drl engineering deepwater...
Post on 09-Mar-2018
231 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DRL Engineering - Deepwater
2
•DRL Engineering Deepwater Expertise
• Field Option Selection
• Cost Estimating
• Benchmarking
PROJECT FRONT END LOADING MODEL
DEEPWATER EXPERIENCEvStones Gulf of Mexico FPSO Project
Health Check
vBHP Mad Dog 2 Gulf of Mexico Semi Submersible Project Health Check
vShenzi TLP Topside Lead Position
vBrowse FLNG Near Field Cost Estimate
vNoble Tamar FLNG OE Program Risk Assessment
vGumusut and Malikai Decommissioning Cost Estimates
vBrunei - Merpai / Meragi Sub Sea Tie Back Cost Estimate
vKPOC KME Subsea Tie Back Project Health Check
vKME Development Scenario Cost Estimates
vNoble Equatorial Guinea Basin –Option Analysis
vNoble Energy Leviathan DW FPSO & Field Dev PMT team
vWoodside Lambert Subsea Tie Back Project Health Check
vGumusut Final Investment Decision Cost Estimate
vMalikai Final Investment Decision Cost Estimate
vMajoram and Rosmari Tension Leg Platform Cost Estimates (Malaysia)
vInpex Abadi Full Field Development Cost Estimate System Selection
vBrunei Laksa FPSO Cost Estimate
vINPEX ICHTHYS Project – Cost & Schedule Impact Assessment
vSea Lion Tension Leg Platform and FPSO Project Health Check
vWoodside Persephone Subsea Tie Back Project Health Check
vPerdido System Selection Analysis
vPerdido SPAR Final Investment Decision Cost Estimate
vKekek Development Cost Estimate
vKikeh – Gumusut Subsea Tie Back Decommissioning Cost Estimate
vFLNG Cost and Schedule Benchmarking
vExmouth Plateau System Selection Cost Estimates
vLimbayong Cost Estimates for Option Selection
EXPERIENCE – OFFSHORE PROJECTSvPetronas Bokor Phase 3 EOR VE
Study
vMurphy Kikeh DTU Spar – Options Studies for EOR Facility
vOwner Engineer assist on Falklands TLP development
vBC Petroleum ROC Oil – FPSO PMT Conversion Team at KSL Yard
vTalisman Kinabalu Redevelopment – Concept Select studies
vTalisman BK-D Platform VE Process & Facility Studies
vNewfield Blk 310 Sour Gas Platform FE Studies
vTwinza PNG FE Studies Pasca NGL Recycling & FSO Development
vEM of Petrofac FPSO Engineering for Aker in KL
vStart-up Operator - PSC Bid Functional Basis & Cost Estimate
vHusky Energy – Madura FPSO Owner Engr & ITT Tender Prep
vTalisman Kinabalu Platform Debottlenecking FE and Owner Engr
vHess North Malay Basin Platform VE & FE Concept Design Studies
vOphir RSC Peer Review and PM Support Services
vALNG LNG Hub Concept Design
vKBB Project Close Out Report
DEEPWATER
vNewfield East Piatu Platform VE Process & Facility Studies vMP225A Subsea Tie Back Host Modifications
vPetronas Baronia Platform VE Studies
vPM lead for Murphy Azurite FDPSO Decommissioning
vNorth Rankin B Project Close Out Benchmarking
vSK Energy B15 Concept Select to Pre-Feed Design Package
vCNOOC Liwan CPF Platform Cost Reduction Study
vEnquest Tj Baram RSC Ph 1 PM Services
Water Depth – Shallow, Deepwater & Ultra Deep
• Shallow Water to 300 meters• Deepwater 300 meters to 1,500 meters• Ultra Deep 1,500 to 3,000 meters
• Fixed Structure to 530 meters• Compliant Towers 305 to 910 meters• Tension Leg Platforms 150 to 1,600 meters• Semi Submersibles 230 to 2,400 meters• SPAR 600 to 2,400 meters• FPSO 20 to 2,900 meters• Subsea Tie Back to 3,000 meters
Field Developments vs Water Depth
Ursa '98
RamPowell, '97
