FINAL REPORT

Implementation Plan for the
BEAM" – "Borehole into the
Earth's Mantle" Program
Prepared For:
Yoshi Kawamura
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program –Management International
Nobu Eguchi
Japan Agency for Marine Earth Scienceand Technology
Purpose:Develop an implementation plan for the BEAM
Project that moves the project from its current
feasibility phase towards a project execution
phase that could be used by the various projectstakeholders as the basis for internal
operational planning and decision making.

Version:001
2600 Network Boulevard, Suite 550
Frisco, Texas 75034+1 972‐712‐8407 (phone)+1 972‐712‐8408 (fax)Date:
14 July 2013

Project Number:
IOD‐I212‐003
JAM‐I213‐001

www.blade‐energy.com

Blade Energy Partners Limited, and its affiliates (‘Blade’) provide our services subject to our General Terms and Conditions (‘GTC’) in effect at time of service, unless a GTC
provision is expressly superseded in a separate agreement made with Blade. Blade’s work product is based on information sources which we believe to be reliable, including
information that was publicly available and that was provided by our client; but Blade does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. All
statements are the opinions of Blade based on generally-accepted and reasonable practices in the industry. Our clients remain fully responsible for all clients’ decisions, actions
and omissions, whether based upon Blade’s work product or not; and Blade’s liability solely extends to the cost of its work product.

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Version Record
Version
No.

Issue
Date

Issued As /Nature of Revision

AuthorChecked By

Project000

7 July, 2013

Initial Draft

WSW/NP

BP

BP

001

14 July, 2013

Revised Draft

WSW/NPBPBP

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

2 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Table of Contents
Version Record ........................................................................................................................... 2
1

Executive Summary........................................................................................................... 6

2

Project Background........................................................................................................... 83

2.1 Feasibility Study Overview - 2011 .................................................................................. 8
2.1.1 Candidate Locations .................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Marine Drilling Riser Analysis..................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Well Design Assumptions ........................................................................... 14
2.1.4 Base Case Well Design Development ...................................................... 19
2.1.5 Operations Time and Cost Estimate ......................................................... 23
2.2 High Impact Systems Study Overview - 2012 .............................................................. 25
2.2.1 Review of Hard Rock O&G Drilling Services ........................................... 27
2.2.2 Revised Operational Time Estimate.......................................................... 29
2.2.3 High Temperature Downhole Tools .......................................................... 32
2.2.4 Marine Drilling Riser..................................................................................... 33
Wellbore Design Revisited ............................................................................................ 35

4

3.1 Wellbore Configuration Options.................................................................................... 36
3.1.1 Wellbore Configuration Pros and Cons .................................................... 38
3.2 Risk Discussion ............................................................................................................. 39
3.3 Cocos Location Wellbore Diagrams ............................................................................. 42
3.3.1 Base Case Wellbore Configuration: .......................................................... 42
3.3.2 Deepwater Wellbore Configuration: .......................................................... 43
3.3.3 Expandable Wellbore Configuration: ........................................................ 44
3.4 Hawaii Location Wellbore Diagrams ............................................................................ 45
3.4.1 Base Case Wellbore Configuration: .......................................................... 45
3.4.2 Deepwater Wellbore Configuration: .......................................................... 46
3.4.3 Expandable Wellbore Configuration: ........................................................ 47
3.5 Baja Location Wellbore Diagrams ................................................................................ 48
3.5.1 Base Case Wellbore Configuration: .......................................................... 48
3.5.2 Deepwater Wellbore Configuration: .......................................................... 49
3.5.3 Expandable Wellbore Configuration: ........................................................ 50
Marine Riser Design Discussion ................................................................................ 51

54.1 Introduction and Data ................................................................................................... 51
4.2 Marine Drilling Riser Options ........................................................................................ 53
4.3 Hydrodynamics in Ultra-deepwater .............................................................................. 58
4.4 Dynamic Analyses – Frequency and Time Domain ..................................................... 67
4.5 Vortex Induced Vibrations Screening ........................................................................... 74
4.6 Conclusions for the Drilling Riser Analysis ................................................................... 76
Revised Operational Time Estimates ......................................................................... 78
5.1 Results Summary.......................................................................................................... 79
5.2 Cocos Location Operational Time Estimates ............................................................... 84

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

3 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6

6

Case 2a Operations Time: .......................................................................... 84
Case 2b Operations Time: .......................................................................... 88
Case 2c Operations Time: .......................................................................... 92
Case 4a Operations Time: .......................................................................... 96
Case 4b Operations Time: .......................................................................... 99
Case 4c Operations Time: ........................................................................ 103

5.3 Hawaii Location Operational Time Estimates ............................................................ 107
5.3.1 Case 2a Operations Time: ........................................................................ 107
5.3.2 Case 2b Operations Time: ........................................................................ 111
5.3.3 Case 2c Operations Time: ........................................................................ 115
5.3.4 Case 4a Operations Time: ........................................................................ 119
5.3.5 Case 4b Operations Time: ........................................................................ 122
5.3.6 Case 4c Operations Time: ........................................................................ 125
5.4 Baja Location Operational Time Estimates ................................................................ 128
5.4.1 Case 2a Operations Time: ........................................................................ 128
5.4.2 Case 2b Operations Time: ........................................................................ 132
5.4.3 Case 2c Operations Time: ........................................................................ 136
5.4.4 Case 4a Operations Time: ........................................................................ 140
5.4.5 Case 4b Operations Time: ........................................................................ 143
5.4.6 Case 4c Operations Time: ........................................................................ 146
Revised Operational Cost Estimates ........................................................................ 149
6.1 Results Summary........................................................................................................ 150
6.1.1 Cost Sensitivity ........................................................................................... 153
6.1.2 Cost of Drilling vs. Coring ......................................................................... 154
6.2 Cocos Location Cost Estimates.................................................................................. 156
6.2.1 Case 2a Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 156
6.2.2 Case 2b Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 160
6.2.3 Case 2c Cost Estimate: ............................................................................. 164
6.2.4 Case 4a Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 168
6.2.5 Case 4b Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 172
6.2.6 Case 4c Cost Estimate: ............................................................................. 176
6.3 Hawaii Location Cost Estimates ................................................................................. 180
6.3.1 Case 2a Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 180
6.3.2 Case 2b Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 184
6.3.3 Case 2c Cost Estimate: ............................................................................. 187
6.3.4 Case 4a Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 191
6.3.5 Case 4b Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 195
6.3.6 Case 4c Cost Estimate: ............................................................................. 199
6.4 Baja Location Cost Estimates ..................................................................................... 203
6.4.1 Case 2a Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 203
6.4.2 Case 2b Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 207
6.4.3 Case 2c Cost Estimate: ............................................................................. 211
6.4.4 Case 4a Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 215
6.4.5 Case 4b Cost Estimate: ............................................................................ 219
6.4.6 Case 4c Cost Estimate: ............................................................................. 223

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

4 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

7

Implementation Timeline.............................................................................................. 227

8

7.1 High Level Timeline Overview .................................................................................... 228
7.2 Detailed Timeline Discussion ..................................................................................... 229
Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 234

Appendix 1: Evolution of ROP Assumptions ................................................................. 236
Appendix 2: Example Cost Estimate Element Assumptions ..................................... 238
Appendix 3: Implementation Timeline.............................................................................. 243
Appendix 3: Example Well Delivery Process Flowcharts ........................................... 244

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

5 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

1 Executive Summary
In September 2012, IODP-MI requested that Blade develop an Implementation Plan for IODP's“Borehole into the Earth’s Mantle Program" - "BEAM". The goal was to develop a conceptual
roadmap that moves BEAM from the current feasibility phase, towards a project execution
phase that could be used by IODP, JAMSTEC/CDEX and the scientific community as the basis
for their internal operational planning and decision making process.
The objectives of this BEAM Implementation Plan are to provide a detailed roadmap covering all
the key technical steps that need to be completed to provide high success probability for BEAM
operations.
More specifically, this Implementation Plan addresses the following:
1. Updated wellbore design that incorporates the results of the current 2012 bit and coring
systems study, and reduction of the risks associated with down hole problems.
2. Updated operational time and cost estimates based on the results of the current 2012 bit
and coring systems study.
3. Identification of long lead time tangible items (marine drilling riser, down hole tubulars).
4. Identification of necessary pre-operations technical improvement studies, and theirimpact on overall project time and cost (ultra-deep water drilling riser design, drilling
string design, met-ocean and current surveys, geo-hazard surveys, high-temperature
down hole tool specifications, high-temperature drilling fluid system and measurement
design).
5. Identification of the key project decision points, how those key decisions fit in the BEAM
critical path, and their overall impact on BEAM time and cost (i.e. site selection, scienceplan, pre-operations studies).
6. Development of an integrated BEAM Program timeline - showing these key tasks,
milestones, and operations implementation.
7. Specifically for marine riser system, conduct detail study for individual drilling candidate
sites (water depth, 3,650m, 4,050m, and 4,300m).
Because this effort builds on the previous two studies that Blade has conducted, a summary of
the key aspects of the Initial Feasibility Study and the High Impact Systems study are includedin this report. Three different wellbore configurations are provided that attempt to account for
the uncertainties in the down hole conditions. Revised estimates for the operational time andcost were prepared for the different wellbore configuration options and two different scientificdrilling options for each of the candidate locations. This effort included a probabilistic evaluation
to gain an understanding of the possible range of time and cost given the uncertainty withdrill/core bit performance and rate of penetration. The operational time and cost estimates aresubstantially lower than what was initially developed for the feasibility study. The issues aroundthe marine drilling riser were evaluated again and an updated riser analysis is provided as well
as a summary of the pros and cons of the different material options. Finally, a project

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

6 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

implementation timeline was developed that is based around the well planning approach used
for complex deepwater projects in the oil and gas industry and assuming that the BEAM project
would begin in January 2018.
Again, the results of this project show that scientific drilling to the mantle is feasible. While there
are no shortage of technical issues that will need to be resolved, there are existing solutions tomost of them based on current practices in the deepwater drilling industry and the continued
evolution of technology as the industry pushes into deeper water and more complex and harshdown hole environments.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

7 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

2 Project Background
This project builds on previous work done by Blade Energy Partners in 2011 and 2012 which inturn builds on work that IODP had already done in a series of workshops that investigated thetechnical issues associated with scientific drilling to the mantle. In 2011 Blade conducted ahigh-level study to look at the overall feasibility of drilling to the mantle. In 2012 Blade conducted
an additional study to identify and investigate equipment and services that could substantiallydecrease drilling time and risk drilling to mantle. An overview of the results of these first two
studies is provided below because some familiarity with these studies will be useful forunderstanding the results of this project.
For reference, the titles of the initial studies are as follows:
1. Project Mohole Initial Feasibility Study For 2017 Drilling; Revision 4, 11 June, 2012
2. High Impact Systems (Rock Bits, Coring & More) Technical Review & Risk Reduction Study
for the BEAM - Borehole into Earth's Mantle, Mantle Quest Drilling Project; Revision 3, 4
February, 2013

2.1 Feasibility Study Overview - 2011
IODP requested that Blade conduct a high-level study investigating the feasibility of the MoHole
Drilling Project.
The objectives of this study were as follows.


New technologies which need to be implemented on the IODP drillship Chikyu that are
expected to be available now or with enough time before 2017 to prepare for their use.



Investigate the sensitivity to success and cost relative to the primary operationalvariables at IODP’s three candidate sites.



Investigate the primary scientific coring methods (whole ‘full’ coring vs. spot coring vs. no
coring).



Provide a recommendation of the most efficient and most viable first order operational
implementation plan for (various levels of scientific) success.

Provide an estimate of the total cost of the complete project scoping and well design
study following feedback from IODP on the results of this Initial Feasibility Study.

The study focused on what would be required for planning, drilling and coring a mantle holefrom one of three candidate locations in Pacific Ocean and to identify some of the critical issues
since, to date, no wells have been drilled with the combined extreme conditions of deep water(±4000 meters) and high temperature formations (±200-250°C). The main challenges discussed
in the study were as follows:

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

8 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Drilling with riser in ultra-deepwater environments with water depths around 4000 meters,
which will set a new world record.



Drilling and coring in very high temperature igneous rocks with bottom-holetemperatures that are estimated to be as high as 250°C, which will also set a new world
record.



Drilling and coring a very deep hole with a total drilled and/or cored interval around 6000
meters in the oceanic crust below the Pacific Ocean seafloor in order to reach the upper
mantle.

The key constraints for this project versus ‘normal’ offshore operations are the extreme water
depths where drilling and coring operations need to be conducted, the extreme hightemperatures present in very hard igneous rocks that push the limit of all the drilling and coring
tools, and special procedures that are routinely used in less demanding environments.
The study reviewed and compared different marine drilling riser options and subsea equipmentthat are currently available in the ultra-deepwater industry and showed that the Chikyu could
conduct drilling and coring operations through the deep seawater column with some component
upgrades or modifications. The study also investigated the current state-of-the-art drilling andcoring methods and instruments for high temperature igneous rocks, and current limitations anddesign efforts that would be needed to reach the mantle. Finally, a base case wellbore
configuration was developed and preliminary estimates were made of the amount of time it
would take to drill/core to the mantle and how much it would cost.
The study concluded that offshore drilling and coring are mature technologies and many
commercial tools are currently available from several industries (oil and gas, mining, andaerospace). However, to reach extreme depths in the oceanic crust, while drilling and coring invery hard hot rocks and operating in ultra-deep water, require the use of the most recent tools
and techniques. In addition, technologies and techniques are continuously advancing and canbe expected to continue to close the gap between what is required for the ‘Mohole Project’ andwhat is currently possible.
The results of the study showed that drilling/coring a scientific hole into the upper mantle iscertainly feasible, and there are existing solutions to many of the technological challenges
based on work being done in the oilfield and geothermal industries. In fact, a hole could be
drilled "today" at the Hawaii location because it has the lowest bottom-hole temperature of thethree candidate locations.
The key conclusions from the study were:
1. There are existing solutions to the riser design issues.
2. There are existing solutions to the drill-string design issues.
3. A key issue would be the development of down hole tools capable of withstanding theextreme down hole temperatures.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

9 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

4. A key issue would be the development of bits with improved bit life since this will have ahuge impact on the operational cost and also improved core techniques that could resultin faster coring rate.
The following sections summarize of some of the key topics that were addressed in the study.

2.1.1 Candidate Locations
Three potential well-site locations are being considered as shown in the following map.


Location A - Cocos Plate: this area encompasses a region of the Cocos Plate off Central
America from Guatemala to northern Costa Rica and is the location of the 1256D site.



Location B – Baja: this area encompasses a region of the eastern Pacific plate locatedoff Baja / Southern California.



Location C - Hawaii: this area is located off the northeastern cost of Oahu.

Figure 1. Bathymetric Map of Candidate Well Site Locations

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

10 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Figure 2. Candidate Location Comparison

2.1.2 Marine Drilling Riser Analysis
Several different types of analysis were performed to assess the current limitations of the steel
marine drilling riser which is onboard the Chikyu drilling vessel, and to investigate different riser
design options, configurations and materials that could be viable options for operating in the
expected ultra-deep water depths. For this preliminary analysis, the work was mainly focused ondetermining the required tension set by the drilling rig tensioning system and the loads seen by
the marine drilling riser over the full column of seawater (between 3650 and 4300 meters) while
the drilling riser is in a ‘connected’ mode (marine drilling riser is connected to the BOP with the
LMRP). The different options that were investigated are listed below.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

11 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Current Chikyu marine drilling riserCurrent Chikyu marine drilling riser bare joints with lighter buoyancy modules



Titanium marine drilling riser

Slim marine drilling riserHybrid marine drilling riserCurrent Chikyu marine drilling riser with 2 more tensioners

Figure 3. Marine Drilling Riser Configuration

The results of this work are summarized in the following below lists the limitations and benefits
for each of the six drilling riser configurations that were analyzed. Mud weight value limits inspecific gravity (S.G.) are provided, and "OK" means that a mud weight greater than 1.7 S.G.
can be used with the drilling riser configuration at the noted location.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

12 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Figure 4. Summary of 6 Riser Options Analyzed for the 3 Locations

As is illustrated, existing technologies, components and materials available in the ultradeepwater industry should enable the Chikyu drilling vessel to conduct offshore operations inwater depths ranging between 3650 and 4300 meters off Baja, Cocos and Hawaii.
Note that some drilling riser options such as aluminum drilling riser and composite materials
drilling riser were not analyzed because of their technology maturity and relative low interest for
specific drilling riser applications. Therefore, at the time, reliable data could not be found to run
detailed analyses.
To help comparing and ranking the different drilling riser options, three independent criteria
were identified:Technology maturity ranging from "emerging" to "very mature"Capital cost ranging from "low" to "high"Easiness to design, construct and maintain the riser system option ranging from"easy/flexible" to "difficult"

In order to rank the marine drilling riser options, a Boston Square Matrix (BSM) which allows
consistent ranking with the several criteria can be used. For this application, it includes capital
cost on the "x" axis, easiness to design, construct, and maintain on the "y" axis, and technology
maturity using four different circle sizes ranging from small for "emerging" to large for "verymature". The figure shown below ranks the different marine drilling riser options as of mid-2011.
Current research and development programs and oil and gas operations field trials may cause
these ranking to change in the future.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

13 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

1

Figure 5. Boston Square Matrix Ranking of Riser Options

2.1.3 Well Design Assumptions
A key objective of this study was to investigate the operational time and cost implications of themain scientific coring methods being considered by the IODP such as continuous coring of theentire hole, long core intervals of key sections, or spot coring, as described in their 2011 Mohole
workshop report. In order to do this, some assumptions had to be made about the fundamental
down-hole conditions that impact the design of a well. It was recognized that most of theinformation about the down hole conditions is presently unknown. However, after discussions
with the IODP, it was agreed that the assumptions discussed below are reasonable, or at least
not unreasonable for the feasibility study work.
A cross-section showing the general stratigraphy / lithology that can be expected is shown
below in Figure 6 which is based on information published by the IODP from their 2010 Mohole
workshop report. The three main scientific coring methods (A, B and C) being considered arealso shown. Note that a method D option was added which consists of drilling to the Moho andthen just coring the Mantle to provide a comparison with method A.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

14 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Figure 6. Assumed General Stratigraphy for the 3 Well Locations

From this, an assumed stratigraphic / lithologic column was developed for the three candidate
locations as shown below.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

15 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
Cocos Plate

Baja California

MSL

3,650
250

MSL

4,050

ML
Sed

200

3,900

4,300
100

650

Hawaii

MSL

ML

4,250

Sed

4,400

Lava

ML
Sed

Lava

4,550

4,900
Lava

800

5,050

Dikes

5,350

Dikes

5,700

Dikes

350 Textured

Textured

5,700 Gabbros

5,850

6,050 Gabbros
Textured700

6,200 Gabbros

Foliated

Foliated

Gabbros

Gabbros

6,400

6,750

Foliated
Gabbros

6,900

3000 Layered
Gabbros

9,400
9,900

LayeredLayeredGabbros

Gabbros

Moho
Mantle9,900
10,400 Mantle

Moho

10,250Moho

10,750 Mantle

Figure 7. Assumed Lithological Column for Each Location

The assumed down hole temperature profiles for the candidate locations are shown below. The
maximum bottom hole temperature (BHT) estimate is based on previous models of formation
burial depth and age as provided by the IODP. The profiles are based on the water depth,
available temperature measurements made during operations at the 1256D site, and theestimated BHT. The uncertainly in the BHT estimate is believed to be 50C. Therefore, amaximum expected temperature of 300C was used for design and planning purposes.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

16 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program0

Cocos Plate
Baja

1000

Hawaii

2000

3000

TVD ‐ RKB (m)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

BHT (C)

Figure 8. Assumed Geothermal Temperature Profiles

The wellbore is "unequivocally" expected to be normally pressured (1.03 SG / 8.66 ppge inoilfield units) to total depth. As such, the presence of abnormally pressured intervals, which istypically a critical design consideration, will not be an issue. Therefore, casing point selection
will be done on the basis of wellbore stability. The figure below shows the assumed porepressure (Pform), formation fracture (FG), and overburden gradients that were used for thisstudy. The overburden gradient (OBG) is assumed to be 22.6 kPa/m (1.0 psi/ft) which is acommon oilfield assumption for sedimentary basins and represents a conservative minimum
case since the OBG in igneous rocks will be higher. The FG was then assumed to be 95% of
the OBG.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

17 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
0

1000
Pform
OBG
2000

FG

3000

4000

TVD ‐TKB (m)

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000
1.00

1.20

1.40
1.60
PP / FG / OBG (SG)

1.80

2.00

Figure 9. Assumed Down Hole Formation Pressure Profile

The other key assumptions that were used in developing the operational time and costs
estimates are shown below.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

18 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Coring and drilling rate of penetration (ROP) assumptions which were based largely on
the experience at the 1256D site.
Stratigraphy
CoringSediments
3.0
Lava
1.5
Dikes
1.5
Textured Gabbros
1.2
Foliated Gabbros
1.2
Layered Gabbros
0.9
Mantle0.9

Drilling
15.2
3.0
3.0
2.4
2.4
1.5
0.0

m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr



An average bit life is 50 hours in the "upper" part of the well and 35 hours in the "lower"part of well was assumed.

The bit trip time was assumed to be 305 m/hr (1,000 ft/hr) which is an oilfield rule ofthumb and probably somewhat conservative for the Chikyu.



The RCB wire-line trip time was estimated using the following historical data provided by
IODP.
Depth
(mBRT)
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000



W/L Ops Time for
One Core Barrel
(hr)
2.45
3.05
3.65
4.25
4.85
5.45
6.05

Based on previous IODP experience, an average of 5% non-productive time (NPT) or
trouble time is assumed to account for unexpected down-hole related problems whendeveloping operational time estimates. This excludes weather or rig equipment related
NPT.

2.1.4 Base Case Well Design Development
In most deepwater wells the presence of abnormal pressure is a fundamental criteria for
determining casing points and the drilling mud density required to reach total depth (TD).
Because abnormal pressure is not an issue for a Mantle well, the selection of casing points andmud weights will be based on wellbore stability considerations. In other words, a safe operating
mud weight window needs to be defined that will offset the stress concentrations that are
generated in the surrounding rock as it is drilled which can cause mechanical instability of therock. If the mud weight is too low, the hole will essentially collapse due to a compressive shear
failure in the rock. Too high a mud weight will cause lost circulation due to a tensile fracturing of

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

19 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

the rock. The formation pressure estimate previously discussed was be used to provide some
initial insight around possible mud weights that could be used and the selection of casing points.
In general, higher mud weights are needed to prevent the hole from collapsing so casing points
need to be selected that maximize the fracture pressure of the formation allowing higher mud
weights to be used. However a trade-off must be made between the allowable mud weights andthe number of casing strings that are used. There are only so many casing strings that can fit ina well, and running multiple strings is time consuming, costly, and complicates the geometry of
the well.
The casing points assumed for this study are shown in Figure 10. The basic logic is that thesurface casing needs to be set near the base of the sediments in order to help provide structural
support for the well. Furthermore, experience from IODP's operations on the 1256D hole has
shown that the lava and dikes interval can be successfully drilled / cored with seawater soarguably, there is no need to set casing in this interval. Therefore, setting the second string ofcasing at the base of the dikes would allow the subsequent interval to be drilled with a higher
mud weight. The depth needed for the next casing string is speculative, but arguably, at least athird string would be need to be set into the Layered Gabbros section in order to case off andprotect the upper part of the hole, and to allow a higher mud weight to be used to reach the total
depth (TD) of the hole.
Note that the point where the horizontal dashed lines intersect the FG curve represents the
maximum allowable mud weight for the subsequent borehole interval. Exceeding this maximum
would result in a risk of lost circulation, so the actual mud weight used to drill/core with would besomewhat less than the maximum.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

20 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
0
1000
Pform
OBG

2000

FG
3000

TVD ‐TKB (m)

4000

Sed

Lava

5000

Dikes
TG

6000

FG
7000
8000
LG
9000
10000
Mantle
11000
12000
0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

PP / FG / OBG (SG)Figure 10. Casing Point Selection Assumption for the Base Case

While the casing points selected seemed reasonable at this stage, there are any number of
permutations of casing points and mud weights. As such, the mud weight requirements areprobably the single most important variable impacting the well design. Mud weight also has asignificant impact on the riser design as was discussed previously
After selecting the casing points, a base case wellbore configuration was developed as shown
below. Standard size casing diameters are used and the well is "TD'd" with a 9-7/8" hole size.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

21 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 3,650m
Location:

Base Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 9,900m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 250C

Comments :Base Case - The design assumes that wellbore stability is a key issue and significant parts of the wellbore will need to be cased inorder to reach TD.

RKB = XX ft, RKB-ML = 3,650 m

Hole

3711m

36"

3885m

20"

Sediments
h = 250__3900m

Set 15m above base of
sediments

PP Mwt Shoe
1.03 1.03

61m penetration
22"

1.03 1.03 1.06
1.03

Lava
h = 650__4550m

17.5"

Set 15m above base of
Dikes

Dikes

h = 800__5350m

5335m

13-3/8"1.03 1.03 1.33
1.28

TexturesGabbros__5700mh = 350

12.25"

Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700__6400m

Set 1000m into theLayered Gabbros

7400m

11-3/4"1.03 1.28 1.57
1.52

LayeredGabbros

9-7/8"
h = 3000

Moho __9400m

Mantleh = 500

9900m

BHT = 250C

1.03 1.52

Figure 11. Base Case Wellbore Configuration

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

22 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

2.1.5 Operations Time and Cost Estimate
Operational time estimates for four different scientific drilling cases were developed for each of
the candidate locations. The cases are similar to the IODP's options A, B and C as described intheir 2011 Mohole workshop report.


Case 1: Assumes that the hole is continuously cored to TD. This would be the ideal
situation as it would maximize the amount of scientific information obtained from the hole.
It is also the most expensive.

Case 2: Assumes that long sections of continuous core are taken across the major
lithologic and geophysical transition intervals of key sections. For the time estimate it
was assumed that the upper third of each main stratigraphic interval was cored, themiddle third was drilled and the lower third was cored.

Case 3: Assumes that only spot coring is done during the last 10m of hole before each
bit trip.



Case 4: Assumes that the hole is drilled to the Moho and that the mantle is cored. Thiswas done as a comparison to Case 1 since it represents the least expensive case.

The following table shows a summary of the operational time estimates for each of the 12 casesthat were prepared.
Candidate

Water Total

Location

Depth Depth BSF Core/Drill

TD

Operational Time (days)

Ops

Project

Bit Trip

W/L

Flat

NPT

Time

Time

Cocos Location
Case 1 3650

9900

6250

216

261

186

33

34

696

756

Case 2 3650

9900

6250

184

234

112

34

28

564

617

Case 3 3650

9900

6250

155

187

51

40

21

433

480

Case 4 3650

9900

6250

144

172

26

33

18

374

418

Case 1 4300

10400 6100

236

300

238

33

40

807

866

Case 2 4300

10400 6100

197

259

147

38

32

642

693

Case 3 4300

10400 6100

157

160

58

31

20

405

445

Case 4 4300

10400 6100

143

183

27

33

19

386

425

Case 1 4050

10750 6700

260

319

264

33

43

876

934

Case 2 4050

10750 6700

214

285

155

34

34

688

737

Case 3 4050

10750 6700

172

177

63

36

22

448

485

Case 4 4050

10750 6700

157

204

28

33

21

422

443

Baja Location

Hawaii Location

Figure 12. Initial Operational Time Estimates Summary for the 3 Locations

The order of magnitude costs for the various cases that were evaluated for the three candidate
locations are shown in the table below. It was assumed that the intangible daily operating cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

23 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programfor a typical commercial drill-ship are $1 million/day. An estimate of the tangible cost whichrange between $7 to $10 million for a high-pressure deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico
requiring multiple casing strings were not considered for this study.

Candidate
Water Total TD
Location
Depth Depth BSF
Cocos Location
Case 1 3650 9900 6250
Case 2 3650 9900 6250
Case 3 3650 9900 6250
Case 4 3650 9900 6250
Baja Location
Case 1 4300 10400 6100
Case 2 4300 10400 6100
Case 3 4300 10400 6100
Case 4 4300 10400 6100
Hawaii Location
Case 1 4050 10750 6700
Case 2 4050 10750 6700
Case 3 4050 10750 6700
Case 4 4050 10750 6700

Ops
Time

Project
Time

Project
Cost

696
564
433
374

756
617
480
418

$756,000,000$617,000,000$480,000,000$418,000,000

807
642
405
386

866
693
445
425

$866,000,000$693,000,000$445,000,000$425,000,000

876
688
448
422

934
737
485
443

$934,000,000$737,000,000$485,000,000$443,000,000

Figure 13. Project Cost for Each Case and Each Location

Note: For accounting purposes (depreciation and taxes), the cost for oil and gas wells areclassified as being either intangible or tangible. Intangible costs are basically for nonsalvageable items such as labor, drilling rig time, drilling fluids, services, etc. These costs,
which are typically charged on a daily basis, account for some 70 to 80% of the total well cost.
Tangible costs are basically salvageable items such as the wellhead and tubulars.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

24 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

2.2 High Impact Systems Study Overview - 2012
In February 2012, IODP-MI requested that Blade conduct a study to identify and investigate
equipment and services that could substantially decrease drilling time and risk when drilling toearth's mantle.
The objectives of this study were to identify the original equipment
manufacturers and service companies that provide rock drill bits and coring, and investigate thestatus of their technologies today, what technological improvements they may reveal for mantle
quest application by 2017, and what suggestions they offer to accelerate technologicaldevelopment between now and 2017.
More specifically, the goals of study were to address the following:

Review the mechanics of hard rock drilling.



Identify current rock drill bit equipment and services.



Investigate potential technological gaps and improvements that will enable rock drill bits tostay on-bottom longer, decreasing drilling time and risk.



Identify current rock coring systems and services.



Investigate possible development of new rock coring systems to improve the quality andquantity of cores recovered in order to satisfy the scientific objectives.



Provide a recommendation of the most efficient and most viable drill bits and rock coring
systems for a possible mantle drilling project start date in 2017-2018.



Provide an estimate of how the designers, manufacturers, and service companies of such
equipment and services may accelerate their technological offerings, including an estimateof the technological improvement costs to IODP and the scientific community.



Identify additional high-impact equipment and services where technological improvements
will also reduce project time and risks.

Blade had extensive discussions with 19 different service companies that provide a wide rangeof services to the oil and gas industry. The study investigated hard rock drilling failure
mechanisms, and how hard rock drilling performance is optimized in the oil and gas business.
This included discussions with the major oil and gas provider of bits, coring services, and downhole tools to evaluate the hard rock drilling and coring technology that currently exists within theoil and gas industry and to understand where and how the technology will be trending in the
future. Discussions were also held with the various marine raiser manufacturers to investigate
the various riser options in more detail.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

25 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Figure 14. Mantle Project Road Map

The key conclusions and recommendations from this study were as follows.


The major bit and coring system service providers have a great deal of experience withdifficult hard rock drilling environments in the oil and gas industry. They currently all
have products that could improve current IODP drilling performance. Perhaps more
importantly, they all have the design, testing, manufacturing, analysis, and technicalsupport capabilities needed to develop optimized solutions for difficult drilling conditions.



It was not practical to recommend a specific bit type or coring system for a mantle holemainly because optimizing performance is more than just selecting a bit. Optimizing
performance requires a systems level approach that considers bit design, drill stringmechanics, bottom hole assembly and drill string design, hydraulics, drilling fluids and soon. In addition, there are a variety of potentially viable options that need to beconsidered that, for example, range from conventional drilling, to using a bit and a downhole motor, to using a diamond impreg bit and a down hole turbine, and so on.

Achieving success on a mantle hole will involve more than just selecting a promising
looking bit and running it. It was felt that IODP should partner with 1 or 2 of these
service companies in order to take advantage of the full range of experience andservices they can provide during both the planning and operational phases of the project.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

26 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Blade further recommends that NOV be one the companies because they have the mostfamiliarity and understanding of the technical issues and have expressed the mostinterest in the project.
Working closely with a service company to develop an optimized solution to the mantle
hole challenges can significantly reduce both the operational time and risk associatedwith the project.

The following sections summarize some of the key topics that were addressed in the study.

2.2.1 Review of Hard Rock O&G Drilling Services
The main focus of Blade’s work for this project was to evaluate the hard rock drilling and coring
technology that currently exists within the oil and gas industry and to understand where and how
the technology will be trending in the future. Meetings were held with the major oil and gas
service providers to introduce the BEAM project, get information about their current productofferings and their technical development efforts, and to identify their ability and willingness toprovide technical support to the BEAM project. Meetings were held with the following service
companies:-

National Oilwell Varco (NOV) who provides Reed and Hycalog bits-

Baker Hughes provides Hughes Christensen bits-

Halliburton who provides Security and DBS bits-

Schlumberger who provides Smith bits-

Ulterra who provides their own Ulterra bit product line

The key highlights from these meetings are as follows:

All the companies were generally interested in the BEAM project, NOV and Ulterra inparticular.



Not surprisingly, each company also expressed concerns over "what's in it for me" to somedegree.



All the companies believe that they have current products that would improve performanceby 30 to 50% compared to current scientific drilling practices and results.

All the companies have active ongoing technology development programs that will result in
new products on the market well before the nominal 2018 start date for the BEAM project.

All the companies have extensive experience with hard rock, and high temperature drillingand coring applications within the oil and gas industry – including basalt.

A summary of the products and services that each of these service companies can provide isprovided in the following table.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

27 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Capabilities
Roller Cone Bits
Fixed Cutter Bits
Conventional Coring
Wireline Retrievable Coring
Down‐Hole Tools
High‐Temperature Tools
Hard Rock Drilling Experience
Hard Rock Coring Experience
Performance Modeling Software
Bit Testing/Development Facility

NOV
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Baker Hughes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Halliburton
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Schlumberger
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Ulterra
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Figure 15 ‐ Service Company Capability Summary
The overall results of Blade’s investigations show that the major oil and gas industry bit andcoring service providers have extensive hard rock experience that includes drilling in basalt. In
addition, they currently offer products and services that would provide an improvement in bit andcoring performance compared to current scientific drilling practices and results. It is also
important to remember that drilling performance is more than just bit selection. Optimizing
performance involves a systems view approach that includes the bit, the bottom hole assemblyand drill string design, drilling parameters selection, drilling fluids system and so on. As such,these companies also have the technical expertise and support capabilities to develop custom
drilling systems solutions to optimize drilling and coring performance.
Bit performance is characterized by the interaction between the bit design and the associatedrock failure mechanism, type of rock being drilled, the bottom hole assembly (BHA) design, andthe drilling practices being used (i.e. weight on bit, rotational speed, hydraulics, etc…). If one
assumes that the optimum drilling practices are being utilized, then drilling efficiency becomes afunction of the following bit performance characteristics.
 Durability – defined as the bit’s ability to resist abrasive wear, teeth or cutter wear, bodyerosion, and thermal damage. Improving durability typically tends to reduce the bit’s
performance or rate of penetration.
 Stability – defined as the bit’s ability to either resist or initiate BHA initiated lateral,
torsional, and axial vibrations which can cause severe damage to the bit.
 Steerability – defined as the bit’s tendency to drill in the desired direction, or conversely,
the bit’s tendency not to “walk” or deviate the direction of the wellbore in an undesired
lateral direction, or cause an undesired deviation of the hole angle.
 Aggressivity – is defined as the rate of penetration (ROP) or how fast the bit drills basedon the bit’s response to an externally applied axial force, or the weight on bit (WOB).
Each of the parameters can be adjusted through modifications to the bit design. For example,
stability and durability in a PDC bit can be improved with the addition of more blades. Vibration
can be reduced by adjusting the number of cutters that are in contact with the formation at any
one time. However, maximizing the effectiveness of one parameter can adversely impact theother parameters. For example, increasing the number of blades complicates the positioning of

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

28 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

the nozzles which is critical for keeping the blades clean. Also, maximizing the bit’s durability willusually reduce its performance or ROP.
The parameters are therefore interdependent from the standpoint that changing one parameter
will impact the others sometimes unfavorably. The key to optimizing bit performance is the todetermine which parameter(s) is the most important to achieve the goals of the hole interval tobe drilled, and then to adjust the bit design to maximize that effectiveness of that parameter,while at the same time, minimizing the potential adverse effects on the other parameters.
As has been noted, the types of bits used today to drill hard rock formations are roller cone bits,
diamond impregnated bit and PDC bits. Roller cone bits fail the rock through compression andgenerally have good steerability and aggressivity. However, high bit weights are needed toovercome the high compressive strengths found in hard rock formations. High bit weights andthe rotation of the bit’s cones can severely limit the life of the bearings, cause brittle fracture of
the cutters, and result in an overall decrease in durability.
Diamond impregnated bits fail the rock by shearing a very fine layer of the formation which is
known as “plowing”, and generally have good steerability, durability, and stability. However,
because only a fine layer of formation is cut at one time, these bits have a significantly lower
ROP than the other two types. These bits are typically run with high RPM down-hole turbines inorder to compensate for the low efficiency of the cutting elements and increase the ROP.
However the inclusion of a turbine in the BHA increases the risk of an unplanned trip in theevent of a failure of the turbine.
PDC bits fail the rock through shearing relatively large sections of the rock. This is the mostefficient method of mechanically failing rock because the shear strength of the rock is roughly
half of its compressive strength. However, PDC bits can have poor stability and be very
susceptible to brittle fracture under high loads as well as thermal fatigue at high temperaturewhen instability is present. In addition, their performance is sensitive to improper drilling
practices. Conversely, the very nature of these bits allows a great deal of flexibility for adjustingor modifying the performance characteristics parameters so that the above limitations can be
designed out of a particular PDC bit used for a particular application. With proper cutter
selection, cutting structure design, torque control component design, and hydraulic design, PDC
bits can provide the optimum balance between durability, stability, steerability and aggressivity
thereby maximizing bit performance. It can be argued that roller cone and diamond impregnatedbits need to be used only when a PDC cannot be properly designed.

