XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C 03 Jan 2015 XXX Development Facility Feasibility & Option Selection Plan C For Information Jan 3 2015 MR JM / SC DL Rev Status Date Author Checker Lead EM PM Document Title: XXX Facility Feasibility & Option Selection Plan DRL Document No. Page MOL-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C 1 of 16 Client Document No.
25
Embed
XXX Development Facility Feasibility & Option …drl-engineering.com/images/site-content/DW_FEASIBILITY_OPTION...XXX Development Facility Feasibility & Option Selection Plan ... XXX
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
1 INTRODUCTION This document presents a Study Plan to undertake the field development facility studies (Surface Facilities and Subsea) for YYY Development. The principles of the facility FE work will follow the following route map:
However, the field development requires the integration of subsurface, drilling, operations, commercial and facilities in an overall development plan – e.g. as typical below:
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
SURFACE PRODUCTION FACILITIESProcess and Facility Feasibility
Risk Assessment
2015
DEVELOPMENT MILESTONESExecutive Charter Brief
DEFINE ACTIVITIES SELECTFEASIBILITY
2014
Appraisal Well 1Appraisal Well 2
Preliminary PEPReviews
CHARTERSOR
STRATEGY
REGULATOR
RISK
DRILL TESTDRILL TEST
STUDIES - OFF/S
HULL SELECTION
SANCTION
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
1.1 FACILITY WORK PLAN SUMMARY
This document presents an example front – end plan to mature a prospect through Option Selection, through to the FEASIBILITY gate and readiness to commence FEED and Tendering.
The document describes the following main steps:
1. Development Team Set-up & mobilization
2. Project Charter or Statement of Requirements (SOR)
(Including riser performance vs hull form, flow assurance, field architecture, reservoir depletion requirements, oil and gas disposition options, etc.)
5. Development Option Screening
6. Final Option Selection
7. Feasibility Deliverables (FEASIBILITY) – Facilities (Surface and Subsea), G&G and Subsurface, Operations and Drilling
8. Value Engineering (VE)
9. Contracting Strategy
10. FEED Tender ITT Data
11. FE Study and Team Administration and Planning
Graphic representation of study stages:
Concept Selection
Field Planning
Feasibility studies
Concept Definition
Execution
Total field development level System / discipline level
±40%
±30%
±20%
±10%
Cos
t es
timat
es
Major building block level
Most likely to succeed technology
Most cost efficient concepts
Improved subsystems Improved
execution
Work Processes: - Front End Gate Process
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
2 WORKPLAN
2.1 STUDY ACTIVITIES Initial study work activities focus on technical requirements and feasibility of the key building blocks – reservoir and well depletion requirements, field architecture, flow assurance, riser performance vs hull selection options, oil and gas export options etc.
STUDY TEAM SET-UP
Establish framework for Study Team to work efficiently and effectively:
Non-disclosure agreement Preliminary Study Plan and approach Document Control procedure and file structure Team Roles and Organization Reporting Charter (SOR) & Preliminary Functional Basis Brainstorm alignment sessions Preliminary Schedule Milestones Equipment Tagging procedure Team Office Facilities, Communications
A provisional suggested FE team would be organized as follows:
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
A Preliminary Functional Basis for commencement of studies would include the following items. This functional basis will be developed thru several working sessions and data compilation.
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
2.2 FEASIBILITY STUDIES This stage needs to determine technically feasible schemes, and an understanding of the limitations and definition of key building blocks.
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
Once an understanding is established of feasible building blocks and credible schemes, then the option selection process can be commenced. Key elements are summarized as follows, and further defined in “DRL Option Screening Methodology (Phase 1 - Qualitative & Phase 2 - Quantitative).Procedures” – see attached.
