OMAE2014-23461 Paper

SELECTION OF AN OFFSHORE PETROLEUM PRODUCTION SYSTEM BY EVALUATING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INDEX

Maiara Moreira Gonalves Graduate Program

Petroleum Science & Engineering University of Campinas

Campinas-SP, Brazil

Celso Kazuyuki Morooka Faculty of Mechanical Engineering & Center for

Petroleum Studies, LabRiser University of Campinas

Campinas-SP, Brazil

Ivan Rizzo Guilherme Statistics, Applied Mathematics and

Computation Dept., Paulista State University

Rio Claro-SP, Brazil

ABSTRACT The development of an offshore petroleum production

system corresponds to define a set of equipment to make

possible oil and gas extraction from an underwater petroleum

reservoir. To better comprehension of the process, definition of

this production system can be divided into phases. Phase I

corresponds to the selection of number of wells and type of the

well. Then, following the previous work (Franco, 2003), in the

Phase II, the layout arrangement of wells and the set of the

stationary Floating Production Unit (FPU) are selected. And, in

the Phase III, storage and offloading alternatives for the

produced oil and gas are selected.

The present paper aims to identify environmental impacts

associated with the each component of an offshore system for

oil and gas production, and quantify each of them through

indexes. It is expected to support the decision makers to select

the best fitted system for a given offshore petroleum field. The

increasing needs of petroleum to fulfill the energy matrix

demanded in Brazil, the growing concern of the society for

keeping the environment clean and the inclusion of an index

related to the environment besides the technical and

technological indexes usually taken makes it an important

contribution to improve the process for selection and decision

about the offshore production system. Particularly, it will be

fundamental in the adverse condition of the Pre-salt scenario of

petroleum production, in ultra-deep water depth and oil and gas

with more aggressive contaminants to the system.

The proposed methodology follows a similar procedure for

the assessment of environmental impacts through the use of environmental sensitivity index (ESI) and the use of impact

matrix (NOOA, 1997; Patin, 1999; Mariano and La Rovere,

2006). For the estimation of environmental impacts, it was

defined the ESI of the area to be developed, and it was

constructed an impact matrix based on the activities involved in

the installation of platform, operational phase and

decommissioning of a FPU and the elements from environment.

Therefore, this systematic and structured approach allowed

incorporating to the process of selection of the offshore

production system for an oil and gas field the selection of

alternative which combines the best technical and technological

characteristics with better aspects from the environment.

INTRODUCTION Nowadays, the petroleum performs an important role in the

context of Brazilian economy, and it also plays a fundamental

role in terms of the energy matrix of consumption in the

country. On the other hand, to maintain the petroleum

production overcoming the demand requirements, it is

mandatory to increase petroleum exploitation to reach large

accumulations such as those of the pre-salt, usually placed in a

more severe environmental condition.

Figure 1 shows typical configuration for an offshore

petroleum production system for deep and shallow waters

which usually incorporates technical and technological indexes

in the selection process.

In previous works, the development of an offshore

petroleum production system considered mainly economical

aspects (Morooka and Galeano, 1999; Morooka and Castro,

2002; Dezen and Morooka, 2003; Morooka and Carvalho,

2011). Franco (2003) describes an approach for the

Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering OMAE2014

June 8-13, 2014, San Francisco, California, USA

OMAE2014-23461

1 Copyright 2014 by ASME

development of an offshore petroleum production system based

on technical aspects, and uses Fuzzy Logic tools to support an

intelligent system to select and decide the best alternative.

Figure 1: Typical Offshore Petroleum Production System

composed by different components of system.

Taking into account the increasing adverse conditions of

production scenario, an index related to environment impact of

the each systems component is proposed to be added in the selection and decision process.

NOMENCLATURE EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

ESI - Environmental Sensitivity Index

FPSO - Floating Production Storage and Offloading

FPU - Floating Production Unit

FSO - Floating Storage and Offloading

MODU - Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit

SS - Semisubmersible

TLP - Tension Leg Platform

OFFSHORE PETROLEUM PRODUCTION SYSTEM The field discovery occurs in the Exploration Phase, which

consists to search entrapped hydrocarbon formation in the

underwater subsurface. In this manner, initially, a geophysical

survey usually done and the data acquired interpreted. Then, a

wildcat well is drilled, and with the evidence of a hydrocarbon

accumulation, the volume of oil in place is estimated. If

exploitation of the petroleum reservoir is economically viable,

the field development plan is decided and the design of the

production system is started.

