OTC-28664-MS
Integrated Design Computational Model Applied to O&G Offshore Field
Development
Leandro Basilio, Celso Noronha, Matheus Passos, and Débora Calaza, Deep Seed Solutions; Anderson L. da
Nova and Roland Daly, Repsol Sinopec Brasil
Copyright 2018, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 30 April–3 May 2018.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.
Abstract
The development of Offshore Oil and Gas Production Systems demands a multi-disciplinary team to
investigate a multitude of design uncertainties extending from the reservoir to the production facilities,
and commodity product sales. The generation of concept options usually follows a linear and technically
oriented process, where each specialized discipline determines the technical requirements and boundary
conditions to the next discipline. The process may be repeated as new information becomes available, and
some design uncertainties are progressively reduced, as most of key design parameters are stochastic and
non-deterministic. This methodology may vary between Oil Companies regarding the logical sequence,
accuracy range and concept coverage, but is strongly driven by the Company's culture and by industrial
capacity available in each region.
Due to limitations of time and availability of costly multi-disciplinary specialized resources, the
generation of field development concept options is often focused primarily on generating concepts
considering the highest technological maturity and the lowest Capital Expenditure (CAPEX). Following
this approach, the generation of ranked concept options with a focus on the Net Present Value (NPV) is
usually performed on a limited workable number of options. The NPV check is a project finance tool to
assess and rank the concepts generated at the end of the engineering process. Further design phase iterations
tend towards these same options, resulting in either slow and incremental improvement, or worse through
propagation of the initial uncertainties, inadequate facilities design and reduced project reward.
On a process digitization perspective, an integrated and automated design computational model enables
specialized disciplines to probe and visualize the concept search space, including lower maturity concepts
with potentially higher NPV reward. Automation accelerates the design process, allowing the necessary
time to focus efforts either on maturing concepts from an earlier phase, or on minimizing uncertainty in
propagation, by reconsidering full concept search space in subsequent design phase iterations, ensuring
more adequate facilities design.
The objective of this paper is to present the results of an integrated design approach applying a
computationally developed model, focusing on automating the process of offshore full field concept
generation and ranking during early project phases to fetch optimized designs. Based on the use of the
2 OTC-28664-MS
computational model, a case study was developed, highlighting the sensitivity analysis of CAPEX, OPEX
(Operational Expenditures) and NPV, by varying specific parameters in typical subsea production system
architectures. The hypothetical scenario is representative of the ultra-deepwater environment in the Brazilian
Pre-Salt.
Introduction
With the depletion of the onshore oil fields, the Oil & Gas Industry has expanded its operations to the sea, in
increasingly greater water depths. In addition to the difficulties of finding oil in remote regions of the globe,
the development of offshore production fields at large distances (often more than 200km) from the coast and
at great water depths presents significant technical and economic challenges. In general, the development
of an offshore production field can be considered as a multidisciplinary development, involving highly
specialized engineers in various technical disciplines, together with a project management team that has all
capabilities to assess the project economics of the investment and manage its development while maintaining
strict controls on cost, time and quality at the various stages (Basilio, 2016).
From a technical perspective, the development of an offshore production field may frequently follow
a technically oriented process, in which each discipline determines technical requirements and boundary
conditions for the next discipline, following a so called, "throw it over the wall" approach (Holland
and Crompton, 2013). This sequence starts at exploration, reservoir engineering, followed by wells
construction engineering, subsea facilities engineering, flow assurance, topside facilities and production
unit. The methodology for the development of the conceptual design may vary between companies on the
logical sequence, on accuracy of each phase and scope, but in general, there is a strong influence of the
organizational culture and of the supply chain in the target region (Basilio et al., 2015).
Integrated design development models should allow the creation of conceptual options that integrate the
various disciplines simultaneously, including finance discipline, bringing a significant performance increase
in the generation of concepts regarding the processing speed and the number of options generated and
evaluated. Therefore, considering the current technical and economic constraints faced by the Offshore
Oil and Gas industry, it is opportune to discuss alternatives to the traditional methods of offshore field
development, supporting the creation of integrated computational models, which would allow a significant
increase in the economics of the projects.
