white rose oilfield development application - Husky Energy

These remaining five options (steel FPSO facility, concrete FPSO facility, steel semi-submersiblefacility with and without integral storage, concrete semi-submersible facility and concrete GBS) werefurther analyzed with respect to construction time, capital costs, concept maturity, concept deliverability,and risk considerations. The ranking of the five options on the basis of construction costs and time isshown in Figure 1.3-1, while the ranking of the five options based on the technical risk associated witheach option is shown in Figure 1.3-2. The steel FPSO option is shown to be the most cost-effectiveoption and to have the least technical risk. The only two development concepts that were shown to betechnically and economically feasible were the steel semi-submersible with or without integral storageand steel FPSO options. These two options were further evaluated as part of each component of the DA.A summary of the five volumes is provided in Chapters 3 to 7 of this document.1.3.1 Preferred SystemThe concept selection study concluded that the preferred option for developing the White Rose oilfieldwas a steel FPSO facility using subsea wells located in glory holes, similar to that selected for the TerraNova Development. This system was evaluated as top preference on project cost and time to First Oil(Figure 1.3-1). As an example, a typical North Sea Steel FPSO facility is shown in Figure 1.3-3.Key factors contributing to the selection of the steel FPSO facility as the preferred option are:• It is the most economically feasible way to develop the White Rose field, taking into accountfeasibility, flexibility, deliverability, costs, risk and safety, and Canada-Newfoundland benefits.• It has the most commercial and technical flexibility. Therefore, it is well suited to a complex fieldwith technical challenges, such as White Rose, which is considerably smaller than Terra Nova andHibernia.• It has the flexibility to deal with different production and storage levels effectively.• It has a proven track record in harsh environments, with some 60 FPSO facilities currently inoperation or under construction around the world.• It can produce both oil and gas in sequential development.• It has the flexibility necessary to tie-in future fields.• It can be producing at capacity earlier than other production facilities.• It poses less of a challenge at decommissioning than other production facilities.White Rose DA Project Summary • January 2001 Page 18