639 Aa

A Study for the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service
GULF OF MEXICO DEEP WATER DECOMMISSIONING STUDY REVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART FOR REMOVAL OF GOM US OCS OIL & GAS FACILITIES IN GREATER THAN 400 WATER DEPTH M09PC00004 Final Report
Conducted by
PROSERV OFFSHORE HOUSTON, TX PROJECT NO. 29038-11 OCTOBER 2009

This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009
LEGAL NOTICE
U S Dept of Interior Minerals Management Services (MMS) October 2009 This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This report ("Report") to the MMS presenting a study on US Gulf of Mexico deepwater decommissioning titled State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in water depths greater than 400 was prepared by PROSERV OFFSHORE solely for the benefit and private use of the US MMS. Neither PROSERV OFFSHORE nor any person acting on PROSERV OFFSHORE's behalf either (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any estimate, information or method disclosed in this Report or (b) assumes any liability with respect to the use of or reliance on calculations, information or methods disclosed in this Report by anyone other than the US MMS. Any recipient of Report, by acceptance of, reliance on, or use of this study, releases and discharges PROSERV OFFSHORE from liability for any direct, indirect, consequential or special loss or damage whether such loss or damage arises in contract, tort (including the negligence of PROSERV OFFSHORE in the preparation of this study), strict liability or otherwise. Information furnished by PROSERV OFFSHORE hereunder shall not be used or referred to in connection with the offering of securities or other public offering.
Legal Notice
00c-1
Rev.0 Oct 2009
GOM DEEP WATER DECOMMISSIONING STUDY Final Report

REVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART FOR REMOVAL OF GOM US OCS OIL & GAS FACILITIES IN GREATER THAN 400 WATER DEPTH
Date Oct 2009 Oct 2009
Rev. No. 0 1
Revisions Draft Report Final Report, Revised All Sections
PREPARED BY:
Proserv Offshore
Revision 1 Prepared By: SMW/BCE Checked By: SMN Approved By: RCB Issue Date Dec 2009
Document Control
00d - 1
Rev.1 Dec 2009
GOM DEEP WATER DECOMMISSIONING STUDY Final Report

REVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART FOR REMOVAL OF GOM US OCS OIL & GAS FACILITIES IN GREATER THAN 400 WATER DEPTH MMS M09PC00004
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES OBJECTIVE, ASSUMPTIONS AND OVERALL APPROACH CONSTRUCTION COST INFLATION TRENDS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 1 PROJECT INITIAL ASSESSMENTS 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 BACKGROUND GOM ASSET DESCRIBTION GOM MAJOR ASSET INVENTORY GOM MAJOR ASSET INVENTORY PRELIMINARY GROUPING
SECTION 2 METHODOLOGIES, TECH. & INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT 2.1 DECOMMISSIONING WORK ACTIVITIES 2.1.1 Decommissioning Planning 2.1.2 Decommissioning Engineering 2.1.3 Permitting 2.1.4 Bidding 2.1.5 Pre-job Meetings 2.1.6 Offshore Work 2.1.7 Project Closure DECOMMISSIONING TECHNOLOGY 2.2.1 Explosive Methods 2.2.2 Non-Explosive Methods 2.2.3 Severing Conclusions 2.2.4 Deepwater Diving Suits
00b - 1 Rev.0 Oct 2009
2.2
Table of Contents
2.3
2.2.5 Remotely Operated Vehicles 2.2.6 Directly Operated Vehicles 2.2.7 Subsea Operations Conclusions 2.2.8 Standard Heavy Lift Technologies 2.2.9 Alternative Heavy Lift Technologies 2.2.10 Heavy Lift Conclusions 2.2.11 Well Intervention Vessels/Systems DEEPWATER DECOMMISSIONING TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES 2.3.1 Platform Removal Preparation 2.3.2 Conductor Removal 2.3.3 Pipeline/Flowline Abandonment 2.3.4 Topsides Removal All Scenarios 2.3.5 Decommissioning Project Challenges
SECTION 3 DISPOSAL OPTIONS 3.1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIAL DISPOSAL 3.1.1. Scrap Yards 3.1.2. Reefing 3.1.3. Reuse of Production Facilities SPECIFIC DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES 3.2.1. Jacket Platforms 3.2.2. Tension Leg Platforms 3.2.3. Semisubmersible Production Units 3.2.4. SPARS 3.2.5. Floating Production Storage & Offloading Systems (FPSO) 3.2.6. Subsea Wells & Tie Backs 3.2.7. Subsea Pipelines & Control Umbilicals REMOVAL & REUSE OPTIONS 3.3.1. Platforms 3.3.2. Tension Leg Platforms 3.3.3. Semisubmersibles 3.3.4. SPARS 3.3.5. Floating Production Storage & Offloading Systems (FPSO) 3.3.6. Subsea Well Heads 3.3.7. Subsea Pipelines & Umbilicals REEFING PROGRAMS 3.4.1. Texas 3.4.2. Louisiana 3.4.3. Mississippi 3.4.4. Alabama 3.4.5. Florida EFFECTIVE REEFING COMMUNITIES ALTERNATIVE TO PLATFORM REMOVAL
00b - 2 Rev.0 Oct 2009
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5. 3.6
Table of Contents
SECTION 4 DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS & COSTS 4.1 FIXED PLATFORMS DECOMMISSIONIG COSTS Platform only without conductors Conductors severing and removal Pipeline abandonment Well Plug & Abandonment (P&A) Cost Summation Conceptual Fixed Platform Removal Costs SPAR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS Platform preparation Deck removal Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal Hull removal Cost Summation TLP & MINI TLP DECOMMISSIONIG COSTS Platform preparation Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal Deck / hull removal Cost Summation SEMI DECOMMISSIONING COSTS Platform preparation Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal Hull removal Cost Summation FPSO STRUCTURE DECOMMISSIONING Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal SUBSEA STRUCTURE DECOMMISSIONING PROBABILISTIC DECOMMISSIONING COST
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6 4.7
SECTION 5 APPENDIX 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Table of Contents
DECOMMISSIONING ESTIMATES BY REPRESENTATIVE PLATFORM LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS MMS CCONTRACT WORK SCOPE GLOSSARY OF TERMS
00b - 3 Rev.0 Oct 2009
5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10
EXPLOSIVE PERMIT STIPULATIONS FIXED PLATFORM GENERAL METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION INFLATION TRENDS SUBSEA REPORT CROSSMAR PRESENTATION ON ARTICIAL REEFING PROGRAMS
Table of Contents
00b - 4
Rev.0 Oct 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study has been prepared for the Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS) in response to their Request for Proposals (RFP) for specific areas of interest to the MMS Technology Assessment and Research (TA&R) Program, Oil Spill Response Research & Decommissioning as published in Broad Agency Announcement Solicitation Number M08PS00094. The study provides a review of the state of the art and current practice in the removal and disposal of Gulf of Mexico (GOM) U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas facilities in water depths greater than 400 feet (deep water). It also identifies and discusses the challenges and choices faced by the industry and regulatory authorities in dealing with the decommissioning of these facilities. The study also estimates the cost of decommissioning typical fixed and floating deep water facilities. The study is separated into the following Section areas of interest. (1) Section 1 identifies the GOM major facility inventory by type and water depth, grouping and representative platform. (2) Section 2 provides an assessment of methodology, technology and infrastructure and presents a synopsis of the major decommissioning tools, resources, limitations and future challenges. (3) Section 3 provides an assessment of disposal options and their impact on state run reefing programs and assessment of the water depths that the programs are most effective. (4) Section 4 presents A) deterministic cost data to determine estimated decommissioning liabilities for typical fixed, tethered and moored structures and associated pipelines and wells in the GOM, B) a conceptual removal method estimate and C) a discussion on deterministic and probabilistic estimating and a sample probabilistic cost estimate for platform removal. (5) Section 5 Appendix presents the decommission cost estimates for the representative platforms used in this study, lists of Figures/Tables, acknowledgements, MMS Contract Work Scope, Glossary of Terms, explosive permit stipulations and fixed platform General Methodology & Assumption.
BACKGROUND
Currently, most offshore GOM platform decommissioning has been in water depths less than 400 ft. This study focuses on water depths >400 ft. There are currently 111 surface platforms in the GOM in water depths greater than 400 feet to 8,000 feet, as shown in the Major Asset Table 0.1 below. For the purpose of this study surface platform includes a) fixed structures with legs anchored by piles to the seabed and includes compliant towers, b) Spars attached to the seabed by mooring lines and c) tensioned leg platforms attached to the seabed by tensioned steel tubes. A breakdown of the assets is provided in Section 1. The
Executive Summary Section 1 of 8 Rev.1 Dec 2009
Major Asset Table shows the range of costs included in this study for major facilities in the GOM.
Asset Type Water Depth Deck Range Ft. Weight Range 1000 st 400-1,754 1,500-8,000 .8 - 23 2 - 59 Jacket / Count Hull Weight Range 1000 st 5,9 - 59 70 2.8 - 60 41 Estimated Decommissioning Liability Range MM US$ Each (1) $6 - $79 <$10 - >$47 $0.8 - $3+ $0.3 1.3 $4 $3 - $10+
Fixed Platform Tensioned / Moored Pipelines Platform Wells Dry Tree Subsea Wells Subsea Well & Template
Table 0.1 - GOM Major Asset Table (1) Using current GOM proven technology for platform only exclusive of pipelines and wells REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
Most of the GOM facilities have deck weights in excess of 4,000 short tons (st) and jacket or hull weights in excess of 10,000 st. as shown in the Major Asset Table in this section. All of these platforms would set new size and depth records for decommissioning by a wide margin. A number of these platforms are approaching the end of their productive lives. A 1996 study conducted by the National Research Council titled An Assessment of Techniques for Removing Offshore Structures [1] provides historical and background information not repeated in this study. The previous TA&R project, State of the Art of Removing Large Platforms Located in Deep Water, [2] assessed the relevant technology for decommissioning similar facilities in the Pacific OCS region, the methodology which might be used, and the resulting costs. The study proposed here would review and build on the previous work, updating it for advances in technology and for the current cost structure and different conditions of the GOM. In addition, this study will a) address the wide range of other types of structures that are used for deep water oil and gas production in the GOM, e.g., Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs), Spars and mono-hull vessels of varying descriptions and b) present decommissioning resources being developed or under consideration for development.
OBJECTIVES, ASSUMPTIONS, AND OVERALL APPROACH
The overall objective of this study is to examine the relevant issues pertaining to the GOM deep water major asset inventory and to quantify them in the context of determining the estimated decommission costs for a type of structure, using state-of-practice methodology
and currently available technology and to probe where improvements in methodology and technology will present challenges. The following are the specific objectives: 1. Define / identify the major asset inventory in the GOM. 2. Group the inventory into typical types of structures and select a representative facility from within each group and provide a decommissioning cost estimate and a means of applying the estimate to other inventory within a group. 3. Conduct a methodology, technology and infrastructure assessment determining the major tasks and resource requirements for decommissioning, evaluating the tools and technology in relation to seabed severing methods, conventional and non-conventional lifting methods. 4. Determine the areas where improvements are needed and where the current technology and resources, including the available infrastructure, will be most challenged. 5. Provide an assessment of disposal options for each type of structure, considering removal and reuse and how disposal impacts reefing programs and at what water depths are the reefing programs most effective. 6. Determine the most important areas of uncertainty in the decommissioning processes for the deep water structures and develop cost estimates for each representative facility using probabilistic methods to capture the uncertainty. 7. This study considers using a 2000 ton or greater capacity derrick barge or crane vessel (DB) or a dynamically positioned semi-submersible crane vessel (SSCV) with greater than 5000 ton capacity. Crane vessels are presented in Section 2. 8. This study considered using the following removal methods: In-Situ cutting and removing of the jackets in place onto cargo barges to transport for disposal. Hopping the jackets into successively shallower water locations where sections are removed onto cargo barges to transport for disposal.
The removal methods are also compared to conceptual removal methods with floatation bladders or with use of twin marine lifting vessels, both presented in Section 2 with estimated conceptual costs presented in Section 4.
Executive Summary Section
3 of 8
Rev.1 Dec 2009
DECOMMISSIONING COST INFLATION INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION INFLATION TRENDS
MMS requested that offshore inflation cost trends be added to this report. A study was conducted on the inflation factors and this section presents a summary of the results. A more in-depth study is provided in the Appendix Section 5.8. To make a determination of the appropriate inflation factor to use for GOM OCS decommissioning project cost estimates we have evaluated construction trends internationally in the recent past. General inflation rates, construction inflation rates, and offshore vessel inflation rates were all analyzed in this study. It was concluded that a mean yearly inflation rate for derrick barges was the most accurate and influential factor in predicting future offshore decommissioning inflation rates. A review of the various rates shows a wide range of variation by category and from year to year. We have reviewed the available inflation data and propose the following inflation factor of 3.36% for use offshore, as shown in Derrick Barge Average in Average column in Table 0.2.
1997
Derrick Barge Average (%)
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Average
14.30
0.002
3.90
7.84
0.03
7.17
5.69
6.73
1.52
13.89
15.20
0.47
3.36
Table 0.2 GOM OCS Decommissioning Projects Cost Adjustment Factor
Recent information received by derrick barge contractors indicates that the market costs for 2009 have decreased to an approximate level of $1,300 per st for decommissioning 4-pile and larger structures in the GOM. At the time of this study, back-up information was not available. See the Historical Graph in the Appendix Section 5.8.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the study lead to the following conclusions: 1. Complete Removal In-Situ is the preferred method where the derrick barge has the lifting capacity to remove in a single lift. It will be less time consuming and demand more resources than the Hopping method. This assumes the use of the technology and methods that are readily available today. Technology currently under construction and future technology in the 20,000+ st lifting range will expand the number of platforms than can be removed in larger or single lift operations and flotation methods may prove viable for single lift jacket removal of all tonnages. 2. Complete removal In-Situ where the derrick barge does not have sufficient lifting capacity and the jacket must be cut up by divers and or ROV would not be the preferred method
due to the longer durations and human exposure risks required, especially when using divers for underwater cuts and removal. 3. The Hopping method where the top section of the jacket exposed above water is removed without the use of divers appears to be much safer in a relative sense, when compared to In-situ jacket removal. 4. Risk of accidents increase with water depth for both methods, but it increases much faster with the In-situ method. 5. The groupings and estimates in this study are a high-level snapshot in time with available information. Additional owner / operator data would be required to provide more specific groupings and estimates at a more precise level. 6. Technology is continuing to mature in the GOM with input from other areas such as the North Sea and Brazil, but will be a challenge for deep sea operations, especially where decommissioning operations were not considered in the design phase. See recommendations below. 7. Aquaculture may present an alternate use for non-producing platforms. 8. Disposal options are varied, from disposal at or near GOM ports to towing to foreign port. New flotation technology may provide for towing larger structures into shallower ports. 9. The cost to P&A accessible problem free wells are addressed in this study with the use of platform rigless methods and interventional vessels rigless methods. Cost to P&A subsea wells with the use of submersible drilling rigs are also included but the defining line of when drilling rigs are necessary would require data and analysis outside the scope of this study. See Recommendations in this Section for the collection of additional well data. 10. Well intervention vessels are providing an effective means to conduct rigless deepwater well abandonments. These vessels are designed to operate in water depths to 10,000 feet.
RECOMMENDATIONS
During the course of this study, the MMS requested that Proserv address gaps in MMS regulations or practices that exist with decommissioning operation for types of structures in the GOM. The following are some on the pertinent recommendations included in this study. Other recommendations are included in appropriate sections or in articles in the Appendix. 1. This recommendation is for other than fixed platforms. The regulations for removal of subsea structures should be expanded to clarify what is to be removed or may remain at what water depths. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that subsea wells will be removed, subsea structures anchored to the seabed will remain in place and subsea structures that are attached to or stabbed over the anchored structure will be removed. 2. With the consideration in #1 above that anchored subsea structures may remain in place, the regulation requiring that all plugged wells be removed 15 feet below the mudline should be reviewed for deepwater subsea tree wells.[1] Removing this
requirement would greatly enhance the safety of decommissioning work and reduce the project costs. Additionally pipelines are not buried in deepwater and subsea equipment skids will be abandoned in situ, so it seems reasonable to leave the well casings below the mudline. 3. During well abandonment projects it is imperative that adequate seals are placed in the wellbore to permanently seal the well. This is a challenge in deepwater wells especially in subsea wet trees. The challenge is greatly increased for wellheads without access fittings to all casing annulus sections. Wellheads should be designed with full access to all casing strings which will reduce well decommissioning costs. [3] This is a condition for many subsea wells that may present problems for P&A operations. 4. Ideally all permeable zones above the production casing show should be sealed off with cement during the drilling of the well. For the most part it is easier and less expensive to seal off these zones during the well drilling operation than during a decommissioning project. [3] 5. The key challenge with cutting well conductors or any grouted structural member is being able to cut through the grout. The effectiveness of cutting multiple conductor pipes with grout in the annular areas is a factor of how much grout is in the annular area and if the pipes are concentric. Some cutting tools can sever grouted areas better than others. Inspection technology should be developed that will determine the extent of grout in the annulus and the orientation of the conductor pipes. This information would allow the decommissioning contractor to select the best cutting technique which would reduce the amount of time spent severing the conductors and less offshore human exposure. 6. Industry should place more emphasis during the initial design to design the facilities in consideration of how the facilities will be removed. The platforms and subsea structures should be designed so that it will be less costly and safer to remove these structures. Some techniques to reduce the time spent decommissioning the structures are: a. Eliminate the placement of grout in the top section of well conductors annular spaces. b. Reduce the weight of mooring systems by utilizing non steel cables. c. Reduce the weight of subsea flowlines by utilizing non steel flowlines. d. Install lifting connections on the jacket that would be used during the jacket removal project. e. Design subsea trees with full ROV access to all annular spaces. This will enable testing and plugging work in all casing strings.
f. Continue subsea design efforts to provide universal connections which will minimize the number of access tools required to work on different manufacturers subsea equipment. g. Improve the functionality of the subsea equipment to allow more efficient decommissioning work. 7. Information should be gathered on subsea inventory. The inventory should be evaluated and categorized into quantities, types, sizes, weights. Gathering this information is even more critical as fields near depletion and interests are sold to other operators. It has been found that the well production and basic information may be in possession of the new owner but often design and installation drawings and procedures are not available. It may be unknown what subsea systems are ROV friendly or have been designed with decommissioning in mind. It may be unknown if systems are or have been maintained and documented to allow for smooth operation during decommissioning. This information would assist in decommission. It is recommended that all subsea systems address decommissioning and maintenance during the design phase, to assure proper operation of decommissioning systems in the future. Regulations on the transfer of data to new operators would assist in this endeavor. 8. Additional data would need to be gathered to access the decommissioning cost for wells that have downhole problems and or wells that would only be accessible with the use of a drilling rig or drilling rig vessel. These costs are not included in this study. Regulations requiring the collection, submittal and updating of this data and planed decommissioning method would assist in determining future liability. 9. Deepwater subsea operations would be more efficient with enhancements to camera and visualization technology. This is especially important in high silt, debris sensitive areas where it is critical that industry is provided high quality 3-D images. [3] 10. Subsea systems construction equipment is in limited supply. Standardized subsea rental systems should be available which would improve subsea decommissioning project cycle time and work performance. Since this equipment is long lead and high cost, perhaps an MMS sponsored group could facilitate this service. [3]
11. The Gulf of Mexicos oil and gas producing states rigs-to-reef program has been
successfully utilized by the oil industry and we encourage the continuation of this program. Additional reef locations could be added to the program which would reduce the expense of transporting structures over long distances to existing reef sites. Ideally these new reef sites could be located at the location of the deepwater facilities. For instance for jackets that are partially removed, the portion of the jacket in water depths
>400 feet would not benefit the reefing community but the upper portion of the jacket left in place would be beneficial to the fish population. See Section 3 for Artificial Reef Programs and specifically Section 3.5 for research figures showing optimal water depths for reefing. 12. It is understood that a large portion of MMSs GOM facility records database was destroyed due to flooding from recent hurricanes. It would be useful to obtain the following missing platform data to complete the characteristics of each structure in the GOM as detailed in Section 1 of this report: a. b. c. d. e. f. Pile and or Skirt Pile configuration and diameter of piles for severing method Deck and jacket weights for HLV selection Are well trees dry or wet Number, type and diameter of mooring systems Installation methods and HLVs used Well records to document placement of annular cement sections
Executive Summary Section
8 of 8
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Section 1 DEEPWATER FACILITIES OVERVIEW

