An Operators View on Deepwater Floating Systems and Technology Development Ming-Yao Lee Manager of Offshore & Marine Engineering Chevron Energy Technology

An Operator’s View on Deepwater Floating Systems and Technology DevelopmentMing-Yao LeeManager of Offshore & Marine EngineeringChevron Energy Technology Company

SMART 100Symposium on MArine Resource & Technology

Taipei, TaiwanOctober 16, 2011

2011 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.1

Presentation Outline

Why Deep Water?

Overview of Floating System Concepts

Concept Selection Process and Criteria

Deepwater Design Challenges

Chevron’s Deepwater Project Experiences

New and Emerging Floating System Concepts

Concluding Remarks

22011 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.

Why Deep Water? – Easy Oil is Gone!

2011 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved. 3

Opportunities of floating system technologies for enabling solutions

Mitigation of risks associated with use of new technology

Building collaborative & productive partnerships to leverage project experience and accelerate technology deployment

What does it mean:

Harsher environments

Deeper waters

Lack of infrastructures

What can we do about it:

Courtesy of Bluewater

Deepwater Resource is Significant


7500 ft

5000 ft

1000

ft15

00ft

ReservesMMBOE

Water Depthft

1 – 495 – 249250+

1,000 – 1,499 1,500 – 4,9995,000 – 7,499>7,500

Estimated Volume of Gulf of Mexico Deepwater FieldsOCS Report: MMS 2009-016

Chevron and the Worldwide Portfolio Long-term global deepwater offshore growth expected

2011–2015 deepwater expenditures estimated to be over $200 B, ~75% increase over the previous five years

The “Golden Triangle” still dominate, growth in Asia Pacific will be significant

5

Worldwide Producing Deepwater (DW) Basins

Other DW Basins

Global Forecast of FPS Spending

Chevron Participation


What Concepts Are in Use?

FPSOs continue to dominate concept selection primarily from lack of pipeline infrastructure.

Driven by drilling, completion and well intervention costs, other concepts have become more important such as:

• Semi-submersibles

• Tension leg platforms (TLPs)

• Spars

6

Global Forecast of FPS Hull Type


Proven Floating Concepts


7

Wet-Tree SolutionsDry- or Wet-Tree Solutions

Spar Good heave

motions

▬ Vortex-induced motion (VIM)

▬ Size-limited

TLP Minimum heave

▬ Weight-sensitive

▬ Depth-limited

Semi-Submersible Quayside

integration

▬ Riser fatigue

FPSO Storage capacity Quayside integration

▬ Riser interface

▬ Riser fatigue

Looking at Water Depth

8

TLPs: Depth-limited due to conventional tendon design restrictions.

Semis: Increasingly popular due to depth insensitive and quayside integration and might soon be used for dry-tree applications.

Cascade/Chinook: Soon to be the first GOM FPSO


Multiple Concepts Needed for Opportunities

Large overlaps reinforce the need for concept evaluation and selection during early phase of a project.

There are a number of opportunities where only a single concept is practical.


Water Depth vs. Production Capacity

1,000 -

3,000 -

5,000 -

7,000 -

9,000 -

0 100 200 300 400

Production Capacity (Mboe/day)

Water Depth (ft)

Spar

TLP

Semi

FPSO

Concept Selection Process

10

Region and Location Reservoir Management

CommercialHull TechnicalHull motion

characteristics

Risersystem

Waterdepth

MetoceanProduction

only?

Drilling?

Directverticalaccessof wells

Productionrate andreservoir

aerial extent

Exportoptions

or storagerequirements

Cost

Hull Concept Selection


Motion Characteristics of Floating Hulls

11

Note: Hull motions are minimized by keeping outside the area of wave energy.


5 20Wave Period (Seconds)

TLP

Ship Beam

Ship Bow

Semi Spar

Natural Periods of MotionVertical motions are

controlled by tendonsVertical motions are controlled by hull configuration

Spread moored

Vertically moored

Sea Energy

Summary of Basic Concept Features

12

Spar TLP Deep-Draft Semi

FPSO

TurretSpread Moored

Export Alternatives

Pipeline Pipeline PipelinePipeline/ Tanker

Pipeline/ Tanker

Water Depth Up to 8,000 ft 400 to 6,000 ft 800 to 8,000 ft 50 to 8,000 ft 50 to 8,000 ft

Topside Weight Requirements

Up to 20,000t Up to 20,000t Up to 40,000t Up to 40,000t Up to 40,000t

Metocean Characteristics by Region

All All All AllNot harsh conditions

Riser SystemTop-tensioned, SCR*, Flexible,

Tower

Top-tensioned, SCR, Flexible,

Tower

SCR, Flexible, Tower

Flexible, SCR, Tower

Flexible, SCR, Tower

Dry or Wet Trees

Dry or Wet Dry or Wet Wet Wet Wet


*Steel catenary riser (SCR)

Key Concept Selection Criteria

Technical Feasibility; support all equipment for operations while meeting all performance criteria

Maturity of Design

• Technical robustness

• Historical performance

• Experience of people involved

Costs and Risks

• CAPEX / OPEX

• Project Execution Plan


Ultra-Deep Water Has Other Challenges

Design Challenges Capability to predict and verify

response behavior of entire floating system

Testing facilities cannot model floating systems with complete mooring lines and risers


-5000

0

5000

-5000

0

5000

X Y

ZDeepStar SEMI(Floater + Mooring + Risers)

Stress Engineering Services, Inc.Oct. 5, 2004

Frame 001 05 Oct 2004

Key Questions* To what extent can the truncated

test be done? Can the numerical analysis

reproduce the test results? Can the full-depth extrapolation

capture the coupling effects, e.g., “tail wagging the dog”?