Mars '96Jolliet '89
Auger '94
Snorre '92
Heidrun, '95
Hoover '00
Genesis '98
Neptune '96
Roncador '99 (Seillean)Aquila '93Marlim South '97
Foinaven '96
Schiehallion '98
Norne '97
MacCulloch
Curlew '97
Girassol '00
Barracuda '97 (P34)
Troll C '99
Troll B '95
Garden Banks '95
Marlim '98 (P26)
East Marimba '98
Visund '98
Njord '97
Balmoral '86
Roncador '99 (P36)
Bullwinkle '88Cognac '78
Lena '83
Troll A '96
Oseberg B '88
Veslefrikk '89
Gullfaks A '86
Heimdal '84
Draugen '93
Brage '93
Mensa '97Oseberg
Gullfaks Sat. '86 TOGI '91Heidrun WI '94
Draugen Sat. '93Vigdis '97
Snorre SPS '92
Tahoe '97 Popeye '96
Augus '99 Macaroni '99
Europa, '00Diana '00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Water depth [m]
No
of w
ells
TLP
Spar
FPSO
Semi
Fixed
Subsea
TLP
SEMI
FPSOCLASSICSPARS
SUBSEA
FIXED
DDF/ TRUSS SPARS/DCU SEMI
Thunderhorse
Suitability of Host Concepts
Deepwater
Deepwater
Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico Dominate the Deepwater Market
Deepwater – Pushing the Boundaries Cognac
1978Bullwinkle
1988Conoco
1989Petrobras
1989Na Kika
2003Petrobras
1999Mensa1997
Petrobras1997
Ursa1999
Ram-Powell1997
Mars1996
IndependenceHub2007
Perdido2010
Stones2016
Auger1993
• Deepwater Project Hull Forms
– SPARS (Single Lift and Multiple Lift)
– TENSION LEG PLATFORMS (Mini TLP’s and Conventional TLP’s)
– SEMI SUBMERSIBLES
– FPSOs (New Build and Conversions)
Deepwater Hull Forms
SPARS – Advantages / Disadvantages
SPARS
RED HAWK PERDIDO MAD DOG
TENSION LEG PLATFORMS – Advantages / Disadvantages
§Advantages:§Stable - minimal vertical motion
§Single drill center permits drilling & completions ops (including well interventions)§Shallow to deep (120 to 1500m)§Simpler well hardware + access
§Less flow assurance risk§Topsides & hull mated inshore and transported
to site
§Disadvantages:§Water depth limited (~1500m)§Little/no storage – dead oil§Topsides payload sensitive
SHENZI
MARS A
TENSION LEG PLATFORMS – Oveng / Okume
SEMI SUBMERSIBLES – Advantages / Disadvantages
GUMUSUT
THUNDER HORSE
SEMI SUBMERSIBLES – DELTA HOUSE
FPSO – Advantages / Disadvantages
FPSO – Stones
ThegiantLeviathanfield(17TCF)2000MmscfdGasProductionFPSO
DRL PROJECT MANAGEMENT - LEVIATHAN FPSO
OurPersonnel– leadrolesinOwnerPMT
Chris LyttleHull Delivery ManagerSteve Craig , PM
Colby HafnerSafety QRA
Vince PageRotating Machinery
FIELDWIDE BASIS DESIGN DATABOOK - LEVIATHAN FPSO
LEVIATHAN FPSO
Spread Moored VLCC with SCR Riser System
2000 Mmscfd Gas Facility
28,000 MT Topsides
Leviathan FPSO Fabrication Scope of Work Overview
Hull Demolition Scope 1.Fwd windlass x 1 unit 2.Anchor chain x 1 unit3.Poop deck winch x 3 units 4.Main deck winch x 5 units5.Hose handling crane x 2 units6.Provision crane x 2 units7.Bow thruster8.Main deck piping & conduit9.Main deck outfitting10.Telecom & Navigation equip11.LQ equipment12.Engine Room equipment13.E&I items
Hull Piping Systems 1. Cargo Oil System 15. Hydraulic Oil sys2. Ballast Water System 16. Fuel Gas system3. Inert Gas system 17. MEG & Methanol sys4. Compressed Air system 18. Foam System5. Steam/Feed/Cond. Water sys 19. Diesel Oil6. N2 system7. MGPS system8. SW cooling sys (Marine & Topside)9. FW cooling sys10. Offspec produced water & cond. sys11. Open drain & closed drain system12. FW distribution system13. Fire system14. Fixed fire suppression system