This section presents the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) inventory Major Assets
1.1 Background
The following surface facilities are currently installed or in the process of being installed in the GOM in water depths greater than 400 feet, as shown in Table 1.1: Structure Type (Figure 1.1) Fixed Platforms Water Depth 400-600 Fixed Platforms, including Compliant Towers (CT) Water Depth 600 1700+ Classic Spar Truss Spar Cell Spar MiniDOC Spar Mini or New Generation Tension Leg Platform (MTLP) Conventional Tension Leg Platform (TLP) Semi Submersibles (Semi) TOTAL Table 1.1 GOM Major Assets Units 41 29 3 12 1 2 6 9 8 111
Figure 1.1 Deepwater System Types

Project Initial Assessment Section 1 1 of 14 Rev.1 Dec 2009
1.2 GOM Asset Descriptions

The following descriptions are provided by the MMS website [4] {(http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/deepwatr/options.html). Some of the information has been updated for this study. Fixed Platform (FP) consists of a jacket (a tall vertical section made of tubular steel members supported by piles driven through the legs, through skirt pile sleeves or both and into the seabed) with a deck placed on top, providing space for crew quarters, a drilling rig, and production facilities. The fixed platform is economically feasible for installation in water depths up to 1,500 feet. Compliant Tower (CT) consists of a narrow, flexible tower and a piled foundation that can support a conventional deck for drilling and production operations. Unlike the fixed platform, the compliant tower withstands large lateral forces by sustaining significant lateral deflections, and is usually used in water depths between 1,000 and 2,000 feet. The CT may or may not be supported with guyed wires anchored to the seabed. Tension Leg Platform (TLP) consists of a floating structure held in place by vertical, tensioned tendons connected to the sea floor by pile-secured templates. Tensioned tendons provide for the use of a TLP in a broad water depth range with limited vertical motion. The larger TLP's have been successfully deployed in water depths approaching 5,000 feet. The TLP may be anchored to the seabed by neutrally buoyant steel tubular tendons or a combined chain and wire anchoring system to driven piles. Mini-Tension Leg Platform (MTLP) is a floating mini-tension leg platform of relatively low cost developed for production of smaller deepwater reserves which would be uneconomic to produce using more conventional deepwater production systems. It can also be used as a utility, satellite, or early production platform for larger deepwater discoveries. The world's first Mini-TLP was installed in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998. MTLP are currently installed in water depths exceeding 4,000 feet. The MTLP may be anchored to the seabed by neutrally buoyant steel tubular tendons or a combined chain and wire anchoring system to driven piles. SPAR Platform (SPAR) consists of a large diameter single or multi vertical cylinder(s) supporting a deck. It has a typical fixed platform topside (surface deck with drilling and production equipment), three types of risers (production, drilling, and export), and a hull which is moored using a taut catenary system of six to twenty lines anchored into the seafloor. SPAR's are presently used in water depths exceeding 7,000 feet. The SPAR may be anchored to the seabed by a combined chain and wire or chain and polyester line anchoring system to driven or suction piles. There are a number of SPAR designs per the Major Asset Table and Figure 1.1. Floating Production System (FPS) consists of a semi-submersible unit which is equipped with drilling and production equipment. It is anchored in place with wire rope and chain, or can be dynamically positioned using rotating thrusters. Production from subsea wells is transported to the surface deck through production risers designed to accommodate platform motion. The FPS can be used in a range of water depths from 600 to 7,500 feet. Subsea System (SS) ranges from single subsea wells producing to a nearby platform, FPS, or TLP to multiple wells producing through a manifold and pipeline system to a nearby or distant production facility. These systems are presently used in water depths greater than 5,000 feet.
Project Initial Assessment Section 1
2 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Floating Production, Storage & Offloading System (FPSO) consists of a large tanker type vessel moored to the seafloor. An FPSO is designed to process and store production from nearby subsea wells and to periodically offload the stored oil to a smaller shuttle tanker. The shuttle tanker then transports the oil to an onshore facility for further processing. An FPSO may be suited for marginally economic fields located in remote deepwater areas where a pipeline infrastructure does not exist.
1.3 GOM Major Asset Inventory

There are currently 70 fixed platforms in the GOM in water depths from 400 and greater. There are 41 platforms in the depth range from 400 to 600 and the remainder 29 in >600to the deepest to date in 1754 water depth. The majority of these facilities have jacket weights in excess of 10,000 st. Any of these platforms would set new size and depth records for decommissioning by a wide margin. A number of these platforms are approaching the end of their productive lives. Subsea inventory in the GOM is depicted in Sections 2 and 3, but a listing of the complete inventory in sufficient detail to estimate the decommissioning costs was not available for this study. See the Executive Summary Inventory and Section 2 - Information Availability. The previous TA&R project, State of the Art of Removing Large Platforms Located in Deep Water, [2] assessed the relevant technology for decommissioning similar facilities in the Pacific OCS region, the methodology which might be used, and the resulting costs. The study proposed here would review and build on the previous work, updating it for advances in technology and for the current cost structure and different conditions of the GOM. In addition, this study will address the wide range of other types of structures that are used and being developed for deep water oil and gas production in the GOM, e.g., Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs), Spars and mono-hull vessels of varying descriptions. Tables 1.2 and 1.3 shows the GOM Major Asset Inventory sorted by Type / Block location and by water depth. The type in these tables refers to Fixed Platform, Spar, TLP, etc. Numerous public sources including MMS and other websites were visited to obtain information on the GOM major assets. Some of the sources of information provided conflicting data and the data believed to be more credible was used. It is believed that the most reliable information is used in this study. Input as to platform characteristics was requested from a number of Operators / Owners but was not made available for this study; therefore some of the platform data may be subject to revision.
3 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
TABLE 1.2 GOM Major Asset Inventory Sorted by Type and Block Location
Platform Location Fixed Platforms EB 110 A Tequila EB 159 - Cerveza Ligera EB 160 - Cerveza EB 165 - Snapper EC 373 A EC 381 A EI 371 B EI 372 A PRO EI 384 A EI 397 A EW 826 A EW 873 - Lobster EW 910 A EW 947 A GB 128 A Enchilada GB 142 A GB 172 B Salsa GB 189 - Tick GB 191 A GB 236 A GB 260 Baldplate - CT GB 72 A GC 18 A GC 19 A - Boxer GC 52 A GC 52 CCP GC 6 A GC 65 A - Bullwinkle GC 89 A Cinnamon HI A 371 A HI A 389 A HI A 582 D (CYRUS) HI A 589 A MC 109 A - Amberjack MC 148 A MC 194 A - Cognac MC 20 A MC 21 B Simba MC 280 Lena - CT MC 311 A MC 365 A Corral MC 397 Alabaster MC 486 A MC 63 B MP 288 A SMI 205 A SMI 205 B SP 49 C SP 52 A SP 83 A SP 89 B SP 89 MC674 #3 SP 93 A SP 93 B 660 925 935 863 443 446 415 414 431 472 483 774 549 477 705 542 693 718 721 682 1647 541 761 751 604 604 620 1348 670 430 410 440 477 1100 651 1027 480 667 997 428 619 476 582 480 420 437 523 400 531 467 456 422 446 450 848 7,400 1,798 4,330 1,020 950 9,999 14,991 26,000 20,503 4,000 3,972 Water Depth Deck (ft) Weight (st) Jacket Weight (st) Pile Tendons Legs Pile / Tendon type Pile type
8 4 8 8 4 4 4-48" & 4-92" 8 3 leg 8 8-48" & 12-72" Skirt 4 4 0 4 4 4 8 4 4 4-48" & 4-54" Skirt 3-Skirt Skirt
8+4 4+8 8+16 8+12 leg-skirt 48" 48" leg-skirt 12 leg-skirt 8 3 - 72" 8 4+8 4+8 8+12 12 84" 4+16
3,850 4,500
10,200 16,535
3,850 533 2,245 2,000 1,800 8,100 2,400 5,200 6,500
925 10,000 11,023 8,500 13,228 57,267 16,755 14,881
Skirt
2,000 2,300 3,261 900
17,000 54,427 6,000 3,670
Skirt 12 3 8 4 6 4 12 Skirt 8 4 12+32 3+4 48" 48" 6+12 4+12 24 84" 48" 4+8
3,261 23,000 1,845 1,197 1,004 1,124 1,290
23,810 59,000 8,600 9,025 23,366 5,910
4 4 4-72" & 4-72"
4+4 leg-skirt
1,400 668 638 892 900
4,120 5,080 4,400 4,279 5,447
8 4-skirt 4 4-72" & 4-48" 4 1-96" & 4-84" 3-skirt 0 4-skirt 8 8-48" & 4-60"
48" leg-skirt 4-skirt 72" leg-skirt
4 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
TABLE 1.2 GOM Major Asset Inventory Sorted by Type and Block Location Continued
Platform Location Fixed Platforms SS 332 A SS 332 B SS 354 A SS 358 A ST 308 A (Tarantula) ST 316 A ST 317 A VK 780 A - Spirit VK 786 A Petronius CT VK 817 A VK 823 A Virgo VK 989 A - Pompano VR 395 A VR 412 A WC 645A WC 661 A Fixed Platforms Count Classic Spar AC 25 A Hoover GC 205 A Genesis VK 826 A Neptune Spar Classic Spar Count Truss Spar AC 857 A Perdido EB 602 A Nansen EB 643 A Boomvang GB 668 A Gunnison GC 338 A Front Runner GC 641 A Tahiti GC 645 A Holstein GC 680 A Constitution GC 782 A Mad Dog MC 127 A Horn Mountain MC 582 A - Medusa MC 773 A Devils Tower Truss Spar Count Cell Spar GB 876 A Red Hawk Cell Spar Count MiniDOC Spar AT 63 A - Telemark (@MC942) MC 942 A - Mirage MiniDOC Spar Count MTLP EW 921 A Morpeth EW 1003 A Prince GC 254 A Allegheny GC 613 A Neptune TLP GC 653 A Shenzi MC 243 A Matterhorn MTLP Count Water Depth Deck (ft) Weight (st) 438 438 464 419 484 447 460 721 1754 671 971 1289 420 467 432 484 70 Jacket Weight (st) Pile Tendons Legs Pile / Tendon type Pile type
4 leg
19,012 43,000 25,166 39,890
48"
7,850
12 Skirt
12 Piles
4,800
4 Skirt
12
850 730
1,100 2,700
8 leg 4 leg
4825 2590 1930 3
17,210 12,500 3,300
35,831 28,700 12,885
12 Chain-wire-chain 14 5.25in. Chain-wire-chain 6 Chain-wire
Suction 8' OD Anchor 48"OD Piles
7817 3675 3650 3150 3330 4000 4340 4970 4420 5400 2223 5610 12
12,401 5,340 5,400 6,000 6,300 9,950 18,200 10,770 10,500 8,200 6,000 9,465
20,956 11,960 11,960 14,800 14,100 24,000 35,550 14,800 20,800 6,200 12,900 13,188
9 5.28" Chain & 9.68" polyster lines 2 Mi. each & Chain 9 9 9 Chain-wire-chain 16 Chain-wire-chain 11 polyester lines 9 Chain-wire-chain 9 Chain-5-7/8" wire Chain
18' OD Suction 9 Piles 9 Piles
Suction Suction
Suction
5300 1
3,600
7,500
6 chain polyester lines
18' suction
4450 4000 2
10,021 10,021
17,938 17,938
1700 1500 3294 4232 4375 2850 6
3,000 3,450 3,000 3,200 8,684 5,500
2,850 2,850 5,900 12,493 4,500
steel tubular 8 24" OD 6 36"ODX1.36"Wall 8 36" to 44" 6 32" neutrally buoyant steel tubular tendons
84" Driven piles
96"OD Piles 96" piles
5 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
TABLE 1.2 GOM Major Asset Inventory Sorted by Type and Block Location Continued
Platform Location TLP GB 426 A Auger GB 783 A Magnolia GC 158 A Brutus GC 184 A Jolliet GC 608 A Marco Polo MC 807 A Mars MC 809 A Ursa VK 915 A Marlin VK 956 A Ram Powell TLP Count FPS GC 29-1 FPS Count SEMI GB 388 A - Cooper GC 787 A Atlantis MC 474 A Na Kika FPDS MC 650 A Blind Faith MC 711 A Gomez MC 734 A - Thunder Hawk MC 778 A Thunder Horse MC 920 A Independence SEMI Count Water Depth Deck (ft) Weight (st) 2860 4670 3300 1760 4300 2933 3800 3236 3216 9 24,000 7,600 11,500 2,150 7,250 7,200 22,400 5,512 8,100 Jacket Weight (st) 39,000 20,000 14,500 4,600 5,750 15,650 28,600 9,000 11,000 Pile Tendons Legs Pile / Tendon type Pile type
8 5-3/16" chain and 5" wire, 2 subm buoys 8 Chain-5" wire 12 32"ODX1.25"Wall 8 28"ODX1.25"Wall wire-chain 12 28"ODX1.25"Wall 16 32"ODX1.5"Wall 12 28"ODX1.2"Wall
8 30t fluke fluke anchors 82"OD Piles 76"OD Piles 84"OD Piles 96"OD Piles 84"OD Piles
1540 0
2097 7050 6378 6480 3000 5724 6200 8000
14,125 20,000 7,400
58,700 20,000
Chain-wire-chain 16 Chain-wire-chain Catenary
Suction Suction
50,000 10,250
60,000
16 chain wire 12 9" Rope
Suction
6 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
TABLE 1.3 GOM Major Asset Inventory Sorted by Water Depth

