COURSEWORK

1/12/2019
DUE DATE

MATRIC No 1900385

SURNAME ADETIFA

FIRST NAME(S) OLOLADE

COURSE TITLE Drilling and Well Engineering

MODULE NUMBER
ENM202 Facilities
& TITLE

LECTURER ISSUING
Dr Ibiye Iyalla
COURSEWORK
 ECRGU OIL
Tantalum Field Development
Programme
 Executive Summary
Tantalum Field recently discovered by ECRGU is situated 50km from the nearest
shore in the tropical region. An estimated recoverable of thirty-six million has
been discovered and is to be produced on completion of the appraisal well. The
following programme outlines the criteria for determining the field development
option to be used between a fixed steel jacket structure and an FPSO tie-back.
The criteria include; Early Production/Pay-out Time, Constructability, Facilities
expansion for prospects, Intervention frequency, Technical, operating and
financial risks, Operation decision and ease of maintenance (hydrate, wax
deposits, corrosion) and Production Export and Geological location of field. On
completion of the study, the subsea tieback to Palladium FPSO just 10km away
was selected as the better of the two.
The gas disposal method suggested includes gas reuse for power generation and
use in the water treatment process. The gas would be treated using Amine
solvent and glycol agent in a process of absorption.

2
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................2

Table of Figures.........................................................................................3

Introduction..............................................................................................4

Economic Analysis of Tantalum....................................................................5

Critical Analysis of Tantalum Field................................................................7

Proposed Process Flow Diagram for Tantalum Field.......................................12

Proposed Gas processing, consumption/disposal requirements for Tantalum Field

.............................................................................................................14

Proposed water treatment plan for Tantalum Field........................................16

Conclusion..............................................................................................17

APPENDICES...........................................................................................18

REFERENCES...........................................................................................18

3
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Graphical Analysis of Tantalum Field....................................................................6
Figure 2: Pictorial view of FPSO tie-back and Fixed jacket platform (Sources: Bull
and Love 2019; Gardner 2016)..................................................................................................9
Figure 3: Average Decommissioning cost of different projects in Gulf of Mexico..10
Figure 4: Proposed process flow diagram for Tantalum fields' development..........13
Figure 5: Amine process of gas treating (source: Blogger 2014).............................14
Figure 6: Gas Dehydration Process using Glycol (source: Netusil and Ditl 2012)
............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 7:Typical production profile for an oil field in the tropical region. (source:
Igunnu and Chen 2012)..............................................................................................................16
Figure 8: Dissolved gas flotation technology (source: oil and gas separator 2019)
............................................................................................................................................................. 17

List of Tables
Table 1:Tabular comparison of Development options for Tantalum field...................5
Table 2:Summary of critical analysis based on selected criteria.................................11

4
Introduction

Tantalum, the newest addition to the ECRGU’s fields is located at a depth of

350m and approximately 50km from the nearest landfall. The field has a
recovery estimated at Thirty-six (36) million barrels which can be regarded as a
small accumulation and produces a light-sweet crude with a 40-degree API
gravity. Palladium FPSO a production vessel owned by BG is within a 10km
radius of Tantalum is being considered as an option to produce and process the
obtained hydrocarbon in place of the standalone structure which would have to
be constructed before production can begin. This report compares the use of the
standalone structure and the subsea tieback based on a set of criteria as well as
suggests an effective water treatment and gas processing plan.

5
 …1…
Economic Analysis of Tantalum
The following table assesses the cost-effectiveness of the Tantalum field based
on the use of a standalone structure or Subsea tieback for field production
derived from the stated cost estimates. These estimated costs are in accordance
with normal installation cost commonly used in the energy sector of the United
Kingdom.
Standalone Structure Subsea Tie-back
(SS) (ST)
Years of Production 9 6
(years)
Annual Production
Capacity (MMbbls/year) 4 6

CAPEX ($) 1080 million 1080 million

Cost per barrel based on
CAPEX ($/bbl) 30 30
Net revenue just before
tax ($) 2700 million 2700 million
Table 1:Tabular comparison of Development options for Tantalum field.

