12.1 Literatur Study On Cost Effective Platform (Jacket Design) - Upload

Literature Study on Cost Effective
Platform for Marginal Field
November - 2016
Literature Study on Cost Effective Platform for Marginal Field
Agenda
1. BACKGROUND
2. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD
4. BREAKDOWN OF COST
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6. REFERENCES
7. APPENDIX
1. BACKGROUND
PT. Pertamina Hulu Energi West Madura Offshore
(PHE WMO) nowadays have many marginal field
development in 30-70 meter water depth ini Madura
Offshore Area.
West Madura Offshore Location

1. BACKGROUND
PHE WMO is trying to find concepts, which considerably
reduce the costs of these marginal field developments
and consequently make these developments
economically feasible.
Most of these marginal developments are based on the
"satellite principle", which means that existing pipeline
transportation infrastructure and production facilities in
the vicinity of the marginal field are used so that the
development costs are significantly reduced.
Marginal field infrastructure experiences need to be
collected to meet the requirements of this study. This
study typically deals with the literature study of cost
effective platform.
2. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
This objective of this study is to analyze and
select the suitable platform (monopod, tripod
or other) for PHE WMO Marginal Field in West
Madura Offshore that have
30-70 meter water depth
about 350 tons topside weight.
This study is expected to be a guideline as
reference for development concept.

Variety of platform concepts have Group A B C D
Freestanding Caisson
Supported Conductor
Conventional Jacket
Supported Caisson
been designed and installed,
Jackup Structure
Buoyant Tower
Straight Jacket
Configuration
Freestanding
Conductor
Structural
Monopod
SIP 1
SIP 2
SIP 3
SIP 4
including platforms for marginal
fields in shallow water.
0-100
0-100
0-200
0-300
0-200
0-400
0-400
0-400
>350
>350
Vary
0-30
0-50
Four main groups are identified and Topside Weight (tons)
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
Vary
characterized based on the
0-20
0-60
0-40
0-60
0-30
0-50
0-30
0-50
Water depth range (m)
structural configuration :
1 to 12
1 to 16
1 to 6
1 to 3
1 to 6
1 to 6
1 to 6
1 to 6
1 to 6
1 to 6
1 to 6
Vary
Number of wells
1
Harsh
A. Structures that use conductors as Environmental
application
Medium
Mild
principal load carrying members Conductors as

piles
Foundation Gravity based
Suction cans
B. Structures that do not use conductors Driven piles

Self installable

as principal load carrying members Installation Method Crane barge
Cantilever jack-up

Self floating
Vertical on barge
Transport
Horizontal on

C. Self Installed Structure barge
Built vertical
Fabrication
Built horizontal
Hybrid
Material Concrete
D. Other Structures that do not use all Steel

By boat

Access possibilities
those principal By helicopter
Calcareous soils

Soft clay
Soil application
Stiff clay
Sand

A. Structures that use B. Structures that do not use D. Other Structures that do
conductors as principal conductors as principal C. Self Installed Structure not use all those
load carrying members load carrying members principal
There are two(2) structures in this group:

1. Freestanding conductors
2. Supported conductors
One of supported conductor type which is known is
Stacked Template Structure (STS) and Tall Template
Structure (TTS) platform.
These structures are suitable for area which have
mild environmental load (wave and current),
minimum topside weight and shallow water depth

Typical Conductor
Supported Platform

Stacked
Template
Structure (STS)

TallTemplate
Structure (TTS)
The TTS acts as a drilling
template with 30
conductors drilled and
grouted into the i.e. three
(3) 36 legs and doubling
as structural piles.
Four internal i20
conductors can be
supported within the TTS
thus accommodating
seven wells in total.
Source: SANTOS Oyong Field
Development

There are six (6) structures in this group:

1. Caisson
2. Supported caisson
3. Monopod
4. Straight jacket
5. Conventional 3- or 4-leg jacket
6. Jack-up structure
Structures number 1 & 2 are suitable for area which have mild environmental
load (wave and current), minimum topside weight and shallow water depth.
Other structures (number 3 to 6) are applicable for harsher environment,
more topside weight and more deep water depth in shallow water.
Especially for jack-up structure, since it uses shallow foundation, it needs
more study on structural integrity under harsh environment loads.
More information about structures that use and do not use conductors as
principal load carrying members is shown in Appendix A.


