Early Stages of a Pre-salt Ultra-deepwater Field Development in Brazil: An IOC Approach

Transcription

1 Early Stages of a Pre-salt Ultra-deepwater Field Development in Brazil: An IOC Approach Gustavo Ponce López Repsol Sinopec Brasil Luis Felipe Batalla Toro Repsol Sinopec Brasil

2 Problem Statement / Objectives The Problem : Ultradeepwater Offshore Field, located in a presalt block in Brazil discovered in 2012 A methodology for the field development which presents a detailed and consistent process to select the best development scenarios must be developed in accordance with Repsol Integrated Project Management (GIP) Process, considering Brazilian peculiarities Multiple possibilities for field development must be generated and screened aligned with the project drivers defined These presentation outlined the methodology that was used in order to fulfill with the above requirements for screening the potential field development options.

3 Development Concept Type Benchmarking

4 Early Development Phases considering Brazilian Peculiarities 1. Non technical risks will be the biggest issue and will require time to built into the plan 2. Good understanding of Local Content requirements and local market overheated situation is critical to define a successful project execution strategy from the very beginning. Will require early involvement of specialist with proven in country planning and construction expertise 3. Think about execution much earlier that normal ( We have a Project Assumption ) Overreaction on early engineering efforts with focus on the mitigation of the risks associated to the critical items: technical (ultradeepwater frontier development issues) and execution risks (local market environment) 4. Non technical aspects of gas export are critical (Existing onshore infrastructure, local distribution network access, international market options,etc). The sooner these aspects are addressed the more robust will be the development option selected for the field

5 Development Options Framing and Screening Methodologies - RSB General Guidelines Problem: Overwhelm Why Framing is Critical? A Well Developed Frame Problem: Blindness Results: Non decisions ( paralysis by analysis ) Oversight Lack of Clarity Results: Smoother crossings between each decision point Results: Errors of the third kind: right answer; wrong question Unforeseen threats Lost opportunities

6 Phases of the Framing and Screening Process 1. Establish Design Basis Reservoir characterization and model: fluid properties, well count and preliminary location, production profiles (early, mid and late life) Drilling, Completions and Interventions Site and regional conditions: Water depth, metocean conditions, seabed bathymetry, geohazards, local content requirements 2. Definition of building blocks Selection of applicable blocks consistent with Design Basis requirements 3. Generation of developments scenarios by combination of building blocks 4. Screening and ranking of development scenarios based on Project Drivers Qualitative ranking method to clasify scenarios Score each scenario against each driver based on prestablished criteria Workshop approach for phases 2, 3 and 4

7 Project Objectives and Drivers 1. To meet or exceed company HSE goals; 2. To meet or exceed local content commitments; 3. To maximize project NPV; 4. To optimize date of first oil production; 5. Reserves booking as early as possible;

8 Development Options Visualization Study To develop viable field development options consistent with Design Basis that satisfy a list of project drivers and project objectives. The different screening and ranking steps must be performed in a logical order. Concept Selection Process:

9 Framing Workshop 59 Main Host options and 45 Secondary/Onshore Host options were generated. Some options were disregarded by logical. A initial number of 503 scenarios were obtained in the framing workshop.

10 Technical Screening A total of 46 scenarios were carried over for commercial screening. Each option is scored based on the technical project drivers. Technical options selected based on two criteria: Individual Technical Score above threshold Representative Technical Options Goal is to select representative development cases.

11 Commercial Screening The scenarios were ranked against the commercial project drivers. The commercial drivers scores for each scenario were added to the technical scores, obtained previously, to yield a total score for each scenario. Some options that were not among the highest scoring cases were also selected to be further technically studied. A total of 13 scenarios were selected to the next stage.

12 Risk Assessment Following the technical studies of the 13 viable scenarios selected, a Risk Assessment Workshop was performed. The team reviewed and scored 52 risks: 12 opportunities and 40 threats. There were classified in 4 categories as per GIP guidelines Response Plans were identified if risks were classified as Critical or Significant. A process was carried out to assign each uncertainty to one or more scenarios and cases. Some uncertainties were more applicable to a particular scenario or case relative to the others. After the uncertainties were allocated to each case and scenario, a simple weighting was used to separate them according to whether they apply or not to a scenario.

13 Technical Ranking The score used in this step combined the earlier scores (technical and commercial evaluations) and added a risk score based upon risk assesment scores prepared in the Risk Assessment phase. A final ranking was established combining the cost benefit (Revenue/CAPEX) scores with the previous steps scores results.

14 Conclusions Detailed and consistent process was used to select the best development scenarios. The methodology developed is systematical and can be applied for future works. The intention is not only select the highest scoring cases for further progression but to select representative cases for comparison. This development options screening process is semi quantitative and seeks more the technical side than the economical side, so further studies must be performed in addition to this one for the choice of field development. The technical ranking results were consistent with the final economical evaluation. The methodology (although semi quantitative) is a very good reference to select a development option even without doing a detailed economical analysis.

15 Thank you / Questions