Hull Coating & Painting 1.Hull painting – 450, 740m2 2.Main deck – 18, 000m23.11 WBT – 229, 526m2 4.11 COT – 155, 000 m25.Slop tanks 15, 000 m26.Offspec tanks – 19, 000m27.FWT – 1, 000m28.APT – 8,000m29.Chemical tanks – 25, 000m210.Ext Super Structure – 5, 170m2
Other Hull Misc Scope 1.2 x FW generators & SW ejectors2.Lifting Equip3.Cargo offload & mooring equipment 4.Safety equipment5.Ballast tank dehumidifier6.New emergency generator7.New sewage treatment plant8.Tank anodes 4, 800 # x 50 kg9.Hull anodes 600 # x 100 kg10.Hatch covers11.Tank air vent heads12.Refurbish machinery equipment13.COW machine14.Heating coils in slop tank15.O/H valves16.E&I navigation & communication equip
Workshop &storage (50 T)
Helideck(230T)
New poopdeck (450 T)
LifeboatSupports (250 T)
RiserPorch 1450 T
BilgeKeel (250T)
MarinePipe rack (150 T)
130m Flare Tower (400 T)
2 x IG Towers(45 T)
Fwd tempShelter ((60 T)
OffloadingStation (80 T)
Convert #1 CT P&STo 13 chemical tanks(1665 T)
19 TopsideModules (25000 T)
2 Crane pedestals& boom rests (90 T)
4 x 6 mooringsystem (1500 T)
140 P AccommodationConversion (900 T)
Aft Access Handling (150 T)
Fwd Accesshandling (150 T)
Pipe rack215m (1850 T)
Module support Stools (350 T)
FatigueBrackets (350 T)
Convert 5S BTTo PW tanks 1 & 2(150T)
Hull / Marine Scope+/- 10000 Tons
Dry-dock scope:1. Riser porch 6. Overboard pipes2. New Sea Chests 7. MGPS system3. SW Lift pump caisson 8. Hull coating4. Sacrificial anodes 9. Bilge Keel5. Fairlead support str 10. Blast & Coating
Vessel details:Built: 2012 by DSME KoreaDim: L 333m x W 60m x D 30.5mDeadweight: 320, 000 TClass: ABS
CONCEPT ENGINEERING
FIELD DEVELOPMENT
KEY DRIVERS in Field Development
• Basin Strategy• Reservoir Uncertainties• Geohazards• Metocean • Field Architecture• Flow Assurance• Host Selection• Technology & Risk
Our Concept Engineering Focus:
• Project Feasibility Assessment (Commercial and Technical);• Concept Identification & Selection:
Ø Export routesØ Process & Technology Options, Layout Studies;Ø CAPEX / OPEX / Product Revenue Evaluation
• Concept Optimisation:Ø Engineering definition, Cost Sensitivities, Schedule
• Debottlenecking Studies;• Risk Evaluation (Commercial and Technical);
• Workshop Facilitation/Participation
CONCEPT ENGINEERING
We apply a stepwise ‘gate’ process to the
Concept Select process to avoid recycle
• Reservoir Support Mechanisms (Primary & Secondary)• Well Performance, Well Count & Location• Well Fluid PVT & Physical Properties, WAT, Corrosion, Rheology, Chemistry• Production System Capacities (Stream Day & Annual)• Boundary Export Conditions (Pipelines / Injection / Terminal)• Site Location & Environmental Data & Criteria• Production Availability Requirements – Contract Obligations?• Operations Philosophy, also EPC or Lease Operate?• Future Facilities / Developments• Specific Operator Preferences / Requirements –
e.g. sparing, no. trains…• Codes & Regulations selection• Infrastructure Owned or Contractually Available• Timing, Schedule Criticality, Opportunities & Risks
INITIAL FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (“THE BOUNDARIES”)
KEY FACILITY PARAMETERS
Examples of Typical Key Facility Parameters:
• Field Architecture Options – Vertical vs Extended reach Drilling, Cluster versus daisy Chain DCs, Initial versus Future etc..