There are four (4) structures in this group:

Comparison of Characteristics Among Several
1. Self Installed Platform 1 (SIP 1) Types of Platform with Self Installed Platform
2. Self Installed Platform 2 (SIP 2) for Marginal Field
Relative
3. Self Installed Platform 3 (SIP 3) Weight
Self 400
Pre- in 35 Low Cost
4. Self Installed Platform 4 (SIP 4) Installa tonnes
drilling meter Removal
ble topside
water
These structures are suitable for minimal depth
Jacket No Yes Yes High No
environmental load since they use shallow Braced
No Yes Yes Low No
foundation and minimal topside weight Tower
Conductor
No No No Low No
must be considered. sup
Perhap 30 m
There are four concepts exist for these Monotower No
s
No
max
No
SIP 1 Yes No No Low Yes
structures, more study about self installed SIP 2 Yes Yes Perhaps High Yes
SIP 3 Yes Yes Yes Low Yes
platform is shown in Appendix B. SIP 4 Yes Yes Perhaps High Yes

Group Study of Marginal Field Satellite Field
SELF INSTALLING SIP I
Advantages
Transport floating on
suction piles
Disadvantages
Separately installed
topsides
SELF INSTALLING SIP II
Advantages
No lifting required at location
Docking over pre-drilled wells
Re-usable
Maximized onshore
commissioning
Disadvantages
Too large to be considered
marginal
Larger deck width
Existing StudySubstructures
on Marginal Field Platform
SELF INSTALLING SIP II
A 9,000t F3FA SIP2 platform installed.

SELF INSTALLING SIP III
Advantages
No heavy lift vessel
Re-usable
Maximized onshore
commissioning
Disadvantages
Topside weight limited
Temporary frame required on
barge
SELF INSTALLING SIP IV
Advantages
No heavy lift vessel
Re-usable
Maximized onshore
commissioning
Disadvantages
Deck and substructure weight
too
high for a marginal concept

There is one (1) structure in this group:

Buoyant Tower
Until this report arranged, there is only one (1)
structure installed in Peru.
Detail literature study is shown in Appendix C.
It is required further study which considers many
technical and cost aspects to determine its suitability
and applicability in Indonesia water especially in PHE
WMO field.

1st shallow water buoyant

tower on offshore Peru

Suitable Platform for PHE WMO (1/7)
PHE WMO Marginal Field in West Madura Offshore constraint criteria:
30-70 meter water depth
about 350 tons topside weight.
Comments of structural configuration for PHE WMO Field:
Structural
Group Comments Reason
Configuration
Freestanding
Not Recommended Small topside weight capability, Many integrity problem during Operational
A Conductor
& maintenance
Supported Conductor Not Recommended
Freestanding Caisson Not Recommended Small topside weight capability
Braced/ Supported
Less Recommended Small topside weight capability
Caisson
Braced Monopod/ For limited 1-6 well. Need improvement in brace support for more
Recommended
Monotower wells or more topside weight.
Straight Jacket (3 & 4 Not effective because has less capability to encounter higher environmental
B Less Recommended
leg) load better than batter leg type
Spreadbase 3-leg jacket/tripod is recommended for 1-6 well.
Conventional Jacket Conventional batter 3-leg jacket/tripod is recommended for 1-15 well.
Recommended
(3 & 4 leg) Conventional batter 4-leg jacket is recommended for 1-16 well if
smaller pile diameter and higher environmental load is considered.
Jackup Structure Not Recommended Not effective, problem on difficult soil condition
SIP 1 Not Recommended Not proven yet, problem on difficult soil condition
SIP 2 Not Recommended Not much proven yet, problem on difficult soil condition
C
D Buoyant Tower Not Recommended Not proven yet, need further study