Platform Location SP 49 C HI A 389 A EI 372 A PRO EI 371 B SS 358 A MP 288 A VR 395 A SP 89 MC674 #3 MC 311 A HI A 371 A EI 384 A WC 645A SMI 205 A SS 332 A SS 332 B HI A 582 D (CYRUS) EC 373 A EC 381 A SP 93 A ST 316 A SP 93 B SP 89 B ST 317 A SS 354 A SP 83 A VR 412 A EI 397 A MC 397 Alabaster EW 947 A HI A 589 A MC 20 A MC 63 B EW 826 A Type FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP Water Depth Deck (ft) Weight (st) 400 410 414 415 419 420 420 422 428 430 431 432 437 438 438 440 443 446 446 447 450 456 460 464 467 467 472 476 477 477 480 480 483 638 900 950 Jacket Weight (st) 4,400 3,670 3,972 Pile Tendons Legs Pile / Tendon type Pile type
4 1-96" & 4-84" 8 8
4-skirt 48" 48"
850 1,400
1,100 4,120
8 leg 8 4-skirt
48"
1,020
4,000
4 4 4 4-48" & 4-92" 4 leg
48" leg-skirt 48" leg-skirt
900
5,447
8 8-48" & 4-60"
892
4,279
0 4-skirt 3 leg 4 4-72" & 4-72" 4 4-48" & 4-54" 48" leg-skirt leg-skirt 48" leg-skirt
1,290
1,845 3,850
8,600 10,200
8 8 8-48" & 12-72"
TYPE DESCRIPTION Fixed Platforms Classic Spar Truss Spar Cell Spar MiniDOC Spar Mini TLP Tension Leg Platform Floating Production Storage Semi Submersable
FP ClaS TS CellS M/DocS mtlp TLP FPS SEMI
7 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
TABLE 1.3 GOM Major Asset Inventory Sorted by Water Depth - Continued
Water Depth (ft) 484 484 523 531 541 542 549 582 604 604 619 620 651 660 667 670 671 682 693 705 718 721 721 751 761 774 863 925 935 971 997 1027 1100 1289 1348 1500 1647 1700 1754 1760 1930 2097 2223 6,000 12,900 1,004 23,000 3,261 4,800 2,300 3,450 2,400 3,000 7,850 2,150 3,300 57,267 2,850 43,000 4,600 12,885 6,500 5,200 4,500 4,330 7,400 1,798 8,100 2,245 3,850 2,000 1,800 11,023 8,500 19,012 14,881 16,755 16,535 20,503 14,991 26,000 25,166 23,366 59,000 23,810 39,890 54,427 13,228 10,000 848 1,197 3,261 9,999 9,025 6,000 1,124 2,000 5,910 17,000 533 925 730 668 2,700 5,080 Deck Weight (st) Jacket Weight (st) Pile Tendons Legs
Platform Location ST 308 A (Tarantula) WC 661 A SMI 205 B SP 52 A GB 72 A GB 142 A EW 910 A MC 486 A GC 52 A GC 52 CCP MC 365 A Corral GC 6 A MC 148 A EB 110 A Tequila MC 21 B Simba GC 89 A Cinnamon VK 817 A GB 236 A GB 172 B Salsa GB 128 A Enchilada GB 189 - Tick GB 191 A VK 780 A - Spirit GC 19 A - Boxer GC 18 A EW 873 - Lobster EB 165 - Snapper EB 159 - Cerveza Ligera EB 160 - Cerveza VK 823 A Virgo MC 280 Lena - CT MC 194 A - Cognac MC 109 A - Amberjack VK 989 A - Pompano GC 65 A - Bullwinkle EW 1003 A Prince GB 260 Baldplate - CT EW 921 A Morpeth VK 786 A Petronius CT GC 184 A Jolliet VK 826 A Neptune Spar GB 388 A - Cooper MC 582 A - Medusa
Type FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP MTLP FP MTLP FP TLP ClaS SEMI TS
Pile / Tendon type
Pile type
4 leg 4 4-72" & 4-48" 3-skirt 0 3-Skirt
leg-skirt 72" 3 - 72"
4 Skirt 4 8 4 3 8 4 Skirt 4 Skirt 4 4
4+4 8 4+12 8+4 4+8 3+4 8+12 8 8 4+8 4+8
4 Skirt 8 4 8
4+16 12 8+12 4+8 8+16
12 Skirt 6 4 Skirt 12 8 24" OD 4 Skirt steel tubular 12 Skirt 6 Chain-wire
24 84" 6+12 12 12+32 12 84" 84" Driven piles 12 Piles 48"OD Piles
TYPE DESCRIPTION Fixed Platforms Classic Spar Truss Spar Cell Spar MiniDOC Spar Mini TLP Tension Leg Platform Floating Production Storage Semi Submersable FP ClaS TS CellS M/DocS mtlp TLP FPS SEMI
8 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
TABLE 1.3 GOM Major Asset Inventory Sorted by Water Depth - Continued
Platform Location Type Water Depth Deck (ft) Weight (st) Jacket Weight (st) Pile Tendons Legs Pile / Tendon type Pile type
GC 205 A Genesis MC 243 A Matterhorn GB 426 A Auger MC 807 A Mars MC 711 A Gomez GB 668 A Gunnison VK 956 A Ram Powell VK 915 A Marlin GC 254 A Allegheny GC 158 A Brutus GC 338 A Front Runner EB 643 A Boomvang EB 602 A Nansen MC 809 A Ursa GC 641 A Tahiti MC 942 A - Mirage GC 613 A Neptune TLP GC 608 A Marco Polo GC 645 A Holstein GC 653 A Shenzi GC 782 A Mad Dog AT 63 A - Telemark (@MC942) GB 783 A Magnolia AC 25 A Hoover GC 680 A Constitution GB 876 A Red Hawk MC 127 A Horn Mountain MC 773 A Devils Tower MC 734 A - Thunder Hawk MC 778 A Thunder Horse MC 474 A Na Kika FPDS MC 650 A Blind Faith GC 787 A Atlantis AC 857 A Perdido MC 920 A Independence TYPE DESCRIPTION Fixed Platforms Classic Spar Truss Spar Cell Spar MiniDOC Spar Mini TLP Tension Leg Platform Floating Production Storage Semi Submersable
ClaS MTLP TLP TLP SEMI TS TLP TLP MTLP TLP TS TS TS TLP TS M/DocS MTLP TLP TS MTLP TS M/DocS TLP ClaS TS CellS TS TS SEMI SEMI SEMI SEMI SEMI TS SEMI
2590 2850 2860 2933 3000 3150 3216 3236 3294 3300 3330 3650 3675 3800 4000 4000 4232 4300 4340 4375 4420 4450 4670 4825 4970 5300 5400 5610 5724 6200 6378 6480 7050 7817 8000
12,500 5,500 24,000 7,200 6,000 8,100 5,512 3,000 11,500 6,300 5,400 5,340 22,400 9,950 10,021 3,200 7,250 18,200 8,684 10,500 10,021 7,600 17,210 10,770 3,600 8,200 9,465 50,000 20,000 7,400 14,125 12,401 10,250
28,700 4,500 39,000 15,650 14,800 11,000 9,000 2,850 14,500 14,100 11,960 11,960 28,600 24,000 17,938 5,900 5,750 35,550 12,493 20,800 17,938 20,000 35,831 14,800 7,500 6,200 13,188 60,000 20,000 58,700 20,956
14 6 8 12
5.25in. Chain-wire-chain 32" neutrally buoyant steel tubular tendons 5-3/16" chain and 5" wire, 2 subm buoys 28"ODX1.25"Wall
8' OD Anchor 96" piles 8 30t fluke 84"OD Piles
12 28"ODX1.2"Wall
84"OD Piles
12 32"ODX1.25"Wall 9 Chain-wire-chain 9 9 16 32"ODX1.5"Wall
82"OD Piles 9 Piles 9 Piles 96"OD Piles
6 8 16 8 11
36"ODX1.36"Wall 28"ODX1.25"Wall wire-chain Chain-wire-chain 36" to 44" polyester lines
96"OD Piles 76"OD Piles Suction Suction fluke anchors Suction 18' suction Suction Suction Suction Suction 18' OD Suction
8 Chain-5" wire 12 Chain-wire-chain 6 chain polyester lines 9 Chain-wire-chain 9 Chain-5-7/8" wire Chain 16 chain wire 16 Chain-wire-chain Catenary Chain-wire-chain 9 5.28" Chain & 9.68" polyster lines 2 Mi. each & Chain 12 9" Rope
FP ClaS TS CellS M/DocS mtlp TLP FPS SEMI
9 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
1.4 GOM Major Asset Inventory Preliminary Grouping
The inventory was separated into similar platforms types, similar deck and jacket / hull tonnage, similar water depths and a representative platform was selected from each group as shown in Table 1.4. As noted above, some of the data was not available for this study. Fixed Platforms were further divided into preliminary groups considering the number of leg, piles, skirt piles and tonnage. Where more data was available, the grouping was more precise. Where data was unavailable, water depth was used. The platforms listed in Bold Red are the platforms selected as representative platforms. These platforms were selected on the basis of the best available information. See Executive Summary for MMS recommendations on collection of data. Because much of the platform data was unavailable for this study and the resulting groupings are preliminary, an alternate breakdown in platform decommission costs is provided in Section 4 along with the estimated costs for conductor removal, riser removal, pipeline abandonment and well P&A. Estimates are provided in Section 5, for the representative platforms.
10 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
TABLE 1.4 Platforms Grouped by Similar Characteristics Facility Type, Water Depth
Water Depth Deck (ft) Weight (st) 415 419 420 420 422 428 430 431 437 438 438 446 450 460 464 467 477 480 472 440 447 484 484 531 542 410 414 432 400 467 446 476 477 523 541 549 582 604 619 670 671 620 651 667 Jacket Weight Pile or (st) Tendon type
Platform Location Fixed Platforms EI 371 B SS 358 A MP 288 A VR 395 A SP 89 MC674 #3 MC 311 A HI A 371 A EI 384 A SMI 205 A SS 332 A SS 332 B SP 93 A SP 93 B ST 317 A SS 354 A VR 412 A HI A 589 A MC 63 B EI 397 A HI A 582 D (CYRUS) ST 316 A ST 308 A (Tarantula) WC 661 A SP 52 A GB 142 A HI A 389 A EI 372 A PRO WC 645A SP 49 C SP 83 A EC 381 A MC 397 Alabaster EW 947 A SMI 205 B GB 72 A EW 910 A MC 486 A GC 52 A MC 365 A Corral GC 89 A Cinnamon VK 817 A GC 6 A MC 148 A MC 21 B Simba
Type FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP
Pile type
1,400
4,120 4-skirt
48"
leg leg leg 2,700 leg 3-skirt 925 3-Skirt 3,670 3,972 1,100 leg
730 533 900 950 850 638 892 1,020 1,290
48" 48" 48" 48" 66" 72" 3 - 72" 48" 48"
4,400 1-96" & 4-84" 4-skirt 4,279 4-83" skirt 4,000 4-48" & 4-92" 48" 4-72" & 4-72" leg-skirt 4-48" & 4-54" leg-skirt 5,080 4-72" & 4-48" leg-skirt
668
1,124 3,261
5,910 6,000
4 4 3
2,000 1,197
17,000 9,025
4 Skirt 4 4
11 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
TABLE 1.4 Platforms Grouped by Similar Characteristics Facility Type, Water Depth - Continued
Water Jacket Depth Deck Weight Pile or (ft) Weight (st) (st) Tendon type
Platform Location Fixed Platforms MC 20 A SP 89 B EW 826 A GC 52 CCP EB 110 A Tequila GB 236 A EW 873 - Lobster GB 172 B Salsa GB 128 A Enchilada GB 189 - Tick GB 191 A GC 19 A - Boxer GC 18 A EB 159 - Cerveza Ligera MC 280 Lena - CT Guied EB 165 - Snapper EB 160 - Cerveza MC 109 A - Amberjack VK 780 A - Spirit VK 823 A Virgo VK 989 A - Pompano MC 194 A - Cognac GC 65 A - Bullwinkle GB 260 Baldplate - CT VK 786 A Petronius CT
Type
Pile type
FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP
480 456 483 604 660 682 774 693 705 718 721 751 761 925 997 863 935 1027 1036 1130 1289 1027 1348 1647 1754
1,845 900 3,850
8,600
8 48"
5,447 8-48" & 4-60" leg-skirt 10,200 72" leg-skirt 8 8 8 8 Skirt 4 Skirt 4 Skirt 4 4 4 Skirt 4 4 8 8 6
848 8,100 5,400 2,245 3,850 2,000 1,800 6,500 5,200 7,400 1,004 4,330 1,798 3,261
9,999 13,228 16,535 10,000 11,023 8,500 14,881 16,755 14,991 23,366 20,503 26,000 23,810 19,012 25,166 39,890 59,000 54,427
4,800 23,000
4 Skirt 12 Skirt 12 4 Skirt Skirt
2,400 7,850
57,267 43,000
12 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Water Hull Depth Deck Weight (ft) Weight (st) (st) 1930 2223 2590 3150 3330 3650 3675 4000 4000 4340 4420 4450 4825 4970 5300 5400 5610 7817 6,000 6,000 12,500 6,000 6,300 5,400 5,340 9,950 10,021 18,200 10,500 10,021 17,210 10,770 3,600 8,200 9,465 12,401 12,885 12,900 28,700 14,800 14,100 11,960 11,960 24,000 17,938 35,550 20,800 17,938 35,831 14,800 7,500 6,200 13,188 20,956
SPAR VK 826 A Neptune Spar MC 582 A - Medusa GC 205 A Genesis GB 668 A Gunnison GC 338 A Front Runner EB 643 A Boomvang EB 602 A Nansen GC 641 A Tahiti MC 942 A - Mirage GC 645 a Holstein GC 782 A Mad Dog AT 63 A - Telemark (@MC942) AC 25 A Hoover GC 680 A Constitution GB 876 A Red Hawk MC 127 A Horn Mountain MC 773 A Devils Tower AC 857 A Perdido
ClaS ClaS TS ClaS TS TS TS TS TS M/DocS TS TS M/DocS ClaS TS CellS TS TS TS
Tendons 6 Chain-wire 14 5.25in. Chain-wire-chain 9 Chain-wire-chain 9 9
16 Chain-wire-chain 11 polyster lines 12 Chain-wire-chain 6 chain polyster lines 9 Chain-5-7/8" wire Chain 9 5.28" Chain & 9.68" polyster lines & Chain
MTLP EW 921 A Morpeth EW 1003 A Prince GC 254 A Allegheny GC 613 A Neptune TLP MC 243 A Matterhorn GC 653 A Shenzi
MTLP MTLP MTLP MTLP MTLP MTLP
Hull Water Weight Depth Deck (st) (ft) Weight (st) 1700 3,000 2,850 1500 3,450 3294 3,000 2,850 4232 3,200 5,900 2850 4375 5,500 8,684 4,500 12,493
Tendons steel tubular 8 6 36"ODX1.36"Wall
Pile type
6 32" neutrally buoyant steel tubular tendons 8 36" to 44"
TLP GC 184 A Jolliet GB 426 A Auger MC 807 A Mars VK 956 A Ram Powell VK 915 A Marlin GC 158 A Brutus MC 809 A Ursa GC 608 A Marco Polo GB 783 A Magnolia TLP TLP TLP TLP TLP TLP TLP TLP TLP
Water Hull Depth Deck Weight (ft) Weight (st) (st) 1760 2860 2933 3216 3236 3300 3800 4300 4670 2,150 24,000 7,200 8,100 5,512 11,500 22,400 7,250 7,600 4,600 39,000 15,650 11,000 9,000 14,500 28,600 5,750 20,000
13 of 14
Tendons
Pile type
8 5-3/16" chain and 5" wire, 2 subm buoys 12 28"ODX1.25"Wall 12 28"ODX1.2"Wall 12 32"ODX1.25"Wall 16 32"ODX1.5"Wall 8 28"ODX1.25"Wall wire-chain 8
Chain-5" wire
Rev.1 Dec 2009
SEMI GB 388 A - Cooper MC 711 A Gomez MC 734 A - Thunder Hawk MC 778 A Thunder Horse MC 474 A Na Kika FPDS MC 650 A Blind Faith GC 787 A Atlantis MC 920 A Independence
SEMI SEMI SEMI SEMI SEMI SEMI SEMI SEMI SEMI
Hull Water Weight Depth Deck Tendons (ft) Weight (st) (st) 2097 3000 5724 6200 50,000 60,000 16 chain wire 6378 20,000 20,000 16 Chain-wire-chain Catenary 6480 7,400 7050 14,125 58,700 Chain-wire-chain 8000 10,250 12 9" Rope
14 of 14
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Section 2 METHODOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY & INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT
Section 2 METHODOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY & INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT .............. 1 2.1 Decommissioning Work Activities .................................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 Decommissioning Planning ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Decommissioning Engineering ................................................................................................. 3 2.1.3 Permitting .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.4 Bidding ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.5 Pre-job Meetings ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.6 Offshore Work ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.7 Project Closure .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Decommissioning Technology ....................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Explosive Methods .................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.2 Non-Explosive Methods .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2.3 Severing Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 22 2.2.4 Deepwater Diving Suits ........................................................................................................... 23 2.2.5 Remotely Operated Vehicles ................................................................................................... 24 2.2.6 Directly Operated Vehicles ..................................................................................................... 25 2.2.7 Subsea Operations Conclusions .............................................................................................. 26 2.2.8 Standard Heavy Lift Technologies .......................................................................................... 27 2.2.9 Alternative Heavy Lift Technologies ...................................................................................... 30 2.2.10 Heavy Lift Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 42 2.2.11 Well Intervention Vessels/Systems ....................................................................................... 43 2.3 Decommissioning Project Challenges ............................................................................................ 46 2.3.1 Platform Removal Preparation ................................................................................................ 46 2.3.2 Conductor Removal ................................................................................................................. 47 2.3.3 Pipeline/Flowline Abandonment ............................................................................................. 48 2.3.4 Topsides Removal All Scenarios.......................................................................................... 50 2.3.5 Decommissioning Project Challenges ..................................................................................... 52
Methodology, Tech & Infrastructure Section 2
1 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
This section covers the following three areas: Provide an overview of the decommissioning methodology including the major tasks and resource requirements. Evaluate the technology available to conduct these decommissioning activities. Determine the areas where the current technology and resources will be most challenged.
To date, other than a few structures all decommissioning activities in the GOM have been on fixed jacketed structures in water depths <400 feet. As decommissioning activities move into deeper water and to tensioned and moored structures some of the current technology may prove to need modification or may prove inadequate. This section will focus the mature areas of development and present emerging developments. For fixed structures, three removal alternatives were considered for each deepwater facility; Complete Removal, Partial Removal, and Reefing. The alternatives studied vary only in the method the jacket is removed. Site Clearance and Onshore Disposal depend on the removal alternative selected. The platform removal preparation, well plugging and abandonment (P&A), pipeline decommissioning, and topsides removal are the same for all three alternatives. For tensioned and moored structures the complete removal options was considered except for subsea structures. See recommendation in the Executive Summary. See Appendix section 5.7 for decommissioning methodology utilized for shallow water platform removals.
2.1 Decommissioning Work Activities