Among initial steps of the field development, the wellbore

is built to reach the reservoir. Rotary drilling is the usual

process for the well construction, when the steel casing is

cemented into the bore to isolate it from the formation. Then,

the production equipment is set into the well, and commonly

artificial lifting devices or pumps are applied. Finally, each

subsea well is connected to a stationary FPU at the sea surface,

through pipes and risers.

Sometimes manifolds are used to organize petroleum flow

from the wells, and to minimize numbers of risers connected to

the FPU.

More details for offshore petroleum production systems

can be obtained from the literature (Chakrabarti, 1987; Jah et

al, 1998)

ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX ESI index allows an integrated view of the environmental

condition for a given region. Its main feature is the ability to

relate the sensitivity of an area in relation to a kind of impact.

ESI provides means to identify any changes of the

environmental scenario in an area or region coming from the

usage of each systems component. ESI is comprised with three general types of information: 1) shoreline classifications,

which are ranked according to a scale relating to sensitivity,

natural persistence of oil and ease of cleanup; 2) biological

resources, which include oil-sensitive animals and rare plants;

habitats, which are used by oil-sensitive species or are

themselves sensitive to oil spills, such as submersed aquatic

vegetation and coral reefs; and 3) human-use resources, which

are specific areas that have added sensitivity and value because

of their use, such as beaches parks and marine sanctuaries,

water intakes and archaeological sites (NOOA, 1997).

The concept of ESI is divided into three types: low,

medium and high. The environment with low ESI is decrypted

with high energy waves, substrate impermeable, intertidal zone

slope with 30 degrees or greater, biota with low density and the

shoreline type with rocks shores exposed and beaches with fine

to medium grained sand. Medium ESI is an area with high to

medium wave energy, substrate impermeable or semi

permeable, slope medium, the density of marine biota low, and

type of shoreline composed with mixed sand and gravel

beaches. And, sensitive areas with high ESIs are characterized

with low wave energy, flat substrate containing mud, the

complex ecosystem, and the shoreline consisting of salt

marshes and mangroves (NOOA, 1997).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN THE PETROLEUM PRODUCTION

Drilling fluids are used in the wellbore building process to

lubricate and cool down the drill bit and to transport rock

cuttings from the well bottom up to the surface. Two types of

drilling fluid are the most common: the water based fluid and

oil based one.

The oil-based fluids are widely used and commonly

applied for offshore well drilling. The drilling of horizontal


wells traditionally uses oil-based drilling fluids and, water

based ones in the vertical wells drilling.

An important issue is related to the use and disposal of

drilling wastes into the ocean. Water based drilling fluids

usually have lower costs when compared with other types.

They are biodegradable and easily disperse in water (Mariano

and La Rovere, 2006). From the other hand, oil-based muds are

harmful to the environment if discarded into the ocean due to

its toxicity and slow biodegradation.

Besides of the type of well, in the drilling process there are

decisions related to the number of wells and the layout

arrangement of wells. In areas with high environmental

sensitivity, the seafloor has a rich biodiversity of marine biota.

If many wells are drilled within those areas, the impact over

the biota would be large. Moreover, if the layout arrangement

of wells is satellite, the length of flowlines connecting each

well to FPU will be larger. And, the environmental impact

would be larger again, due to increase of the possibility of oil

spills.

Installation and commissioning of the FPU cause

environmental impact due to physical presence, pre-sweep

dredging activity, seabed disturbance and, finally, atmospheric

emissions resulting from power generation.

Storage and offloading of the produced petroleum affect

the environment because the existing probability of collision of

ships, and high environmental impact in the pipeline

construction. Thus, in areas with high ESI it is necessary a

careful environmental impact analysis regarding offloading

alternatives.

METHODOLOGY The proposed methodology follows a similar procedure for

the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) through the use of ESI (Patin, 1999; NOOA, 1997).

Therefore, the impact matrix is used to select the best FPU

alternative, and the ESI to define all the offshore production

system for the petroleum field.

In this process, the ESI is initially classified for the area of

the given petroleum field, as shown in Figure 2. Then, phases

for designing the offshore petroleum production system are

initiated.

Figure 2: ESI classification for the area of the given petroleum

field.