4.1. Platform Cost Breakdown (1/2)
The cost breakdown of a marginal field over the various activities holds the
key to cost reduction and better insight into areas of practical improvement.
Based on historical project cost and cost estimates for current projects the
typical cost breakdown of a field development is as follows:
Field development cost breakdown: [Ref 1]
Wells = 55 %
Pipeline = 15 %
Platform = 30%
Cost can be optimized from the beginning if development cost effective
strategy is implemented. For example, a platform construction with 20
wells can be compared to two (2) platforms and 10 wells for each platform.
The second option may be better from cost aspect.
4.1. Platform Cost Breakdown (2/2)
The above-table shows that the platform costs are approximately 30 of the total field
development costs. Analysis of the cost components for marginal fields shows the following
breakdown for the platform cost:
Platform cost breakdown: [Ref 1]
Design & engineering =15 %
Procurement = 15 %
Fabrication = 20%
Installation = 50%
It is noted that the cost breakdown may vary considerably depending on specific
circumstances, but it is concluded that the installation costs are the key cost driver for a
marginal platform.
These costs can in many cases amount to about 50% of the total platform costs; especially if
the installation is taking place using scarce, purpose-built and high-cost heavy lift installation
vessels.
The installation cost varies depend on structural size and weight, load out & installation
method and location water depth.
4.2. Reduction of The Installation Costs
The assessment of existing platform concepts and their
cost structure led to the conclusion that the choice for
any concept is closely related to the method of
installation, as it constitutes approximately 50% of the
total support structure costs.
Recognizing the impact of the installation activity, it has
been concluded to focus on that activity to achieve cost
savings.
The three following ways have been identified to reduce
the installation costs and consequently the total cost of
a marginal field development.
1st Alternative 2nd Alternative 3rd Alternative 4th Alternative
Use established and proven installation

equipment, but try to control the activity
by applying a better contract strategy
between the oil companies and the
contractors.
Sharing facility with drilling division. Use a jack-up rig already on

location for drilling purposes, which apart from its lower day-
rate does not have additional mob/demob costs.
But there are some note to be considered when choosing this
method:
Jack up rig only pile straight leg platform type.
Platform weight limited to jack up rig crane capacity (i.e. <150
tonnes jacket weight)
Topside weight limited to jack up rig crane capacity
Need additional buoyancy tanks to stabilize the platform
Need good designed platform self buoyancy
Sample of Installation Sequence using Jackup Rig (1/2)

Sample of Installation Sequence using Jackup Rig (2/2)

Sharing facility with pipeline installation. Use pipeline derrick lay

barge to lift and install the platform rather than conventional derrick
barge. So its mob-demob can be shared with platform installation.
But there are some notes to be considered when choosing this
method:
Potential cheaper if pipeline installation really need big barge
capacity.
Platform type not limited, can be straight or batter leg
Platform weight limited to derrick barge crane capacity
Topside weight limited to derrick barge crane capacity
Derrick barge crane must have two slings.
Sample of Installation Sequence using Derrick Barge

Use self-instalIable platforms, thus avoiding the use of

expensive installation equipment. But Platform capacity
must be considered.
Cost reductions by applying a better contract strategy between the

oil companies and the contractors may also be realized, but these
will not be discussed in this study. This literature study
concentrates typically on the existing cost-effective platform,
which may be resulted from an assessment of the above-
mentioned alternatives 2, 3 and 4.
4.3. Platform Breakdown Cost Alternative
This sub-section analyzes alternative cases feasible for every platform and
installation cases. Percentage and real cost of every component are relative to
platform location and world market dynamics.
Platform Breakdown Cost Alternative Cases Guideline
A B C D
Jackup Structure
Buoyant Tower
Straight Jacket
Freestanding
Freestanding
Conventional
Relative
Supported
Supported
Conductor
Conductor
Monopod
Caisson
Caisson
Jacket
SIP 1
SIP 2
SIP 3
SIP 4
No Cost Component Percentag
e of Cost1
1 Design & Engineering Cost 5 15% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Procurement Cost 10-15% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 Fabrication Cost 15-20% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 Installation Cost (Alternatives) 30- 50%

a. Derrick Barge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes
b. Sharing with Pipeline (Installed May May May May May May May May May
No No No No
by Derrick Lay Barge) be be be be be be be be be
c. Sharing with Drilling (Installed May May
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
by Jack-up Rig) be be
d. Self Installing No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No

From structural applicability and cost breakdown consideration,
conclusions and recommendations below should be considered:
1) There are three main groups of platform type that can be applied
in marginal field, they are: platform that use conductors as
principal load carrying members (freestanding conductor,
supported conductor), platform that does not use conductors as
principal load carrying members (caisson, supported caisson,
monopod, straight jacket, conventional 3- or 4- leg jacket, jack up
structure), and self installed platform (SIP 1, SIP 2, SIP 3, and SIP 4).
2) To choose the most suitable and lowest cost platform for
marginal field, it must consider the rate of field production that
the deck weight can be determined, number of wells, water depth,
environmental load condition (wave and current), foundation type,
methods of installation, transportation, fabrication, material type,
and soil type.

