Perdido Development: Subsea and Flowline Systems

Ju, Gao; Littell, Howard Steven; Cook, Terry B.; Dupre, Mike; Clausing, K.M.; Shumilak, Edward E.; Schoppa, Wade

doi:10.4043/20882-ms

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• Azurite: FDPSO with flexible risers could install subsea equipment (Stensgaard, 2010). • Perdido spar: provides direct vertical access to replace ESP in a caisson placed at the riser base (Ju, 2010).…”

Section: Review Of Greenfield Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subsea Processing versus Host Selection: An Imperative Correlation

Anikpo¹,

Beltrami²

2015

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subsea processing (SP) technologies and host facilities are distinct building blocks in offshore oil and gas field development; they can be regarded as complements or alternates depending on the given scenario. This paper will present a unique insight into these scenarios including applicable interactions. It will highlight the key parameters in this rarely investigated correlation which influence concept selection and full field development (FFD). The paper will also shed some light on key FFD drivers such as reservoir size and (qualitative) economics.This paper is based on thoroughly conducted secondary research covering 72 past, present, and potential-future related projects around the world. A multidisciplinary approach leveraging expertise in field development, topsides and subsea processing was developed to highlight the trends and possible future applications.The study reveals a direct correlation between subsea processing systems and host selection which plays a vital role in concept feasibility studies and full field development. Numerous subsea processing parameters have been considered during this study and a few have shown significant effects on host selection -reservoir size, water depth, field typology, etc. The generated trends reveal interesting winners and losers for various technical configurations, including a slight technology limitation dependence on geographical region. Although it may be possible to predict future applications of subsea processing technology and optimize designs based on the host's interaction with the subsea processing system, the market uncertainties still remain high; nevertheless, recommended areas of focus are presented in this paper based on identified gaps. There are not many publications on this subject; therefore some of the observations presented in this paper are novel. 2OTC-25675-MS

show abstract

Section: Review Of Greenfield Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subsea Processing versus Host Selection: An Imperative Correlation

Anikpo¹,

Beltrami²

2015

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Separating the gas phase from the liquid phase reduces the risk of hydrate formation in the pipeline, thus reducing potential downtime and ensuring smooth operation. Separation systems used in offshore applications have various designs (Jahnsen and Storvik 2011;Khoi Vu et al 2009). A few are discussed in detail in the following:…”

Section: Subsea Separationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying Subsea Fluid-Processing Technologies for Deepwater Operations

Babatola

Jiang³

et al. 2016

Oil and Gas Facilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subsea processing is an evolving technology in response to ultradeepwater hydrocarbon development and has the potential to become one of the most attractive methods in the oil industry to economically unlock hydrocarbon resources. The objective of this paper is to examine the features of subsea fluid-processing technologies and capabilities, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of different facility types. The advantage of subsea processing systems is that they allow fluids to be boosted from longer tieback distances. Constraints associated with subsea processing systems include operation efficiency, produced-waterand sand-handling capabilities, and the system's ability to handle hydrates/scale. In this paper, we reviewed the application of subsea systems in 12 deepwater fields and discussed the significance of each. Furthermore, future subsea-technology development and anticipated challenges are outlined in this paper. The significance of this study is to summarize the lessons learned from current available uses so that future decisions regarding the application of these subsea processing technologies can be made appropriately and efficiently.

show abstract

“…The Cascade & Chinook risers also include the deepest production and gas export risers in the world, extending the trend of ever deeper Gulf of Mexico developments from the recent Atlantis, Independence Hub and Perdido projects 3,4,5 . In addition to the ultra deep water, proximity to the Sigsbee Escarpment brings a unique challenge in the form of persistent and uniform high-speed lower water column currents, which flow northeast to southwest, parallel with the escarpment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cascade and Chinook Subsea Development: the World

Masson

Carter²,

Streit

et al. 2011

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Located in 8,200 feet water depth, the Cascade & Chinook subsea development risers are the deepest production risers in the world. These are also the first offset free-standing hybrid risers to be installed in the Gulf of Mexico, and the world's first use of hybrid risers in combination with a disconnectable turret-moored FPSO.This paper presents the unique benefits and challenges associated with using hybrid riser tower technology in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, based on the experience gained by both client and contractor in executing the Cascade & Chinook riser project.The authors review the history of the Cascade & Chinook riser system, from concept selection through engineering, procurement, construction, installation and pre-commissioning. The most significant challenges and the key project management decisions are highlighted, covering: field layout considerations; strength and fatigue performance; design verification; interfaces with the production facility and subsea infrastructure; procurement and fabrication logistics, and spare materials philosophy; installation engineering and execution; safety and quality management; and regulatory compliance. The project management strategy, and the relationship between client and contractor through the project life cycle, are presented and critically assessed.The paper concludes with an evaluation of the delivery time, cost and project execution risks associated with the hybrid riser concept, and compares this with more traditional deepwater riser solutions, in the context of a deepwater Gulf of Mexico development. OTC 21857"bottom current", which actually extends over several thousand feet up from the seabed, is important with respect to vortexinduced vibration (VIV) and umbilical-to-riser clashing. Figure 1: Cascade & Chinook Phase I Concept SelectionThe Cascade & Chinook development will utilize an FPSO that can be disconnected from the mooring system 6 . This allows the FPSO to sail away from the danger of approaching tropical storms or hurricanes. When released, the disconnectable turret buoy descends to a neutral depth of more than 120 feet below sea level where it, together with the connected mooring lines, risers and umbilicals, are sheltered from the extreme wave forces of such storms.Production facility type and water depth are generally two key parameters for riser concept selection and this was the case for Cascade & Chinook, i.e., the deepest risers in the world combined with a disconnectable turret-moored FPSO. At the time of concept selection, flexible pipe was not qualified for the water depth. While steel catenary risers have been successfully used with semi-submersible and spar hulls in the Gulf of Mexico, and with spread-moored FPSOs in West Africa, they were considered to present too much risk for the Cascade & Chinook project for the following reasons.• Early studies of fatigue performance, and review of literature investigating use of SCRs with an FPSO in the Gulf of Mexico 7 , indicated that it might not be possible to achieve the required s...

show abstract

Perdido Development: Subsea and Flowline Systems

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Subsea Processing versus Host Selection: An Imperative Correlation

Subsea Processing versus Host Selection: An Imperative Correlation

Applying Subsea Fluid-Processing Technologies for Deepwater Operations

Cascade and Chinook Subsea Development: the World

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About