For the development of the production system, number of

wells, type of wells, layout arrangement of wells, type of the

FPU and, finally, oil storage and offloading process are defined.

The sequence and dependency among phases are schematically

shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Phases of Development of a Production System

for an Offshore Petroleum Field.

PHASE I

Phase I begins with the selection of number of wells. It is

decided based on the oil and gas reserves, flow rate per well

and the ESI index of the area (Figure 4). In areas with high ESI,

the number of wells must be low, because the vulnerability of

the area, independently the volume of reserve and the flow rate

per well. When the ESI is medium, the number of wells must be

medium if the volume of reserve and the flow rate per well are

low. And, the number of wells must be low, if the volume of

reserve is small and the flow rate per well is low. Finally, for

the low ESI, the number of wells will be high if the volume of

reserve is large and flow rate per well is high, and the number

of wells will be medium if the volume of reserve is medium

and flow rate per well is medium, and so on.

Figure 4: Determination of the Number of Wells and Type

of Well (Phase I).

Phase I

Number of Wells

Reserves Flow Rate per Well ESI

Area of the

Reservoir

Depth of the

Reservoir

Number

of Wells ESI

Type of Well

Development of an Offshore Petroleum Production System

Number

of Wells

Type of

Well

Arrangement

of Wells

FPU

Oil Storage

and

Offloading

Phase I Phase II Phase III

ESI

Low Medium High


Following in the Phase I, the type of wells is vertical or

horizontal, and it is determined by the number of wells, the area

of reservoir, the depth of the reservoir and ESI (Figure 4). If

the ESI of the area is: (a) high, the type of well will not be

horizontal because the well drilling trajectory requires a large

inclination angle being necessary the oil based drilling fluid

with possibility to cause impact into the environment; (b)

medium, and the number of wells is medium the type of well is

vertical, or if the number of wells is low the type of well could

horizontal or vertical. When the ESI is low, alternatives pointed

out by the technical and technological index can be followed.

PHASE II

As scheme in Figure 5, Phase II begins with the layout

arrangement of wells. In the satellite arrangement, the wells are

spread out over the area of the reservoir. It is deployed

especially on large acreage fields. In clustered arrangement, the

wells heads are clustered close each other. It is necessary the

use of directional drilling to reach different positions of the

reservoir. Thus the clustered arrangement is used in small

acreage fields.

In a reservoir with large thickness, horizontal well is

usually applied to increase productivity, and the layout

arrangement of wells will be clustered. If the area of reservoir

is small, the number of wells is low and the arrangement of

wells will be also clustered.

And finally, if the ESI of the field is high, the layout

arrangement of wells will be clustered in order to minimize

environmental impacts due to reduction of the area with

disturbance.

Figure 5: Determination of the Layout Arrangement of Wells

and of the FPU (Phase II).

In the next section, the impact matrix based on the

installation of platform, operational phase and

decommissioning of a FPU and elements from the environment

is constructed to select the FPU.

IMPACT MATRICES ASSESSMENT

For estimation of environmental impacts, impact matrices

for the each component was elaborated (Figure 6) in order to

support a systematic and structured approach of decision for the

selection of the FPU.

Considering the main parameters for the development of an

offshore petroleum production system, activities in below will

be evaluated:

- Installation of Platform: vessel traffic, soil preparation,

positioning platform and mooring system;

- Operational Phase: physical presence platform, seawater

uptake, atmospheric emissions, disposal of sewage, disposal of

solid waste, disposal of water production, oil spills and vessel

traffic support;

- Decommissioning: removal of structure, abandonment of

wells and conditioning, disposal of sewage, oil leaks,

atmospheric emissions and disposal of solid waste.

Observing activities as enumerated in above, a list of

elements from the environment that can suffer impact (Patin,

1999) was obtained: air, water, sediments, plankton, benthic

communities, fish, fisheries, birds, marine mammals and

tourism.

Possible impacts to the environment from an offshore

petroleum production system are: anthropogenic interference,

navigation, fishing and tourism; degradation of water quality,

landscape and air quality; potential emergencies such as

environmental risk of accidents; and interference with biota as

light pollution and noise pollution.

The impact matrix for the each type FPU was developed

based on types of activities involved in the development of

offshore petroleum production system, and the elements from

the environment. In the Figure 6, activities as mentioned in

before will be enumerated in each line of the first column, and

elements from the environment are placed in the each column,

as in Figure 6.

