Deepwater Oil & Gas Facilities Deepwater Oil - … Deepwater Oil & Gas Facilities Deepwater...

Engi

neer

ing

Deepwater Oil & Gas Facilities Deepwater Oil & Gas Facilities

6th China-US OGIF, New Orleans, USA

June 28 – 29, 20052005年6月28日至29日

Bill SoesterV.P. EngineeringJ. Ray McDermott

Engi

neer

ing

Definitions of DeepwaterDefinitions of Deepwater

Relative, change as technologies progress

10 Years agoDeepwater: >300 meters

TodayDeepwater: > 500 metersUltra-deepwater: > 1,500 meters

Water Depth Records ( 2004)Production – dry tree: 1,710 m, Devils Tower Spar, GOMProduction – wet tree: 1,920 m, NaKika Semi, GOMDrilling: 3,051 Meters, Toledo #1, GOM

Engi

neer

ing

Engi

neer

ing

Deepwater Development SolutionsDeepwater Development Solutions

Advances in Deep Water Production Capability

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Wat

er D

epth

in M

eter 2004

Engi

neer

ing

Deepwater Development SolutionsDeepwater Development Solutions

C. Tower

Spar and Semi

TLPRelative

Total Cost

1300 ft 2000 ft 4000 ft 6000 ft 8000 ft

Water Depth

Engi

neer

ing

Deepwater Development SolutionsDeepwater Development Solutions

Solutions for Different Water Depths

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Conv.Fixed

Jacket

CompliantTower

TLP Semi-sub Spar FPSO

Wat

er D

epth

(met

er)

Engi

neer

ing Deepwater Production Facilities

– for Dry TreesDeepwater Production Facilities – for Dry Trees

Compliant Tower Tension Leg Platform Spar

(TLP)

Engi

neer

ing

Deepwater Production Facilities – for Wet TreesDeepwater Production Facilities – for Wet Trees

Floating Production,

Storage and Offloading (FPSO)

Semi-submersible

(Semi)

Engi

neer

ing

Inputs to theFPSO vs. non-FPSO Decision

Inputs to theFPSO vs. non-FPSO Decision

Access to Pipeline Grid or shoreOil Export Site – Political or Economical factorsLife of Field Dry Tree vs. Wet TreeReservoir Development PlanTolerance to Production Down Time

Engi

neer

ing

Factors in Choosing between Non-FPSO Solutions (Spars, Towers, TLPs, Semis)Factors in Choosing between Non-FPSO Solutions (Spars, Towers, TLPs, Semis)

Water DepthEnvironment ConditionsInitial vs. future Topside WeightNo. of Risers Drilling ProgramAccess to Wells: Wet vs. DryInstallation CapabilitiesInitial vs. Total Life Cycle Cost

Engi

neer

ing Hybrid Solution – Obtaining the

Benefits of both Types of Facilities Hybrid Solution – Obtaining the Benefits of both Types of Facilities

TLP or SparDrillingDry TreesEasy Intervention

and

FPSOProcessingStorageOffloading

Engi

neer

ing

Compliant TowerCompliant Tower

Design:Tower – Slender jacketCompliant –designed to avoid resonance with large waves

Application – most cost effective in 300 to 670 m.Advantages:

Dry treeRobust relative to payload changesLess steel tonnages required (in the above depth range)Simpler, conventional fabricationInstallation flexibility

Disadvantages :Limited water depth range

Engi

neer

ing

Compliant Tower – Tallest Man Made StructureCompliant Tower – Tallest Man Made Structure

Engi

neer

ing

Semi-submersibleSemi-submersible

Design – vertical columns supporting topsides and supported on large pontoons, anchored to the seafloor with spread mooring lines.

Applicable W.D. – 80 m to 2,500 m

Advantages:Large number of flexible risers possibleQuayside Topsides-hull integration

Disadvantages:Wet tree onlyhigh maintenance costFatigue motion – not friendly to risersSensitive to deck payload

Engi

neer

ing

Tension Leg Platform (TLP)Tension Leg Platform (TLP)

Design – Similar to a semi-submersible but anchored to the seafloor with vertical tendons.

Application - more cost effective from 600 m to 1,200 mAdvantages:

Dry treeFriendly to SCRQuayside topsides-hull integrationLow maintenance cost

Disadvantages:Sensitive to deck payload changeActive hull systemNot friendly to offset drillingTendon fatigue

Engi

neer

ing

SparSpar

Design – Large vertical column supporting topsides and connected below to the ballast tank with a truss section. A spread mooring system is used for station-keeping.Application – 550 m to 3,000 m

Advantages:Superior stabilityDry treesFriendly to SCRAccommodates payload changesFriendly to offset drillingPassive hull systemLow maintenance cost

Disadvantages:Topside lift at installation siteLarge derrick barge required for topsides installation

Engi

neer

ing

Deepwater Technology SuppliersDeepwater Technology Suppliers

Compliant TowerJ. Ray McDermottWood Group

TLPJ. Ray McDermott (JV with Keppel)MODECSBMAker-Kvaerner

SparJ. Ray McDermottTechnip

FPSOVarious

Semi-submersibleVarious

Engi

neer

ing

The Industry’s Deepwater ExperienceThe Industry’s Deepwater Experience

Compliant Tower – 3 eachSpar – 13TLP – 21Semi (production type) – 43FPSO – 119

Engi

neer

ing

The Future The Future

Improved design tools – providing lower weight and less expensive hulls

Improved hull shapes – greater motion stability and payload capacity

Improved deepwater riser technology

Synthetic mooring lines for ultra deep water

Engi

neer

ing

ConclusionConclusion

China is proceeding with deepwater exploration

Deepwater solutions are available for China’s O&G development plans, from 300 meters to 3000 meters

Cooperation between China and the deepwater technology contractors makes good business sense

Thank You