3) Freestanding conductor and supported conductors can be applied
for the field that has water depth up to 20 m and 60 m,
respectively. Freestanding and supported caissons are for water
depth up to 40 m and 60 m, respectively. Braced
monopod/monotower, straight jacket, conventional 3- or 4- leg
jacket, and jack up structure can be used can be applied for the
field that has water depth up to 100 m. SIP 1 and SIP 3 are for
water depth up to 30 m, while SIP 2 and SIP 4 3 are for water
depth up to 50 m.
4) Platform types that can be used to carry the topside weight until
400 tonnes are straight jacket, conventional 3- or 4- leg jacket, SIP
2, SIP 3, and SIP 4.
5) Monopod, straight jacket, conventional 3- or 4- leg jacket, and jack
up structure can be applied in the field that has the harsh
environmental load condition, while supported conductor,
freestanding caisson, supported caisson, SIP 2, and SIP 4 can be in
the medium environmental load condition field. Freestanding
conductor, SIP 1, and SIP 3 can only be applied in the mild
environmental load condition field

6) Cost optimization can be performed considering the reduction of
installation cost. All possible cases, methods and strategy to reduce
installation cost should be considered. These are specific for every case.
7) Freestanding conductor and supported conducter are not recommended
for PHE WMO because they have small topside weight capability, and many
integrity problem had found during operational & maintenance
8) Freestanding Caisson is not recommended for PHE WMO because small
topside weight capability.
9) Braced/ Supported Caisson is less recommended for PHE WMO since the
topside weight limitation (350 tonnes) is bigger than its topside weight
capability.
10) Braced monopod/monotower is RECOMMENDED for PHE WMO. But for
limited 1-6 well. Need improvement in brace support for more wells or
more topside weight.

11) Conventional Jacket (3 & 4 leg) is RECOMMENDED for PHE WMO.
Spreadbase 3-leg jacket/tripod is recommended for 1-6 well.
Conventional batter 3-leg jacket/tripod is recommended for 1-15 well.
Conventional batter 4-leg jacket is recommended for 1-16 well if smaller
pile diameter and higher environmental load is considered.
12) Straight Jacket (3 & 4 leg) is less recommended for PHE WMO since
straight type structural configuration is not effective because it has less
capability to encounter higher environmental load better than batter leg
type. But for installation consideration for example using jackup rig
installation, it may be considered.
13) Jackup Structure is not recommended since it is not effective for PHE
WMO area and there is problem with difficult soil.
14) Self Installed Platform and Buoyant Tower is not recommended yet, since
they are not proven yet in Indonesia Offshore.
6. REFERENCES
1. H.J. Meek, P.G.F. Sliggers, Alternative Low-Cost Wellhead Platform Concept(s) for Marginal Offshore Field
Developments, Proceedings of the Eleventh (2001) lnternational Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Stavanger, Norway, June 17--22, 2001
2. LAPI ITB Studi Pengembangan Konsep Desain Anjungan Lepas Pantai Tepat Guna, work donated by BPMIGAS,
Bandung, December 2004.
3. Iv Oil & Gas, Development of A Marginal Sattelite Field a presentation slide, accessed from
http://www.slideshare.net/Sander_van_oirschot/presentationwebsafe on July 9th, 2013.
4. http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/corvina-oil-gas-field-peru/corvina-oil-gas-field-peru1.html , accesed 19
July 2013.
5. http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/120517/BPZ-RESOURCES-INC_8-K/a12-12471_1ex99d1.htm#b, accesed 20 July 2013
6. http://www.worldoil.com/October-2012-Drilling-advances.html accesed 23 July 2013
7. http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/ accesed 23 July 2013
8. http://www.hortonwison.com/technology/buoyant-tower/ accesed 24 July 2013
9. T-Time Magazine No.1 2013 , page 5.
10. http://www.epmag.com/EP-Magazine/archive/A-marginal-field-approach_2805 accesed 17 May 2013
11. Chakrabarti Subrata, Handbook of Offshore Engineering by Vol 1, Offshore Structure Analysis, Inc., Plainfield, Illinois,
USA Elsevier, 2005
12. Offshore Magazine, (January 2001). 2001 Worldwide Survey of Minimal Offshore Fixed Platforms & Decks for Marginal
Fields.
13. Martec, Minimal Structures for Marginal Nova Scotia Developments, a presentation slide May 12 2009.
14. Nicholson, Graham, et all Modular Design for Low Cost Minimum Facilities Platforms, Offshore South East Asia
Conference, Singapore, November 2012.
15. Bob Manley, Minimal structures open global production opportunities Offshore Magazine January 1999.
7. APPENDIX
APPENDIX A - World Experience on Typical Offshore
APPENDIX B - Literatur Study on Buoyant Tower
APPENDIX C - Sensitivity Analysis on Marginal Field
Fixed Platform
APPENDIX D - Amoco Study for Marginal Field Minimal
Platform
APPENDIX E - Offshore Magazine Survey & Martec
Study for Marginal Field Structure
APPENDIX F- iV-Group Study of Marginal Field Satellite
Field
APPENDIX A
World Experience on Typical Offshore
World Experience on Typical Offshore Platform for
Marginal Field
There are more than 100 minimal Novel Fixed Structures (from Offshore Magazine, January 2001) [Ref 12]
Production Steel Water