Air

Wat

er

Sed

imen

ts

Pla

nct

on

Ben

thic

Com

munit

ies

Fis

h

Fis

her

ies

Bir

ds

Mam

mal

s

Touri

sm

Installation of Platform +

Operational Phase +

Descomissioning +

Total

Index :

Impact Matrix for each FPU

Kind of Activity

Elements from the Enviroment

Partial

Index

Figure 6: Generic Impact Matrix for a FPU.

Phase II

Area of the

Reservoir

Depth of the

Reservoir

Number of

Wells

Arrangements of Wells

Type of

Wells

Arrangement

of Wells

Water

Depth

Number

of Wells ESI

FPU

Environmental

Conditions

ESI

Flow Rate

per Well


The estimation of probability of occurrence of the

environmental impact is obtained as the scheme in Figure 7.

The consequence and frequency of occurrence of the impact

can be classified into different ranges from low to extreme

ones.

Figure 7: Estimation Procedure for the Probability of

Environmental Impact.

The calculation of the probability of occurrence of impact

is made for all activities related with each of the elements of the

environment, and finally by summing up each probability of

occurrence to obtain the partial index for the activity.

OFFSHORE PRODUCTION PLATFORMS

Each FPU has a particular characteristic which influences

the construction of its impact matrix. There are fixed platforms

which are supported on the seabed, and floating ones which are

compliant structures positioned by a mooring system.

The Jacket Platform is a metallic structure fixed with piles

driven into the seabed. It indicates possible changes of the

seabed conditions due to the use of dredging. This operation of

installation requires special care and must be a very precise

work because the structure can not be removed. In the

decommissioning, the platform will be cut into several parts

with the use of explosives which can cause environmental

impacts, such as elimination of artificial habitat appeared

around the base of the structure.

The Compliant Tower is a structure supported by a truss

structure and kept stationary by a spread guided cable guides

fixed at the sea bottom by gravity anchors. This type of

platform can cause environmental impact due to dredging and

mooring system. The decommissioning has similar impact of

the jacket platform.

A Jack-up Platform or a Self-elevating Unit is a Mobile

Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) with a buoyant hull fitted with

a number of movable up and down legs which can be supported

on the seabed. Sometimes, this platform is modified for

production, particularly for marginal oil fields (Bunce &

George, 2000). These platforms generate low impact on the

seabed if compared to other types of platform, and there is no

difficulty for decommissioning being a mobile unit.

The Gravity Tower is a fixed platform and its foundation is

built by increasing weight of the ballast. The installation

process needs support of a large number of barges for

transportation to the field, and its decommissioning also

requires the use of explosives and ships with high capacity.

The Spar units are designed with a huge submerged buoy

that can be used to storage the produced petroleum. Once

positioned in the field, ballast tanks are used to upright the hull

into the position, and mooring system is set. The operation of

installation of the mooring system increases the environmental

impact. For decommissioning, the removal of the platform

usually is very complex due to the underwater hull size

The SS floating platforms have small motions, then the

safety of this type of platform will be high, with less number of

recorded accidents than other type of mobile platforms. From

the other hand, the FPSO has a large storage capacity, and the

number of mooring lines are larger than that for the SS

platform, due to larger motions. FPSO has larger number of

recorded accidents, especially accidents and incidents in

adverse weather conditions (HSE, 2003). Installation and

decommissioning, for both, SS and FPSO are similar. The

station keeping is done by a mooring system. The main

difficulty in the process of decommissioning of the vessel is the

disconnection of all moorings, flowlines and risers, once the

FPU are usually used in deeper waters.

The TLP has a similar hull of the SS. However, TLP

tendons are anchored into a foundation at the seabed by

concrete or steel piles. Leg tendons are pulled by the buoyancy

of the platform which reduces platform heave motions.

Although the TLP is a floating platform, it has a different

process for decommissioning, because the tensioned mooring

systems which will make more difficulty uninstall procedure.

Figure 8: Total Environmental Impact Index for the each FPU.

The summation of all partial indexes for activities in the

impact matrix will give the total environmental impact index. It

represents how far the each offshore production platform will

X

= Probability of the Occurrence of Impact

Frequency of the Occurrence of Impact

Consequence of the Occurrence of Impact

Insignificant

1

Less

2

Catastrophic

5

Moderate

3

Larger

4

Low

1-4

Moderate

5-8

High

9-14

Extreme

15-25

Rare

1

Improbable

2

Certain

5

Possible

3

Probable

4

800

900

1000

1100

FPU

Total Environmental Impact Index


affect the environment, as can be seen in Figure 8. The Table 1

shows the total environmental impact index according to the

water depth, where the FPU with low total environmental

should be applied for area of high ESI.

