Deepwater Oil & Gas Facilities Deepwater Oil - … Deepwater Oil & Gas Facilities Deepwater Oil & Gas Facilities 6th China-US OGIF ... Engineering Factors in Choosing between Non-FPSO
Post on 10-Mar-2018
235 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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
top related