The project management/engineering component of a decommissioning program consists of the following phases: Decommissioning Planning Decommissioning Engineering Permitting Bidding Pre-job Meetings Offshore Work Project Closure
2.1.1 Decommissioning Planning

This is the initial phase of the decommissioning project. All information available for each platform to be decommissioned (structural drawings, installation records, process flow diagrams, pipeline maps, etc.) is first gathered and reviewed. Based on the information retrieved, an Approval for Expenditure (AFE) for each platform will be developed and submitted to the platform owner for approval. In cases where multiple platforms are to be decommissioned, this AFE will
Methodology, Tech & Infrastructure Section 2 2 of 54 Rev.0 Oct 2009
consider grouping the platforms to realize any economies of scale, and various types of removal scenarios (i.e., Complete Removal, Partial Removal, and Remote Reefing) are evaluated. In some instances different operators will join together to share the same deepwater equipment for a multiple platform decommissioning program. All assumptions made are noted on the AFE(s). Concurrently, a detailed project schedule is developed. After the AFE(s) are approved, the platform(s) are inspected above and under water to appraise the overall platform condition, drilling and production deck dimensions, equipment location, padeyes, risers, etc. A detailed inspection punch list is submitted to and agreed upon with the platform owner prior to these inspections. PROSERV recommends a pre-contracting underwater survey of the jacket and seafloor for larger and older platforms. The dive crew would survey the sea floor for debris that would hamper the platform removal and inspect the jacket for flooded and/or damaged members and conductors that are severed below the waterline. For conventional steel-jacket platforms located in shallow depths in the Gulf of Mexico, PROSERV recommends a six-month lead-time for decommissioning planning. However, deepwater decommissioning planning requires a longer lead-time because of the limited availability of deepwater removal equipment. Therefore, a minimum of two years lead-time is recommended for planning the decommissioning of deepwater platforms. For complete removal, equipment contracting alone will require one to two years lead time, or more.
2.1.2 Decommissioning Engineering

Deck and jacket actual weights, the center of gravity, and the center of buoyancy are needed for the platforms and major subsea equipment. A lift analysis is developed by a structural engineer; all calculations are reviewed and approved by the project manager. Additionally pipeline operators of connecting pipelines will be contacted to coordinate pipeline decommissioning activities.
2.1.3 Permitting
Permits required by the MMS for the decommissioning of offshore structures are as follows: Well P&A Sundry Notices and Procedures Pipeline Abandonment Permits Platform Removal Permits Reefing Permits (if applicable) Incidental Take Statement Site Clearance Verification Procedures Each platform, well, and pipeline will require their specific permits. The project management group prepares all permits, along with any necessary attachments. The permit requests are submitted to the platform owner for review and approval. Once approved, the project
management group submits the requisite number of copies to the appropriate MMS office for approval and issuance of permits.
2.1.4 Bidding
The client and the project management group work together to determine the manner by which bids will be developed to take advantage of the amount of work to maximize economies of scale. The project management group prepares a suggested list of qualified contractors for each phase of the job; the platform owner then reviews, revises (if necessary) and approves the list. The bid books are prepared by the project management group and are submitted to the owner for approval. Once approved, the approved contractors are sent the Requests for Quotation (RFQs). Proposals submitted based on these RFQs are reviewed by the project management group who develops a spreadsheet containing all contractors rates. This spreadsheet, along with a recommendation for award, is sent to the platform owner for review and award of the work.
2.1.5 Pre-job Meetings

Prior to commencing any offshore work, pre-job meetings are conducted with each contractor, the project management group, and the platform owners representatives. The goal of these meetings is to establish that all parties involved understand the Scope of Work, operational and safety procedures, reporting requirements, etc. The project management group is responsible for coordinating these meetings by contacting the parties involved, setting the time and location of the meeting, preparing the meeting agenda, and recording and distributing meeting notes.
2.1.6 Offshore Work

Members of the project management group can act as representatives for the platform owner during decommissioning operations. They select the proper mix of offshore supervisors (i.e., HLV supervisors, inspectors, diving superintendents, remotely operated vehicle (ROV) operators, intervention vessels supervisors, etc.) who will witness the offshore operations and report all activities to the project management group and the platform owner. Platform Removal Preparation An inspection of the platform is made, above and below water, to determine the condition of the platform and identify potential problems with the salvage. Depending on the water depth, divers or an ROV perform the underwater portion of the inspection. All decommissioning work that can be performed prior to the arrival of the HLV is completed during the Platform Removal Preparation phase. All personnel and equipment are mobilized and housed in the existing platform quarters. The crew flushes and cleans all facility piping and equipment that contained hydrocarbons. All modules to be removed separately from the deck are cut loose using oxygen-acetylene torches.
The piping, electrical, and instrumentation interconnections between modules are also cut. All work needed to prepare the modules for lifting, such as installing lifting eyes, etc., is done at this time. Well Plugging and Abandonment (Well P&A) PROSERV has assumed that all wells on each platform will be plugged and abandoned using either conventional rig-based P&A methods or using rigless techniques prior to cutting and removing the conductors. Platform well and subsea well P&A is presented in Section 4. Pipeline Decommissioning All pipelines connected to the platform are decommissioned. The decommissioning crew flushes the line by pumping (pushing) a cleaning plug (pig) through the line with seawater. Flush water is treated and injected downhole or discharged. Divers or an ROV will then expose the ends of the pipeline and cut the line above the riser bends or subsea manifolds and approximately ten feet out from the base of the jacket or at the seafloor below the tensioned or moored structure. For the pipeline at the base of the jacket, the cut section of the pipeline is removed and the pipeline is plugged and buried three feet below the mudline. For pipelines associated with tensioned and moored structures, the riser would be removed prior to the structure removal. Conductor Removal All conductors are completely removed up to 15 feet below the mudline. A combination of jacks and the platforms drilling ring and crane are used to pull the conductors. This work should be completed prior to the arrival of the heavy lift vessel (HLV). Removing conductors with jacks and a drilling rig generally follows the same methodology as removing conductors with jacks and a bullfrog crane. The jacks onboard may not be able to pull the combined weight if the conductor is grouted. The conductor is pulled upward until a 40-foot section is exposed. The rig is used until the jacks can pull the weight of the entire conductor. The conductor is cut using external mechanical cutters. The cut section is then removed by the drilling rig or platform crane and placed on the deck. The platform crane places the cut section on a workboat, cargo barge or on the deck away from the work area. This procedure (rig up, jack upward, cut and remove) is repeated until the entire conductor is removed. Cargo Barge Mobilization Cargo barges are outfitted at a fabrication yard with steel load spreaders to support the point loads of the recovered jacket, subsea equipment and/or deck. A tugboat tows each cargo barge to the offshore location. Setting up the Heavy Lift Vessel Deepwater decommissioning projects in less than 1,000 feet of water will utilize either a moored vessel or a dynamically positioned heavy lift vessel (HLV). Anchor-handling tugboats will set up the anchoring system for a moored HLV. This anchoring system holds the HLV in position during the platform removal process. The HLVs anchoring system consists of eight anchors, each connected to a mooring winch by a cable. Each anchor is equipped with a pendant wire that is long enough to reach from the seabed to the surface, where it is supported by a buoy. The anchor-handling tug picks up the anchors by securing the pendant wire and winching up the
anchor. The anchor-handling tug then carries the anchor to the pre-established location. This process is repeated for each of the HLVs anchors. Pre-mooring piles may be installed at predetermined locations to prevent any unnecessary damage (anchor scars) to the seabed. Dynamically positioned HLVs are self propelled station keeping vessels and do not require assistance to remain on station. Removing Deck and Modules Topsides removal follows the installation process in reverse sequence. Some deck removals will require that modules are removed and placed on a cargo barge. The module is secured by welding pieces of steel pipe (or plate) from the module to the deck of the cargo barge. The deck section or support frames (cap trusses) are then removed by cutting the welded connections between the piles and the deck legs with oxygen-acetylene torches. All decks/cap trusses are removed in the same configuration as they were installed. Slings are attached to the deck/cap truss lifting eyes and to the HLV crane. The HLVs crane lifts the deck sections from the jacket. The deck is then seated in the load spreaders and secured by welding steel pipe from the deck legs to the deck of the cargo barge. Disposing of Deck and Modules The cargo barge transports the deck and modules to a Texas or Louisiana scrap yard. The modules may be lifted with cranes or skidded off the barge to the yard. Finally, the deck is skidded off the barge to the yard. All of the structural components and modules are cut into small pieces and disposed of as scrap unless the deck will be reused. The production equipment is salvaged for reuse whenever possible. See Section 3 for more details on disposal options. Jacket / Hull Removal Tensioned and moored structures are removed completely in similar methods and are presented in Section 3. Tensioned or moored structures are not candidates for partial removal. Spars could be considered for reefing removal. As ships are sunk off the Florida coast, other tensioned or moored hulls could be considered for reefing. The alternatives studied by PROSERV vary only in the method the jacket is removed. The platform removal preparation, well P&A, pipeline decommissioning, and topsides removal are the same for all alternatives. The following explains the alternatives selected Complete Removal, Partial Removal, and Remote Reefing. Complete Removal Fixed Structures The majority of GOM jackets are removed with explosives although non explosive removal techniques are now common. When explosives are used during a platform removal, regulations require an observation for resident marine mammals prior to the detonation of explosive charges. Details on these requirements are listed in the Appendix section 5.6. It is recommended that the observation be conducted and completed prior to the HLV arrival.
6 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Explosives are placed in the main pile and skirt piles at least 15 ft below the mudline. If the mud plug inside the piles is not deep enough to allow the explosive charge to be placed at the required depth, the mud plug is jet/air lifted. A pre-blast aerial survey is conducted immediately prior to the explosive detonation. This survey is performed using a helicopter with a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) observer onboard. This survey is to determine if there are marine mammals in the area. If marine mammals are found to near the platform, the explosive detonation is delayed. The detonation delay will last until the marine mammals are safely out of the area. Once the marine mammals have moved beyond the platform, the explosives are detonated and a post-blast aerial survey is conducted. The jacket is then made buoyant to reduce the bottom weight. To maximize buoyancy, the water inside each pile is evacuated. Closure plates are then welded on the top of the piles. After the plates are installed, the water is evacuated from the legs using compressed air. A hose from an air compressor is connected to a valve on a closure plate welded to the top of each pile. The valve is opened and compressed air is forced into the piles. As the air pressure inside the pile increased, the water is forced out of the pile at the point where the pile was severed by the explosive charge. When all of the water is evacuated, air bubbles appear on the surface of the water near the jacket. After deballasting the jacket, it is lifted off the sea floor by the HLV. The jacket will be loaded on a cargo barge if possible. If the jacket is too large for loading on a cargo barge, the jacket will be towed to shallow water. The jacket is supported by the HLV's crane and swung to the stern of the HLV. Rope hawsers are passed around two of the jacket legs and secured to the stern of the HLV. The jacket is then boomed away from the stern of the HLV until the hawsers are tight. The rope hawsers keep the jacket from swinging and being pulled out of the boom radius by its movement through the water. The HLV's anchors are shifted and the jacket is towed to shallower water. At the new location, the jacket is ballasted and set on the sea floor. The water depth at the new location is such that the horizontal elevation to be cut is several feet above the water. Welders set up scaffolds around the jacket legs and begin cutting the jacket legs. Additionally, the jacket is cut in half vertically to create two 4-leg sections. The diagonal braces running between each set of rows are also cut. After the legs and piles have been cut and the diagonal braces removed, the jacket section is rigged, lifted, removed, and sea-fastened on a cargo barge. For an eight-leg jacket, two four-leg sections are removed at the bottom elevations. The cargo barge is then sent to the onshore disposal yard. At times, the jacket is severed at each horizontal elevation because of its dimensions. The procedure mentioned above is repeated until the jacket is completely removed and placed on cargo barges. The jacket is deballasted, picked up, towed to shallower water, set, cut in two
(vertically), and removed in sections. Each time the jacket is moved, the HLVs anchors are repositioned. Partial Removal Fixed Structures This scenario involves removing only the top section of the jacket. This section of the jacket will either be transported to shore for disposal or reefed in place or at an approved reef location. Reefing the jacket on site for an eight-pile platform involves cutting the top portion of the jacket into two four-pile sections. All cuts are performed before the vessel (a large tug, approximately 12,000 hp) arrives on site to minimize the amount of time the tug is used. Additionally, rigging is setup in advance of the tugs arrival and is designed to release once the jacket section topples over. After the jacket is segmented (braces cut) and jacket legs are severed (using either non explosive cutting methods [i.e., mechanical, abrasive, or diamond wire]), the tug arrives on site and hooks up its tow line to a sling attached to one of the jacket sections. The tug then pulls this section over, and it falls to the sea floor. This process is repeated for the other section. Reefing Fixed Structures After removing the topsides, the explosives are prepared and installed. Explosives are placed in the main pile and skirt piles at 15 ft below the mudline. If the mud plug inside the piles is not deep enough to allow the explosive charge to be placed at the required depth, the mud plug is jet/air lifted. A pre-blast aerial survey is conducted just prior to the explosive detonation. This survey is performed using a helicopter with a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) observer onboard. The explosives are detonated and a post-blast aerial survey is conducted. The HLV is demobilized at this time. The jacket is then made buoyant to reduce the bottom weight. To maximize buoyancy, the water inside the piles is evacuated. Closure plates are welded on the top of each pile. After installing the plates, the water is evacuated from the legs using compressed air. A hose from an air compressor is connected to a valve on a closure plate welded to the top of the pile. The valve is opened and compressed air is forced into the piles. As the air pressure inside the pile is increased, the water is forced out of the pile at the point where the pile was severed by the explosive charge. When all of the water is evacuated, air bubbles appear on the surface of the water near the jacket. Pull tugs tow the jacket to a designated remote reef site. At the site, the jacket is lowered by ballasting the piles and the base is set on the sea floor. The jacket is left on its side at the reef location, and a marker buoy is placed on location above the jacket.
8 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
2.1.7 Project Closure

Site Clearance This is the last task in the offshore decommissioning process. This procedure is divided into three phases: Surveying the work area (Reconnaissance), Inspecting and Cleaning Up the work area (Assessment/Remediation), and Re Inspecting the work area (Verification). The Reconnaissance phase is generally performed before the decommissioning work begins and after the platform is removed. In each case, the procedures used to survey the area for debris are the same. A work boat carrying a survey crew with side scan sonar surveys the area to be cleared (work area) for potential obstructions 0.5 m or larger. From the center point of the work area, the workboat surveys a 1.5-mile radius in lines running from north to south and east to west. Spacing between the survey lines is generally 75 feet and swath coverage is 200%. After the platforms are removed, the work site is re-surveyed to identify any debris that resulted from the decommissioning of the platform. The survey results are then compared with the predecommissioning survey. Any hit identified to be 0.5 m or larger is recorded and will be removed during the second phase. The platform water depths should not restrict the use of the side scan sonar (SSS). At deeper depths, the cable controlling the SSS is made longer to allow it to be as close to the sea bed as necessary. Other bottom survey equipment such as a Mesotech or Magnetomer is available but is limited and may not be as effective as a SSS. Mesotech can only survey a radius of 20 meters. This makes it unpractical to use because of the large areas to survey. The Magnetomer has a larger survey area but is limited to identifying only metal. Other non-metal debris will not be identified. After the work area has been surveyed and the targets to be removed are identified. A dive boat with an ROV and/or dive crew is sent to assess the target and clean up the area. The debris is picked up either by divers or ROVs. Duration for this process will vary depending on the number of targets identified. In the Gulf of Mexico, generally older platforms have more targets that are identified and removed. The Partial Removal and Remote Reefing alternatives require the location where the platform was installed to be surveyed, cleaned and verified. Since the platform is partially removed, site clearance and verification is required only in the 1.5-mile radius from the platform. This ensures the removal of any debris that may have fallen from the platform throughout the years. The Complete Removal Scenario requires surveying, cleaning and trawling at each location the platform is set and cut. Each time the jacket is set on the bottom the jacket is cut and there is potential for debris to fall. Project Closure Each decommissioning phase requires a report be submitted to the MMS. These reports are submitted to the platform owner for review and approval. Once approved, the project management group submits the reports to the appropriate MMS office.
9 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
2.2 Decommissioning Technology