In the second part of Phase II, several parameters are

considered for selection of the FPU.: water depth, layout

arrangement of wells, environmental conditions, number of

wells, flow rate per well and ESI. In this work, the water depth

is classified as: shallow, medium, deep, and ultra-deep (Table

1). The classification differs from the standard water depth

ranges (API, 2006), in order to improve classification of the

FPU type according to the ESI.

This parameter is important because each type of FPU has

application restrictions according to the water depth. For

instance, fixed type platform as the Jacket, Jackup, Gravity

Platform and Compliant Tower, are fixed directly into the

seabed, and they usually are feasible up to around 100 meters

water depths. The floating platform such as the Spar, TLP,

FPSO and SS can be operated up to around 2500 meters with

the use of new technologies for mooring system. Each type of

FPU has a particular layout arrangement of wells, for example,

the TLP and the jacket just work with the clustered layout

arrangement.

Table 1. Distribution of the FPUs according to the ESI and the

water depth, respectively.

ESI

Water Depth

Shallow (0-150m)

Medium (150-500m)

Deep (500-900m)

Ultra-Deep

(> 900m)

Low

Jackup,

Jacket, SS,

FPSO,

Gravity.

Jackup,

Jacket, SS,

FPSO,

Tower-

Guide, TLP.

SS, FPSO,

Tower-

Guide, TLP,

Spar.

SS, FPSO,

Tower-

Guide, TLP,

Spar.

Medium

Jackup,

Jacket, SS,

FPSO.

Jackup,

Jacket, SS,

FPSO, TLP.

SS, FPSO,

TLP, Spar.

SS, FPSO,

TLP, Spar.

High Jackup, SS. Jackup, SS,

TLP. SS, TLP. SS, TLP.

Environmental conditions will be determined by the

amplitude of the waves and the wind speed, which produce the

vertical and horizontal motions in the platforms. The

environmental conditions are divided according to the Beaufort

scale: calm, moderate, or severe. In such cases the

environmental conditions will influence in the selection,

because in severe conditions as in the North Sea is common the

use of fixed platforms that support that conditions, in contrast

of Brazil which has the environmental conditions from calm up

to moderate. Each type of platform has a limited capacity to

process oil, which will limit the number of wells. The rate flow

per well from the reservoir will determine the select of the

capacity oil processing FPU.

PHASE III

Phase III is the last phase of the process of selection an

offshore petroleum production system, it involves the decision

of the storage and the type of flow the oil and gas produced,

which will depend on factors such as distance from the coast,

the FPU storage capacity, the type of FPU and existence or not

of infrastructure (Figure 9).

There are three types of storage and flow of oil and gas

produced: pipeline, FPU with storage capacity and with relief

vessel to flow, and FPU without storage capacity with a

permanent storage vessel and more a relief vessel to flow. The

existence of an infrastructure near the FPU facilitates the flow

by pipeline or when the production of a field is high may be

feasible to build a pipeline, if the ESI of the area isnt high. If the distance from the coast to the field is very large, the flow by

relief vessel could be the best option.

Figure 9: Determination of Oil Storage and Offloading (Phase

III).

RESULTS

In order to evaluate the present approach, it is used the

database composed of 33 fields, which their actual system are

constituted by number of wells, type of wells, arrangement of

wells, FPU and oil storage and offloading, as in Franco (2003).

The ESI of each petroleum field is present in Table 2.

Fields have ESI selected, through the methodology

presented in this work the configuration the each petroleum

field is selected and compared with the results in work of

Franco (2003), which it is used the technical and technological

indexes to select an offshore petroleum production system, the

different between theses methodologies and real configuration

of fields are presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10 presents 33 petroleum fields, among which 17

fields presented ESI low, 6 fields with medium ESI and 10 with

high ESI. The present approach obtained a result with large

difference in fields with high and medium ESI in relation the

actual system, whilst Franco (2003) obtained similar results of

actual system for all kinds of ESI. The agreement of present

approach between the actual fields is 49% and 60 % for fields

with high and medium ESI, respectively. The results of all

phases of the system are presented in Annex A.