This paper presents the result of an integrated design approach by using a computational model developed
with focus on optimizing the process of offshore full field development in the conceptual phase. As a
bibliographic review, it will be presented an extensive survey regarding the integrated models developed
by the industry applied to offshore field developments. To support a qualitative discussion, a case study is
presented, highlighting the sensitivity analysis of CAPEX, OPEX and NPV, by varying specific parameters
in typical subsea production system architecture, reflecting a usual ultradeepwater environment experienced
in the Brazilian Pre-Salt.
Bibliographic Review of Integrated Models
Devine and Lesso (1972) described the development of a computational model with the objective of
optimizing the design of offshore fields using fixed platforms. The model developed was designed to
optimize the number, location and capacity of the platforms in terms of number of satellite wells, as well
as the definition of which wells would be built and produced by which platform. The developed solution
focused on obtaining the minimum total cost of the project (CAPEX), based on cost functions of the main
systems and methods of construction and operation. The mathematical modeling was based on the theory
of the "warehouse location problem", focusing on the "method of location-alternating allocation" (heuristic
method). Positive results were described for one of the problems presented by the authors, highlighting
a CAPEX reduction of around 4%. The emphasis should be given to the authors’ discussion of the
OTC-28664-MS 3
differences and applications of "linear programming" and "heuristic programming" methods, highlighting
the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of "heuristic programming techniques", despite computational
limitations at the time.
Sullivan (1982) reported results on the application of a "mixed integer linear programming" approach
to develop four partially depleted gas fields in the North Sea. The solution focused on maximizing NPV
through the simulation of optimized configurations for future investments, considering several mesh options
and use of compressors. Based on the technique of "mixed integer linear programming", the author
developed a model to transform an essentially non-linear problem into an equivalent linear system, which
simplified the formulation and allowed the use of a greater number of variables to represent the problem
more consistently. From the use of the model in the planning of new developments in the field, it was possible
to observe a potential increase in NPV of about 94% over the initial planning, which did not consider new
investments in the field. This result demonstrated the potential of integrated methods of field development
focused on NPV. However, it should be noted the computational limitations at the time of the development
pointed out by the author for the "mixed integer linear programming" method, which proved adequate to
the simplified nature of the gas reservoir in question, but which would not be feasible for biphasic flows
or with mechanisms of primary aquifer production.
Grimmett and Startzman (1988) presented a computational modeling, based on "integer linear
programming", with the objective of allowing the optimized development of an offshore field with the
minimum investment (CAPEX). The model contemplated several technical and economic aspects of the
development of a field and presented itself as a tool to support the project planning. The authors expressed
their choice of optimization focused on the CAPEX with arguments on the difficulties of accurately
predicting future reservoir behavior, production rates and OPEX. All results of the simulations presented
by the authors for case studies were in absolute numbers, not allowing a comparative analysis of the
financial gain obtained with the modeling. This paper presented an extensive bibliographical review
presented by the authors since 1969, summarizing the various approaches developed until 1988, highlighting
the development objective in terms of CAPEX or NPV, and the various computational methods used
until then, such as the "alternating location-allocation", "integer linear programming", "mixed integer
linear programming", "mixed integer nonlinear programming", "nonlinear optimization" and "dynamic
programming".
Iyer, Grossmann, Vasantharajan and Cullick (1998) described a mathematical model based on "multi-
period mixed integer linear programming" focusing on investment planning and offshore field operations,
aiming at optimizing economic indicators such as NPV. In the work presented, the development of the
offshore field was formulated in multiperiods, integrating the allocation of production facilities, production
planning and development schedule of the wells and other facilities within a single model. The formulation
incorporated simultaneously reservoir performance, surface pressure conditions and restrictions on the
availability of drilling resources. The results of the simulations presented by the authors for case studies
were in absolute numbers, not allowing a comparative analysis of the financial gain obtained with the
modeling. Highlight should be given to the multidisciplinary integration of reservoir engineering with the
other technical and economic disciplines of the project, and the multiperiod approach of the project.
Barnes, Kokossis and Shang (2006) presented a methodology for design optimization and operations
management of offshore fields, based on "mixed integer nonlinear programming". The developed model
is composed of two stages: i) project planning with a focus on obtaining optimum production capacity,
location of the production unit, configuration of the wells from a discretized reservoir grid and timing of
the wells entering; ii) determination of the production schedule, quantity to be produced in each well and
associated NPV. From the application of the model in some scenarios, it was possible to observe a variation
of the NPV of the order of 87%, evidencing the potential return of methods focused on the optimization of
NPV. Special emphasis should be given to the integration of the discipline of reservoir engineering with the
other technical and economic disciplines of the project.