Graphical comparison of development option for

Tantalum
3000
2500 2700 2700
2000
1500
1000
1080 1080
500
0
Years 9 6
of production 4 Production
Annual 6 CAPEX ($) 30 30
Average Net revenue befor
(years) Capacity development cost tax ($)
(MMbbls/year) per barrel
produceable ($/bbl)

SS STB

Figure 1: Graphical Analysis of Tantalum Field

Figure 1 shows that the economical price of the design possibilities varies solely
in production years and annual production capability intrinsically, CAPEX value
cannot be used as a preference criterion when determining which development

6
option is more cost-effective. The variation in the production years is dependent
on the number of wells available to each proposed option as well as the
producing capacity of each well.

…2…

7
Critical Analysis of Tantalum Field
The following assumptions are created for the appraisal of Tantalum fields’
development;
- Length of time for the construction of the mounted steel jacket platform is
excluded from the calculated years of production of Tantalum field.
- Gas power-driven turbines are being employed to power some facilities on
the FPSO
- Palladium has a cargo storage capacity of Two (2) million barrels.
- First production for both options commences upon initiating drilling.
- Palladium FPSO incorporates a drilling derrick.
- Produced water is not of a high volume.
The criterion used for the analysis of the Tantalum fields development setup
includes the following;
- Early Production/Pay-out Time
- Constructability
- Facilities expansion for prospects
- Intervention frequency
- Technical, operating and financial risks
- Operation decision and ease of maintenance (hydrate, wax deposits,
corrosion)
- Production Export and Geological location of field
Early Production/Pay-out Time: Considering both options, the amount of time
it would take for the Tantalum development project to recover the capital
investment varies. The standalone structure would require a minimum of three
(3) years to be completed before production can begin and a further nearly four
(4) years to realise the developmental costs before profit can be realised,
whereas the subsea tie back will require the use of subsea structures and with
the recent technological advance could take less than two (2) years to complete
and fewer than three (3) years to recover the value of development of the
infrastructure albeit the fixed structure has an higher production capability
(Offshore-technology 2017). According to a senior engineer with Statoil (now
Equinor), subsea tiebacks has been aforementioned to bring projects into
production a lot quicker (Offshore-technology 2017) just as is the case of their
Urd Satellite field tied back to the Norne production ship that was 5km away and
at a sea depth of 380m. (NORSK 2019)

8
Constructability and decommissioning: The difficulty involved in building a
facility will affect the project’s timeline and in terms of the buildability, the use of
a 10km subsea tie back to an existing facility with modularised hydrocarbon
processing equipment will save time as FPSO does not have to be custom-made
for the field. Self-installing technology can be used on platforms to minimise
installation and decommissioning costs and, depending on the fluid property,
simple processing is necessary which will reduce the topside weight, but the
structure must still support the weight of dry trees (IQ-Editor 2019).

Figure 2: Pictorial view of FPSO tie-back and Fixed jacket platform (Sources: Bull
and Love 2019; Gardner 2016)

Before discharging to shuttle tankers, the FPSO can store processed oil and gas
and this would improve the regularity of the total production system unlike its
fixed counterparts, which are usually built without storage facilities and the
assembly of the structure is done onshore before being moved to site. In
compliance with OSPAR Decision 98/3 regulations guidance for decommissioning
of offshore structures, these jackets of less than 10,000 tonnage cannot be left
on the seabed as was the case of Ensign field. Nonetheless, with the subsea
tieback, decommissioning costs include the pipelines that could be left in situ,
and subsea structures that are recyclable and refitted if still within the operating
limit following the DECC guideline for pipeline decommissioning in the UKCS, but
the well plugging and environmental clean-up could cost millions of Pounds
(Great Britain. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 2013).

9
Figure 3: Average Decommissioning cost of different projects in Gulf of Mexico

(source: Cottam 2017)

