SPE-197302-MS

Unmanned Facilities: The Way to $30bn Savings

Michael Nevin, io consulting

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11-14 November 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In the Arabian gulf alone, there are an estimated 500+ wellhead towers, of varying designs, varying
complexity, varying cost, currently installed.. Expand that to a global view and the number is estimated to
be greater than 7000.
Consider the magnitude of life cycle cost savings and HSE performance improvements that would
have been made if all those towers could have been designed differently, with significantly less topsides
equipment and hence CAPEX, reduced maintenance requirements resulting in much lower OPEX, offshore
visitation reduced to once per year, helicopter transportation eliminated – and yet the same basic function
maintained. More importantly, as our industry faces up to the challenge of increasingly marginal field
developments in an increasingly cost competitive environment, consider the potential to unlock previously
non-economic projects through a new approach to this key element.
In this paper we demonstrate what the wellhead tower of today could look like, based on a case study
of a recent project undertaken for a major operator. We discuss the technologies required and the approach
to operations and maintenance to significantly reduce the life cycle cost, reduce offshore visitation and
improve the HSE performance of future wellhead towers.
Finally, with an eye to the ever-evolving future, we project how a similar approach may be adopted not
only for wellhead towers, but for more functionally complex processing facilities.

Background
What does a typical wellhead tower look like today? They, of course, vary significantly in design and
function but some general observations can be made.
In Abu Dhabi and the Arabian Gulf, most wellhead towers are designed to be "unmanned", or at least
"not normally manned". However, the functionality and hence topsides weight and cost are substantial with
typical "new generation" designs resulting in more than 2000Te topsides weight and CAPEX between $70
to $100 million.
Most of these towers;

• can accommodate up to 12 well slots, or more through slot extensions / cantilever designs;

• are equipped with helidecks as well as boat landings, and;

2 SPE-197302-MS

• include equipment such as test separators or multi-phase meters, chemical injection packages,
hydraulic control systems, firewater systems, Local Electrical Room (LER) & temporary refuge
with associated HVAC systems.
Some of them also include heavy platform cranes designed to allow wireline or even coiled tubing
operations.
Whilst the above may not sound like a huge amount of equipment, it all adds up, and it all introduces
maintenance and intervention requirements. So, whilst these facilities are "normally not manned", the
visitation frequency can be in the region of once per month, which drives a significant amount of OPEX
and transportation of people. This is both costly and hazardous.

Minimum Facilities / Minimum Visitation Concept

In this paper, we describe the approach taken on a recent project, where we developed a wellhead tower
concept, seeking to;

• reduce CAPEX by minimising topsides functionality as far as possible;

• reduce OPEX (and hence life cycle cost) by reducing maintenance requirements, and;

• reduce OPEX and improve HSE performance by reducing offshore visitation frequency, to a target
of not more than once per year.
This breaks down into two main areas, as follows:

• Different approaches, changing design and operating philosophies.

• Technology enablers, looking at use of new technologies aimed at enabling remote operation, and
minimised maintenance requirements.

Different Approaches
Stripping off functionality. The first step in the process involves taking a critical view of what equipment
and functionality really needs to be installed permanently on the wellhead tower. We did this by taking
a reference case design; a recently installed wellhead tower, owned and operated by the same operating
company, in the same basin.
Through a series of value engineering exercises, we returned to first principles and asked questions
such as "why do I need this?", "how else can I do this?", "is this system creating significant maintenance
requirement?", "is this system, creating the need for an additional support system, which in turn drives even
more maintenance?"
By really challenging ourselves on the above questions, we were able to exceed our expectations in terms
of reducing the amount of equipment on the topsides, reducing the total "equipment" weight from 280 Te
to just 23 Te: a 92% reduction.
The headline items included:

• removal of the helideck, replaced by adopting a "walk-to-work" approach, described later;

• removal of the platform crane, again enabled by use of a crane on the "walk-to-work" vessel;

• significant reduction in electrical / instruments / telecoms equipment, as a knock-on effect of the

above equipment removal;
• removal of local electrical rooms and the need for HVAC systems;
SPE-197302-MS 3