Phase III

Existence of

Infrastructure

Flow Rate

per Well

Distance

from the

Coast

Oil Storage and Offloading

FPU Number

of Wells ESI


Table 2. ESI of Petroleum Fields (Franco, 2003).

Location

ESI

Low Medium High

North Sea

Glamis Veslefrikk Gullfaks

Telford Oseberg Ekofisk

Argyll Troll East Oseberg

Captain West Troll Siri

Forties - -

Alba - -

Andrew - -

Britannia - -

Gulf of Mexico

- - Baldpate

- - Brutus

- - Mars

- - Cognac

Canada - - Hibernia

Grand Banks Campos Basin Barracuda Marlim -

Roncador Albacora -

East Albacora - -

Mediterranean Sea Aquila - -

Australia Stag - -

Gulf of

Guinea/Nigeria

Ceiba - -

Luanda/Angola - Girassol -

West Africa Kuito - -

Figure 10: Results of Comparison of the Database of Petroleum

Fields.

Figure 11 and 12 illustrates the comparison between

present approach and Franco (2003) in relation actual system. It

can be noted in present approach that around of 20% of

numbers of wells there is a disagreement, which consequently

changed the result of the following phases. In works of Franco

(2003), the number of wells and type of wells has 100% of

agreement because these parameters are an input necessary to

run the respective system.

Figure 11 shows the mainly difference is present in the

number of wells, type of wells and FPU. And Figure 12 shows

the agreement approximately 50% of the arrangement of wells

and 60% of FPU, in relation to actual cases.

The difference of the results indicates the lack of

indicators from the environment in development of petroleum

fields, as Gullfaks (Sintef, 2010) Snorre (Sintef, 2010) and

Hibernia (Shrimpton, 1985). Another difference of the results is

attributed the lack of technologies of platform, which make

impossible the selection the best FPU for the field, as Girassol.

In Gulf of Mexico, petroleum fields are present in high

sensitivity area, the environmental conditions and geology

difficult dispersion of oil in case of accident, moreover the

historic of accidents in this region is large due to presence the

many fields (NOOA, 1997).

Presumably the fields with high or medium ESI not used

the environmental impact index in its development; therefore

some accidents occurred probably they would not have

generated a large environmental impact.


Fields (ESI Medium).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High Co

nco

rdan

ce o

f A

ctu

al S

yste

m

ESI

Agreement with Actual Systems

Present Approach Franco (2003)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Number of Wells

Type of Well Arrangements of Wells

FPU Oil Storage and

Offloading

Co

nco

rdan

ce w

ith

Act

ual

Sys

tem

Agreement with Actual System (ESI Medium)

Franco (2003) Present Approach



Fields (ESI High)

CONCLUSION

Indexes related to the environment have been included in

the process of selection of each component of an offshore oil

and gas production system. A case study was performed by

following the proposed approach that combines the best

technical and technological characteristics with environmental

aspects, through the consideration of ESI index in the selection

of the offshore production system from alternatives.

The inclusion of ESI and the total index environmental

impact index modified parameters for the selection of offshore

petroleum production system. The selected alternative from the

present approach demonstrates being less sensitive for

environmental accident and less impact from the petroleum

activity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank PRH/ANP and CNPq for

the support in the present research.

REFERENCES

[1] Morooka, C. K., Galeano, Y. D., 1999, Systematic Design for Offshore Oilfield Development, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, ISOPE, Brest, France.

[2] Morooka, C.K.; Castro, G.T., 2002, A Methodology for the Selection of an Alternative for a Floating Production

System, 21th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Oslo,

Norway.

[3] Dezen, F., Morooka, C.K., 2003, Alternatives for Deepwater Field Developments: A Real Option

Approach, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Dallas, Texas, USA.

[4] Morooka, C.K, Carvalho, D., B., M., C., 2011, Evaluation of Alternatives for Offshore Petroleum Production System

in Deep and Ultradeep Waterdepth, 30th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic

Engineering (OMAE), Rotterdam, Netherland.

[5] Franco, K.P.M., 2003, An Intelligent System to Assist the Selection of Offshore Production System, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Campinas, Campinas, (In Portuguese).

[6] CHAKRABARTI S.K. 1987, Hydrodynamics of Offshore

Structures. Southampton Boston:Computational

Mechanics Publications, Southampton, Boston.