structure designs and most of these Type
Name Company
MMscfd Weight Depth m
Unit Name
were intended to support deck payloads BOPD (tons) (ft)
SeaHorse 60 1200 92
of 400-1000 tons and transmit the III
Atlantia
5000 (300)
functional and environmental loads to EMOP-3S Enercon
100
8000
2300 122
(400)
Tripod
the seafloor through driven or drilled Skirt pile
Mustang
80 2800 132
Tripod 2000 (433)
and grouted piles. 60 1500 114
Tripod Pinnacle
Some of the other structures carry larger 1000
25 300
(375)
27.4
Caisson Atlantia
deck payloads and/or rely on gravity (90)
Petro- 35 300 49
base structures, rather than piles, to Caisson and Caisson
Marine 3000 (161)
Braced
transmit the loads to the seafloor. Caisson Sea pony Atlantia
25 520 61
(200)
Although each minimal structure design Braced
Worley
50 620 73
Caisson 20000 (240)
is unique, these designs can be grouped 55 4600 36.5
Varg (NS) Aker
into structure types defined as Tripods, 57000 (120)
180 1380 41
Braced Caissons, Braced Monopods and AMOSS BPAmoco
(135)
Monotowe Monopo
Monotowers. r d (NS) Brown &
800 5100 33
{Modified Root 80000 (108)

AMOSS}
300 1310 54.9
SASP Saipem
(180)
Marginal Field
1. Tripod Typical Tripod Platform
Tripods: A typical Tripod is a
tubular space frame consisting
of three legs and the bracing
system that connects the legs. It
is secured to the seafloor with
three piles.
Some of the more distinctive
tripods are Atlantias SeaHorse
111, Enercons EMOP-3S,
Mustangs Skirt Pile Tripod and
Pinnacle Engineerings Tripod .
Marginal Field
2. Caissons and Braced Caisson
A Caisson is a relatively large-diameter cylindrical shell that
supports a small deck and this type of a structure is
applicable to relatively shallow water depth sites.
The Caisson structures installed in deeper water are
provided with a bracing system to resist lateral loading.
A Caisson that may be subjected to hurricane loading is
typically limited to water depth sites of about 50 m (165 ft)
while the Braced Caisson makes it cost-effective to utilise
these Caissons to sites with water depths of 80-100 m (260-
330 ft).
Marginal Field
3. Monotower / Monopod
A typical monotower is a large-diameter
cylindrical shell supporting a deck structure
and it transfers the functional and
environmental loads to the foundation
through the framing system and the piles.
Typically, a monotower is supported by four
piles at four corners of the framing system.
The size of the monotower and the
restraining system (i.e. framing system and
piles) depend on the deck payload and the
environmental condition.
Thus, as illustrated in Table A- 1, the
structures identified to be in the harsh North
Sea environment would require substantial Typical monotower platform:
steel to resist wind, wave and current loads. Monopod platform in Alaska,
USA (Up ), Pertamina APN A
Platform (Down)
Marginal Field
4. Conductor Supported Platform
Conductor Supported Minimum
Offshore Structures (known as
CoSMOS platforms), utilize the well
conductors to support the topsides
thus eliminating the need for a
separate supporting jacket structure.
They offer particular benefits in terms
of modular design, fast procurement, Standalone MFP (Olowi Field Offshore Gabon)
low fabrication cost as well as ease of
installation since they can be installed
from a jack-up or crane barge without
the need for costly installation vessels.
An example of showing the installation
of a CoSMOS platform for the Olowi
field offshore Gabon
Marginal Field
Two Ways of Installation Method
Installation with a Crane Barge (Left) or Jackup (Right)