4 OTC-28664-MS
Cullick, Cude and Tarman (2007) presented a computational method for generation and selection of
concepts of offshore production systems based on the integration of the "reservoir engineering" and "flow
simulations" with the other technical disciplines of the project, including economic analyses focusing on
indicators such as CAPEX, NPV and IRR. The optimization model developed by the authors is based on the
"global heuristic search method", or "meta-heuristic method", and aims to find solutions optimized by the
economic aspect, taking into account the uncertainties and risks associated with the various disciplines, with
emphasis on the discipline of "reservoir engineering". The proposed methodology addresses the integration
of a physical model for the determination of reservoir production capacity with a specific tool for generation
and selection of concepts based on an economic analysis of the system as a whole, applying "advanced
nonlinear optimization" to assist in the selection and sizing of equipment. The results presented for case
studies highlight mean and standard deviation values for NPV results obtained from the combination
of the various concepts generated with the probability distribution curves of "recoverable reserves" and
"production rates". Highlight should be given to the multidisciplinary integration of reservoir engineering
with the other technical and economic disciplines of the project, and the use of "metaheuristic methods"
combined with "nonlinear optimization".
Cross references were made to other publications, which directly or indirectly contributed to the
developments highlighted above. Table 1 presents a summary of the chronological evolution of the
integrated models for the development of offshore oil and gas production systems.
Table 1—Chronological evolution of the integrated models for the development of offshore fields, (adapted from Basilio, 2016)
Description of the Integrated Computational Model
As a basis for the presentation of the work developed, as well as the results achieved, this section describes
the computational package developed in the expert system FLOCO® (Field Layout Concept Optimizer),
proprietary technology adopted in this study, whose purpose is to automatically generate and rank conceptual
alternatives of offshore field development based on economic Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as
CAPEX, OPEX, NPV, IRR and PAYBACK. This section covers some of the key aspects of the integrated
computational model adopted, such as: i) system methodology; ii) mathematical models; iii) data flow
diagram; iv) database; and v) accuracy of results.
OTC-28664-MS 5
System Methodology
The methodology of the computational system consists of the numerical integration of all the disciplines
necessary to generate conceptual alternatives of an offshore field development, based on the typical
conceptual engineering design process as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1—Usual workflow in the generation of conceptual alternatives for an offshore full field development (Basilio, 2016)
Based on the workflow presented in Figure 1, all algorithms of the integrated computational model
address the processes mapping of the applicable engineering disciplines, addressing standard engineering
formulation, analytical models and empirical correlations, applicable to the typical subsea design
archetypes, such as satellite lines, manifolded lines and looped lines. After the concept engineering design
calculations, the system carry out an automatic process of concept generation, through a meta-heuristic
model, based on an extensive data of equipment, systems and construction resources available in a robust
proprietary database, populated with more than twenty thousand items.
After the automatic generation of the concept design alternatives, the computational system carries
out multi-annual nodal flow simulations analyses of the production system integrated with the reservoir
disciplines, reflecting the reservoir pressure curve and fluid dynamic behavior through the application of
the Material Balance Equation (MBE).
Mathematical Models
The mathematical modeling of the computational system is divided into three phases: i) meta-heuristic
model applied to automatic generation of concepts design alternatives, based on specific design archetypes
and internal optimization subroutines; ii) nodal flow simulation analysis integrated with reservoir
engineering, based on the coupling of empirical correlations with the analytical model of MBE; and iii) post
processing of the economic variables and calculation of the dynamic KPI's for each concept option.
Unlike linear programming approaches, the metaheuristic model focuses on the combinatorial analysis
of the various constructive "building blocks" made available through a configurable database, which
contains several equipment, systems and construction resources. Once the concepts are generated by the
metaheuristic modeling, the calculation of CAPEX is performed, based on the MTO (Material Take-Off)
of each concept, covering the disciplines of wells, subsea and production unit. The material cost and the
respective installation cost are numerically calculated based on the resources available, such as wells,
6 OTC-28664-MS
pipelines, risers, subsea equipment, production units, PLSVs (Pipe Laying Support Vessels), spool bases
and others. Smaller cost components such as engineering, qualification, tests & commissioning, logistic
& supplies and insurance & certificates are defined through metrics. Equation 1 shows the calculation of
CAPEX adopted in the integrated computational model.
