DRL Engineering - Deepwater

2

•DRL Engineering Deepwater Expertise

• Field Option Selection

• Cost Estimating

• Benchmarking

PROJECT FRONT END LOADING MODEL

DEEPWATER EXPERIENCEvStones Gulf of Mexico FPSO Project

Health Check

vBHP Mad Dog 2 Gulf of Mexico Semi Submersible Project Health Check

vShenzi TLP Topside Lead Position

vBrowse FLNG Near Field Cost Estimate

vNoble Tamar FLNG OE Program Risk Assessment

vGumusut and Malikai Decommissioning Cost Estimates

vBrunei - Merpai / Meragi Sub Sea Tie Back Cost Estimate

vKPOC KME Subsea Tie Back Project Health Check

vKME Development Scenario Cost Estimates

vNoble Equatorial Guinea Basin –Option Analysis

vNoble Energy Leviathan DW FPSO & Field Dev PMT team

vWoodside Lambert Subsea Tie Back Project Health Check

vGumusut Final Investment Decision Cost Estimate

vMalikai Final Investment Decision Cost Estimate

vMajoram and Rosmari Tension Leg Platform Cost Estimates (Malaysia)

vInpex Abadi Full Field Development Cost Estimate System Selection

vBrunei Laksa FPSO Cost Estimate

vINPEX ICHTHYS Project – Cost & Schedule Impact Assessment

vSea Lion Tension Leg Platform and FPSO Project Health Check

vWoodside Persephone Subsea Tie Back Project Health Check

vPerdido System Selection Analysis

vPerdido SPAR Final Investment Decision Cost Estimate

vKekek Development Cost Estimate

vKikeh – Gumusut Subsea Tie Back Decommissioning Cost Estimate

vFLNG Cost and Schedule Benchmarking

vExmouth Plateau System Selection Cost Estimates

vLimbayong Cost Estimates for Option Selection

EXPERIENCE – OFFSHORE PROJECTSvPetronas Bokor Phase 3 EOR VE

Study

vMurphy Kikeh DTU Spar – Options Studies for EOR Facility

vOwner Engineer assist on Falklands TLP development

vBC Petroleum ROC Oil – FPSO PMT Conversion Team at KSL Yard

vTalisman Kinabalu Redevelopment – Concept Select studies

vTalisman BK-D Platform VE Process & Facility Studies

vNewfield Blk 310 Sour Gas Platform FE Studies

vTwinza PNG FE Studies Pasca NGL Recycling & FSO Development

vEM of Petrofac FPSO Engineering for Aker in KL

vStart-up Operator - PSC Bid Functional Basis & Cost Estimate

vHusky Energy – Madura FPSO Owner Engr & ITT Tender Prep

vTalisman Kinabalu Platform Debottlenecking FE and Owner Engr

vHess North Malay Basin Platform VE & FE Concept Design Studies

vOphir RSC Peer Review and PM Support Services

vALNG LNG Hub Concept Design

vKBB Project Close Out Report

DEEPWATER

vNewfield East Piatu Platform VE Process & Facility Studies vMP225A Subsea Tie Back Host Modifications

vPetronas Baronia Platform VE Studies

vPM lead for Murphy Azurite FDPSO Decommissioning

vNorth Rankin B Project Close Out Benchmarking

vSK Energy B15 Concept Select to Pre-Feed Design Package

vCNOOC Liwan CPF Platform Cost Reduction Study

vEnquest Tj Baram RSC Ph 1 PM Services

Water Depth – Shallow, Deepwater & Ultra Deep

• Shallow Water to 300 meters• Deepwater 300 meters to 1,500 meters• Ultra Deep 1,500 to 3,000 meters

• Fixed Structure to 530 meters• Compliant Towers 305 to 910 meters• Tension Leg Platforms 150 to 1,600 meters• Semi Submersibles 230 to 2,400 meters• SPAR 600 to 2,400 meters• FPSO 20 to 2,900 meters• Subsea Tie Back to 3,000 meters