Establish all the building blocks and brainstorm all credible options for base development, futures and potential 3rd parties. Requires involvement of all leading disciplines and management:
Agree screening selection parameters
Prepare preliminary Field Schematics and descriptions of main options and associated preliminary benchmark cost and schedules
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
Screening Workshop to select leading options based on :
Typical extract from Option Generator sheet including score tabulation of a rated option
STAND ALONE Reservoir System
CASE Name Reservoir
Drive
Relative Cost
Project Schedule
HC Reservoir Recovery and Yield
Technical Risk
Installation & HUC
Operability &
Reliability
SUM Comment
Tool Box
STA-YOL-ONS-MODU-400
FWS Onshore
3 3 4 4 4 5 23
This scheme will require a Duplex Pipeline to shore with high 11 percent CO2 and no - dewatering or phase split offshore. Scheme will also require complex and not yet proven subsea compression or onshore well boost compression. Both will result in higher well back pressure and upto 10 percent loss of reserves with higher abandonment pressure. Scheme also has a large, sophisticated gas and NGL plant to be built onshore. Incurs a high capex, high risk and reduced recovery and operability.
Depletion
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
3.1 SCREENING SUMMATION
Must confirm that the concept schemes selected are robust to uncertainties of functional basis
Conduct Peer and Partner Reviews to confirm “buy-in”
Prepare Option Screening Report – highlight which options are more favorable, and indicative relative cost & schedule.
Important to clearly define why certain options were rejected or not appraised, to avoid future recycling.
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
3.2 OPTION SELECTION PHASE 2 (QUANTITATIVE) The study plan assumes that several options are comparable in the Screening Option Analysis (phase 1) and require further evaluation. This next phase (Phase 2) of option selection focusses on improved cost quantification and also a Risk Assessment.
The Phase 2 Option Selection Methodology objectives are as follows:
Utilize a short list of options selected in the Phase 1 Qualitative Analysis.
Prepare preliminary cost and schedule estimates, plus a risk – weighted analysis of the “soft issues” for the Phase 1 Short Listed Options as follows:
Undertake a risk weighted analysis of the selected options resulting from the Phase 1 study. This analysis appraises the relative benefits and risks of each major building block of each option, and accounts for their relative weighting within each option.
Prepare capex estimates of the options (+/- 30%)
Review the results from the above cost and risk rankings and establish a short list of development options for further definition in pre FEED Conceptual Design.
3.3 PHASE 2 OPTION SELECTION The Phase 2 Study Scope has two main activities:
Preliminary Design and Costing of the selected options
Risk Weighted Analysis of various “soft issues”
The costings are developed based on the respective option building blocks. Typically for each option there will be a cost work breakdown structure as follows:
Topsides Facilities cost based on weight
Onshore Facilities cost based on functionality and capacity
The offshore facilities costs are based on weight estimates derived from correlations of “installed driver power” and topsides weight – which provides a weight relationship for platform functionality – including capacity, required unit operations and associated duties and pressures.
DRL has a complete suite of benchmarked costs based on actual deep water projects in GOM, covering topsides, hulls, mooring systems, risers and pipelines. Sample data below.
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
3.4 HULL SELECTION The Hull Selection is a key key deepwater development choice, and should be evaluated globally as above, and again independently as a subset study and workshop as summarized below. This key selection will involve a preliminary assessment of the respective riser and mooring system performance, payload assessment, regulatory acceptance, integration and installation method and contracting strategy. The flowsheet below shows the design inter relations for a deepwater FPU.
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
3.5 RISK ASSESSMENT The comparative risk evaluation is based on a soft ranking process in which a number of developed project elements (building blocks) for each option are examined against specified criteria parameters and a relative weighting.
Building BlocksBuilding BlocksSelected Risk CriteriaSelected Risk Criteria Building Block Weighing FactorBuilding Block Weighing Factor
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
3.6 PHASE 2 OPTION SELECTION RESULTS SUMMARY
Example tabulation of the Risk Scoring and Capex estimation for the Quantitative Selection Phase:
This final option analysis is aimed at recommending a single option to proceed into to FEED and Execution.