Introduction This section reviews the different cutting methodologies considered in this study. PROSERV reviewed cutting techniques considered effective and applicable to offshore platform decommissioning. For any cutting technique to be effective, it must be: Safe Reliable Repeatable Flexible and adaptable under field conditions Environmentally sensitive Economical
The cutting techniques considered are grouped into two general categories: explosive and nonexplosive. Available explosive methods are bulk charges, configured bulk charges, and shaped charges. Current non-explosive methods applicable to this study include diamond wire, guillotine saws, mechanical cutters, and abrasive slurry cutters. Non explosive methods are discussed in section 2.2.2.
2.2.1 Explosive Methods

Explosives have been used in deepwater facility projects. Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), dynamically positioned vessels, wire line units, and detonation of multiple charges with delays enhance the effectiveness of explosives. One example of new cutting technology is Halliburtons work [5] to develop novel cutting techniques which significantly reduces the quantity of explosive material required for certain cutting situations, particularly thicker wall tubular members. Proof of principle tests of internal and external cutting methods have been conducted at Jet Research Center in Alvarado, Texas, and Halliburton is now working toward the next stage of large-scale pilot testing.
10 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.1 Template removal Explosives (Photo courtesy of Demex International) When discussing the use of explosives relative to deepwater platforms, a primary consideration is the final disposition of the platform. Present options for the disposal of these deepwater platforms include total removal, partial removal, remote reefing, or reuse of the structure. Additionally, the equipment used to perform the removal dictates explosive usage options. These operational considerations should be established before a specific course of action involving explosives is finalized. Government restrictions involving explosive usage offshore must also be addressed before final operating procedures are established. The Gulf of Mexico has been the worldwide proving ground for platform removals. Figure 2.2 below details the type of platform removal techniques utilized for all removals during 1995 to 2005. The majority of the removals (67%) used explosives.
11 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.2 Distribution of GOM Platform Severing Techniques 1995 -2005 Explosives are widely used to decommission platforms because they are safe, reliable, and cost effective. The use of explosives reduces the amount of time divers are used during the cutting process, thereby minimizing human risk. Additionally, the cost of severing piles and conductors is generally less than 1% of the total platform removal cost. [6] Time is the driving cost factor when discussing severance; delays in vessel spreads are the primary reason for cost overruns. A failure in the complete severance of a pile or conductor is usually charged to the owner of the platform. These costs can be enormous, as time and material rates for large crane vessels can exceed $500,000 dollars per day. Explosive Charge Types Bulk Charges Bulk charges are a single mass of explosive material detonated at a single point. The energy release from this type of charge is not well directed. Rather, bulk charges rely on the brute strength of the explosive to overcome the target material by a shattering and tearing effect. Bulk charges are cylindrical in design. These charges vary in length and diameter to achieve the best fit for a wide range of typical offshore tubulars. Charge diameters range in size from 4 to 12. Smaller bulk charges can be arranged to create a larger diameter. This technique allows the technician to configure the cast explosive material for whatever conditions may arise. For instance, in some cases it might be advisable to use smaller charges in a circular ring configuration to maximize the explosive concentration and proximity to the target material as shown. Double-Detonation Bulk Charges The use of a double-detonation bulk charge creates more "cutting power" pound-for-pound than an ordinary bulk charge. Double detonating the bulk charge is accomplished by using instant non-electric detonators at opposite ends of the charge. This detonation creates a confluence of
energy at the center of the charge, which is dissipated radially outward directly perpendicular into the target material. It is this directing of explosive energy that makes double-detonating bulk charges more effective. Shock Wave Enhancement/Centralizing Devices The shock wave enhancement (SWED) device combines the best features of bulk charges with the added benefit of extreme confinement. Centralizers are used to distribute the explosive energy evenly throughout the target area. Using increased confinement, multiple-point detonation, and the actual water inside of the tubular to direct energy; this device is the most reliable bulk explosive severance device available to date. The energy released by a bulk charge can be enhanced by the use of tamping or confinement. A bulk charge is used with a metal and/or concrete plug above the charge. The addition of this tamping increases the duration of the impulse that is released by the explosive towards the target material. Shaped Charges The most efficient use of explosives for severing is the shaped charge. The shaped charge uses the energy produced by the detonation to drive a liner at high velocity at the target. The liner striking it at this accelerated velocity then cuts the target. Shaped charges have a multitude of manufacturing and design criteria that can drastically affect performance. The design criterion for shaped charges also requires knowledge of target specifications. Manufacturing of shaped charges can take many weeks and can cost five times as much as conventional bulk charges. The various types of shaped charges are listed below. Rotationally Symmetric (Conical) This type of charge produces the greatest penetration of all shaped charges due to the 360 degrees of radial convergence forming the jet. Variation in the conical liner angle will result in varying properties of the jet. A small angle will produce a very small, deeply penetrating jet, while a large angle will produce a larger hole with shallower penetration. Linear Charge A running linear charge is a roof-shaped liner of a given length used to cut plates or sheets of metals or other materials. The horizontal velocity of the detonation contributes to penetrating effectiveness. It normally comes sheathed in lead in a coil form. Its length is limitless. A simple cutting charge (or non-running linear charge) has a roof-shaped liner two- to three-times the liner width. The horizontal detonation velocity decreases the cutting effectiveness in this configuration. This charge would have much more explosive above the liner for the increased power required to cut and to provide a more uniform (flat) detonation wave into the liner. Planar Symmetric Conical Charge A regular rotationally symmetric shaped charge may be modified to cut in a linear fashion with the addition of massive confinement. The two opposite sides parallel to the central axis have 90
degrees of heavy steel plating affixed to the outside of the charge. This results in uneven collapse of the liner and a fan shape jet toward the target, producing a slit instead of a round hole. Deepwater Issues Explosives have been used in deepwater in a variety of applications. Primarily, the work conducted relative to offshore structures has been for wells. Conductor wells have been successfully severed in water depths exceeding 2,850 feet. Explosive charges have been set using divers, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), atmospheric diving systems (ADSs), and off the end of drill pipes from drilling vessels (with the aid of underwater cameras). Pile jetting is necessary in order to place the explosive device inside the pile 20 feet below the mudline. In deepwater this will present a challenge due to hydrostatic pressures encountered during the jetting operation. Techniques will have to be developed to accomplish this jetting if the jacket is completely removed. An alternative solution though more expensive would be an excavating around the pile to provide access for severing the pile externally. Effect of Water Depth on Explosives & System Selection The explosive selected for deepwater applications must be one which is not desensitized by water; components do not separate under pressure, and does not become more sensitive with the expected increase in hydrostatic pressure. This would rule out many of the binary explosive mixtures and blasting gels. It may become necessary to place the detonator underwater. Most common detonators are not designed for use in water depths over 400 feet; however, seismic detonators can withstand depths of 5,000 feet or more. Factors to consider in detonator selection are: Metal shell material, diameter, and wall thickness (i.e., will the hydrostatic pressure to be encountered crush the detonator?). Method of sealing around the wires going into the detonator (i.e., will water be forced into the detonator housing, thereby desensitizing the initiating explosive?). In the case of non-electric detonators, the housing seal as well as the pressure rating of the shock tube are factors limiting most non-electric detonators to a maximum of 270 feet. Only resistorized electrical detonators should be used. With unresistorized electrical detonators, galvanic force from anodic jacket protection could provide energy required for detonation.
There are a number of initiation systems used, depending on the type detonator. These include: Common electric detonators can be initiated at the surface by almost any electrical means. This requires connecting two-conductor wires from the detonator to the place of initiation. Both remote and acoustical firing systems are available for electric detonators. In this type of initiation system, limiting factors are the distance from the detonator to the receiver and the distance between the receiver and the transmitter. System costs and deployment methods are problems with the acoustic system.
14 of 54 Rev.0 Oct 2009
Exploding bridge wire (EBW) systems require a firing module and a control unit. The maximum distance between the firing module and the EBW detonator is 300 feet; the maximum distance between the firing module and the control unit is 3,000 feet. Programmable detonators are now available for explosive use.
Cost Review Deriving applicable cost matrixes for platform removals using explosives is difficult due to the high number of variables involved. These variables are especially relevant when obtaining cost figures for shaped charges. To obtain accurate numbers, these variables and the related constants must be identified to generate an accurate cost estimate formula. Effect of Water Depth on Cost The effect of water depth for charges that weigh under 100 pounds does not significantly change. These charges are lowered with rope, which is a minimal cost factor. The detonating cord is also a minimal cost component. Significant cost increases are relative to charge size and weight. Setting a standard Shock Wave Enhancement Device (SWED) device weighing less than 600 pounds only requires a -inch wire cable. However, the larger the piles and the corresponding increase in charge weight would require larger cable, and increasing cable diameter to over 1 inch can have a significant effect on overall cost. Cost Increase due to Target & Charge Diameter When using a SWED-type device for large diameter piles, size and weight becomes relative bigger is not necessarily better. The SWED devices are constructed with large-diameter plates in varying thickness. As plate diameter and thickness increases, costs escalate due to difficulties in machining and handling the device. Plate diameters over 6 feet are considered special order and require a long lead-time. Shaped Charge Cost The variables that affect cost increase exponentially when discussing shaped charges. However, of all the uses of explosives, the shaped charge has developed the most scientific and practical applications. Shaped charges can be used as precision devices. General Assumptions The following assumptions are made in order to properly analyze the use of explosives to sever piles during the removal process: Government weight restrictions are not a consideration for the explosive charges. Explosive charge weights are presented in a range, low to high. The cost of backup charges is not included in this study. Pipelines in the vicinity are not considered. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) procedures will be followed. All government permits will be obtained. All explosive charges will be set internally to the piles. For the main piles, the deck will be removed or full access to piles otherwise obtained. Damaged stabbing guides are not considered.
15 of 54 Rev.0 Oct 2009
The explosive charges will not be set inside the stabbing guides. All piles will be jetted to at least 20 below the mud line. All piles will be gauged with a dummy charge of the same dimensions as the explosive charge. A crane or some other suitable means will be used to set the explosive charges. Total explosive charge weights will range between 6,000 and 12,000 pounds, which will require wire rope diameter to be between inches to 1-1/8 inches. Explosive charges will not be left in piles for over 1 week. Adequate time for manufacturing of charges and mobilization are not considered. Safety is the number-one priority.
Explosive Usage Permit Policy Specific decommissioning regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30 Mineral Resources, Part 256 Leasing of Sulfur or Oil and Gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. In order to remove a platform from OCS waters, a Structure Removal Application and Site Clearance Plan (30 CFR 250.143) must be submitted to the proper field office of the MMS. There are basic regulations that must be followed when using explosives offshore. Appendix 5.6 has a chart that details the specific stipulations for different decommissioning projects. In general use of explosives in deep water has more mitigation requirements than in shallow water.
2.2.2 Non-Explosive Methods

Non-explosive methods presently used consist of diamond wire, guillotine saws, abrasive (slurry) cutters, mechanical cutters, and oxy-arc torch (diver cutting). Diamond Wire Cutting The diamond wire cutting system (DWCS [Figures 2.3]) is an external cutting tool that can be used to cut jacket legs, piles, and diagonal members above and under water. Divers or a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) can install the DWCS. The DWCS consists of a structural steel clamping unit and a diamond wire cutter. The frame is designed to clamp on the member being cut. The cutting wire consists of a steel wire rope with a diameter of approximately -inch onto which is threaded a series of steel rings approximately -inch long. These rings are embedded with diamonds, and are separated by a spacer sleeve that places the rings 1-inch apart.
16 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.3 ROV Diamond Wire Tool The cutting system is designed to allow the wire to rotate along the perimeter of the frame. The wire rotates about the pulley wheels. A ROV can be used to set the leg clamp and cutter in the proper position on the member to be cut. Once installed, the DWCSs wire speed, working pressure, and flow rate is controlled from the surface. Diamond wire cutting has been used since the early 1990s in the North, Adriatic, and Red Seas. Since then, the DWCS has been used for the removal of offshore platforms, caissons, conductors, risers, etc. However, until recently, the DWCS had not been used in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). It was last used in the GOM to externally cut 82 and 48 caissons installed in 120 feet of water. Cutting times were approximately 20 and 2.5 hours for the 82 and 48 caissons respectively. The DWCS has many possible uses for deepwater platform decommissioning. The cutting system can be used to sever large platform legs and piles while divers sever the diagonal members. An ROV can be fitted with the cutting tool and sent down to cut the diagonal members at depths where divers cannot work safely. The same ROV configuration can be used to cut the pipeline ends. Benefits of this cutting tool over other cutting methods are many. There seems to be no limitation in the size of the cut or material to cut, as long as the cutting tool can be fixed to the cut member. Water depth may not be an issue when using this tool; an ROV or diver wearing a hard suit can take and set the tool at the desired location. By-products generated by the DWCS are only the fine cuttings from the object being cut, minimizing damage to the environment. Limitations of the DWCS are based on its external cutting design. If piles are to be severed below the mudline, jetting will need to be performed to allow the cutting device and frame to be
attached to the pile. Additional jetting may be necessary depending on the size of the ROV or other subsea device being used to attach the unit. An additional limitation of the DWCS is its current control system. Developments currently underway promise to overcome any limitations in the DWCS's present design. A sub-bottom cutter (SBC) is currently in development, which will facilitate cuts below the mudline. Additionally, a computerized cutting control system promises to provide faster cuts that are more successful in the near future. Guillotine Saw This is a hydraulically, electrically or pneumatically operated saw with a single blade that motions side to side, in the same way a basic hack saw operates, and is progressed forward by a simple worm gear mechanism through the material. The guillotine saw cutting system operates in a similar way to the diamond wire saw in that it can be operated from an ROV hydraulic power pack for deeper water operations or set by a diver in shallow water. As this is an external cutting method site clearance to 20ft below mud line will also be required. The clamping mechanism is the similar to the methods adopted by the diamond wire saw but these are currently limited to a maximum diameter of 32. Anything larger is considered too bulky as the mass of side to side motion performed by the saw during the cutting operation increases considerably. The maximum size is also limited by the length of the single blade, which can be prone to snapping if too long. Traditionally the industry has elected to use diamond wire saws for large diameter cuts. The benefit in using the guillotine saw is that the consumables (i.e. the blade) is very inexpensive in comparison to a diamond wire loop and is equally as easy and efficient to replace if broken. Below is a photo (figure 2.4) of a guillotine saw.
18 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.4 Guillotine Saw (Courtesy of E H Wachs) Abrasive Cutting Abrasive cutting employs mechanisms that inject cutting materials into a water jet and abrasively wear away steel. There are two types presently in use: high volume-low pressure and low volume-high pressure. The first type of abrasive cutter disperses high volumes of sand or slag mixed with water volume (80 to 100 gallons/minute) at relatively low pressure (4,000 to 10,000 psi). A newly developed 15,000 psi system is available which is useful for multi string conductor cutting or adapted for other cutting applications. An internal abrasive cutter (Figure 2.5) is spooled into the open pile to 15 feet below the mudline, after jetting out the mud plug to 20 feet below the mudline. Once the unit is in position, the centralizer arms are extended. The mixing units and pump are then started. Water is pressurized and forced through a hair-thin opening, producing a powerful water jet stream. Small particles of abrasive are added to the high velocity jet stream and the cutting begins.
Figure 2.5 Water Abrasive Cutting c/w internal manipulators
The external abrasive cutting tool works on the same principle as the internal tool. Using the same feeding system, the external abrasive cutter is attached using a series of tracks that wrap
around the member to be severed. This system must be attached by a diver, which limits the depth at which this system can be used safely. Limitations for both the internal and external abrasive cutters include uneven cutting, and water depth limits. Limitations also include the minimum inside diameter that can be accessed approximately seven inches, combined with the outside diameter that can be cut. In shallow water depths, abrasive cutters have been proven to be an effective alternative to explosive pile severing. In some circumstances, conversations with abrasive jet contractors reveal the unsatisfactory use of these cutters in water depths greater than 600 feet. Improvements to the systems generally will eventually allow the abrasive cutters to work in deeper water depths. There also exists the problem of verifying that the cut has been made when using an internal abrasive cutter. Unlike explosives, the conductor or pile often does not drop, confirming that the cut was successful. With an abrasive tool, the width of the cut is small and combined with the soil friction, a visual response generally does not occur. To verify the cut, the conductor is pulled with either the platform crane or hydraulic jacks. The lift force must overcome the conductor weight and the soil friction. At times, this force is many times more than the actual conductor weight. It is generally assumed that the cut is not successful if the conductor cannot be lifted with a force two times the conductor weight. The abrasive cutting tool is either re-deployed to make another complete run, or explosives are used to complete the cut. Recent improvements in abrasive cutting technology have enabled development of a wellhead retrieval internal multi string cutting tool. [7] The figure 2.6 below details this tool.
Figure 2.6 Well Head Retrieval Tool (Courtesy of NCA)
20 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Mechanical Cutting Mechanical cutting employs hydraulically actuated carbide-tipped tungsten blades to mill through tubular structures. This method has been used most successfully on small-diameter caissons with individual wells and shallow water well-protector platforms with vertical piles. Figure 2.7 below illustrates how the internal mechanical cutting tool is lowered into an open pile. The power swivel is supported and connected to the top of the pile. The power swivel turns the drill string so that the milling blades are forced outward hydraulically to cut the pile or well; centralizers on the tool keep it concentric inside the pile or well.
Figure 2.7 Mechanical Cutting Tool Limitations for the mechanical cutter include uneven cutting (from lateral movement of uncemented strings), replacement of worn blades, larger lifting equipment necessary to set the system, and more time required to make each cut. Hydraulic mechanical shears are also available as shown in the below figure 2.8.
21 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.8 Hydraulic Mechanical Shear and Debris Removal Equipment (Photo courtesy of Conmaco)
2.2.3 Severing Conclusions