Field Developments vs Water Depth

Ursa '98

RamPowell, '97

Mars '96Jolliet '89

Auger '94

Snorre '92

Heidrun, '95

Hoover '00

Genesis '98

Neptune '96

Roncador '99 (Seillean)Aquila '93Marlim South '97

Foinaven '96

Schiehallion '98

Norne '97

MacCulloch

Curlew '97

Girassol '00

Barracuda '97 (P34)

Troll C '99

Troll B '95

Garden Banks '95

Marlim '98 (P26)

East Marimba '98

Visund '98

Njord '97

Balmoral '86

Roncador '99 (P36)

Bullwinkle '88Cognac '78

Lena '83

Troll A '96

Oseberg B '88

Veslefrikk '89

Gullfaks A '86

Heimdal '84

Draugen '93

Brage '93

Mensa '97Oseberg

Gullfaks Sat. '86 TOGI '91Heidrun WI '94

Draugen Sat. '93Vigdis '97

Snorre SPS '92

Tahoe '97 Popeye '96

Augus '99 Macaroni '99

Europa, '00Diana '00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Water depth [m]

No

of w

ells

TLP

Spar

FPSO

Semi

Fixed

Subsea

TLP

SEMI

FPSOCLASSICSPARS

SUBSEA

FIXED

DDF/ TRUSS SPARS/DCU SEMI

Thunderhorse

Suitability of Host Concepts

Deepwater

Deepwater

Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico Dominate the Deepwater Market

Deepwater – Pushing the Boundaries Cognac

1978Bullwinkle

1988Conoco

1989Petrobras

1989Na Kika

2003Petrobras

1999Mensa1997

Petrobras1997

Ursa1999

Ram-Powell1997

Mars1996

IndependenceHub2007

Perdido2010

Stones2016

Auger1993

• Deepwater Project Hull Forms

– SPARS (Single Lift and Multiple Lift)

– TENSION LEG PLATFORMS (Mini TLP’s and Conventional TLP’s)

– SEMI SUBMERSIBLES

– FPSOs (New Build and Conversions)

Deepwater Hull Forms

SPARS – Advantages / Disadvantages

SPARS

RED HAWK PERDIDO MAD DOG

TENSION LEG PLATFORMS – Advantages / Disadvantages

§Advantages:§Stable - minimal vertical motion

§Single drill center permits drilling & completions ops (including well interventions)§Shallow to deep (120 to 1500m)§Simpler well hardware + access

§Less flow assurance risk§Topsides & hull mated inshore and transported

to site

§Disadvantages:§Water depth limited (~1500m)§Little/no storage – dead oil§Topsides payload sensitive

SHENZI

MARS A

TENSION LEG PLATFORMS – Oveng / Okume

SEMI SUBMERSIBLES – Advantages / Disadvantages

GUMUSUT

THUNDER HORSE

SEMI SUBMERSIBLES – DELTA HOUSE

FPSO – Advantages / Disadvantages

FPSO – Stones

ThegiantLeviathanfield(17TCF)2000MmscfdGasProductionFPSO

DRL PROJECT MANAGEMENT - LEVIATHAN FPSO

OurPersonnel– leadrolesinOwnerPMT

Chris LyttleHull Delivery ManagerSteve Craig , PM

Colby HafnerSafety QRA

Vince PageRotating Machinery

FIELDWIDE BASIS DESIGN DATABOOK - LEVIATHAN FPSO

LEVIATHAN FPSO

Spread Moored VLCC with SCR Riser System

2000 Mmscfd Gas Facility

28,000 MT Topsides

Leviathan FPSO Fabrication Scope of Work Overview

Hull Demolition Scope 1.Fwd windlass x 1 unit 2.Anchor chain x 1 unit3.Poop deck winch x 3 units 4.Main deck winch x 5 units5.Hose handling crane x 2 units6.Provision crane x 2 units7.Bow thruster8.Main deck piping & conduit9.Main deck outfitting10.Telecom & Navigation equip11.LQ equipment12.Engine Room equipment13.E&I items