2.2.2 Revised Operational Time Estimate
Based on the results of these discussions, which included NOV's unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) testing on a core sample from 1256D, Blade was able to revise the mantle hole
drilling time estimates that were initially provided in 2011 feasibility study to reflect what is
possible using the technology currently available in the oil and gas industry.
From the UCS testing results and NOV’s experience in drilling basalts and hard carbonate
formations with UCS values greater than 50,000 ksi, NOV provided the following estimates ofdrilling penetration rates and bit life that would be ideally achievable for a mantle hole using afixed cutter PDC bit and a PDC bit run on a down hole motor.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

29 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Rate of Penetration (ft/hr)
Ideal Bit Ideal Bit/Motor
Upper part of the hole :
70.0
100.0
Lower part of the hole :
50.0
70.0
Hole Section

Rate of Penetration (m/hr) Bit Life
Ideal Bit Ideal Bit/Motor (hours)
21.3
30.5
110
15.2
21.3
70

Figure 16: Estimated Ideal ROP’s Based on Current Technology
NOV further estimated that the coring penetration rates assumed in the 2011 feasibility study
could be improved by around 30%. Note that these values are broadly consistent with thestatements made by the other service companies.
In order to account for the uncertainties that remain about the drilling conditions in a mantle holeand the fact that more detailed work on the bit designs will be needed, Blade has used ROP
values that are more conservative than the “ideal bit” values noted above. Despite this, therevised operational time estimates still demonstrate the significant improvement even relatively
modest increases in ROP can have on the overall operational time. The bit life estimatesprovided by NOV were still used because there is less uncertainty around the durability of
today’s bits than what the actual ROP might be. A comparison between the revised ROP’s
used for this project compared to the ones used for the 2011 feasibility study is shown below.
Stratigraphy
Sediments
Lava
Dikes
Textured Gabbros
Foliated Gabbros
Layered Gabbros
MantleUpper Hole Bit Life
Lower Hole Bit Life

2011 Feasibilty StudyCoringDrilling
3.0
15.2
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.2
2.4
1.2
2.4
0.9
1.5
0.9
0.0
50 hours
35 hours

2012 BEAM Project
CoringDrilling
4.0
21.3
2.1
9.1
2.1
9.1
1.5
9.1
1.5
3.0
1.2
3.0
1.2
0.0
110 hours
70 hours

m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr

Figure 17: 2012 Operational ROP’s Assumptions
Revised operational time estimate were done for Cases 2 and 4 for the Hawaii location since
this location will require the most drilling/coring time. Cases 2 and 4 adequately illustrate thephilosophical differences between the amounts of time spent coring versus time spent drilling.
The following table compares the operational time estimates from the two studies. The overall
project includes the mobilization and demobilization to and from the location. Note thesignificant reduction in time using the revised estimates of ROP.
Location

Case

Hawaii2
42011 Feasibity Study
Core/Drill
Project
688
737
422
458

2012 High Impact Study
Core/Drill
Project
460
497
224
234

Difference
Core/Drill Project
228
240
198
224

Figure 18. Operational Time Comparison 2011 vs. 2012 Study Results (days)

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

30 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" ProgramThis difference is further illustrated in the following drilling curve comparison for the Case 4
example.
Hawaii Location
Case 4 Drilling Curve
05002012 BEAM Project Time Estimate
MSL
Moho

1000

2011 Feasibility Study Time Estimate
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000

Measured Depth (m)

4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000

Total Project Time = 458 days
Total Drill/Core Time = 422 days

9500
10000
10500
11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Project Days

Figure 19. Case 4 Drilling Curve Comparison 2011 vs. 2012 Study Results

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

31 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

2.2.3 High Temperature Downhole Tools
Currently, the temperature rating for high temperature MWD and LWD tools is around 180°C(300°F). The bottom-hole temperature for Hawaii location is estimated to be around 150°C(300°F). The temperature at the other two locations are expected to be as high as 250°C(480°F). This exceeds the temperature ratings of most of the down hole tools that are presently
commercially available. The industry is, however, focusing on developing tools with higher
operating temperatures in response to trends towards drilling in higher temperatureenvironments. The rate of improvement in down hole component temperature rating in the next
3-4 years may see a next generation of tools that are capable of operating in temperatures ashigh as 250°C.
Figure 20 shows Weatherford and Halliburton's current selection of high temperature tools.
Figure 21 shows a list of high temperature tools that are currently under development.
.
9‐1/2"TOOLRSS Systems
MWD / Pulser
Bore / Annular Pressure

Pressure Temp
(psi)(°F / °C)
350°F
25,000180°C
350°F
25,000180°C
350°F
25,000180°C

HIGH PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE TOOLS
8‐1/4"
6‐3/4"
Pressure(psi)
25,00025,00025,000Temp(°F / °C)
350°F
180°C
350°F
180°C
350°F
180°C

Spectral Azimuthal Gamma Ray
25,000Multi Frequency Resistivity

25,000

350°F
180°C
350°F
180°C

25,00025,000Azimuthal Density

25,000

Thermal Neutron Porosity

25,00025,000Formation Pressure Tester

30,00030,00030,00020,000Azimuthal Gamma Ray

Sonic

Pressure
(psi)

330°F
165°C

25,00025,000

330°F
165°C
350°F
180°C
330°F
165°C
330°F
165°C
330°F
165°C
330°F
165°C

30,00030,00030,00030,00030,00030,000Temp(°F / °C)
350°F
180°C
350°F
180°C
350°F
180°C
330°F
165°C
350°F
180°C
350°F
180°C
330°F
165°C
330°F
165°C
330°F
165°C
330°F
165°C

4‐3/4"
Pressure Temp
(psi)(°F / °C)
350°F
30,000180°C
350°F
30,000180°C
350°F
30,000180°C
330°F
20,000165°C
350°F
30,000180°C
350°F
30,000180°C
330°F
30,000165°C
330°F
30,000165°C
330°F
30,000165°C
330°F
30,000165°C

Figure 20. Current High Pressure / Temperature Down-hole Tool Ratings

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

32 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

XHIGH PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE TOOLS
6‐3/4"
4‐3/4"
TOOL

Pressure
(psi)

Temp
(°F / °C)

Pressure
(psi)

Temp
(°F / °C)RSS Systems
MWD / Pulser

30,000Bore / Annular Pressure

30,000

375°F
190°C
375°F
190°C

30,00030,000

440°F
230°C
375°F
190°C

Spectral Azimuthal Gamma Ray
Azimuthal Gamma Ray

30,000Multi Frequency Resistivity

30,000Azimuthal Density

30,000

Thermal Neutron Porosity

30,000

375°F
190°C
390°F
200°C
390°F
200°C
390°F
200°C

30,00025,00025,00025,000

440°F
230°C
390°F
200°C
390°F
200°C
390°F
200°C

Sonic
Formation Pressure Tester
True Vibration Monitor

30,000

375°F
190°C

30,000

375°F
190°C

Figure 21. High Temperature Tools Under Development

2.2.4 Marine Drilling Riser
High strength steel (i.e. 80 ksi) is currently the most widely used material for deepwater drillingand drilling riser systems. However, when drilling in water depths around 3,000m with relatively
high drilling fluid densities (i.e. 1.7 to 2.1 SG), the technical limit of existing high strength riser
systems commonly manufactured with 80 ksi steel material for the riser tube, auxiliary lines, andconnectors is reached.
As water depths increase beyond 3,000m and the true vertical depth of borehole below the
mudline increase beyond 4500m, the external pressure due to seawater and the internalpressure due to the mud weight required to balance the deep formation pressure that are acting
on the marine drilling riser may become too large. Therefore stronger materials such as X-100
steel, or titanium or composite materials may be required. Also, since stronger drilling risers willoften produce heavier risers (i.e. because of the increase in the main tube wall thickness),aluminum may also be considered as an alternative to be used for the design of auxiliary lines
such as hydraulic, booster, choke, and kill lines thus reduce the overall weight of the drillingriser.
Nevertheless, even though both aluminum and titanium drilling risers have been already beendeveloped and tested, they have rarely been applied but still show great potential. Moreover, as

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

33 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programof today, composite materials have still not been tested or field deployed for deepwater drillingriser but has already had success for smaller diameter (i.e. 5.0 to 8.0 inches) production risers
in the North Sea. Therefore, it is believed that, at least, for auxiliary lines, and because of highstrength and weight saving associated with carbon fiber or carbon epoxy, composite materials
may be a cost-effective solution for ultra-deepwater marine drilling riser systems. The following
figure shows the different riser configurations that may be suitable for ultra-deepwater
operations.
MATERIALS THAT MAY BE USED FOR MARINE DRILLING RISERSCONFIGRISER MAIN TUBE CHOKE AND KILL LINES

BOOSTER LINEHYDRAULIC LINE

Config #1
Config #2
Config #3
Config #4
Config #5
Config #6
Config #7
Config #8
Config #9

Steel
Aluminum
Titanium
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel / Carbon Fiber

Steel
Aluminum
Titanium
Aluminum
Aluminum
Titanium
Steel
Carbon Fiber
Steel

Steel
Aluminum
Titanium
Aluminum
Aluminum
Titanium
Steel
Carbon Fiber
Steel

Steel
Aluminum
Titanium
Aluminum
Steel
Titanium
Titanium
Carbon Fiber
Steel

Figure 22. Possible Riser Configurations for Ultra-Deepwater Operations

Figure 23 shows the advantages and drawbacks of all the riser options that are either currently
available to the ultra-deepwater drilling industry or at a conceptual stage development within
service companies or material science department in universities.
MATERIALS THAT MAY BE USED FOR MARINE DRILLING RISERSCONFIG

PROS

Easy to Design and Construct
Config #1 Technology is Very Mature
Relatively Low Capital Cost
Can Drilled Through Ultra‐deep Waters
Config #2

CONS
Limited to about 10,000 feet Water Depth

Medium Capital Cost
Potential Corrosion and Strength Issues
More Difficult to Design and Construct
Technology is Just Mature

Can Significantly Push the Limits (> 15,000 feet)
Can Withstand High Loads and Rough Environments

High Capital Cost
More Difficult to Design and Construct
Technology is Emerging

Config #4

Lower Capital Cost Than Full Aluminum Riser
Can Push the Limits (> 12,000 feet)

More Difficult to Design and Construct
Technology is at a Conceptual Level

Config #5

Lower Capital Cost Than Full Aluminum Riser
Can Push the Limits (> 12,000 feet)

More Difficult to Design and Construct
Technology is at a Conceptual Level

Config #6

Lower Capital Cost Than Full Titanium Riser
Can Significantly Push the Limits (> 12,000 feet)

More Difficult to Design and Construct
Technology is also at a Conceptual Level

Config #7

Lower Capital Cost Than Full Titanium Riser
Can Significantly Push the Limits (> 12,000 feet)

More Difficult to Design and Construct
Technology is also at a Conceptual Level

Config #8

Lower Capital Cost Than Other Hybrid Solutions
Can Significantly Push the Limits (> 12,000 feet)

Very Difficult to Design and Construct
Technology is also at a Conceptual Level

Config #9

Lowest Capital Cost Than Other Hybrid Solutions
Can Significantly Push the Limits (> 12,000 feet)

Very Difficult to Design and Construct
Technology is also at a Conceptual Level

Config #3

Figure 23. Riser Configuration Options Pros and ConsBEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

34 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3 Wellbore Design Revisited
In retrospect, it would seem that the Base Case wellbore configuration developed during the
Feasibility Study may be overly optimistic in terms of the number of casing strings that may beneeded to get to TD.
In April 2011, Expedition 335 at the 1256D Cocos Plate site had problems reentering the holedue to a washed out interval and associated ledges at around 920 mbsf. The problems
included excessive drag, high torque, and 3 incidents of stuck pipe. A cement plug had to be
set across the washed out section to stabilize the hole. It took 16 days to resolve the problems
before being able to get back to bottom at 1,507 mbsf which took up a significant part of thetime allocated for the expedition. A summary of these events is provided below.
Expedition 335 Operations
ReportCaliper
Log

Depth
mbrf

12 Apr to 1 June, 2011

MW m per Hrs Avg

Hole

Operations Summary
Arrive location. Position rig. PU bit (Smith F9) and BHA. TIH, Re‐enter hole.
TIH, tag at 925 mbsf. Work pipe f/920‐925 mbsf
Cont work pipe on ledge. Erratic torque. W&R f/891.5‐923.0 mbsf. Work stuck
9‐7/8"
pipe. Pump 600 bbls total of hi‐vis pills
Cont work pipe to 923.3 mbsf. Unable to get deeper. Pump 150 bbl hi‐vis pill.
9‐7/8"
POOH for more aggressive bit. PU new bit (Reed 517) and 2 JB, and TIHCont TIH. W&R from 892.1. Att to work past bridge at ~920 mbsf. Work stuck
9‐7/8"
pipe. Pump 150 bbl hi‐vis pill. POOH
Fin POOH. Exp 312 logs show washed out section f/920‐935 mbsf. TIH w/
9‐7/8"
cementing BHA to 922 mbsf. M&P 5 bbls 16# cmt. POOH
Fin POOH. PU bit (Atlas HP61) and BHA and TIH. Tag bridge at 922 mbsf ‐ no9‐7/8"
cmt. Att to W&R thru bridge. POOH
Fin POOH. PU cementing BHA. TIH to 922 mbsf. M&P 50 bbls of 15 ppg cmt.
9‐7/8"POOH
Fin POOH. PU bit (Atlas HP61) and BHA with 2 JB and TIH. Tag cmt at 882 mbsf.
9‐7/8"
Drill cmt to 922 mbsf. Pumping hi‐vis sweeps.

Date

Days

mbsf

(ppg)

Day

19‐Apr‐11

14,570.4 925.0

8.60Drlg ROP

20‐Apr‐11

2

4,568.4 923.0

8.6

0

21‐Apr‐11

34,568.7 923.3

8.6

0

22‐Apr‐11

44,565.4 920.0

8.6

023‐Apr‐11

54,567.4 922.0

8.6

024‐Apr‐11

64,567.4 922.0

8.6

025‐Apr‐11

7

4,567.4 922.0

8.6

026‐Apr‐11

8

4,567.4 922.0

8.6

027‐Apr‐11

94,567.4 922.0

8.6

0

‐

‐

28‐Apr‐11

10 4,567.4 922.0

8.6

0

‐

‐

29‐Apr‐11

11 4,586.9 941.5

8.6

030‐Apr‐11

12 5,009.3 1,363.9

8.6

0

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

‐

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

‐
‐

‐
1‐May‐11

13 5,152.8 1,507.4

8.6

0

‐
‐

2‐May‐11

14 5,152.8 1,507.4

8.6

0

3‐May‐11

15 4,587.9 942.5

8.6

0

4‐May‐11

16 5,152.5 1,507.1

8.6

05‐May‐11

17 5,163.6 1,518.2

8.6

‐
‐

‐
‐

Expedition 335

Size

9‐7/8"

9‐7/8" Cont to W&R at 922 mbsf. Work stuck pipe. Cont W&R, pumping hi‐vis pills
9‐7/8" Cont W&R at 922 mbsf. POOH. PU new bit (Smith Q7JS‐735) and TIH.
Fin TIH to 861.4. W&R to 921.9 mbsf. Tag obstruction. Cont W&R to 941.5
9‐7/8"
mbsf. Pump 100 bbl hi‐vis sweep
Cont W&R to 1143.2 mbsf. Had hi‐torq and pump press increase. PU to 1113.6
mbsf,
pump 50 bbl hi‐vis pill. W&R to 1162.4 mbsf. Work stuck pipe. W&R to
9‐7/8"
1363.9 mbsg.
Cont to W&R to bottom at 1507.1 mbsf. Had 6m of hard fill. Pump 100 bbl hi‐
9‐7/8" vis sweep. POOH to 890.5 mbsf. RIH to 967.3 mbsf with no drag. Spot 60 bbls
10.5 ppg mud. POOH.
Fin POOH. PU cementing BHA. TIH to 960.5 mbsf. M&P 60 bbls 15# cement.
9‐7/8"POOH
Fin POOH. PU RCB assy (C‐9 CB). TIH and tag at 924.0 mbsf. Cut cement cores
9‐7/8"
to 942.5 mbsf
Cont coring cement to 980.9 mbsf. Drop wash barrel and wash to bottom at
9‐7/8"
1507.1 mbsf. Hole tight from 1499.6 to 1501.1. Pump 50 bbl hi‐vis sweep.

Affect ofLedges‐‐10.8 11.4 0.95 9‐7/8" Cont coring from 1507.1 to 1518.2 mbsf (new formation)

Figure 24. Expedition 335: Summary of Reentry Problems

This type of hole stability problem suggests that the wellbore configuration needs to be able toaccommodate additional contingency casing strings to allow for unexpected wellbore stability
problems. The 1256D hole has been deepened to 1,522 mbsf, so if the kind of problems noted
above can occur in the upper part of the hole, one must assume that they can also occur deeper
in the hole. Additional strings may therefore be needed to case off problematic hole sections,and it would likely be prudent to be able to case off and protect sections of the hole that havebeen successfully cored/drilled in order to prevent the occurrence of stability problems that may
evolve over time. The objective of incorporating additional casing strings into the wellbore
configuration would therefore be to reduce the risk of not getting to TD by providing the means
to react to wellbore stability problems or by preventing their occurrence.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

35 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

The original Base Case wellbore configuration consisted of three casing strings: 20" set at thebase of the sediments, 13-3/8" set at the base of the Dikes, and 11-3/4" set at about a third of
the way into the layered gabbros. As such, only one casing string is set in the roughly 5,000m
interval between the base of the dikes and the mantle. If, for example, the 11-3/4" string has tobe set high because of down hole problems the risk of not getting to the mantle is higher
because the length of the open hole below the 11-3/4" is larger. There are also a limited
number of contingency casing options available to fit inside the 11-3/4" in the event that there
are additional problems later in the hole and another casing string (or strings) is required.

3.1 Wellbore Configuration Options
As discussed above, it is clear that a mantle wellbore configuration should include a robust
contingency design. However, at this stage, it is still difficult to define the exact number ofcasing strings that would be needed and where they should be set. Nevertheless, there areoilfield wells that require 6-8 casing strings to reach TD that can be used as a guide. Two
examples are provided below that are intended to serve as a basis for further discussion.

Figure 25. Multi-String Wellbore Configuration Options

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

36 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" ProgramBecause of the telescoping nature of well designs, planning a well for multiple casing strings
means that the large diameter strings run at the top of the hole must be set deeper than isnormally the case. This allows the subsequent intermediate strings also to be set progressively
deeper in the hole as is illustrated in the "Conventional Deepwater" and "Expandable" options inFigure 25.
The Conventional Deepwater option has a 6 string casing program that is commonly used today
in deepwater Gulf of Mexico oil and gas wells. Note that running the 22", 18" and 16" strings in
the upper part of the hole allows the 13-3/8" to be pushed to the 11-3/4" casing point in theBase Case design, which in turn allows the 11-3/4" to be set deeper in the layered gabbros
interval. Note also that this configuration allows large portion of the hole to be cased off.
The Expandable option is a variation of the Deepwater option except that it uses solid
expandable tubulars (SET) in the upper part of the hole to allow even larger hole sizes deeper inthe hole which in turn allows larger diameter casing strings to be run deeper in the hole. Note,
for example, that this option uses "nested" 16.5" diameter expandables which allows the 13-3/8"
to be set where the 11-3/4" is set on the Deepwater option.
Expandable casing has been used in the oil and gas industry since late 1999 to mitigate theimpact of unexpected hole problems. It involves running a special type of casing in the hole andcementing it conventionally, after which the internal diameter (ID) is expanded out to almost theinternal diameter of the previous casing string. This allows a larger hole to be drilled below the
expandable than would otherwise be the case if a conventional string had been run. For
example, when the first 16.5" SET from Figure 25 is run in the hole it has a OD of 16" and an IDof 15.010". After expansion, the ID is increased to 17.125" and the OD to 18.188".
New developments in expandables have improved the reliability, and increased the applicable
uses of this technology. For example, large diameter tubulars have been developed for
applications higher in the wellbore (as shown above), and expandables are now being
developed in diameters ranging from 3.5” to 20”. The three major companies currently providing
this technology are Baker Hughes, Weatherford, and particularly Enventure.
The most prevalent expansion process involves running an expansion cone and launcher at thebottom of the casing. After the string is run and cemented, a plug is pumped down the casing,
past the cone, and latches in the launcher. The volume below the cone, within the casing, andsealed by the plug is then pressurized. The pressure drives the cone upward, expanding thecasing. The cone is also pulled axially; this steadies the process, enables extra force to be
applied in case of a stuck cone, and allows mechanical expansion in the rare event thatpressure is lost due to the casing splitting or connection failure. The seal between the
expandable casing and the previous casing is provided by a series of elastomeric seals thatisolate the annular space between the two strings. Enventure's elastomers are currently rated
at 224°C (435°F) and they are currently developing ones rated to 232°C (450°F).
Another expandable technology that is currently available is the "Open Hole Clad System". Thissystem is designed to isolate and seal off specific problematic sections of the wellbore. This
involves drilling through the problem section and then running a length of expandable casingthat covers just the problem area. Anchor joints are run on either end of the casing which isthen expanded against the sides of the open hole with the anchor joints providing the seal. The
clad system is another contingency option that may be beneficial for the mantle hole because it

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

37 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programisolates a particular problem interval and does not require the entire open hole section to be
cased off.
Revised wellbore schematics were developed for each of the 3 configuration cases for each of
the 3 locations. As with the feasibility study, it was assumed that casing would be set at thebase of the sediments and at the base of the dikes. Since the deeper casing points are
speculative at this point, the distance between the Moho and the dikes was divided into equalintervals based on the number of casing strings that are available, and it was assumed that acasing string would be set at the base of each interval. These revised wellbore schematics areprovided in Sections 3.3 to 3.5.

3.1.1 Wellbore Configuration Pros and Cons
The main pros and cons of each of the options shown in Figure 25 are as follows:
Base Case Pros: It is a simple 3 string design using standard casing sizes and hole sizes.
 It is the least expensive option.
 It is the ideal option if the chances of having wellbore stability problems can somehow be
ruled out.
 Cons: It provides the least flexibility for reacting to unexpected hole problems
 It allows for only two contingency strings. For example, if another casing string is needed
below the 11-3/4", or the 11-3/4" has to be set high and another casing string(s) is
required deeper in the hole, the contingency options are 9-5/8" and 7.0" casing.
 The risk of not being able to get to TD is higher.
Conventional Deepwater Case
 Pros: It allows for significant parts of the hole to be cased off since it involves running 6 strings
instead of 3.
 It provides increased flexibility in the event of unexpected hole problems.
 A 7.0" contingency option is still available below the 9-5/8".
 The risk of not being able to get to TD is reduced.
Cons: It requires non-standard casing sizes and non-standard hole sizes. Bit selection will be
more complicated and hole opening tools (concentric reamers, hole openers) will beneeded. Note, for example, the 13-3/8" casing is typically run in a 17.5" hole which islarger than the 16" casing previously run. Therefore the 13-3/8" interval would be drilledwith a bit that fits inside the 16", but that another hole opening tool would need to be run
to open the hole below the 16" out to 17.5". However, although the casing and bits are
non-standard, wells having this kind of configuration are routinely drilled in the Gulf of
Mexico, and the required tools and techniques have been developed to become de facto
standards. So while the design issues are more complicated, they are notinsurmountable.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

38 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Clearances are tighter and casing strings are heavier.
Again these are notinsurmountable problems or ones that exceed the capabilities of the Chikyu.

The costs will be higher in terms of the higher tangible costs and the time required to run
all of the casing strings.

Expandable Case
 Pros: The pros are basically the same as those for the Deepwater Case.
 9-5/8" and 7.0" contingency strings are still available below the 11-3/4" and therefore thiscase offers the maximum amount of flexibility in the event of unexpected problems by
allowing 8 strings of casing to be run compared to 7 or 5.
Cons: Likewise, the cons are basically the same as this for the Deepwater Case.
 The cost of the expandable casing is higher than that of conventional casing.


Expandable casing has a low collapse rating which can be problematic in an oil and gas
well, but should be less of an issue in a mantle hole because the design loads will bemuch lower.
There is an added risk dealing with the expandables. The installation process is more
complicated and although the chance of failure is relatively low, there still is a chance
which doesn't exist with conventional casing.

3.2 Risk Discussion
It is important to realize that the wellbore configuration options discussed above are notnecessarily the only options. They do however represent the extremes. The Base Case
represents the most simple configuration and arguably most risky in terms of being able to get
to TD and accomplish the goals of the project. The Expandable Case represents the mostcomplex/expensive but least risky option in terms of being able to get to TD. As was the casewith the initial feasibility study, the intent here is to show that there are existing solutions to thetechnical issues associated with a mantle hole, and to provide a foundation for further
discussion and design work.
Although there are a multitude of technical issues and their associated risks that will need to bestudied and addressed, there are arguably two main risks that impact the entire project. The
first is the overall uncertainty with respect to the down hole conditions which impacts the ability
to actually get to the mantle. The second involves time and cost which impacts the ability toaccomplish the objectives within a reasonable cost and within a reasonable amount of time.


Down hole conditions uncertainty:
Developing an effective well design involves accounting for and designing around the
expected down hole conditions such as stratigraphy, lithology, formation pressure,temperature, the existence of unstable zones or zones prone to lost circulation, etc., andthen building in a degree of flexibility to deal with unexpected problems. These issues
dictate the mud weight requirements, the number of casing strings needed, what size thecasing needs to be, and where they need to be set. Setting casing in the wrong places or
not being able to set them in the right places will severely jeopardize the ability to

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

39 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programaccomplish the objectives of any well. The obvious problem here is that no one has everdrilled a hole to the mantle, and the down hole conditions won't be known until it is done.
For example, discussions with Geomechanical International (GMI) identified some of therisks which will need to be addressed in order to develop the final wellbore configuration:


No Overpressure Assumption – Are we Sure?
- Could fluids trapped in fractures or cavities in mafic igneous rocks be over pressured
due to stress or other thermal processes?



Wellbore Instability Risk
- Shear failure if stress concentration exceeds rock strength- Failure of naturally fractured rock
- Failure of induced fractures due to cooling

Lost Circulation Risk
- Hydraulic Fracturing if Mud Weight exceeds Fracture Gradient- Losses into natural and/or induced fractures

Creeping Risk
- Hole closure due to creeping rocks under high temperature and pressure

Fault Reactivation Risk
- Hole deformation due to reactivation of pre-existing faults

This does not, however, mean that the risks cannot be mitigated and managed. Mitigatingthese risks will require a concerted joint effort between the science community, industry
subject matter experts, and the well design engineers to define the most likely down holeconditions that can be expected, and which aspects have the most uncertainty. The resultsof this effort can then serve as the basis for developing an appropriate wellbore
configuration.
Time and cost uncertainty:
The time required to drill a mantle hole must fall within the limits of the Chikyu's yearlyscientific drilling vs. commercial endeavor schedule, and the cost of the project must be"reasonable". Preliminary estimates of the time and cost for a Mantle hole were developed
during the feasibility study and were based largely on data from the 1256D location
expeditions. The estimated time ranged from 400 to 900 days at a cost between $400 to$900 million, which are arguably not reasonable. The High Impact System study in 2012
looked at current and trending bit technology to determine if the drilling time could be
reduced. It was concluded that the major oilfield bit and coring system service providers
have a great deal of experience with difficult hard rock drilling environments, and the timerequired to drill a mantle hole could be significantly reduced by incorporating the bit
selection and design practices currently being used in oil and gas industry.
As will be discussed in Section 5, the number of days needed to drill the hole has thebiggest impact on the cost of the mantle hole, and the other cost components are almost
insignificant by comparison. The number of days is in turn effected by uncertainties around
bit performance and rate of penetration. These uncertainties can be reduced by partnering

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

40 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programwith 1 or 2 of these service companies in order to take advantage of the full range ofexperience and services they can provide during both the planning and operational phasesof the project in order to optimize the bit selection and drilling practices.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

41 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.3 Cocos Location Wellbore Diagrams
3.3.1 Base Case Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Base Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Cocos location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 3,650m
Location: Cocos Plate

Cocos Plate Location
Base Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 9,900m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 250C

Comments:
Base Case - The design assumes that wellbore stability is a key issue and significant parts of the wellbore will need to be cased inorder to reach TD.
RKB-ML = 3,650 m

Hole

3711m

36"

3885m

20"

PP Mwt Shoe
1.03 1.03

Sediments22"

h = 100m__3900m

1.03 1.03 1.06
1.03

Lava
h = 650m__4550m
17.5"

Dikes
h = 800m__ 5350m

13-3/8"5335m

1.03 1.03 1.33
1.28

TexturesGabbros
h = 350m__5700m

Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700m__6400m
12.25"

7400m

LayeredGabbros

11-3/4"1.03 1.28 1.57
1.52

9-7/8"

h =3000m

MoHo __9400m

Mantleh = 500m

9900m

BHT = 250C

1.03 1.52

Figure 26 - Cocos Location Well Configuration – Base Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

42 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.3.2 Deepwater Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Deepwater Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Cocos location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 3,650m
Location: Cocos Plate

Cocos Plate Location
Conventional DW Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 9,900m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 250C

Comments:

RKB-ML = 3650m

Hole

3711m

36"

3885m

22"

PP Mwt Shoe
8.6

8.6

8.6

8.6 8.8

Sediments22"
h = 100m__3900m

8.6

Lava
h = 650m__4550m

22"

Dikes
h = 800m__ 5350m

18"

5350m

8.6

h = 350m

8.6 11.1
10.7

TexturesGabbros__5700m
22”

Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700m__6400m

16"

6355m

8.6 10.7 13.1
12.7

17.5”

7376m

x.x

13-3/8"x.x x.x
x.x

LayeredGabbros

12.25”

11-3/4”

8382m

x.x

x.x x.xx.x

12.25”
h =3000m

MoHo __9400m

9400m

9-5/8”

8.6 12.7 x.x
x.x

Mantleh = 500m

8.5”

9900m

BHT = 250C

Figure 27. Cocos Location Well Configuration – Deepwater Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

43 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.3.3 Expandable Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Expandable Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Cocos location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 3,650m
Location: Cocos Plate

Cocos Plate Location
Expandable Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 9,900m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 250C

Comments:

RKB-ML = 11,975 ft

Hole

3711m

36"

3885m

22"

PP Mwt Shoe
8.6

8.6

8.6

8.6 8.8

Sediments22"
h = 100m__3900m

8.6

Lava
h = 650m__4550m

22"

Dikes
h = 800m__ 5350m

16.5” SET

5350m

8.6

h = 350m__5700m

Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700m

8.6 11.1
10.7

TexturesGabbros

22"__6400m

16.5” SET

6355m

8.6 10.7 13.1
12.7

16.575”

7376m

x.x

16"

x.x x.x
x.x

LayeredGabbros

17.5"

8382m

13-3/8”x.x

x.x x.xx.x

12.25”
h =3000m

MoHo __9400m

9400m

11-3/4”

8.6 12.7 x.x
x.x

Mantleh = 500m

8.5”

9900m

BHT = 250C

Figure 28. Cocos Location Well Configuration – Expandable Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

44 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.4 Hawaii Location Wellbore Diagrams
3.4.1 Base Case Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Base Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Hawaii location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 4050m
Location: Hawaii

BEAM
Hawaii Location
Base Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 10,750m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 12.7 ppg
BHT = 392F

Comments:
Base Case - The design assumes that wellbore stability is a key issue and significant parts of the wellbore will need to be cased inorder to reach TD.
RKB-ML = 4050m

Hole

4111m

36"

4235m

20"

PP

Mwt Shoe

8.6

8.6

8.6

8.6 8.8

Sediments22"
h = 200__42508.6

Lava
h = 650__490017.5"

Dikes
h = 800__ 5700

5685m

13-3/8"

8.6

TexturesGabbros
h = 350

8.6 11.1
10.7__6050Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700

12.25"__67508249m

LayeredGabbros

11-3/4"

8.6

10.7 13.1
12.7

9-7/8"

h =3500

MoHo __10.250

Mantleh = 500

10,750m

BHT = 392F

8.6

12.7

Figure 29 - Hawaii Location Well Configuration – Base Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

45 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.4.2 Deepwater Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Deepwater Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Hawaii location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 4050m
Location: Hawaii

BEAM
Hawaii Location
Conventional DW Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 10,750m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 200C

Comments:

RKB-ML = 4050m

Hole

36"

4111m

PP

Mwt Shoe

8.6

8.6

8.6

8.6 8.8

Sediments22"
h = 200__4250

22"

4250m

8.6

Lava
h = 650__490022"

Dikes
h = 800__ 5700

18"

5700m

8.6

h = 350

8.6 11.1
10.7

TexturesGabbros__6050Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700

22”__675016"6843m

8.6 10.7 13.1
12.7

17.5”

7971m

x.x

13-3/8"x.x x.x
x.x

LayeredGabbros

12.25”

11-3/4”

9098m

x.x

x.x x.xx.x

12.25”
h =3500

MoHo __10.250

10,250m

9-5/8”

8.6

Mantleh = 500

12.7 x.x
x.x

8.5”

10,750m

BHT = 200C

Figure 30 - Hawaii Location Well Configuration – Deepwater Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

46 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.4.3 Expandable Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Expandable Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Hawaii location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 4050m
Location: Hawaii

BEAM
Hawaii Location
Expandable Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD 10,750m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 200C

Comments:

RKB-ML = 4050m

Hole

36"

4111m

SedimentsPP

Mwt Shoe

8.6

8.6

22"
h = 200__42508.6 8.6 8.8

22"

4250m

8.6

Lava
h = 650__490022”

Dikes
h = 800__ 5700

16.5” SET

5700m

8.6

h = 350

8.6 11.1
10.7

TexturesGabbros__6050Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700

22"__675016.5” SET

6843m

8.6 10.7 13.1
12.7

16.575”

x.x

16"

7971m

x.x x.x
x.x

LayeredGabbros

17.5"

9098m

13-3/8”x.x

x.x x.xx.x

12.25”
h =3500

MoHo __10.250

10,250m

11-3/4”

8.6

Mantleh = 500

12.7 x.x
x.x

8.5”

10,750m

BHT = 200C

Figure 31 - Hawaii Location Well Configuration – Expandable Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

47 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.5 Baja Location Wellbore Diagrams
3.5.1 Base Case Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Base Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Baja location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 4,300m
Location: Baja California

Baja California Location
Base Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 10,400m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 250C

Comments:
Base Case - The design assumes that wellbore stability is a key issue and significant parts of the wellbore will need to be cased inorder to reach TD.
RKB-ML = 4300m

Hole

4361m

36"

4385m

20"

PP Mwt Shoe
1.03 1.03

Sediments22"
h = 100m__4400m

1.03 1.03 1.06
1.03

Lava
h = 650m__5050m
17.5"

Dikes
5835m
h = 800m

13-3/8"1.03 1.03 1.33
1.28__ 5850m

TexturesGabbros
h = 305m__6200m

Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700m__6900m
12.25"

7900m

LayeredGabbros

11-3/4"1.03 1.28 1.57
1.52

9-7/8"

h =3000m

MantleMoHo __9900m
10,400m

BHT = 250C

1.03 1.52

h = 500m

Figure 32 - Baja Location Well Configuration – Base Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

48 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.5.2 Deepwater Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Deepwater Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Baja location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 4,300m
Location: Baja California

Baja California Location
Conventional DW Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 10,400m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 250C

Comments:

RKB-ML 4,300m

Hole

4361m

36"

4385m

22"

PP Mwt Shoe
8.6

8.6

8.6

8.6 8.8

Sediments22"
h = 100m__4400m

8.6

Lava
h = 650m__5050m

22"

Dikes
h = 800m__ 5850m

18"

5850m

8.6

h = 305m

8.6 11.1
10.7

TexturesGabbros__6200m
22”

Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700m__6900m

16"

6858m

8.6 10.7 13.1
12.7

17.5”

x.x

13-3/8"7864m

x.x x.x
x.x

LayeredGabbros

12.25”

11-3/4”

8839m

x.x

x.x x.xx.x

12.25”
h =3000m

MoHo __9900m

9900m

9-7/8”

8.6 12.7 x.x
x.x
8.5”

Mantleh = 500m

10,400m

BHT = 250C

Figure 33 - Baja Location Well Configuration – Deepwater Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

49 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3.5.3 Expandable Wellbore Configuration:
Below is the Expandable Case wellbore schematic for a hole drilled at the Baja location.

Rig: Chikyu
Water Depth: 4,300m
Location: Baja California

Baja California Location
Expandable Case Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Days = XX
TD = 10,400m MD / TVD
Max Mwt = 1.52 SG
BHT = 250C

Comments:

RKB-ML = 4300m

Hole

4361m

36"

4385m

22"

200' penetration

PP Mwt Shoe
8.6

8.6

8.6

8.6 8.8

Sediments22"
h = 100m__4400m

8.6

Lava
h = 650m__5050m

22"

Dikes
h = 800m__ 5850m

16.5” SET

5850m

8.6

h = 305m__6200m

Foliated
Gabbros
h = 700m

8.6 11.1
10.7

TexturesGabbros

22"__6900m

16.5” SET

6858m

8.6 10.7 13.1
12.7

16.575”

x.x

16"

7864m

x.x x.x
x.x

LayeredGabbros

17.5"

8839m

13-3/8”x.x

x.x x.xx.x

12.25”
h =3000m

MoHo __9900m

9900m

11-3/4”

8.6 12.7 x.x
x.x
8.5”

Mantleh = 500m

10,400m

BHT = 482F

Figure 34 - Baja Location Well Configuration – Expandable Case

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

50 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

4 Marine Riser Design Discussion
This section details the main results for marine drilling riser feasibility analyses. The designpremise for this analysis has been obtained from CDEX (i.e. Chikyu vessel and drilling riser
specifications, subsea equipment, etc.).
The design process for the marine drilling riser analysis has been divided in the following subsections:

Static analysis (i.e. Chikyu connected and disconnected at the LMRP connector);Dynamic analysis (i.e. Chikyu connected and disconnected at the LMRP connector);
 Frequency domain analysis
 Time domain analysis

Chikyu operability analysis while on location in the Pacific Ocean;

Riser hang-off analysis (i.e. soft and hard hang-off);

Riser modal analysis;Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV) screening and riser fatigue assessment.

Each of these analyses is investigated in detail with the pertinent response characteristics
plotted in this chapter.