Facilities expansion for prospects: The location of Tantalum field is such that
there is potential for future prospects but based on the recoverable amount
obtained from Tantalum field, the possibility of the new prospects having a
higher recoverable amount is slim as such, the new wells can be linked to the
FPSO via the risers and flowlines connect the wells to the production subsea
manifold. A choke controls the flow is by and the fluid is co-mingled subsea
before it is sent to the processing facility. However, the fixed platform would be a
better alternative as a pipeline can be used to easily transport the produced field
to the shore and the design plan would allow for new equipment to be added.
Intervention frequency and cost: The frequency of intervention depends on
the capacity of the wells to produce. Intervention may require the use of drilling
derrick which the FPSO has but the fixed structure would require that a drilling
rig be brought in if the intervention requires a conventional workover that adds
to the operational cost of the field management but is cheaper compared to
subsea interventions. The availability of a workover rig often results to more
frequent use, resulting in increased recoverable. Dry trees on platforms are
easier to manage, and, the intervention frequency required for subsea equipment
is greater due to the possibility of leakages. (Stell 2013).
Technical, operating and financial risks: The use of a subsea tieback allows
for a reduction in the risk of personnel safety management and the rate of
human error as only an adequately sized and skilled team is required. The
technological, administrative and financial risks can be shared to some degree on

10
the basis of the agreement (processing, storage and handling) negotiated
between the parties, but the lack of a metering system for the efficient allocation
of the blend will affect the company, which is why a subsea meter can be
installed to determine the total amount of oil being produced before comingling.
The fixed system requires a large number of staff to operate properly, as well as
operating cost that could reduce the final revenue generated, but there is no
uncertainty about the amount produced per day.
Operation Decision and ease of maintenance (hydrate, wax deposits,
corrosion): Flow assurance is a matter of concern in the depletion of deep-
water reservoirs but for a 10km tieback, the fluid can be brought in with less
difficulty. it is easier to transport produced fluid in fixed structure using pipelines
at an RVP of 100psi or more. In order to prevent the accumulation of hydrates,
wax etc in the pipeline, 2-phase fluids can be conveyed via a single medium by
injecting inhibitors (Iyalla 2019). For fixed structures, the ease of maintenance is
higher than in a tie-back in which the facility is rented as such, any decision must
be made with the owners’ involvement to the detriment of the rental company.
Nevertheless, the FPSO has a hull that helps it reposition itself in bad weather
around the mooring system and mooring line, offering better control of the
heading than the fixed structure (Muspratt 2018).
Production Export and Geological location of field: The location of the field
is a very important criterion for choosing a development option because, in the
case of FPSO, weather-related unavailability of the shuttle tanker would result in
production delay that would not exist in fixed structures since pipelines are use.
however, having a 50km pipeline to land can cause disturbance to wildlife and
restrict fishing operations (Sullivan 2018).
Judgement Table
CRITERIA Fixed Jacket FPSO tie-back
Structure
Early Production/Pay-out Time 3 5
Constructability 4 5
Facilities expansion for prospects 5 4
Intervention frequency 5 4
Technical, operating and financial risks 3 5
Operation decision and ease of 3 4
maintenance (hydrate, wax deposits,
corrosion)
Production Export and Geological location 4 3
of field

11
 TOTAL 27 30

Table 2:Summary of critical analysis based on selected criteria

Ranking:
1 – Bad;
2 – Poor;
3 - Moderate;
4 – Average (choice with risk);
5 - Best
The Subsea tieback has the edge over the standalone structure in the areas of
pay-back, risk management, decommissioning and buildability. In some ways,
both options have an advantage over the other and the decision of using a
subsea tie-back is based largely on the recovery tendencies, design and the time
frame for recovery of the capital cost.

Proposed Process Flow Diagram for Tantalum Field

12
 To gas flotation unit
To Gas Turbine
G Amine sweetning Glycol dehydration

C2
Fluid from well G
o
HP Separator

C1
W O
MP Separator Oil Sweetning
O
Production Manifold
LP Separator
W
O
W
Gas flotation unit
Single buoy mooring
To shuttle tanker

To Sea
Storage tank

Figure 4: Proposed process flow diagram for Tantalum fields' development

The light oil from the well would flow through the Tantalum manifold based on
the selected option and then through the Palladium production manifold where it
would be blended together. The co-mingled oil flows at high pressure through the
flowlines/risers to the separator and due to the difference in densities (gravity
separation) most of the light gases come out of solution as well as water before
the oil travels to the other separator stages.
The valves open once the water is at some level and the produced water is
combined in the treatment unit and treated. The gas is compressed at the last
two separator stages and then sweetened to eliminate the contaminants. The
rest of the sulphur compound that maybe be in the oil will be removed and the
oil is will be sent to the cargo storage. The oil is pumped from the tank to the
buoy once the shuttle tanker is available, which then transfers the oil to the
tanker.