Hull Piping Systems 1. Cargo Oil System 15. Hydraulic Oil sys2. Ballast Water System 16. Fuel Gas system3. Inert Gas system 17. MEG & Methanol sys4. Compressed Air system 18. Foam System5. Steam/Feed/Cond. Water sys 19. Diesel Oil6. N2 system7. MGPS system8. SW cooling sys (Marine & Topside)9. FW cooling sys10. Offspec produced water & cond. sys11. Open drain & closed drain system12. FW distribution system13. Fire system14. Fixed fire suppression system

Hull Coating & Painting 1.Hull painting – 450, 740m2 2.Main deck – 18, 000m23.11 WBT – 229, 526m2 4.11 COT – 155, 000 m25.Slop tanks 15, 000 m26.Offspec tanks – 19, 000m27.FWT – 1, 000m28.APT – 8,000m29.Chemical tanks – 25, 000m210.Ext Super Structure – 5, 170m2

Other Hull Misc Scope 1.2 x FW generators & SW ejectors2.Lifting Equip3.Cargo offload & mooring equipment 4.Safety equipment5.Ballast tank dehumidifier6.New emergency generator7.New sewage treatment plant8.Tank anodes 4, 800 # x 50 kg9.Hull anodes 600 # x 100 kg10.Hatch covers11.Tank air vent heads12.Refurbish machinery equipment13.COW machine14.Heating coils in slop tank15.O/H valves16.E&I navigation & communication equip

Workshop &storage (50 T)

Helideck(230T)

New poopdeck (450 T)

LifeboatSupports (250 T)

RiserPorch 1450 T

BilgeKeel (250T)

MarinePipe rack (150 T)

130m Flare Tower (400 T)

2 x IG Towers(45 T)

Fwd tempShelter ((60 T)

OffloadingStation (80 T)

Convert #1 CT P&STo 13 chemical tanks(1665 T)

19 TopsideModules (25000 T)

2 Crane pedestals& boom rests (90 T)

4 x 6 mooringsystem (1500 T)

140 P AccommodationConversion (900 T)

Aft Access Handling (150 T)

Fwd Accesshandling (150 T)

Pipe rack215m (1850 T)

Module support Stools (350 T)

FatigueBrackets (350 T)

Convert 5S BTTo PW tanks 1 & 2(150T)

Hull / Marine Scope+/- 10000 Tons

Dry-dock scope:1. Riser porch 6. Overboard pipes2. New Sea Chests 7. MGPS system3. SW Lift pump caisson 8. Hull coating4. Sacrificial anodes 9. Bilge Keel5. Fairlead support str 10. Blast & Coating

Vessel details:Built: 2012 by DSME KoreaDim: L 333m x W 60m x D 30.5mDeadweight: 320, 000 TClass: ABS

CONCEPT ENGINEERING

FIELD DEVELOPMENT

KEY DRIVERS in Field Development

• Basin Strategy• Reservoir Uncertainties• Geohazards• Metocean • Field Architecture• Flow Assurance• Host Selection• Technology & Risk

Our Concept Engineering Focus:

• Project Feasibility Assessment (Commercial and Technical);• Concept Identification & Selection:

Ø Export routesØ Process & Technology Options, Layout Studies;Ø CAPEX / OPEX / Product Revenue Evaluation

• Concept Optimisation:Ø Engineering definition, Cost Sensitivities, Schedule

• Debottlenecking Studies;• Risk Evaluation (Commercial and Technical);

• Workshop Facilitation/Participation

CONCEPT ENGINEERING

We apply a stepwise ‘gate’ process to the

Concept Select process to avoid recycle

• Reservoir Support Mechanisms (Primary & Secondary)• Well Performance, Well Count & Location• Well Fluid PVT & Physical Properties, WAT, Corrosion, Rheology, Chemistry• Production System Capacities (Stream Day & Annual)• Boundary Export Conditions (Pipelines / Injection / Terminal)• Site Location & Environmental Data & Criteria• Production Availability Requirements – Contract Obligations?• Operations Philosophy, also EPC or Lease Operate?• Future Facilities / Developments• Specific Operator Preferences / Requirements –

e.g. sparing, no. trains…• Codes & Regulations selection• Infrastructure Owned or Contractually Available• Timing, Schedule Criticality, Opportunities & Risks

INITIAL FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (“THE BOUNDARIES”)

KEY FACILITY PARAMETERS

Examples of Typical Key Facility Parameters:

• Field Architecture Options – Vertical vs Extended reach Drilling, Cluster versus daisy Chain DCs, Initial versus Future etc..