[7] Jahn, F., Cook, M., Graham, M., 1998, Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production, Vol. 1, Elsevier, Netherlands.

[8] NOAA, 1997, Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines, Version 2.0, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Technical Memorandum NOS

ORCA 115, Hazardous Materials Response and

Assessment Division, Seattle.

[9] Mariano, B. J., La Rovere, L. E., 2006, Methodology for Impact Assessment and Environmental Risks Studies of

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Offshore Areas, Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference, Rio de Janeiro,

Brazil, (In Portuguese).

[10] Patin, S., 1999, Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry, Vol. 1., EcoMonitor Publishing, New York.

[11] Bunce, J.W., George, P.J., 2000, A Jackup-Installed Platform for Marginal Fields, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Dallas, Texas, USA.

[12] API American Petroleum Institute, 2006, Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Design and operation of subsea

production systems -- Part 1: General requirements and

recommendations, ISO 13628-1:2005.

[13] HSE - Health and Safety Executive, 2003, Analysis of Accident Statistics for Floating Monohull and Fixed

Installations. Research Report 047, United Kingdom.

[14] SINTEF Technology and Society, 2010, Organizational Accidents and Resilient Organizations: Six Perspectives, Revision 2, Sintef A17034, Norway.

[15] Shrimpton, M. Osberg, L., Sinclair, P., Steele, D., 1985,

The Impact of Hibernia, Hibernia Development Project: Report of the Hibernia Environmental Assessment Panel,

Government of Canada, Minister of Supply and Services,

Ottawa, Canada.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Number of Wells

Type of Well Arrangements of Wells

FPU Oil Storage and

Offloading

Co

nco

rdan

ce w

ith

Act

ual

Sys

tem

Agreement with Actual System (ESI High)

Franco (2003) Present Approach


ANNEX A

Table A1. Results of the system compared with Actual Cases and Franco (2003).

Aqu

ila

Gla

mis

Telfo

rd

Ceib

a

Gira

ssol

Bald

pate

Hib

erni

a

Gul

lfaks

Siri

Ekof

isk

Stag

Brut

us

Mar

s

Mar

lim

Ves

lefr

ikk

Snor

re

Arg

yll

Area of the Reservoir (m) 13 15 11 41 180 43 68 50 66 19 100 53 59 132 25 62 24

Depth of the Reservoir (m) 3500 3094 2750 2811 1200 4145 3700 2000 2070 3197 3500 4500 4267 2300 2925 2500 3500

Flow per Well (m/d) 2900 22000 9300 2000 1000 400 2900 250 100 12000 1000 5000 2000 100 1300 1400 800

Water Depth (m) 850 145 135 800 1350 500 80 140 60 70 47 910 760 850 174 158 80

Environmental Conditions Calm Severe Severe Calm Calm Calm Mod. Severe Severe Severe Calm Calm Calm Calm Severe Severe Severe

Distance of the Coast (Km) 50 204 170 41 210 222 315 175 220 300 65 306 241 110 145 210 320

Infra. No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Reserves (m) 3E+06 4E+08 7E+06 4E+07 1E+08 2E+07 8E+07 3E+08 1E+07 1E+08 9E+06 4E+07 8E+07 3E+08 5E+09 1E+08 5E+06

ESI Low Low Low Low Med. High High High High High Low High High Med. High High Low

Number of Wells 2 3 6 4 40 18 18 106 42 4 8 8 10 135 24 46 8

Type of Well horiz. vert. horiz. vert. vert. horiz. horiz. vert. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. vert. horiz. horiz. horiz.

Arrangements of Wells satel. satel. clust. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel. clust. clust. clust. satel. clust.satel.,

clust.satel.

FPU FPSO SS Jacket FPSO FPSO Tower Gravity Gravity Jackup Jackup Jacket TLP TLPSS &

FPSOSS

TLP &

SSSS

Oil Storage and Offloading vessel pipe. pipe. vessel vessel vessel vessel pipe. vessel pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. vessel

Number of Wells 2 3 6 4 40 18 18 106 42 4 8 8 10 135 24 46 8

Type of Well horiz. vert. horiz. vert. vert. horiz. horiz. vert. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. vert. horiz. horiz. horiz.

Arrangements of Wells satel. satel. clust. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel. clust. clust. clust. satel. clust. satel. satel.