Several cutting techniques were reviewed in this section. Explosives are predictable, flexible, and reliable. Current industry practice primarily utilizes explosives to sever piles below the mudline at any water depth. Abrasive and mechanical cutters are not as reliable as explosives to sever piles. Although they have been proven effective (generally on platforms located in relatively shallow water), deepwater simulation tests have demonstrated that there are a number of operational issues that need to be resolved for each of these alternative cutting methods. Additionally, there are more delays with these systems if they fail, and a complete cut during the first pass is less likely to occur than if explosives are used. The DWCS is an alternative cutting tool that has great potential for deepwater use, specifically for severing jackets and pipelines. It is relatively easy to install (diver- and ROV-friendly) and current frame designs fit the pile sizes associated with the platforms included in this study. Although the DWCS might soon become a standard tool for efficiently severing piles, conductors, and pipelines, further testing is necessary before it can be considered a viable alternative cutting method for deepwater platform removals. While some (or all) of these alternatives may someday provide a viable alternative to explosive pile severing, potential increases in cost and diver risk currently make these alternatives less attractive than explosives for the removal of deep facilities.
2.2.4 Deepwater Diving Suits

Introduction Due to the extreme water depths focused on in this study, several new subsea technologies have been reviewed to provide alternative methods for assisting in pile severing and jacket cutting. These include advanced remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), hard-shelled diving suits, and directly operated vehicles (i.e., single-person submarines). In order to safely deploy divers at water depths exceeding 400 feet, diving suits used must meet the challenges of handling deepwater pressures while allowing divers to efficiently perform work in the deepwater environment. Oceaneering, Inc. is currently using systems like the WASP III hard suit (Figure 2.9) to perform work in deep water. The WASP is a proven tool for deploying divers at water depths exceeding 2,000 feet. The suit has been used in approximately 30 actual offshore operations in the Gulf of Mexico and in Brazil; the maximum water depth for these operations was 1033 fsw. These suits are rated for a maximum water depth of 2,200 fsw with a normal dive time of 6 hours.
Figure 2.9 Oceaneerings WASP III One Atmosphere Suit -Can operate at 2,200 ft subsea (Photo courtesy of Oceaneering) In order to minimize downtime, the WASP is operated in pairs to provide a "standby" diver in case one of the suits is in need of service or repair. Advantages
Ability to deploy divers in water depths up to 2,200 fsw Suit designed to kneel, lay down, and even work with the diver's head below his or her feet Has been used successfully in a number of deepwater operations Disadvantages Extreme water depths still pose a threat to divers Divers unable to use fingers to manipulate items High fabrication, maintenance, and operations costs Highly skilled divers and above-water personnel needed to operate suit
2.2.5 Remotely Operated Vehicles

Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) are proven tools for safely operating in marine environments. The increasing need to be able to use these machines at deeper and deeper water depths is driving the development of advanced ROVs that can be utilized in deepwater platform installations and removals. The pile diameters associated with deepwater platforms are larger than shallow water platforms therefore, larger ROVs are necessary to handle equipment used to sever piles. Additionally, the pressure at these depths provides an additional challenge to ROV design. Tasks needed to be performed at deeper water depths include: Valve operation Cutting steel and fiber cables or ropes Operation of disc grinders Attachment of external cutting tools Hot tapping High-pressure water jetting Removal of cuttings from well heads Make and break hydraulic connections Bathymetric surveys Trench profiles Sub-bottom pipe tracking Video observation and still photography Tool-skid carrying capabilities A unit such as the SAI-250 ROV 0509 Innovator (Figure 2.10 below), manufactured and operated by Saipem America, is an example of an ROV which can currently operate in deepwater environments.
24 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.10 - Saipem 250 HP Working Class ROV (Photo courtesy of Saipem America) Advantages Safer deepwater operations- replaces divers in extreme water depths Can be fitted with cutting tool to sever pipelines or jacket members. Aid in installing external cutting tools. Not depth dependent Not dependent of dive time High fabrication, maintenance, and operations costs Larger umbilical and more power required Observations of working conditions are dependent on remote cameras Technical challenges - Operators must be highly skilled to operate these ROVs - Control systems are complex - Tether may create problems - Access issues with the size of the ROV. Designers need to ensure that their structures and subsea equipment are designed ROV friendly.
Disadvantages
2.2.6 Directly Operated Vehicles

As an alternative to ROVs or deploying divers in deepwater using hard-shelled diving suits, diving vessels (i.e., manned single-person controlled submarines) are currently being developed for
deepwater operations. Also called directly operated vehicles (DOVs), these one-person submarines may someday prove to be useful in deepwater decommissioning operations. To meet the demand for vessels of this type, Nuytco, Inc. has developed the Newtsub Deepworker 2000 a one atmosphere, single person, under-sea work vehicle. This vessel is designed to be completely tether less in normal operations and can be fitted with a fiber optic cable (approximately the size of a lead pencil in diameter) to transmit data to the surface. Because of its autonomous design, the Deepworker 2000 has very high power availability at the vehicle, coupled with directly operated, high performance manipulator capabilities. Additionally, this system can be deployed to a maximum water depth of up to 2,000 feet. Advantages Operator can observe situations first-hand Self-powered No tether required Extreme water depths accessible to divers- up to 2,000 feet Highly skilled divers and above-water personnel needed to operate vessel Use of manned system places personnel at risk High fabrication, operations, and maintenance costs Limited history of use in the oil and gas industry
Disadvantages
2.2.7 Subsea Operations Conclusions

Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) have been used successfully in a number of offshore operations for many years. Larger ROVs can provide the same key advantage of their shallowwater predecessors decreasing the risk to human life. They can be fitted with a variety of cutting tools, assisting in external cuts at depths that are inaccessible to divers using conventional diving gear. Hard-shelled diving suits and single-person diving vessels currently being developed and used can also be outfitted with these cutting tools and allow divers to access the depths defined as "deep water." While the major disadvantage of using these types of deepwater equipment is the fact that they still place human life at risk in deepwater environments, this fact is also their greatest advantage. They offer the ability to allow people to perform work first-hand at water depths exceeding 400 feet. An additional advantage of using the manned diving vessel is its ability to work without the constraints of a tether. While these technologies are still young and relatively unproven, it is very likely that they will be used on deepwater platform decommissioning operations in the near future. Deepwater subsea operations would be more efficient with enhancements to camera and visualization technology enabling more work conducted from ROV and diver-less systems. This is
26 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
especially important in high silt, debris sensitive areas where it is critical that industry is provided high quality 3-D images. Over 4000 subsea wells have been installed in the GOM as shown in Section 3 Figure 3.27. The newer subsea wells and supporting subsea structures have been designed as ROV friendly which will improve the cost efficiency of decommissioning projects. Many of the older subsea wells may prove more difficult for ROV decommissioning operations. Subtle changes to the hardware design and configuration can lead to step wise improvements in the intervention efficiency, and overall safety of the production operation and abandonment functionality. In summary, equipment can and should be optimized for late life and future subsea abandonment functionality. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that subsea wells will be removed, subsea structures anchored to the seabed will remain in place and subsea structures that are attached to or stabbed over the anchored structure will be removed.
2.2.8 Standard Heavy Lift Technologies

Introduction The load weights associated with deepwater fixed and floating platform installations limit the number of heavy lift vessels (HLVs) that can be used to remove these facilities. In addition to evaluating conventional HLVs, a review of alternative heavy lift vessels that are currently being developed is presented in Section 2.2.9. The need for larger HLVs is apparent as industry is installing more production facilities in deeper waters. Included are brief descriptions of each of these technologies, and an assessment of the potential to apply them to the removal of deepwater platforms. A limited selection of heavy lift vessels (HLVs) working around the world today can perform the tasks required for removing deepwater platforms. As of January 2008, there were 59 heavy-lift vessels in the worldwide fleet with 100 ton (91 metric ton) capacity or greater, according to Offshores 2008 Worldwide Survey of Heavy Lift Vessels poster.
27 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.11 - Siapem 7000 and Heerema Thialf Semi-Submersible Crane Vessels (Photos courtesy of Saipem and Heerema) Table 2.1 presents a summary of the heavy lift vessels available now, or in the near future, that can perform the lifts required.
Table 2.1 Heavy Lift Vessels Considered for Topsides/Jacket Removal
Largest crane vessels

Vessel Company Capacity (mT) Type
Pieter Schelte
Allseas
25000 (detail design ongoing) Twin Hull
TML
SeaMetric
20000 (under construction)
Twin vessels
Thialf
Heerema
14200 (2 * 7100 tons)
Semi
Saipem 7000
Saipem
14000 (2 * 7000 tons)
Semi
28 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Bottom Feeder
Versabar
10000 (under construction)
Dual Barges
Svanen
Ballast Nedam 8800
Catamaran
Hermod
Heerema
8165 (1 * 4536, 1 * 3629)
Semi
7500 Barge
ZPMC
8500
Monohull
Balder
Heerema
6350 (1 * 3629, 1 * 2722)
Semi
Borealis
Nordic
5000
Monohull
Oleg Strashnov
Seaway
5000
Monohull
Bottom Feeder
Versabar
4000
Twin barges
DB 50
J. Ray
3992
Monohull
Rambiz
Scaldis
3300
Catamaran
Asian Hercules II Smit
3200
Monohull
DB 101
J. Ray
3185
Semi
DB 30
J. Ray
2800
Monohull
Sapura 3000
Acergy
2800
Monohull
Stanislav Yudin
Seaway
2500
Monohull
29 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Cargo barge load capacity is limited although Heerema has constructed a large 750 foot long cargo barge as detailed in the figure 2.12 below. This barge can carry topside modules weighing 35,000 mT or a jacket weighing 40,000 mT.
Figure 2.12- Heerema H-851 Cargo Barge (Drawing courtesy of Heerema)
2.2.9 Alternative Heavy Lift Technologies