Equation 1
Where,
MC => Material Costs;
IC => Installation Costs;
EC => Engineering Costs;
QC => Qualification Costs;
TCC => Test & Commissioning Costs;
LSC => Logistic & Supplies Costs;
ICC => Insurance & Certificates Costs.
Following, the nodal flow simulation analysis is performed integrated with reservoir, resulting in a unique
multi-annual production profile for each concept previously generated, addressing the pressure profile of the
reservoir along the production life through the classic MBE (Material Balance Equation) (Ahmed, 2001).
The flow simulations along the wells, pipelines and risers address a three-phase flow correlation nodal
model, including flow patterns, external heat exchange with the environment and internal heat exchange due
to fluid thermodynamic effects, notably the Joule-Thomson effects. Figure 2 presents the flow simulation
general schematic nodal model adopted in the study.
Figure 2—Flow simulation general schematic nodal model
The OPEX calculation is performed based on a time-domain semi-empirical formulation, developed
though the data analytics of cost available on public domain. The general mathematical model for OPEX
calculation considers both fixed and dynamic costs and is modeled after the expected behavior of each
operational expenditure, such as due to logistic, operations and maintenance (Steube and Albaugh, 1999).
Equation 2 presents the general formulation adopted for the calculation of the OPEX in a time-domain
approach.
Equation 2
Where,
OTC-28664-MS 7
OPEXt => Operational Expenditure at the year "t";
CCt => Charter Costs at the year "t";
SCt => Staff Costs at the year "t";
LCt => Logistic Costs at the year "t";
OCt => Operating Costs at the year "t";
MCt => Maintenance Costs at the year "t".
Based on the previous calculations of CAPEX, OPEX and discounted cashflow, the integrated model
performs the post processing of the economic variables and calculation of the dynamic KPI's for each
concept option, highlighting the NPV, whose general formulation is presented in Equation 3.
Equation 3
Where,
CAPEXt => Capital Expenditure at the year "t";
OPEXt => Operational Expenditure at the year "t";
LRt => Liquid Revenue at the year "t";
WACC => Weighted Average Cost of Capital;
T => Operational life of the field.
Data Flow Diagram
Based on the methodology and numerical modeling described, a Data Flow Diagram (DFD) was designed,
aiming to reflect the "flow" of data through the computational system, as presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3—FLOCO Data Flow Diagram
Figure 3 describes the data flow to be adopted for the use of the integrated system, in which, from a
dedicated graphical user interface (GUI), the user defines data and boundary conditions associated with the
8 OTC-28664-MS
reservoir to be developed and the dominant environmental conditions in the location, as well as all boundary
conditions and assumptions applicable to the project. The pre-selection or exclusion of equipment, systems
and construction resources from the database allows the user to reflect in the analysis the applicable design
constraints and corporate criteria.
After the initial definition of the project, the system carries out an automatic generation of concept
design options, based on the metaheuristic modeling, and computational simulations to define flow rates
and production curves during the operational life of the field. Based on the evaluation of the cash flow of
each concept design option, the system proceeds with post-processing stage, calculating the economic and
financial parameters necessary to generate the dynamic economical KPIs.
Database
The database of equipment, systems and construction resources allows the metaheuristic model to define
concepts aligned with the technical reality of offshore oil and gas industry. The database model is built on
a cloud-based standard Structured Query Language (SQL) commercial provider, widely used by several
industries, to allow the user to make its own database management. This in turn, allows users to work
collaboratively populating the database with custom items and sharing these items between Company users
or publicly.
From an engineering perspective, the database allows the definition of each item according to technical
attributes, necessary for the identification of the item along the metaheuristic process to generate conceptual
alternatives, and provides specific information of cost, technological maturity and reliability for each item.
This allows the calculation of the economic parameters and the filtering/sorting of results, from a perspective
of technological risk and reliability.
