XXX Development. Facility Feasibility & Option Selection Plan

Transcription

1 Facility Feasibility & Option Selection Plan B For Information Jan 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-B Client Document No. 1 of 16

2 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION FACILITY WORK PLAN SUMMARY WORKPLAN STUDY ACTIVITIES FEASIBILITY STUDIES OPTION SCREENING (QUALITATIVE SELECTION PHASE 1) SCREENING SUMMATION OPTION SELECTION PHASE 2 (QUANTITATIVE) PHASE 2 OPTION SELECTION HULL SELECTION RISK ASSESSMENT PHASE 2 OPTION SELECTION RESULTS SUMMARY VE STUDY FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION GATE CRITERIA CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES FEED INPUT & ITT DATA STUDY TEAM ORGANISATION STUDY TOOLS AND PROCEDURES DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE SCHEDULING... 25

3 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:

4 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: Development Team Set-up & mobilization Project Charter or Statement of Requirements (SOR) Preliminary Functional Requirements Feasibility Studies & Brainstorms (Demonstrate Technical & Economic Feasible Schemes (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 AKER KVAERNER FRONT END Graphic representation of study stages: Cost estimates Work Processes: - Front End Gate Process Field Planning Feasibility studies Concept Selection Concept Definition ±40% Execution ±30% Most likely to succeed technology ±20% Most cost efficient concepts ±10% Total field development level 3-Jul Aker Kvaerner Major building block level Slide 3 Improved subsystems Improved execution System / discipline level part of the Aker group

5 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:

6 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.

7 2.2 FEASIBILITY STUDIES This stage needs to determine technically feasible schemes, and an understanding of the limitations and definition of key building blocks.

8 3 OPTION SCREENING (QUALITATIVE SELECTION PHASE 1) 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

9 Screening Workshop to select leading options based on i. Relative Costing, ii. Schedule iii. Recoverable Reserves efficiency iv. Technical Risk, v. Integration and Installation Risk vi. Operability & Reliability, vii. Flexibility for futures Typical screening parameters/characteristics tabulation: : Typical extract from Option Generator sheet including score tabulation of a rated option STAND ALONE Reservoir System CASE Name Reservoir Drive Tool Box STA-YOL-ONS-MODU400 Relative Cost Project Schedule HC Reservoir Recovery and Yield Technical Risk Installation & HUC Depletion FWS Onshore Operability & Reliability C A B IG R P T D W M F JE O S M ta S o lc L E rip e O xu a fn p Im O o n R re a b P M A tyxs ld ifscp n a irp d g xcu Itw R O S e lu o ksh fkm u itls a d rt o h e f A O cig e b a L U rtw o d o a fs n tk ilt d p re fe w g d a cl ro ln R te t O rs sd w ile D L o S fp tn lc T W ca n rih sf e D o L T L fp G rkn tin e a lo w A cs fp sg jtm lro d ia c w kr h p o lo a ie tvd rlo tcu a G v& in e h s P tlo m ra e g in 5 SUM 23 Comment 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.

10 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.

11 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: 3.3 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. 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 Drilling system cost (if platform installed) Substructure cost (Platform / TLP / Semi / FPSO) Mooring and Piling Cost SURF cost (subsea/umbilicals/ risers/ flowlines/ ) Pipelines ($ per inch diameter) Transport and Installation Cost Associated indirect costs (multiplier) 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.

12

13 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.

14 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. Option Option Label Label Selected Selected Risk Risk Criteria Criteria Building Building Blocks Blocks Risk Risk Criteria Criteria Weighing Weighing Factor Factor Building Building Block Block Weighing Weighing Factor Factor Risk Risk Criteria Criteria Score Score Option Option Resulting Resulting Score Score

15 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 OPTION SELECTION APPROVAL AND FEASIBILITY PACKAGE Workshop and Peer - Partner participation Preparation of FEASIBILITY Delivery Package i. Subsurface ii. Facilities ECONOMICS Preliminary Execution Plan with Contracting Strategy

16 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:

17 6 CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES Contracting strategy interacts with contractor selection, schedule duration and integration location, and installation responsibility. Example Deepwater Floater Contracting Options: DRILLING TOPSIDE 6. OWNER FEED & SUB s HULL DRILLING TOPSIDE DRILLING TOPSIDE HULL 5. OWNER & ENG PMT WORK ON UNIT RATES 4. OWNER PMT &SUBS HULL DRILLING TOPSIDE 3. NEG (I) BEFORE FEED HULL DRILLING TOPSIDE HULL TOPSIDE HULL 2. FEED COMPETITION DRILLING 1. TYPICAL (I) BUSINESS NAME Concept Screening and Pre-Feasibility Engineering OWNER OWNER Front End Engineering Design (FEED) OWNER OWNER Detail Design Fabrication Integration Installation and Hook Up Commissioning, Handover and Acceptance CONTRACTOR INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR ENGINEERING CONTR CONSULTANT IN HOUSE OWNER SEPARATE SUBCONTRACTS OWNER OWNER

18 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 Tender should include typical deliverables for a floater as follows:

19 STUDY TEAM ORGANISATION STUDY TOOLS AND PROCEDURES 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:

20 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.

21 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).

22 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: 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 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.

23 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.

24 e

25 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 theier respective areas inconjunction and at the required level of maturity- ie in synch. An example deepwater FE plan is summarized below: