Upload
trinhbao
View
219
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Floating Production System Deepwater Development Options
by
Pieter Wybro
Sea Engineering, Inc.
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
1. Deepwater Platform Options2. Market Trends3. Primary Drivers4. Technology Issues5. Future Trends
Presentation Topics
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Satellite Wellhead Platforms to Central Hub
Hub Facility
WHP
WI Wells
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Production Floater Hull Types
Monohull
FPSO - Production, Storage, and Shuttle OfftakeFSO - Storage and Shuttle OfftakeFPU - Production and Pipeline Offtake
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Production Floater Hull Types
MonohullMonohullMonohull
Semi-Submersibles----------------------------------------------
Conversions
New Generation New Build
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Deepwater Floater Hull Types
MonohullMonohullMonohull
SemiSemiSemi---SubmersiblesSubmersiblesSubmersibles----------------------------------------------
Spars
Classic Spar Truss Spar
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Deepwater Floater Hull Types
MonohullMonohullMonohull
SemiSemiSemi---SubmersiblesSubmersiblesSubmersibles----------------------------------------------
SparsSparsSparsTension Leg Platforms (TLP)
Classic TLP Monocolumn TLP
Moses TLP
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Floating Production Systems Growth
Mature Technology.Historically has been primarily conversions.Historically, FPS were used in medium water depth, early production, short field life, flexible risers.
Floating
Reference: International Maritime Consultants 2004Reference: International Maritime Consultants 2004
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
GOM Floating Systems
(Source: MMS Deepwater GOM Report 2004)
198819891990199119921993199419951996
19971998
19992000
20012002
20032004
2005
2006
TLPSPAR
Semi
0
1
2
3
Number
Year
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Recent Exploration Trends
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
num
ber
of e
xplo
ratio
n w
ells
co
mpl
eted
>75005000-74991500-49991000-1499
Ultra-deep water Trend
(Source: MMS Deepwater GOM Report 2004)
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
GOM Discoveries > 7000’ WDPro je c t Name Block WD, ft Year
Aconcagua MC 305 7,379 1999Camden Hills MC 348 7,530 1999Blind Faith MC 696 7,116 2001Merganser AT 37 8,064 2001St. Malo WR 678 7,326 2001Trident AC 903 9,816 2001Cascade WR 206 8,143 2002Great White AC 857 7,425 2002Vortex AT 261 8,422 2002Atlas LL 50 9,180 2003Chinook WR 469 9,104 2003Jubilee AT 349 8,891 2003Spiderman/Amazon DC 621 8,100 2003
(Source: MMS Deepwater GOM Report 2004)
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Waterdepth Records for FPU Types
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Wat
erde
pth,
ft
TLP SPAR Semi
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Primary Drivers for Deepwater FPUsWaterdepth.PayloadProduction Characteristics – Well Access Requirements. Availability of Infrastructure & Market location. Platform drilling, predrilling vs postdrillingGas Disposal Requirements.Local Content Requirements.Field Life.Metocean Conditions.
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Wellbore Access: Direct vs Subsea?
Direct (Dry Tree)Single Drill CenterLower OPEX and Life Cycle Costs Simpler well HardwareMinimize well intervention Cost and downtimeLess Flow Assurance RiskHigher recovery Strict motion requirements
Indirect (Wet Tree)Multi Drill CentersHigher OPEXMinimize Drilling Costs and Risks for Large Areal Extent ReservoirsMaximize Development Plan FlexibilityCapability for wide range of hull types More complex flow assurance issuesSeafloor intervention, vessel availability
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Proven Deepwater Technology
Semi FPS
Compliant Tower
Conventional TLP
New GenerationTLPs
Truss Spar
Classic Spar
Dry Tree SolutionsWet Tree Solutions
Shipshape FPSO
Source: Offshore MagazineDeepwater Production Solutions poster; Sept.,2000
2A-4
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Riser Options
Steel Catenary Risers (SCR)Hybrid RisersFlexible Catenary Risers
StricterHull MotionRequirements