4.1 Introduction and Data
Figure 35 provides a picture from the Chikyu drill-ship vessel and Figure 36 illustrates themarine drilling riser configuration with slick and buoyed joints and with the main tube plus theauxiliary lines (i.e. choke and kill, booster and 2 hydraulic lines). Note that the maximum
tensioning capacity of the Chikyu is 6 x 363 tons = 6 x 800 kips = 4,800,000 lbs.
The ability for the Chikyu to drill an ultra-deepwater well in the Pacific Ocean is mainly
dependent on the riser drilling capacity of the vessel and the specifications of the riser
components (i.e. riser tensioning system, buoyed and slick riser joints). In order to achieve thisgoal, several options or configurations can be considered and are discussed in the following
sections.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

51 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Figure 35. Chikyu Drill-ship

Buoyancy System

Choke and Kill Lines

Main Tube

Booster and Hydraulic Lines

Figure 36. Marine Drilling Riser Schematic

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

52 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

4.2 Marine Drilling Riser Options
1. High strength steel: X-100 (i.e. 100,000 psi yield strength) material line pipe is now
available to manufacture the drilling riser main tube. Until recently, the highest steel gradethat was available to manufacture riser joints was X-80 (i.e. 80,000 psi) but the impact of thistechnical improvement could be rather important on the design and application for ultradeepwater riser drilling. X-100 material enables a thinner wall (i.e. weight reduction per riser
joint) in order to achieve the same performance for a given field application. As a result, athinner walled drilling riser would allow deploying greater lengths of riser joints for the same
floating drilling structure tensioning system (i.e. 4,800 kips on the Chikyu). Note also thatsince the maximum VME in the drilling riser tubes cannot exceed 67% of the minimum yieldstrength, X-100 material will enable higher stresses in the riser tubes which implies thateither higher mud weight could be used or greater water depths could be drilled using riser
drilling technology.
2. Titanium: because of the drastic weight reduction associated with titanium (i.e. 40% lighter
than steel) and much higher yield strength (i.e. 120-130 ksi), titanium drilling risers can beused for weight reduction for the entire drilling riser (i.e. main tube and/or auxiliary lines).
Thus, similarly to X-100 material, titanium drilling risers could be used to drill through ultradeepwater depths that have never been reached before with steel material and could also
be utilized for harsh environments with high pressure reservoirs (high mud weight). Note thattwo grades of titanium: ASTM 23 and ASTM 29 would be readily suitable for deepwatertitanium drilling risers. An additional benefit is titanium's high resistance to fatigue damage,which could be used for high current environment and very long drilling campaigns such as
the one planned for the mantle hole. Obviously, the main disadvantage of titanium products
is their relatively high cost in comparison to steel, which therefore make the concept ofhybrid risers (i.e. the main tube made of steel and the auxiliary lines made of advanced
materials) more attractive.
3. Aluminum: because of the large weight reduction associated with aluminum material (i.e.
60% lighter than steel) but generally lower yield strength (i.e. 40-60 ksi), aluminum drillingrisers can be used for weight reduction for the entire drilling riser (i.e. main tube and/or
auxiliary lines) but would be better suited for auxiliary lines keeping the riser main tube witha high yield strength material (X-80, X-100 or titanium); hence, illustrating the concept ofhybrid drilling risers. Thus, aluminum drilling risers could be used to drill through ultradeepwater depths with existing floaters. However, active work and studies are currently
conducted to investigate the potential corrosion issues that are associated with usingaluminum in seawater (i.e. chloride content) and the fatigue behavior of aluminum joints andthe welding process for 75-foot and 90-foot long riser tubes.
4. Composite materials: the oil and gas industry (i.e. Aker Solutions, Lincoln Composite) is
also currently investigating composite materials (i.e. carbon fiber) or hybrid risers that would
use a coating layer on a thin matrix made of high strength steel. Again, because of thedrastic weight reduction associated with composite materials (i.e. up to 75% lighter thansteel) and much higher yield strength (i.e. 250-500 ksi), composite drilling risers can be used
for weight reduction for the entire drilling riser (i.e. main tube and/or auxiliary lines). Thus,
similarly to X-100 material and titanium, drilling risers made of composite materials could be
used to drill through ultra-deepwater depths that have never been reached before with steel
material and also utilized for harsh environments with high pressure reservoirs (high mud

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

53 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

weight). However, the main disadvantage of composite products for the offshore industry isthat neither their performance nor their reliability have been field tested, and they havenever been deployed for deepwater applications. Also, great challenges need to be
overcome for welds and connectors when manufacturing 75-ft or 90-ft long riser joints.
5. Buoyancy systems: currently capable of equipping riser joints in up to 4572m (15,000 ft) of
water. Note that the greater the water depth, the larger the buoyancy systems become
because of the increased density of foam per volume that need to be employed to provide agood uplift force to the riser joint. Recent progress has enabled the buoyancy systems toprovide a much reduced buoyed weight in comparison with the riser joint's dry weight. The
foam material performance properties have improved also, and therefore do not always
require a larger diameter.
Keep in mind that high strength steel (i.e. 80 ksi) is currently the most widely used material for
deepwater drilling and drilling riser systems and is the material equipping the Chikyu riser joints
and riser systems. However, because the target would be to drill with a marine drilling riser inwater depths averaging greater than 3658m (12,000 ft) with drilling fluids up to 1.68 SG (14.0ppg), the technical limit of existing riser systems may be reached and therefore otherconfigurations have to be considered.
Figure 37 through Figure 40 shown below provide detailed calculations for the drilling riser
weight for four different configurations:
1. Current Cameron LoadKing drilling riser with 4,000,000 lbf tension capacity made ofsteel with X-80 material;
2. Hydrid riser with aluminum auxiliary lines;
3. Hybrid riser with titanium auxiliary lines;
4. Hybrid riser with composite auxiliary lines.
Note that the dry weight of the Cameron LoadKing 4.0 drilling riser in 4267m (14,000 ft) of wateris slightly greater than 4,500,000 lbs and that the five auxiliary lines account for almost half ofthe total weight of the drilling riser. In addition, advanced materials such as aluminum, titanium
and composite can significantly reduce the dry weight of the drilling riser by changing thematerial on the auxiliary lines from steel to aluminum, titanium or composite. In 4267m (14,000ft) of water, the aluminum hybrid configuration has a dry weight of slightly greater than
3,000,000 lbs, the titanium hybrid configuration has a dry weight of water slightly greater than
3,500,000 lbs, and the composite hybrid configuration has a dry weight of slightly greater than
2,800,000 lbs

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

54 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cameron LoadKing 4.0
RISER MAIN TUBE

CHOKE AND KILL LINESPAPI (with 1.25 Factor of Safety) =5000.0 psi

PAPI (with 1.25 Factor of Safety) =16961.5 psi

σy =
t=
OD =
OD =
ID =
ID =
Water Column =

σy =
t=
OD =
OD =
ID =
ID =
Water Column =As,fluid =80 ksi0.75 in
21 in
1.750 ft
19.5 in1.63 ft
14,000 ft
2
2.07 ft

As,fluid =56 ksi1.125 in
6.5 in0.542 ft
4.25 in
0.354167 ft
14,000 ft
2
0.10 ft

V fluid =29035.2 ft

V fluid =1379.2 ft

V fluid =217198.3 gallons

V fluid =10317.3 gallons

V fluid =Fluid Weight =Total Weight of Mud in 14,000 ft =3

As,steel =5171.4 bbl
8.6 ppg
1,867,905.2 lbs
20.33 ft

V steel =4638.8 ft

Steel Weight =Total Weight of Steel in 14,000 ft =TOTAL WEIGHT =V fluid =Fluid Weight =Total Weight of Mud in 14,000 ft =3

490 lb/ft
2,272,991.4 lbs
4,140,896.6 lbs

3

As,steel =245.6 bbl
0 ppg
0.0 lbs2
0.13 ft

V steel =1846.9 ft

PAPI (with 1.25 Factor of Safety) =3

Steel Weight =490 lb/ft
Total Weight of Steel in 14,000 ft = 904,987.3 lbs
TOTAL WEIGHT =904,987.3 lbs

BOOSTER LINE
σy =
t=
OD =
OD =
ID =
ID =
Water Column =3

3

HYDRAULIC LINE
9800.0 psi

PAPI (with 1.25 Factor of Safety) =8448.3 psi

σy =
t=
OD =
OD =
ID =
ID =
Water Column =As,fluid =56 ksi0.3125 in
3.625 in
0.302 ft
3 in
0.25 ft
14,000 ft
2
0.05 ft

V fluid =687.2 ft

As,fluid =56 ksi
0.5 in5 in
0.417 ft
4.0 in0.333333333 ft
14,000 ft
2
0.09 ft

V fluid =1221.7 ft

V fluid =9139.2 gallons

V fluid =5140.8 gallons

V fluid =Fluid Weight =Total Weight of Mud in 14,000 ft =217.6 bbl
0 ppg
0.0 lbs2
0.05 ft

V fluid =Fluid Weight =Total Weight of Mud in 14,000 ft =As,steel =122.4 bbl
0 ppg
0.0 lbs2
0.02 ft

V steel =316.2 ft

As,steel =V steel =Steel Weight =Total Weight of Steel in 14,000 ft =TOTAL WEIGHT =687.2 ft

3

3490 lb/ft
336,739.5 lbs
336,739.5 lbs

3

3

3

Steel Weight =490 lb/ft
Total Weight of Steel in 14,000 ft = 154,923.5 lbs
TOTAL WEIGHT =154,923.5 lbs

3

TOTAL WEIGHT = RISER + AUXILIARY LINES
Total Weight of Steel in 14,000 ft =Ratio Lines / Total Weight =4,574,629.0 lbs
50.31%

Figure 37. Cameron LoadKing Drilling Riser Dry Weight in 4267m of Water

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

55 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cameron LoadKing 4.0 with Aluminum Auxiliary Lines
RISER MAIN TUBE
σy =CHOKE AND KILL LINES
80 ksiSteel Weight =Total Weight of Steel in 14,000 ft =TOTAL WEIGHT =σy =3490 lb/ft
2,272,991.4 lbs
4,140,896.6 lbs

Aluminum Weight =170 lb/ft
Total Weight of Aluminum in 14,00 313,975.2 lbs
TOTAL WEIGHT =313,975.2 lbs

BOOSTER LINE

3

HYDRAULIC LINEσy =70 ksi

Aluminum Weight =Total Weight of Aluminum in 14,00
TOTAL WEIGHT =70 ksiσy =3

170 lb/ft
116,828.0 lbs
116,828.0 lbs

70 ksi

Aluminum Weight =Total Weight of Aluminum in 14,00
TOTAL WEIGHT =170 lb/ft
53,749.0 lbs
53,749.0 lbs

3

TOTAL WEIGHT = RISER + AUXILIARY LINES
Total Weight of Metal in 14,000 ft = 3,071,518.7 lbs
Ratio Lines / Total Weight =26.00%

Figure 38. Cameron LoadKing and Aluminum Lines Drilling Riser Dry Weight in 4267m of Water

Cameron LoadKing 4.0 with Titanium Auxiliary Lines
RISER MAIN TUBE
σy =CHOKE AND KILL LINES
80 ksiSteel Weight =Total Weight of Steel in 14,000 ft =TOTAL WEIGHT =σy =3490 lb/ft
2,272,991.4 lbs
4,140,896.6 lbs

3

Titanium Weight =280 lb/ft
Total Weight of Titanium in 14,000 517,135.6 lbs
TOTAL WEIGHT =517,135.6 lbs

BOOSTER LINEσy =HYDRAULIC LINE
130 ksiTitanium Weight =Total Weight of Titanium in 14,000
TOTAL WEIGHT =130 ksiσy =3

280 lb/ft
192,422.6 lbs
192,422.6 lbs

Titanium Weight =Total Weight of Titanium in 14,000
TOTAL WEIGHT =130 ksi
3

280 lb/ft
88,527.7 lbs
88,527.7 lbs

TOTAL WEIGHT = RISER + AUXILIARY LINES
Total Weight of Metal in 14,000 ft = 3,588,212.9 lbs
Ratio Lines / Total Weight =36.65%

Figure 39. Cameron LoadKing and Titanium Lines Drilling Riser Dry Weight in 4267m of Water

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

56 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cameron LoadKing 4.0 with Composite Auxiliary Lines
RISER MAIN TUBE
σy =CHOKE AND KILL LINES
80 ksiSteel Weight =Total Weight of Steel in 14,000 ft =TOTAL WEIGHT =σy =3490 lb/ft
2,272,991.4 lbs
4,140,896.6 lbs

Composite Weight =115 lb/ft
Total Weight of Composite in 14,00 212,395.0 lbs
TOTAL WEIGHT =212,395.0 lbs

BOOSTER LINEσy =3

HYDRAULIC LINE580 ksiComposite Weight =Total Weight of Composite in 14,00
TOTAL WEIGHT =580 ksiσy =3

115 lb/ft
79,030.7 lbs
79,030.7 lbs

580 ksiComposite Weight =115 lb/ft
Total Weight of Composite in 14,00 36,359.6 lbs
TOTAL WEIGHT =36,359.6 lbs

3

TOTAL WEIGHT = RISER + AUXILIARY LINES
Total Weight of Material in 14,000 f 2,813,171.6 lbs
Ratio Lines / Total Weight =19.20%

Figure 40. Cameron LoadKing and Composite Lines Drilling Riser Dry Weight in 4267m of Water

The figure below is a screenshot from DeepRiser software showing the input and specifications
for drilling riser joints with buoyancy foam that have been used to run the drilling riser analysis.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

57 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Figure 41. Example of a Typical 90-ft Long Drilling Riser Joint with Buoyancy Modules Input

4.3 Hydrodynamics in Ultra-deepwater
Wave and currents moving past the marine drilling riser place forces upon the riser causing it todisplace, rotate, and stress. The force loadings are calculated using the industry standard
Morison’s equation. This equation calculates the force per unit length along a cylindricalmember. Note that Morrison's Equation is nonlinear. The marine drilling riser is a drag-dominatedstructure (riser diameter is very small as compared to the wave length); therefore, the first halfof Morison’s equation will dominate the load calculation. The second half of the equation will
govern inertia-dominated structures, i.e., gravity base structures, whereby the base structure islarge as compared to the wavelength. Since a marine drilling riser is drag dominated, thevelocity variable is the dominant term because the force is proportional to velocity squared.
Environmental Criteria
The significant wave height and period used in the analyses and tied to the return period aresummarized in Figure 42 and Figure 43 below. Significant wave height is the average of thehighest one-third of the waves and is an industry used value. Since the drilling campaign should
last for about 6-12 months, the 10 year return period is sufficient to assess the maximum loads
that the vessel will most likely experience during the duration of the drilling campaign.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

58 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" ProgramWAVE DATA (NMRI : 1974‐1988)
LOCATION

Significant
Wave
Height (m)Maximum
Peak Period
Wave(s)
Height (m)Cocos Plate

1.0

1.7

7.0

Hawaii

4.0

6.8

9.0

Baja California

3.0

5.1

8.0

Figure 42. Wave Data for the 10 Year Return Period

LOCATION
Hawaii

Cocos Plate

Baja California

Depth (meters)
1500

1,000 3,650

1500

1,000 4,000

1500

1,000 4,300

2.5

1.00

0.50

2

0.75

0.50

3

1.25

0.60

0.25

0.25

0.25

Figure 43. Current Data for the 10 Year Return Period

Note that the current profile is not uniform and has a triangular or parabolic shape. This is ofimportance because experience and field studies have shown that usually, the more linear thecurrent profile is, the more prone to severe vortex-induced vibrations (VIV)0 the structuralmembers are (i.e. drilling riser for instance). Additionally, the wave spectrum that has been used
to model more complex random seas for the dynamic analysis has been chosen to be PiersonMoskowitz, which is usually a good choice for fully developed seas.
Drilling Riser Models
The connected and disconnected analyses (i.e. static and dynamic) are illustrated respectively
in Figure 44 and Figure 45. Figure 44 covers the scenario when the marine drilling riser isinstalled and connected to the BOP system in 3,650 - 4,300 meters of water (i.e. 12,000 14,000 feet). The Chikyu vessel and marine drilling riser are exposed from rather benign tomore extreme (i.e. 10 Year Return) environmental loadings.
The most critical variables in the analyses are waves, current, top tension, mud weight andvessel offset. Vessel offset is expressed as a percentage of water depth and says if the vessel
is upstream or downstream of the well. A value of -10% offset in 4267m (14,000 ft) of watersignifies the vessel is upstream 427m (1,400 ft) from the well. A value of +10% signifies thevessel is downstream 427m.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

59 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Figure 44. Schematic of Connected Riser Analysis Model
Figure 45 below illustrates two different disconnected scenarios:Soft hang-off analysis which covers the scenario when the drilling riser is still connected to(i.e. hanging on) the tensioning system and where the telescopic joint supports the weight ofthe drilling riser;Hard hang-off analysis which covers the case when the drilling riser is locked in the riser
spider and gimbal components at the rig floor with the tensioning system being
disconnected and also where the telescopic joint is collapsed.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

60 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Figure 45. Schematic of Disconnected Riser Analysis Model

Figure 46 and Figure 46 illustrate the finite element models created to model the complex
Chikyu drilling vessel and its riser components interaction, the drilling riser joints (i.e. pup joints,
slick joint and buoyed joints), the subsea components (LMRP, BOP and wellhead), and the nonlinear soil interaction.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

61 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Chikyuand areamodeling forwave andcurrentloading

Drilling
Riser

SubseaSystemsnear seabed
and Soil
Model

Figure 46. Finite Element Software Models

Figure 47. Example of Riser Stack-up in 4267m of Water for the Baja Location

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

62 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Effective Tension And Minimum Tension Required For Drilling Operations
One very important characteristic of a marine drilling riser is the fact that the riser can buckle
even when the vessel is pulling on the riser with a force greater than the weight of the riser (i.e.
total buoyed riser weight). Because of internal pressure, it is effective tension and not actual orreal tension that controls buckling of a marine drilling riser.
Effective tension is a mathematically derived expression contained in the equation of motion fora marine drilling riser. Effective tension must always be a positive value to keep the riser frombuckling. The effective tension is a function of real tension (as calculated by statics), riser ID (i.e.
internal diameter) and OD (i.e. outside diameter), internal pressure, and external pressure. Notethat internal pressure multiplied by the internal riser ID area decreases the effective tension
value, while external pressure multiplied by the external riser OD area increases the effective
tension value. The problem is that the external pressure on a marine drilling riser is fixed (i.e.
seawater = 1.03 SG / 8.6 ppg) while the internal pressure is variable based on drilling conditions(i.e. mud weight = 1.03 - 1.68 SG). Thus, the Chikyu tension must support not only the marine
drilling riser weight but also must support the weight of the riser contents (i.e. mud). Based on
the maximum mud density of about 1.44 SG (12.0 ppg), water depth ranging between 3658m
and 4267m (12,000 - 14,000 ft), and the connected riser configuration, the minimum tension forstability per API RP 16Q has been calculated using DeepRiser built-for-purpose finite element
analysis riser program. Note that the minimum tension calculated assumes one tensioner failureand 95% tensioner efficiency.
Figure 48 through Figure 50 shown below illustrate the static analysis results for a range of mud
weight (0.9 SG to over 2.4 SG) with the 4,800,000 lbs tensioning system located on top of the
Chikyu moon-pool (i.e. red line). Both the minimum tensioner setting for stability whenconnected per API RP 16Q (i.e. blue line) and the minimum tensioner setting for a disconnect
scenario (i.e. black line) are displayed. Even though applying API 90% of maximum capacity
which yields a total tensioning capability of 4,320,000 lbs, static analysis show that even steel
riser can be used to drill in 4267m (14,000 ft) of water. Thus, from a buckling and minimum
tension required standpoint the Chikyu tension capacity and drilling riser tension capacity are
sufficient enough to prevent any type of buckling during the drilling operations. Note that theminimum tension required to drill in 3657m (12,000 ft) of water (i.e. Cocos Plate) ranges
between 1,000 kips when drilling with seawater to 2,800 kips when drilling with 1.92 SG (16.0ppg) mud. Also, the minimum tension required to drill in 3962m (13,000 ft) of water (i.e. Hawaii)
ranges between 1,100 kips when drilling with seawater to 3,200 kips when drilling with 1.92 SG(16.0 ppg) mud. In addition, the minimum tension required to drill in 4267m (14,000 ft) of water(i.e. Baja) ranges between 1,200 kips when drilling with seawater to 3,400 kips when drillingwith 1.92 SG mud.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

63 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

4
3
2

0.9 SG
1

Minimum Tensioner Setting (kips x 10^3)

5Minimum Tensioner Settings

7.5

1.2 SG

1.5 SG

1.8 SG2.1 SG2.4 SG2.7 SG

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

3.0 SG
25

Mud Weight (ppg)
Figure 48. Minimum Tensioner Settings for 3,657 meters (12,000 feet) – Cocos Plate

43
2

0.9 SG
1

Minimum Tensioner Setting (kips x 10^3)

5Minimum Tensioner Settings

7.5

1.2 SG

1.5 SG

1.8 SG2.1 SG2.4 SG

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

2.7 SG
22.5

Mud Weight (ppg)
Figure 49. Minimum Tensioner Settings for 3962 meters (13,000 feet) – Hawaii

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

64 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

4
3
2

0.9 SG
1

Minimum Tensioner Setting (kips x 10^3)

5Minimum Tensioner Settings

7.5

1.2 SG

1.5 SG

1.8 SG2.1 SG2.4 SG

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

2.7 SG
22.5

Mud Weight (ppg)
Figure 50. Minimum Tensioner Settings for 4,267 meters (14,000 feet) – Baja

However, the limitations of steel drilling riser and ultra-deepwater drilling capability arecontrolled by the different operating limits of critical riser drilling components. Indeed, API 16Q Recommended Practice for Design, Selection, Operation and Maintenance of Marine Drilling
Riser Systems details the operating limits for a given marine drilling riser and for deepwaterlocations. The following figures summarize these limits as a function of materials used for theriser joints. The critical parameters are notably the amount of flex/ball joint rotation, maximum
stress and vessel tension. Note that the operating limits are divided between the riser connected
and riser disconnected configurations, and furthermore the riser connected configuration canalso be divided between the drilling mode and the non-drilling mode.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

65 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

DRILLING RISER ‐ STEEL ‐ X‐80 MATERIALDESIGN PARAMETER

RISER CONNECTEDDRILLING
NON‐DRILLINGRISERDISCONNECTED

Mean Flex / Ball Joint Angle

Mean 2.0 degrees

N/A

N/A

Maximum Flex / Ball Joint Angle

Max 4.0 degrees

90% available(9.0 degrees)

90% available(9.0 degrees)

Maximum VME Stress (METH "B")
Deepwater Well

0.67*minimum yield
point (53.6 ksi)

0.67*minimum yield
point (53.6 ksi)

0.67*minimum yield
point (53.6 ksi)

Maximum Tension Setting

90% of capacity(4,320 kips)

90% of capacity(4,320 kips)

N/A

Figure 51. Design and Operating Limits for Marine Drilling Risers – Steel – X-80

DRILLING RISER ‐ STEEL ‐ X‐100 MATERIALDESIGN PARAMETER
Maximum VME Stress (METH "B")
Deepwater Well

RISER CONNECTEDDRILLING
NON‐DRILLING
0.67*minimum yield
point (67 ksi)

0.67*minimum yield
point (67 ksi)

RISER
DISCONNECTED
0.67*minimum yield
point (67 ksi)

Figure 52. Design and Operating Limits for Marine Drilling Risers – Steel – X-100

DRILLING RISER ‐ ALUMINUM AUXILIARY LINESDESIGN PARAMETER
Maximum VME Stress (METH "B")
Deepwater Well

RISER CONNECTEDDRILLING
NON‐DRILLING
0.67*minimum yield
point (46.9 ksi)

0.67*minimum yield
point (46.9 ksi)

RISER
DISCONNECTED
0.67*minimum yield
point (46.9 ksi)

Figure 53. Design and Operating Limits for Marine Drilling Risers – Aluminum

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

66 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

DRILLING RISER ‐ TITANIUM AUXILIARY LINESDESIGN PARAMETER
Maximum VME Stress (METH "B")
Deepwater Well

RISER CONNECTEDDRILLING
NON‐DRILLING
0.67*minimum yield
point (87.1 ksi)

0.67*minimum yield
point (87.1 ksi)

RISER
DISCONNECTED
0.67*minimum yield
point (87.1 ksi)

Figure 54. Design and Operating Limits for Marine Drilling Risers – Titanium

DRILLING RISER ‐ COMPOSITE AUXILIARY LINESDESIGN PARAMETER
Maximum VME Stress (METH "B")
Deepwater Well

RISER CONNECTEDDRILLING
NON‐DRILLING
0.67*minimum yield
point (388.6 ksi)

0.67*minimum yield
point (388.6 ksi)

RISER
DISCONNECTED
0.67*minimum yield
point (388.6 ksi)

Figure 55. Design and Operating Limits for Marine Drilling Risers – Composite Materials

4.4 Dynamic Analyses – Frequency and Time Domain
Maximum VME Stress in Drilling Riser
As with most marine structures the maximum Von Mises (VME) stress must be controlled.
Depending on the material being used, the marine drilling riser has a minimum yield point of 70
ksi for aluminum, 80 ksi for steel, 130 ksi for titanium and 550 ksi for composite materials.
The maximum VME stresses are summarized in figures 56 to 58. The maximum allowablestress depends on the material being used. Note that the non-drilling mode covers operations
such as circulating and tripping the drill-pipe. However, rotating the drill-pipe is covered by the
drilling mode. These figures plot the VME stress as a function of the Chikyu vessel offset for thefollowing cases:Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Cocos Plate;

Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Hawaii;Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Baja

One can note that when drilling with seawater, the stresses in the riser are just below the
maximum allowable. However, when using a fluid to drill that is heavier than seawater, theChikyu operating envelope is greatly reduced for the Cocos Plate (i.e. 3657m of water) andshows the limits of steel riser in water depths greater than 3657m where API maximum
allowable stresses criteria in the drilling riser cannot be satisfied. However, when using titanium
or composite materials, this criteria is satisfied for a wide range of vessel offset.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

67 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cocos Plate ‐ Dynamic ‐ Drilling ‐ 12,000'
Maximum Stress in Riser ‐ 10 Year Return Period
90
80
70

VME Stress (ksi)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

<== Upstream

‐2

0

2

4

Chikyu Offset (% of Water Depth)

8.6 ppg
Steel Riser Minimum Yield Point (80 ksi)
Steel Riser Minimum Yield Point (100 ksi)
Aluminum Riser Minimum Yield Point (70 ksi)
Titanium Riser Minimum Yield Point (130 ksi)
Composite Riser Minimum Yield Point (550 ksi)

6

8

10

Downstream ==>12.0 ppg
VME Stress X‐80 (53.6 ksi)
VME Stress X‐100 (67 ksi)
VME Stress Aluminum (46.9 ksi)
VME Stress Titanium (87.1 ksi)
VME Stress Composite (388.6 ksi)

Figure 56. VME Stress – Cocos Plate – 10 Year Return

Hawaii ‐ Dynamic ‐ Drilling ‐ 13,000'
Maximum Stress in Riser ‐ 10 Year Return Period
90
80
70

VME Stress (ksi)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
‐10

‐8

‐6

<== Upstream

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

Chikyu Offset (% of Water Depth)

8.6 ppg
Steel Riser Minimum Yield Point (80 ksi)
Steel Riser Minimum Yield Point (100 ksi)
Aluminum Riser Minimum Yield Point (70 ksi)
Titanium Riser Minimum Yield Point (130 ksi)
Composite Riser Minimum Yield Point (550 ksi)

6

8

10

Downstream ==>12.0 ppg
VME Stress X‐80 (53.6 ksi)
VME Stress X‐100 (67 ksi)
VME Stress Aluminum (46.9 ksi)
VME Stress Titanium (87.1 ksi)
VME Stress Composite (388.6 ksi)

Figure 57. VME Stress – Hawaii – 10 Year Return

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

68 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Baja ‐ Dynamic ‐ Drilling ‐ 14,000'
Maximum Stress in Riser ‐ 10 Year Return Period
90
80
70

VME Stress (ksi)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
‐10

‐8

‐6

<== Upstream

‐4

‐2

0

2

Chikyu Offset (% of Water Depth)

8.6 ppg
Steel Riser Minimum Yield Point (80 ksi)
Steel Riser Minimum Yield Point (100 ksi)
Aluminum Riser Minimum Yield Point (70 ksi)
Titanium Riser Minimum Yield Point (130 ksi)
Composite Riser Minimum Yield Point (550 ksi)

4

6

8

10

Downstream ==>12.0 ppg
VME Stress X‐80 (53.6 ksi)
VME Stress X‐100 (67 ksi)
VME Stress Aluminum (46.9 ksi)
VME Stress Titanium (87.1 ksi)
VME Stress Composite (388.6 ksi)

Figure 58. VME Stress – Time Domain – 10 Year Return

Maximum Slip Joint Stroke
As the vessel heaves and moves off location the slip joint (i.e. telescopic joint) strokes in andout to maintain a connection with the marine drilling riser and the Chikyu while keeping thetension constant at the top of the riser. The slip joint on the Chikyu has a limitation of about 60foot stroke.
Figure 59 plots the telescopic joint stroke as a function of vessel offset for the following cases:Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Cocos Plate;

Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Hawaii;Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Baja

One can note that for the different dynamic analyses, the maximum stroke of the telescopic joint
remains below the maximum allowable stroke of the slip joint present onboard the Chikyu vessel
when the vessel offset is ranging between -9% to -7% and +7% to +9% depending on the water
depths (i.e. 3657m – 4267m) and drilling fluid (i.e. 1.03-1.44 SG).

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

69 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3 Locations (Cocos Plate, Hawaii and Baja) ‐ Dynamic ‐ Drilling
Maximum Slip Joint Stroke ‐ 10 Year Return Period
80

Max Slip Joint Stroke (ft)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

<== Upstream

‐2

0

2

Chikyu Offset (% of Water Depth)

4

6

8

10

Downstream ==>Cocos Plate ‐ 8.6 ppg

Cocos Plate ‐ 9.5 ppg

Hawaii ‐ 8.6 ppg

Hawaii ‐ 12.0 ppg

Offshore Baja ‐ 8.6 ppg

Offshore Baja ‐ 12.0 ppg

Slip Joint Stroke = 60 feet

Figure 59. Maximum Slip Joint Stroke – 3 Offshore Locations – 10 Year Return

Rotation at Top of Riser (Upper Flex Joint)
This is the rotation which occurs at the top of the marine drilling riser. During the non-drilling
period of 10 year return, the maximum riser angle should not exceed 9 degrees and the mean
angle should not exceed 4 degrees to prevent the flex / ball joint from severe damage. Figure 60
summarizes respectively the mean rotation at the top of the riser for the following cases:Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Cocos Plate;

Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Hawaii;Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Baja

As one can see, because of the maximum allowable rotation at the upper flex joint, the vessel
operating window is comprised between -3.5% and +2%.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

70 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3 Locations (Cocos Plate, Hawaii and Baja) ‐ Dynamic ‐ Drilling
Upper Flex Joint Rotation ‐ 10 Year Return Period
10

UFJ Rotation (degrees)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
‐10

‐8

‐6

<== Upstream

‐4

‐2

0

2

Chikyu Offset (% of Water Depth)

Cocos Plate ‐ 8.6 ppg
Hawaii ‐ 8.6 ppg
Offshore Baja ‐ 8.6 ppg
Mean UFJ Angle while drilling = 2 degrees

4

6

8

10

Downstream ==>Cocos Plate ‐ 12.0 ppg
Hawaii ‐ 12.0 ppg
Offshore Baja ‐ 12.0 ppg

Figure 60. Mean Upper Flex Joint Rotation – 3 Offshore Locations – 10 Year Return

Rotation at BOP Flex Joint (Lower Flex Joint)
This is the rotation which occurs at the top of the BOP (flex joint). Figure 61 summarizes
respectively the mean rotation at the top of the BOP for the following cases:Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Cocos Plate;

Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Hawaii;Drilling with seawater (1.03 SG/8.6 ppg) and mud (1.44 SG/12.0 ppg) at Baja

As one can see, because of the maximum allowable rotation at the upper flex joint, the vessel
operating window is comprised between -7% and +5%.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

71 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3 Locations (Cocos Plate, Hawaii and Baja) ‐ Dynamic ‐ Drilling
Lower Flex Joint Rotation ‐ 10 Year Return Period
10

UFJ Rotation (degrees)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

<== Upstream

‐2

0

2

Chikyu Offset (% of Water Depth)

Cocos Plate ‐ 8.6 ppg
Hawaii ‐ 8.6 ppg
Offshore Baja ‐ 8.6 ppg
Mean UFJ Angle while drilling = 2 degrees

4

6

8

10

Downstream ==>Cocos Plate ‐ 12.0 ppg
Hawaii ‐ 12.0 ppg
Offshore Baja ‐ 12.0 ppg

Figure 61. Mean Lower Flex Joint Rotation – 3 Offshore Locations – 10 Year ReturnHang-Off Analysis Results
Hang-off analysis can be divided into two sub-analysis:Drilling riser soft hang-off;Drilling riser hard hang-off

Soft hang-off analysis covers the scenario when the drilling riser is still connected to (i.e.
hanging on) the tensioning system and where the telescopic joint supports the weight of thedrilling riser.
Hard hang-off analysis covers the case when the drilling riser is locked in the riser spider andgimbal components at the rig floor with the tensioning system being disconnected and also
where the telescopic joint is collapsed.
From both frequency domain and time domain dynamic analyses, the rotation of the upper flex
joint for either soft hang-off or hard hang-off (0.5 degrees) remains well below the allowablemean upper flex joint rotation (2.0 degrees). In addition, the minimum moon-pool clearance has
been calculated at about 3.57m (11.7 ft) which is also well within the Chikyu moon-pool usable
opening.
In conclusion, during the disconnected mode, riser hang-off will not be an issue even during the
10 year return period for wave and current.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

72 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Chikyu Operating Window
Figure 62 summarizes the operating window for the Chikyu drill-ship following API RP 16Q
operating envelope. Note that the operating window is mainly limited by the VME stress.
However, the rotation of the flex joints and telescopic joint stroke while drifting off location are
somehow a limiting factor as well.
Chikyu ‐ Operational Window during Drilling Operations
Upper Flex Joint (Top of Riser)
Lower Flex Joint (@ BOP)VME Stress (highly Dependent on Riser Materials)
Slip Joint Stroke
‐10

‐9

‐8

‐7

‐6

‐5

‐4

‐3

‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
Vessel Offset (% of water depth)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Figure 62. Chikyu Operating Window – Drilling Mode

Modal Analysis
Modal analysis is run to identify the dynamic behavior of a structural member when submitted toa given loading condition. Periodic loadings usually are of the most interest for the structuraldynamic engineer and therefore are often a mandatory check for drilling risers that are
submitted to periodic loadings such as wave and current. The main responses from a modal
analysis are the natural frequencies associated to the Eigenvalues and also the deformed
shaped of the Eigen modes (i.e. mode shapes).
Theoretically, an infinite number of modes for a vibrating structural member such as a drillingriser are possible. The contribution of higher modes towards the response is usually considered
to be more negligible than the first modes. Note that in computation and for this VIV study, thefirst 50 modes have been calculated and are listed in Figure 63

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

73 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Eigenpair No. Period (s) Frequency (Hz)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

157.5926
157.565
75.850975.7952
50.93450.8989
37.93937.911430.452130.430725.28625.2678
21.7361
21.720918.960218.9471
16.8851
16.8734
15.1648
15.1545
13.80713.7976
12.6327
12.6245
11.6701

Eigenpair No. Period (s) Frequency (Hz)0.00630.00630.01320.01320.01960.0196
0.02640.02640.03280.03290.03950.03960.046
0.046
0.05270.05280.05920.05930.06590.066
0.07240.07250.07920.07920.0857

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

11.662210.8248
10.8179
10.1071
10.1005
9.46759.46178.909
8.90328.41268.4075
7.966
7.961
7.568
7.56347.2018
7.1973
6.8781
6.874
6.57386.56976.30416.30036.0481
6.04440.0857
0.09240.09240.09890.099
0.10560.10570.11220.11230.11890.11890.12550.12560.13210.13220.13890.13890.14540.14550.15210.15220.15860.15870.16530.1654

Figure 63. Modal Analysis – Modes from 1 to 50 – 8.6 ppg mud – 14,000 feet Water Depth

The figure shown above lists the first 50 Eigenvalues and their associated periods andfrequencies. Note that for the 1st mode, the Eigen period is about 157 seconds and thus the
Eigen frequency is 0.006 Hertz.

4.5 Vortex Induced Vibrations Screening
Introduction
When any fluid flow passes through a structural member such as a drilling riser, it may cause an
unsteady flow pattern due to vortex shedding. The current state of laboratory work is mainly
focused on the interaction of a circular cylinder with only one degree of freedom (i.e. transverse
motion) under a two or three dimensional flow.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

74 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Vortex Induced Oscillations
When the vortex shedding frequency f shedding of the drilling riser coincides with one of thenatural frequencies f n of the structural member (i.e. drilling riser) for a given critical current
velocity, resonance vibrations occur (i.e. VIV). The phenomenon of lock-in mechanism takes
place when the vortex shedding frequency approaches the natural frequency of the drilling riser.
As discussed previously, the vortex shedding frequency follows the Strouhal number andcurrent velocity relationship. Lock-in to one of the casing Eigen frequencies can be divided into
two types of VIV:
1. In-line VIV which is a vibration mode where the casing vibrates in a pattern parallel with
the incident current flow.
2. Cross-flow VIV which is a vibration mode where the casing moves perpendicularly to thefluid flow.
The results of the VIV analysis using SHEAR7 are shown below.

VIV Analysis ‐ Response Parameters ‐ Generic Case ‐ 14,000 Feet
Fundamental natural frequency = 0.00635 (Hz)Maximum flow velocity = 3.000 ft/s
Minimum flow velocity = 0.2500 ft/s
The highest Strouhal frequency is: 0.18758 (Hz)The lowest Strouhal frequency is: 0.01066 (Hz)Minimum wavelength corresponding to the maximum flow velocity = 800 (ft)Figure 64. VIV Analysis – Main Parameters Calculations

Riser Fatigue Assessment
Figure 65 below presents the fatigue damage and fatigue life in years for the drilling riser
calculated at eleven different locations along the entire water column (i.e. 4267m). It appears
that the fatigue life (i.e. unfactored without any factor if safety) ranges from 22 years to infinite(i.e. greater than a thousand years).

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

75 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

VIV Analysis ‐ Fatigue Damage Calculations
x/L

Depth below
MSL (ft)

Displacement

A/D

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Mean Sea Level
1,400
280
420
5,600
7,000
8,400
9,800
11,20012,600Seabed

0.032
0.34
0.428
0.507
0.598
0.722
0.861
1.041
1.303
1.3081
N/A

0.01
0.107
0.135
0.16
0.189
0.228
0.272
0.329
0.412
0.436
N/A

Acceleration Stress
2.89E‐02
2.55E‐01
2.95E‐01
3.46E‐01
4.03E‐01
4.93E‐01
6.02E‐01
7.49E‐01
9.58E‐01
1.11E+00
N/A

3.86E‐02
1.92E‐01
2.18E‐01
2.49E‐01
2.86E‐01
3.42E‐01
3.94E‐01
5.56E‐01
8.20E‐01
1.10E+00
N/A

Damage(1/years)

Fatigue(years)

1.50E‐07
8.62E‐05
1.04E‐04
1.63E‐04
2.60E‐04
4.82E‐04
8.34E‐04
3.01E‐03
1.31E‐02
4.51E‐02
N/A

6.67E+06
1.16E+04
9.62E+03
6.13E+03
3.85E+03
2.07E+03
1.20E+03
3.32E+02
7.63E+01
2.22E+01
N/A

Figure 65. VIV Analysis – Fatigue Damage Calculations

4.6 Conclusions for the Drilling Riser Analysis
A detailed riser analysis using the most recent industry standards and software (DeepRiser and
SHEAR7) has been carried out on the Chikyu drilling riser with extended buoyed joints to cover
the ultra-deepwater depths of Cocos Plate, Hawaii or Baja locations. In addition, calculations
and analyses were performed for hybrid configurations with aluminum, titanium and composite
materials in order to show the limitations and benefits of advanced materials.
From this new set of analyses and sensitivity studies, it appears that steel riser can be usedwithout changing current industry practices to a maximum of 3657m (12,000 ft) water depth andfor certain drilling conditions (i.e. mud weight and metocean data). Beyond this water depth,some critical response from the drilling riser (i.e. VME stress) and riser components (i.e. rotationof the upper and lower joints) are violated per API 16Q criteria if steel riser is employed to drill
an ultra-deepwater well. In order to push the envelope using steel material, the maximum
allowable VME will have to be increased from 67% of minimum yield to a higher ratio. Note that
API 16Q currently does not address riser response criteria for ultra-deepwater wells with water
depth greater than 3048m (10,000 ft), and note also that the VME criteria is limited to 67% ofminimum yield to avoid accounting for and tracking riser joint fatigue during the life of the riser.
To push the envelope, and to be able to use steel riser for water depth greater than 3657m, a
new set of riser response criteria will have to be develop internal and a design/operational risk
assessment will have to be conducted. Regarding the VME maximum limit, this could very well
be increased from 67% to 80% or 90% but the fatigue damage of the riser joints will also haveto be monitored during the entire life of the drilling riser. This is feasible for drilling operations
conducted with the Chikyu since it currently uses a riser monitoring system which is capable oftracking stress and fatigue in the drilling riser. Also, tests to increase the mean rotation angle
that can be allowed at the two flex joints will have be performed. Again, this does not constitutea real problem and can be achieved when working closely with the riser component
manufacturer and a testing facility.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

76 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

However, the technical solution that would follow current API 16Q riser response criteria andthat will enable to drill in water depths up to 4267m (i.e. Hawaii and Baja) will be to use hybrid
riser joints or riser joints with advanced materials such as titanium or composite. The highminimum yield and strength to weight ratio of titanium and composite materials relative to steel
would not require any adjustment to API 16Q recommended practices criteria, or a need forriser component limits, or even risk assessments. Nonetheless, the high cost associated withtitanium and lack of experience with composite materials for ultra-deepwater offshore
applications can be seen as a different technical limitation for conducting drilling operations inwater depths greater than 3657m (12,000 ft). Composite materials seem very attractive, but
composite materials have not been tested or field deployed for deepwater drilling riser systems.
Indeed, the ability to keep the same weight and strength for a given riser joint made ofcomposite material as well as maintaining the structural integrity of the drilling riser connectors
remain a great challenge to be resolved.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

77 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5 Revised Operational Time Estimates
The High Impact System study included a revised operational time estimate for the Base Case
wellbore configuration at the Hawaii location to demonstrate how the overall operational time
can be reduced using the technology currently available in the oil and gas industry. This report
expands on that work to include nominal time estimates for the three wellbore configuration
options discussed in Section 3.1 at all three candidate locations. In addition, a probabilistic
methodology for estimating operational time was also used to gain a better understanding of theeffect of the uncertainty around bit performance. As shown in the following table (and detailed inAppendix 1), Minimum, Most Likely, and Maximum values of ROP and bit life were assigned,
and the operational time for each of the 18 cases was calculated using a Monte Carlo simulator
to provide P10, P50, and P90 values in addition to the nominal time estimate. Finally, theoperations options were expanded from RCB Core and Drill to include Conventional Coring andUnderreaming or Hole Opening.
Rate of Penetration
by Formation (m/hr)
Sediments
Lava
Dikes
Textured Gabbros
Foliated Gabbros
Layered Gabbros
MantleBit Life (hrs)<= 6706m> 6706m

Low
2.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9

RCB Core
ML
High
4.0
15.2
2.1
6.1
2.1
6.1
2.1
6.1
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.2
2.1

Low
30
20

Bit Life
ML
110
70

Low
9.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.5
1.5
1.5

Drill
ML
21.3
9.1
9.1
9.1
3.0
3.0
1.8

High
30.5
21.3
21.3
21.3
9.1
9.1
6.1

Low
3.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.9

Conv Core
ML
High
12.2
15.2
4.6
6.1
4.6
6.1
4.6
6.1
2.4
4.6
2.4
4.6
1.5
3.0

Low
9.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.5
1.5
0.9

UR/HO
ML
12.2
7.6
7.6
7.6
2.4
2.4
1.5

High
24.4
9.1
9.1
9.1
6.1
6.1
4.6

High
150
110

Figure 66. Stochastic ROP Variable Ranges

Note that the operational estimates were done only for drill/core options B and D as previously
described in Section 2.1.3 since these adequately illustrate the philosophical differences
between the amount of time spent coring versus time spent drilling.
Key Assumptions
 The assumptions used to develop the operational sequences for each case are consistent
with what was done during the Feasibility Study in order to allow a meaningful comparison
between the two.
As such, they are not necessarily optimized. For example, a hole
opening run after a core run could be done while drilling the next section, but for thisexercise, they are considered to be separate operations.