• Hull Options – DTU vs Wet Trees, Riser Stability, Payload, Cost, Quayside or Offshore Installation
• Optimum Well Back Pressure – justify artificial lift and optimum back pressure – gas lift, riser pumping, MPPs. Cost, Complexity versus Deliverability & Flow Assurance.
• Export Options – Pipeline, FPSOs, FSOs.• Flow Assurance Options – Displacement vs Insulated vs Chemical Reclaimer.• Topsides Riser Pressure Break, Trains & Configuration• Process Unit Robustness to achieve dead oil and on spec gas• Equipment Type Selections – Drivers, Unit Ops. etc.. • Utility Options for Power, Cooling and Heating• Packaging / Layout, Safety, Payload
Optimum Cost with consideration of Weight, Feasibility Risk & Schedule
DEFINE THE BUILDING BLOCKS
Basin Strategy – Infrastructure Options?
EQUATORIAL GUINEA BASIN - OPTION SELECTION
We led the Front – End Studies and Option Selection for 3 Fields
TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES• Field Architecture configuration and impact
on drill rig locations and drill centers – i.e. daisy chain, cluster or DVA
• Hull Type – drilling location, DTU vs Wet Trees, drilling reach, riser performance and loads, oil storage and integration (quayside lift, strand jacks or offshore lift or floatover)
• Well Back Pressure - justify artificial lift-ESPs, gaslift riser, riser pumping, MPPs Cost / Feasibility vs Deliverability & FA.
• Export Options – Pipelines, FSO / FPSO /FLNG terminals
• Flow Assurance – well offset distance, rheology, displacement vs insulation vs Chemical and Reclaiming
• Integration & Installation Options – Lift, Floatover, Quayside or singlebuild with strand jacks or nearshore floatover
• Riser dia vs SIP vs type (SCR vs Flexible), Riser Loads, Riser install, Riser & Connector Fatigue & Type, TOR spec break
• Topside Equip Selections & Systems (e.g. direct drives, HM/CM..
• Layout optimization – incl. HSE & HMI & Maintenance etc.
• Fabrication location – total actual cost implications
FUNCTIONAL BASIS & OPTION SELECTION
10-Apr-08 Slide 3© 2007 Aker Kvaerner
STA-BEN-FPSO-MODU-021
Costs Mill USDHost – 347Hull – 150Mooring, risers – 109Subsea equipment -- 166Pipelines, FL, umbilicals – 129
Total – 901
Costs Mill USDCosts Mill USDHost – 347Hull – 150Mooring, risers – 109Subsea equipment -- 166Pipelines, FL, umbilicals – 129
Total Total –– 901901
FPSO
MODU
FPSO tanker
gas re-injection
Water-injection
Benita
OPTION SELECTION
Examples of typical options
36
OPTIONS
EXAMPLE – HULL SCREENING OPTIONS
OPTION SELECTION
We are specialized in bringing discoveries to fruition through a methodical and systematic Conceptual Engineering process.
Our methodology and experience includes brownfield as well as greenfield, de-bottle necking and increased oil recovery projects
Deepwater Malaysia Concept Screening
CONCEPT ENGINEERING
Concepts are identified, screened and defined –function, scope, cost and schedule are established.