StricterHull MotionRequirements
Direct Tensioned Riser Air Can Tensioned Riser Tubing Tie-back RiserCompliant Vertical Access Riser (CVAR)*
Near or At-Surface Completion*
Drilling/Completion/WO riser
Direct Vertical Access Options:
TTR
Wet Tree Options:
Note: * Option is unproven
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Sea
Ener
gy /
Hea
ve R
espo
nse
TLP
Ship (Beam)
Semi Spar
5 Seconds 20 SecondsWave Period (Seconds)
Sea Energy
Ship (Bow)Sea
Ener
gy /
Hea
ve R
espo
nse
TLP
Ship (Beam)
Semi Spar
5 Seconds 20 SecondsWave Period (Seconds)
Sea Energy
Ship (Bow)
Motion Response Characteristics
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
GOM FPU Motion Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Heave D.A. (ft)
TLP SPAR CP Semi Semi Monohull
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Mooring Options
Catenary leg mooringsSemi-taut leg mooringsTaut leg polyester mooring
Mooring Leg Options: Offsets Vert. Load
Foundation Options:Uplift
Steel Driven PilesSuction PilesSEPLAVLADrag Embedment
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Installed & Sanctioned FPSOsWater Depths > 300 m
Brazil (8)Brazil (8)
Angola (2)Angola (2)
Italy (1)Italy (1)
Norway (2)Norway (2)
UK (2)UK (2)
China (2)China (2)
Source: Aker Maritime’s & Mustang Engineering 2001 Worldwide Survey of FPSOs; Aug, 2001 Issue of Offshore Magazine
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Monohull Mooring Types
• Internal Turret
••• External TurretExternal TurretExternal Turret
••• Yoke SystemYoke SystemYoke System
••• Spread mooredSpread mooredSpread moored
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Monohull Mooring Types
••• Internal TurretInternal TurretInternal Turret
• External Turret
••• Yoke SystemYoke SystemYoke System
••• Spread mooredSpread mooredSpread moored
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Monohull Mooring Types
••• Internal TurretInternal TurretInternal Turret
••• External TurretExternal TurretExternal Turret
• Yoke System
••• Spread mooredSpread mooredSpread moored • Old style• Not Applicable to deep water
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Monohull Mooring Types
••• Internal TurretInternal TurretInternal Turret
••• External TurretExternal TurretExternal Turret
••• Yoke SystemYoke SystemYoke System
• Spread moored
• Directional environment• Offtake issues
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
FPSOno oil export pipeline requiredConverted tankers, if used, can lower initial cost & scheduleAvailable payload & deck area---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil field use only (no advantage for gas field)Wet Tree – no direct well accessPotentially high cost for well workoverHigh turret/fluid swivel cost potential
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Worldwide Installed & Sanctioned Semi - FPSsWater Depths > 300 m
Brazil (13)Brazil (13)
Norway (7)Norway (7)
China (1)China (1)US GoM (5)US GoM (5)
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Semisubmersible FPU
Hull steel weight equivalent to a TLPDeck can be pre-integrated inshoreInstalled with anchor handling vesselsHull motions generally acceptable for SCR risers.
CP Semi – New Generation Semi
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
SemisubmersiblesLow structure weightCatenary or Taut-Leg Spread moored Good motions, SCRs are possiblePlatform drilling or workover rig is possibleSubsea trees with vertical access------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVA risers w/dry trees unprovenLarge mooring footprintPipeline offtake
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Installed & Sanctioned SPARsWater Depths > 300 m
GoM (14)GoM (14)
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
SPARS International Technip
Spar Installations
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Spar Installations
Medusa2002
Devils Tower 2004
Front Runner2004
2,322’GOM
5,610’ GOM
3,500’GOM
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
SparsDry tree capableLow heave motionsCatenary or taut leg mooringsLow sensitivity to topsides weight-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large structure weightLarge seabed footprintLarge lateral motions at deck and keelHull VIM may cause fatigue of components (aircan, riser, mooring etc.)