• Hull Options – DTU vs Wet Trees, Riser Stability, Payload, Cost, Quayside or Offshore Installation

• Optimum Well Back Pressure – justify artificial lift and optimum back pressure – gas lift, riser pumping, MPPs. Cost, Complexity versus Deliverability & Flow Assurance.

• Export Options – Pipeline, FPSOs, FSOs.• Flow Assurance Options – Displacement vs Insulated vs Chemical Reclaimer.• Topsides Riser Pressure Break, Trains & Configuration• Process Unit Robustness to achieve dead oil and on spec gas• Equipment Type Selections – Drivers, Unit Ops. etc.. • Utility Options for Power, Cooling and Heating• Packaging / Layout, Safety, Payload

Optimum Cost with consideration of Weight, Feasibility Risk & Schedule

DEFINE THE BUILDING BLOCKS

Basin Strategy – Infrastructure Options?

EQUATORIAL GUINEA BASIN - OPTION SELECTION

We led the Front – End Studies and Option Selection for 3 Fields

TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES• Field Architecture configuration and impact

on drill rig locations and drill centers – i.e. daisy chain, cluster or DVA

• Hull Type – drilling location, DTU vs Wet Trees, drilling reach, riser performance and loads, oil storage and integration (quayside lift, strand jacks or offshore lift or floatover)

• Well Back Pressure - justify artificial lift-ESPs, gaslift riser, riser pumping, MPPs Cost / Feasibility vs Deliverability & FA.

• Export Options – Pipelines, FSO / FPSO /FLNG terminals

• Flow Assurance – well offset distance, rheology, displacement vs insulation vs Chemical and Reclaiming

• Integration & Installation Options – Lift, Floatover, Quayside or singlebuild with strand jacks or nearshore floatover

• Riser dia vs SIP vs type (SCR vs Flexible), Riser Loads, Riser install, Riser & Connector Fatigue & Type, TOR spec break

• Topside Equip Selections & Systems (e.g. direct drives, HM/CM..

• Layout optimization – incl. HSE & HMI & Maintenance etc.

• Fabrication location – total actual cost implications

FUNCTIONAL BASIS & OPTION SELECTION

10-Apr-08 Slide 3© 2007 Aker Kvaerner

STA-BEN-FPSO-MODU-021

Costs Mill USDHost – 347Hull – 150Mooring, risers – 109Subsea equipment -- 166Pipelines, FL, umbilicals – 129

Total – 901

Costs Mill USDCosts Mill USDHost – 347Hull – 150Mooring, risers – 109Subsea equipment -- 166Pipelines, FL, umbilicals – 129

Total Total –– 901901

FPSO

MODU

FPSO tanker

gas re-injection

Water-injection

Benita

OPTION SELECTION

Examples of typical options

36

OPTIONS

EXAMPLE – HULL SCREENING OPTIONS

OPTION SELECTION

We are specialized in bringing discoveries to fruition through a methodical and systematic Conceptual Engineering process.

Our methodology and experience includes brownfield as well as greenfield, de-bottle necking and increased oil recovery projects

Deepwater Malaysia Concept Screening

CONCEPT ENGINEERING

Concepts are identified, screened and defined –function, scope, cost and schedule are established.