EXAMPLE PRE-SANCTION WORK PLAN
Track Record of Floating Concept Selection
DRL Engineering
41
•Floating Concept Selection–KME (March 2014)
• Subsea Tie Back to KBB• Tension Leg Platform with Wet Trees and Partial Processing• Tension Leg Platform with Wet Trees and Full Processing
–Kekek (January 2014) • Mini Tension Leg Platform• Single Lift SPAR• Multiple Lift SPAR• Semi Submersible
– Leviathan Gas FPSO (Jan 14-17)–Sea Lion (November 2013)
• TLP / FPSO
DRL – Floating Concept Selection
42
•Floating Concept Selection–Mad Dog 2 (November 2013)
• All Floating Concepts
–Abadi Floating vs. Onshore LNG (February 2013) • Semi Submersible• FPSO
–Limbayong (February 2012)• New Deepwater Hub• Shallow Water Platform with Subsea Tie Back• Subsea Tie Back to KN
–Malikai (2007-2011)• All Floating Concepts
DRL – Floating Concept Selection
43
•Floating Concept Selection–Gumusut (2003-2007)
• All Floating Concepts
–Perdido (2004-2005)• Multi Lift SPAR vs. Single Lift SPAR
–Equatorial Guinea BasinNoble Energy Benita FPSO & Elon Condensate Recycle
- CMS Energy ALBA
- Chevron JSM Hull Type
DRL – Floating Concept Selection
44
DEEPWATER PROJECT COST ESTIMATING &
BENCHMARKING
Offshore Project - Cost Estimating Overview
Deepwater Project – Work Breakdown Structure Level 1
DEEPWATER PROJECTS : WHERE DO WE SPEND OUR CAPEX?
Non Direct Vertical Access Projects
Direct Vertical Access Projects
Cost Estimating – Cost Norm Format
Wor
k B
reak
dow
n St
ruct
ure
Norm Change with Progression of Information
Cost Estimating – Greenfield Structure
Deepwater Cost Estimating – Input Data Requirements
Data Input – Pre FEED Deliverables
Deepwater Cost Estimating
Stan
dard
Wor
k B
reak
dow
n St
ruct
ure
Deepwater Cost Estimating
Stan
dard
Wor
k B
reak
dow
n St
ruct
ure
Deepwater Cost Estimating – Facility Cost by Hull Form
Tool Output – Cost per Hull Form
Regional Fabrication Costs
Fabrication of Modules in China
COSTESTIMATION
DRL cost estimates are established based on data of actual achieved costs on previous projects.
Deepwater TLP Malaysia Cost Estimating
COSTESTIMATION– SYSTEMSELECTION
DRL cost estimates are established based on data of actual achieved costs on previous projects.
Deepwater MalaysiaDevelopment Scenario Cost
Estimating
Leading to System Selection
•DRL Project Benchmarking Database
–Data from 287 Projects used to perform
• Concept Benchmarking
• Scope Benchmarking– Value Engineering– Risks and Opportunity Assessments
• Cost Benchmarking
• Schedule Benchmarking
• Project Health Checks
DRL Project Benchmarking Database
59
DRL ENGINEERINGBENCHMARK
DATASET287 Projects
180 Process Facilities
33 Subsea Tie Back74 Wellhead
Platforms
60
Project Database (excl. Subsea Tie Backs and Wellhead Platforms)
Project Database
180 Process Facilities
of which122 Projects are
Deepwater Projects
61
Sub Sea Tie Back Project Database
In AdditionDRL Benchmark
Database includes 74 Wellhead Platforms
BENCHMARKING OVERVIEW
62
BENCHMARKING OVERVIEW
63
• Scope Benchmarking Metrics
• Cost Benchmarking Metrics
• Schedule Benchmarking Metrics
SCOPE BENCHMARKING
64
• Scope Benchmarking Checks will vary Project to Project but will include :-– Design Functionality vs. Reservoir Size– Total Installed Power vs. Design Functionality– Total Installed Power vs. Topside Dry Weight– Functionality vs. Topside Weight– Topside Dry Weight vs. Deck Area– Deck Area vs. Functionality– Living Quarter Weight vs. Number of Beds– Equipment Weight vs. System Functionality
• Production• Compression• Power• Water Injection• Utilities• Safety and Material Handling