Accuracy of Results
The correlation of the classification of cost estimate defined by AACE International (Association for
the Advancement of Cost Engineering) (2011) and the FEL (Front-End Loading) methodology (Barshop,
2003) follows specific business criteria defined by each Company. In some Corporations, FEL phases are
subdivided, generating sub-phases of the conceptual engineering, as FEL 2a and FEL 2b (Basilio, 2016).
This subdivision reflects a need to create intermediate gates for decisionmaking, seeking to prevent that
long stages will lead to inadequate solutions regarding the achievement of general interests of the Company,
despite having produced satisfactory KPI's. Figure 4 shows the accuracy ranges in the cost estimates based
on the classes of AACE International (2011) and a correlation with the FEL methodology, according to
author's analysis.
Since the objective of the study is to meet the requirements of the conceptual engineering phase (FEL-2),
the expected accuracy for the results generated must be between -20% and + 30%, and should be controlled
through the accuracy in the cost of database items, its associated weights within the cost estimates and the
resulting production curves.
OTC-28664-MS 9
Figure 4—Correlation between AACE International Classes (2011) and FEL
methodology (Barshop et al, 2003), according to author's analysis (Basilio, 2016)
Methodology of the Study
The methodology adopted in the development of this study consisted on application of the integrated
computational model, previously described, in a typical project case of the Brazilian Pre-Salt Pole
(hypothetical field), with a total of 17 production wells, 10 water injection wells and 2 gas injection wells,
with the gas export to a local gas export network hub.
The proposed hypothetical field reflects a typical condition of distribution of the production wells along
the top of the reservoir, and adoption of water injection wells as a secondary recovery mechanism and
gas injection wells as an alternative for the injection of the heavy gas fractions and contaminants after gas
treatment for exportation or as an alternative for full gas destination until the commissioning of the gas
export lines. Figure 5 shows the configuration of the wells’ targets of the hypothetical field, as well as the
relative local distances.
Although it is a typical offshore project field to be developed with more than one production unit, the
hypothetical case was purposely defined to allow the evaluation of the Project Phasing advanced module
developed under a cooperative R&D project between the authors. This module allows evaluating the division
of the full field development into smaller phased developments with production units of lower capacityThe
dynamic decision-making process assesses the economical tradeoffs on gas export pipeline sizing and timing
with respect to gas injection options, for each phase of the development.
To allow a thorough investigation of wide ranging architectures, two strategies for the construction of the
wells were considered: i) all vertical wells; and ii) directional wells, respecting the maximum directional
drilling offset radius of 1300m. Based on the results of the design cases defined, a comparison between the
economic indicators found is presented, followed by the conclusions and recommendations.
10 OTC-28664-MS
Figure 5—Typical project case of the Brazilian Pre-Salt Pole
Assumptions and Constraints
Some assumptions were considered in the study in order to reflect the level of difficulty and restriction of
real development, as below.
▪ Scope of study focused on production lines (and associated facilities - gas lift, service and control)
and gas export line to a local PLEM (local network hub);
▪ Average water depth of 2150 m;
▪ Average reservoir depth of 5000 m;
▪ Initial reservoir pressure of 8130 psia;
▪ Crude oil gravity of 29°API, gas specific gravity of 0,700 and initial gas oil ratio of 1200 SCF/STB;
▪ FPSO Spread Moored with heading equal to 195 degrees;
▪ Rigid pipelines must be piggable;
▪ Multiplex control system;
▪ Wells must be tested individually, as per Brazilian regulatory requirements;
▪ "Noncommercial" pipe schedules are allowed;
▪ CRA CLAD Alloy 825, 3.2mm thickness for production lines and carbon steel for the other systems,
with rigid pipe wall thickness calculated as per DNV OS F-101;
▪ Production gathering line maximum length of 860m (applicable to manifolds and loops);
▪ Injection jumper/spool maximum length of 1200m (applicable to manifolds and loops);
OTC-28664-MS 11
▪ Number of manifold main hubs => 2, 3 and 4;
▪ Maximum offset radius for the directional drilling limited to 1300m;
▪ WACC of 10%/year;
▪ Total royalties and taxes => 40% (constant);
▪ Operational life of 25 years;
▪ 3 years of time span between production unit start-up in case of project phasing development strategy;
▪ Projected oil prices, gas prices and predicted multi-annual flow rates for a base case layout all satellite,
according Table 2.
