Deepwater Field Development - Floating Production System ...
Deepwater Field Development - Floating Production System ...
Deepwater Field Development - Floating Production System ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Floating</strong> <strong>Production</strong> <strong>System</strong> <strong>Deepwater</strong><br />
<strong>Development</strong> Options<br />
by<br />
Pieter Wybro<br />
Sea Engineering, Inc.<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Presentation Topics<br />
1. <strong>Deepwater</strong> Platform Options<br />
2. Market Trends<br />
3. Primary Drivers<br />
4. Technology Issues<br />
5. Future Trends<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Local Host <strong>Development</strong> Option<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Satellite Wellhead Platforms to Central Hub<br />
Hub Facility<br />
WHP<br />
WI<br />
Wells<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
<strong>Production</strong> Floater Hull Types<br />
• Monohull<br />
FPSO - <strong>Production</strong>, Storage, and Shuttle Offtake<br />
FSO - Storage and Shuttle Offtake<br />
FPU - <strong>Production</strong> and Pipeline Offtake<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
<strong>Production</strong> Floater Hull Types<br />
• Monohull<br />
Conversions<br />
• Semi-Submersibles<br />
----------------------------------------------<br />
New Generation New Build<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
<strong>Deepwater</strong> Floater Hull Types<br />
• Monohull<br />
• Semi-Submersibles<br />
Submersibles<br />
----------------------------------------------<br />
• Spars<br />
Classic Spar<br />
Truss Spar<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
<strong>Deepwater</strong> Floater Hull Types<br />
• Monohull<br />
• Semi-Submersibles<br />
Submersibles<br />
----------------------------------------------<br />
• Spars<br />
• Tension Leg<br />
Platforms (TLP)<br />
Classic TLP<br />
Moses TLP<br />
Monocolumn TLP<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
<strong>Floating</strong> <strong>Production</strong> <strong>System</strong>s Growth<br />
<strong>Floating</strong><br />
Reference: International Maritime Consultants 2004<br />
Reference: International Maritime Consultants 2004<br />
‣ Mature Technology.<br />
‣ Historically has been primarily conversions.<br />
‣ Historically, FPS were used in medium water depth,<br />
early production, short field life, flexible risers.<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
GOM <strong>Floating</strong> <strong>System</strong>s<br />
3<br />
Number<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
TLP<br />
SPAR<br />
Semi<br />
2006<br />
2005<br />
1999<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2003<br />
2004<br />
1996<br />
1997<br />
1998<br />
1989<br />
1988<br />
1990<br />
1991<br />
1992<br />
1993<br />
1994<br />
1995<br />
Year<br />
(Source: MMS <strong>Deepwater</strong> GOM Report 2004)<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Recent Exploration Trends<br />
0%<br />
(Source: MMS <strong>Deepwater</strong> GOM Report 2004)<br />
number of exploration wells<br />
completed<br />
20%<br />
40%<br />
60%<br />
80%<br />
Ultra-deep water Trend<br />
100%<br />
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003<br />
>7500<br />
5000-7499<br />
1500-4999<br />
1000-1499<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
GOM Discoveries > 7000’ WD<br />
Project Name Block WD, ft Year<br />
Aconcagua MC 305 7,379 1999<br />
Camden Hills MC 348 7,530 1999<br />
Blind Faith MC 696 7,116 2001<br />
Merganser AT 37 8,064 2001<br />
St. Malo WR 678 7,326 2001<br />
Trident AC 903 9,816 2001<br />
Cascade WR 206 8,143 2002<br />
Great White AC 857 7,425 2002<br />
Vortex AT 261 8,422 2002<br />
Atlas LL 50 9,180 2003<br />
Chinook WR 469 9,104 2003<br />
Jubilee AT 349 8,891 2003<br />
Spiderman/Amazon DC 621 8,100 2003<br />
(Source: MMS <strong>Deepwater</strong> GOM Report 2004)<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
7000<br />
6000<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
Waterdepth Records for FPU Types<br />
TLP SPAR Semi<br />
1982<br />
1983<br />
1984<br />
1985<br />
1986<br />
1987<br />
1988<br />
1989<br />
1990<br />
1991<br />
1992<br />
1993<br />
1994<br />
1995<br />
1996<br />
1997<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2003<br />
2004<br />
Year<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004<br />
1981<br />
Waterdepth, ft
Primary Drivers for <strong>Deepwater</strong> FPUs<br />
Waterdepth.<br />
Payload<br />