Operational time is defined as the time spent on location drilling/coring to the mantle. The
overall project time includes the operational time and the time required to mobilize the
Chikyu to and from the location.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

78 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

It is assumed that the Chikyu would be mobilized from Japan to the site and then be demobilized back to Japan at the conclusion of the project. Note that this transit time isconsidered to be a set number of days and is not considered in the probabilistic calculations.
Location
Cocos
HawaiiBaja

Mobilization
De‐Mobilization
Distance (km) Time (days) Distance (km) Time (days)
10,622
23.9
10,622
23.9
5,955
13.4
5,955
13.4
8,047
18.1
8,047
18.1

Total
Time
47.8
26.8
36.2

Figure 67. Mob / De-Mob Assumptions

To simplify the calculations, it is assumed that a bit trip is made at each stratigraphictransition. This will tend to slightly overestimate the number of bit trips that are required. In
addition, conventional core barrel runs are treated like bit runs. This will tend to slightly
underestimate the number of trips required since the length of the core barrel is notconsidered over the cored interval.



It is assumed that the largest hole size that can be conventionally cored without having toopen the hole after coring is 14-3/4". The maximum hole size that can be rotary cored withhaving to open the hole is 9-7/8".



It is assumed that 2 days are spent running wireline logs at each casing point, and 3 days at
TD.



The RCB wireline trip time and bit trip time assumptions are the same as what was usedduring the Feasibility Study.

The nominal time is determined using the most likely values of ROP and bit life. The P10,
P50, and P90 values are determined only for the operational time estimate using the fullrange of possible ROP's using the Monte Carlo simulator.



5% non-productive time (NPT) is assumed to account for down-hole related problems basedon previous IODP experience. This does not include weather or rig equipment related NPT.

5.1 Results Summary
A summary of the revised operational time estimates for all three locations is provided below.
Figure 68 is a tabular listing of results for all 18 cases. Figures 69 through 71 graphicallycompare the results of each case by location, and Figures 72 through 74 compare the drilling
curves for each case by location. The detailed results for each case are provided in thesubsequent sections.
Recall that:

Case 2: Assumes that long sections of continuous core are taken across the major lithologic
and geophysical transition intervals of key sections. For the time estimate it was assumed

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

79 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programthat the upper third of each main stratigraphic interval was cored, the middle third was drilled
and the lower third was cored.
Case 4: Assumes that the hole is drilled to the Moho and that just the mantle is cored.

Subcategory "a" is the Base Case wellbore configuration.

Subcategory "b' is the Deepwater wellbore configuration

Subcategory "c' is the Expandable wellbore configuration.

Location
Cocos

Water
Total
Depth (m) Depth (m)
3,650
9,900

Hawaii

4,050

10,750

Baja

4,300

10,400

Case
2a
2b
2c
4a
4b
4c
2a
2b
2c
4a
4b
4c
2a
2b
2c
4a
4b
4c

Nominal
228
272
289
202
220
223
271
319
341
221
242
244
251
308
327
208
229
231

Revised Operational Time (days)
Project
P10
P50
276
188
212
320
231
257
337
247
273
250
152
180
269
185
217
271
175
204
298
232
260
346
280
310
368
294
324
248
165
198
239
185
217
271
188
223
287
221
247
345
269
299
363
283
313
244
158
188
265
179
207
267
178
207

P90
251
298
314
220
268
248
303
362
375
252
268
275
284
342
364
232
257
259

Feasibility Study
Nominal Project
564
617
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
374
418
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
688
737
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
422
443
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
807
866
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
386
425
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐

Figure 68. Operations Time Results for all Cases

Note that there has been a significant decrease in the latest time estimates compared to thoseof the original feasibility study. The average time for all the cases is 258 days. The lowest
estimate is 152 days and the highest is 375 days.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

80 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Case comparison by location
400
350
300
250

Nominal200

Project

150

P10
P50

100

P90

50
0
C‐2a

C‐2b

C‐2c

C‐4a

C‐4b

C‐4c

Cocos Location: Operational Days Comparison By Case

Figure 69.Cocos Location – Ops Time Comparison

400
350
300
Nominal250

Project
200

P10

150

P50

100

P90

50
0
H‐2a

H‐2b

H‐2c

H‐4a

H‐4b

H‐4c

Figure 70. Hawaii Location – Ops Time Comparison

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

81 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

400
350
300
Nominal250

Project
200

P10

150

P50

100

P90

50
0
B‐2a

B‐2b

B‐2c

B‐4a

B‐4b

B‐4c

Figure 71. Baja Location – Ops Time Comparison



Drilling curve comparison by location0

Cocos Location Drilling Curve Comparison
1000
2000
Case 2a
3000

Case 2bCase 2cDepth (m)4000

Case 4aCase 4b

5000

Case 4c
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Project Days

Figure 72. Cocos Location Drilling Curve Comparison

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

82 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program0

Hawaii Location Drilling Curve Comparison
1000
2000
Case 2a

3000

Case 2bDepth (m)4000

Case 2c
Case 4a

5000

Case 4b
6000

Case 4c

7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Project Days

Figure 73. Hawaii Location Drilling Curve Comparison0

Baja Location Drilling Curve Comparison
1000
2000
Case 2a

3000

Case 2bDepth (m)4000

Case 2c
Case 4a

5000

Case 4b
6000

Case 4c

7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Project Days

Figure 74. Baja Location Drilling Curve Comparison

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

83 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.2 Cocos Location Operational Time Estimates
5.2.1 Case 2a Operations Time:
This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. However for the
Cocos location it is assumed that the sediments, lava and dike intervals do not need to be coredbecause of previous IODP experience on the 1256D hole. A summary of the time estimate forthis case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 30"
DRill Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 13‐3/8" Casing
Core/UR Dikes
Core Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core Textured Gabbros
Core Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core Foliated Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig

Interval Cum
Days
Days
24.0
0.5
0.5
1.4
1.9
3.0
4.9
3.0
7.9
1.1
9.0
4.1
13.1
4.9
18.0
6.0
24.0
3.2
27.2
2.6
29.8
2.0
31.8
2.6
34.4
5.6
40.0
4.8
44.8
5.7
50.5
13.2
63.7
13.3
77.0
9.0
86.0
14.1 100.1
12.8 112.9
14.9 127.8
13.6 141.4
8.0 149.4
61.8 211.2
11.0 222.2
3.0 225.2
3.0 228.2
24.0

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval Avg
(m)
m/day

3,650
3,711

3,711
3,885

61 121.92
174
124

3,885
3,900
4,550

3,900
4,550
5,335

15
650
785

14
159
160

5,335
5,350
5,467
5,583
5,700
5,933
6,166
6,400
6,857

5,350
5,467
5,583
5,700
5,933
6,166
6,400
6,857
7,400

15
117
117
117
233
233
233
457
543

5
45
58
45
42
49
41
35
41

7,400
7,860
8,314
8,772
9,229
9,400

7,860
8,314
8,772
9,229
9,400
9,900

460
454
457
457
171
500

33
35
31
34
21
8

Total Core/Drill Days = 228
Total Project Days = 276
Figure 75. Cocos Location - Case 2a: Operational Phase Summary

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

84 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

44% of the hole is cored, and 56% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
2,761 44.2%
3,489 55.8%
6,250 100%

Days
54
31
85

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1
Sediments
1
Sediments
2
Sediments
3
Lava
4
Dikes
5
Dikes
6
Dikes
7
Textured Gabbros
8
Textured Gabbros
9
Textured Gabbros
10
Foliated Gabbros
11
Foliated Gabbros
12
Foliated Gabbros
13
Layered Gabbros
14
Layered Gabbros
15
Layered Gabbros
16
Layered Gabbros
17
Layered Gabbros
18
Layered Gabbros
19
Layered Gabbros
20
Mantle

From
3650
3711
3885
3900
4550
5335
5335
5350
5467
5583
5700
5933
6166
6400
6857
7400
7860
8314
8772
9229
9400

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip
W/L
3711
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
3885
174
Drill
21.3
0.3
1.0
0.0
3900
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.1
0.0
4550
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.2
0.0
5335
785
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.4
0.0
5350
15 Conv Core 4.6
0.1
1.5
0.0
5350
15
UR
7.6
0.1
1.5
0.0
5467
117 Conv Core 4.6
1.1
1.5
0.0
5583
117
Drill
9.1
0.5
1.5
0.0
5700
117 Conv Core 4.6
1.1
1.5
0.0
5933
233 Conv Core 2.4
4.0
1.6
0.0
6166
233
Drill
3.0
3.2
1.7
0.0
6400
233 Conv Core 2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
6857
457 Conv Core 2.4
7.8
5.4
0.0
7400
543
Drill
3.0
7.4
5.8
0.0
7860
460 Conv Core 2.4
7.9
6.3
0.0
8314
454
Drill
3.0
6.2
6.6
0.0
8772
457 Conv Core 2.4
7.8
7.0
0.0
9229
457
Drill
3.0
6.3
7.4
0.0
9400
171 Conv Core 2.4
2.9
5.1
0.0
9900
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
15.8
25.8
Sub‐Total days =85
77
26
Sub‐Total % = 40%
36%
12%

Flat
0
6.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
24
11%

Section
Days
0.5
7.4
1.1
4.1
10.9
1.6
1.5
2.5
2.0
2.6
5.6
4.8
5.7
13.2
22.3
14.1
12.8
14.8
13.6
8.0
61.7
211
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.9
9.0
13.1
24.0
25.6
27.2
29.7
31.7
34.4
39.9
44.8
50.5
63.7
86.0
100.1
113.0
127.8
141.4
149.4
211.2

Figure 76. Cocos Location - Case 2a: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

85 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%

Observed Minimum

168

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

188
212
251
363

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 77. Cocos Location - Case 2a: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

86 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cocos Location
Case 2a Drilling Curve01000
Project Days
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

Measured Depth (m)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 78. Cocos Location – Case 2a Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

87 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.2.2 Case 2b Operations Time:
This case assumes the Deepwater case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. However for the
Cocos location it is assumed that the sediments, lava and dike intervals do not need to be coredbecause of previous IODP experience on the 1256D hole. A summary of the time estimate forthis case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 18" Casing
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Set 16" Casing
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Casing
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Run 9‐5/8" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Core/Drill Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
24.0
0.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
1.1
4.1
5.0
6.0
4.7
2.1
4.6
10.5
4.6
11.2
7.0
2.5
24.2
13.8
9.0
14.6
13.7
6.0
14.9
13.7
4.3
6.0
61.7
13.0
3.0
3.0
24.0

Cum
Days
0.5
1.9
4.9
7.9
9.0
13.1
18.1
24.1
28.8
30.9
35.5
46.0
50.6
61.8
68.8
71.3
95.5
109.3
118.3
132.9
146.6
152.6
167.5
181.2
185.5
191.5
253.2
266.2
269.2
272.2

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

3,650
3,711
0
0
3,885
3,900
4,550

3,711
3,885
0
0
3,900
4,550
5,350

61
174
0
0
15
650
800

122
124
0
0
14
159
160

5,350
5,471
5,593
5,700
5,913
6,127

5,471
5,593
5,700
5,913
6,127
6,355

121
122
107
213
213
229

26
58
23
20
46
20

6,355
6,400
6,790

6,400
6,790
7,376

45
390
586

18
16
42

7,376
7,864

7,864
8,382

488
518

33
38

8,382
8,839
9,297

8,839
9,297
9,400

457
457
104

31
33
24

9,400

9,900

500

8

272
320

Figure 79. Cocos Location - Case 2b: Operational Phase Summary

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

88 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

43% of the hole is cored, and 56% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
2,654 42.5%
3,596 57.5%
6,250 100%

Days
68
32
100

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Textured Gabbros
6 Textured Gabbros
7 Textured Gabbros
8 Textured Gabbros
9 Textured Gabbros
10 Foliated Gabbros
11 Foliated Gabbros
12 Foliated Gabbros
13 Foliated Gabbros
14 Foliated Gabbros
15 Foliated Gabbros
16 Layered Gabbros
17 Layered Gabbros
18 Layered Gabbros
19 Layered Gabbros
20 Layered Gabbros
21 Layered Gabbros
22 Layered Gabbros
23 Layered Gabbros
24 Mantle

From
3650
3711
3885
3900
4550
5350
5350
5471
5593
5593
5700
5700
5913
6127
6127
6355
6400
6400
6790
7376
7864
8382
8839
9297
9400

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
3711
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
3885
174
Drill
17.4
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.0
3900
15
Drill
17.4
0.0
1.1
0.0
6.0
4550
650
Drill
11.7
2.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
5350
800
Drill
15.4
2.2
1.4
0.0
6.0
5471
121 Conv Core
4.2
1.2
1.5
0.0
0.0
5471
121
UR
5.7
0.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
5593
122
Drill
18.3
0.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
5700
107 Conv Core
4.2
1.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
5700
107
UR
5.7
0.8
1.5
0.0
0.0
5913
213 Conv Core
2.9
3.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
5913
213
UR
1.9
4.7
3.2
0.0
0.0
6127
213
Drill
3.4
2.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
6355
229 Conv Core
2.9
3.3
1.7
0.0
0.0
6355
229
UR
1.9
5.0
3.4
0.0
7.0
6400
45 Conv Core
2.9
0.6
1.7
0.0
0.0
6790
390 Conv Core
3.4
4.7
3.6
0.0
0.0
6790
390
UR
4.1
4.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
7376
586
Drill
4.0
6.1
3.9
0.0
9.0
7864
488 Conv Core
3.4
5.9
4.2
0.0
0.0
8382
518
Drill
4.0
5.4
4.4
0.0
6.0
8839
457 Conv Core
3.4
5.6
4.7
0.0
0.0
9297
457
Drill
4.0
4.8
5.0
0.0
0.0
9400
104 Conv Core
3.4
1.3
2.6
0.0
6.0
9900
500 RCB Core
1.7
12.1
10.6
25.8
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
79
68
26
43
Sub‐Total % = 37%
32%
12%
20%

Section
Days
0.5
1.5
7.1
3.5
9.5
2.7
2.4
1.8
2.6
2.3
4.6
7.8
4.2
5.0
15.4
2.4
8.3
7.6
19.0
10.1
15.8
10.3
9.7
9.8
51.5
215
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
2.0
9.1
12.5
22.0
24.7
27.1
28.9
31.5
33.8
38.5
46.3
50.5
55.5
70.9
73.3
81.7
89.2
108.2
118.3
134.1
144.4
154.1
163.9
215.4

Figure 80. Cocos Location - Case 2b: Operations Time Breakkdown

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

89 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

Observed Minimum

208

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

231
256
293
388

Figure 81. Cocos Location - Case 2b: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

90 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cocos Location
Case 2b Drilling Curve0

Series1
Seafloor
Moho

1000

2000

3000

Measured Depth (m)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 82. Cocos Location – Case 2b Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

91 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.2.3 Case 2c Operations Time:
This case assumes the Expandable Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. However for the
Cocos location it is assumed that the sediments, lava and dike intervals do not need to be coredbecause of previous IODP experience on the 1256D hole. A summary of the time estimate forthis case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Run 16.5" SET Casing
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Run 16.5" SET Casing
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 16" Casing
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Core/Drill Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
24.0
0.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
1.1
4.1
5.0
7.0
4.7
2.1
4.6
10.5
4.6
11.2
8.0
5.0
24.2
13.8
9.0
29.1
13.6
6.0
15.6
10.8
4.3
6.0
61.7
13.0
3.0
3.0
24.0

Cum
Days
0.5
1.9
4.9
7.9
9.0
13.1
18.1
25.1
29.8
31.9
36.5
47.0
51.6
62.8
70.8
75.8
100.0
113.8
122.8
151.9
165.5
171.5
187.1
197.9
202.2
208.2
269.9
282.9
285.9
288.9

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

3,650
3,711

3,711
3,885

61
174

122
124

3,885
3,900
4,550

3,900
4,550
5,350

15
650
800

14
159
160

5,350
5,471
5,593
5,700
5,913
6,127

5,471
5,593
5,700
5,913
6,127
6,355

121
122
107
213
213
229

26
58
23
20
46
20

6,355
6,400
6,790

6,400
6,790
7,376

45
390
586

9
16
42

7,376
7,864

7,864
8,382

488
518

8,870
9,297

9,297
9,400

427
104

17
38
0
31
40
24

9,400

9,900

500

8

289
337

Figure 83. Cocos Location - Case 2c: Project Time to Reach TD

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

92 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

43% of the hole is cored, and 57% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
2,684 42.9%
3,566 57.1%
6,250 100%

Days
77
32
109

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Textured Gabbros
6 Textured Gabbros
7 Textured Gabbros
8 Textured Gabbros
9 Textured Gabbros
10 Foliated Gabbros
11 Foliated Gabbros
12 Foliated Gabbros
13 Foliated Gabbros
14 Foliated Gabbros
15 Foliated Gabbros
16 Foliated Gabbros
17 Layered Gabbros
18 Layered Gabbros
19 Layered Gabbros
20 Layered Gabbros
21 Layered Gabbros
22 Layered Gabbros
23 Layered Gabbros
24 Layered Gabbros
25 Layered Gabbros
26 Mantle

From
3650
3711
3885
3900
4550
5350
5350
5471
5593
5593
5700
5700
5913
6127
6127
6355
6355
6400
6400
6790
7376
7376
7864
8382
8870
9297
9400

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L3711
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
3885
174
Drill
21.3
0.3
1.0
0.0
3900
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.1
0.0
4550
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.2
0.0
5350
800
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.4
0.0
5471
121 Conv Core 4.6
1.1
1.5
0.0
5471
121
UR
7.6
0.7
1.5
0.0
5593
122
Drill
9.1
0.6
1.5
0.0
5700
107 Conv Core 4.6
1.0
1.5
0.0
5700
107
UR
7.6
0.6
1.5
0.0
5913
213 Conv Core 2.4
3.6
1.6
0.0
5913
213
UR
2.4
3.6
1.6
0.0
6127
213
Drill
3.0
2.9
1.6
0.0
6355
229 Conv Core 2.4
3.9
1.7
0.0
6355
229
UR
2.4
3.9
1.7
0.0
6400
45 Conv Core 2.4
0.8
1.7
0.0
6400
45
UR
2.4
0.8
1.7
0.0
6790
390 Conv Core 2.4
6.7
5.4
0.0
6790
390
UR
2.4
6.7
5.4
0.0
7376
586
Drill
3.0
8.0
5.8
0.0
7864
488 Conv Core 2.4
8.3
6.3
0.0
7864
488
UR
2.4
8.3
6.3
0.0
8382
518
Drill
3.0
7.1
6.7
0.0
8870
488 Conv Core 2.4
8.3
7.1
0.0
9297
427
Drill
3.0
5.8
5.0
0.0
9400
104 Conv Core 2.4
1.8
2.6
0.0
9900
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
15.8
25.8
109
90
26
Sub‐Total days =Sub‐Total % =
40%
33%
10%

Flat
0
6.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
3.0
45
17%

Section
Days
0.5
7.4
1.1
4.1
12.0
2.6
2.1
2.1
2.5
2.1
5.2
5.2
4.6
5.6
13.6
2.5
2.5
12.1
12.1
22.8
14.6
14.6
19.7
15.4
10.8
10.3
61.7
270
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.9
9.0
13.1
25.1
27.7
29.8
31.9
34.4
36.5
41.8
47.0
51.5
57.2
70.8
73.3
75.8
87.9
100.0
122.8
137.4
151.9
171.7
187.1
197.9
208.2
269.9

Figure 84. Cocos Location - Case 2c: Operations Time Breakkdown

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

93 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

Observed Minimum

214

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

247
273
314
433

Figure 85. Cocos Location - Case 2c: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

94 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cocos Location
Case 2c Drilling Curve0

Project Days
Seafloor
Moho

1000

2000

3000

Measured Depth (m)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 86. Cocos Location – Case 2c Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

95 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.2.4 Case 4a Operations Time:
This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.
Phase
Mobilize Rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 13‐3/8" Casing
Drill Dikes
Drill Textured Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Operational Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
24.0
0.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
1.1
4.1
4.9
6.0
1.5
3.1
14.5
23.1
9.0
50.3
61.7
9.0
3.0
3.0
24.0

Cum
Days

From
(m)

0.5
1.9
4.9
7.9
9.0
13.1
18.0
24.0
25.5
28.7
43.2
66.3
75.3
125.6
187.3
196.3
199.3
202.3

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

3,650
3,711

3,711
3,885

61
174

0
126

3,885
3,900
4,550

3,900
4,550
5,335

15
650
785

14
158
159

5,335
5,350
5,700
6,400

5,350
5,700
6,400
7,400

15
350
700
1,000

10
113
48
43

7,400
9,400

9,400
9,900

2,000
500

40
8

202
250

Figure 87. Cocos Location - Case 4a: Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.

Interval%
Coring =500 8.0%
Drilling =5,750 92.0%
6,250 100%

Days
17
60
77

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

96 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programtime is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1
Sediments
1
Sediments
2
Sediments
3
Lava
4
Dikes
5
Dikes
6
Textured Gabbros
7
Foliated Gabbros
8
Layered Gabbros
9
Layered Gabbros
10
Mantle

From
3,650
3,711
3,885
3,900
4,550
5,335
5,350
5,700
6,400
7,400
9,400

Section Time (days)
SectionTo
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
Days
3,711
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
3,885
174
Drill
21.3
0.3
1.0
0.0
6.0
7.4
3,900
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.06
0.0
0.0
1.1
4,550
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4.1
5,335
785
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.4
0.0
6.0
10.9
5,350
15
Drill
9.1
0.07
1.46
0.00
0.00
1.53
5,700
350
Drill
9.1
1.60
1.51
0.00
0.00
3.11
6,400
700
Drill
3.0
9.6
5.0
0.0
0.0
14.53
7,400
1000
Drill
3.0
13.7
9.4
0.0
9.0
32.1
9,400
2000
Drill
3.0
27.3
23.0
0.0
0.0
50.3
9,900
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
15.8
25.8
3.0
61.7
Sub‐Total Days =
77
61
26
24
187
Sub‐Total % = 41%
32%
14%
13%
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.9
9.0
13.1
24.0
25.5
28.7
43.2
75.3
125.6
187.3

Figure 88. Cocos Location - Case 4a: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%

Observed Minimum

133

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

152
180
220
329

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 89. Cocos Location - Case 4a: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

97 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cocos Location
Case 4a Drilling Curve0

Operational Days

1,000

Seafloor
Moho
2,000

3,000

Measured Depth (m)

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,00011,000
0

50

100

150
Project Days

200

250

300

Figure 90. Cocos Location: Case 4a Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

98 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.2.5 Case 4b Operations Time:
This case assumes the Deepwater Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.

Interval
Days
Mobilize Rig
23.9
Jet 36"
0.5
Drill Sediments
1.3
3.0
Set 22" casing
Run BOP & Riser
3.0
Drill Sediments
1.1
Drill Lava
4.1
Drill Dikes
5.0
Set 18" Casing
6.0
Drill Textured Gabbros
3.1
Drill Foliated Gabbros
12.2
Set 16" Casing
7.0
Drill Foliated Gabbros
2.4
Drill Layered Gabbros
22.8
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
9.0
Drill Layered Gabbros
24.5
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
6.0
Drill Layered Gabbros
26.1
Run 9‐5/8" Liner
6.0Core Mantle
61.7
10.0
5% Operational NPT
TA hole3.0
Pull BOP/Riser
3.0
De‐Mobilize Rig
23.9
Phase

Total Operational Days =Total Project Days =

Cum
Days
0.5
1.8
4.9
7.9
9.0
13.1
18.1
24.1
27.2
39.4
46.4
48.8
71.6
80.6
105.1
111.1
137.2
143.2
204.9
214.9
217.9
220.9

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

3,650
3,711

3,711
3,885

61 121.9215
174
130

3,885
3,900
4,550

3,900
4,550
5,350

15
650
800

13.9
158.6

5,350
5,700

5,700
6,355

350
655

113.0
53.7

6,355
6,400

6,400
7,376

45
976

18.7
42.8

7,376

8,382

8,382

9,400

9,400

9,900

500

8.1

221
269

Figure 91. Cocos Location - Case 4b: Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

99 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
500 8.0%5,750 92.0%
6,250 100%

Days
17
60
77

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Textured Gabbros
6 Foliated Gabbros
7 Foliated Gabbros
8 Layered Gabbros
9 Layered Gabbros
10 Layered Gabbros
11 Mantle

From
3650
3711
3885
3900
4550
5350
5700
6355
6400
7376
8382
9400

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
3711
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3885
174
Drill
21.3
0.3
1.0
0.0
6.0
3900
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
4550
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
5350
800
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.4
0.0
6.0
5700
350
Drill
9.1
1.6
1.5
0.0
0.0
6355
655
Drill
3.0
9.0
3.3
0.0
7.0
6400
45
Drill
3.0
0.6
1.7
0.0
0.0
7376
976
Drill
3.0
13.3
9.4
0.0
9.0
8382
1006
Drill
3.0
13.8
10.8
0.0
6.0
9400
1018
Drill
3.0
13.9
12.2
0.0
6.0
9900
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
15.8
25.8
3.0
Sub‐Total Days =
77
59
26
43
Sub‐Total % = 37%
29%
13%
21%

Section
Days
0.5
7.4
1.1
4.1
11.0
3.1
19.3
2.4
31.8
30.5
32.1
61.7
205
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.9
9.0
13.1
24.1
27.2
46.4
48.8
80.6
111.1
143.2
204.9

Figure 92. Cocos Location - Case 4a: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

100 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%

Observed Minimum

161

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

185
217
268
396

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 93. Cocos Location - Case 4b: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

101 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cocos Location
Case 4b Drilling Curve0

Project Days
Seafloor
Moho

1,000

2,000

3,000

Measured Depth (ft)

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,00011,000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 94. Cocos Location: Case 4b Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

102 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.2.6 Case 4c Operations Time:
This case assumes the Expandable Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.

Mobilize Rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 22" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 16.5" SET Casing
Drill Textured Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Set 16.5 SET" Casing
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 16" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig

Interval
Days
24.0
0.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
1.1
4.1
5.0
7.0
3.1
12.3
2.4
8.0
22.8
9.0
24.5
6.0
26.1
6.0
61.7
10.0
3.0
3.0
24.0

Total Operational Days =Total Project Days =

223
271

Phase

Cum
Days
0.5
1.9
4.9
7.9
9.0
13.1
18.1
25.1
28.2
40.5
42.8
50.8
73.6
82.6
107.1
113.1
139.2
145.2
206.9
216.9
219.9
222.9

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

3,650
3,711

3,711
3,885

61
174

121.9
126

3,885
3,900
4,550

3,900
4,550
5,350

15
650
800

13.9
157.9
0.0

5,350
5,700
6,355

5,700
6,355
6,400

350
655
45

112.7
53.5
19.0

6,400

7,376

976

42.9

7,376

8,382

8,382

9,400

9,400

9,900

500

8.1

Figure 95. Cocos Location - Case 4b: Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

103 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
500 8.0%5,750 92.0%
6,250 100%

Days
17
60
77

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Textured Gabbros
6 Foliated Gabbros
7 Foliated Gabbros
8 Layered Gabbros
9 Layered Gabbros
10 Layered Gabbros
11 Mantle

From
3650
3711
3885
3900
4550
5350
5700
6355
6400
7376
8382
9400

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
3711
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3885
174
Drill
21.3
0.3
1.0
0.0
6.0
3900
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
4550
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
5350
800
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.4
0.0
7.0
5700
350
Drill
9.1
1.6
1.5
0.0
0.0
6355
655
Drill
3.0
9.0
3.3
0.0
8.0
6400
45
Drill
3.0
0.6
1.7
0.0
0.0
7376
976
Drill
3.0
13.3
9.4
0.0
9.0
8382
1006
Drill
3.0
13.8
10.8
0.0
6.0
9400
1018
Drill
3.0
13.9
12.2
0.0
6.0
9900
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
15.8
25.8
3.0
Sub‐Total Days =
77
59
26
45
Sub‐Total % = 37%
29%
12%
22%

Section
Days
0.5
7.4
1.1
4.1
12.0
3.1
20.3
2.4
31.8
30.5
32.1
61.7
207
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.9
9.0
13.1
25.1
28.2
48.4
50.8
82.6
113.1
145.2
206.9

Figure 96. Cocos Location - Case 4a: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013104 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Observed Minimum

161

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

185
217
268
396

Figure 97. Cocos Location - Case 4b: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

105 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Cocos Location
Case 4c Operational Time Curve
01000

Operational Days
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

Measured Depth (m)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 98. Cocos Location: Case 4c Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

106 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.3 Hawaii Location Operational Time Estimates
5.3.1 Case 2a Operations Time:
This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of
the time estimate for this case is shown below.

Move in rig
Jet 30"Core/UR Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Core/UR Sediments
Core/UR Lava
Drill Lava
Core/UR Lava
Core/UR Dikes
Drill Dikes
Core/UR Dikes
Set 13‐3/8" Casing
Core Dikes
Core Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core Textured Gabbros
Core Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core Foliated Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig

Interval
Days
13.4
0.5
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.5
5.5
2.2
5.8
6.6
2.7
6.7
6.0
1.7
2.7
2.1
2.7
5.7
4.9
7.6
13.6
17.7
10.4
9.0
14.9
15.2
15.8
14.8
65.4
13.0
3.0
3.0
13.4

Total Operational Days =Total Project Days =

271
298

Phase

Cum
Days
0.5
3.6
6.6
9.6
12.1
17.6
19.8
25.6
32.2
34.9
41.6
47.6
49.3
52.0
54.1
56.8
62.5
67.4
75.0
88.6
106.3
116.7
125.7
140.6
155.8
171.6
186.4
251.8
264.8
267.8
270.8
284.2

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,050
4,111

4,111
4,235

61
124

122
40

4,235
4,250
4,467
4,683
4,900
5,167
5,433

4,250
4,467
4,683
4,900
5,167
5,433
5,685

15
217

6
39

217
267
267
251

37
40
99
38

5,685
5,700
5,817
5,933
6,050
6,284
6,517
6,750
7,207
7,894

5,700
5,817
5,933
6,050
6,284
6,517
6,750
7,207
7,894
8,250

15
116
116
117
233
233
233
457
687
355

9
43
55
43
41
48
31
34
39
34

8,250
8,829
9,286
9,865
10,250

8,829
9,286
9,865
10,25010,750

579
457
579
385
500

39
30
37
26
8

Figure 99. Hawaii Location - Case 2a: Operational Phase Summary

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

107 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

59% of the hole is cored, and 41% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
3,960 59.1%
2,740 40.9%
6,700 100%

Days
70
32
102

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Sediments
4 Sediments
5 Lava6 Lava7 Lava8 Lava9 Lava10 Dikes
11 Dikes
12 Dikes
13 Dikes
14 Dikes
15 Dikes
16 Textured Gabbros
17 Textured Gabbros
18 Textured Gabbros
19 Foliated Gabbros
20 Foliated Gabbros
21 Foliated Gabbros
22 Layered Gabbros
23 Layered Gabbros
24 Layered Gabbros
25 Layered Gabbros
26 Layered Gabbros
27 Layered Gabbros
28 Layered Gabbros
29 Mantle

From
4050
4111
4111
4235
4235
4250
4250
4467
4683
4683
4900
4900
5167
5433
5433
5685
5700
5817
5933
6050
6284
6517
6750
7207
7894
8250
8829
9286
9865
10250

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4111
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
4235
124 Conv Core 12.2
0.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
4235
124
UR
12.2
0.4
1.1
0.0
6.0
4250
15 Conv Core 12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4250
15
UR
12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4467
217 Conv Core 4.6
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4467
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
4683
217
Drill
9.1
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4900
217 Conv Core 4.6
2.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4900
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
5167
267 Conv Core 4.6
2.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
5167
267
UR
7.6
1.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
5433
267
Drill
9.1
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
5685
251 Conv Core 4.6
2.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
5685
251
UR
7.6
1.4
1.5
0.0
6.0
5700
15 Conv Core 4.6
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
5817
116 Conv Core 4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
5933
116
Drill
9.1
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
6050
117 Conv Core 4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
6284
233 Conv Core 2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6517
233
Drill
3.0
3.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
6750
233 Conv Core 2.4
4.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
7207
457 Conv Core 2.4
7.8
5.7
0.0
0.0
7894
687
Drill
3.0
9.4
8.3
0.0
0.0
8250
355 Conv Core 2.4
6.1
4.4
0.0
9.0
8829
579
Drill
3.0
7.9
7.0
0.0
0.0
9286
457 Conv Core 2.4
7.8
7.4
0.0
0.0
9865
579
Drill
3.0
7.9
7.9
0.0
0.0
10250
385 Conv Core 2.4
6.6
8.2
0.0
0.0
10750
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
17.2
28.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
102
98
28
24
Sub‐Total % = 41%
39%
11%
10%

Section
Days
0.5
1.6
7.6
1.2
1.2
3.2
2.4
2.2
3.3
2.5
3.8
2.8
2.7
3.8
8.9
1.7
2.6
2.1
2.7
5.7
4.9
7.6
13.5
17.7
19.5
14.9
15.2
15.8
14.8
65.4
252
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
2.1
9.6
10.8
12.1
15.2
17.6
19.8
23.1
25.6
29.4
32.3
34.9
38.7
47.6
49.3
52.0
54.1
56.8
62.5
67.4
75.0
88.6
106.2
125.7
140.6
155.9
171.6
186.5
251.8

Figure 100. Hawaii Location - Case 2a: Operations Time Breakdown

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

108 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

208
232
260
303
425

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 101. Hawaii Location - Case 2a: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

109 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Hawaii Location
Case 2a Operational Time Curve
01000
Operational Days
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

4000

Measured Depth (ft)

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 102. Hawaii Location: Case 2a Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

110 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.3.2 Case 2b Operations Time:
This case assumes the Deepwater case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of
the time estimate for this case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 36"
Core/UR Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Core/UR Lava
Drill Lava
Core/UR Lava
Core/UR Dikes
Drill Dikes
Core/UR Dikes
Set 18" Casing
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Set 16" Casing
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Casing
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Run 9‐5/8" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig

Interval
Days
13.4
0.5
3.2
3.0
3.0
5.5
2.3
5.8
6.6
2.7
6.9
6.0
4.9
2.1
5.0
11.4
4.9
15.2
6.9
7.0
20.1
18.8
9.0
18.7
14.9
6.0
19.9
11.2
5.5
6.0
65.4
15.0
3.0
3.0
13.4

Cum
Days
0.5
3.7
6.7
9.7
15.2
17.5
23.3
29.9
32.6
39.5
45.5
50.4
52.5
57.5
68.9
73.8
89.0
95.9
102.9
123.0
141.8
150.8
169.5
184.4
190.4
210.3
221.5
227.0
233.0
298.4
313.4
316.4
319.4

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,050
4,111

4,111
4,250

61
139

122
43

4,250
4,467
4,683
4,900
5,167
5,433

4,467
4,683
4,900
5,167
5,433
5,700

217
217
217
267
267
267

39
94
37
40.4
98.8
38.7

5,700
5,817
5,933
6,050
6,284
6,517
6,750

5,817
5,933
6,050
6,284
6,517
6,750
6,843

116
116
117
233
233
233
93

24
55
23
20
48
15
13.5

6,843
7,207

7,207
7,971

364
764

18
41

7,971
8,535

8,535
9,098

564
564

30
38

9,098
9,662
10,089

9,662
10,08910,250

564
427
161

28
38
29

10,25010,750500

8Total Core/Drill Days =319
Total Project Days =346
Figure 103. Hawaii Location - Case 2b: Operational Phase Summary

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

111 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

61% of the hole is cored, and 39% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
4,052 60.5%
2,648 39.5%
6,700 100%

Days
89
30
120

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava4 Lava5 Lava6 Lava7 Lava
8 Dikes
9 Dikes
10 Dikes
11 Dikes
12 Dikes
13 Textured Gabbros
14 Textured Gabbros
15 Textured Gabbros
16 Textured Gabbros
17 Textured Gabbros
18 Foliated Gabbros
19 Foliated Gabbros
20 Foliated Gabbros
21 Foliated Gabbros
22 Foliated Gabbros
23 Layered Gabbros
24 Layered Gabbros
25 Layered Gabbros
26 Layered Gabbros
27 Layered Gabbros
28 Layered Gabbros
29 Layered Gabbros
30 Layered Gabbros
31 Foliated Gabbros
32 Foliated Gabbros
33 Mantle

From
4050
4111
4111
4250
4250
4467
4683
4683
4900
4900
5167
5433
5433
5700
5700
5817
5933
5933
6050
6050
6284
6517
6517
6750
6750
6843
6843
7207
7971
8535
9098
9662
10089
10250

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4111
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
4250
139 Conv Core 12.2
0.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
4250
139
UR
12.2
0.5
1.1
0.0
6.0
4467
217 Conv Core
4.6
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4467
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
4683
217
Drill
9.1
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4900
217 Conv Core
4.6
2.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4900
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
5167
267 Conv Core
4.6
2.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
5167
267
UR
7.6
1.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
5433
267
Drill
9.1
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
5700
267 Conv Core
4.6
2.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
5700
267
UR
7.6
1.5
1.5
0.0
6.0
5817
116 Conv Core
4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
5817
116
UR
7.6
0.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
5933
116
Drill
9.1
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
6050
117 Conv Core
4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
6050
117
UR
7.6
0.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
6284
233 Conv Core
2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6284
233
UR
2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6517
233
Drill
3.0
3.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
6750
233 Conv Core
2.4
4.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
6750
233
UR
2.4
4.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
6843
93 Conv Core
2.4
1.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
6843
93
UR
2.4
1.6
1.9
0.0
7.0
7207
364 Conv Core
2.4
6.2
3.8
0.0
0.0
7207
364
UR
2.4
6.2
3.8
0.0
0.0
7971
764
Drill
3.0
10.4
8.3
0.0
9.0
8535
564 Conv Core
2.4
9.6
9.0
0.0
0.0
9098
564
Drill
3.0
7.7
7.2
0.0
6.0
9662
564 Conv Core
2.4
9.6
10.3
0.0
0.0
10089
427
Drill
3.0
5.8
5.4
0.0
0.0
10250
161 Conv Core
2.4
2.8
2.8
0.0
6.0
10750
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
17.2
28.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
120
108
28
43
Sub‐Total % = 40%
36%
9%
14%

Section
Days
0.5
1.6
7.6
3.2
2.4
2.2
3.3
2.5
3.8
2.8
2.7
4.0
9.0
2.6
2.2
2.1
2.7
2.3
5.7
5.7
4.9
7.6
7.6
3.4
10.4
10.1
10.1
27.7
18.7
20.9
19.9
11.2
11.5
65.4
298
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
2.1
9.7
12.9
15.3
17.5
20.8
23.3
27.1
29.9
32.6
36.6
45.5
48.2
50.4
52.5
55.2
57.5
63.2
68.9
73.8
81.4
89.0
92.5
102.9
113.0
123.0
150.8
169.4
190.4
210.3
221.5
233.0
298.4

Figure 104. Hawaii Location - Case 2a: Operations Time Breakdown

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

112 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

244
280
310
362
454

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 105. Hawaii Location - Case 2b: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

113 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Hawaii Location
Case 2b Operational Time Curve
01000
Operational Days
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

4000

Measured Depth (m)

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 106. Hawaii Location: Case 2b Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

114 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.3.3 Case 2c Operations Time:
This case assumes the Expandable Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of
the time estimate for this case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 36"
Core/UR Sediments
Set 22" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Core/UR Lava
Drill Lava
Core/UR Lava
Core/UR Dikes
Drill Dikes
Core/UR Dikes
Run 16.5" SET Casing
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Run 16.5" SET Casing
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 16" Casing
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Core/Drill Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
13.4
0.5
3.2
3.0
3.0
5.6
2.2
5.8
6.6
2.7
6.9
7.0
4.9
2.1
5.0
11.4
4.9
15.2
6.9
8.0
20.1
18.8
9.0
37.3
14.9
6.0
19.9
11.2
5.6
6.0
65.4
16.0
3.0
3.0
13.4

Cum
Days

From
(m)

To
(m)

0.5
3.7
6.7
9.7
15.3
17.5
23.3
29.9
32.6
39.5
46.5
51.4
53.5
58.5
69.9
74.8
90.0
96.9
104.9
125.0
143.8
152.8
190.1
205.0
211.0
230.9
242.1
247.7
253.7
319.1
335.1
338.1
341.1

4,050
4,111
0
0
4,250
4,467
4,683
4,900
5,167
5,433
0
5,700
5,817
5,933
6,050
6,284
6,517
6,750
0
6,843
7,207
0
7,971
8,535
0
9,098
9,662
10,0890
10,250

4,111
4,250
0
0
4,467
4,683
4,900
5,167
5,433
5,700
0
5,817
5,933
6,050
6,284
6,517
6,750
6,843
0
7,207
7,971
0
8,535
9,098
0
9,662
10,08910,2500
10,750Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

61
139
0
0
217
217
217
267
267
267
0
116
116
117
233
233
233
93
0
364
764
0
564
564
0
564
427
161
0
500

122
43
0
0
39
99
37
40
99
39
0.0
24
55
23
20
48
15
13
0.0
18
41
0
15
38
0
28
38
29
0
8

341
368

Figure 107. Hawaii Location - Case 2c: Operational Phase Summary

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

115 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

61% of the hole is cored, and 39% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
4,052 60.5%
2,648 39.5%
6,700 100%

Days
99
30
129

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.

Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava4 Lava5 Lava6 Lava7 Lava
8 Dikes
9 Dikes
10 Dikes
11 Dikes
12 Dikes
13 Textured Gabbros
14 Textured Gabbros
15 Textured Gabbros
16 Textured Gabbros
17 Textured Gabbros
18 Foliated Gabbros
19 Foliated Gabbros
20 Foliated Gabbros
21 Foliated Gabbros
22 Foliated Gabbros
23 Layered Gabbros
24 Layered Gabbros
25 Layered Gabbros
26 Layered Gabbros
27 Layered Gabbros
28 Layered Gabbros
29 Layered Gabbros
30 Layered Gabbros
31 Layered Gabbros
32 Foliated Gabbros
33 Foliated Gabbros
34 Mantle

From
4050
4111
4111
4250
4250
4467
4683
4683
4900
4900
5167
5433
5433
5700
5700
5817
5933
5933
6050
6050
6284
6517
6517
6750
6750
6843
6843
7207
7971
7971
8535
9098
9662
10089
10250

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4111
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
4250
139 Conv Core 12.2
0.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
4250
139
UR
12.2
0.5
1.1
0.0
6.0
4467
217 Conv Core
4.6
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4467
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
4683
217
Drill
9.1
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4900
217 Conv Core
4.6
2.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4900
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
5167
267 Conv Core
4.6
2.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
5167
267
UR
7.6
1.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
5433
267
Drill
9.1
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
5700
267 Conv Core
4.6
2.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
5700
267
UR
7.6
1.5
1.5
0.0
7.0
5817
116 Conv Core
4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
5817
116
UR
7.6
0.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
5933
116
Drill
9.1
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
6050
117 Conv Core
4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
6050
117
UR
7.6
0.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
6284
233 Conv Core
2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6284
233
UR
2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6517
233
Drill
3.0
3.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
6750
233 Conv Core
2.4
4.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
6750
233
UR
2.4
4.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
6843
93 Conv Core
2.4
1.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
6843
93
UR
2.4
1.6
1.9
0.0
8.0
7207
364 Conv Core
2.4
6.2
3.8
0.0
0.0
7207
364
UR
2.4
6.2
3.8
0.0
0.0
7971
764
Drill
3.0
10.4
8.3
0.0
9.0
8535
564 Conv Core
2.4
9.6
9.0
0.0
0.0
8535
564
UR
2.4
9.6
9.0
0.0
0.0
9098
564
Drill
3.0
7.7
7.2
0.0
6.0
9662
564 Conv Core
2.4
9.6
10.3
0.0
0.0
10089
427
Drill
3.0
5.8
5.4
0.0
0.0
10250
161 Conv Core
2.4
2.8
2.8
0.0
6.0
10750
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
17.2
28.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
129
117
28
45
Sub‐Total % = 40%
37%
9%
14%

Section
Days
0.5
1.6
7.6
3.2
2.4
2.2
3.3
2.5
3.8
2.8
2.7
4.0
10.0
2.6
2.2
2.1
2.7
2.3
5.7
5.7
4.9
7.6
7.6
3.4
11.4
10.1
10.1
27.7
18.7
18.7
20.9
19.9
11.2
11.5
65.4
319
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
2.1
9.7
12.9
15.3
17.5
20.8
23.3
27.1
29.9
32.6
36.6
46.5
49.2
51.4
53.5
56.2
58.5
64.2
69.9
74.8
82.4
90.0
93.5
104.9
115.0
125.0
152.8
171.4
190.1
211.0
230.9
242.2
253.7
319.1

Figure 108. Hawaii Location - Case 2c: Operations Time Breakdown

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

116 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

263
294
324
375
507

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 109. Hawaii Location - Case 2c: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

117 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Hawaii Location
Case 2b Operational Time Curve
01000
Operational Days
Seafloor
2000

Moho

3000

4000

Measured Depth (m)

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Project Days

Figure 110. Hawaii Location: Case 2c Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

118 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.3.4 Case 4a Operations Time:
This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 13‐3/8" Casing
Drill Dikes
Drill Textured Gabbr
Drill Foliated Gabbro
Drill Layered Gabbro
Drill Layered Gabbro
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Drill Layered GabbroCore Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
al Operational Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
13.4
0.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
1.2
4.2
5.0
6.0
1.6
3.2
16.6
10.1
24.8
9.0
50.1
65.4
10.0
3.0
3.0
13.4

Cum
Days
0.5
1.9
4.9
7.9
9.1
13.3
18.3
24.3
25.9
29.1
45.7
55.8
80.6
89.6
139.7
205.1
215.1
218.1
221.1

From
(ft)

To
(ft)

4,050
4,111
0
0
4,235
4,250
4,900
0
5,685
5,700
6,050
6,750
7,207
0
8,250
10,250

4,111
4,235
0
0
4,250
4,900
5,685
0
5,700
6,050
6,750
7,207
8,250
0
10,25010,750Interval(ft)

Avg
ft/day

61
124
0
0
15
650
785
0
15
350
700
457
1,043
0
2,000
500

0
90
0
0
13
154
156
0
9
109
42
45
42
0
40
8

221
248

Figure 111. Hawaii Location - Case 4a: Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.

Interval%
Coring =500 7.5%
Drilling =6,200 92.5%
6,700 100%

Days
17
66
83

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

119 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programtime is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Dikes
6 Textured Gabbros
7 Foliated Gabbros
8 Layered Gabbros
9 Layered Gabbros
10 Layered Gabbros
11 Mantle

From
4050
4111
4235
4250
4900
5685
5700
6050
6750
7207
8250
10250

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4111
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
4235
124
Drill
21.3
0.2
1.1
0.0
6.0
4250
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4900
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
5685
785
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.4
0.0
6.0
5700
15
Drill
9.1
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
6050
350
Drill
9.1
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
6750
700
Drill
3.0
9.6
7.0
0.0
0.0
7207
457
Drill
3.0
6.3
3.8
0.0
0.0
8250
1043
Drill
3.0
14.3
10.6
0.0
9.0
10250
2000
Drill
3.0
27.3
22.8
0.0
0.0
10750
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
17.2
28.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
83
70
28
24
Sub‐Total % = 41%
34%
14%
12%

Section
Days
0.5
7.4
1.2
4.2
11.0
1.6
3.2
16.6
10.1
33.8
50.1
65.4
205
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.9
9.1
13.3
24.3
25.9
29.1
45.7
55.8
89.6
139.7
205.1

Figure 112. Hawaii Location - Case 4a: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

141
165
198
252
371

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 113. Hawaii Location - Case 4a: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

120 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Hawaii Location
Case 4a Operational Time Curve0

1,000
Operational Days
Seafloor
2,000

Moho

3,000

4,000

Measured Depth (ft)

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,00011,00012,000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 114. Hawaii Location: Case 4a Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

121 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.3.5 Case 4b Operations Time:
This case assumes the Deepwater Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.

Phase
Mobilize Rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 22" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 18" Casing
Drill Textured Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Set 16" Casing
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 9‐5/8" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Core/Drill Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
13.4
0.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
1.2
4.2
5.1
6.0
3.2
16.6
3.1
7.0
25.5
9.0
27.1
6.0
31.6
6.0
65.4
11.0
3.0
3.0
13.4

Cum
Days
0.5
1.9
4.9
7.9
9.1
13.3
18.4
24.4
27.6
44.2
47.3
54.3
79.9
88.9
115.9
121.9
153.6
159.6
224.9
235.9
238.9
241.9

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,050
4,111

4,111
4,235

61
124

122
90

4,235
4,250
4,900

4,250
4,900
5,700

15
650
800

13
154
0

5,700
6,050
6,750

6,050
6,750
6,843

350
700
93

109
42
30

6,843

7,971

1,128

44

7,971

9,098

1,128

44

9,098

10,2501,128

44

10,25010,750

500

8

242
269

Figure 115. Hawaii Location - Case 4b: Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.
Interval%
Coring =500 7.5%
Drilling =6,200 92.5%
6,700 100%

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

Days
17
66
83

122 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Textured Gabbros
6 Foliated Gabbros
7 Layered Gabbros
8 Layered Gabbros
9 Layered Gabbros
10 Layered Gabbros
11 Mantle

From
4050
4111
4235
4250
4900
5700
6050
6750
6843
7971
9098
10250

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4111
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
4235
124
Drill
21.3
0.2
1.1
0.0
6.0
4250
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4900
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
5700
800
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.4
0.0
6.0
6050
350
Drill
9.1
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
6750
700
Drill
3.0
9.6
7.0
0.0
0.0
6843
93
Drill
3.0
1.3
1.9
0.0
7.0
7971
1128
Drill
3.0
15.4
10.1
0.0
9.0
9098
1128
Drill
3.0
15.4
11.7
0.0
6.0
10250
1152
Drill
3.0
15.7
15.9
0.0
6.0
10750
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
17.2
28.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
83
70
28
43
Sub‐Total % = 37%
31%
12%
19%

Section
Days
0.5
7.4
1.2
4.2
11.1
3.2
16.6
10.1
34.5
33.1
37.6
65.4
225
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.9
9.1
13.3
24.4
27.6
44.1
54.3
88.8
121.9
159.5
224.9

Figure 116. Hawaii Location - Case 4b: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.
100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

161
185
217
268
396

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 117. Hawaii Location - Case 4b: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

123 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Hawaii Location
Case 4b Operational Time Curve0

1,000
Operational Days
Seafloor

2,000

Moho

3,000

4,000

Measured Depth (m)

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,00011,00012,000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Project Days

Figure 118. Hawaii Location: Case 4b Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

124 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.3.6 Case 4c Operations Time:
This case assumes the Expandable Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.

Mobilize Rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 22" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 16.5" SET Casing
Drill Textured Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Set 16.5" SET Casing
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 16" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig

Interval
Days
13.4
0.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
1.2
4.2
5.1
7.0
3.2
16.6
3.1
8.0
25.5
9.0
27.1
6.0
31.6
6.0
65.4
11.0
3.0
3.0
13.4

Total Core/Drill Days =Total Project Days =

244
271

Phase

Cum
Days
0.5
1.9
4.9
7.9
9.1
13.3
18.4
25.4
28.6
45.2
48.3
56.3
81.9
90.9
117.9
123.9
155.6
161.6
226.9
237.9
240.9
243.9

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,050
4,111

4,111
4,235

61
124

122
90

4,235
4,250
4,900

4,250
4,900
5,700

15
650
800

13
154
0

5,700
6,050
6,750

6,050
6,750
6,843

350
700
93

109
42
30

6,843

7,971

1,128

44

7,971

9,098

9,098

10,250

10,25010,750500

8Figure 119. Hawaii Location - Case 4c: Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.

Interval%
Coring =500 7.5%
Drilling =6200 92.5%
6700 100%

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

Days
17
66
83

125 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Textured Gabbros
6 Foliated Gabbros
7 Layered Gabbros
8 Layered Gabbros
9 Layered Gabbros
10 Layered Gabbros
11 Mantle

From
4,050
4,111
4,235
4,250
4,900
5,700
6,050
6,750
6,843
7,971
9,098
10,250Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4,111
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,235
124
Drill
70
0.2
1.1
0.0
6.0
4,250
15
Drill
70
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4,900
650
Drill
30
3.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
5,700
800
Drill
30
3.6
1.4
0.0
7.0
6,050
350
Drill
30
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
6,750
700
Drill
10
9.6
7.0
0.0
0.0
6,843
93
Drill
10
1.3
1.9
0.0
8.0
7,971
1128
Drill
10
15.4
10.1
0.0
9.0
9,098
1128
Drill
10
15.4
11.7
0.0
6.0
10,250
1152
Drill
10
15.7
15.9
0.0
6.0
10,750500 RCB Core
4
17.1
17.2
28.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
83
70
28
45
Sub‐Total % = 37%
31%
12%
20%

Section
Days
0.5
7.4
1.2
4.2
12.1
3.2
16.6
11.1
34.5
33.1
37.6
65.4
227
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.9
9.1
13.3
25.4
28.6
45.1
56.3
90.8
123.9
161.5
226.9

Figure 120. Hawaii Location - Case 4c: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.
100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

166
188
223
275
429

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 121. Hawaii Location - Case 4c: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

126 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Hawaii Location
Case 4c Operational Time Curve
01000

Operational Days
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

4000

Measured Depth (m)

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 122. Hawaii Location: Case 4c Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

127 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.4 Baja Location Operational Time Estimates
5.4.1 Case 2a Operations Time:
This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of
the time estimate for this case is shown below.

Move in rig
Jet 36"
Core/UR Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Core/UR Sediments
Core/UR Lava
Drill Lava
Core/UR Lava
Core/UR Dikes
Drill Dikes
Core/UR Dikes
Set 13‐3/8" Casing
Core/UR Dikes
Core Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core Textured Gabbros
Core Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core Foliated Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig

Interval
Days
18.1
0.5
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.6
5.5
2.3
5.8
6.7
2.7
6.9
6.0
1.7
2.7
2.2
2.7
5.7
5.0
7.7
13.7
13.6
9.0
14.5
10.9
15.2
11.5
5.6
63.9
12.0
3.0
3.0
18.1

Total Operational Days =Total Project Days =

251
287

Phase

Cum
Days
0.5
3.1
6.1
9.1
11.7
17.2
19.5
25.3
32.0
34.7
41.6
47.6
49.3
52.0
54.2
56.9
62.6
67.6
75.3
89.0
102.6
111.6
126.1
137.0
152.2
163.7
169.3
233.2
245.2
248.2
251.2

From
(ft)

To
(ft)

Interval(ft)

Avg
ft/day

4,300
4,361

4,361
4,385

61
24

122
9

4,385
4,400
4,617
4,834
5,050
5,317
5,580

4,400
4,617
4,834
5,050
5,317
5,580
5,835

15
217
217
216
267
264
255

6
39
94
37
40
98
37

5,835
5,850
5,967
6,083
6,200
6,433
6,667
6,900
7,357

5,850
5,967
6,083
6,200
6,433
6,667
6,900
7,357
7,900

15
116
116
117
233
233
233
457
543

9
43
53
43
41
47
30
33
40

7,900
8,357
8,815
9,272
9,729
9,900

8,357
8,815
9,272
9,729
9,900
10,400

457
457
457
457
171
500

32
42
30
40
31
8

Figure 123. Baja Location - Case 2a: Operational Phase Summary

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

128 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

61% of the hole is cored, and 39% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
3,752 61.5%
2,349 38.5%
6,100 100%

Days
68
26
94

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Sediments
4 Sediments
5 Lava6 Lava7 Lava8 Lava9 Lava10 Dikes
11 Dikes
12 Dikes
13 Dikes
14 Dikes
15 Dikes
16 Textured Gabbros
17 Textured Gabbros
18 Textured Gabbros
19 Foliated Gabbros
20 Foliated Gabbros
21 Foliated Gabbros
22 Layered Gabbros
23 Layered Gabbros
24 Layered Gabbros
25 Layered Gabbros
26 Layered Gabbros
27 Layered Gabbros
28 Layered Gabbros
29 Mantle

From
4300
4361
4361
4385
4385
4400
4400
4617
4834
4834
5050
5050
5317
5580
5580
5835
5850
5967
6083
6200
6433
6667
6900
7357
7900
8357
8815
9272
9729
9900

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4361
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
4385
24 Conv Core 12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4385
24
UR
12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
6.0
4400
15 Conv Core 12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4400
15
UR
12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4617
217 Conv Core 4.6
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4617
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
4834
217
Drill
9.1
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
5050
216 Conv Core 4.6
2.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
5050
216
UR
7.6
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
5317
267 Conv Core 4.6
2.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
5317
267
UR
7.6
1.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
5580
264
Drill
9.1
1.2
1.5
0.0
0.0
5835
255 Conv Core 4.6
2.3
1.6
0.0
0.0
5835
255
UR
7.6
1.4
1.6
0.0
6.0
5850
15 Conv Core 4.6
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
5967
116 Conv Core 4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
6083
116
Drill
9.1
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
6200
117 Conv Core 4.6
1.1
1.7
0.0
0.0
6433
233 Conv Core 2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6667
233
Drill
3.0
3.2
1.8
0.0
0.0
6900
233 Conv Core 2.4
4.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
7357
457 Conv Core 2.4
7.8
5.8
0.0
0.0
7900
543
Drill
3.0
7.4
6.3
0.0
9.0
8357
457 Conv Core 2.4
7.8
6.7
0.0
0.0
8815
457
Drill
3.0
6.3
4.7
0.0
0.0
9272
457 Conv Core 2.4
7.8
7.4
0.0
0.0
9729
457
Drill
3.0
6.3
5.2
0.0
0.0
9900
171 Conv Core 2.4
2.9
2.7
0.0
0.0
10400
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
16.7
27.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
94
88
27
24
Sub‐Total % = 40%
38%
12%
10%

Section
Days
0.5
1.3
7.3
1.3
1.3
3.2
2.4
2.3
3.3
2.5
3.8
2.9
2.7
3.9
9.0
1.7
2.7
2.2
2.7
5.7
5.0
7.7
13.7
22.7
14.5
10.9
15.2
11.4
5.6
63.9
233
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
1.8
9.1
10.3
11.6
14.8
17.2
19.5
22.8
25.3
29.2
32.0
34.7
38.6
47.6
49.3
52.0
54.2
56.9
62.6
67.6
75.3
89.0
111.6
126.1
137.1
152.3
163.7
169.3
233.2

Figure 124. Baja Location - Case 2a: Operations Time Breakdown

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

129 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%

Observed Minimum

196

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

221
247
284
390

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 125. Baja Location - Case 2a: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

130 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Baja Location
Case 2a Drilling Curve01000
Project Days
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

MeasuredDepth (m)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 126. Baja Location: Case 2a Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013131 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.4.2 Case 2b Operations Time:
This case assumes the Deepwater case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of
the time estimate for this case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 36"
Core/UR Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Core/UR Sediments
Core/UR Lava
Drill Lava
Core/UR Lava
Core/UR Dikes
Drill Dikes
Core/UR Dikes
Set 18" Casing
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Set 16" Casing
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Casing
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Run 9‐5/8" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Core/Drill Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
18.1
0.5
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.5
5.6
2.3
5.8
6.7
2.7
7.1
6.0
4.9
2.2
5.1
11.4
5.0
13.9
7.0
5.2
27.3
13.2
9.0
15.1
13.6
6.0
14.8
11.4
5.7
6.0
63.9
14.0
3.0
3.0
18.1

Cum
Days
0.5
3.1
6.1
9.1
11.6
17.2
19.5
25.3
32.0
34.7
41.8
47.8
52.7
54.9
60.0
71.4
76.4
90.3
97.3
102.5
129.8
143.0
152.0
167.1
180.7
186.7
201.5
212.9
218.6
224.6
288.5
302.5
305.5
308.5

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,300
4,361

4,361
4,385

61
24

122
9

4,385
4,400
4,617
4,834
5,050
5,317
5,580

4,400
4,617
4,834
5,050
5,317
5,580
5,850

15
217
217
216
267
264
270

6
39
94
37
40
98
38

5,850
5,967
6,083
6,200
6,433
6,667

5,967
6,083
6,200
6,433
6,667
6,858

116
116
117
233
233
191

24
53
23
20
47
14

6,858
6,900
7,357

6,900
7,357
7,864

42
457
507

8
17
38

7,864
8,357

8,357
8,839

493
482

33
35

8,839
9,272
9,726
0
9,900

9,272
9,726
9,900
0
10,400

433
454
174
0
500

29
40
31
0
8

309
345

Figure 127. Baja Location - Case 2b: Operational Phase Summary

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

132 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

62% of the hole is cored, and 38% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
3,766 61.7%
2,334 38.3%
6,100 100%

Days
85
26
111

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Sediments
4 Sediments
5 Lava6 Lava7 Lava8 Lava9 Lava10 Dikes
11 Dikes
12 Dikes
13 Dikes
14 Dikes
15 Textured Gabbros
16 Textured Gabbros
17 Textured Gabbros
18 Textured Gabbros
19 Textured Gabbros
20 Foliated Gabbros
21 Foliated Gabbros
22 Foliated Gabbros
23 Foliated Gabbros
24 Foliated Gabbros
25 Foliated Gabbros
26 Foliated Gabbros
27 Layered Gabbros
28 Layered Gabbros
29 Layered Gabbros
30 Layered Gabbros
31 Layered Gabbros
32 Layered Gabbros
33 Layered Gabbros
34 Layered Gabbros
35 Mantle

From
4300
4361
4361
4385
4385
4400
4400
4617
4834
4834
5050
5050
5317
5580
5580
5850
5850
5967
6083
6083
6200
6200
6433
6667
6667
6858
6858
6900
6900
7357
7864
8357
8839
9272
9726
9900

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4361
61
Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
4385
24
Conv Core 12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4385
24
UR
12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
6.0
4400
15
Conv Core 12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4400
15
UR
12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4617
217 Conv Core
4.6
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4617
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
4834
217
Drill
9.1
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
5050
216 Conv Core
4.6
2.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
5050
216
UR
7.6
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
5317
267 Conv Core
4.6
2.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
5317
267
UR
7.6
1.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
5580
264
Drill
9.1
1.2
1.5
0.0
0.0
5850
270 Conv Core
4.6
2.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
5850
270
UR
7.6
1.5
1.6
0.0
6.0
5967
116 Conv Core
4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
5967
116
UR
7.6
0.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
6083
116
Drill
9.1
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
6200
117 Conv Core
4.6
1.1
1.7
0.0
0.0
6200
117
UR
7.6
0.6
1.7
0.0
0.0
6433
233 Conv Core
2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6433
233
UR
2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6667
233
Drill
3.0
3.2
1.8
0.0
0.0
6858
191 Conv Core
2.4
3.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
6858
191
UR
2.4
3.3
3.7
0.0
7.0
6900
42
Conv Core
2.4
0.7
1.9
0.0
0.0
6900
42
UR
2.4
0.7
1.9
0.0
0.0
7357
457 Conv Core
2.4
7.8
5.8
0.0
0.0
7357
457
UR
2.4
7.8
5.8
0.0
0.0
7864
507
Drill
3.0
6.9
6.2
0.0
9.0
8357
493 Conv Core
2.4
8.4
6.7
0.0
0.0
8839
482
Drill
3.0
6.6
7.1
0.0
6.0
9272
433 Conv Core
2.4
7.4
7.4
0.0
0.0
9726
454
Drill
3.0
6.2
5.2
0.0
0.0
9900
174 Conv Core
2.4
3.0
2.7
0.0
6.0
10400
500
RCB Core
1.2
17.1
16.7
27.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
111
107
27
43
Sub‐Total % = 39%
37%
9%
15%

Section
Days
0.5
1.3
7.3
1.3
1.3
3.2
2.4
2.3
3.3
2.5
3.8
2.9
2.7
4.0
9.0
2.7
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.3
5.7
5.7
5.0
7.0
14.0
2.6
2.6
13.7
13.7
22.2
15.1
19.6
14.8
11.4
11.7
63.9
288
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
1.8
9.1
10.3
11.6
14.8
17.2
19.5
22.8
25.3
29.2
32.0
34.7
38.8
47.8
50.5
52.7
54.9
57.6
60.0
65.7
71.4
76.4
83.3
97.3
99.9
102.5
116.2
129.8
152.0
167.1
186.7
201.5
212.9
224.6
288.5

Figure 128. Baja Location - Case 2b: Operations Time Breakdown

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

133 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%

Observed Minimum

245

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

269
299
342
475

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 129. Baja Location - Case 2b: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

134 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Baja Location
Case 2a Drilling Curve01000
Project Days
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

Measured Depth (m)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Project Days

Figure 130. Baja Location: Case 2b Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

135 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.4.3 Case 2c Operations Time:
This case assumes the Expandable Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of
the time estimate for this case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 36"
Core/UR Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Core/UR Sediments
Core/UR Lava
Drill Lava
Core/UR Lava
Core/UR Dikes
Drill Dikes
Core/UR Dikes
Run 16.5" SET Casing
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Drill Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Textured Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Run 16.5" SET Casing
Core/UR Foliated Gabbros
Core/UR Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 16" Casing
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
Core Layered Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Layered Gabbros
Run 9‐5/8" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Core/Drill Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
18.1
0.5
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.5
5.6
2.3
5.8
6.7
2.7
7.1
7.0
4.9
2.2
5.1
11.4
5.0
13.9
8.0
5.2
27.3
13.2
9.0
30.2
13.6
6.0
14.8
11.4
5.7
6.0
63.9
15.0
3.0
3.0
18.1

Cum
Days
0.5
3.1
6.1
9.1
11.6
17.2
19.5
25.3
32.0
34.7
41.8
48.8
53.7
55.9
61.0
72.4
77.4
91.3
99.3
104.5
131.8
145.0
154.0
184.2
197.8
203.8
218.6
230.0
235.7
241.7
305.6
320.6
323.6
326.6

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,300
4,361

4,361
4,385

61
24

122
9

4,385
4,400
4,617
4,834
5,050
5,317
5,580

4,400
4,617
4,834
5,050
5,317
5,580
5,850

15
217
217
216
267
264
270

6
39
94
37
40
98
38

5,850
5,967
6,083
6,200
6,433
6,667

5,967
6,083
6,200
6,433
6,667
6,858

116
116
117
233
233
191

24
53
23
20
47
14

6,858
6,900
7,357

6,900
7,357
7,864

42
457
507

8
17
38

7,864
8,357

8,357
8,839

493
482

16
35

8,839
9,272
9,726

9,272
9,726
9,900

433
454
174

29
40
31

9,900

10,400

500

8

327
363

Figure 131. Baja Location - Case 2c Operational Phase Summary

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

136 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

62% of the hole is cored, and 38% is drilled as shown below.

Coring =Drilling =Interval%
3,766 61.7%
2,334 38.3%
6,100 100%

Days
94
26
120

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Sediments
4 Sediments
5 Lava6 Lava7 Lava8 Lava9 Lava10 Dikes
11 Dikes
12 Dikes
13 Dikes
14 Dikes
15 Textured Gabbros
16 Textured Gabbros
17 Textured Gabbros
18 Textured Gabbros
19 Textured Gabbros
20 Foliated Gabbros
21 Foliated Gabbros
22 Foliated Gabbros
23 Foliated Gabbros
24 Foliated Gabbros
25 Foliated Gabbros
26 Foliated Gabbros
27 Layered Gabbros
28 Layered Gabbros
29 Layered Gabbros
30 Layered Gabbros
31 Layered Gabbros
32 Layered Gabbros
33 Layered Gabbros
34 Layered Gabbros
35 Layered Gabbros
36 Mantle

From
4300
4361
4361
4385
4385
4400
4400
4617
4834
4834
5050
5050
5317
5580
5580
5850
5850
5967
6083
6083
6200
6200
6433
6667
6667
6858
6858
6900
6900
7357
7864
7864
8357
8839
9272
9726
9900

Section Time (days)
To
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
4361
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0
0
0
4385
24 Conv Core 12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4385
24
UR
12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
6.0
4400
15 Conv Core 12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4400
15
UR
12.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
4617
217 Conv Core
4.6
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4617
217
UR
7.6
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
4834
217
Drill
9.1
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
5050
216 Conv Core
4.6
2.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
5050
216
UR
7.6
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
5317
267 Conv Core
4.6
2.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
5317
267
UR
7.6
1.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
5580
264
Drill
9.1
1.2
1.5
0.0
0.0
5850
270 Conv Core
4.6
2.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
5850
270
UR
7.6
1.5
1.6
0.0
7.0
5967
116 Conv Core
4.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
5967
116
UR
7.6
0.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
6083
116
Drill
9.1
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
6200
117 Conv Core
4.6
1.1
1.7
0.0
0.0
6200
117
UR
7.6
0.6
1.7
0.0
0.0
6433
233 Conv Core
2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6433
233
UR
2.4
4.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6667
233
Drill
3.0
3.2
1.8
0.0
0.0
6858
191 Conv Core
2.4
3.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
6858
191
UR
2.4
3.3
3.7
0.0
8.0
6900
42 Conv Core
2.4
0.7
1.9
0.0
0.0
6900
42
UR
2.4
0.7
1.9
0.0
0.0
7357
457 Conv Core
2.4
7.8
5.8
0.0
0.0
7357
457
UR
2.4
7.8
5.8
0.0
0.0
7864
507
Drill
3.0
6.9
6.2
0.0
9.0
8357
493 Conv Core
2.4
8.4
6.7
0.0
0.0
8357
493
UR
2.4
8.4
6.7
0.0
0.0
8839
482
Drill
3.0
6.6
7.1
0.0
6.0
9272
433 Conv Core
2.4
7.4
7.4
0.0
0.0
9726
454
Drill
3.0
6.2
5.2
0.0
0.0
9900
174 Conv Core
2.4
3.0
2.7
0.0
6.0
10400
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
16.7
27.1
3.0
Sub‐Total days =
120
114
27
45
Sub‐Total % = 39%
37%
9%
15%

Section
Days
0.5
1.3
7.3
1.3
1.3
3.2
2.4
2.3
3.3
2.5
3.8
2.9
2.7
4.0
10.0
2.7
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.3
5.7
5.7
5.0
7.0
15.0
2.6
2.6
13.7
13.7
22.2
15.1
15.1
19.6
14.8
11.4
11.7
63.9
306
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
1.8
9.1
10.3
11.6
14.8
17.2
19.5
22.8
25.3
29.2
32.0
34.7
38.8
48.8
51.5
53.7
55.9
58.6
61.0
66.7
72.4
77.4
84.3
99.3
101.9
104.5
118.2
131.8
154.0
169.1
184.2
203.8
218.6
230.0
241.7
305.6

Figure 132. Baja Location - Case 2b: Operations Time Breakdown

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

137 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%

Observed Minimum

245

P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

269
299
342
475

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 133. Baja Location - Case 2c: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

138 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Baja Location
Case 2c Drilling Curve01000
Project Time
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

Measured Depth (m)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Project Days

Figure 134. Baja Location: Case 2c Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

139 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.4.4 Case 4a Operations Time:
This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.
Phase
Move in rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 20" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 13‐3/8" Casing
Drill Dikes
Drill Textured Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Operational Days =Total Project Days =Interval
Days
18.1
0.5
1.2
3.0
3.0
1.2
4.3
5.1
6.0
1.7
3.2
16.7
23.8
9.0
49.2
63.9
10.0
3.0
3.0
18.1

Cum
Days
0.5
1.7
4.7
7.7
9.0
13.2
18.3
24.3
26.0
29.2
45.9
69.7
78.7
128.0
191.8
201.8
204.8
207.8

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,300
4,361

4,361
4,385

61
24

19

4,385
4,400
5,050

4,400
5,050
5,835

15
650
785

12
153
155

5,835
5,850
6,200
6,900

5,850
6,200
6,900
7,900

15
350
700
1,000

9
108
42
42

7,900
9,900

9,900
10,400

2,000
500

41
8

208
244

Figure 135. Baja Location - Case 4a Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.

Interval%
Coring =500 8.2%
Drilling =5600 91.8%
6100 100%

Days
17
59
76

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

140 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Programtime is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Dikes
6 Textured Gabbros
7 Foliated Gabbros
8 Layered Gabbros
9 Layered Gabbros
10 Mantle

From
4300
4361
4385
4400
5050
5835
5850
6200
6900
7900
9900

To
Interval Operation
4361
61 Jetting
4385
24
Drill
4400
15
Drill
5050
650
Drill
5835
785
Drill
5850
15
Drill
6200
350
Drill
6900
700
Drill
7900
1000
Drill
9900
2000
Drill
10400
500 RCB Core

ROP
‐‐‐
21.3
21.3
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.2

Sub‐Total days =Sub‐Total % =Section Time (days)
SectionOps Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
Days
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.2
0.0
6.0
7.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
3.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4.3
3.6
1.5
0.0
6.0
11.1
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
3.2
9.6
7.2
0.0
0.0
16.7
13.7
10.1
0.0
9.0
32.8
27.3
21.9
0.0
0.0
49.2
17.1
16.7
27.1
3.0
63.9
76
40%

64
33%

27
14%

24
13%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.7
9.0
13.2
24.3
26.0
29.2
45.9
78.7
128.0
191.8

192
100%

Figure 136. Baja Location - Case 4a: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.

100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

134
158
188
232
393

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 137. Baja Location - Case 4a: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

141 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Baja Location
Case 4a Operational Time Curve0

1,000
Operational
Days
Seafloor

2,000

3,000

Measured Depth ((m)

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,00011,000
0

50

100

150

200

250

Project Days

Figure 138. Baja Location: Case 4a Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

142 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.4.5 Case 4b Operations Time:
This case assumes the Deepwater Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.

Mobilize Rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 22" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 18" Casing
Drill Textured Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Set 16" Casing
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 9‐5/8" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig

Interval
Days
18.1
0.5
1.2
3.0
3.0
1.2
4.3
5.1
6.0
3.2
14.4
7.0
2.5
23.3
9.0
24.8
6.0
27.3
6.0
63.9
11.0
3.0
3.0
18.1

Total Operational Days =Total Project Days =

229
265

Phase

Cum
Days
0.5
1.7
4.8
7.8
9.0
13.3
18.4
24.4
27.6
42.0
49.0
51.5
74.7
83.7
108.5
114.5
141.8
147.8
211.6
222.6
225.6
228.6
0.0

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,300
4,361

4,361
4,385

61
24

121.92
19

4,385
4,400
5,050

4,400
5,050
5,850

15
650
800

12.4
152.8

5,850
6,200

6,200
6,858

350
658

107.9
45.9

6,858
6,900

6,900
7,864

42
964

17.1
41.4

7,864

8,839

8,839

9,900

9,900

10,400500

7.8Figure 139. Baja Location - Case 4b Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.

Interval%
Coring =500 8.2%
Drilling =5600 91.8%
6100 100%

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

Days
17
59
76

143 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Textured Gabbros
6 Foliated Gabbros
7 Foliated Gabbros
8 Layered Gabbros
9 Layered Gabbros
10 Layered Gabbros
11 Mantle

From
4300
4361
4385
4400
5050
5850
6200
6858
6900
7864
8839
9900

Section Time (days)
SectionTo
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
Days
4361
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4385
24
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.2
0.0
6.0
7.2
4400
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
5050
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4.3
5850
800
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.5
0.0
6.0
11.1
6200
350
Drill
9.1
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
3.2
6858
658
Drill
3.0
9.0
5.4
0.0
7.0
21.4
6900
42
Drill
3.0
0.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.5
7864
964
Drill
3.0
13.2
10.1
0.0
9.0
32.3
8839
975
Drill
3.0
13.3
11.4
0.0
6.0
30.8
9900
1061
Drill
3.0
14.5
12.8
0.0
6.0
33.3
10400
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
16.7
27.1
3.0
63.9
Sub‐Total days =
76
65
27
43
212
Sub‐Total % = 36%
31%
13%
20%
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.7
9.0
13.2
24.4
27.6
49.0
51.4
83.7
114.4
147.7
211.6

Figure 140. Baja Location - Case 4b: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.
100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

160
179
207
257
370

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 141. Baja Location - Case 4b: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

144 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Baja Location
Case 4b Operational Time Curve
01000
Operational
Days
Seafloor
2000

3000

Measured Depth (ft)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

Days

Figure 142. Baja Location: Case 4b Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

145 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5.4.6 Case 4c Operations Time:
This case assumes the Expandable Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the time estimate for this case is shown below.
Interval
Days
18.1
0.5
1.2
3.0
3.0
1.2
4.3
5.1
7.0
3.2
14.4
2.5
8.0
23.3
9.0
24.8
6.0
27.3
6.0
63.9
11.0
3.0
3.0
18.1

Phase
Mobilize Rig
Jet 36"
Drill Sediments
Set 22" casing
Run BOP & Riser
Drill Sediments
Drill Lava
Drill Dikes
Set 16.5" SET Casing
Drill Textured Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Drill Foliated Gabbros
Set 16.5 SET" Casing
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 16" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 13‐3/8" Liner
Drill Layered Gabbros
Run 11‐3/4" Liner
Core Mantle
5% Operational NPT
TA holePull BOP/Riser
De‐Mobilize Rig
Total Operational Days =Total Project Days =

Cum
Days
0.5
1.7
4.8
7.8
9.0
13.3
18.4
25.4
28.6
43.0
45.5
53.5
76.7
85.7
110.5
116.5
143.8
149.8
213.6
224.6
227.6
230.6
0.0

From
(m)

To
(m)

Interval
(m)

Avg
m/day

4,300
4,361

4,361
4,385

61
24

121.92
19

4,385
4,400
5,050

4,400
5,050
5,850

15
650
800

12.4
152.8
0.0

5,850
6,200
6,858

6,200
6,858
6,900

350
658
42

107.9
45.9
17.1

6,900

7,864

964

41.4

7,864

8,839

8,839

9,900

9,900

10,400

500

7.8

231
267

Figure 143. Baja Location - Case 4c Operational Phase Summary

8% of the hole is cored, and 92% is drilled as shown below.