Table 2—Projected oil prices, gas prices and predicted multi-annual flow rates for a base case layout all satellite
Since the computational model adopts the Material Balance Equation (MBE), it is necessary to enter
a base case production curve, which is usually generated in the exploratory phase of a field development
for a typical fully satellite layout, in order to calibrate the MBE and capture the gas and oil production
profiles (GOR and Water Cut, respectively) along the reservoir depletion. Based on this initial calibration,
the computational model is able to calculate new production curves specific for each new concept generated,
taking into account the productivity of each architecture as a function of internal diameter, internal pipeline
roughness and thermal insulation capacity.
Design Cases Description
For the development of the simulations, a matrix of "project seeds" was developed, in order to observe the
influence of the combination of one or more production and injection loops, the use of manifolds through
the application of directional wells with maximum radius offset of 1300m and the impact of the phasing of
the field development, considering 01, 02 and 03 Productions Units, in a phasing period of 3 years between
the beginning of each new phase. The complete description of the "project seeds" matrix, as well as the
number of conceptual options generated, is presented in Table 3.
12 OTC-28664-MS
Table 3—"Project seeds" matrix with the number of conceptual options generated from the computational integrated model
Description of Results and Design Comparison
Based on the results generated with the integrated simulation of the "project seeds" described previously, it
was possible to analyze the CAPEX and NPV associated with each conceptual option generated, as well as
to construct a cloud of points in function of these key indicators. Figure 6 and Figure 7 shows the relationship
between CAPEX and NPV for the various concept options generated through the integrated simulation of
the "project seeds" described in Table 3.
Figure 6—Dispersion chart of CAPEX @present value x NPV evaluated for 1-Phase Project (01 Production Unit)
OTC-28664-MS 13
Figure 7—Dispersion graphic of CAPEX @present value x NPV evaluated for 2-Phase and 3-Phase Project
Figure 8 presents the best NPV and CAPEX, given the concept options generated for one single phase
strategy (01 Production Unit).
Figure 8—Best NPV and CAPEX Subsea Layouts for 1 Project Phase (01 Production Unit)
14 OTC-28664-MS
Figure 9 presents the best NPV and CAPEX, given the concept options generated for two phases strategy
(02 Production Units).
Figure 9—Best NPV and CAPEX Subsea Layouts for 2 Project Phases (@present value)
Figure 10 presents the best NPV and CAPEX, given the concept options generated for three phases
strategy (03 Production Units).
Figure 10—Best NPV and CAPEX Subsea Layouts for 3 Project Phases (@present value)
OTC-28664-MS 15
Conclusions and Recommendations
The development of this work considered the simulation of 10 "project seeds", addressing the combination
of satellite, manifold and looped archetypes, which resulted in the generation of more than 5000 concept
options that were primarily evaluated on a CAPEX perspective, being 250 concept options selected to
proceed with the flow simulations and then generating the dynamic economic KPI's. Based on the results
achieved, it was possible to observe a standard deviation of 0,23 over the mean value of CAPEX and of
0,85 over the mean value of NPV. This dispersion of results is numerically reflected in a potential spread
of 1,77 Billion US Dollars on CAPEX and of 3,73 Billion US Dollars on NPV between the highest and
the lowest boundary limits.
The proposed integrated computational model, based on a metaheuristic approach, confirmed an
increased performance in terms of speed and amplitude in the generation of conceptual alternatives applied
to offshore field developments. Regardless of the method adopted to develop the conceptual engineering of
an offshore field, the complexity associated with the various technical disciplines showed to be extremely
high. From a project economics perspective, it is possible to conclude that a non-integrated process may
lead to a non-optimum solution, that may yield great impact in the project economics in ultradeepwater
developments.
From a technical perspective, it was observed that the adoption of loops and manifolds, combined with an
exhaustive sensitivity analysis of key parameters - such as internal diameter, insulation capacity and type of
pipeline - led to a sensitive improvement of the project economic KPI's. Regardless of the results achieved
in this study, it is not possible to conclude on the absolute superiority of any archetype in particular, but
rather that the integrated and automatic computational simulation may point out which combination will
lead to the best economics, specifically and exclusively for each project.