13
Proposed Gas processing, consumption/disposal requirements for
Tantalum Field
Gas processing includes extracting carbon compounds and liquids from the pure
natural gas to produce dry gas and complying with national, regional and
international gas flaring regulations has led energy companies develop ways of
managing generated gas.
Due to the co-mingling of the sour crude from palladium with the sweet
crude from Tantalum, the gas produced as a result of the blend must undergo
certain processing already common on the palladium FPSO due to its fluid
property. As such, most of the gas produced would be used to service the gas
turbine plant while the remaining would be used in the gas flotation unit (water
treatment facility), the amount of useable gas produced from the process is not
of an economical amount to be sold. The amount of sour crude currently being
produced is slightly higher than the sweet crude hence, the amount of
contaminant might be high. The absorption method will be used for both
sweetening and gas dehydration.
Gas sweetening (Chemical solvent)
Natural gas containing mostly pure methane can be used as a fuel source for
industrial-sized gas turbines used in offshore facilities for electricity generation.
Impurities such as carbon dioxide, sulphide of hydrogen, condensate, oil,
nitrogen, hydrates and other-higher-than-methane gases are contained in the
gas and carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide is known to form acid gas in the
presence of water and must be reduced as much as possible.

Figure 5: Amine process of gas treating (source: Blogger 2014)

14
A chemical solvent is used to sweeten the gas. Figure 1 above indicates the
treatment of gas using Amine solvent (Methyldiethanolamine [MDEA] which has
been proved to be economically viable in terms of cost).
The sour gas is passed through the amine-solvent-containing contactor tower
containing and the clean gas is collected from the top of the tower. The amine
solution absorbs the acid gases and is said to be ‘rich’ and both the
Lean amine and Rich amine flow through the heat exchanger. Rich amine is then
further heated by heat supplied from the reboiler in the regeneration still column.
The steam rising through the still leaves with the H2S and CO2, regenerating
the amine. Steam and acid gases are compressed and cooled separately from the
rich amine (Naturalgas 2013). In the reflux accumulator, the condensed water is
removed and returned to the still. In a solvent aerial cooler, the regenerate
lean amine is cooled and circulated to the contactor tower, completing the cycle.
Gas Dehydration
In order to remove associated water in the gas, absorption dehydration may
require the use of an agent called Triethyleneglycol that has a high-water affinity
and is most commonly used. Within the contactor, the glycol solution is added
into the gas and the connate water is drained from the gas while the glycol
particles become weighty and falls to the tank’s floor. The process takes place at
low temperatures and during regeneration at high temperatures, the absorbed
water is heated out of the agent. (Netusil and Ditl 2012)

Figure 6: Gas Dehydration Process using Glycol (source: Netusil and Ditl 2012)

15
Proposed water treatment plan for Tantalum Field
Oil reservoirs generally contain large volumes of water (formation or connate
water) that end up being brought to the surface with the oil being produced,
increasing as the field matures. The produced water is more saline than sea
water and can include chemical additives used during the drilling process that
can influence the coefficient of partitioning oil water and this water can have
considerable impact on the environment if discharged directly into the sea.
Until disposal, treatment is necessary to enable pollutants such as oil, sand
grains, scales and others to be extracted. Figure 7 below indicates that the
amount of formation water that would be generated with the oil would be around
12,000m3 as tantalum fields approaches its end-life.

Figure 7:Typical production profile for an oil field in the tropical region. (source:
Igunnu and Chen 2012)

The reinjection alternative is usually considered but it is not possible to reinject

all the water brought to surface. Produced water must be efficiently treated to
meet the discharge regulations. Several gravity and non-gravity-based
separation technologies are in use in the industry, but in this case, the dissolved
gas flotation unit which is a gravity-based technology would be used. It involves
saturating the produced water in a contactor with natural gas (the cleaned NGL)
and with increase in pressure, more gas is dissolved in the water. For contact

16
with the gas, the produced water is recirculated, and the product is then injected
into the flotation tank. The small diameter bubbles touch the oil droplets in the
water and dissolved gas comes out of solution, bringing them to the surface.