<strong>Production</strong> Characteristics – Well Access<br />
Requirements.<br />
Availability of Infrastructure & Market location.<br />
Platform drilling, predrilling vs postdrilling<br />
Gas Disposal Requirements.<br />
Local Content Requirements.<br />
<strong>Field</strong> Life.<br />
Metocean Conditions.<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Wellbore Access: Direct vs Subsea?<br />
Direct (Dry Tree)<br />
• Single Drill Center<br />
• Lower OPEX and Life<br />
Cycle Costs<br />
• Simpler well Hardware<br />
• Minimize well intervention<br />
Cost and downtime<br />
• Less Flow Assurance Risk<br />
• Higher recovery<br />
• Strict motion requirements<br />
Indirect (Wet Tree)<br />
• Multi Drill Centers<br />
• Higher OPEX<br />
• Minimize Drilling Costs and Risks<br />
for Large Areal Extent Reservoirs<br />
• Maximize <strong>Development</strong> Plan<br />
Flexibility<br />
• Capability for wide range of hull<br />
types<br />
• More complex flow assurance<br />
issues<br />
• Seafloor intervention, vessel<br />
availability<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Proven <strong>Deepwater</strong> Technology<br />
Dry Tree Solutions<br />
Wet Tree Solutions<br />
Classic Spar<br />
Truss<br />
Spar<br />
Compliant<br />
Tower<br />
Shipshape FPSO<br />
Semi FPS<br />
Conventional<br />
TLP<br />
New Generation<br />
TLPs<br />
Source: Offshore Magazine<br />
<strong>Deepwater</strong> <strong>Production</strong> Solutions poster; Sept.,2000<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004<br />
2A-4
Riser Options<br />
Direct Vertical Access Options:<br />
Direct Tensioned Riser<br />
Air Can Tensioned Riser TTR<br />
Tubing Tie-back Riser<br />
Compliant Vertical Access Riser<br />
(CVAR) *<br />
Near or At-Surface Completion *<br />
Drilling/Completion/WO riser<br />
Wet Tree Options:<br />
Steel Catenary Risers (SCR)<br />
Hybrid Risers<br />
Flexible Catenary Risers<br />
Stricter<br />
Hull Motion<br />
Requirements<br />
Note: * Option is unproven<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Motion Response Characteristics<br />
Sea Energy / Heave Response<br />
TLP<br />
Sea Energy<br />
Ship (Beam)<br />
Ship (Bow)<br />
Semi<br />
Spar<br />
Wave Period (Seconds)<br />
5 Seconds 20 Seconds<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
GOM FPU Motion Comparison<br />
Heave D.A.<br />
(ft)<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
TLP SPAR CP Semi Semi Monohull<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Mooring Options<br />
Mooring Leg Options:<br />
Offsets<br />
Catenary leg moorings<br />
Semi-taut leg moorings<br />
Taut leg polyester mooring<br />
Vert. Load<br />
Foundation Options:<br />
Steel Driven Piles<br />
Suction Piles<br />
SEPLA<br />
VLA<br />
Drag Embedment<br />
Uplift<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Installed & Sanctioned FPSOs<br />
Water Depths > 300 m<br />
Norway (2)<br />
Norway (2)<br />
UK (2)<br />
UK (2)<br />
Italy (1)<br />
Italy (1)<br />
China (2)<br />
China (2)<br />
Angola (2)<br />
Angola (2)<br />
Brazil (8)<br />
Brazil (8)<br />
Source:<br />
Aker Maritime’s & Mustang Engineering 2001 Worldwide Survey of FPSOs; Aug, 2001 Issue of Offshore Magazine<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
• Internal Turret<br />
• External Turret<br />
• Yoke <strong>System</strong><br />
• Spread moored<br />
Monohull Mooring Types<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
• Internal Turret<br />
• External Turret<br />
• Yoke <strong>System</strong><br />
• Spread moored<br />
Monohull Mooring Types<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
• Internal Turret<br />
• External Turret<br />
• Yoke <strong>System</strong><br />
Monohull Mooring Types<br />
• Spread moored<br />
• Old style<br />
• Not Applicable to deep water<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
• Internal Turret<br />
• External Turret<br />
• Yoke <strong>System</strong><br />
• Spread moored<br />
Monohull Mooring Types<br />
• Directional environment<br />
• Offtake issues<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Offtake<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
FPSO<br />
• no oil export pipeline required<br />
• Converted tankers, if used, can lower initial cost<br />
& schedule<br />
• Available payload & deck area<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
• Oil field use only (no advantage for gas field)<br />
• Wet Tree – no direct well access<br />
• Potentially high cost for well workover<br />
• High turret/fluid swivel cost potential<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Worldwide Installed & Sanctioned Semi - FPSs<br />