• significant reduction in power demand, driven by the removal of numerous load generating
systems, ultimately enabling platform power to reach less than 2kW and to be provided by a reliable
renewables energy package (integrated wind/solar/battery package);
• removal of the flare system by designing with HIPPS and minimising topsides volume, hence
eliminating the need for automatic depressurisation;
• removal of chemical injection requirements and major reduction in pigging requirements by
adopting a CRA export pipeline (less than 20km for the case in question), and;
• removal of a number of other support systems including closed drains, fuel gas, diesel storage,
emergency power, instrument air, fresh water system, all largely as a knock-on effect of the above
major equipment removals and/or enabled by the "walk-to-work" system.
Whilst the above may seem like an extreme reduction in functionality, it is worth noting that the
fundamental function of the wellhead tower is still achieved, that is to safely and effectively transfer well
fluids from the wells to the export pipeline. It could indeed be argued that the "norm" in the industry has been
allowed to creep over the years, allowing an inherent level of luxury which today's market can no longer
sustain. We are not changing the function or reducing the performance of the system; we are simplifying
the approach and removing significant gold plating in current designs.
A focus on minimising maintenance. Having removed non-essential functionality from the wellhead
tower, the approach focused on addressing maintenance requirements. Of course, the most effective way
of reducing maintenance requirements is to remove equipment and complexity, but beyond that, we can
also look at the types of equipment we select for a given function. An example of this is the selection of
electrically actuated valves instead of hydraulically or air actuated, permitting the removal of hydraulic fluid
and instrument air systems, both of which drive maintenance.
Furthermore, we can think about our approach to automation and monitoring to ensure that we
can manage as much of the operation as possible without physical presence at the wellhead tower.
Comprehensive monitoring from the downhole conditions to the topsides also allows changes in key
parameters to be identified early and maintenance interventions to be planned well in advance. As an extra
bonus, it also allows more analysis of well performance data and better reservoir / production management.
"Walk-to-Work " approach. The "walk-to-work" (W2W) system is a means of transportation to and
boarding offshore platforms. Rather than the old, rather hazardous systems of swing / rope transfer of people
from vessels to platforms, or the costly and higher risk helicopter transfer, the "walk-to-work" system uses
motion compensated gangways, available from multiple suppliers to the industry today. This is clearly a
much safer way to transfer people to the platform but significantly, can also be used to transfer equipment
as well.
The benefits of adopting this approach are numerous but the key ones include the following:

• Replaces helicopter transport, reducing OPEX and significantly reducing HSE risk (applicable to
both new and existing platforms with suitable boat landings).
• Allows new wellhead towers to be designed without helideck.

• May allow removal of the need for a platform crane, replacing the function with a crane on the
W2W vessel.
• Allows temporary equipment required during platform visits (fresh water, portable pig launchers,
personnel safety equipment) to be located on the W2W vessel as opposed to permanently installed
on the platform (and hence less overall equipment required to serve a given field area).
• Enables more productive time on day visits to platforms as restrictions on travel windows are
reduced vs helicopter transit and things like toolbox talks and such preparations can be performed
on the vessel not on the platform.
4 SPE-197302-MS

This approach is currently used by several major operators in the North Sea and Far East, and is being
introduced into the Gulf of Mexico. It has not been widely adopted in the Arabian Gulf / Middle East region,
however given the shallow waters in the region and the tendency towards large offshore developments
with high counts of wellhead towers, the potential efficiencies which this approach could bring are clearly
significant, especially if adopted at a national or regional level.

Technology Enablers
Electrically actuated valves. After significant study and liaison with technology providers, we were able
to identify a solution based entirely on electrical actuation of valves. This included all of the following key
actuated valves on the wellhead tower, all of which are shown to be available at Technology Readiness
Level (TRL) 7 or better and attended testing/maintenance frequency of >1 year:

• Xmas tree valves (Master Valve, Flowing Wing Valve, Kicker Wing Valve, Annulus Valves and
Choke Valve), all at TRL7 and with anticipated maintenance frequency > every 3 years.
• Downhole Safety Valve also at TRL7, requiring closure mechanism operation testing every 6-12
months to verify the rate of leakage and more frequent cycling but not requiring platform visitation
(can be done remotely).
• An electrically actuated wireline shearing valve is currently unavailable but can instead be replaced
by a wireline cutting BOP on the well for any interventions.
• Topsides HIPPs Valves (mechanically actuated, self-contained), require stroke test every 2 years
to meet SIL3 integrity target.
• Riser ESDV (electro-hydraulic), requiring full stroke tested every 2 years

• Isolation Valves which are readily available based on worldwide use for
○ Motor Operated and Manual Valves
○ Relief valves typically requiring re-certification every 2 years.