Figure 8: Dissolved gas flotation technology (source: oil and gas separator 2019)

Conclusion

In summary, a lot of options can be used in developing a field, but the selection
criteria depend on the priority of the organisation i.e. Smaller development cost
or operating cost. The subsea tie-back will require proper monitoring to ensure
that no leakage occur, and such a project can be accomplished efficiently with
the recent technological advances. Based on the size of the recoverable, it may
not be economical to have a permanent structure until further exploration
indicates that the prospects would be worth the investment.

17
APPENDICES
Recoverable
Years of Production =
number of wells∗well capacity
Annual Production capacity = Number of wells * well capacity
Total development cost, CAPEX = Sum of capital investments = (Number
of wells * capital investment for a well) + cost of platform +cost of
pipeline
Total development cost
Average development cost per barrel of production =
Total Recoverable
Total revenue before tax = Recoverable * Cost per barrel

18
REFERENCES
BLOGGER, 2014. Amine gas treatment process with flow sheet. [online]. 17
December 2014. Available from:
http://processflowsheets.blogspot.com/2011/11/amine-gas-treatment-process-
with-flow.html [Accessed 26 November 2019].
BULL, A.S. and LOVE, M.S., 2019. Worldwide oil and gas platform
decommissioning: A review of practices and reefing options. Ocean & Costal
management. 168 (1). pp 274.
COTTAM, N., 2017. Insight: The decommissioning conundrum part I.
environment-analyst. [online]. Available from: https://environment-
analyst.com/60129/insight-the-decommissioning-conundrum-part-i [Accessed 29
November 2019].
GARDNER, T.N., 2016. The challenge of maintaining deep-water wells. [online].
29 March 2016. Available from: https://www.controleng.com/articles/the-
challenge-of-maintaining-deepwater-wells/ [Accessed 29 November 2019].
GREAT BRITAIN. DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS, ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL
STRATEGY, 2013. Oil and gas: decommissioning of offshore installations and
pipelines. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-
decommissioning-of-offshore-installations-and-pipelines [Accessed 29 November
2019].
IGUNNU, E. and CHEN, G., 2012. Produced water treatment technologies.
International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies. 1(21). pp. 2
IQ-EDITOR, 2019. 10 reasons why FPSOs are the future of oil and gas. [online].
30 May 2019. Available from: https://www.oilandgasiq.com/oil-gas/news/ten-
reasons-why-fpsos-are-the-future-of-oil-and-ga [Accessed 28 November 2019]
IYALLA, I., 2019. Transportation, ENM202. [lecture notes]. Flow assurance.
Facilities. Robert Gordon University, Department of Engineering Postgraduate
studies, Sir Ian Wood Building, room SIWB 311, 11 November.
MUSPRATT, A., 2018. Guide to FPSO (Floating Production Storage and
Offloading). Oil & Gas IQ. [online]. Available from:
https://www.oilandgasiq.com/fpso-flng/articles/guide-to-floating-production-
storage-and-offloading-fpso [Accessed 20 November 2019].

19
NATURALGAS, 2013. Processing Natural Gas. [online]. Washington: Natural Gas
Supply Association. Available from: http://naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing-
ng/ [Accessed 25 November 2019].
NETUSIL, M., and DITL, P., 2012. Natural gas dehydration. In: S. GUPTA, ed.
Natural Gas – Extraction to end use. revised ed. London: IntechOpen. pp. 3
OFFSHORE-TECHNOLOGY, 2007. Tieback Time. [online]. Texas: Offshore-
Technology. Available from: https://www.offshore-
technology.com/features/feature1033/ [Accessed 15 November 2019].
NORWEGIAN PETROLEUM DIRECTORATE, 2019. URD. [online]. Norway:
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NORSK). Available from:
https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/facts/field/urd/ [Accessed 24 November
2019].
STELL, J., 2013. Subsea tiebacks: The latest strategies. [online]. 15 April 2013.
Available from: https://www.oedigital.com/news/458722-subsea-tiebacks-the-
latest-strategies [Accessed 29 November 2019].
SULLIVAN, M.O., 2018. Laverda Field Development – Environmental Statement.
Aberdeen: Premier Oil UK Ltd.

20