FPU FPSO FPSO Jacket FPSO FPSO Tower Gravity Jacket Jackup FPSO Jacket TLP TLP FPSO Jacket Gravity SS

Oil Storage and Offloading vessel pipe. pipe. vessel vessel vessel vessel pipe. vessel pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. vessel

Number of Wells 2 3 6 4 33 7 10 15 8 4 8 8 10 35 15 15 8

Type of Well horiz. vert. horiz. vert. vert. vert. vert. vert. vert. vert. horiz. vert. vert. vert. vert. vert. horiz.

Arrangements of Wells satel. satel. clust. satel. satel. clust. clust. clust. clust. clust. clust. clust. clust. satel. clust. clust. satel.

FPU FPSO FPSO Jacket FPSO Spar SS Jackup Jackup Jackup Jackup Jacket TLP TLP FPSO SS SS SS

Oil Storage and Offloading vessel pipe. pipe. vessel storage vessel vessel pipe. vessel vessel pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. vesselRes

ult o

f Sys

tem

Case

Para

met

ers

of th

e Sy

stem

Resu

lt of

Act

ual

Case

s

Resu

lt of

Fra

nco

(200

3)


Table A.2 (Continuation): Results of the system compared with Actual Cases and Franco (2003).

Alb

aco

ra

Co

gnac

Ose

ber

g

Bal

der

Cap

tain

Fort

ies

Alb

a

An

dre

w

Bri

tan

nia

Trit

on

Tro

ll Ea

st

Wes

t Tr

oll

Ku

ito

Bar

racu

da

Ro

nca

do

r

East

Alb

aco

ra

Area of the Reservoir (m) 235 94 80 80 40 93 56 27 112 61 70 95 290 157 111 215

Depth of the Reservoir (m) 2805 2180 2700 1760 914 2135 1830 2430 4000 3400 1300 1547 1000 1500 1500 1500

Flow per Well (m/d) 300 40 1200 1400 800 1000 700 3000 4000 1900 2000 1000 1000 23000 2000 1400

Water Depth (m) 1900 487 101 125 104 128 138 117 140 90 303 345 384 785 1700 1400

Environmental Conditions Calm Calm Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Calm Calm Calm Calm

Distance of the Coast (Km) 100 22 115 165 134 170 210 230 210 195 50 80 93 160 125 120

Infra. Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Reserves (m) 7E+08 5E+07 1E+11 1E+07 6E+07 4E+08 2E+08 2E+07 2E+07 8E+09 1E+12 3E+08 8E+07 4E+08 1E+09 8E+07

ESI Med. High Med. Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med. Med. Low Low Low Low

Number of Wells 221 61 30 13 21 104 20 5 14 11 40 71 12 59 57 36

Type of Well horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. vert. horiz. horiz. vert. horiz. horiz. horiz.

Arrangements of Wells satel. clust. clust. satel. satel. clust. clust. clust. clust. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel. satel.

FPUSS &

FPSOJacket Jacket FPSO

Jacket &

FPSOJacket Jacket Jacket Jacket FPSO Gravity SS FPSO FPSO

SS &

FPSOFPSO

Oil Storage and Offloading pipe. pipe. pipe. pipe. storage pipe. vessel pipe. pipe. vessel pipe. pipe. vessel storage pipe. pipe.

Number of Wells 221 61 30 13 21 104 20 5 14 11 40 71 12 59 57 36

Type of Well horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. vert. horiz. horiz. vert. horiz. horiz. horiz.


FPU FPSO Jacket Jacket FPSO FPSO Jacket Jacket Jacket Jacket FPSO Gravity SS FPSO FPSO FPSO FPSO


Number of Wells 35 15 30 13 21 104 20 5 14 11 35 35 12 59 57 36

Type of Well vert. vert. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. horiz. vert. vert. vert. vert. horiz. horiz. horiz.


FPU FPSO SS Jacket FPSO FPSO Jacket Jacket Jacket Jacket FPSO SS Jackup FPSO FPSO FPSO FPSO


CaseP

aram

eter

s o

f th

e Sy

stem

Res

ult

of

Act

ual

Cas

es

Res

ult

of

Fran

co

(20

03

)R

esu

lt o

f Sy

stem

Where: horiz. = horizontal, vert. = vertical, mod. = moderate, med. = medium, clust. = cluster, pipe. = pipeline, Tower = Compliant-Tower.


Documents

OMAE2014-23461 Paper