to the reader. Please refer to the Quick APA Referencing Guide document in APU Library
Homepage for guidance on referencing and citation.

Citation Example:

In the text
The ratio of liquid to solid in the formulation of OBM follows the suggestion by Cunningham
and Goins (1957) where it describes…

In the References section

Cunningham, R. A., & Goins, W. C. (1957). Laboratory Drilling of Gulf Coast Shales. API
Drilling and Production Practice.

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

 EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 7 of 10

APPENDIX D - GRADING CRITERIA

Criteria Fail Marginal Fail Pass Credit Distinction
0-7 8–9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 20

 Analysed at least 4 field cost

 Analysed no field cost  Analysed at least 2 field  Analysed at least 3 field
 Analysed at least 1 field structure, with good
structure and research cost structure, but not in cost structure, with
cost structure, but not justification provided in
techniques used for detail and research justification provided in
clearly explained and detail and the research
suitable approaches in techniques used for suitable detail and the research
research techniques used for techniques used for suitable
assessing the complex approaches in assessing the techniques used for suitable
suitable approaches in approaches in assessing the
Analyse Field Cost engineering problems are complex engineering approaches in assessing the
assessing the complex complex engineering
not explained. problems are explained with complex engineering
Structure  Investigated very poor or
engineering problems are
justification but not in problems are explained with
problems are well explained
explained in but not in with good justification in
(20 Marks) no discussion and
detail.
detail. justification in detail.
detail.
conclusion on feasibility  Investigated discussion and  Investigated discussion
 Investigated Poor discussion  Investigated discussion and
study provided or poorly conclusion provided in and conclusion provided in
and conclusion provided conclusion provided in detail
done with no professional average with a sufficient detail with a good amount
with minimal professional with an excellent amount of
ethics shown amount of professional of professional ethics and
ethics and policies shown. professional ethics and
ethics and policies shown. policies shown.
Individual [CLO2-PLO4-C4]

policies shown.

0-9 10 - 14 15 - 18 19 - 23 24 - 30

 Investigated at least 1  Investigated at least 2  Investigated at least 3  Investigated at least 4

 Investigated no economic
evaluation indexes and
research techniques used
for suitable approaches in
Investigate assessing the complex
Feasibility Study engineering problems are
not explained.
(30 Marks)  Investigated very poor or
no discussion and  Investigated
conclusion on feasibility
study provided or poorly
done with no professional
ethics shown
economic evaluation index,
but not clearly explained
and research techniques
used for suitable approaches
in assessing the complex
engineering problems are
explained in but not in
detail.
Poor
discussion and conclusion
on feasibility study
provided with minimal
professional ethics and
policies shown
economic evaluation index,
but not in detail and
research techniques used
for suitable approaches in
assessing the complex
engineering problems are
explained with justification
but not in detail.
 Investigated discussion and
conclusion on feasibility
study provided in average
with a sufficient amount of
professional ethics and
policies shown
economic evaluation index,
with justification provided
in detail and research
techniques used for suitable
approaches in assessing the
complex engineering
problems are explained with
justification in detail.
 Investigated discussion and
conclusion on feasibility
study provided in detail
with a good amount of
professional ethics and
policies shown
economic evaluation index,
with good justification
provided in detail and
research techniques used for
suitable approaches in
assessing the complex
engineering problems are
well explained with good
justification in detail.
 Investigated discussion and
conclusion on feasibility
study provided in detail with
an excellent amount of
professional ethics and
policies shown.

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

 EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 8 of 10

Criteria Fail Marginal Fail Pass Credit Distinction

0-9 10 - 14 15 - 18 19 - 23 24 - 30
 Exemplified very poor or  Exemplified poor  Exemplified average  Exemplified good  Exemplified excellent
Exemplify no sensitivity analysis, sensitivity analysis with sensitivity analysis with sensitivity analysis sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity assumptions made, and assumptions made, and assumptions made, and with assumptions with assumptions
group unable to express group unable to express group able to express made, and group able made, and group able
analysis answer to the questions answer to the questions answer to the questions to express answer to to express answer to
(30 Marks) given to them accurately. given to them accurately. given to them in detail. the questions given to the questions given to
them in detail. them in detail.
Group [CLO3 –PLO9-A5]

0-7 8–9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 20
 Exemplified very poor  Exemplified poor team  Exemplified average team  Exemplified good team  Exemplified excellent
team work incorporating work incorporating the work incorporating the best work incorporating the team work
the worst field for cost better field for cost and field for cost and best field for cost and incorporating the best
and production production optimization production optimization production field for cost and
Exemplify the optimization together together with very brief together with limited and optimization together production
Best Field with no detailed description on the result, brief description on the with extensive and optimization together
description on the result, along with poor result, along with average detailed description on with extensive and
(20 Marks) along with very poor documentation standards. documentation standards. the result, along with detailed description on
documentation standards. good documentation the result, along with
standards. excellent
documentation
standards.

Refer to Marking Scheme

Group
Presentation
(100%)

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 9 of 10

Group Presentation– Marking Criteria

Group No. :

Maximum Obtained
No Criteria
Weightage (%) Weightage (%)
Presentation (100%)
Exemplified the sensitivity analysis
1 based on the selected innovative design 20
solution by the group
Exemplified the integration of
2 Petroleum Sharing Contract (PSC) 20
with sensitivity analysis by the group
Exemplified the best field proposed by
3 10
the group
Exemplified all findings positively and
4 confidently with clear and logical 20
answer given by the group
Exemplified all suggestions of answer to
5 20
questions unable to answer by the group

Exemplified the data/evidence to 10

6
support answer by the group
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 100

Signature of Lecturer: Date:

Name of Lecturer: Ts. Ir. Dr. Goh Thian Lai

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209

EE048-3-3 PEM Group Assignment Page 10 of 10

APPENDIX E

Student’s Group
Name ID Group
Jonathan A/L Jacob tp057264 A
Alex Daniel Joel Gray tp057368 A
Shatkovshaya Ardak tp057304 A
Eyoram Abreham tp057219 B
Abdelrahman Suliman tp047474 B
Majduline Mardi Khatir Jubarah tp057313 B

APU Level 3 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 20230209