– Jacket Weight vs. Water Depth– Hull Weight vs. Topside Weight– Link Bridge vs. Bridge Length
INDEPENDENCE HUB
Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE (All Hull Forms)
65
SPAR Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE
66
Tension Leg Platform Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE
67
Semi Submersible Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE
68
NEW BUILD FPSO Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE
69
CONVERSION FPSO Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE
70
OFFSHORE BEST WEIGHT PERFORMERS
HORN MOUNTAIN SPAR
MARCO POLO MINI TLP
INDEPENDENCE HUBSEMI SUBMERSIBLE
NEPTUNESPAR
MARS ACONVENTIONAL TLP
SHENZIMINI TLP
71
INCORPORATE BEST PRACTICES WHERE APPLICABLE
COST BENCHMARKING
72
• Cost Benchmarking Checks will vary Project to Project but will include :-
– Hull Cost per Tonne– Topside Cost per Tonne– Topside Design Manhours per Tonne– Equipment Procurement Cost per Tonne– Topside Bulk Procurement Cost per Tonne– Fabrication Cost per Tonne– Hook Up and Commissioning Cost per Tonne– Topside Installation Cost vs. Topside Weight– Mooring Cost vs. Installed Length– Pipeline Line Cost per Inch Dia. Mile – Subsea Costs (Trees/Manifolds/Controls/Umbilicals/IWOC/Jumpers)
•Deepwater Project Benchmarking Packages– Including Scope, Cost & Schedule Benchmarking
–Malikai Tension Leg Platform Malaysia 2016–Stones Conversion FPSO Gulf of Mexico 2016–Leviathan Gas FPSO & current CPF Platform 2017–Knarr New Build FPSO Norway 2015–Delta House Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2015–Sea Lion Conversion FPSO Falkland Islands 2015–Mars B Tension Leg Platform Gulf of Mexico 2014–Gumusut/Kakap Semi Submersible Malaysia 2014–Mad Dog 2 Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2014–Skarv New Build FPSO Norway 2012
DRL – Deepwater Cost Benchmarking
73
•Deepwater Project Benchmarking Packages– Including Scope, Cost & Schedule Benchmarking
–Gjoa Semi Submersible Norway 2011–Who Dat Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2011–Perdido Single Lift SPAR Gulf of Mexico 2010–BC 10 Conversion FPSO Brazil 2007–Independence Hub Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2007–Mag Dog SPAR Gulf of Mexico 2005–Na Kika Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2003–Penguin Subsea Tie Back North Sea 2003–EA New Build FPSO Nigeria 2002
DRL – Deepwater Cost Benchmarking
74
SCHEDULE BENCHMARKING
75
• Schedule Benchmarking Checks will vary Project to Project but will include :-– Critical Path Duration to First Cut Steel
– Fabrication Duration• Floating Hulls• Topsides
– Final Investment Decision to Sailaway
– Final Investment Decision to First Hydrocarbons
76
GULF of MEXICO DEEPWATER SCHEDULE EXAMPLE
DRL – Deepwater Benchmarking
77
•Typical Deepwater Benchmarking Package : Scope (Charts 3 to 19), Cost (Charts 20 to 33) and Schedule Review (Charts 34 to 36) and Benchmarking Summary (Charts 37 to 39)
MORE THAN BENCHMARKING …..
78
PEERASSISTS&INVESTMENTDECISION
SCHEDULEBENCHMARKING
SCOPEBENCHMARKING
COSTBENCHMARKINGCOSTESTIMATING
TRAINING
MorethanBENCHMARKING
ProvidingGlobalAdvice:-Scope
ExecutionStrategyCostandSchedule
IdentifyOpportunities&Risks
DataCollectionBenchmarkingMetrics
ProjectConceptsCostEfficiencyEstimatingTools
EstimatingTools:-
ScopeDevelopmentCostDevelopment
(DeepWater,ShallowWater,Brownfield&Subsea)RegionalNorms
DRL Personnel
DRL Engineering - Deepwater
80
•DRL Engineering Deepwater Expertise
• Option Selection
• Cost Estimating
• Benchmarking
top related