DW Feasibility Option Selection Rev B Jan 2 2014

XXX Development
Facility Feasibility Studies

Doc #: YYY-DRL-PM-PEP-0001-B
03 Jan 2014
XXX Development
Facility Feasibility & Option Selection Plan
B For Information Jan 3 2014 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
1 of 16
Client Document No.
XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 FACILITY WORK PLAN SUMMARY ................................................................... 4
2 WORKPLAN................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 STUDY ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 5
2.2 FEASIBILITY STUDIES....................................................................................... 7
3 OPTION SCREENING (QUALITATIVE SELECTION – PHASE 1) ................................. 8
3.1 SCREENING SUMMATION............................................................................... 10
3.2 OPTION SELECTION PHASE 2 (QUANTITATIVE)........................................... 11
3.3 PHASE 2 OPTION SELECTION........................................................................ 11
3.4 HULL SELECTION ............................................................................................ 13
3.5 RISK ASSESSMENT......................................................................................... 14
3.6 PHASE 2 OPTION SELECTION RESULTS SUMMARY ................................... 15
4 VE STUDY .................................................................................................................... 16
5 FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION GATE CRITERIA ............................................ 16
6 CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES............................................... 17
7 FEED INPUT & ITT DATA ............................................................................................ 18
8 STUDY TEAM ORGANISATION .................................................................................. 19
8.1 STUDY TOOLS AND PROCEDURES ............................................................... 19
9 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE ...................................................................................... 25
9.1 SCHEDULING ................................................................................................... 25
DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
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:

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
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)
3. Preliminary Functional Requirements
4. 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
Graphic representation FRONT
of study END
stages:
Work Processes: - Front End Gate Process
Field Planning
Cost estimates
Feasibility studies
Concept Selection
±40% Concept Definition
±30% Execution
Most likely
±20% to succeed Most cost
technology efficient concepts
±10% Improved
subsystems Improved
execution
Total field
Major building block level System / discipline level
development level
part of the Aker group

3-Jul-13 Slide 3
© 2007 Aker Kvaerner

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
 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
Reservoir
STAND ALONE
System
Reservoir
CASE Name
Drive
HC Comment
Reservoir Operability SUM
Tool Box Relative Project Recovery Technical Installation &
Cost Schedule and Yield Risk & HUC Reliability
STA-YOL-ONS-MODU- C
A
B
IG
R
P
T
D
W
M
F
JE
O
S This scheme will require a Duplex Pipeline to shore
400 Depletion M
tA
S
o
lC
L
E
riP
e
O
xu
a
fn
p with high 11 percent CO2 and no - dewatering or
phase split offshore. Scheme will also require
FWS Onshore Im
O
o
n
R
re
a
b
P
M
A
tyxS
lD
ifscp complex and not yet proven subsea compression or
3 3 4 4 4 n
a
irp
d
g
xcu
Itw
R
O
S
e
lU
o
ksh 5 23
onshore well boost compression. Both will result in
higher well back pressure and upto 10 percent loss
fkM
u
itlS
a
d
rT
o
h
e of reserves with higher abandonment pressure.
Scheme also has a large, sophisticated gas and
f
A
O
cig
e
b
a
L
U
rtW
o
d NGL plant to be built onshore. Incurs a high capex,
o
a
fS
n
tK
ilT
d
p
re high risk and reduced recovery and operability.
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
XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
 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.

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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 Building
Building Block
Block Weighing
Weighing Factor
Factor
Risk
Risk Criteria
Criteria Weighing
Weighing Factor
Factor Risk
Risk Criteria
Criteria Score
Score
Option
Option Resulting
Resulting Score
Score

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
6 CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES
Contracting strategy interacts with contractor selection, schedule duration and integration
location, and installation responsibility.
Example Deepwater Floater Contracting Options:
5. OWNER & ENG PMT

3. NEG EPC(I) BEFORE 4. OWNER PMT 6. OWNER FEED &
1. TYPICAL EPC(I) 2. FEED COMPETITION WORK ON UNIT
FEED &SUBS SUB EPCs
RATES
DRILLING
DRILLING
DRILLING
DRILLING
DRILLING
DRILLING
TOPSIDE
TOPSIDE
TOPSIDE
TOPSIDE
TOPSIDE
TOPSIDE
HULL
HULL
HULL
HULL
HULL
HULL
BUSINESS NAME
Concept Screening and Pre-Feasibility

OWNER OWNER OWNER OWNER OWNER OWNER
Engineering
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

EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC
Acceptance
EPC CONTRACTOR
INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR
ENGINEERING CONTR
CONSULTANT IN HOUSE
OWNER
SEPARATE SUBCONTRACTS

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014
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
03 Jan 2014

XXX Development
03 Jan 2014
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:

DW Feasibility Option Selection Rev B Jan 2 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

DW Feasibility Option Selection Rev B Jan 2 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DW Feasibility Option Selection Rev B Jan 2 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XXX Development

Facility Feasibility Studies

Facility Feasibility & Option Selection Plan

B For Information Jan 3 2014 MR JM / SC DL

XXX Facility Feasibility & Option Selection Plan

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

1.1 FACILITY WORK PLAN SUMMARY

1. Development Team Set-up & mobilization

Work Processes: - Front End Gate Process

part of the Aker group

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

2.1 STUDY ACTIVITIES

 STUDY TEAM SET-UP

A provisional suggested FE team would be organized as follows:

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

2.2 FEASIBILITY STUDIES

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

3 OPTION SCREENING (QUALITATIVE SELECTION – PHASE 1)

Once an understanding is established of feasible building blocks and credible schemes,

 Agree screening selection parameters

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

 Screening Workshop to select leading options based on :

3.1 SCREENING SUMMATION

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

3.2 OPTION SELECTION PHASE 2 (QUANTITATIVE)

The Phase 2 Option Selection Methodology objectives are as follows:

3.3 PHASE 2 OPTION SELECTION

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

3.4 HULL SELECTION

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

3.5 RISK ASSESSMENT

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

3.6 PHASE 2 OPTION SELECTION RESULTS SUMMARY

3.6.1 OPTION SELECTION APPROVAL AND FEASIBILITY PACKAGE

 Workshop and Peer - Partner participation

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

5 FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION GATE CRITERIA

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

6 CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES

Example Deepwater Floater Contracting Options:

5. OWNER & ENG PMT

Concept Screening and Pre-Feasibility

Commissioning, Handover and

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

7 FEED INPUT & ITT DATA

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

8 STUDY TEAM ORGANISATION

8.1 STUDY TOOLS AND PROCEDURES

8.1.1 FILE MANAGEMENT

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

8.1.2 EQUIPMENT NUMBERING

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

DW FEASIBILITY & OPTION SELECTION Rev B Jan 2 2014

8.1.4 ACTION REGISTER

8.1.5 ASSUMPTIONS REGISTER