Water Depths > 300 m<br />
Norway (7)<br />
Norway (7)<br />
US GoM (5)<br />
US GoM (5)<br />
China (1)<br />
China (1)<br />
Brazil (13)<br />
Brazil (13)<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Semisubmersible FPU<br />
CP Semi – New Generation Semi<br />
Hull steel weight equivalent to<br />
a TLP<br />
Deck can be pre-integrated<br />
inshore<br />
Installed with anchor handling<br />
vessels<br />
Hull motions generally<br />
acceptable for SCR risers.<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Semisubmersibles<br />
• Low structure weight<br />
• Catenary or Taut-Leg Spread moored<br />
• Good motions, SCRs are possible<br />
• Platform drilling or workover rig is possible<br />
• Subsea trees with vertical access<br />
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
• DVA risers w/dry trees unproven<br />
• Large mooring footprint<br />
• Pipeline offtake<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Installed & Sanctioned SPARs<br />
Water Depths > 300 m<br />
GoM GoM (14) (14)<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
SPARS International<br />
Technip<br />
Spar Installations<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Spar Installations<br />
Medusa<br />
2002<br />
Front Runner<br />
2004<br />
Devils Tower<br />
2004<br />
2,322’<br />
GOM<br />
3,500’<br />
GOM<br />
5,610’<br />
GOM<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Spar Installation<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Air Can Risers<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Spars<br />
• Dry tree capable<br />
• Low heave motions<br />
• Catenary or taut leg moorings<br />
• Low sensitivity to topsides weight<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
• Large structure weight<br />
• Large seabed footprint<br />
• Large lateral motions at deck and keel<br />
• Hull VIM may cause fatigue of components<br />
(aircan, riser, mooring etc.)<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Installed & Sanctioned TLPs<br />
Water Depths > 300 m<br />
Conv. TLPs (2)<br />
Conv. TLPs (2)<br />
Conv. TLP (1)<br />
Conv. TLP (1)<br />
US GOM - Mini TLP (4)<br />
US GOM - Mini TLP (4)<br />
US GOM - TLP (9)<br />
US GOM - TLP (9)<br />
US GOM - TLWP (1)<br />
US GOM - TLWP (1)<br />
TLWP (2)<br />
TLWP (2)<br />
TLWP (2)<br />
TLWP (2)<br />
TLWP (2)<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
TLWP<br />
Classic TLPs<br />
Concrete<br />
PDQ<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
FPU<br />
TLWP<br />
Drilling Tender<br />
Seno <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> (1000m WD)<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
MOSES New Generation TLP<br />
Marco Polo TLP in 4300 ft Waterdepth<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Steel Tendon Practical Depth Limits<br />
Classic TLP<br />
8,000<br />
7,000<br />
6,000<br />
Water Depth (ft)<br />
5,000<br />
4,000<br />
3,000<br />
2,000<br />
SE Asia<br />
W Africa<br />
GoM<br />
1,000<br />
2,000 6,000 10,000 14,000 18,000 22,000 26,000<br />
Payload (st), excludes deck steel, includes risers<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Steel Tendon Practical Depth Limits<br />
8,000<br />
New Generation TLP<br />
7,000<br />
Water Depth (ft)<br />
6,000<br />
5,000<br />
4,000<br />
3,000<br />
2,000<br />
1,000<br />
RATIO: Tendon Wt / Payload<br />
RATIO: Tendon Wt / Payload<br />
1.6<br />
1.6<br />
1.5<br />
1.5<br />
1.4<br />
1.4<br />
1.2<br />
1.2<br />
1.0<br />
1.0<br />
0.8<br />
0.8<br />
0.8<br />
0.8 Classic<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
0.4<br />
0.4<br />
0.4<br />
0.5<br />
0.4<br />
0.5<br />
0.2<br />
Moses<br />
0.2<br />
0.2<br />
0.2<br />
0.0<br />
0.0<br />
0 2000 4000 6000<br />
0 2000 4000 6000<br />
W a te rde pth (ft)<br />
W a te rde pth (ft)<br />
SE Asia<br />
W Africa<br />
GoM<br />
2,000 6,000 10,000 14,000 18,000 22,000 26,000<br />
Payload (st), excludes deck steel, includes risers<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Integrated TLP Tow out<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Direct Tensioned Risers<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Tension Leg Platform<br />
• Stable with minimal heave, roll and pitch motions<br />
• Dry Tree capable<br />
• Small seabed footprint<br />
• Scalable to small fields<br />
• Low structure weight<br />
• Inshore integration<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
• No oil storage<br />
• Sensitive to topsides weight<br />