The following section offers a review of alternative heavy-lift technologies currently being developed for offshore platform installations and removals. Versabar Versatruss Lift System Versatruss is a balanced, symmetrical, underside lift concept developed by Versabar that makes use of a truss formation to lift a heavy load. In application, this system employs three readily available components: Standard cargo barges, which provide the lifting platforms Steel A frames, which provide the structural support Hydraulic winches, which supply the lifting force Booms and the deck structure form the upper portion of the truss; the lower segment is created by Versatruss rigging and a tension cord inserted between the platform legs (Figure 2.13). This arrangement results in an extremely efficient distribution of load into the deck. Once attached to the deck, synchronized winches are engaged, causing the barges to move together and shortening the lower span of the truss. When this happens, the booms rotate on
30 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
their heel pins, increasing the boom angle and generating vertical lift. The process is fully reversible at any time, with lifting or set-down taking a relatively short period of time. Because of the basic nature of this system, it can be designed to accommodate very large topsides. Once lifted, topsides can be: Towed to shore (or to another location if re-installation is the goal) in a catamaran configuration Lowered onto a cargo barge Lowered onto a cargo barge and unhooked from the Versatruss system The Versatruss system has been used successfully in several topsides removal and installation projects. The largest of these lifts were the removal of a 1,225-ton deck from Amoco's Eugene Island 367 platform in August 1998 and the installation of 5,330 ton topsides for Chevron in Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela, in September 2000.
Figure 2.13- Versatruss Jacket Lifting System Topsides/Jacket Lifting Capacity: 20,000 Ton (Photo courtesy of Versabar)
During the Lake Maracaibo platform installation project, planned Versatruss applications included the transportation and installation of jackets and topsides for three platforms. Although the topsides installations proved successful, during the transportation of the Versatruss jacket installation system to Venezuela, the system tore itself apart and was lost (Offshore Engineer, Oct 2000).
31 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Versatruss has been effective in increasingly larger topsides removal and installation applications, but, to date, has no proven solution for the removal and/or transportation of jackets. Versatruss Advantages Efficient in principal, no upper limit to its capacity requirements By multi-sheaving the blocks, it is possible to minimize the winch and line-pull-load capacity Redundancy multiple booms and multiple connection points allow for the loss of individual elements of the Versatruss system without a system failure Available currently in use System requires extensive operational support Jacket removal methods have proven ineffective in the field. No accommodations; need support vessel(s) to accommodate personnel Practical application of the technology to date has been limited Weather limitations in the hook-up stage
Versatruss Disadvantages
Versatruss Conclusions The Versatruss heavy lifting system is a proven, efficient method for removing and installing topsides. Multi-sheave blocks can minimize winch loads, and multiple booms and connection points give it redundancy not found in the other HLVs described in section 2.2.8 additionally, there is no theoretical limit to the load capacity of this system. However, the Versatruss system is not well suited for removing jackets. The kinematics of the system make it difficult to provide a jacket lifting capability that would be effective in practical applications that require lifting jackets out of the water. Therefore, for Complete Removals, another HLV will be needed. Nevertheless, the Partial Removal and Remote Reefing operations might significantly benefit from the use of the Versatruss system. Versabar Bottom Feeder Lift Systems The Bottom Feeder lift system was developed by Versabar. The design uses two cargo barges outfitted with a bridge truss that is used to lift jacket and decks (Figure 2.14) in a single lift. Consisting of twin 1,250 ton steel truss frames mounted on standard cargo barges and powered by four 200-ton winches (visible on the legs of the trusses at left), the Bottom Feeder specializes in recovering items from the sea floor. The retrieved items are loaded onto barges and transported to shore for salvage. The current system has a rated lift capacity of 4,000 tons and has performed fifty plus salvages related lifts in the Gulf of Mexico since 2008.
32 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.14- Versabar VB 4000 Bottom Feeder Lifting System (Photo courtesy of Versabar) Currently a larger Bottom Feeder is under construction and will be ready in 2010. This unit will be rated to handle 10,000 ton surface lifts with four 2,500 ton lift blocks. The blocks can be rereeved as required to support sea bed lifting of 4,000 tons at around (-) 450 MSL. The main block lift height is approximately 180 feet above sea level. The unit will have ABS DPS3 class DP system (Kongsberg control system, Eight 1,000 HP Thrustmaster retractable, azimuthing thrusters). The Main hoists are also capable of each running 10,000 feet of 5-inch Samson Quantam-12 fiber rope. This will give the system a lifting/lowering capacity of 1,000 tons in 10,000 feet of water. Bottom Feeder Advantages
Single piece lift (removal and installation) of heavy topsides for conventional (non storm toppled) platforms. Heavy jacket removal and installation. The system may transport complete jackets to reef sites for toppling, or reverse upend jackets for removal to shore. For very large jackets the system can be used to support and transport jacket slices for disposal. Use of multiple lift blocks allows for lifting of decks/jackets which are highly out of level (up to 90 degrees) and with highly uncertain CoG or high CoG offset locations. High lift capacity at (-) 400 feet for continued toppled platform recovery. High capacity (1,000 tons) for future ultra deepwater (10,000 feet) installations and recoveries.
33 of 54 Rev.0 Oct 2009
DP system allows for station keeping in debris fields or deep water. System has proven to be as or more versatile than conventional derrick barge solutions. This lifting system cannot operate in adverse sea states. The maximum size of the deck or jacket to be lifted is restricted by the distance between the two barge hulls.
Bottom Feeder Disadvantages
Pieter Schelte Twin Tanker Lift System The Pieter Schelte (Figure 2.15), designed by Excalibur Engineering, BV, is a platform removal and installation vessel formed by joining two large tankers together to form a stable platform. Topsides and jackets can be removed in discrete single lifts and transported to shore or to another location. Construction has not yet started for this lift system. The design of the HLV ties together two large tankers at the stern, leaving the bow open to accept extremely large topsides. The vessel deballasts itself below the deck, raises (ballasts) to a point where the jacket can be secured to the vessel, and further ballasts to raise the topsides off the jacket. The rear of the vessel includes a lifting arm that is raised above the jacket (once the topsides are removed and the piles have been severed). Once in position, rigging is lowered and attached to the top of the jacket, secured, and the jacket is raised to a point where it can be pulled over onto the jacket storage section of the Pieter Schelte. The vessel then moves to shore or to another offshore location for offloading and disposal or re-installation.
Figure 2.15 - Allseas Pieter Schelte Lifting System Topsides/Jacket Lifting Capacity: 48,000/25,000 mT (Drawing courtesy of Allseas)
34 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
The Pieter Schelte can be used for decommissioning operations by lifting topsides up to 48,000 ton (approximately 53,000 short tons) and removing jackets up to 25,000 ton (approximately 28,000 short tons). Pieter Schelte Advantages Minimum offshore preparation work on topsides facilities Single piece lifting No cleaning and separation of process facilities Minimum subsea cutting operations Single-piece jacket removal up to 500 ft. Maximum safety to personnel Very limited human activities offshore Maximum protection of the environment Handling of hazardous materials only within the onshore dismantling yard Possible reuse of topsides and jackets May have high maintenance costs May have higher day rate than other heavy lift alternatives. Jacket removal limited by lifting arm design (jacket complete removal in a single piece limited to 500 ft water depth)
Pieter Schelte Disadvantages
Pieter Schelte Conclusions The Pieter Schelte heavy lift vessel offers a good alternative to lifting the topsides in one unit. Unlike the HLV alternatives described to this point, the Pieter Schelte does not have to offload the topsides before lifting the first jacket section. Additionally, jacket cut sections could be skidded to the back of the vessel, allowing it to lift the remaining jacket portion to be immediately towed to shallow water to repeat the jacket removal process. However, the Pieter Schelte will be a very expensive HLV to fabricate and maintain, and its day rate may potentially be higher than that of standard HLVs. Detail vessel design is ongoing and the vessel is currently scheduled to launch in 2013. Buoyancy Bag Devices Buoyancy bags, manufactured by companies like Seaflex Ltd., are inflatable subsea buoyancy systems that can be attached to jacket members, subsea equipment, conductors or pipelines. Once attached and inflated, these units can lift sections (or, in the case of jackets, potentially the entire structure) to the surface. The bags are offered in either open-bottom or fully enclosed configurations. These units can be connected to piles or conductors by using divers or remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). These units have proven to be a successful lifting alternative in pipeline and platform removals. Current stock exceeds 3,000 ton lift capacity.
35 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Buoyancy bags are inexpensive to fabricate and maintain. However weather conditions can create lifting variables that could potentially create difficulties for the jacket-handling vessels in raising the jacket. Movement created by underwater currents or uneven air expansion inside the bags could make it difficult to ensure that the jacket does not surface directly underneath the buoyancy bag-handling vessel or another on site vessel. Controlled Variable Buoyancy System (CVBS) The Controlled Variable Buoyancy System (CVBS) is a patented concept being developed to provide an innovative and cost effective means of offshore structure removal. It does this by providing buoyancy that is attached to strategic points on the structure. The magnitude of buoyant lift can be closely controlled throughout all stages of the removal operation. The CVBS consists of groups of buoyancy chambers, clamps, inflatable air bags, pipe work, valves, and a sophisticated control system. A group of chambers equipped with clamps, local controls and piping systems is referred to as an Intelligent Buoyancy Unit (IBU). An Intelligent Buoyancy Unit (IBU) consists of four 2.5m OD, 16m long shells (Figure 2.16). Three of the shells are perforated with a number of holes to allow water to flood freely in and out of the shell, and one of the shells is solid. The perforated shells have a domed end at the top fitted with an insert suitable for bolting on pipe work and valving.
36 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.16- Control Variable Buoyancy System (CVBS) The main bodies of the shells are 20mm thick and the domed ends are 40mm thick. The shell will be filament wound with continuous glass fiber reinforcement. The GRP shells are held in position and connected to the jacket leg via 2 friction clamps, which are hinged to assist in the installation procedure. A steel band is fixed around the shell and is then connected into the main body of the clamp by means of stiffener plates. Each clamp has stud bolts that lock into position on closure. With the clamp closed, using a hydraulic cylinder, a work-class ROV will torque each of the studs thus securely fixing the unit to the leg. The Control System consists of the following:
37 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Master Control System (MCS) The Master Control System is located remotely onboard the Multi- Purpose Support Vessel (MSV) or Diving Support Vessel (DSV) and communicates with the Master Control Module via a radio telemetry link. Master Control Module (MCM) - The unit is located on the structure to be moved. It is PLC based and is connected to each of the IBU units. This allows the Master Control Module to control the IBU unit Inputs and Outputs, valve operations, reading pressure values, and valve operation status information. Intelligent Buoyancy Unit (IBU) Control Pods These pods contain all the electronics necessary to control valve operations and to read back data from pressure transducers. Potentially inexpensive lifting alternative no need for HLVs to remain on site after topsides are removed. Environmentally friendly Limited use in platform decommissioning Uncertainties exist regarding jacket surfacing logistics Maximum lifting weights limit the size of the jacket (or jacket section) that can be lifted (depending on size/number of bags or CVBSs used)
Buoyancy Bag Advantages
Buoyancy Bag Disadvantages
Buoyancy Bag Conclusions While the Controlled Variable Buoyancy System (CBVS) might be able to overcome some of the challenges presented by buoyancy bags (i.e., better control over the lift), this technology has limited use in the field. Buoyancy Tank Assemblies Aker Solutions successfully deployed a new jacket removal method in 2008 to remove the DP2 jacket (see Figure 2.17) from Totals Frigg field in the Norwegian North Sea [8]. With the aid of buoyancy tanks, the jacket was floated clear of the seabed and towed ashore without major incident. The jacket was towed to shallow water and cut into pieces for disposal. The patented re-floating technique thereby has proved itself as an attractive alternative to conventional heavy-lift methods to remove redundant jackets. The eight-leg DP2 jacket, installed in 1986 by barge-launch and ballast into position, weighed around 9,000 metric tons (9,920 tons) and stood 123 m (404 ft) tall, with a footprint of 62 x 43 m (203 x 141 ft). Removal by heavy-lift would have meant cutting it into two or more pieces underwater.
38 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.17 Frigg DP2 Platform Removal (Photo courtesy of Aker Solutions) This re-floating method uses four buoyancy tank assemblies (BTAs), one attached to each corner leg. Each BTA consists of two cylindrical buoyancy tanks, each measuring 53 m (184 ft) long and 6.6 m (21.8 ft) in diameter, fixed together side by side. All tanks are divided into an upper and a lower compartment, with a series of valves allowing sea water entry during ballasting, and pumping in of pressurized air to expel water during deballasting. On the upper end is an equipment and instrumentation room for implementing ballasting and deballasting, and for operating the clamps and pull-in jacks that attach the BTA to the jacket leg. Operations are controlled and powered remotely from a command vessel through an umbilical and hoses. These were connected directly to the BTA during the attachment operation, and via a manifold installed on the support vessel during the re-float and tow. The overall height of each BTA is 65 m (213 ft), the weight in air is about 1,000 metric tons (1,102 tons). Total tank volume is 3,625 cu m (128,016 cu ft). The units were built and outfitted by Bladt Industrier in Denmark. The clamp systems and jacks were supplied by IHC, and the rubber elements by Trelleborg Viking in Norway the latter were used as fenders and placed within the clamps and upper and lower guides to deflect loadings. The first BTA was delivered to Aker Solutions for sea trials in 2008, and then returned to the yard for some modifications. The mating operation to position a BTA to one of the corner legs without any damage to the integrity of the jacket was not easy, especially as a positioning accuracy of 15 mm (0.6-in.) was required, and the weight of each assembly now included 3,000 metric tons (3,308 tons) of ballast water.
39 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Each BTA (see Figure 2.18) was guided into position using lines attached to a vessel on either side; the offshore support vessel Botnica, acting as the command vessel, and Nordica. A pullback line was attached to a small tug stationed behind the BTA.
Diagram shows the buoyancy tank assembly. Each unit weighs 1,000 metric tons (1,102 tons) and stands 65 m (213 ft) high. Figure 2.18 Buoyancy Tank Assembly An upper and a lower guide at the top and bottom of each BTA directed the assembly into position on the leg. Contact first was made at the lower guide. As contact was achieved at each guide, the mating clamp automatically closed around the leg, reducing horizontal movement. Pull-in jacks were activated to further reduce movements. The BTA now was de-ballasted until the firm contact of 600 metric tons (661 tons) uplift was established between it and a hinged bracket structure at the top of the leg calculations indicated that the legs would not be able to take the bending moment generated by the BTAs during refloating, so a bracket was welded to each leg to take this loading. The pull-in jacks now were operated again, pulling the BTA into the correct position, tight against the leg. By activating the two friction clamps in the mid-section of the BTA, the main holding force was established. The pull-in and friction clamps were operated from the command ship once the mating clamp closed. Before re-floating began, the towing vessels attached lines to the jacket to ensure it remained stable. At this point, the jacket was held in place by just four of the original 20 piles, the others having been previously cut. With only 600 metric tons (661 tons) of buoyancy from each BTA
before the last piles were cut, the jacket was resting firmly on the already cut piles enough to hold it stable without causing any sudden movement when the final pile was severed. Once the jacket was no longer fixed to the seabed, the BTAs were further de-ballasted to raise the deepest part of the platform to the towing height of 10 m (33 ft) above the seabed. Buoyancy Tank Conclusions The BTAs are available for re-use. With their dimensions, they could re-float jackets weighing between 6,000 and 18,000 metric tons (6,614 and 19,842 tons), depending on the floating capacity in the legs. Further, BTAs with different dimensions and lifting capacities also could be built. BTAs have been designed to operate in 10,000 feet of water depth. SeaMetric International TML Lift System An alternative heavy lift concept is being developed by Seametric International. SeaMetric currently has two multi-purpose heavy-lift vessels under construction in China. The vessels construction completion date has not been set by Seametric. SeaMetrics new Twin Marine Lifter (TML) design (see Figure 2.19) is unique. It uses lifting arms rather than cranes, and will be able to lift 18,000-20,000 metric tons (19,842-22,046 tons) compared to the maximum lifting capacity of traditional heavy-left vessels at 14,000-15,000 metric tons (15,432-16,535 tons). Another factor that makes the TML system stand alone is the removable lifting arms.
Figure 2.19- Seametric International TML Lifting Barges Topsides/Jacket Lifting Capacity: 20,000 mT
(Drawing courtesy of Seametric)

The TML system will have a DP-3 capability and include both accommodation facilities and a helideck. It will operate at wave heights of 3-4.5 m (10-15 ft) with low dynamic loads. The TML allows design of platform topsides for convenience of operation, not to fit within the cranes lifting range. The self propelled vessel (450 feet long) is designed for both removal and installation of platform topsides, jackets, subsea installations, boats, or similar objects. With the global market for medium to large platforms (over 10,000 metric tons [11,023 tons]) estimated to be 30-35 installed per year and 30-40 removed per year from now forward, heavylift vessels are in high demand. Most of the heavy-lift vessels available would require multiple lifts to get the job done. The market for removal or offshore installation over the next 20-30 years is at least 6,500 platforms worldwide, of which more than 1,000 weigh over 4,000 metric tons (4,409 tons), SeaMetric predicts. The TML system is based on buoyancy and ballast tanks and lifting arms located on two identical vessels, each vessel being 140 x 40 x 10.85 m (459 x 131 x 35 ft). The eight lifting arms weigh about 2,500 metric tons (2,856 tons), and are supported on a skid structure onboard the vessels. Each lifting arm is hinged to the skid structure over the center line of the vessel and is equipped with a buoyancy tank on the inside (between the barge and the object) and a ballast tank on the opposite side. One TML with lifting arms is positioned on each side of the object to be lifted. The idea is to create a lift force by de-ballasting the buoyancy tanks and at the same time ballasting the ballast tanks. This is done by the use of seawater pumps. 2.2.10 Heavy Lift Conclusions Many of the alternative heavy-lift technologies reviewed may someday prove to be safer, more cost-effective ways to remove topsides and jackets. The designed load capacities for many of these systems are more than adequate for the topsides associated with deepwater platforms. However, deepwater jacket removal tends to be problematic for all alternatives reviewed. Only the Versatruss and Bottom Feeder alternative deck-lifting systems have been used successfully for offshore platform removal operations; the other systems are in various stages of development and testing. Additionally, the idea of considering any of these systems as the primary option for removing the deepwater platforms could potentially create scheduling problems if the systems are not available by the time these platforms are ready to be decommissioned. As a result, the standard, proven heavy lift vessels included in Section 2.2.8 are the most reliable heavy lift options currently available.
42 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
2.2.11 Well Intervention Vessels/Systems

Decommissioning wellbores can be accomplished by several techniques. The well can be plugged and abandoned with a drilling rig or by a rigless equipment spread. The well work equipment can be set up on the deepwater facility, a self contained drilling rig or a well intervention vessel. Industry has developed non rig well abandonment techniques that utilize a purpose built service vessel. These vessels which are called well intervention vessels (WIV) are very cost effective in decommissioning subsea wells compared to using a drilling rig. These vessels utilize wireline or coiled tubing to access the wellbore. Vessels are available that will be able to access and abandon subsea wells in water depths of 10,000 feet. Motion compensation devices or constant tension winch packages are critical to the successful use of these vessels in deepwater decommissioning projects. Prior to the development of these vessels operators used high day rate drilling rigs to abandon subsea wells. Below is a drawing (see Figure 2.20) of Helixs Well Ops Q4000 well intervention vessel. This vessel has performed well intervention work in 6,500 feet in the GOM. The vessels ROV is rated to operate at 10,000 feet. The multipurpose vessel provides a stable platform for a wide variety of tasks, including subsea completion decommissioning and coiled tubing deployment [9].
Figure 2.20 Q4000 Well Intervention Vessel (Drawing courtesy of Helix Energy)
Another well intervention vessel the Olympic Intervention IV is chartered to Oceaneering International, Inc. The vessel will be capable of subsea hardware installation such as umbilicals, subsea trees, jumpers, flying leads and manifolds. The vessel can also perform inspection, repair and maintenance (IRM) projects and is capable of well intervention services including riserless wireline, coiled tubing, electric line, and plug and abandonment operations using the Subsea Intervention Lubricator (SILS). Figure 2.21 below shows the SILS being used for the first time in a GOM well intervention.
Figure 2.21 SILS Well Intervention System (Courtesy of Oceaneering and Superior Energy) The 312' DP-2 Olympic Intervention IV (see below) features two Oceaneering Millennium Plus ROVS depth rated to 10,000 feet, a helideck, a 150-ton heave compensated crane, a large working moonpool, accommodations for 100 personnel and a satellite communications system for transmitting streaming video for real-time work observation by shore personnel.
44 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.22 Oceaneering Well Intervention Vessel (Photo courtesy of Oceaneering) Expro International Group is developing a lightweight subsea wireline intervention system. This follows project is called the AX-S. First tests of this system (see figure 2.23) will be conducted in 2010 in the North Sea. BP is a partner in this project. The AX-S System will provide lightweight rig less well intervention services [9] that diagnose production problems and improve production from subsea wells. This system will also be able to provide well abandonment work on subsea wells. The AX-S system is deployed onto a subsea tree with an active heave-compensated fiber winch from a mono hull vessel, and is remotely controlled from the surface like a ROV. It consists of an integrated set of pressure-contained subsea packages comprising well control, wireline tools, wireline winch and fluid injection functions.
45 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.23 Expro Group AX-S Subsea Well Intervention System (Photo courtesy of Expro) If a purpose built well intervention vessel is unavailable a typical offshore supply and service vessel can be set up with well intervention equipment to perform the well decommissioning work. However the capabilities to perform well intervention are limited by the lifting capacity of the equipment and the weather capability of the deployment vessel.
2.3 Decommissioning Project Challenges