Interval%
Coring =500 8.2%
Drilling =5600 91.8%
6100 100%

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

Days
17
59
76

146 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

The following table shows a detailed breakdown for the key operations in terms of total days
and percentage of the total time for the operations time estimate. "Ops Time" includes the timespent, drilling, coring and underreaming the hole. "Bit Trip" is the time spent on bit trips. "W/L"
time is the time spent making RCB wireline trips. "Flat" time is the time running BOP's, running
wire-line logs and casing.
Section Summary
SectionStratigraphy
0.1 Sediments
1 Sediments
2 Sediments
3 Lava
4 Dikes
5 Textured Gabbros
6 Foliated Gabbros
7 Foliated Gabbros
8 Layered Gabbros
9 Layered Gabbros
10 Layered Gabbros
11 Mantle

From
4300
4361
4385
4400
5050
5850
6200
6858
6900
7864
8839
9900

Section Time (days)
SectionTo
Interval Operation ROP Ops Time Bit Trip W/L
Flat
Days
4361
61 Jetting
‐‐‐
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4385
24
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.2
0.0
6.0
7.2
4400
15
Drill
21.3
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
5050
650
Drill
9.1
3.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4.3
5850
800
Drill
9.1
3.6
1.5
0.0
7.0
12.1
6200
350
Drill
9.1
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
3.2
6858
658
Drill
3.0
9.0
5.4
0.0
8.0
22.4
6900
42
Drill
3.0
0.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.5
7864
964
Drill
3.0
13.2
10.1
0.0
9.0
32.3
8839
975
Drill
3.0
13.3
11.4
0.0
6.0
30.8
9900
1061
Drill
3.0
14.5
12.8
0.0
6.0
33.3
10400
500 RCB Core
1.2
17.1
16.7
27.1
3.0
63.9
Sub‐Total days =
76
65
27
45
214
Sub‐Total % = 36%
30%
13%
21%
100%

Cum
Days
0.5
7.7
9.0
13.2
25.4
28.6
51.0
53.4
85.7
116.4
149.7
213.6

Figure 144. Baja Location - Case 4c: Operations Time Breakdown

Below are the results of the probabilistic estimate of operational time including the P10, P50 and
P90 values and a chart showing the cumulative probability of time.
100%
90%
80%
70%

Observed Minimum
P-10
P-50
P-90
Observed Maximum

60%

P‐

50%
40%

160
178
207
259
452

30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

300

400

500

Dry Hole Drilling Days

Figure 145. Baja Location - Case 4c: Probabilistic Time

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

147 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Baja Location
Case 4c Operational Time Curve
01000
Operational Days
Seafloor
Moho

2000

3000

Measured Depth (ft)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Days

Figure 146. Baja Location: Case 4c Drilling Curve

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

148 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6 Revised Operational Cost Estimates
The Feasibility System study included a rough cost estimate for each case that assumed a daily
operating cost of $1,000,000 per day, which is typical for complex oil and gas deepwater wells.
For this report, a more detailed cost estimate was prepared for the three wellbore configuration
options discussed in Section 3.1 at all three candidate locations. In addition, a probabilistic
methodology for estimating costs was also used to gain a better understanding of the effect of
the uncertainty around the time required to drill the hole to TD. A Monte Carlo simulator wasused to determine the P10, P50, and P90 costs in addition using the ROP distribution discussed
in Section 4 in addition to the nominal cost estimate
The cost estimate considered the following major cost categories. Recall that for accounting
purposes the costs for oil and gas wells are classified as being either intangible or tangible.
Intangible costs are basically for non-salvageable items such as labor, drilling rig time, drilling
fluids, services and so on. Intangible costs are typically charged on a daily basis. Tangible
costs are technically salvageable items such as the wellhead and tubulars, but are typicallypermanently installed in the well.
Intangible Cost Categories

Tangible Cost Categories

Location/ Regulatory Costs

Drive Pipe

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization

Conductor Casing

Drilling Rig - Day Rate

Surface Casing

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers

Intermediate Casing

Directional & Downhole Services

Intermediate Casing

Fuel, Water & Lube

Intermediate Casing

Drilling Fluids Services

Intermediate Casing

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs

Production Liner

Cementing

Production Tie-back

Mud Logging and Geological Services

TubingLand Transportation

Liner Equipment

Boat Transportation

Whipstock Equipment

Helicopter Transportation

Subsurface Completion Equipment

Tubular Services

Wellheads

Shorebase / Dock Services

Miscellaneous/Other

Communications

Tangible Contingency

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intangible Contingency

Figure 147. List of Cost Estimate Categories

Some of the individual cost element assumptions with each category like fuel usage were basedon known Chikyu data. Estimates for such things as MWD and LWD tools, cement, andtubulars were based on representative oilfield analogs. The cost estimates therefore represent
scoping, or order of magnitude costs. An example of the detailed cost estimating assumptions
is provided in Appendix 2.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

149 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Key Assumptions: The location cost category includes a lump sum estimate for a conventional metocean study
and a site survey assuming a third party contractor does the work. It is recognized that, forexample, IODP typically conducts its own site surveys, but an estimate of the location
related costs has been included in the cost estimate because arguably the money would
only be spent if a mantle hole is drilled. The cost estimate of $3,000,000 is based on
previous discussions with two companies that do this kind of work for the oil and gas
industry, RPS Evans-Hamilton and Fugro Geos, during the High Impact Systems project in2012.


The costs of mobilizing the Chikyu from Japan to the location, and then demobilizing the rigback to Japan is included as a lump sum. The cost is based on the distance travelled, fuelconsumption during transit, and the Chikyu's day rate.

Chikyu Day Rate is estimated to be $300,000 per day. The assumption was based on taking
the published average day rate for oil and gas drill ships during 2012 ($438,000/day) andthen reducing the cost to account for the fact that this is a non-commercial project andthings like market conditions, profit and depreciation do not apply.



At present, the Chikyu does not have enough marine drilling riser to drill in the water depths
found at any of the three candidate locations. The cost of purchasing an additional ±1524m(5,000 ft) of conventional steel riser (similar to what is being used now) and additional
buoyancy modules needed is included in the cost estimate as a lump sum. The costestimate of $61,000,000 is based on a quote provided by NOV during the High Impact
Systems project in 2012.



A 15% contingency was assumed for the intangible costs, and a 10% contingency was
assumed for the tangible costs to account for uncertainty in the estimates for the various
individual cost elements. The intangible contingency percentage used for deep water oil
and gas wells ranges between 10-35% and 0-15% for tangibles items depending on thecomplexity of the well and its location.



The nominal project cost estimate is determined based on the nominal days required to drill
the hole which in turn was determined using the most likely ROP values as discussed in
Section 4. The probabilistic costs were determined by re-calculating the cost each time a
new value for days was generated by the Monte Carlo simulator. In other words, theprobabilistic costs are based on the distribution of time required to drill/core the hole and not
on distributions of the individual cost elements.

6.1 Results Summary
A summary of the revised cost estimates for all three locations is provided below. Figure 148 isa tabular listing of results for all 18 cases. Figures 149 through 151 graphically compare theresults of each case by location. The detailed results for each case are provided in thesubsequent sections.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

150 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Recall that:

Case 2: Assumes that long sections of continuous core are taken across the major lithologic
and geophysical transition intervals of key sections. For the time estimate it was assumed
that the upper third of each main stratigraphic interval was cored, the middle third was drilled,
and the lower third was cored.

Case 4: Assumes that the hole is drilled to the Moho and that just the mantle is cored.

Subcategory "a" is the Base Case wellbore configuration.

Subcategory "b' is the Deepwater wellbore configuration

Subcategory "c' is the Expandable wellbore configuration.

Location
Cocos

Hawaii

Baja

Water
Total
Project
Depth (m) Depth (m) Days
3,650
9,900
276
320
337
250
268
271
4,050
10,750
298
346
368
248
239
271
4,300
10,400
287
345
363
244
265
267

Case
2a
2b
2c
4a
4b
4c
2a
2b
2c
4a
4b
4c
2a
2b
2c
4a
4b
4c

Estimated Total Cost (MM$)
Project
P10
P50
P90
$226
$206
$218
$237
$253
$232
$245
$311
$264
$243
$256
$276
$212
$187
$201
$221
$226
$199
$215
$240
$230
$205
$220
$242
$238
$219
$233
$254
$267
$248
$263
$289
$282
$258
$273
$299
$212
$184
$200
$228
$227
$199
$215
$240
$231
$203
$220
$247
$232
$217
$230
$248
$266
$246
$261
$283
$278
$256
$271
$297
$209
$184
$199
$221
$224
$199
$213
$238
$230
$204
$218
$244

Feasibility
Study
$617

$418

$737

$443

$693

$425

Figure 148. Cost Estimate Results for all Cases

Note again that there has been a significant decrease in the latest cost estimates compared tothose of the original feasibility study. The average cost of all the cases is $236 million. The
lowest estimate is $184 million and the highest is $315 million.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

151 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Case comparison by location$350,000$300,000$250,000
Nominal$200,000P10$150,000P50$100,000

P90$50,000
$0
2a

2b

2c

4a

4b

4c

Cocos Location: Cost Estimate Comparison by Case

Figure 149. Cocos Location – Cost Estimate Comparison$350,000$300,000$250,000
Nominal$200,000P10$150,000

P50
P90$100,000$50,000
$0
2a

2b
2c
4a
4b
Hawaii Location: Cost Estimate Comparison by Case

4c

Figure 150. Hawaii Location – Cost Estimate Comparison

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

152 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$350,000$300,000$250,000
Nominal$200,000P10$150,000P50$100,000

P90$50,000
$0
2a

2b

2c

4a

4b

4c

Baja Location: Cost Estimate Comparison by Case

Figure 151. Baja Location – Cost Estimate Comparison

The following table compares the average project costs and the average P-50 costs between
the candidate locations in order to provide a simplified look at the differences between thelocations. The P-50 value is shown because it is typically used in oil and gas project economics
calculations.

Location

Water
Total
Depth (m) Depth (m)

Cocos

3,650

9,900

Hawaii

4,050

10,750

Baja

4,300

10,400Avg
Project
Days
311
263
337
253
332
259

Case
2a‐2b
4a‐4b
2a‐2b
4a‐4b
2a‐2b
4a‐4b

Avg Est Total Cost (MM$)
Project
$247
$223
$262
$212
$259
$221

P50
$240
$212
$256
$212
$254
$210

Figure 152. Average Cost Comparisons – Three Locations

6.1.1 Cost Sensitivity
As illustrated below using Cocos Case 4c as an example, the single biggest cost driveraccounting for over 50% of the total cost is the Chikyu's day rate costs, which are purely afunction of the amount of time it takes to drill the hole. This is followed by the intangible
contingency cost (13%), the mobilization and demobilization cost (8%), and the fuel cost (6%).
This means that the drilling and coring days required have the largest influence on the overall
project cost, and that the costs of the individual cost elements are almost irrelevant.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

153 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$140,000

Estimated Category Cost (M$)$120,000$100,000$80,000$60,000$40,000$20,000$0

Cost Category

Figure 153. Cost Element Comparison

6.1.2 Cost of Drilling vs. Coring
As previously noted, the operational estimates were done only for two drill/core cases sincethese adequately illustrate the philosophical differences between the amount of time spentcoring versus time spent drilling. Case 2 for the Hawaii and Baja locations assume thatapproximately 61% of the hole is cored compared to around 8% for Case 4. The Cocos locationis slightly different since it is assumed that the interval from sediments through the base of thedikes does not need to be cored since this has already been done during the various
expeditions at the 1256D site. Therefore the Case 2 at the Cocos location assumes that around
44% of the hole is cored. The wellbore configurations are the same for the "a", "b" and 'c' subcases, so the main difference is the amount of time spent coring or drilling. Therefore, as
shown below, the "cost" of coring can be estimated by comparing the difference in total cost
between the two like cases.
Location
Cocos

Total Depth (m)
mbrf
mbsf
9,900
6,250

High Core
Case
2a
2b
2c

NominalNominalCost
Low Core
Ops Days Cost
Ops Days Cost DifferenceCase
228$225,672
4a
202$211,997$13,675272$252,600
4b
220$225,985$26,615289$264,1294c
223$229,649$34,480

Figure 154. Cocos Location - Coring vs. Drilling Cost Comparison

Location
Hawaii

Total Depth (m)
mbrf
mbsf
10,750 6,700

High Core
Case
2a
2b
2c

NominalNominalCost
Low Core
Ops Days Cost
Ops Days Cost DifferenceCase271$238,340
4a
221$211,970$26,370319$267,445
4b242$227,067$40,378
341$281,703
4c
244$230,963$50,740

Figure 155. Hawaii Location - Coring vs. Drilling Cost Comparison

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

154 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

LocationBaja

Total Depth (m)
mbrf
mbsf
10,400 6,100

High Core
Case
2a
2b
2c

Low Core
NominalNominalCost
Case
Ops Days Cost
Ops Days Cost Difference
251$231,9074a
208$209,195$22,712308$265,799
4b
229$224,193$41,606
327$278,2134c
231$230,274$47,939

Figure 156. Baja Location - Coring vs. Drilling Cost Comparison

The additional coring costs comparing Case 4 to Case 2 averages $25,000M at the Cocos
location, $39,000M at the Hawaii location and $37,000 at the Baja location.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

155 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.2 Cocos Location Cost Estimates
6.2.1 Case 2a Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. However for the
Cocos location it is assumed that the sediments, lava and dike intervals do not need to be coredbecause of previous IODP experience on the 1256D hole. A summary of the cost estimate forthis case is shown below.

Project
Days
276

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$223,109$2,563 $225,672 $205,546 $217,945 $237,169
Figure 157. Cocos Location: Case 2a – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

300

400
Million US$

Figure 158. Cocos Location – Case 2a Probabilistic Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

156 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 2a
Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#2a

3650m
11,975 ft
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

1Proposed TD
9900m
32,480 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
228 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
228 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$19,400,000$129,400,000$3,707,000$3,790,000$13,338,000$2,653,000$4,784,000$685,000$559,000$103,000$2,622,000$1,026,000$100,000$456,000$228,000$5,234,000$1,135,000$1,767,000$29,102,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$19,400,000$129,400,000$3,707,000$3,790,000$13,338,000$2,653,000$4,784,000$685,000$559,000$103,000$2,622,000$1,026,000$100,000$456,000$228,000$5,234,000$1,135,000$1,767,000$29,102,000$223,109,228$0$223,109,228

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
30"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"
0
0
0
0
0
0

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipmt

Footage$/ft

200$500.00$100,000$0$100,000

770
5,527

$180.00$140.00$139,000$774,000$0$0$139,000$774,000

7,076
0$80.00$0.00$567,000$0$0$0$567,000
$0

0
0

$0.00
$0.00

$0
$0

$0
$0

$0
$0

0
0

$0.00
$0.00

$0
$0

$0
$0

$0
$0

0

$0.00

$0
$150,000$0$0$0$150,000

$0
$0

$0
$0

$0
$0

$500,000$100,000$233,000$0$0$0$500,000$100,000$233,000$2,563,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$2,563,000$225,672,228$0$225,672,228

Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at

10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $225,672,228
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$225,672,228

157 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAILS

Rev 4BEAM - Cocos Case 2a
Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
3650m
9900m
11,975 ft
32,480 ft

Case No.
#2a

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$978,548
Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
228 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$9,700,000$9,700,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$68,400,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

228 Days

16 No.
228 Days
22 No.
142 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
114 Days
114 Days
228 Days
182 Days
114 Days
114 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

228 Days
114 Days
114 Days
228 Days
228 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$12,084,000$456,000$342,000$296,400$159,600

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

228 Days
228 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

228 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$129,400,000$0$129,400,000$3,707,000$0$3,707,000$3,790,000$0$3,790,000$13,338,000$0$13,338,000$2,653,000$0$2,653,000$1,900,000$182,400$570,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$684,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$100,000$150,000$100,000

Lump Sum$50,000$285,000$685,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$19,400,000$4,784,000

20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"228 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$3,020,000$1,120,000$912,000$1,320,000$355,000$20,000$30,000$342,000$798,000$456,000$547,200$456,000$1,140,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
228 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$19,400,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$4,784,000$0$685,000

158 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$559,000$0$559,000$103,000$0$103,000$2,622,000$0$2,622,000$1,026,000$0$1,026,000$100,000$0$100,000$456,000$0$456,000$0$228,000$0$228,000$5,234,000$0$5,234,000$1,135,000$0$1,135,000$1,767,000$0$1,767,000$29,102,000$0$29,102,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $223,109,000$0$223,109,000$100,000$0$100,000$139,000$0$139,000$774,000$0$774,000$567,000$0$567,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$233,000$0$233,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

228 Days
228 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$285,000$273,600

Trucking

114 Days$900 /day$102,600

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

114 Days
114 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,596,000$1,026,000

Helicopter - spot hire

114 Days$9,000 /day

$1,026,000

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$100,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

228 Days$2,000 /day

$456,000VSAT

228 Days$1,000 /day

$228,000

228 Days
228 Days
40 Days228 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$91,200$342,000$240,000$4,560,000$150 /day$34,200$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
228 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running Service
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

228 Days
40 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

228 Days
228 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% = Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$342,000$400,000$500,000$250,800$273,600

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$194,007,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
30"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate

4= # Strings

Length
200
770
5,527
7,076

$/ft
$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$2,330,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$2,563,000$0$2,563,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $225,672,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$225,672,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $225,672,000$0$225,672,000

159 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.2.2 Case 2b Cost Estimate:This case assumes the Deepwater wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. However for the
Cocos location it is assumed that the sediments, lava and dike intervals do not need to be coredbecause of previous IODP experience on the 1256D hole. A summary of the cost estimate forthis case is shown below.

Project
Days
320

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$246,552$6,048 $252,600 $232,208 $244,685 $263,013
Figure 159. Cocos Location: Case 2c – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

300

400
Million US$

Figure 160. Cocos Location – Case 2b Probabilistic Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

160 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 2b
Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#2b

3650m
11,975 ft
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

1Proposed TD
9900m
32,480 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

20-Jun-13

Complete

TOTAL
272 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
272 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$19,400,000$142,600,000$4,286,000$4,511,000$15,912,000$2,798,000$4,916,000$1,090,000$667,000$123,000$3,128,000$1,224,000$150,000$544,000$272,000$6,377,000$1,141,000$2,234,000$32,159,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$19,400,000$142,600,000$4,286,000$4,511,000$15,912,000$2,798,000$4,916,000$1,090,000$667,000$123,000$3,128,000$1,224,000$150,000$544,000$272,000$6,377,000$1,141,000$2,234,000$32,159,000$246,552,272$0$246,552,272

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"
0
0
0

Drive Pipe

Footage$/ft

200$650.00$130,000$0$130,000770$180.00$139,000$0$139,000

4,907$160.00$786,000$0$786,000

8,305$155.00$1,288,000$0$1,288,000

12,225$140.00$1,712,000$0$1,712,000

3,600$80.00$288,000$0$288,000

3,640$70.00$255,000$0$255,000

0

$0.00

$0

$0

$0

0

$0.00

$0

$0

$0

0

$0.00

$0

$0

$0

$300,000$0$300,000

Whipstock Equipment

$0

$0

$0

Subsurface Completion

$0

$0

$0

$500,000$0$500,000$100,000$550,000$0$0$100,000$550,000$6,048,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$6,048,000$252,600,272$0$252,600,272

Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipmt

Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at

10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $252,600,272
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$252,600,272

161 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAILS

Rev 4BEAM - Cocos Case 2b
Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
3650m
9900m
11,975 ft
32,480 ft

Case No.
#2b

Date:

20-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$906,441
Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
272 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$9,700,000$9,700,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$81,600,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

272 Days

22 No.
272 Days
21 No.
159 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
136 Days
136 Days
272 Days
218 Days
136 Days
136 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

272 Days
136 Days
136 Days
272 Days
272 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$14,416,000$544,000$408,000$353,600$190,400

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

272 Days
272 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

272 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$142,600,000$0$142,600,000$4,286,000$0$4,286,000$4,511,000$0$4,511,000$15,912,000$0$15,912,000$2,798,000$0$2,798,000$1,900,000$217,600$680,000$1,090,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
272 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$4,916,000$816,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$19,400,000$4,916,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

22"
18"
16"
13.375"11.75"
9.625"$3,020,000$1,540,000$1,088,000$1,260,000$397,500$20,000$30,000$408,000$952,000$544,000$652,800$544,000$1,360,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
272 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$19,400,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,090,000$100,000$100,000$150,000$150,000$100,000$100,000$50,000$340,000

162 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$667,000$0$667,000$123,000$0$123,000$3,128,000$0$3,128,000$1,224,000$0$1,224,000$150,000$0$150,000$544,000$0$544,000$0$272,000$0$272,000$6,377,000$0$6,377,000$1,141,000$0$1,141,000$2,234,000$0$2,234,000$32,159,000$0$32,159,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $246,552,000$0$246,552,000$130,000$139,000$0$0$130,000$139,000$786,000$0$786,000$1,288,000$0$1,288,000$1,712,000$0$1,712,000$288,000$255,000$0$0$288,000$255,000$300,000$0$300,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$550,000$0$550,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

272 Days
272 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$340,000$326,400

Trucking

136 Days$900 /day$122,400

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

136 Days
136 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,904,000$1,224,000

Helicopter - spot hire

136 Days$9,000 /day

$1,224,000

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

272 Days$2,000 /day

$544,000VSAT

272 Days$1,000 /day

$272,000

272 Days
272 Days
70 Days272 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$108,800$408,000$420,000$5,440,000$150 /day$40,800$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
272 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

272 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

272 Days
272 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$408,000$700,000$500,000$299,200$326,400

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$214,393,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
770
4,907
8,305
12,225
3,600
3,640

$/ft
$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$140.00$80.00$70.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% = Amount

ST Drlg =$5,498,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$6,048,000$0$6,048,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $252,600,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$252,600,000$0TOTAL WELL COST $252,600,000$0$252,600,000

163 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.2.3 Case 2c Cost Estimate:This case assumes the Deepwater wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. However for the
Cocos location it is assumed that the sediments, lava and dike intervals do not need to be coredbecause of previous IODP experience on the 1256D hole. A summary of the cost estimate forthis case is shown below.

Project
Days
337

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$255,250$8,879 $264,129 $243,306 $256,370 $276,480
Figure 161. Cocos Location: Case 2c – Cost Estimate

The following charts shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

300

400
Million US$

Figure 162. Cocos Location – Case 2c Probabilistic Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

164 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 2c
Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#2b

3650m
11,975 ft
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

1Proposed TD
9900m
32,480 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

20-Jun-13

Complete

TOTAL
289 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
289 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$19,400,000$147,700,000$4,531,000$4,790,000$16,907,000$2,854,000$4,967,000$1,112,000$709,000$131,000$3,324,000$1,301,000$150,000$578,000$289,000$6,750,000$1,144,000$2,299,000$33,294,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$19,400,000$147,700,000$4,531,000$4,790,000$16,907,000$2,854,000$4,967,000$1,112,000$709,000$131,000$3,324,000$1,301,000$150,000$578,000$289,000$6,750,000$1,144,000$2,299,000$33,294,000$255,250,289$0$255,250,289

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"000Footage

$/ft

200
770

$650.00$180.00$130,000$139,000$0$0$130,000$139,000

5,107
3,598
11,755
15,525$300.00$300.00$155.00$140.00$1,533,000$1,080,000$1,823,000$2,174,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,533,000$1,080,000$1,823,000$2,174,000

3,640
0
0
0

$80.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$292,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0

$292,000$0$0$0$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$808,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$808,000$8,879,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$8,879,000$264,129,289$0$264,129,289

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $264,129,289
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$264,129,289

165 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 2c
Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
3650m
9900m
11,975 ft
32,480 ft

Case No.
#2b

Date:

20-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$883,218
Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
289 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$9,700,000$9,700,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$86,700,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

289 Days

24 No.
289 Days
21 No.
174 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
145 Days
145 Days
289 Days
231 Days
145 Days
145 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

289 Days
145 Days
145 Days
289 Days
289 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$15,317,000$578,000$433,500$375,700$202,300

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

289 Days
289 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

289 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$147,700,000$0$147,700,000$4,531,000$0$4,531,000$4,790,000$0$4,790,000$16,907,000$0$16,907,000$2,854,000$0$2,854,000$1,900,000$231,200$722,500$1,112,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
289 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$4,967,000$867,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$19,400,000$4,967,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13.375"11.75"$3,020,000$1,680,000$1,156,000$1,260,000$435,000$20,000$30,000$433,500$1,011,500$578,000$693,600$578,000$1,445,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
289 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$19,400,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,112,000$100,000$100,000$150,000$150,000$100,000$100,000$50,000$361,250

166 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$709,000$0$709,000$131,000$0$131,000$3,324,000$0$3,324,000$1,301,000$0$1,301,000$150,000$0$150,000$578,000$0$578,000$0$289,000$0$289,000$6,750,000$0$6,750,000$1,144,000$0$1,144,000$2,299,000$0$2,299,000$33,294,000$0$33,294,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $255,250,000$0$255,250,000$130,000$139,000$0$0$130,000$139,000$1,533,000$0$1,533,000$1,080,000$0$1,080,000$1,823,000$0$1,823,000$2,174,000$292,000$0$0$2,174,000$292,000$300,000$0$300,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$808,000$0$808,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

289 Days
289 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$361,250$346,800

Trucking

145 Days$900 /day$130,050

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

145 Days
145 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$2,023,000$1,300,500

Helicopter - spot hire

145 Days$9,000 /day

$1,300,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

289 Days$2,000 /day

$578,000VSAT

289 Days$1,000 /day

$289,000

289 Days
289 Days
70 Days289 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$115,600$433,500$420,000$5,780,000$150 /day$43,350$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
289 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

289 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

289 Days
289 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$433,500$700,000$500,000$317,900$346,800

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$221,956,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
770
5,107
3,598
11,755
15,525
3,640

$/ft
650
180
300
300
155
140
80

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% = Amount

ST Drlg =$8,071,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$8,879,000$0$8,879,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $264,129,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$264,129,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $264,129,000$0$264,129,000

167 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.2.4 Case 4a Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.
.

Project
Days
250

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$209,434$2,563 $211,997 $186,990 $200,870 $220,780
Figure 163. Cocos Location: Case 4a – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

50

100

150

Total Cost

200

250

300

Million US$

Figure 164. Cocos Location – Case 4a Probabilistic Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

168 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 4a** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4a

3650m
11,975 ft
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

1Proposed TD
9900m
32,480 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

20-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
202 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 1640 ft / 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
202 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$19,400,000$121,600,000$3,003,000$3,363,000$11,817,000$2,567,000$4,706,000$653,000$495,000$91,000$2,323,000$909,000$100,000$404,000$202,000$4,664,000$1,131,000$1,668,000$27,318,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$19,400,000$121,600,000$3,003,000$3,363,000$11,817,000$2,567,000$4,706,000$653,000$495,000$91,000$2,323,000$909,000$100,000$404,000$202,000$4,664,000$1,131,000$1,668,000$27,318,000$209,434,202$0$209,434,202

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
30"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"
0
0
0
0
0
0

Footage

$/ft

200
770
5,527
7,076

$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00$100,000$139,000$774,000$567,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$100,000$139,000$774,000$567,000

0
0
0
0
0
0

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$233,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$233,000$2,563,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$2,563,000$211,997,202$0$211,997,202

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $211,997,202
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$211,997,202

169 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAILS

Rev 4BEAM - Cocos Case 4a*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
3650m
9900m
11,975 ft
32,480 ft

Case No.
#4a

Date:

20-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 1640 ft / 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$1,036,802

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
202 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$9,700,000$9,700,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$60,600,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

202 Days

24 No.
202 Days
6 No.
62 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
101 Days
101 Days
202 Days
162 Days
101 Days
101 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

202 Days
101 Days
101 Days
202 Days
202 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$10,706,000$404,000$303,000$262,600$141,400

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

202 Days
202 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

202 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$121,600,000$0$121,600,000$3,003,000$0$3,003,000$3,363,000$0$3,363,000$11,817,000$0$11,817,000$2,567,000$0$2,567,000$1,900,000$161,600$505,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$606,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$100,000$150,000$100,000

Lump Sum$50,000$252,500$653,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$19,400,000$4,706,000

20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"202 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$3,020,000$1,680,000$808,000$360,000$155,000$20,000$30,000$303,000$707,000$404,000$484,800$404,000$1,010,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
202 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$19,400,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$4,706,000$0$653,000

170 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$495,000$0$495,000$91,000$0$91,000$2,323,000$0$2,323,000$909,000$0$909,000$100,000$0$100,000$404,000$0$404,000$0$202,000$0$202,000$4,664,000$0$4,664,000$1,131,000$0$1,131,000$1,668,000$0$1,668,000$27,318,000$0$27,318,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $209,434,000$0$209,434,000$100,000$139,000$0$0$100,000$139,000$774,000$0$774,000$567,000$0$567,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$233,000$0$233,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

202 Days
202 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$252,500$242,400

Trucking

101 Days$900 /day$90,900

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

101 Days
101 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,414,000$909,000

Helicopter - spot hire

101 Days$9,000 /day

$909,000

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$100,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

202 Days$2,000 /day

$404,000VSAT

202 Days$1,000 /day

$202,000

202 Days
202 Days
40 Days
202 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$80,800$303,000$240,000$4,040,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
202 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other$150 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$30,300$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running Service
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

202 Days
40 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

202 Days
202 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% = Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$303,000$400,000$500,000$222,200$242,400

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$182,116,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
30"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate

4= # Strings

Length
200
770
5,527
7,076

$/ft
$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$2,330,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$2,563,000$0$2,563,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $211,997,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$211,997,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $211,997,000$0$211,997,000

171 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.2.5 Case 4b Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
269

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$219,937$6,048 $225,985 $198,614 $214,640 $240,231
Figure 165. Cocos Location: Case 4b – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

300

400
Million US$

Figure 166. Cocos Location – Case 4b Probabilistic Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

172 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
SCOPING COST ESTIMATE

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 4b** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4b

3650m
11,975 ft
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

1Proposed TD
9900m
32,480 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

20-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
221 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 1640 ft / 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
221 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$19,400,000$127,300,000$3,079,000$3,675,000$12,929,000$2,630,000$4,763,000$1,027,000$542,000$100,000$2,542,000$995,000$150,000$442,000$221,000$5,260,000$1,134,000$2,040,000$28,688,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$19,400,000$127,300,000$3,079,000$3,675,000$12,929,000$2,630,000$4,763,000$1,027,000$542,000$100,000$2,542,000$995,000$150,000$442,000$221,000$5,260,000$1,134,000$2,040,000$28,688,000$219,937,221$0$219,937,221

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubing

OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"
000Footage

$/ft

200
770
4,907
8,305

$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$130,000$139,000$786,000$1,288,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$139,000$786,000$1,288,000

12,225
3,600
3,640
0
0
0

$140.00$80.00$70.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,712,000$288,000$255,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,712,000$288,000$255,000$0$0$0$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$550,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$550,000$6,048,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$6,048,000$225,985,221$0$225,985,221

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $225,985,221
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$225,985,221

173 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
SCOPING COST ESTIMATE

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 4b*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Cocos

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
3650m
9900m
11,975 ft
32,480 ft

Case No.
#4b

Date:

20-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 1640 ft / 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$995,190

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
221 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$9,700,000$9,700,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$66,300,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

221 Days

24 No.
221 Days
6 No.
62 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
111 Days
111 Days
221 Days
177 Days
111 Days
111 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

221 Days
111 Days
111 Days
221 Days
221 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$11,713,000$442,000$331,500$287,300$154,700

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

221 Days
221 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

221 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$127,300,000$0$127,300,000$3,079,000$0$3,079,000$3,675,000$0$3,675,000$12,929,000$0$12,929,000$2,630,000$0$2,630,000$1,900,000$176,800$552,500$1,027,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
221 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$4,763,000$663,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$19,400,000$4,763,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

22"
18"
16"
13.375"11.75"
9.625"$3,020,000$1,680,000$884,000$360,000$155,000$20,000$30,000$331,500$773,500$442,000$530,400$442,000$1,105,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
221 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$19,400,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,027,000$100,000$100,000$150,000$150,000$100,000$100,000$50,000$276,250

174 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$542,000$0$542,000$100,000$0$100,000$2,542,000$0$2,542,000$995,000$0$995,000$150,000$0$150,000$442,000$0$442,000$0$221,000$0$221,000$5,260,000$0$5,260,000$1,134,000$0$1,134,000$2,040,000$0$2,040,000$28,688,000$0$28,688,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $219,937,000$0$219,937,000$130,000$139,000$0$0$130,000$139,000$786,000$0$786,000$1,288,000$0$1,288,000$1,712,000$0$1,712,000$288,000$255,000$0$0$288,000$255,000$300,000$0$300,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$550,000$0$550,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

221 Days
221 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$276,250$265,200

Trucking

111 Days$900 /day$99,450

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

111 Days
111 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,547,000$994,500

Helicopter - spot hire

111 Days$9,000 /day

$994,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

221 Days$2,000 /day

$442,000VSAT

221 Days$1,000 /day

$221,000

221 Days
221 Days
70 Days
221 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$88,400$331,500$420,000$4,420,000$150 /day$33,150$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
221 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

221 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

221 Days
221 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$331,500$700,000$500,000$243,100$265,200

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$191,249,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
770
4,907
8,305
12,225
3,600
3,640

$/ft
$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$140.00$80.00$70.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% = Amount

ST Drlg =$5,498,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$6,048,000$0$6,048,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $225,985,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$225,985,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $225,985,000$0$225,985,000

175 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.2.6 Case 4c Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
271

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$220,935$8,714 $229,649 $205,488 $220,162 $241,916
Figure 167. Cocos Location: Case 4c – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

50

100

150

Total Cost

200

250

300

Million US$

Figure 168. Cocos Location – Case 4b Probabilistic Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

176 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
SCOPING COST ESTIMATE

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 4c** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4c

3650m
11,972 ft
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

1Proposed TD
9900m
32,480 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

20-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
223 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 1640 ft / 500m of the Mantle
Case 4c: Expandable Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
223 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$19,400,000$127,900,000$3,087,000$3,708,000$13,046,000$2,636,000$4,769,000$1,029,000$547,000$101,000$2,565,000$1,004,000$150,000$446,000$223,000$5,304,000$1,134,000$2,048,000$28,818,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$19,400,000$127,900,000$3,087,000$3,708,000$13,046,000$2,636,000$4,769,000$1,029,000$547,000$101,000$2,565,000$1,004,000$150,000$446,000$223,000$5,304,000$1,134,000$2,048,000$28,818,000$220,935,223$0$220,935,223

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"000Footage

$/ft

200
770
5,107
3,598

$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$130,000$139,000$1,533,000$1,080,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$139,000$1,533,000$1,080,000

11,755
15,5253,640
000$155.00$140.00$80.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,823,000$2,174,000$292,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,823,000$2,174,000$292,000$0$0$0$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$793,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$793,000$8,714,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$8,714,000$229,649,223$0$229,649,223

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $229,649,223
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$229,649,223

177 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
SCOPING COST ESTIMATE

Rev 4

BEAM - Cocos Case 4c*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
3650m
9900m
11,972 ft
32,480 ft

Case No.
#4c

Date:

20-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W
Lat: 6.7 - 8.7°N / Long: 89.5 - 91.9°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 1640 ft / 500m of the Mantle
Case 4c: Expandable Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$990,740

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
223 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$9,700,000$9,700,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$66,900,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

223 Days

24 No.
223 Days
6 No.
62 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
112 Days
112 Days
223 Days
178 Days
112 Days
112 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

223 Days
112 Days
112 Days
223 Days
223 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$11,819,000$446,000$334,500$289,900$156,100

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

223 Days
223 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

223 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$127,900,000$0$127,900,000$3,087,000$0$3,087,000$3,708,000$0$3,708,000$13,046,000$0$13,046,000$2,636,000$0$2,636,000$1,900,000$178,400$557,500$1,029,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
223 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$4,769,000$669,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$19,400,000$4,769,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13.375"11.75"$3,020,000$1,680,000$892,000$360,000$155,000$20,000$30,000$334,500$780,500$446,000$535,200$446,000$1,115,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
223 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$19,400,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,029,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$150,000$150,000$100,000$50,000$278,750

178 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$547,000$0$547,000$101,000$0$101,000$2,565,000$0$2,565,000$1,004,000$0$1,004,000$150,000$0$150,000$446,000$0$446,000$0$223,000$0$223,000$5,304,000$0$5,304,000$1,134,000$0$1,134,000$2,048,000$0$2,048,000$28,818,000$0$28,818,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $220,935,000$0$220,935,000$130,000$139,000$0$0$130,000$139,000$1,533,000$0$1,533,000$1,080,000$0$1,080,000$1,823,000$0$1,823,000$2,174,000$292,000$0$0$2,174,000$292,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$793,000$0$793,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

223 Days
223 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$278,750$267,600

Trucking

112 Days$900 /day$100,350

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

112 Days
112 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,561,000$1,003,500

Helicopter - spot hire

112 Days$9,000 /day

$1,003,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

223 Days$2,000 /day

$446,000VSAT

223 Days$1,000 /day

$223,000223 Days
223 Days
70 Days223 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$89,200$334,500$420,000$4,460,000$150 /day$33,450$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
223 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

223 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

223 Days
223 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$334,500$700,000$500,000$245,300$267,600

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$192,117,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
770
5,107
3,598
11,755
15,5253,640$/ft$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$155.00$140.00$80.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$7,921,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$8,714,000$0$8,714,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $229,649,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$229,649,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $229,649,000$0$229,649,000

179 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.3 Hawaii Location Cost Estimates
6.3.1 Case 2a Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of
the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
298

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$235,590$2,650 $238,240 $218,820 $232,893 $254,373
Figure 169. Hawaii Location: Case 2a – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

180 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Hawaii, Case 2a** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4a

4050m
13,287 ft
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

1
Proposed TD
10,750m
35,269 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

Complete

TOTAL
271 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
271 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$10,800,000$142,300,000$4,649,000$4,495,000$15,854,000$2,895,000$4,913,000$739,000$664,000$122,000$3,117,000$1,220,000$100,000$542,000$271,000$6,175,000$1,141,000$1,930,000$30,743,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$10,800,000$142,300,000$4,649,000$4,495,000$15,854,000$2,895,000$4,913,000$739,000$664,000$122,000$3,117,000$1,220,000$100,000$542,000$271,000$6,175,000$1,141,000$1,930,000$30,743,000$235,690,271$0$235,690,271

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
36"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"
0
0
0
0
0
0

Footage

$/ft

200
606
5,364
8,715

$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00$100,000$110,000$751,000$698,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$100,000$110,000$751,000$698,000

0
0
0
0
0
0

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$241,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$241,000$2,650,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$2,650,000$238,340,271$0$238,340,271

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $238,340,271
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$238,340,271

181 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAILS

Rev 4BEAM - Hawaii, Case 2a*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4050m
10,750m
13,287 ft
35,269 ft

Case No.
#4a

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$869,705

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
271 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$5,400,000$5,400,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$81,300,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

271 Days

20 No.
271 Days
29 No.
170 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
136 Days
136 Days
271 Days
217 Days
136 Days
136 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

271 Days
136 Days
136 Days
271 Days
271 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$14,363,000$542,000$406,500$352,300$189,700

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

271 Days
271 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

271 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$142,300,000$0$142,300,000$4,649,000$0$4,649,000$4,495,000$0$4,495,000$15,854,000$0$15,854,000$2,895,000$0$2,895,000$2,000,000$216,800$677,500

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$813,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$100,000$150,000$100,000

Lump Sum$50,000$338,750$739,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$10,800,000$4,913,000

20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"271 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$3,020,000$1,400,000$1,084,000$1,740,000$425,000$20,000$30,000$406,500$948,500$542,000$650,400$542,000$1,355,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
271 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$10,800,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$4,913,000$0$739,000

182 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$664,000$0$664,000$122,000$0$122,000$3,117,000$0$3,117,000$1,220,000$0$1,220,000$100,000$0$100,000$542,000$0$542,000$0$271,000$0$271,000$6,175,000$0$6,175,000$1,141,000$0$1,141,000$1,930,000$0$1,930,000$30,743,000$0$30,743,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $235,690,000$0$235,690,000$100,000$110,000$0$0$100,000$110,000$751,000$0$751,000$698,000$0$698,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$241,000$0$241,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

271 Days
271 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$338,750$325,200

Trucking

136 Days$900 /day$121,950

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

136 Days
136 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,897,000$1,219,500

Helicopter - spot hire

136 Days$9,000 /day

$1,219,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$100,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

271 Days$2,000 /day

$542,000VSAT

271 Days$1,000 /day

$271,000

271 Days
271 Days
40 Days271 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$108,400$406,500$240,000$5,420,000$150 /day$40,650$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
271 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

271 Days
40 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

271 Days
271 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$406,500$400,000$500,000$298,100$325,200

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$204,947,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate

4= # Strings

Length
200
606
5,364
8,715

$/ft
$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$2,409,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$2,650,000$0$2,650,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $238,340,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$238,340,000$0TOTAL WELL COST $238,340,000$0$238,340,000

183 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.3.2 Case 2b Cost Estimate:This case assumes the Deepwater wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of thecost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
346

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$261,192$6,253 $267,445 $247,832 $262,870 $288,898
Figure 170. Hawaii Location: Case 2c – Cost Estimate

The following charts shows the cumulative probability of cost.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

184 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Hawaii, Case 2b** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4b

4050m
13,287 ft
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

1
Proposed TD
10,750m
35,269 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

Complete

TOTAL
319 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
319 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$10,800,000$156,700,000$5,294,000$5,282,000$18,662,000$3,053,000$5,057,000$1,149,000$782,000$144,000$3,669,000$1,436,000$150,000$638,000$319,000$7,407,000$1,148,000$2,413,000$34,069,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$10,800,000$156,700,000$5,294,000$5,282,000$18,662,000$3,053,000$5,057,000$1,149,000$782,000$144,000$3,669,000$1,436,000$150,000$638,000$319,000$7,407,000$1,148,000$2,413,000$34,069,000$261,192,319$0$261,192,319

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubing

OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"
000Footage

$/ft

200
656
4,858
8,707

$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$130,000$119,000$778,000$1,350,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$119,000$778,000$1,350,000

12,863
4,000
4,078
0
0
0

$140.00$80.00$70.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,801,000$320,000$286,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,801,000$320,000$286,000$0$0$0$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$569,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$569,000$6,253,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$6,253,000$267,445,319$0$267,445,319

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $267,445,319
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$267,445,319

185 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Hawaii, Case 2b
Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4050m
10,750m
13,287 ft
35,269 ft

Case No.
#4b

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$818,784

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
319 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$5,400,000$5,400,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$95,700,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

319 Days

26 No.
319 Days
28 No.
207 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
160 Days
160 Days
319 Days
255 Days
160 Days
160 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

319 Days
160 Days
160 Days
319 Days
319 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$16,907,000$638,000$478,500$414,700$223,300

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

319 Days
319 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

319 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$156,700,000$0$156,700,000$5,294,000$0$5,294,000$5,282,000$0$5,282,000$18,662,000$0$18,662,000$3,053,000$0$3,053,000$2,000,000$255,200$797,500$1,149,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
319 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$5,057,000$957,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$10,800,000$5,057,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

22"
18"
16"
13.375"11.75"
9.625"$3,020,000$1,820,000$1,276,000$1,680,000$517,500$20,000$30,000$478,500$1,116,500$638,000$765,600$638,000$1,595,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
319 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$10,800,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,149,000

100,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000$50,000$398,750

186 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.3.3 Case 2c Cost Estimate:This case assumes the Deepwater wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third.. A summary of
the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
368

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$272,554$9,149 $281,703 $258,399 $273,358 $298,607
Figure 171. Hawaii Location: Case 2c – Cost Estimate

The following charts shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

187 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Hawaii, Case 2c** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4b

4050m
13,287 ft
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

1
Proposed TD
10,750m
35,269 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

Complete

TOTAL
341 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
341 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$10,800,000$163,300,000$5,709,000$5,643,000$19,949,000$3,126,000$5,123,000$1,177,000$836,000$154,000$3,922,000$1,535,000$150,000$682,000$341,000$7,888,000$1,152,000$2,496,000$35,551,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$10,800,000$163,300,000$5,709,000$5,643,000$19,949,000$3,126,000$5,123,000$1,177,000$836,000$154,000$3,922,000$1,535,000$150,000$682,000$341,000$7,888,000$1,152,000$2,496,000$35,551,000$272,554,341$0$272,554,341

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"000Footage

$/ft

200
656
5,058
4,049

$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$130,000$119,000$1,518,000$1,215,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$119,000$1,518,000$1,215,000

12,507
16,5634,078
0
00$155.00$140.00$80.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,939,000$2,319,000$327,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,939,000$2,319,000$327,000$0$0$0$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$832,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$832,000$9,149,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$9,149,000$281,703,341$0$281,703,341

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $281,703,341
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$281,703,341

188 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Hawaii, Case 2c*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4050m
10,750m
13,287 ft
35,269 ft

Case No.
#4b

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$799,279

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
341 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$5,400,000$5,400,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$102,300,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

341 Days

30 No.
341 Days
28 No.
226 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
171 Days
171 Days
341 Days
273 Days
171 Days
171 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

341 Days
171 Days
171 Days
341 Days
341 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$18,073,000$682,000$511,500$443,300$238,700

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

341 Days
341 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

341 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$163,300,000$0$163,300,000$5,709,000$0$5,709,000$5,643,000$0$5,643,000$19,949,000$0$19,949,000$3,126,000$0$3,126,000$2,000,000$272,800$852,500$1,177,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
341 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$5,123,000$1,023,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$10,800,000$5,123,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13.375"11.750"$3,020,000$2,100,000$1,364,000$1,680,000$565,000$20,000$30,000$511,500$1,193,500$682,000$818,400$682,000$1,705,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
341 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$10,800,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,177,000

100,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000$50,000$426,250

189 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$836,000$0$836,000$154,000$0$154,000$3,922,000$0$3,922,000$1,535,000$0$1,535,000$150,000$0$150,000$682,000$0$682,000$0$341,000$0$341,000$7,888,000$0$7,888,000$1,152,000$0$1,152,000$2,496,000$0$2,496,000$35,551,000$0$35,551,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $272,554,000$0$272,554,000$130,000$119,000$0$0$130,000$119,000$1,518,000$0$1,518,000$1,215,000$0$1,215,000$1,939,000$0$1,939,000$2,319,000$327,000$0$0$2,319,000$327,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$832,000$0$832,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

341 Days
341 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$426,250$409,200

Trucking

171 Days$900 /day$153,450

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

171 Days
171 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$2,387,000$1,534,500

Helicopter - spot hire

171 Days$9,000 /day

$1,534,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

341 Days$2,000 /day

$682,000VSAT

341 Days$1,000 /day

$341,000

341 Days
341 Days
70 Days341 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$136,400$511,500$420,000$6,820,000$150 /day$51,150$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
341 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

341 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

341 Days
341 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$511,500$700,000$500,000$375,100$409,200

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$237,003,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
656
5,058
4,049
12,507
16,563
4,078

$/ft
650.0
180.0
300.0
300.0
155.0
140.0
80.0

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$8,317,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$9,149,000$0$9,149,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $281,703,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$281,703,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $281,703,000$0$281,703,000

190 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.3.4 Case 4a Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.
.

Project
Days
248

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$209,320$2,650 $211,970 $183,967 $200,309 $227,601
Figure 172. Hawaii Location: Case 4a – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

191 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Hawaii, Case 4a** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4a

4050m
13,287 ft
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

1
Proposed TD
10,750m
35,269 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
221 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
221 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$10,800,000$127,300,000$3,227,000$3,675,000$12,929,000$2,730,000$4,763,000$677,000$542,000$100,000$2,542,000$995,000$100,000$442,000$221,000$5,080,000$1,134,000$1,740,000$27,303,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$10,800,000$127,300,000$3,227,000$3,675,000$12,929,000$2,730,000$4,763,000$677,000$542,000$100,000$2,542,000$995,000$100,000$442,000$221,000$5,080,000$1,134,000$1,740,000$27,303,000$209,320,221$0$209,320,221

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
36"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"
0
0
0
0
0
0

Footage

$/ft

200
606
5,364
8,715

$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00$100,000$110,000$751,000$698,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$100,000$110,000$751,000$698,000

0
0
0
0
0
0

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$241,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$241,000$2,650,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$2,650,000$211,970,221$0$211,970,221

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $211,970,221
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$211,970,221

192 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAILS

Rev 4BEAM - Hawaii, Case 4a*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4050m
10,750m
13,287 ft
35,269 ft

Case No.
#4a

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$947,149

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
221 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$5,400,000$5,400,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$66,300,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

221 Days

26 No.
221 Days
6 No.
65 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
111 Days
111 Days
221 Days
177 Days
111 Days
111 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

221 Days
111 Days
111 Days
221 Days
221 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$11,713,000$442,000$331,500$287,300$154,700

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

221 Days
221 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

221 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$127,300,000$0$127,300,000$3,227,000$0$3,227,000$3,675,000$0$3,675,000$12,929,000$0$12,929,000$2,730,000$0$2,730,000$2,000,000$176,800$552,500

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$663,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$100,000$150,000$100,000

Lump Sum$50,000$276,250$677,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$10,800,000$4,763,000

20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"221 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$3,020,000$1,820,000$884,000$360,000$162,500$20,000$30,000$331,500$773,500$442,000$530,400$442,000$1,105,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
221 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$10,800,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$4,763,000$0$677,000

193 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$542,000$0$542,000$100,000$0$100,000$2,542,000$0$2,542,000$995,000$0$995,000$100,000$0$100,000$442,000$0$442,000$0$221,000$0$221,000$5,080,000$0$5,080,000$1,134,000$0$1,134,000$1,740,000$0$1,740,000$27,303,000$0$27,303,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $209,320,000$0$209,320,000$100,000$110,000$0$0$100,000$110,000$751,000$0$751,000$698,000$0$698,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$241,000$0$241,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

221 Days
221 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$276,250$265,200

Trucking

111 Days$900 /day$99,450

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

111 Days
111 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,547,000$994,500

Helicopter - spot hire

111 Days$9,000 /day

$994,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$100,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

221 Days$2,000 /day

$442,000VSAT

221 Days$1,000 /day

$221,000

221 Days
221 Days
40 Days
221 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$88,400$331,500$240,000$4,420,000$150 /day$33,150$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
221 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

221 Days
40 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

221 Days
221 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$331,500$400,000$500,000$243,100$265,200

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$182,017,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate

4= # Strings

Length
200
606
5,364
8,715

$/ft
$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$2,409,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$2,650,000$0$2,650,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $211,970,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$211,970,000$0TOTAL WELL COST $211,970,000$0$211,970,000

194 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.3.5 Case 4b Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
239

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$220,814$6,253 $227,067 $198,614 $214,640 $240,231

Figure 173. Hawaii Location: Case 4b – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

195 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Hawaii, Case 4b** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4b

4050m
13,287 ft
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

1
Proposed TD
10,750m
35,269 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
242 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
242 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$10,800,000$133,600,000$3,311,000$4,019,000$14,157,000$2,799,000$4,826,000$1,053,000$593,000$109,000$2,783,000$1,089,000$150,000$484,000$242,000$5,720,000$1,137,000$2,120,000$28,802,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$10,800,000$133,600,000$3,311,000$4,019,000$14,157,000$2,799,000$4,826,000$1,053,000$593,000$109,000$2,783,000$1,089,000$150,000$484,000$242,000$5,720,000$1,137,000$2,120,000$28,802,000$220,814,242$0$220,814,242

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubing

OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"
000Footage

$/ft

200
656
4,858
8,707

$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$130,000$119,000$778,000$1,350,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$119,000$778,000$1,350,000

12,863
4,000
4,078
0
0
0

$140.00$80.00$70.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,801,000$320,000$286,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,801,000$320,000$286,000$0$0$0$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$569,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$569,000$6,253,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$6,253,000$227,067,242$0$227,067,242

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $227,067,242
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$227,067,242

196 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Hawaii, Case 4b*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4050m
10,750m
13,287 ft
35,269 ft

Case No.
#4b

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$912,455

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
242 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$5,400,000$5,400,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$72,600,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

242 Days

26 No.
242 Days
6 No.
65 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
121 Days
121 Days
242 Days
194 Days
121 Days
121 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

242 Days
121 Days
121 Days
242 Days
242 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$12,826,000$484,000$363,000$314,600$169,400

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

242 Days
242 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

242 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$133,600,000$0$133,600,000$3,311,000$0$3,311,000$4,019,000$0$4,019,000$14,157,000$0$14,157,000$2,799,000$0$2,799,000$2,000,000$193,600$605,000$1,053,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
242 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$4,826,000$726,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$10,800,000$4,826,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

22"
18"
16"
13.375"11.75"
9.625"$3,020,000$1,820,000$968,000$360,000$162,500$20,000$30,000$363,000$847,000$484,000$580,800$484,000$1,210,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
242 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$10,800,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,053,000

100,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000$50,000$302,500

197 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$593,000$0$593,000$109,000$0$109,000$2,783,000$0$2,783,000$1,089,000$0$1,089,000$150,000$0$150,000$484,000$0$484,000$0$242,000$0$242,000$5,720,000$0$5,720,000$1,137,000$0$1,137,000$2,120,000$0$2,120,000$28,802,000$0$28,802,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $220,814,000$0$220,814,000$130,000$119,000$0$0$130,000$119,000$778,000$0$778,000$1,350,000$0$1,350,000$1,801,000$0$1,801,000$320,000$286,000$0$0$320,000$286,000$300,000$0$300,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$569,000$0$569,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

242 Days
242 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$302,500$290,400

Trucking

121 Days$900 /day$108,900

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

121 Days
121 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,694,000$1,089,000

Helicopter - spot hire

121 Days$9,000 /day

$1,089,000

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

242 Days$2,000 /day

$484,000VSAT

242 Days$1,000 /day

$242,000

242 Days
242 Days
70 Days
242 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$96,800$363,000$420,000$4,840,000$150 /day$36,300$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
242 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

242 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

242 Days
242 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$363,000$700,000$500,000$266,200$290,400

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$192,012,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
656
4,858
8,707
12,863
4,000
4,078

$/ft
$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$140.00$80.00$70.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$5,684,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$6,253,000$0$6,253,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $227,067,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$227,067,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $227,067,000$0$227,067,000

198 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.3.6 Case 4c Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
271

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$221,814$9,149 $230,963 $202,990 $220,246 $246,661

Figure 174. Hawaii Location: Case 4c – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

199 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Hawaii, Case 4c** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4b

4050m
13,287 ft
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

1
Proposed TD
10,750m
35,269 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
244 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4c: Expandable Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
244 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$10,800,000$134,200,000$3,319,000$4,052,000$14,274,000$2,806,000$4,832,000$1,055,000$598,000$110,000$2,806,000$1,098,000$150,000$488,000$244,000$5,764,000$1,137,000$2,128,000$28,933,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$10,800,000$134,200,000$3,319,000$4,052,000$14,274,000$2,806,000$4,832,000$1,055,000$598,000$110,000$2,806,000$1,098,000$150,000$488,000$244,000$5,764,000$1,137,000$2,128,000$28,933,000$221,814,244$0$221,814,244

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13.375"11.75"
000Footage

$/ft

200
656
5,058
4,049

$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$130,000$119,000$1,518,000$1,215,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$119,000$1,518,000$1,215,000

12,507
16,5634,078
0
00$155.00$140.00$80.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,939,000$2,319,000$327,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,939,000$2,319,000$327,000$0$0$0$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$832,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$832,000$9,149,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$9,149,000$230,963,244$0$230,963,244

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $230,963,244
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$230,963,244

200 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Hawaii, Case 4c*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
HawaiiSurface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4050m
10,750m
13,287 ft
35,269 ft

Case No.
#4b

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W
Lat: 22.9 - 23.9°N / Long: 154.5 - 155.8°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4c: Expandable Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$909,074

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
244 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$5,400,000$5,400,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$73,200,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

244 Days

26 No.
244 Days
6 No.
65 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
122 Days
122 Days
244 Days
195 Days
122 Days
122 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

244 Days
122 Days
122 Days
244 Days
244 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$12,932,000$488,000$366,000$317,200$170,800

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

244 Days
244 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

244 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$134,200,000$0$134,200,000$3,319,000$0$3,319,000$4,052,000$0$4,052,000$14,274,000$0$14,274,000$2,806,000$0$2,806,000$2,000,000$195,200$610,000$1,055,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
244 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$4,832,000$732,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$10,800,000$4,832,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13.375"11.75"$3,020,000$1,820,000$976,000$360,000$162,500$20,000$30,000$366,000$854,000$488,000$585,600$488,000$1,220,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
244 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$10,800,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,055,000

100,000
100,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
100,000$50,000$305,000

201 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$598,000$0$598,000$110,000$0$110,000$2,806,000$0$2,806,000$1,098,000$0$1,098,000$150,000$0$150,000$488,000$0$488,000$0$244,000$0$244,000$5,764,000$0$5,764,000$1,137,000$0$1,137,000$2,128,000$0$2,128,000$28,933,000$0$28,933,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $221,814,000$0$221,814,000$130,000$119,000$0$0$130,000$119,000$1,518,000$0$1,518,000$1,215,000$0$1,215,000$1,939,000$0$1,939,000$2,319,000$327,000$0$0$2,319,000$327,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$832,000$0$832,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

244 Days
244 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$305,000$292,800

Trucking

122 Days$900 /day$109,800

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

122 Days
122 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,708,000$1,098,000

Helicopter - spot hire

122 Days$9,000 /day

$1,098,000

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

244 Days$2,000 /day

$488,000VSAT

244 Days$1,000 /day

$244,000

244 Days
244 Days
70 Days
244 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$97,600$366,000$420,000$4,880,000$150 /day$36,600$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
244 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

244 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

244 Days
244 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$366,000$700,000$500,000$268,400$292,800

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$192,881,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13.375"11.75"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
656
5,058
4,049
12,507
16,5634,078$/ft$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$155.00$140.00$80.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$8,317,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$9,149,000$0$9,149,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $230,963,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$230,963,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $230,963,000$0$230,963,000

202 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.4 Baja Location Cost Estimates
6.4.1 Case 2a Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of
the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
287

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$229,515$2,392 $231,907 $216,678 $229,814 $248,251
Figure 175. Baja Location: Case 2a – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

203 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE

Rev 4

BEAM - Baja Case 2a** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4a

4300m
14,107 ft
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

1
Proposed TD
10,400m
34,120 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
251 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
251 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$14,600,000$136,300,000$4,284,000$4,167,000$14,684,000$2,629,000$4,853,000$714,000$615,000$113,000$2,887,000$1,130,000$100,000$502,000$251,000$5,737,000$1,138,000$1,854,000$29,937,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$14,600,000$136,300,000$4,284,000$4,167,000$14,684,000$2,629,000$4,853,000$714,000$615,000$113,000$2,887,000$1,130,000$100,000$502,000$251,000$5,737,000$1,138,000$1,854,000$29,937,000$229,515,251$0$229,515,251

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
30"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"
0
0
0
0
0
0

Footage

$/ft

200
279
5,036
7,076

$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00$100,000$51,000$706,000$567,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$100,000$51,000$706,000$567,000

0
0
0
0
0
0

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$218,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$218,000$2,392,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$2,392,000$231,907,251$0$231,907,251

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $231,907,251
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$231,907,251

204 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Baja Case 2a*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4300m
10,400m
14,107 ft
34,120 ft

Case No.
#4a

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$914,402

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
251 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$7,300,000$7,300,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$75,300,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

251 Days

17 No.
251 Days
28 No.
164 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
126 Days
126 Days
251 Days
201 Days
126 Days
126 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

251 Days
126 Days
126 Days
251 Days
251 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$13,303,000$502,000$376,500$326,300$175,700

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

251 Days
251 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

251 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$136,300,000$0$136,300,000$4,284,000$0$4,284,000$4,167,000$0$4,167,000$14,684,000$0$14,684,000$2,629,000$0$2,629,000$1,800,000$200,800$627,500

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$753,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$100,000$150,000$100,000

Lump Sum$50,000$313,750$714,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$14,600,000$4,853,000

20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"251 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$3,020,000$1,190,000$1,004,000$1,680,000$410,000$20,000$30,000$376,500$878,500$502,000$602,400$502,000$1,255,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
251 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$14,600,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$4,853,000$0$714,000

205 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$615,000$0$615,000$113,000$0$113,000$2,887,000$0$2,887,000$1,130,000$0$1,130,000$100,000$0$100,000$502,000$0$502,000$0$251,000$0$251,000$5,737,000$0$5,737,000$1,138,000$0$1,138,000$1,854,000$0$1,854,000$29,937,000$0$29,937,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $229,515,000$0$229,515,000$100,000$51,000$0$0$100,000$51,000$706,000$0$706,000$567,000$0$567,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$218,000$0$218,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

251 Days
251 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$313,750$301,200

Trucking

126 Days$900 /day$112,950

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

126 Days
126 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,757,000$1,129,500

Helicopter - spot hire

126 Days$9,000 /day

$1,129,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$100,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

251 Days$2,000 /day

$502,000VSAT

251 Days$1,000 /day

$251,000251 Days
251 Days
40 Days251 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$100,400$376,500$240,000$5,020,000$150 /day$37,650$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
251 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

251 Days
40 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

251 Days
251 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$376,500$400,000$500,000$276,100$301,200

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$199,578,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
30"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate

4= # Strings

Length
200
279
5,036
7,076

$/ft
$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$2,174,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$2,392,000$0$2,392,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $231,907,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$231,907,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $231,907,000$0$231,907,000

206 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.4.2 Case 2b Cost Estimate:This case assumes the Deepwater wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third. A summary of thecost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
345

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$259,910$5,889 $265,799 $246,177 $261,328 $282,808
Figure 176. Baja Location: Case 2c – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

207 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Baja Case 2b** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4b

4300m
14,107 ft
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

1
Proposed TD
10,400m
34,120 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

Complete

TOTAL
308 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
308 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$14,600,000$153,400,000$5,312,000$5,102,000$18,018,000$2,817,000$5,024,000$1,135,000$755,000$139,000$3,542,000$1,386,000$150,000$616,000$308,000$7,166,000$1,147,000$2,371,000$33,902,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$14,600,000$153,400,000$5,312,000$5,102,000$18,018,000$2,817,000$5,024,000$1,135,000$755,000$139,000$3,542,000$1,386,000$150,000$616,000$308,000$7,166,000$1,147,000$2,371,000$33,902,000$259,910,308$0$259,910,308

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubing

OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"
000Footage

$/ft

200
279
4,907
8,314

$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$130,000$51,000$786,000$1,289,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$51,000$786,000$1,289,000

11,693
3,500
3,980
0
0
0

$140.00$80.00$70.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,638,000$280,000$279,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,638,000$280,000$279,000$0$0$0$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$536,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$536,000$5,889,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$5,889,000$265,799,308$0$265,799,308

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $265,799,308
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$265,799,308

208 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAL

Rev 4BEAM - Baja Case 2b*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4300m
10,400m
14,107 ft
34,120 ft

Case No.
#4b

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$843,864

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
308 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$7,300,000$7,300,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$92,400,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

308 Days

27 No.
308 Days
28 No.
204 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /day

154 Days
154 Days
308 Days
246 Days
154 Days
154 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /dayLump Sum
Lump SumRig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

308 Days
154 Days
154 Days
308 Days
308 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$16,324,000$616,000$462,000$400,400$215,600

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

308 Days
308 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

308 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$14,600,000$153,400,000$0$153,400,000$5,312,000$0$5,312,000$5,102,000$0$5,102,000$18,018,000$0$18,018,000$2,817,000$0$2,817,000$1,800,000$246,400$770,000$5,024,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$1,135,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
308 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$5,024,000$924,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing
22"
18"
16"
13.375"11.75"
9.625"
Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$3,020,000$1,890,000$1,232,000$1,680,000$510,000$20,000$30,000$462,000$1,078,000$616,000$739,200$616,000$1,540,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
308 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$14,600,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,135,000$100,000$100,000$150,000$150,000$100,000$100,000$50,000$385,000

209 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$755,000$0$755,000$139,000$0$139,000$3,542,000$0$3,542,000$1,386,000$0$1,386,000$150,000$0$150,000$616,000$0$616,000$0$308,000$0$308,000$7,166,000$0$7,166,000$1,147,000$0$1,147,000$2,371,000$0$2,371,000$33,902,000$0$33,902,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $259,910,000$0$259,910,000$130,000$51,000$0$0$130,000$51,000$786,000$0$786,000$1,289,000$0$1,289,000$1,638,000$0$1,638,000$280,000$279,000$0$0$280,000$279,000$300,000$0$300,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$536,000$0$536,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

308 Days
308 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$385,000$369,600

Trucking

154 Days$900 /day$138,600

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire154 Days
154 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$2,156,000$1,386,000

Helicopter - spot hire

154 Days$9,000 /day

$1,386,000

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

308 Days$2,000 /day

$616,000VSAT

308 Days$1,000 /day

$308,000

308 Days
308 Days
70 Days308 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$123,200$462,000$420,000$6,160,000$150 /day$46,200$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
308 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

308 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

308 Days
308 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$462,000$700,000$500,000$338,800$369,600

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$226,008,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
279
4,907
8,314
11,693
3,500
3,980

$/ft
$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$140.00$80.00$70.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$5,353,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$5,889,000$0$5,889,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $265,799,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$265,799,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $265,799,000$0$265,799,000

210 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.4.3 Case 2c Cost Estimate:This case assumes the Deepwater wellbore configuration, coring the upper third of eachstratigraphic section, drilling the middle third, and then coring the bottom third.. A summary of
the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
363

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$269,685$8,528 $278,213 $246,177 $261,328 $282,808
Figure 177. Baja Location: Case 2c – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

211 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Baja Case 2c** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4b

4300m
14,107 ft
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

1
Proposed TD
10,400m
34,120 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

Complete

TOTAL
327 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
327 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$14,600,000$159,100,000$5,636,000$5,413,000$19,130,000$2,880,000$5,081,000$1,159,000$802,000$148,000$3,761,000$1,472,000$150,000$654,000$327,000$7,582,000$1,150,000$2,443,000$35,177,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$14,600,000$159,100,000$5,636,000$5,413,000$19,130,000$2,880,000$5,081,000$1,159,000$802,000$148,000$3,761,000$1,472,000$150,000$654,000$327,000$7,582,000$1,150,000$2,443,000$35,177,000$269,685,327$0$269,685,327

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"000Footage

$/ft

200
279
5,107
3,607

$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$130,000$51,000$1,533,000$1,083,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$51,000$1,533,000$1,083,000

11,714
14,8933,780
000$155.00$140.00$80.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,816,000$2,086,000$303,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,816,000$2,086,000$303,000$0$0$0$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$776,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$776,000$8,528,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$8,528,000$278,213,327$0$278,213,327

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $278,213,327
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$278,213,327

212 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Baja Case 2c*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4300m
10,400m
14,107 ft
34,120 ft

Case No.
#4b

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$824,725

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
327 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$7,300,000$7,300,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$98,100,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

327 Days

30 No.
327 Days
28 No.
219 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /day

164 Days
164 Days
327 Days
262 Days
164 Days
164 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /dayLump Sum
Lump SumRig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

327 Days
164 Days
164 Days
327 Days
327 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$17,331,000$654,000$490,500$425,100$228,900

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

327 Days
327 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

327 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$14,600,000$159,100,000$0$159,100,000$5,636,000$0$5,636,000$5,413,000$0$5,413,000$19,130,000$0$19,130,000$2,880,000$0$2,880,000$1,800,000$261,600$817,500$5,081,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$1,159,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
327 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$5,081,000$981,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing22"
16.5 SET"
16.5 SET"
16"
13.375"11.750"Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$3,020,000$2,100,000$1,308,000$1,680,000$547,500$20,000$30,000$490,500$1,144,500$654,000$784,800$654,000$1,635,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
327 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$14,600,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,159,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$150,000$150,000$100,000$50,000$408,750

213 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$802,000$0$802,000$148,000$0$148,000$3,761,000$0$3,761,000$1,472,000$0$1,472,000$150,000$0$150,000$654,000$0$654,000$0$327,000$0$327,000$7,582,000$0$7,582,000$1,150,000$0$1,150,000$2,443,000$0$2,443,000$35,177,000$0$35,177,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $269,685,000$0$269,685,000$130,000$51,000$0$0$130,000$51,000$1,533,000$0$1,533,000$1,083,000$0$1,083,000$1,816,000$0$1,816,000$2,086,000$303,000$0$0$2,086,000$303,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$776,000$0$776,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

327 Days
327 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$408,750$392,400

Trucking

164 Days$900 /day$147,150

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

164 Days
164 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$2,289,000$1,471,500

Helicopter - spot hire

164 Days$9,000 /day

$1,471,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

327 Days$2,000 /day

$654,000VSAT

327 Days$1,000 /day

$327,000

327 Days
327 Days
70 Days327 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$130,800$490,500$420,000$6,540,000$150 /day$49,050$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
327 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

327 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

327 Days
327 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$490,500$700,000$500,000$359,700$392,400

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$234,508,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
279
5,107
3,607
11,714
14,8933,780$/ft$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$155.00$140.00$80.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$7,752,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$8,528,000$0$8,528,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $278,213,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$278,213,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $278,213,000$0$278,213,000

214 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.4.4 Case 4a Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.
.

Project
Days
244

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$206,803$2,392 $209,195 $184,132 $199,057 $221,027
Figure 178. Baja Location: Case 4a – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

215 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Baja Case 4a** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4a

4300m
14,107 ft
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

1
Proposed TD
10,400m
34,120 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
208 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
208 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$14,600,000$123,400,000$3,032,000$3,462,000$12,168,000$2,487,000$4,724,000$660,000$510,000$94,000$2,392,000$936,000$100,000$416,000$208,000$4,796,000$1,132,000$1,691,000$26,975,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$14,600,000$123,400,000$3,032,000$3,462,000$12,168,000$2,487,000$4,724,000$660,000$510,000$94,000$2,392,000$936,000$100,000$416,000$208,000$4,796,000$1,132,000$1,691,000$26,975,000$206,803,208$0$206,803,208

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
30"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"
0
0
0
0
0
0

Footage

$/ft

200
279
5,036
7,076

$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00$100,000$51,000$706,000$567,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$100,000$51,000$706,000$567,000

0
0
0
0
0
0

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$218,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$218,000$2,392,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$2,392,000$209,195,208$0$209,195,208

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $209,195,208
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$209,195,208

216 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Baja Case 4a*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4300m
10,400m
14,107 ft
34,120 ft

Case No.
#4a

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4a: Orig Base Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$994,245

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
208 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$7,300,000$7,300,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$62,400,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

208 Days

24 No.
208 Days
6 No.
64 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
104 Days
104 Days
208 Days
166 Days
104 Days
104 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

208 Days
104 Days
104 Days
208 Days
208 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$11,024,000$416,000$312,000$270,400$145,600

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

208 Days
208 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

208 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$123,400,000$0$123,400,000$3,032,000$0$3,032,000$3,462,000$0$3,462,000$12,168,000$0$12,168,000$2,487,000$0$2,487,000$1,800,000$166,400$520,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$624,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$100,000$150,000$100,000

Lump Sum$50,000$260,000$660,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$14,600,000$4,724,000

20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"208 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$3,020,000$1,680,000$832,000$360,000$160,000$20,000$30,000$312,000$728,000$416,000$499,200$416,000$1,040,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
208 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$14,600,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$4,724,000$0$660,000

217 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$510,000$0$510,000$94,000$0$94,000$2,392,000$0$2,392,000$936,000$0$936,000$100,000$0$100,000$416,000$0$416,000$0$208,000$0$208,000$4,796,000$0$4,796,000$1,132,000$0$1,132,000$1,691,000$0$1,691,000$26,975,000$0$26,975,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $206,803,000$0$206,803,000$100,000$51,000$0$0$100,000$51,000$706,000$0$706,000$567,000$0$567,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$218,000$0$218,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

208 Days
208 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$260,000$249,600

Trucking

104 Days$900 /day$93,600

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

104 Days
104 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,456,000$936,000

Helicopter - spot hire

104 Days$9,000 /day

$936,000

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$100,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

208 Days$2,000 /day

$416,000VSAT

208 Days$1,000 /day

$208,000208 Days
208 Days
40 Days208 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$83,200$312,000$240,000$4,160,000$150 /day$31,200$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
208 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

208 Days
40 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

208 Days
208 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$312,000$400,000$500,000$228,800$249,600

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$179,828,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
30"
20"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate

4= # Strings

Length
200
279
5,036
7,076

$/ft
$500.00$180.00$140.00$80.00Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$2,174,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$2,392,000$0$2,392,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $209,195,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$209,195,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $209,195,000$0$209,195,000

218 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.4.5 Case 4b Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
265

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$218,304$5,889 $224,193 $199,389 $212,987 $238,289
Figure 179. Baja Location: Case 4b – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

219 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Baja Case 4b** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
Case No.

Water Depth

#4b

4300m
14,107 ft
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

1
Proposed TD
10,400m
34,120 ft

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

Complete

TOTAL
229 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
229 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$14,600,000$129,700,000$3,116,000$3,806,000$13,397,000$2,556,000$4,787,000$1,037,000$562,000$104,000$2,634,000$1,031,000$150,000$458,000$229,000$5,436,000$1,135,000$2,071,000$28,475,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$14,600,000$129,700,000$3,116,000$3,806,000$13,397,000$2,556,000$4,787,000$1,037,000$562,000$104,000$2,634,000$1,031,000$150,000$458,000$229,000$5,436,000$1,135,000$2,071,000$28,475,000$218,304,229$0$218,304,229

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubing

OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"
000Footage

$/ft

200
279
4,907
8,314

$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$130,000$51,000$786,000$1,289,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$51,000$786,000$1,289,000

11,693
3,500
3,980
0
0
0

$140.00$80.00$70.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,638,000$280,000$279,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,638,000$280,000$279,000$0$0$0$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$536,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$300,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$536,000$5,889,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$5,889,000$224,193,229$0$224,193,229

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $224,193,229
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$224,193,229

220 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Baja Case 4b*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4300m
10,400m
14,107 ft
34,120 ft

Case No.
#4b

Date:

30-Jun-13

Objective
Moho / Mantle

Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4b: Conventional Deepwater Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$953,293

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
229 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$7,300,000$7,300,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$68,700,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

229 Days

24 No.
229 Days
6 No.
64 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /day

115 Days
115 Days
229 Days
183 Days
115 Days
115 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /dayLump Sum
Lump SumRig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

229 Days
115 Days
115 Days
229 Days
229 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$12,137,000$458,000$343,500$297,700$160,300

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

229 Days
229 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

229 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$14,600,000$129,700,000$0$129,700,000$3,116,000$0$3,116,000$3,806,000$0$3,806,000$13,397,000$0$13,397,000$2,556,000$0$2,556,000$1,800,000$183,200$572,500$4,787,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$1,037,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
229 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$4,787,000$687,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing
22"
18"
16"
13.375"11.75"
9.625"
Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$3,020,000$1,680,000$916,000$360,000$160,000$20,000$30,000$343,500$801,500$458,000$549,600$458,000$1,145,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
229 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$14,600,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,037,000$100,000$100,000$150,000$150,000$100,000$100,000$50,000$286,250

221 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$562,000$0$562,000$104,000$0$104,000$2,634,000$0$2,634,000$1,031,000$0$1,031,000$150,000$0$150,000$458,000$0$458,000$0$229,000$0$229,000$5,436,000$0$5,436,000$1,135,000$0$1,135,000$2,071,000$0$2,071,000$28,475,000$0$28,475,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $218,304,000$0$218,304,000$130,000$51,000$0$0$130,000$51,000$786,000$0$786,000$1,289,000$0$1,289,000$1,638,000$0$1,638,000$280,000$279,000$0$0$280,000$279,000$300,000$0$300,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$536,000$0$536,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

229 Days
229 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$286,250$274,800

Trucking

115 Days$900 /day$103,050

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

115 Days
115 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,603,000$1,030,500

Helicopter - spot hire

115 Days$9,000 /day

$1,030,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

229 Days$2,000 /day

$458,000VSAT

229 Days$1,000 /day

$229,000

229 Days
229 Days
70 Days229 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$91,600$343,500$420,000$4,580,000$150 /day$34,350$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
229 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

229 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

229 Days
229 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$343,500$700,000$500,000$251,900$274,800

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$189,829,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
279
4,907
8,314
11,693
3,500
3,980

$/ft
$650.00$180.00$160.00$155.00$140.00$80.00$70.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$5,353,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$5,889,000$0$5,889,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $224,193,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$224,193,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $224,193,000$0$224,193,000

222 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

6.4.6 Case 4c Cost Estimate:This case assumes the original Base Case wellbore configuration, and drilling to the Moho andthen coring just the mantle. A summary of the cost estimate for this case is shown below.

Project
Days
267

Nominal Costs (M$)
Stochastic Costs
Intan
Tan
Total
P10
P50
P90
$221,746$8,528 $230,274 $203,813 $218,213 $244,136
Figure 180. Baja Location: Case 4c – Cost Estimate

The following chart shows the cumulative probability of cost.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

P‐

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

100

200

Total Cost

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

300

400
Million US$

223 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Rev 4

BEAM - Baja Case 4c** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development ___AFE# XXX

Operator: CDEX / JAMSTEC

Prospect or Field

Lease Name

Mantle Hole

N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.