Availability and proven feasibility of the above, enabled a valve strategy achieving full and complete
electrification of the wellhead tower. In turn, in combination with the CRA pipeline selection and significant
reduction in wellhead tower electrical loads, it was possible to completely eliminate the subsea umbilical for
power, chemicals & hydraulic fluid supply, realising significant CAPEX and execution schedule benefits.
Renewables Based Power. Having significantly reduced the electrical load demand of the wellhead tower
(down to less than 2 kW continuous load), through removal of load generating equipment, a key objective
SPE-197302-MS 5

of the concept development was to eliminate the need for a subsea power cable from the host platform to
the wellhead tower.
Conventional diesel power generation was considered but not preferred as it would re-introduce
additional equipment and functionality to the platform (diesel storage requiring visitation for resupply, diesel
transfer pumps requiring maintenance etc). Adopting our agile approach to studies, a focussed parallel sprint
was performed involving close liaison with technology providers to explore and prove the feasibility of
platform based renewable power generation.
The study brought about a positive conclusion based on a hybrid renewables package consisting of 24
solar panels, a 2.5 kW rated foldable wind turbine and a battery back to smooth out fluctuations in supply
and demand. The wind turbine is accommodated on the top deck of the NUI and the solar panels around two
sides of the top deck and the anticipated maintenance frequency of the overall package is once every 2 years.
Digital Strategy. A digital production management strategy for the wellhead tower was also developed
and included:

• intelligent completions with the multilevel wells able to be choked/opened at the appropriate zone
remotely (using an electrically actuated active flow control device rather than by intervention with a
wireline unit as is required for a passive inflow control device). This reduces the need for attendance
to the platform and minimises risks with workovers;
• Distributed Acoustic Sensing (using downhole fibre optic) This technology allows the performance
of the wells to be monitored remotely, including sand and water detection, so that mitigating action
can be taken to reduce the workover and intervention needs as well as optimising production
performance and ultimate recovery from each well;
• predictive corrosion monitoring system to allow preventive maintenance action to be scheduled in
advance for execution during planned platform visits, and;
• downhole distributed temperature sensing.

Overall, the digital strategy contributes to achieving the target visitation frequency of maximum once per
year, allowing remote monitoring and optimisation of well performance and ultimately improving overall
recovery and economic return for the development.

The Power of Systems Thinking

What starts to emerge as we walk through this approach and technology selection is that there is something
of a domino effect:

• Removing one system (e.g. the platform crane or flare system), results in the removal of another
(diesel system or closed drains system).
• Removing any system clearly results in a reduced amount of maintenance being required, the
cumulative effect of which is significant.
• Removing equipment also significantly reduces the demand on utility and support systems (e.g.
power) enabling fit for purpose solutions to be adopted.
• Reducing maintenance requirements and hence visitation frequency, enables or improves the case
for adopting a "walk-to-work" approach, eliminating the helideck.
• Adopting the "walk-to-work" approach in turn enables other support systems, which are required
only during visitation, to be removed as permanent installations, and instead housed on the walk-
to-work vessel (e.g. the platform crane, temporary safety equipment, fresh water).
6 SPE-197302-MS

This clearly demonstrates the importance of thinking holistically when tackling a problem or developing
a new concept, considering the entire system at play as opposed to the individual items in isolation,
and recognising the interdependencies between different component parts. This is a version of "systems
thinking", a philosophy which is engrained into the our approach to development studies (McLachlan, 2019).

Savings
It is clear from the above concept description that the CAPEX savings potential with this minimum
equipment approach are significant. In addition, we can expect to see OPEX benefits, especially due to the
adoption of the "walk-to-work" systems and the overall reduction in offshore visitation and maintenance.
In the specific study performed, some of the savings (reduced pigging, elimination of corrosion inhibiting
chemicals) were enabled by the selection of a CRA material for the 17km export pipeline. This adds
significant CAPEX, and needs to be evaluatedagainst the other CAPEX and OPEX savings on a case by
case basis. In the case of the study in question this result was clearly in favour of the adopted approach.
Based on this study, we estimated that the average wellhead tower benefited from approximately
$30 million CAPEX savings by adopting the concept. This excludes the estimated OPEX savings of
approximately $20 to $30 million over the course of field life ($10 to $15 million notional Present Value
terms at discount rate of 9% over 20 years).
So total life cycle cost savings of $50 to 60 million per wellhead tower ($40 to 45 notional Present Value).
Apply that retrospectively to the 500+ wellhead towers currently located in the Gulf alone and the result
would have been savings upwards of $25 billion.