3.6.1 OPTION SELECTION APPROVAL AND FEASIBILITY PACKAGE
Workshop and Peer - Partner participation
Preparation of FEASIBILITY Delivery Package
i. Subsurface
ii. Facilities
3.6.2 ECONOMICS Preliminary Execution Plan with Contracting Strategy
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
4 VE STUDY Examine opportunities for cost reduction and re-confirm project efficiency through benchmarking.
5 FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION GATE CRITERIA
This stage gate establishes that the development is technically feasible and economically robust, and is adequately defined to proceed into definition (FEED) phase. Typical acceptance criteria can be summarized as follows:
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
6 CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES
Contracting strategy interacts with contractor selection, schedule duration and integration location, and installation responsibility.
Example Deepwater Floater Contracting Options:
1. TYPICAL EPC(I) 2. FEED COMPETITION
3. NEG EPC(I) BEFORE FEED
4. OWNER PMT
&SUBS
5. OWNER & ENG PMT WORK ON UNIT
RATES
6. OWNER FEED & SUB EPCs
HU
LL
TO
PS
IDE
DR
ILL
ING
HU
LL
TO
PS
IDE
DR
ILL
ING
HU
LL
TO
PS
IDE
DR
ILL
ING
HU
LL
TO
PS
IDE
DR
ILL
ING
HU
LL
TO
PS
IDE
DR
ILL
ING
H
UL
L
TO
PS
IDE
DR
ILL
ING
BUSINESS NAME
Concept Screening and Pre-Feasibility Engineering
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
Front End Engineering Design (FEED) EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
Detail Design EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
Fabrication EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
Integration EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
Installation and Hook Up EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
Commissioning, Handover and Acceptance
EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
EPC EPC EPC
EPC CONTRACTOR
INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR
ENGINEERING CONTR
CONSULTANT IN HOUSE
OWNER
SEPARATE SUBCONTRACTS
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
7 FEED INPUT & ITT DATA Maturation of the Functional Basis to a Design Basis Datasheet Book for FEED
development to a BOD Spec.
Preparation of CTRs and RFP scope for FEED Tendering
The input to FEED or FEED EPC Tender should include typical deliverables for a floater as follows:
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
8 STUDY TEAM ORGANISATION
8.1 STUDY TOOLS AND PROCEDURES
8.1.1 FILE MANAGEMENT To permit fluent working files and easy access and viewing by team members including XXX, DRL utilizes the BOX Cloud technology. DRL will set up a dedicated and customized folder structure for the Study. A sample file structure is illustrated below:
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
8.1.2 EQUIPMENT NUMBERING Alignment on numbering system and issuance of relevant procedure will be performed at the very beginning of the study to eliminate re-work of re-numbering in early design work.
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
8.1.3 REPORTING A weekly report of the Study Team progress will be prepared for issue by the Project Manager to XXX Management. The format of the Study Team weekly report may follow XXX’s internal standard or use a DRL report format.
DRL will provide a weekly tracking report (sample below).
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
8.1.4 ACTION REGISTER An action register will be used throughout the study period to record action items raised at meetings, discussions and received from management. This tabulation of actions will be maintained expedited by the Project Engineer. The format of the action register is provided below:
8.1.5 ASSUMPTIONS REGISTER During the course of the Study execution numerous assumptions will be required (in the absence of data, approvals or management decisions) as the basis for further work. These assumptions and their basis will be recorded in the Assumptions Register.
8.1.6 RISK REGISTER A risk register of cost, schedule and HSE risks will be used to collect and manage the issues raised during the course of the Study. Mitigations and close out of the risks will be recorded. Key risks will be included in management reports. The format of the Risk Register document can be seen below.
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
8.1.7 DELIVERABLES REGISTER A deliverable register of Study documents with issue dates will be developed and maintained as the study definition takes shape. A typical study deliverable register can be seen below. The YYY deliverable register will include those documents required for FEASIBILITY Stage Gate (Refer to Appendix A-2) and technical attachments needed for FEED ITT.
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
e
XXX Development Facility Feasibility Studies
Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-C03 Jan 2015
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev C Jan 2 2015
9 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
9.1 SCHEDULING It is important to develop an integrated plan for field development, so as to ensure all the functions come together in a coordinated manner, and the surface and subsurface groups develop their respective areas in conjunction and at the required level of maturity- ie in synch. An example deepwater FE plan is summarized below:
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20