Session 46 Phased Deepwater Field Developments - Pros and Cons of Phased Developments

Jon M. Duesund, A. Martinsen, Matthew Fitzsimmons
{"title":"Session 46 Phased Deepwater Field Developments - Pros and Cons of Phased Developments","authors":"Jon M. Duesund, A. Martinsen, Matthew Fitzsimmons","doi":"10.4043/29483-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In light of the deep industry downturn that started in 2014, there was a drastic reduction in the number of deepwater projects being sanctioned. Among the few projects that were sanctioned, many of them were tie-backs or smaller production facilities that potentially can be built out in phases. There are both pros and cons related to this trend of more phased and smaller developments and the purpose of this paper is to highlight these differences. We identify five pros and five cons. The pros are relatively intuitive, e.g. they lower the initial capex, payback period and overall project risk as you are committing fewer resources into the development project. On the other hand, the potential cons are less explicit and typically only visible longer term, including potentially lowering the long-term value creation, limiting the flexibility for future upside projects through e.g. increased/enhanced oil recovery (IOR/EOR) initiatives or tie-backs. By performing some sensitivities, it is possible to give examples where operators may miss some value creation by choosing phased and/or scaled down development solutions. We have looked at three project examples; Buckskin in the US Gulf of Mexico (GoM), Johan Castberg in the Norwegian Barents Sea and Liza offshore Guyana. For these three examples, the results of the sensitivity analysis suggest that overall value creation could have been increased 4-12% if the operators had chosen concepts with higher capacity. However, this increase is contingent on achiveving 20% savings on the capital expenditure (capex per boe) compared to the original concept. Additionally, these enlarged concepts would have created more risks, but from a subsurface and project execution point of view. As such, the pros may outweigh the cons of choosing a more phased and/or scaled down concepts for these examples. Nevertheless, it is important that the industry makes the proper assessments, including longer-term benefits, before making final investment decisions and not overlook potential value creation opportunities.","PeriodicalId":214691,"journal":{"name":"Day 4 Thu, May 09, 2019","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 4 Thu, May 09, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/29483-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In light of the deep industry downturn that started in 2014, there was a drastic reduction in the number of deepwater projects being sanctioned. Among the few projects that were sanctioned, many of them were tie-backs or smaller production facilities that potentially can be built out in phases. There are both pros and cons related to this trend of more phased and smaller developments and the purpose of this paper is to highlight these differences. We identify five pros and five cons. The pros are relatively intuitive, e.g. they lower the initial capex, payback period and overall project risk as you are committing fewer resources into the development project. On the other hand, the potential cons are less explicit and typically only visible longer term, including potentially lowering the long-term value creation, limiting the flexibility for future upside projects through e.g. increased/enhanced oil recovery (IOR/EOR) initiatives or tie-backs. By performing some sensitivities, it is possible to give examples where operators may miss some value creation by choosing phased and/or scaled down development solutions. We have looked at three project examples; Buckskin in the US Gulf of Mexico (GoM), Johan Castberg in the Norwegian Barents Sea and Liza offshore Guyana. For these three examples, the results of the sensitivity analysis suggest that overall value creation could have been increased 4-12% if the operators had chosen concepts with higher capacity. However, this increase is contingent on achiveving 20% savings on the capital expenditure (capex per boe) compared to the original concept. Additionally, these enlarged concepts would have created more risks, but from a subsurface and project execution point of view. As such, the pros may outweigh the cons of choosing a more phased and/or scaled down concepts for these examples. Nevertheless, it is important that the industry makes the proper assessments, including longer-term benefits, before making final investment decisions and not overlook potential value creation opportunities.
分阶段深水油田开发-分阶段开发的利弊
鉴于2014年开始的深水行业低迷,批准的深水项目数量急剧减少。在少数获得批准的项目中,许多是回接或可能分阶段建设的小型生产设施。与这种更分阶段和更小的开发趋势相关的优点和缺点都有,本文的目的是突出这些差异。我们确定了五个优点和五个缺点。优点相对直观,例如,它们降低了初始资本支出,回收期和整体项目风险,因为您在开发项目中投入的资源更少。另一方面,潜在的缺点不太明确,通常只在长期可见,包括可能降低长期价值创造,限制未来上行项目的灵活性,例如通过增加/提高石油采收率(IOR/EOR)计划或回接。通过执行一些敏感性,可以给出一些例子,说明运营商可能会因为选择分阶段和/或缩小开发解决方案而错过一些价值创造。我们已经看了三个项目的例子;Buckskin在美国墨西哥湾,Johan Castberg在挪威巴伦支海,Liza在圭亚那近海。对于这三个例子,敏感性分析的结果表明,如果运营商选择了更高容量的概念,总体价值创造可能会增加4-12%。然而,与最初的概念相比,这一增长取决于资本支出(每桶油当量的资本支出)能否节省20%。此外,这些扩大的概念会产生更多的风险,但从地下和项目执行的角度来看。因此,为这些示例选择更分阶段和/或按比例缩小的概念,其利大于弊。然而,在做出最终投资决策之前,油气行业必须进行适当的评估,包括长期效益,不要忽视潜在的价值创造机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信