Higher Level Development Issues

Possible Issues for Development Project Strategy

Strategy
Capture Total Infrastructure
Low Cost/ Minimal CAPEX
Green Solution
Earliest Oil

Requirement

Objective

Major owner in regional infrastructure for full-field

developments, existing COMPANY's and 3rd party production

Influence regional development and reduce COMPANYs

$/bbl of total lifting on new and existing developments.

Minimize capital development costs

Lowest CAPEX to produce economic reserves

Minimize emissions, risk of pollution and environmental
impact. Enhance corporate image to the public/industry.
Earliest possible delivery of sustained production to market
that enhances full-field development
Maximize reserves from the field(s) in full-field
development while meeting hurdles

Environmentally Optimized Development

Early oil to market solution.

No New Technology

Development provides maximum recovery of resources

through the life of the field
Full field development to take place using proven technology
for that met-ocean environment

Lookalike for existing

Exploration success similar to existing development

Maximise Recovery

Reduce technology and schedule risk

Optimize development assuming a full-field, stand-alone
development

Key Development Issues

Options
Water
Injection
Multiple
Wet Tress
Build for
expansion
(Equity)

Combination of
Gas & Water

TLP/Spar/TPG3300

FPSO

Semi

Tie Back to
Infrastructure

Offshore
Local

Store in alternate
horizon

Export via
Pipeline

Loop existing line

Standalone

Purchase

Lease

None

Confirm
Upside

Gas Injection

Reservoir Pressure Mainte

Number of Drill Sites
Single
Development Options
Dry Trees
Tightly design for
capacity (fit for
purpose)
Flexibility to Process
Full Field Development

Host Facility Option

Liquid Export System

Gas Management Options

Gas Pipeline System
Lease/Purchase Option
Resource Appraisal Focus

Appraisal Program

Additional Drilling

Seismic Programme
Testing

Flow Test

EPS Concept

Subsea Tieback

EPS Capability
FPS Solution for EPS

Combination
Build for future
growth (expansion
capability)
Subsea Tie-Back
to Host Facility
Through existing
New Build Pipeline
Host Facility
Gas to Liquids

Offshore Utilisation Through existing

(Electric power)
host facility

Tie back to
infrastructure
PHA

Non pipeline
solution
Lease to Own

Build to Sell

Confirm downside

combined multiple
appraise
exploration
existing
prospects/appraisal of
discovery
existing discovery
Acquire new data

Early Production

Natural Depletion

Fit for purpose

Lease

Page 1

re-process
existing
data
Transient

None
None

FPS
Fits any
field

None
Expendable

N/A

Purchase

Lease to Own

Company buildoutsource/sell

N/A

Revised Key Aspects

Concept Review
Key Aspects for Consideration
Aspect
Design Safety
Decommissioning

Description
Layouts, explosion and fire resistance, escape and
overall integrity

Long Term Integrity/IMR

HSE
Environmental Impact

Construction, installation, decommissioning influences

Emissions/Spills

Significance of concept in terms of risks of spills and

consequences and inherent emmission levels

Flexibility/Robustness to
Uncertainty
Range of application
Technical
Maturity of Application
Overall Reliability
Competitive Sourcing
Commercial/Political

Political/partner
involvement

Comments
partly relates to technical
maturity and overall
reliability
This may be a public affairs
issue

Suitability of concept for easy expansion/changeout of

facilities with minimal cost impact
flexibility to well count, water depth, motion performance,
topsides weight capacity, mooring system, wellstream
import/tiebacks and export
Experience of concept by COMPANY's or others - novel
technology content
Full life assessment including availability and operating
costs (especially sustaining capex)
more than one source of materials, fabrication and
installation
influence of partners and countries on sourcing and
selection

Construction
Transportation
Construction/Installa
Installation
tion
Construction/Installation
risk

Cost

Schedule

Minimum Capex and

Opex

Significance of the balance of Capex versus Opex in full

life business case
Flattest rate of cost change with production rate, topsides,
Low sensitivity to change
well numbers or water depth
Minimum time to First
Production

Significance of concept in the development timescale including rampup impact

Low sensitivity to change

Flattest rate of change of development schedule

Interface Issues

Minimised design
sensitivity to interfaces
Interface complexity

Minimisation of installation complexity and cost

Integration Issues

Regional/expansion
issues

Flexibility of concept to additions/modifications to enable

expansion or incorporation into wider development

Key Risks
Page 2

PSA may dictate

needs to account for

seasonal step changes