The bibliographic review of integrated models showed several industry initiatives in the research and
development of design optimization tools with a multidisciplinary approach. Several developments were
based on "linear programming" with limited coverage of variables and developed on a tailor-made approach
for specific projects. The "heuristic" and "metaheuristic methods" were technically unpractical in the early
stages of the integrated models development history, due to limited availability of computation resources
until the 90's, but showed to be much more practical after the 2000's. Also, the bibliographic review
presented a historical discontinuity in the integrated models developments, which could be associated with
the oscillation in the oil barrel price, especially on low oil price periods, when optimization efforts are not
deemed as necessary as in a down market. However, this historical assessment is not part of this study, and
could be object of further studies by econometric professionals.
Regardless of the need for additional engineering efforts on guaranteeing the feasibility of a given project,
the use of integrated and automatic computational models, for the development of offshore oil and gas
production systems, should lead to insights that maximize economic results or even serve as evidence of
economic robustness of a case already established by the Company. Considering the complexity of the
conceptual engineering of offshore fields and the innumerable possibilities from a technical perspective, it
is possible to conclude that the chances of achieving a fully optimized project by using any non-integrated
process are very low, which confirms the attractiveness for the continuity in the development of integrated
and automatic computer systems.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank: ANP - National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels of
Brazil for supporting the development of Brazilian technologies through its current regulations; REPSOL
SINOPEC BRASIL for its innovative vision and for the investment in the development of innovative
technologies; and all DEEP SEED SOLUTIONS’ team that collaborated with the accomplishment of this
work.
16 OTC-28664-MS
Nomenclature
AACE – Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
CAPEX – Capital Expenditure
CRA – Corrosion-Resistant Alloy
DFD – Data Flow Diagram
FEL – Front-End Loading
FLOCO® – Field Layout Concept Optimizer, proprietary software of Deep Seed Solution
FPSO – Floating Production Storage and Offloading
GUI – Graphical User Interface
IRR – Internal Rate of Return
KPI – Key Performance Indicator
MBE – Material Balance Equation
MTO – Material Take-Off
NPV – Net Present Value
OPEX – Operational Expenditures
PLEM – Pipeline End Manifold
PLSV – Pipe Lay Support Vessel
R&D – Research & Development
SQL – Structured Query Language
WACC – Weighted Average Cost of Capital
References
BASILIO, L.P. "Conceitualização de software integrado para geração e ranqueamento de alternatvas conceituais de
sistemas offshore de produção de petróleo e gás". Fundação Dom Cabral. Business project presented to the Executive
MBA Program. December 2016.
BASILIO, L.P.; et al. Synergy in using rigid pipelines with subsea production manifolds. Rio Pipeline Conference &
Exposition 2015. September 2015.
HOLLAND, D.; CROMPTON, J. The Future Belongs to the Digital Engineer: Transforming the Industry. Xlibris LLC.
December, 2013.
DEVINE, M.D.; LESSO, W.G. Models for the minimum cost development of offshore oil fields. Management Science.
April, 1972.
SULLIVAN, J. A computer model for planning the development of an offshore gas field. SPE: Journal of Petroleum
Technology. July 1982.
GRIMMETT, T.T.; STARTZMAN, R.A. Optimization of offshore field development to minimize investment. SPE
Conference. December 1988.
IYER, R.R.; GROSSMANN, I.E.; et al. Optimal planning and scheduling of offshore oil field infrastructure investment
and operation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 1998, 37 (4), pp 1380–1397.
BARNES, R.J.; KOKOSSIS, A.; SHANG, Z. An integrated mathematical programming approach for the design and
optimization of offshore fields. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2006.
CULLICK, A.S.; CUDE, R.G.; TARMAN, M. Optimizing field development concepts for complex offshore production
systems. SPE: Offshore Europe, 2007.
BARSHOP, P. (2003, December 22). Best practice pays off. European Chemical News 79 (2081), 16-17.
Nissen, R.A. (2003). VIPs: Who are they and what can they do for us? Retrieved March 10. 2010, from http://
www.nwccc.org/upload/nissen.pdf
AACE International. Recommended Practice No. 18R-97. Cost estimate classification system: as applied in engineering,
procurement, and construction for the process industries. November 2011.
STEUBE, S.; ALBAUGH, E.K. Evaluating offshore OPEX for a West African marginal field – Parts I & II. Offshore
Magazine. February 1999.
AHMED, T. Reservoir Engineering Handbook. Gulf Professional Publishing. Second Edition. 2001.