Case by Case
Of course, no two field developments are quite the same and so whilst the described concept has been
demonstrated for a particular development with significant economic and HSE benefit, it is important to
perform specific studies to adapt the concept to the specifics of each application.
SPE-197302-MS 7

One specific example arises when the wells require Electro-Submersible Pumps (ESPs) for economic
performance. This drives a significant amount of electrical equipment on the wellhead tower topsides as
well as a high electrical demand (typically 200 to 500 kW per well). This in turn inhibits the ability to reduce
electrical load and drives a significant amount of real estate and topsides weight and hence the described
approach may not achieve the same degree of benefit. Nonetheless, some benefits of adopting for example
the walk-to-work system may still be attractive.

A New Hope
The case study presented focussed purely on a minimalist, remote operated approach to wellhead towers,
based on driving down functionality. Through an additional in-house study, we investigated the feasibility
of taking a much larger leap and considering remote, unmanned operation of more complex upstream oil
and gas processing facilities. For the purpose of this study, a generic functional requirement was defined
based on processing a representative / typical oil stream from wells to a typical export product specification.
By using novel and innovative solutions, and importantly by challenging traditional approaches, a design
with reduced equipment count, platform weight and attendance was achieved by comparison to a defined
typical reference case. The proposed design was demonstrated as technically ready for implementation
whilst meeting the functional requirements of an offshore processing facility.
Innovations included digital strategies such as predictive maintenance, robotic inspection and remote
monitoring to reduce the reactive maintenance hours offshore by up to 85% while maintaining platform
availability. As with the wellhead tower study, walk-to-work platform access was preferred over helicopter
access and introduced the potential for sharing of walk-to-work systems between assets and industries.
Walk-to-work access has the advantage that no permanent living quarters are required, whilst a significant
reduction in fabric maintenance manhours is achieved by carrying out inspection remotely.
CAPEX estimates and ground-up OPEX estimates were prepared, demonstrating a potential saving of
30% on CAPEX and 50% on OPEX vs the reference case; significant for any development.

Conclusion
In this paper we have presented findings and insights gained from a recent study on a real project for a major
offshore operator, demonstrating the significant potential benefits of targeting much reduced facilities on
wellhead towers, enabling much reduced visitation frequency and improved HSE performance. We believe
that this opportunity exists now and that the technology required is readily available.
We have also, based on internal studies, given a flavour of how this may in the future be extended to
larger, more complex offshore processing facilities. At present this can be considered a future vision but
not one which is out of sight by any means given the rapid advances in technology which the oil and gas
industry has achieved in recent times. Indeed, we have demonstrated that most of the required individual
technologies are available today.
The potential life cycle cost savings of adopting the wellhead tower concept are shown to be in the region
of $50 to 60 million per wellhead tower over a 20 year field life ($40 to 45 notional present value).
Apply this to a single large Arabian gulf development, for example Lower Zakum which has
approximately 70 wellhead towers, and a similar development today could see life cycle savings of $3 to 4
billion. Apply it across the region and we could be looking at upwards of $25 billion.
It is not known just how many such large developments will take place in the future and more specifically
how many new wellhead towers can be envisaged in the region or globally. However, it is clear that the
potential savings are significant. Add to that the very real reduction in risk to safety of personnel and the
case becomes very compelling indeed.
Even if the future outlook on wellhead towers is not likely to match the numbers of the past, it may
be considered that elements of this concept can be applied to existing mature developments, switching the
8 SPE-197302-MS

operating philosophy from helicopter transit based to W2W based and realising at least some of the OPEX
savings and certainly the HSE benefits.
It is clear that a shift in culture and a "break from the norm" attitude is required to make this happen in
the Arabian Gulf, but the prize is large and as we move forward into the "lower forever" oil price era, it
could be the difference between success or failure for many developments.

References
McLachlan, D. J., Isherwood, J., & Peile, M. (2019, April 26). Field Development: Agile Value Optimisation. Offshore
Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/29607-MS