*Ref: Lee & Ma, DOT 2008

Compromise

Model Scale (- Water Depth)

Typical Range1:50 – 1:100

Unc

erta

intie

sPhy

sical

Testi

ngNumerical

Interpretation

1:100 model in a 10m deep wave basin for 1500m full water depth

Ever-Changing Environment:100-year Hs Contours

Based on Passage of More Large Storms

15

Hs (m)

Several large storms passing west of central GOM could change platform design statistics further, widen perceived intense area of Gulf*

???

Hot spot

*Ref: OTC 18903 & 196022011 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.

JSM(7,000’)

BGF(5,200’)

How do we handle

uncertainty in this area?

16

Example Changes: Central GOM

16

Example, 100-year Hs,

Central GOM:

2003 was 13.5 m

2008 now 15.5+ m

25 50 100 200 500 10006

8

10

12

14

16

181900-2003 Hs Extremes, Central GOM (Weibull)

Hs

(m)

Return Period (years)

RP CDF Fit 25 10.7 10.6 50 12.7 12.2 100 13.8 13.7 200 14.1 15.0 500 0.0 16.7 1000 0.0 17.9

Data

Fit k = 1.3

10 25 50 100 200 50010006

8

10

12

14

16

18

201950-2008 Hs Extremes, Central GOM (Weibull)

Hs

(m)

Return Period (years)

RP CDF Fit 10 9.5 10.1 25 13.6 13.0 50 14.4 14.5 100 15.6 15.7 200 16.1 16.7 500 0.0 18.0 1000 0.0 18.8

Data

Fit k = 2.2

Ad

d la

rge

sto

rms,

elim

inat

e ea

rly

dat

a…


Chevron Installations and Constructions


FPSO/FSOKuitoSanha*Kome Kribi*Moho-Bilondo*N’KossaNegageLucapa

FPSO*Cossack Pioneer

FPSO*Hai Yang Shi You*Nan Hai Fa Zian*Bohai Shi Ji

FPSO/FSOAgbami

Escravos LPG*Usan

FPSOFrade*Papa Terra

SparGenesis

Tahiti*Mad Dog

*Perdido

Semi-SubmersibleBlind Faith

Jack/St. Malo

Compliant TowerPetronius

TLPBig Foot

FSU/FPSOAlba/CaptainRosebank

FPSO*Terra Nova

FPSOTantawan

Benchamas Explorer

Pattani Spirit

FPSO*Intan*PBS&J San JacintoGendalo-Geham

TLPWest Seno

* Non-Operated Joint VentureIn Design

Compliant TowerBBLT

Tombua-Landana

Recent Chevron Floating Projects

18

Used a system approach in concept selection – coupled hull, mooring and riser solutions

The Chevron Way at its best: people, partnership and performance – health, environment and safety

Integrated operations and project teams early in the process

Aligned company and contractor – contracting strategy

Guard unknownsin deepwater operations, especially contingency of vessel and equipment – crane limit, vessel breakdown


OTC 20249OTC 19857

Blind Faith 4Q 2008 Tahiti 2Q 2009Frade 1Q 2009Agbami 3Q 2008


Jack & St Malo semi

Big Foot TLP

Papa Terra TLWP

Current Floating Systems Projects in Design

Dry Tree Facilities for Ultra-Deep and Large Payload

No proven dry-tree concepts

TLP limited by Water Depth

Spar limited by Payload


New Enabling or Enhancing Concepts

21

Circular-shaped FPSOsto reduce CAPEX Better hull steel efficiency

Simplified constructability

No turret (even in harsh conditions)

FPSO withdrilling capability Reduce

development drilling cost

Increase oil recovery

Azurite FPSO photo courtesy of Murphy Oil Company2011 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. All rights reserved.

Dry-tree semis to reduce CAPEX and increase flexibility Higher topsides weight

Deeper dry-tree developments

Quayside integration

Octabuoy

Pair-C Semi Aker Dry Tree Semi

Sevan SSPAzurite FDPSO

MinDOC

Chevron Technology Qualification Process

“All new technologies that will, by the end of Select (i.e. prior to FEED), have been proven either through field trials, extensive testing, or successful application in a parallel industry, shall be considered.”


Example: Dry-Tree Semi Issues Hull motions to accommodate proven

riser tensioning systems Constructability of new hull forms

and/or critical components Minimize risks of new technologies

Deep water will require a large portfolio of projects to be developed with floating production systems.

Development opportunities often call for floating system concept evaluation and selection.

A more standardized concept selection process is needed.

Focus on new developments of enabling/ enhancing concepts, and be open to new technologies.

Dry trees and/or platform drilling arelikely to become more important, to increase recovery and reduce cost.

Operation’s input early and throughout the floating system project will pay significant dividends.

Concluding Remarks


Thank You!


Questions?

New floating system technologies are required to address ever increasing water depth and large topside challenges

Experience, technology and perseverance enable us to overcome challenges and deliver value

Collaborative and productive partnership will accelerate technology development and deployment

Documents

An Operators View on Deepwater Floating Systems and Technology Development Ming-Yao Lee Manager of Offshore & Marine Engineering Chevron Energy Technology