EXAMPLE PRE-SANCTION WORK PLAN

Track Record of Floating Concept Selection

DRL Engineering

41

•Floating Concept Selection–KME (March 2014)

• Subsea Tie Back to KBB• Tension Leg Platform with Wet Trees and Partial Processing• Tension Leg Platform with Wet Trees and Full Processing

–Kekek (January 2014) • Mini Tension Leg Platform• Single Lift SPAR• Multiple Lift SPAR• Semi Submersible

– Leviathan Gas FPSO (Jan 14-17)–Sea Lion (November 2013)

• TLP / FPSO

DRL – Floating Concept Selection

42

•Floating Concept Selection–Mad Dog 2 (November 2013)

• All Floating Concepts

–Abadi Floating vs. Onshore LNG (February 2013) • Semi Submersible• FPSO

–Limbayong (February 2012)• New Deepwater Hub• Shallow Water Platform with Subsea Tie Back• Subsea Tie Back to KN

–Malikai (2007-2011)• All Floating Concepts

DRL – Floating Concept Selection

43

•Floating Concept Selection–Gumusut (2003-2007)

• All Floating Concepts

–Perdido (2004-2005)• Multi Lift SPAR vs. Single Lift SPAR

–Equatorial Guinea BasinNoble Energy Benita FPSO & Elon Condensate Recycle

- CMS Energy ALBA

- Chevron JSM Hull Type

DRL – Floating Concept Selection

44

DEEPWATER PROJECT COST ESTIMATING &

BENCHMARKING

Offshore Project - Cost Estimating Overview

Deepwater Project – Work Breakdown Structure Level 1

DEEPWATER PROJECTS : WHERE DO WE SPEND OUR CAPEX?

Non Direct Vertical Access Projects

Direct Vertical Access Projects

Cost Estimating – Cost Norm Format

Wor

k B

reak

dow

n St

ruct

ure

Norm Change with Progression of Information

Cost Estimating – Greenfield Structure

Deepwater Cost Estimating – Input Data Requirements

Data Input – Pre FEED Deliverables

Deepwater Cost Estimating

Stan

dard

Wor

k B

reak

dow

n St

ruct

ure

Deepwater Cost Estimating

Stan

dard

Wor

k B

reak

dow

n St

ruct

ure

Deepwater Cost Estimating – Facility Cost by Hull Form

Tool Output – Cost per Hull Form

Regional Fabrication Costs

Fabrication of Modules in China

COSTESTIMATION

DRL cost estimates are established based on data of actual achieved costs on previous projects.

Deepwater TLP Malaysia Cost Estimating

COSTESTIMATION– SYSTEMSELECTION

DRL cost estimates are established based on data of actual achieved costs on previous projects.

Deepwater MalaysiaDevelopment Scenario Cost

Estimating

Leading to System Selection

•DRL Project Benchmarking Database

–Data from 287 Projects used to perform

• Concept Benchmarking

• Scope Benchmarking– Value Engineering– Risks and Opportunity Assessments

• Cost Benchmarking

• Schedule Benchmarking

• Project Health Checks

DRL Project Benchmarking Database

59

DRL ENGINEERINGBENCHMARK

DATASET287 Projects

180 Process Facilities

33 Subsea Tie Back74 Wellhead

Platforms

60

Project Database (excl. Subsea Tie Backs and Wellhead Platforms)

Project Database

180 Process Facilities

of which122 Projects are

Deepwater Projects

61

Sub Sea Tie Back Project Database

In AdditionDRL Benchmark

Database includes 74 Wellhead Platforms

BENCHMARKING OVERVIEW

62

BENCHMARKING OVERVIEW

63

• Scope Benchmarking Metrics

• Cost Benchmarking Metrics

• Schedule Benchmarking Metrics

SCOPE BENCHMARKING

64

• Scope Benchmarking Checks will vary Project to Project but will include :-– Design Functionality vs. Reservoir Size– Total Installed Power vs. Design Functionality– Total Installed Power vs. Topside Dry Weight– Functionality vs. Topside Weight– Topside Dry Weight vs. Deck Area– Deck Area vs. Functionality– Living Quarter Weight vs. Number of Beds– Equipment Weight vs. System Functionality

• Production• Compression• Power• Water Injection• Utilities• Safety and Material Handling

– Jacket Weight vs. Water Depth– Hull Weight vs. Topside Weight– Link Bridge vs. Bridge Length