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Installed & Sanctioned TLPsWater Depths > 300 m
Conv. TLP (1)Conv. TLP (1)Conv. TLPs (2)Conv. TLPs (2)
TLWP (2)TLWP (2)
US GOM - TLP (9)US GOM - TLP (9)US GOM - Mini TLP (4)US GOM - Mini TLP (4)
US GOM - TLWP (1)US GOM - TLWP (1)
TLWP (2)TLWP (2)
TLWP (2)
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Seno Development
FPUFPU
Seno Field (1000m WD)
TLWP
Drilling Tender
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
MOSES New Generation TLP
Marco Polo TLP in 4300 ft Waterdepth
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
GoMW AfricaW Africa
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Wat
er D
epth
(ft)
Steel Tendon Practical Depth LimitsClassic TLP
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
SE AsiaSE Asia
2,000 6,000 10,000 14,000 18,000 22,000 26,000
Payload (st), excludes deck steel, includes risers
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
GoMW AfricaW Africa
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Wat
er D
epth
(ft) SE AsiaSE Asia
Steel Tendon Practical Depth LimitsNew Generation TLP
0.4
1.5
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 2000 4000 6000
W a te rd e p th (ft)
RA
TIO
: Te
ndon
Wt /
Pay
load
0 .4
1 .5
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 2000 4000 6000
W a te rd e p th (ft)
RA
TIO
: Te
ndon
Wt /
Pay
load
Classic
Moses
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
2,000 6,000 10,000 14,000 18,000 22,000 26,000
Payload (st), excludes deck steel, includes risers
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Tension Leg PlatformStable with minimal heave, roll and pitch motionsDry Tree capable Small seabed footprint Scalable to small fieldsLow structure weightInshore integration-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No oil storage Sensitive to topsides weightHas water depth limit with steel tendons
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Global Design Efficiency
Payload Excludes Deck steel and product storage
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
Displacement, st
Dis
plac
emen
t/Pay
load
Conventional TLPSeastar TLPMoses TLPConventional SemiSparUnocal TLPC P Semi
Magnolia
Marco PoloAuger
Brutus
Mars
Ram-Pow ell
Ursa
JollietMarlinPrince
MorpethTyphoon
Matterhorn NaKika
Neptune
Boomvang/NansenHorn Mountain
Genesis
Seno ASeno B
Allegheny
Kizomba A
AtlantisThunder Horse
CP Semi 28000CP Semi 12000
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
SPARHull design less depth sensitive
Riser aircans are weight sensitive
Lower Payload Sensitivity of hull
Simpler mooring system
Simpler hull construction
TLPSimpler risers
Less motions
Lower Hull Weight
Small seabed footprint
Topsides can be integrated inshore
Deepwater System Comparisons
2A-19
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Deepwater System ComparisonsSemi
Used in areas with accessible infrastructure
SCR Risers feasible
Efficient hull weight
Simpler Mooring system
FPSOUsed in area lacking pipeline infrastructure
Oil storage and offtakecapability
Gas handling and offtakeis an issue.
SCR Risers are generally not feasible
2A-20
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Technical and Commercial Maturity
TECHNICALLY COMMERCIALLYMATURE MATURE
FPSO Yes YesSpar - Classic Yes NoSpar - Truss Yes NoSemi FPS Yes Yes DD Semi No NoTLP Yes Yes
SYSTEM TECHNICALLY COMMERCIALLYMATURE MATURE
FPSO Yes YesSpar - Classic Yes NoSpar - Truss Yes NoSemi FPS Yes Yes DD Semi No NoTLP Yes Yes
SYSTEM
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Deepwater FPU Design ChallengesEfficient Hulls with good performanceEfficient Hulls with good performanceReducing Installation costs & risksReducing Installation costs & risksDeepwater mooring designsDeepwater mooring designsDVA riser designs DVA riser designs Deep currents & VIV of risers and tendonsDeep currents & VIV of risers and tendonsReduce drilling costsReduce drilling costsNonNon--linear hydrodynamics linear hydrodynamics –– VIM, run up, free VIM, run up, free surface effects, higher order loadssurface effects, higher order loadsModel Testing scale effects and mooring truncation Model Testing scale effects and mooring truncation effectseffects
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
Emerging Deepwater Production Solutions
Deep Draft SemisubmersiblesFDPSOs Floating LNG
2A-19
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
FPU Technology Direction
UltraUltra--deep waterdeep waterNew Generation efficient hullsNew Generation efficient hullsImproved lightweight topsidesImproved lightweight topsidesTender Assisted Drilling (TAD)Tender Assisted Drilling (TAD)Improved moorings and foundationsImproved moorings and foundationsImproved risersImproved risersMore efficient platform installation methodsMore efficient platform installation methods
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
New Generation Hulls + Lightweight TopsidesUS GOM Production TLPs and Semisubs
0 50 100 150 200 250
Design Throughput, KBOEPD
Hull
+ De
ck S
teel
, ton
s
Magnolia
Marco Polo
Auger
Brutus
MarsRam-Powell
Ursa
Jolliet
Marlin
Prince
Matterhorn
Typhoon
NaKika
Prince
Marco Polo
Dry Tree TLPs in GoM
MTS Field Development Workshop Houston September 28-30, 2004
SummarySPARS, proven to 6000’ and TLPs, proven to 5000’ dominate deepwater in GOM.
SPAR w/dry trees can be extended to 10,000 ft water depth; riserand mooring systems are a challenge.
Semis and FPSO w/wet trees can be extended to 10,000 ft waterdepth; mooring system is a challenge.
Development of emerging tendon technology is required to extend TLP beyond 7500 ft water depth.
Costs and schedule for deepwater floating systems are market driven.
“Best System” dependent on water depth, field size, existing infrastructure, market conditions, and reservoir characteristics
2A-20