• Has water depth limit with steel tendons<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Global Design Efficiency<br />
Displacement/Payload<br />
7.00<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
1.00<br />
Morpeth<br />
Neptune<br />
Genesis<br />
Allegheny Typhoon<br />
Horn Mountain<br />
Boomvang/Nansen<br />
JollietMatterhorn<br />
NaKika<br />
Prince<br />
Ram-Pow ell<br />
Marlin<br />
Brutus<br />
Magnolia<br />
Auger<br />
Mars<br />
Seno B<br />
Marco Polo<br />
Kizomba A CP Semi 28000<br />
Seno A<br />
CP Semi 12000<br />
Atlantis<br />
Ursa<br />
Conventional TLP<br />
Seastar TLP<br />
Moses TLP<br />
Conventional Semi<br />
Spar<br />
Unocal TLP<br />
C P Semi<br />
Thunder Horse<br />
Payload Excludes Deck steel and product storage<br />
0.00<br />
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000<br />
Displacement, st<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
<strong>Deepwater</strong> <strong>System</strong> Comparisons<br />
SPAR<br />
• Hull design less depth<br />
sensitive<br />
• Riser aircans are weight<br />
sensitive<br />
• Lower Payload<br />
Sensitivity of hull<br />
• Simpler mooring system<br />
• Simpler hull construction<br />
TLP<br />
• Simpler risers<br />
• Less motions<br />
• Lower Hull Weight<br />
• Small seabed footprint<br />
• Topsides can be<br />
integrated inshore<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004<br />
2A-19
<strong>Deepwater</strong> <strong>System</strong> Comparisons<br />
FPSO<br />
• Used in area lacking<br />
pipeline infrastructure<br />
• Oil storage and offtake<br />
capability<br />
• Gas handling and offtake<br />
is an issue.<br />
• SCR Risers are generally<br />
not feasible<br />
Semi<br />
• Used in areas with<br />
accessible infrastructure<br />
• SCR Risers feasible<br />
• Efficient hull weight<br />
• Simpler Mooring system<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004<br />
2A-20
Technical and Commercial Maturity<br />
SYSTEM<br />
TECHNICALLY COMMERCIALLY<br />
MATURE<br />
MATURE<br />
FPSO Yes Yes Yes Yes<br />
Spar Spar -- Classic Yes Yes No No<br />
Spar Spar -- Truss Yes Yes No No<br />
Semi Semi FPS FPS Yes Yes Yes Yes<br />
DD DD Semi Semi No No No No<br />
TLP TLP Yes Yes Yes Yes<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
<strong>Deepwater</strong> FPU Design Challenges<br />
• Efficient Hulls with good performance<br />
• Reducing Installation costs & risks<br />
• <strong>Deepwater</strong> mooring designs<br />
• DVA riser designs<br />
• Deep currents & VIV of risers and tendons<br />
• Reduce drilling costs<br />
• Non-linear hydrodynamics – VIM, run up, free<br />
surface effects, higher order loads<br />
• Model Testing scale effects and mooring truncation<br />
effects<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Emerging <strong>Deepwater</strong> <strong>Production</strong> Solutions<br />
FDPSOs<br />
Deep Draft Semisubmersibles<br />
<strong>Floating</strong> LNG<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004<br />
2A-19
FPU Technology Direction<br />
• Ultra-deep water<br />
• New Generation efficient hulls<br />
• Improved lightweight topsides<br />
• Tender Assisted Drilling (TAD)<br />
• Improved moorings and foundations<br />
• Improved risers<br />
• More efficient platform installation methods<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
New Generation Hulls + Lightweight Topsides<br />
US GOM <strong>Production</strong> TLPs and Semisubs Ursa<br />
Dry Tree TLPs in GoM<br />
Hull + Deck Steel, tons<br />
Typhoon<br />
Magnolia<br />
Ram-Powell<br />
Marlin<br />
Mars<br />
Brutus<br />
Auger<br />
NaKika<br />
Marco Polo<br />
Matterhorn<br />
Jolliet<br />
Prince<br />
Prince<br />
Marco Polo<br />
0 50 100 150 200 250<br />
Design Throughput, KBOEPD<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Summary<br />
• SPARS, proven to 6000’ and TLPs, proven to 5000’ dominate<br />
deepwater in GOM.<br />
• SPAR w/dry trees can be extended to 10,000 ft water depth; riser<br />
and mooring systems are a challenge.<br />
• Semis and FPSO w/wet trees can be extended to 10,000 ft<br />
waterdepth; mooring system is a challenge.<br />
• <strong>Development</strong> of emerging tendon technology is required to<br />
extend TLP beyond 7500 ft water depth.<br />
• Costs and schedule for deepwater floating systems are market<br />
driven.<br />
• “Best <strong>System</strong>” dependent on water depth, field size, existing<br />
infrastructure, market conditions, and reservoir characteristics<br />
MTS <strong>Field</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004<br />
2A-20
Change language