INDEPENDENCE HUB

Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE (All Hull Forms)

65

SPAR Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE

66

Tension Leg Platform Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE

67

Semi Submersible Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE

68

NEW BUILD FPSO Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE

69

CONVERSION FPSO Topside Weight vs. Daily BOE

70

OFFSHORE BEST WEIGHT PERFORMERS

HORN MOUNTAIN SPAR

MARCO POLO MINI TLP

INDEPENDENCE HUBSEMI SUBMERSIBLE

NEPTUNESPAR

MARS ACONVENTIONAL TLP

SHENZIMINI TLP

71

INCORPORATE BEST PRACTICES WHERE APPLICABLE

COST BENCHMARKING

72

• Cost Benchmarking Checks will vary Project to Project but will include :-

– Hull Cost per Tonne– Topside Cost per Tonne– Topside Design Manhours per Tonne– Equipment Procurement Cost per Tonne– Topside Bulk Procurement Cost per Tonne– Fabrication Cost per Tonne– Hook Up and Commissioning Cost per Tonne– Topside Installation Cost vs. Topside Weight– Mooring Cost vs. Installed Length– Pipeline Line Cost per Inch Dia. Mile – Subsea Costs (Trees/Manifolds/Controls/Umbilicals/IWOC/Jumpers)

•Deepwater Project Benchmarking Packages– Including Scope, Cost & Schedule Benchmarking

–Malikai Tension Leg Platform Malaysia 2016–Stones Conversion FPSO Gulf of Mexico 2016–Leviathan Gas FPSO & current CPF Platform 2017–Knarr New Build FPSO Norway 2015–Delta House Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2015–Sea Lion Conversion FPSO Falkland Islands 2015–Mars B Tension Leg Platform Gulf of Mexico 2014–Gumusut/Kakap Semi Submersible Malaysia 2014–Mad Dog 2 Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2014–Skarv New Build FPSO Norway 2012

DRL – Deepwater Cost Benchmarking

73

•Deepwater Project Benchmarking Packages– Including Scope, Cost & Schedule Benchmarking

–Gjoa Semi Submersible Norway 2011–Who Dat Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2011–Perdido Single Lift SPAR Gulf of Mexico 2010–BC 10 Conversion FPSO Brazil 2007–Independence Hub Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2007–Mag Dog SPAR Gulf of Mexico 2005–Na Kika Semi Submersible Gulf of Mexico 2003–Penguin Subsea Tie Back North Sea 2003–EA New Build FPSO Nigeria 2002

DRL – Deepwater Cost Benchmarking

74

SCHEDULE BENCHMARKING

75

• Schedule Benchmarking Checks will vary Project to Project but will include :-– Critical Path Duration to First Cut Steel

– Fabrication Duration• Floating Hulls• Topsides

– Final Investment Decision to Sailaway

– Final Investment Decision to First Hydrocarbons

76

GULF of MEXICO DEEPWATER SCHEDULE EXAMPLE

DRL – Deepwater Benchmarking

77

•Typical Deepwater Benchmarking Package : Scope (Charts 3 to 19), Cost (Charts 20 to 33) and Schedule Review (Charts 34 to 36) and Benchmarking Summary (Charts 37 to 39)

MORE THAN BENCHMARKING …..

78

PEERASSISTS&INVESTMENTDECISION

SCHEDULEBENCHMARKING

SCOPEBENCHMARKING

COSTBENCHMARKINGCOSTESTIMATING

TRAINING

MorethanBENCHMARKING

ProvidingGlobalAdvice:-Scope

ExecutionStrategyCostandSchedule

IdentifyOpportunities&Risks

DataCollectionBenchmarkingMetrics

ProjectConceptsCostEfficiencyEstimatingTools

EstimatingTools:-

ScopeDevelopmentCostDevelopment

(DeepWater,ShallowWater,Brownfield&Subsea)RegionalNorms

DRL Personnel

DRL Engineering - Deepwater

80

•DRL Engineering Deepwater Expertise

• Option Selection

• Cost Estimating

• Benchmarking