Marginal Field
5. Self elevating platform

Self elevating platform can
use existing jack-up
structure to be a platform.
Key features of this
platform are:
Platform self-installs using
lift mechanism at offshore
Deep Panuke PFC, (2010)
site.
Foundations typically
gravity based
Suitable for larger, heavier
equipment requirements.
Marginal Field
6. Self Installed Platform
Self installed platform is
a platform that do not
need derrick barge or
drilling rig in its
Self Installed Platform (SIP Type II)
inatallation.
APPENDIX B
Group Study of Marginal Field
Satellite Field
CRANE/BARGE INSTALLED - MULTILEGGED JACKET
Advantages
Proven concept
Supports all marginal topsides
Can support work-over units
Disadvantages
Requires heavy lift vessel

Main pile jackets require field
welds
High installation costs
CRANE/BARGE INSTALLED MINIMAL BRACED
Advantages
Low weight
Disadvantages
Requires heavy lift vessel

Limited future expansion
Jack-up rig required for
work-over
RIG/BARGE INSTALLED CONDUCTOR SUPPORTED
Advantages
Cost effective
Disadvantages
Topsides limited to 200 tonnes

Permitting
Not to be pursued
RIG/BARGE INSTALLED CONDUCTOR SUPPORTED
Advantages
Low weight
Protected conductors and risers
Disadvantages
Cannot pre-drill wells

Work-over requires drilling rig
Limited topside weight
Sensitive to dynamic motions
fatigue additional bracings
PLATFORM CONCEPT COMPARISON
Relative
400 tonnes Low Cost
Self Installable Pre-drilling Weight in 35
topside Removal
meter wat er
Jacket No Yes Yes High No
Braced Tower No Yes Yes Low No
Conductor sup No No Yes Low No
Monotower No Perhaps No 30 m max No

SIP 1 Yes No No Low Yes
SIP 2 Yes Yes Perhaps High Yes
SIP 3 Yes Yes Yes Low Yes
SIP 4 Yes Yes Perhaps High Yes

12.1 Literatur Study On Cost Effective Platform (Jacket Design) - Upload

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

12.1 Literatur Study On Cost Effective Platform (Jacket Design) - Upload

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Literature Study on Cost Effective

Platform for Marginal Field

West Madura Offshore Location

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

B. Structures that do not use conductors Driven piles

D. Other Structures that do not use all Steel

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

There are two(2) structures in this group:

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

There are six (6) structures in this group:

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

There are four (4) structures in this group:

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

A 9,000t F3FA SIP2 platform installed.

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

There is one (1) structure in this group:

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

1st shallow water buoyant

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

3. PLATFORM STRUCTURES FOR MARGINAL FIELD

Use established and proven installation

Sharing facility with drilling division. Use a jack-up rig already on

Sample of Installation Sequence using Jackup Rig (1/2)

Sample of Installation Sequence using Jackup Rig (2/2)

Sharing facility with pipeline installation. Use pipeline derrick lay

Sample of Installation Sequence using Derrick Barge

Use self-instalIable platforms, thus avoiding the use of

Cost reductions by applying a better contract strategy between the

4 Installation Cost (Alternatives) 30- 50%

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Production Steel Water

{Modified Root 80000 (108)

Installation with a Crane Barge (Left) or Jackup (Right)

5. Self elevating platform

Requires heavy lift vessel

Requires heavy lift vessel

Topsides limited to 200 tonnes

Cannot pre-drill wells

Conductor sup No No Yes Low No

Monotower No Perhaps No 30 m max No

También podría gustarte