1
Proposed TD
Case No.
Water Depth
#4c
4300m
10,400m
14108 34,120 ft
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

Date:
Formation
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

CompleteTOTAL
231 Days

Purpose of Expenditure:
Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4c: Expandable Case Well Configuration

Drilling Rig :Directional Plan: Vertical Hole

ChikyuINTANGIBLE ITEMS

Dry Hole Drlg
231 Days

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Drilling Rig - Day Work at $300,000 / Day
Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Directional & Downhole Services
Fuel, Water & Lube
Drilling Fluids Services
Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Cementing
Mud Logging and Geological Services
Land Transportation
Boat Transportation
Helicopter Transportation
Tubular Services
Shorebase / Dock Services
Communications
Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Miscellaneous Special Services
Other Services / Costs
Intan Contingency at
15%

TOTAL INTANGIBLE$3,020,000$14,600,000$130,300,000$5,252,000$3,839,000$13,514,000$2,563,000$4,793,000$1,039,000$566,000$104,000$2,657,000$1,040,000$150,000$462,000$231,000$5,479,000$1,135,000$2,078,000$28,924,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$3,020,000$14,600,000$130,300,000$5,252,000$3,839,000$13,514,000$2,563,000$4,793,000$1,039,000$566,000$104,000$2,657,000$1,040,000$150,000$462,000$231,000$5,479,000$1,135,000$2,078,000$28,924,000$221,746,231$0$221,746,231

TANGIBLE ITEMS
Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingOD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"000Footage

$/ft

200
279
5,107
3,607

$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$130,000$51,000$1,533,000$1,083,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$130,000$51,000$1,533,000$1,083,000

11,714
14,8933,780
000$155.00$140.00$80.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1,816,000$2,086,000$303,000
$0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$1,816,000$2,086,000$303,000$0$0$0$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$776,000

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$150,000$0$0$500,000$100,000$776,000$8,528,000

$0
$0
$0
$0

$8,528,000$230,274,231$0$230,274,231

Liner Equipmt
Whipstock Equipment
Subsurface Completion
Wellheads
Miscellaneous/Other
Tan Contingency at
10%

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Total Dry Hole Cost $230,274,231
Total Completion Cost
$0
Prepared by: WSWhitney / NPilisi

Total Drill and Complete

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$230,274,231

224 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

SCOPING COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

Rev 4BEAM - Baja Case 4c*** DRAFT **Prepared For: IODP / JAMSTEC / CDEX

Exploratory _X__
Development __AFE# XXX
Prospect or Field
Mantle HoleOperator:
CDEX / JAMSTEC
Lease Name
N/A

Location
Baja

Surface Location:
Btm. Hole Location:

Revision No.
1
Water Depth
Proposed TD
4300m
10,400m
14,10834,120 ft

Case No.
#4c

Date:
Objective
Moho / Mantle

30-Jun-13

Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W
Lat: 25.0 - 33.0°N / Long: 120.0 - 127.0°W

Purpose of Expenditure:

Scientific Drilling to the Mantle. Assume drilling to the Moho, then coring 500m of the Mantle
Case 4c: Expandable Case Well Configuration
Drilling Rig : Chikyu
INTANGIBLE ITEMS

Avg Intan $/day$959,939

Directional Plan: Vertical HoleOperational Time =Dry Hole Drlg
231 Days$3,020,000

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study (desktop study, data collection/processing)

Lump Sum

Site Survey (desktop study, bathymetry)

Lump Sum

Regulatory

Lump Sum

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$7,300,000$7,300,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum$69,300,000$14,000,000$47,000,000

Drilling Rig - Day Work

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Drill Bits
Drill String Rentals: DC's, Jars, Stab, HWTCore Bits
Coring Services
Directional & Downhole Services
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

231 Days

30 No.
231 Days
28 No.
219 Days$300,000 /day

$70,000 /bit
$4,000 /day
$60,000 /bit
$2,500 /dayLump Sum
Lump Sum
116 Days
116 Days
231 Days
185 Days
116 Days
116 Days$3,000 /day
$7,000 /day
$2,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$10,000 /day

Rig Fuel
Boat Fuel
Helicopter Fuel
Lubricants
Fresh Water

231 Days
116 Days
116 Days
231 Days
231 Days$53,000 /day
$4,000 /day
$3,000 /day
$1,300 /day
$700 /day$12,243,000$462,000$346,500$300,300$161,700

Drilling Fluids - WBM
Mud Engineer
Cuttings Disposal

231 Days
231 Days$800 /day$2,500 /day

231 Days$3,000 /day

Fuel, Water & Lube

Drilling Fluids Services

Lump Sum$130,300,000$0$130,300,000$5,252,000$0$5,252,000$3,839,000$0$3,839,000$13,514,000$0$13,514,000$2,563,000$0$2,563,000$1,800,000$184,800$577,500

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum$1,039,000

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
231 Days$1,250 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$4,793,000$693,000$1,500,000$2,500,000$100,000

Cementing

Retainers, Service Man, Manifold, Etc.
Unit Charge$14,600,000$4,793,000

22"16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13.375"11.75"$3,020,000$2,100,000$924,000$1,680,000$547,500$20,000$30,000$346,500$808,500$462,000$554,400$462,000$1,155,000

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

$0

TOTAL
231 Days$1,000,000$2,000,000$20,000$14,600,000

Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization (from Japan)
Demobilization (to Japan)
Drilling Day Rate
Existing Riser System Modifications
Additional Riser

Complete$0$1,039,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$150,000$150,000$100,000$50,000$288,750

225 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program$566,000$0$566,000$104,000$0$104,000$2,657,000$0$2,657,000$1,040,000$0$1,040,000$150,000$0$150,000$462,000$0$462,000$0$231,000$0$231,000$5,479,000$0$5,479,000$1,135,000$0$1,135,000$2,078,000$0$2,078,000$28,924,000$0$28,924,000

TOTAL INTANGIBLE $221,746,000$0$221,746,000$130,000$51,000$0$0$130,000$51,000$1,533,000$0$1,533,000$1,083,000$0$1,083,000$1,816,000$0$1,816,000$2,086,000$303,000$0$0$2,086,000$303,000$150,000$0$150,000

Wellheads$500,000$0$500,000

Miscellaneous / Other$100,000$0$100,000$776,000$0$776,000

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

231 Days
231 Days$1,250 /day
$1,200 /day

$288,750$277,200

Trucking

116 Days$900 /day$103,950

Work Boat - Spot Hire
Crew Boat - Spot Hire

116 Days
116 Days$14,000 /day
$9,000 /day

$1,617,000$1,039,500

Helicopter - spot hire

116 Days$9,000 /day

$1,039,500

Land Transportation

Boat Transportation

Helicopter Transportation

Tubular Services

Lump Sum

QAQC$150,000

Shorebase / Dock Services
Shorebase /Dispatcher

231 Days$2,000 /day

$462,000VSAT

231 Days$1,000 /day

$231,000

231 Days
231 Days
70 Days
231 Days
Days
Days$400 /day$1,500 /day
$6,000 Day$20,000 Day$92,400$346,500$420,000$4,620,000$150 /day$34,650$300,000$200,000$50,000$100,000$200,000$200,000$50,000

Communications

Miscellaneous Rental Equipment
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Miscellaneous Special Services
Weather Forecasting
231 DaysEngineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Other Services / Costs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

231 Days
70 Days$1,500 /day
$10,000 /day

231 Days
231 Days$1,100 /day
$1,200 /day

15% Amount

Intangible Contingency

Lump Sum$346,500$700,000$500,000$254,100$277,200

ST Drlg =ST Comp =$192,822,000$0

TANGIBLE ITEMS
OD
36"
22"
16.5" SET
16.5" SET
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"

Drive Pipe
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate

7= # Strings

Length
200
279
5,107
3,607
11,714
14,8933,780$/ft$650.00$180.00$300.00$300.00$155.00$140.00$80.00

Production Liner
Production Tie-backTubingLiner Equipment
Whipstock Equipment & BP
Subsurface Completion

Tangible Contingency

10% Amount

ST Drlg =$7,752,000

ST Comp =$0

TOTAL TANGIBLE

Prepared by:

WSWhitney / NPilisi

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013$8,528,000$0$8,528,000

Total Dry Hole Cost $230,274,000
Total Completion Cost
$0

$0
$0

$230,274,000$0

TOTAL WELL COST $230,274,000$0$230,274,000

226 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

7 Implementation Timeline
As described in this section, an integrated project timeline has been developed that describes
what needs to be done to move this project from its current feasibility stage to an execution
stage. It is an effort to provide a detailed roadmap that considers the key milestones, decision
points, and the steps that need to be taken to provide the highest probability of success for the
Mantle Drilling project. It has been assumed that the target date for the start of operations
would be January 2018 as per the IODP project road map shown in Section 2.2.
The framework for developing the timeline is based on a well delivery process that is used in theoil and gas industry for this kind of complex deep water project. A generic description of the fivephases of the well delivery process is provided below. Note that it typically takes 12-18 months
to work through this process for deep water oil and gas projects. Detailed flowcharts for each ofthese phases and a typical deepwater project timeline are also provided for reference inAppendix 4.
Well Delivery Process Description
1. Front End Engineering – Well Objectives Definition
This process involves meeting with the project stakeholders (geoscience, management,
engineering, etc.) in order to fully understand and then define the objectives of the wellwhich are written into a Statement of Requirements (SOR) document. This is arguably themost important process since the lack of clear objectives defined early in the planning
process can lead to needless confusion, duplication of effort and unnecessary costs. This
process culminates with the preparation of a Basis of Design (BOD) document or Design
Premise Document (DPD) which, once approved by management, serves as the guide forall subsequent planning and design work.
2. Front End Engineering – Initial Well PlanningThis process involves the thorough review of the offset or analog well data in order to
identify potential problem areas, and to understand what worked and what did not during theoffset/analog well operations. These lessons learned are then accounted for during the wellplanning work. An initial well design is generated including a preliminary tubulars design,
drilling fluids design, cement design, and so on. Ideally, this work should result in several
well design options that satisfy the requirements of the well objectives. A scoping cost isthen developed for each option as well as a comparison of the relative risks. These options
are then presented to management and a decision is made on which option to move forwardwith.
3. Detailed Well Planning
Once the selected option has been decided on and approved, the detailed well planning anddesign work can begin. This includes getting outside input on the various technical issues
and guidance in the form of a HAZID meeting and a peer review of the well plan. An
important part of this process is the development of a tender strategy, the development of
the work scope for the various services that will be required, and then the tendering of theservices. This process should culminate with the preparation of a draft drilling program.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

227 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

4. Detailed Well Planning – Finalize Well Plan
When the services contracts are awarded the well design can be finalized with input fromthe key service companies, and a final well cost estimate is prepared. A "drill well on paper"(DWOP) exercise is then held with the rig crew and service company representatives andthen the final drilling program is prepared based on the feedback from the DWOP.
5. Operations Execution and Close Out
During the operations execution, the engineering and geoscience team provides technicalsupport for the operation, monitors and tracks the operational progress against the plan, andprepares any program revisions that might be required due to changing or unexpectedconditions. At the end of the work, a reconciliation between the estimated and actual wellcosts is prepared as well as an analysis of the operational performance metrics. Thisculminates with the preparation of a detailed end of well report.

7.1 High Level Timeline Overview
The following Figure shows a high level version of the implementation timeline. The timing isbased around 3 key assumptions. The first is that the operations would begin in January 2018.
The second has that dedicated work on the project cannot begin before March 2014 which isthe start of JAMSTEC's fiscal year. The third, is that the additional marine riser that will be
required will not need to be purchased unless the mantle project is approved.
The most notable feature in the timeline is part C - Long Lead Time Items. The 3 year lead timeassociated with purchasing the additional riser needed to drill at any of the three candidate
locations has the most impact on the implementation timeline.
Planning Phases / Tasks

1Q

2013
2Q
3Q

4Q

1Q

2014
2Q
3Q

4Q

1Q

2015
2Q
3Q

4Q

1Q

2016
2Q
3Q

4Q

1Q

2017
2Q
3Q

4Q

A. Objectives Defintion
SOR/Science Plan
Basis of Design
B. Front End Engineering
Initial Well Plan / Cost Estimate
Project Approval
C. Long Lead Time Items
D. Detailed Well Planning
E. Final Well Planning
Drilling Program
Ready to Mobilize- milestone

Figure 181. High-level Implementation Timeline

The riser will need to be delivered prior to the start of operations so that it can be integrated
onto the Chikyu. If a September 2017 delivery is assumed, then a commitment to purchase theriser needs to be made in September 2014 because of the lead time. This means that the time
available to do the upfront work needed to develop the science plan, do the initial well planning,and present the project for approval is the 8 months from March to September 2014. Because ofthis, there is also an unusually long gap between when this upfront work needs to be done andwhen the final planning work needs to done for a January 2018 project start.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

228 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

7.2 Detailed Timeline Discussion
Below is a more detailed implementation timeline that lists the key tasks associated with eachphase as well as the key milestones and decision points. A larger version of this timeline isprovided in Appendix 3.
Planning Phases / Tasks

1Q

2013
2Q
3Q

4Q

1Q

2014
2Q
3Q

4Q

1Q

2015
2Q
3Q

4Q

1Q

2016
2Q
3Q

4Q

1Q

2017
2Q
3Q

4Q

A. Objectives Definition
1.) Select Mgmt/Steering Team
2.) Define Objectives- Well Objectives Defined- FE Objectives Defined- Design Assumptions Defined

SOR/Science Plan
Basis of Design
B. Front End Engineering- Data Review / Lessons Learned- Major Risks Defined- Prelim PP/ FG/ OBG/ Temp Analysis- Develop Well Plan Options- Prelim Drill Str/ Bit / BHA Plan
- Prelim Cement / Fluids Design- Preliminary Well Design- Ident Long Lead Items- Ident Services Requirements

Initial Well Plan / Cost Estimate
Project Approval
C. Long Lead Time Items- Additional Riser

commit- Additional Buoyancy

commit- Metocean Study

commit- Site Survey

commit- Tubulars- Bit/Core System Testing

D. Detailed Well Planning- Detailed Well Design- Risk Assessment- Initiate Technical Studies- Contingency Plan Development- Devel Tender Strategy / Tender Services- Logistics Plan

Draft Drilling Program
E. Final Well Planning- Services Integration- Finalize Design Work- Final Cost Estimate- Pre-Spud / DWOP Meetings- Finalize Drilling Program

Drilling Program
Ready to Mobilize- milestone

Figure 182. Detailed Implementation Timeline

A. Objectives Definition
The objective of this phase is to formally define the objectives of the project. The milestones
would be the preparation of the Statement of Requirements (SOR) or science plan, and Basis of
Design (BOD) documents.


Logically, the first thing that would be needed is the creation of the management function to
oversee the project. This could be a classic management team with one individual having
overall responsibility and several direct reports, or it could be some sort of steeringcommittee. Regardless, a dedicated team will be needed to oversee the project to provide
direction, prioritization of efforts, arbitrate differences, and have final decision making

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013229 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

authority. Part of this process would also be to develop an project organizational chart,
identify the functional requirements and define roles and responsibilities


The next step would be to bring together the project stakeholders to define the objectives.
The oilfield equivalent of stakeholders would include representatives of the management,
geology, geophysics, reservoir, environmental, safety, drilling and completions engineering,and the operations functions. An important goal of this effort would be to define what theminimum requirements are, in terms of types of data that need to be obtained, and theamount of data that needs to be collected along with the associated evaluation program(coring, wireline logging, LWD, cuttings) required to gather the data. Additionally, aprioritized list of data that would be "nice to have" if circumstances allow should also be
developed. Ideally, this effort would also include the selection of the candidate location toallow a more focused effort during the Front End Engineering phase, but this is probably not
required at this stage. The results would then be documented in an SOR or science plan.

Finally, the key information and initial assumptions that are to be used in the design of thewell would be documented in the BOD. This would include geologic information (formation
tops, thicknesses, seismic sections), identification of offset or analog hole data, geothermal
temperature profile, subsurface formation pressure and strength profile, considerations to be
used in the tubulars selection and design, riser design, cementing and drilling fluids systems
design, and environmental, health, and safety considerations.
As discussed in section 3.2 a vital aspect of this effort will be to define and then mitigate theuncertainties around the down hole conditions in order to develop the appropriate welldesign. This will require a concerted joint effort between the science community, industry
subject matter experts and the well design engineers to define the most likely down holeconditions that can be expected, and which aspects have the most uncertainty.

B. Front End Engineering
The objective of this phase would develop an initial well design (or designs) so that a morecomprehensive cost estimate can be prepared which can then be presented to the management
team in order to get a formal decision on whether or not to go ahead with the project before
having to make any significant financial commitments. The milestones would be thedevelopment of the initial well design(s), cost estimate and project approval.
With the project objectives and the design basis defined, the engineering team now has theinformation and tools needed to prepare an initial well design and develop an estimate of the
project costs.



The first step of this process typically involves a thorough review of the offset or analog holedata in order to identify the major issues and risks and to identify the previous "lessons
learned" that should be incorporated into the well plan.



There is seldom just one way to design a well so several different design options are
typically developed along with initial designs for the tubulars, drill string, drilling fluids andcement systems, riser and so on. In addition, the key risks are identified as well as what
additional information (i.e. additional technical studies) are needed to help mitigate the risks.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

230 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Once the foundational design work has been done, cost estimate can be prepared for each
design option. The options, cost estimates and an evaluation of the risks associated witheach option would then be presented to management who now has the information needed
to decide whether or not to move ahead with the project. Note that if a decision on thelocation was not been made during the objectives definition phase, then this work would
need to be done for all three locations, and the final decision will need to made on where thehole will be drilled as part of the management review.

Given the assumptions around which this timeline is based, the time available for these twophases is the 8 months from March to September 2014. The time available was arbitrarily split
between the two phases so four months are allocated to each. This is a rather tight time frame
given the amount of work that needs to be done, particularly if the final location decision is notmade early on in the process.
C. Long Lead Time Items
Long lead time items are equipment or services that need a longer than usual period of time to
manufacture or source. As such, they typically require a financial commitment much earlier
than what is needed (or desired) for the majority of the products or services that will be usedduring a project. In this case, the lead time associated with purchasing the additional riser andbuoyancy needed to drill at any of the three candidate locations has the most impact on theimplementation timelineThe lead time for conventional steel riser is currently running at 3 years based on
information and a quote provided by NOV. This is also consistent with information provided
by the other riser manufactures. Obviously the lead time associated with aluminum, titanium,
hybrid, or composite risers would be longer. As such, the commitment for purchasing theadditional riser would need to be made in September 2014 in order to have it delivered in
September 2017 so that there is time to incorporate it onto the Chikyu prior to the start of the
project.

Collecting the required metocean data takes about a year. Ideally the information should beavailable before the start of the detailed well planning phase, in which case the datacollection efforts would need to begin around September 2015 and committed to in January
2015 because of the lead time required to organize the survey. The site survey does nottake as much time to complete, but it is assumed that this would be done at the same timeas the metocean survey to minimize mobilization costs. Recall from Section 5 that it has
been assumed that this work would be done by a third party contractor.



The typical lead time for purchasing tubulars is between 10 to 18 months and does not need
to be delivered until just before the start of operations. Depending on the final wellbore
configuration that is selected, the commitment for the tubulars would need to done
somewhere between the 3rd quarter of 2016 and the 1st quarter of 2017.



As was discussed in Section 2.2, conducting field tests of promising bit designs on otherrepresentative IODP projects in order to optimize the bit selection would be very beneficial
considering that time has the largest influence on costs. Although this is not technically along lead time item, it will require some time to organize and conduct the design iterations.
There should be an ample amount of time available to conduct these field tests between thetime the project would be approved and when the detailed design work needs to start.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

231 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

It is conceivable that high temperature down hole tools could become a long lead time if
specific tools need to be developed specifically for this project because they are not yet
available in the industry. This is not specifically listed in the timeline because it depends on
the science plan, the location selected, and the state of industry technology 2-3 years fromnow.

Note that these long lead time requirements imply that a financial commitment of some
$64,000,000 has to be made around 3 years before the start of the project.
D. Detailed Well PlanningThis phase normally begins right after the project is approved and involves conducting therequired detailed design work that builds on the initial work done during the front end
engineering phase. The milestone would be a draft drilling program. The key aspects of thisphase include:

Detailed designs for the tubulars, drill string, BHA's, drilling fluids and cement systems, riser
and so on.

Development of risk mitigation strategies and contingency plans.



Development of a logistics and operations support plan

Initiation of the technical studies needed to resolve particular technical issues. These may
be done internally or may require outside expertise. These studies could include:










Riser analysis
Drill string design
Wellbore stability
Tubulars design
Risk assessment / HAZID / Peer Review support
Drill fluids design
Cementing system design

Development of a tender strategy and the development of the work scope for the various
services that will be required, followed by the tendering and selection of the services
companies.

E. Final Well Planning
At this point the major service companies (drilling fluids, cementing, bits, MWD/LWD, etc) will
have been selected, and the design work can be completed with their input based on the actual
tools, equipment, expertise, and services that will be provided for the project. A DWOP exercise
is typically held towards the end of this phase. This is held with the rig crews and service
company representatives in order to walk through the well plan in detail to familiarize them withthe plans and to get their suggestions and feedback. The milestone is a finalized drilling
program and operations are ready to commence as soon as the Chikyu arrives on location. It
has been assumed that the detailed and final well planning efforts will take around 15 months
which is not uncommon for complex deepwater wells. As such, this work would need to begin in
the 4th quarter of 2016.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

232 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Commentary
Clearly the main driver for timing for this implementation plan is the lead time required to for the
additional riser, and the assumption that the mantle project must be approved before acommitment is made to purchase the riser. If these issues are de-linked so that the decision topurchase the riser is independent of whether the mantle project will go forward, then the riser
will still need to be ordered in September 2014, but the work on the mantle project will not need
to begin until around late 2015 or possibly early 2016.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

233 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

8 Conclusions
The key conclusions and recommendations from this study are as follows.


The Base Case wellbore configuration developed during the Feasibility Study may be overly
optimistic in terms of the number of casing strings that may be needed to get to TD. The
uncertainty with respect to the down hole conditions and the hole stability problem that
occurred at the 1256D site suggests that the wellbore configuration needs to be able toaccommodate additional contingency casing strings to allow for unexpected wellbore
stability problems. The wellbore configurations provided represent the range of options. The
Base Case represents the most simple configuration and arguably most risky in terms of
being able to get to TD and accomplish the goals of the project. The Expandable Cases
represents the most complex/expensive but least risky option in terms of being able to get toTD.



The uncertainty over the down hole condition poses the biggest risk with respect to being
able to actually get to the mantle. Mitigating these risks will require a concerted joint effort
between the science community, industry subject matter experts, and the well design
engineers to define the most likely down hole conditions that can be expected, and whichaspects have the most uncertainty. The results of this effort can then serve as the basis fordeveloping an appropriate wellbore configuration.



The uncertainty over drilling and coring performance and the resulting impact on operationaltime cost poses the biggest risk associated with being able to complete this project within areasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost. This uncertainty can be reduced byworking a drilling tools service companies in order to take advantage of the full range ofexperience and services they can provide during both the planning and operational phasesof the project in order to optimize the bit selection and drilling practices.



The main driver of project cost is the number of days it will take to drill/core the hole which
accounts for over 50% of the total cost. The effect of the other cost elements is almost
irrelevant.



The cost of coring large sections of the hole vs. drilling to the Moho and just coring the
mantle adds between $14 to $51 million to the project cost depending on the location,



The 3 year lead time associated with purchasing the additional riser needed to drill at any ofthe locations is the main timeline driver. The riser would need to be ordered around
September 2014 to be ready in time for a January 2018 project start. Assuming that the
project needs to be approved before the making the financial commitment for the riser, thenupfront project work including the development of the science plan will need to start around
March 2014. If these issues are de-linked so that the decision to purchase the riser is
independent of whether the mantle project will go forward, then the riser will still need to beordered in September 2014, but the work on the project will not need to begin until aroundlate 2015 or possibly early 2016

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

234 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Based on the results of the new set of drilling riser analyses and sensitivity studies, itappears that steel riser can be used without changing current industry practices to a
maximum of 3657m (12,000 ft) water depth, and for certain drilling conditions (i.e. mudweight and metocean data). Beyond this water depth, some critical responses from thedrilling riser (i.e. VME stress) and riser components (i.e. rotation of the upper and lower flex
joints) violate the current API 16Q criteria if riser joints made of steel are used.
In order to push the envelope using steel material, the maximum allowable VME will have to
be increased from 67% of minimum yield to a higher ratio. It is important to note that API
16Q currently does not address riser response criteria for ultra-deepwater wells with water
depth greater than 3048m (10,000 ft) and also that the VME criteria is limited to 67% ofminimum yield to avoid accounting for and tracking riser joint fatigue during the life of theriser. To push the envelope, and to be able to use steel riser for water depth greater than
3657m, a new set of riser response criteria will have to be developed and adesign/operational risk assessment will also have to be conducted. Regarding the VME
maximum limit, this could very well be increased from 67% to 80% or 90% but the fatigue
damage of the riser joints will also have to be monitored during the entire life of the riser.
This is feasible for drilling operations conducted with the Chikyu since it currently uses ariser monitoring system which is capable of tracking stress and fatigue in the riser. Also,
tests to increase the mean allowable rotation angle at the two flex joints will have be
performed.
Finally, the technical solution that would follow current API 16Q riser response criteria, andthat will enable to drill in water depths up to 4267m (i.e. Hawaii and Baja) will be to use
drilling hybrid riser joints or joints with advanced materials such as titanium or composite.
The high minimum yield and strength to weight ratio of titanium and composite materials
relative to steel would not require any adjustment to API 16Q recommended practices
criteria, or a need for riser component limits, or even risk assessments. Nonetheless, thehigh cost associated with titanium and the lack of experience with composite materials forultra-deepwater offshore applications can be seen as a different technical limitation for
conduct drilling operations in water depths greater than 3657m. Composite materials seemvery attractive, but these materials have not been tested or field deployed for deepwater
drilling riser systems. Indeed, the ability to keep the same weight and strength for a given
riser joint made of composite material, as well as maintaining the structural integrity of thedrilling riser connectors, remain a great challenge yet to be resolved.

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

235 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Appendix 1: Evolution of ROP Assumptions
The evolution of the rate ROP assumptions used in the time and cost estimates is illustrated
below.
2011 Feasibility Study Assumptions

Stratigraphy
CoringSediments
3.0
Lava
1.5
Dikes
1.5
Textured Gabbros
1.2
Foliated Gabbros
1.2
Layered Gabbros
0.9
Mantle0.9

Drilling
15.2
3.0
3.0
2.4
2.4
1.5
0.0

Ideal Estimates per NOV – 2012

Rate of Penetration (ft/hr)
Ideal Bit Ideal Bit/Motor
Upper part of the hole :
70.0
100.0
Lower part of the hole :
50.0
70.0
Hole Section



m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr

Rate of Penetration (m/hr) Bit Life
Ideal Bit Ideal Bit/Motor (hours)
21.3
30.5
110
15.2
21.3
70

2012 High Impact Study Assumptions

Stratigraphy RCB Coring
Sediments
4.0
Lava
2.1
Dikes
2.1
Textured Gabbros
1.5
Foliated Gabbros
1.5
Layered Gabbros
1.2
Mantle1.2

Drilling
21.3
9.1
9.1
9.1
3.0
3.0
1.8

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr

Bit Life < 7010m = 110 hrs
Bit Life > 7010m = 70 hrs

236 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program2013 Implementation Plan Study Assumptions
Stratigraphy
Sediments
Lava
Dikes
Textured Gabbros
Foliated Gabbros
Layered Gabbros
Mantle

Coring
12.0
1.7
4.9
2.8
2.0
1.6
1.3

Drilling
26.2
21.1
10.4
10.2
6.5
5.2
2.7

Coring
14.4
4.3
3.2
2.6
4.3
2.9
2.4

UR
16.5
7.6
8.1
3.6
2.1
2.9
1.8

m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr
m/hr

2013 Implementation Plan Study Stochastic Assumptions

ROP by Stratigraphy
Sediments

Lava, Dikes
Textured Gabbros

Foliated Gabbros
Layered Gabbros

MantleRCBCore
Min = 2.4
ML =4.0
Max = 15.2

Drill
9.1
21.3
30.5

Conv
Core
3.0
12.2
15.2

UR
9.1 m/hr
12.2 m/hr
24.4 m/hr

RCB
Core
Min = 1.2
ML =
2.1
Max = 6.1

Drill
3.0
9.1
21.3

Conv
Core
1.5
4.6
6.1

UR
3.0 m/hr
7.6 m/hr
9.1 m/hr

RCB
Core
Min = 0.9
ML =1.5
Max = 2.4

Drill
1.5
3.0
9.1

Conv
Core
1.5
2.4
4.6

UR
1.5 m/hr
2.4 m/hr
6.1 m/hr

RCB
Core
Min = 0.9
ML =1.2
Max = 2.1

Drill
1.5
1.8
6.1

Conv
Core
0.9
1.5
3.0

UR
0.9 m/hr
1.5 m/hr
4.6 m/hr

Bit Life by Depth

Bit Life <= 6706m

Min =
ML =
Max =

Bit Life
30 hrs110 hrs
150 hrs

Bit Life > 6706m

Min =
ML =
Max =

Bit Life
20 hrs
70 hrs110 hrs

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

237 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Appendix 2: Example Cost Estimate Element Assumptions
The following is an example of the cost estimate assumptions that were used for each costelement using the Cocos Case 4b as an example. The same basic assumptions were used forall of the cost estimates.
BEAM - Budget Cost Estimate Assumptions
Cocos, Case 4b

Revised: 10 June, 2013

Location/ Regulatory Costs
Metocean Study- Obtain data regarding weather, wind, waves and currents at the location. Needed for riser/conductor
analysis, stationing keeping / weather downtime prediction. Data collection takes about a year
- Cost / work scope info per meetings with RPS and Fugro. Reference BEAM report from 2012
RPS 750,000 12 month water column study
Fugro 1,000,000 12 month water column study

Assume:1,000,000

Site Survey- Obtain seafloor bathymetry data, slope stability, AUV hi-res data, soil strength assessment
Fugro Survey costs $50-60,000 /dayBallpark cost $2 million

Assume:Which is2,000,000
33.3
days

Regulatory- Presumably there are some cost associated with telling the appropriate authorities what’s going on- Est per oil field analog
Assume:20,000Rig Mobilization, Demobilization
Mobilization

From :
Distance :Avg Speed :Time :

Fuel Costs per IODP
Fuel - Transit (5 kt) kl/d
Fuel - Transit (10 kt) kl/d

Tokyo
6600 miles
10 kts23.9 days
kl/day
50
100

Speed

Time (d)Day rate

Rig Cost

10

300,000

7,170,000

5

23.9
47.8

300,000

14,340,000

$/gal
4.00
4.00

$/day
52,836105,668

Tot Days
47.8
23.9

Tot $
2,525,561
2,525,465

gal/d
13,20926,417

Lump Sum = 16,865,561 at 5 knots
Lump Sum = 9,695,465 at 10 knots
Going fast is cheaper Assume:

9,700,000

De-Mobilization- Assume rig de-mob's back to Japan at same cost as Mob

Drilling Rig - Day WorkDay rate assumption - Start with the average oilfield drill ship day rate for 2012 per Ocean Industry
Magazine, then reduce the cost to account for the fact that this is a non-profit operation
Monthly Avgs
432,407438,974
438,541
443,204
439,230
433,976

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

238 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
438,074442,213429,391
427,920
443,074
450,437
438,120 = Average

Assume:438,000

NP Adj*138,000

Day Rate
300,000*Non-Profit Adjustment: Adjustment from normal commercial pricing that considers market conditions,profit, depreciation and other cost components that do not apply in this case.
Additional Riser- additional 5000 ft of riser required.
- cost per NOV quote, April 2013

Assume: 47,000,000

Existing Riser System Modifications- costs for new buoyancy modules and associated rig mods

Assume: 14,000,000- cost per NOV quote, April 2013

Bits, Drill Collars & Stabilizers
Bit Costs- Determine number of drill/core bits needed from ops time estimate spreadsheet- Avg bit cost per oilfield analog# Needed24$/bit70,000Bit $1,680,000

Core Bits # Needed
6$/bit60,000Bit $360,000

Drill Bits

Core Services- per oilfield analog

Assume:2,500 /day

Drill String Rentals - General- per oilfield analog

Assume:4,000 /day

Assume:62 Days Needed

includes reamers, etc

Directional & Downhole Services
Costs per oilfield analogs
Surveys/Gyros/Single & Multi-Shots
MWD / LWD Mob / De-mob
Standard MWD Rental
Standard LWD Rental
MWD / LWD Engineers (2)Mud Motors & Associated Tools
High Temp MWD Rental
High temp LWD Rental

Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:20,000 lump sum
30,000 lump sum
3,000 /day
7,000 /daybattery disposal, 6-700/set
2,000 /day
3,000 /day
4,000 /day
10,000 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

239 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
Fuel, Water & Lube
Rig Fuel- Usage per IODP is 40-60 kl/day during DP operations
kl/day50

gal/d13,209

$/gal
4.00

$/day
52,836

Assume:53,000 /dayCosts per oilfield analogs
Boat Fuel
Assume:4,000 /day
Helicopter Fuel
Assume:3,000 /day
Assume spot hire services, since likely won't need them every day.
Lubricants- Usage per IODP is 0.6 kl/day
2012 total 2012 total
(yen)
(USD
45,000,000 450,000$/day
1232.88

Assume:1,300 /day2012 total 2012 total
(yen)
(USD
5,000,000 50,000$/day
136.99Assume:700 /dayper oilfield analog

Fresh Water- Usage per IODP

Drilling Fluid Services
WBM Cost- per Buck Dear- "I would assume $2 million as the riser volume is huge assuming a 20” riser and there are
expensive chemicals for temperature stability and fluid loss control." = 91.00 $/ft

Mud Engineer- per oilfield analog

Assume:800 /dayCuttings Disposal- per oilfield analog

Assume:2,500 /day

Assume:Mud Cost =Hole Footage =Cost/ft =1,900,000 WBM System
1,865,955
20,50591.0

Current practice is not to discharge WBM cuttings

Electric Logging & Cased Hole Logs
Costs per oilfield analogs
Wireline Unit and Personnel
Standard Open Hole Logging
High Temp Open Hole Logging
Cased Hole Logging

Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:3,000 /day
1,500,000 lump sum
2,500,000 lump sum
100,000 lump sum

Assume:100,000 lump sum

Assume:100,000 lump sum

Assume:150,000 lump sum

CementingCosts per oilfield analogs

22"
18"
16"

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

240 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program
13.375"11.75"
9.625"

Assume:150,000 lump sum

Assume:100,000 lump sum

Assume:100,000 lump sum

Unit Charge
Retainers, Misc Equip

Assume:Assume:1,250 /day
50,000 lump sum

Mud Logging and Geological Services
Costs per oilfield analogs
Logging Unit Operating rate
Personnel Charges

1,250 /day
1,200 /day

Assume:Assume:Transportation
Costs per oilfield analogs- Presumably don't need these every day, but will be some costs due to project duration
Land
Work Boat
Crew Boat
Helicopter
Days Needed

900 /day
14,000 /day
9,000 /day
9,000 /day
100

Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Tubular Services
Costs per oilfield analogs
QAQC

Assume:150,000 lump sum

Shorebase / Dock Services
Costs per oilfield analogs
Shorebase /Dispatcher

Assume:2,000 /dayCommunications
Costs per IODP
Comms

Yen/mon
V-Sat 3,000,000$/mon
30,000$/day
1000

Assume:1,000 /dayMiscellaneous Rental Equipment
Costs per oilfield analogs
Solids Control
Fishing Tools
Casing Running Equipment
Other Rentals

Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:400 /day
1,500 /day
6,000 /day
20,000 /day

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

Assume:70 Days Needed
10d/String

241 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Miscellaneous Special Services
Costs per oilfield analogs
Weather Forecasting
Engineering Services - Riser Analysis
Engineering Services - Drill String Design
Engineering Services - Casing Design
Engineering Services - Wellbore Stability
Engineering Services - Operational Support
Engineering Services - Risk Assessments
Engineering Services - Other

Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:150 /day
300,000 lump sum
200,000 lump sum
50,000 lump sum
100,000 lump sum
200,000 lump sum
200,000 lump sum
50,000 lump sum

Other Services / Costs
Costs per oilfield analogs
Misc Contract Labor
Casing Running
Well Insurance
Overhead
Catering

Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:1,500 /day
10,000 /day
500,000 lump sum
1,100 /day
1,200 /day

Assume:70 Days Needed
10d/String

Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:Assume:650 $/ft
180 $/ft
160 $/ft
155 $/ft
140 $/ft
80 $/ft
70 $/ftTANGIBLE ITEMS
Costs per oilfield analogs

36"
22"
18"
16"
13-3/8"
11-3/4"9-5/8"

Liner Equipment
Wellheads
Miscellaneous / Other

From
11,975
11,975
12,645
12,545
11,97523,90027,200To
12,175
12,745
17,552
20,85024,20027,50030,840Length
200
770
4,907
8,305
12,2253,600
3,640

Assume:Assume:Assume:300,000 lump sum ($150,000 each)
500,000 lump sum
100,000 lump sum

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

242 of 249

1Q- milestone

2014
2Q
3Q
4Q

1Q

2015
2Q
3Q

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013
commit- Site Survey

Drilling Program
Ready to Mobilize- Finalize Drilling Program- Pre-Spud / DWOP Meetings- Final Cost Estimate- Finalize Design Work

- Services Integration

Draft Drilling Program
E. Final Well Planning- Logistics Plan

- Devel Tender Strategy / Tender Services- Contingency Plan Development- Initiate Technical Studies- Risk Assessment- Detailed Well Design

D. Detailed Well Planning- Bit/Core System Testing- Tubulars

commit- Metocean Study

commit4Q

commit2013
2Q
3Q- Additional Buoyancy

1Q- Additional Riser

Initial Well Plan / Cost Estimate
Project Approval
C. Long Lead Time Items- Ident Services Requirements- Ident Long Lead Items- Preliminary Well Design- Prelim Cement / Fluids Design- Prelim Drill Str/ Bit / BHA Plan

- Develop Well Plan Options- Prelim PP/ FG/ OBG/ Temp Analysis- Major Risks Defined- Data Review / Lessons Learned

SOR/Science Plan
Basis of Design
B. Front End Engineering- Design Assumptions Defined- FE Objectives Defined- Well Objectives Defined

A. Objectives Definition
1.) Select Mgmt/Steering Team
2.) Define Objectives

Planning Phases / Tasks
4Q

1Q

2016
2Q
3Q
4Q

1Q

2017
2Q
3Q
4Q

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Appendix 3: Implementation Timeline

243 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Appendix 3: Example Well Delivery Process Flowcharts
The following are generic flowcharts that describe the various phases of the well delivery
process that is used for planning deepwater drilling projects in the oil and gas business.
Obviously not everything will be directly applicable to the BEAM project, but they are provided
for reference.
1. Front End Engineering – Well Objectives Definition
Milestone
Geology
Geophysics
Reservoir
Land
HSE
Regulatory
Management

Key Task
Meet with Project
Stakeholders

Define: Expl/Appr/Field
Development Strategy

Define: Geologic
Objectives

Define: Reservoir
Objectives

Define: Completion /DST Objectives

Define: FE Objectives

Define: Offset Wells /Analog Field

Review Regulatory
Requirements

Prepare Design
Premise Document

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

244 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

2. Front End Engineering – Initial Well Planning

Milestone
Initiate: Shallow
Hazard Svy /Archeological Svy

Identify Long Lead
Materials, Services

Conduct Offset Data
Review

Key Task

Identify Major Issues,
Problem Area, Lessons
LearnedInitial Tubulars Design

Generate Initial PP,
FG, Temp Estimate

Initial Directional Plan

Preliminary Well
DesignInitial Mud / Cement
DesignInitial Drill Pipe, BHA,
Bit Design
Order Long Lead Time
Items

Initiate Long Term
Studies

Generate Well Plan
Options

Generate Preliminary
Drilling Curve and Well
Cost Estimates

Initial Mooring Plan
Initial Completions
Plan
Start Risk Register

Review Meeting withManagement /Partners

Management
Approval

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

245 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

3. Detailed Well Planning
Milestone
Key Task

Detailed Tubulars
DesignDetailed Directional
Plan
Conduct HAZID

Detailed Well Planning
Detailed Mud / Cement
Design
Revise Well Design

Detailed Drill Pipe,
BHA, Bit Design

Develop Tender
Strategy
Detailed Mooring Plan
Well Plan Peer
Review
Detailed Completions
Plan

Prepare Services Work
ScopesTender Services

Prepare/Submit
Regulatory Permits

Maintain Risk Register
Develop Contingency
Plans

Technical Review With
Partners

Prepare QAQC Plan

Prepare Bridging
Documents
Prepare Draft Drilling
Program
Prepare Mgmt of
Change Procedure

Prepare Logistics Plan

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

246 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

4. Detailed Well Planning – Finalize Well Plan
Milestone
Key Task

Review Services
Tenders

Award Services
Contracts

Close Out Risk
Register

Finalize Well Design

Close Out HAZID
Action Items

Finalize Well Cost
Estimate

AFE ApprovalPartner Approval

Conduct DWOP

Generate Final
Drilling Program

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

247 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

5. Operations Execution and Close Out
Milestone
Key Task
Insure All Permits Are
Approved

Conduct Pre-SpudMeeting

Prepare Program
Revisions as Required

Conduct Well
Operations

Provide Support toWell Operations

Monitor / Track
Operations Progress

Finish Well
Operations

Reconcile AFE vs.
Actual Costs

Analyze Operations
Metrics

Obtain Service
Company Final
Reports

Review Performanceand Lessons Learned
with Project
Stakeholders

Prepare End of Well
ReportBEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013

248 of 249

Implementation Plan for the BEAM – "Borehole into the Earth's Mantle" Program

Generic Deepwater Well Planning Timeline Example
For reference, the following is a generic planning timeline for a deepwater well. The planning
process typically takes 12-18 months depending on the complexity of the project and its location.

SGeneric Deepwater Well Planning Timeline
Well Planning Phases / Tasks
A. Front End Engineering (FEED)Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Month 13

1.) Well Objectives Definition- Well Objectives Defined- FE Objectives Defined- Offset Wells / Analog Field Defined- Completion/DST Objectives Defined

Basis of Design2.) Initial Well Planning- Offset Data Review / Lessons Learned- Major Risks Defined- Prelim PP / FG / Temp Analysis- Develop Well Plan Options / Scenarios- Preliminary Well Design / Schematic- Prepare Casing Design- Prelim Drill Str / Landing Str / BHA Plan
- Prelim Cement / Fluids Design

Initial Well Plan(s)Initial Cost Estimate(s)Management Approval
B. Detailed Well Planning1.) Well Design- Detailed Well Design- Anchor Handling / Mooring Procedure- Order Long Lead Time Items- Rig Acceptance Strategy- Develop Tender Strategy / Tender Services- Logistics Plan
- Contingency Plan Development- Permit to Drill

2.) Services Tendering
C. Final Well Planning1.) Finalize Well Design- Final Cost Estimate- Prepare Drilling Program- Pre-Spud / DWOP Meetings

Drilling Program
D. Spud

BEAM Project - Implemetation Plan Final Report, Rev 001, 14July2013249 of 249