Introduction This section presents the obstacles that may arise in decommissioning deepwater facilities. Carefully planning and managing the project can help mitigate these issues. However, there are instances where new methods and or technologies are needed to successfully accomplish the tasks. The decommissioning issues are presented by the cost components described in this report. 2.3.1 Platform Removal Preparation Platform Removal Preparation is one of the first tasks in the decommissioning process. In planning for this phase, areas such as accommodations, air quality, and handling and disposing of cleaning fluids need to be addressed.
46 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
As simple as it may seem, accommodations may present logistical problems if the crews are not allowed to reside on the platform. Transporting crews from shore, or adjacent platforms, will require additional support vessels or helicopters that will add to the schedule and ultimately cost. The fluids and agents used to purge and clean the vessels must be disposed properly. Most are water based and non-toxic. The fluids can be safely disposed by pumping them downhole into an injection well, or treating the fluids and discharging them overboard. Another solution is to contain them in Coast Guard approved tanks, transport the tanks to shore and dispose of the fluids properly. In some locations the approved onshore disposal sites are not very close to the shore base. Additional onshore disposal locations should be established in order to reduce transportation expense. 2.3.2 Conductor Removal As stated in Section 3, it is recommended that the conductors are cut and removed prior to the Heavy Lift Vessel (HLV) arriving at the site. Cutting, pulling, removing and storing the conductor will require detailed planning. Most often the deepwater platforms will have more conductors than shallower water platforms. The number, length, weight and number of sections to handle make this phase a challenge. The key challenge with cutting well conductors or any grouted structural member is being able to cut through the grout. The effectiveness of cutting multiple conductor pipes with grout in the annular areas is a factor of how much grout is in the annular area and if the pipes are concentric. Some cutting tools can sever grouted areas better than others. Inspection technology should be developed that will determine the extent of grout in the annulus and the orientation of the conductor pipes. This information would allow the decommissioning contractor to select the best cutting technique which would reduce the amount of time spent severing the conductors. Cutting Conductor 15 Feet below the Mudline Cutting the conductors with explosives will cause the cut point to flare out which may impede pulling it through the conductor guides. If the flared section cannot go through the guide, an ROV or a diver in a hard suit can cut it. Another solution is to use initially an abrasive or mechanical tool, in place of explosives, to cut the conductors internally below the mudline. The use of these tools is at times not effective which will require that explosives be used. In addition, it is difficult to prove that the abrasive/mechanical cut was successful. When using explosives, the conductor drops as proof that it has been cut. This does not happen when using abrasive or mechanical cutting methods. To prove that it has been cut the conductors would have to be jacked up. The lack of proving a cut and untested depths makes an abrasive/mechanical cut secondary to an explosive cut. Relaxing the 15 foot removal requirement would greatly enhance the safety of decommissioning work and reduce the time spent. Seafloor trawling activities do not occur in deepwater so the
need to remove wells 15 feet below the mudline does not seem necessary. Additionally pipelines are not buried in deepwater and subsea equipment skids will be abandoned in situ. Well Plugging and Abandonment During well abandonment projects it is imperative that adequate seals are placed in the wellbore to permanently seal the well. This is a challenge in deepwater wells especially in subsea wet trees. The challenge is greatly increased for wellheads without access fittings to all casing annulus sections. Wellheads should be designed with full access to all casing strings which will reduce well decommissioning costs. Another decommissioning cost savings well design factor is to place the production packer below the top of cement in the production casing. The packer should be placed far enough below to allow sufficient space for the cement plugs needed to eventually seal off the well. Ideally all permeable zones above the production casing show should be sealed off with cement during the drilling of the well. For the most part it is easier and less expensive to seal off these zones during the well drilling operation than during a decommissioning project. Pulling, Cutting, and Storing the Conductor The platform crane will not be able to lift the entire conductor. For this reason, the combination of the platform crane or rental crane and jacks are assumed in this study. If the platform has a drilling rig on board the drilling rig could be used to remove the conductors. Once the conductor is pulled, it is cut in 40-ft sections until it is completely removed. The external cuts can be made with a cutting torch or an external cutting tool (diamond wire, abrasive or mechanical.) Selecting the best method will depend on its reliability and ease of use. Having cut the conductor in many 40-ft sections, storing and removing the sections should be coordinated with the support vessel. The platform may not have enough area to store the large numbers of conductor sections. The platform crane can offload to the support vessel, which can then take cut sections to nearby yard for storage 2.3.3 Pipeline/Flowline Abandonment Pipeline abandonment issues for deepwater decommissioning are directly related to the size of the line and the depths in which they are installed. Most deepwater platforms will be several miles from the onshore processing facility. This results in a pipeline that has a relatively large volume to be cleaned. Technology has been implemented to flush pipelines in water depths over 8,000 feet. Amount of Volume Pumped Through Each Line The volume of water used to flush and purge the pipeline has to be disposed properly since it will have some hydrocarbons mixed with the flushing fluid. The fluids pushed through the line can be received at the terminating platform and processed. The separated product (water, gas, oil) can
then be sent to shore. If the terminating platform cannot process the fluids, they could be pushed to the onshore facility for processing. A less expensive solution is to pump the fluids downhole through one of the injection or non-producing wells. As a last option, the flush fluids can be collected and oil separated from the flush water. The clean flush water can be discharged and the collected oil sent to shore in Department of Transportation approved tanks or in a storage barge. Once onshore the oil can be processed and either sold or sent to a disposal site. Cutting and Plugging the Pipeline/Flowline at Water Depths The pipeline will be cut at each end and plugged. Due to the great depths, the conventional method of sending a diver to cut and plug the pipeline will not be an option. The solution is an ROV or a hard suit equipped with a cutting tool. Once the pipeline end is cut the ROV can plug the line. Removing the Pipeline/Flowline Flowlines that are suspended from floating production systems present many removal challenges. These flowlines (i.e. risers, umbilicals, SCR, etc.) must be inspected prior to removal in order to know if there are any integrity concerns. This information must be incorporated into the removal procedures to prevent any environmental or safety incidents. New non destructive inspection tools are now available that are helpful to plan for the removal of these flow line risers. Applus RTD UK Ltd has developed a subsea inspection system which is designed to ensure subsea equipment operational integrity. This system has integrated three technologies including ultrasonic phased array and time of flight diffraction (TOFD) techniques with alternating current field measurement (ACFM) which is an industry first. Another new subsea inspection technology (See Figure 2.24) is available from flexible pipe specialist Flexlife using it patented scanning technology [10]. Flexlife has scanned numerous risers in the North Sea. Flexlifes ultrasonic scanning technology is the first to be able to successfully scan the annulus of flexible risers and flowlines in situ with 100% accuracy. The application can detect specific locations of any flooding and scan the armor wires around flexibles to an accuracy of 0.1mm. The tool is ROV-deployed and can operate down to 3,000 meters.
49 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 2.24 Flexlife UT Riser Scanner (Photo courtesy of Flexlife)
2.3.4 Topsides Removal All Scenarios

Topside removal as discussed in Section 3 follows the installation process in reverse. The main issue in this phase is to make sure that the platform is ready for the HLV, i.e., the drilling rig is removed, modules are ready for removal, and that there are no fluids in the processing equipment. Industry should place more emphasis during the initial design to design the platform in consideration of how the platform will be removed. The platforms and subsea structures should be designed so that it will be less costly and safer to remove these structures. Some techniques to reduce the time spent decommissioning the structures are: -Eliminate the placement of grout in the top section of well conductors annular spaces. -Reduce the weight of mooring systems by utilizing non steel cables. -Reduce the weight of subsea flowlines by utilizing non steel flowlines. -Install lifting connections on the jacket that would be used during the jacket removal project. -Design subsea trees will full ROV access to all annular spaces. This will enable testing and plugging work in all casing strings. -Continue subsea design efforts to provide universal connections which will minimize the number of access tools required to work on different manufacturers subsea equipment. Platform Removal Complete Removal Scenario From the initial rigging requirements through the cutting, handling, loading and disposing of the jacket sections, the whole jacket removal phase presents issues that must be carefully planned and managed.
Selecting Jacket Cut Points Identifying where the jacket will be cut will drive the jacket removal method. The jacket sections will determine the tow route and the depths the jacket must be placed to make the horizontal cuts above the waterline. The size and number of cargo barges is dependent on the number and dimensions of the cut jacket section. In addition, the jacket has to be cut in such manner that the HLV (and ultimately the onshore yard) can handle. Jacket sections must also fit on the cargo barge and be sturdy enough to make the sea voyage. Lifting the Jacket The jacket will be rigged, lifted, and towed to shallow water for each horizontal cut. The HLV will have to rig to either pre-installed padeyes, use pile-gripping or leg gripping tools or rig to horizontal bracing that will support the weight lifted. Each lifting point will require a tool or rigging. A spreader frame can be used so that the HLV can handle the multiple tools with the crane. Other than compliant towers, for jackets with banter or bottom dimensions, distances from leg to leg, larger than top sections, the spreader frame design would have to be adjustable since the jackets horizontal dimensions increase with lower jacket design elevations. Depending on the HLV used, the lower jack horizontal dimensions my exceed the boom out radius of the HLV when considering lifting in one piece and the lower sections of the jacket may need to be cut and lifted in smaller pieces. Moving and Setting the Jacket The jacket will be towed to the pre-determined location that has the required water depth that will allow the section above water to be cut. Anchor mooring should be installed prior to commencing the decommissioning. In addition, the location selected should have the contour so that the jacket is level. Cutting the Jacket The method described in Section 3 assumes that the jacket is cut above water with welders. This increases the welders risk by working them outside a fixed environment. At all times the HLV should be holding the jacket. This method is deemed far safer than cutting the jacket inplace. Cutting the jacket in-place will require the use of external cutting tools such as a diamond wire or an external abrasive cutter. In addition, the external cutting tools will have to be assisted by divers or remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). The size and number of cargo barges is dependent on the number and dimensions of the cut jacket section. In addition, the jacket has to be cut in such manner that the HLV and ultimately the onshore yard can handle. Jacket sections must also fit on the cargo barge and be sturdy enough to make the sea voyage. Platform Removal Partial Removal Identifying the jacket cut points is an important issue in planning the Partial Removal method. Selecting the optimum location will minimize the divers and cutting tools onsite duration. The depth at which the jacket is cut should provide a minimum clearance of 85 feet to avoid placing a permanent lighted buoy as required by the U.S. Coast Guard.
51 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Toppling forces for each section must be calculated to confirm that the tugs selected have the capacity to topple the jacket. Another critical task is verifying that the cuts have been made. A diver or ROV should verify that each steel member is completely cut. Platform Removal Remote Reefing Remote Reefing will require several engineering analyses to accomplish this phase. A weight and buoyancy take-off should be calculated to determine the actual weight (jacket, internal piles, grout, marine growth, etc.) and buoyancy. These calculations will show the needed buoyancy required and the placement of buoyancy bags or tanks to upend and tow the jacket. Rigging and towing the jacket must also be planned since a HLV will not be used. Padeyes can be pre-welded to the jacket during the Platform Removal Preparation phase. The tow route should be selected during the engineering review. A bottom survey of the selected tow route should be completed prior to removing the jacket. This survey will identify any obstructions on the sea floor. A new tow route can be selected if the obstruction will hinder the safe towing of the jacket to the designated reef location. Site Clearance/Verification No major obstacles were identified for this decommissioning phase. The Complete Removal method requires that the platform site and any location where the jacket is cut be cleared. Any trash that is retrieved from the sea floor will need to be properly disposed.
2.3.5 Decommissioning Project Challenges

Offshore platform decommissioning is a challenge under any circumstances in terms of planning and executing the work in an environmentally sensitive, safe, and economical way. In the context of the large deepwater platforms, this is particularly true. Among the issues that must be faced are: Local Infrastructure Logistics The Gulf of Mexico oilfield support infrastructure is extensive although located over a wide area. The majority of the infrastructure is based in Louisiana but offshore operations stretch over an 800 mile area from the Texas/Mexico border to Alabama. This large geographic size increases transportation expense to support offshore operations. Challenging Marine Environment The Gulf of Mexico offshore environment is challenging in many aspects due to hurricanes, LOOP ocean currents, unstable seafloor conditions, sudden storm generated winds and waves, corrosive environment and active platform marine growth. These factors require implementation of special facility design and operational procedures to ensure safe offshore operations. Limited Availability of Equipment There are few derrick barges in existence today, worldwide, with lifting capacities in excess of 5,000 short tons. These are generally committed to projects years in advance. New heavy lift vessels are under construction but will not be available in the near term.
The US Customs and Border Protection agency has proposed changes in interpretation of the Jones Act which would severely limit the use of foreign flagged deepwater construction vessels in the GOM. The majority of the deepwater work vessels working in the GOM are foreign flagged. This shortage of heavy lift equipment will drive innovations both technically and commercially.
Subsea systems construction equipment is in limit supply. Standardized subsea rental systems should be available which would improve subsea decommissioning project cycle time and work performance. Since this equipment is long lead and high cost, perhaps an MMS sponsored group could facilitate this service. Environmental Regulation Constraints The Gulf of Mexico has an established regulatory system with a wide variety of federal, state, and local agencies which enforce them. This has a direct impact on the application of decommissioning technologies and the resulting economics. Depth Challenges The industry has limited experience in applying decommissioning technologies at depths beyond 400 feet. New systems and procedures will likely be required for both explosive and nonexplosive severing techniques. Safety concerns and water depth limitations will limit the use of divers and promote use of remotely-operated equipment. Industry is developing new remotely operated equipment, but more robust units with greater functionality will be required to decommission the deepest structures. One segment of the decommissioning effort that has experienced the development of new technology is well abandonment. Rigless well interventions vessels are becoming available that will enable well P&A without the use of a conventional drill rig in water depths to 10,000 feet. Limited Artificial Reef Locations The Gulf of Mexicos oil and gas producing states rigs-to-reef program has been successfully utilized by the oil industry and we encourage the continuation of this program. Additional reef locations could be added to the program which would reduce the expense of transporting structures over long distances to existing reef sites. Ideally these new reef sites could be located at the location of the deepwater facilities. For instance for jackets that are partially removed, the portion of the jacket in water depths >400 feet would not benefit the reefing community but the upper portion of the jacket left in place would be beneficial to the fish population. See Section 3 for Artificial Reef Programs and specifically Section 3.5 for research figures showing optimal water depths for reefing. Information Availability It has been found during information gathering for this study and for other studies repeatedly over the years that the older the structure the less data is available. To compensate for missing data, decommissioning assumptions are often made based on current practices. Often, as fields
near depletion and are sold to new operators, sometimes repeatedly, the production data is transferred but specifics on the hardware and maintenance are not available. As decommissioning moves into deeper water these assumptions become more critical and may not be based on current methods that are currently at water depths less than 400 feet. For example documenting cement volume and annular seals during the drilling phase along with recording any other measurements that would otherwise require testing during decommissioning, would significantly reduce the cost of a P &A operation. Documentation procedures will present a challenge moving forward as the GOM matures. See the Executive Summary Recommendations Section.
54 of 54
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Section 3
ASSESSMENT OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Section 3 ASSESSMENT OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS .............................................................................. 1 3.1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIAL DISPOSAL .......................................................... 2 3.1.1. Scrap Yards ................................................................................................................ 2 3.1.2. Reefing ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.3. Reuse of Production Facilities .................................................................................. 7 3.2. SPECIFIC DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES ................................................... 12 3.2.1. Fixed Jacket Platforms ............................................................................................ 12 3.2.2. Lift Boats .................................................................................................................. 13 3.2.3. Derrick Barge ........................................................................................................... 14 3.2.4. Tension Leg Platforms ............................................................................................. 20 3.2.5. Semisubmersible Production Units ........................................................................ 23 3.2.6. SPARS ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.2.7. Floating Production Storage & Offloading Systems (FPSO) .................................. 24 3.2.8. Subsea Wells & Tie Backs ....................................................................................... 26 3.2.9. Subsea Pipelines & Control Umbilicals ................................................................. 26 3.3. REMOVAL & REUSE OPTIONS ................................................................................................ 30 3.3.1. Platforms .................................................................................................................. 30 3.3.2. Tension Leg Platforms ............................................................................................. 30 3.3.3. Semisubmersibles ................................................................................................... 30 3.3.4. SPARS ....................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.5. Floating Production Storage & Offloading Systems (FPSO) .................................. 31 3.3.6. Subsea Well Heads.................................................................................................. 31 3.3.7. Subsea Pipelines & Umbilicals .............................................................................. 31 3.4. REEFING PROGRAMS............................................................................................................. 32 3.4.1. Texas ........................................................................................................................ 33 3.4.2. Louisiana .................................................................................................................. 33 3.4.3. Mississippi ............................................................................................................... 33 3.4.4. Alabama ................................................................................................................... 33 3.4.5. Florida ...................................................................................................................... 33
Disposal Section 3
1 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
3.5. 3.6.
EFFECTIVE REEFING COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................... 33 ALTERNATIVE TO PLATFORM REMOVAL ............................................................................... 35
3.1.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIAL DISPOSAL There are a number of methods for disposing of production facilities removed from the deep water Gulf of Mexico. This section will present these disposal methods in general and then discuss in detail about how they apply to specific and unique production systems. 3.1.1. Scrap Yards There are quite a number of steel scrap yards along the Gulf Coast that receive production equipment from offshore production facilities that are being decommissioned. Scrap steel recycling is a big business, as platforms, pipelines; floating production systems and subsea production systems are brought ashore. During the year 2007, scrap steel delivered to the dock in Morgan City, Louisiana was sold to scrap dealers for about $300 per ton. Offshore platforms are cut up into 2 x 5 pieces and loaded on barges for a trip up river to steel mills in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, etc. This scrap was sold to these steel mills in 2007 for about $500 per ton. The year 2008 saw a collapse in the scrap steel market, and scrap yards charged contractors $75 per ton to unload steel platforms. This was a negative market where decommissioning contractors had to pay the scrap yard to take it off of their hands. Now in year 2009 scrap steel is bringing $0 to $100 per ton at the dock in Morgan City, and it brings about $250 when delivered up river at the steel mill for melt down into new steel. The scrap steel must be graded to eliminate galvanized steel, stainless steel, copper and plate must be graded. An average volume of offshore platforms are being brought onshore to the scrap yards this year. Some scrap from the Gulf of Mexico goes to China, India, South Korea and Turkey, but the export market is way down in 2009 due to the recession. Southern Recycling on the water front in Morgan City, Louisiana has been in the platform recycling business for over 40 years, and they have been recycling since 1902. Their web site is at www.sorec-emr.com Pictures of this scrap yard are shown in Figures 3.1 & 2. Their 400 ton lift capacity crane unloads offshore platforms in large pieces, which are then cut up by their crew into the 2 x 5 pieces for shipment to the steel mills. Southern Recycling places some high value offshore platforms in storage with their joint venture partner Allison Marine for possible reuse as an offshore production platform. The draft requirements of this site would require the deep water structures to be cut up offshore and placed on barges. Use of floatation devices and floating the jackets to the site is not an option. You can see these resale platforms at www.AllisonMarine.net under Used Equipment. Scrap Value Reporting The estimates were developed in a manner that satisfies the reporting and audit requirements of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement (SFAS 143); i.e., what a willing 3rd party would consider in todays costs with no future adjustments. By this standard, scrap credit values must be treated separately from decommissioning costs. Credit for scrap in not included in this study. Certainly, there may some value for processing, production and compression equipment, but the sale of such is generally
Disposal Section 3 2 of 36 Rev.0 Oct 2009
ignored in the GOM. Typically in the GOM, the derrick barge contractor takes possession of the structure when they place it on the cargo barge and realize any profit or debit from the salvage.
Disposal Section 3
3 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.1 Southern Scrap Yard Morgan City
Disposal Section 3
4 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.2 Southern Scarp Yard (Photo courtesy of Southern Scrap) There are numerous other sites along the gulf coast of varying sizes that could be used as scrap facilities, but Southern Recycling would be better suited to handle the jacket tonnage included in this study. The Gulf Marine Fabricators facility in Ingleside, Tx. though not configured as a scrap facility could also be used as a disposal site or a site to reconfigure jackets for further use. See Figures 3.3 & 4. The draft requirements would allow use of floatation devises and floating the jackets to their deep water facility for some of the jackets included in this study. For the larger ones, this would not be an option. For example, the Bullwinkle structure in 1348 water depth has a jacket base dimension of 300 X 350 and even partially submerged using floatation devices, the structure would exceed the 45 minimum channel draft.
Disposal Section 3
5 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.3 Gulf Marine Fabricators Yard (Photo courtesy of Gulf Marine)
Figure 3.4 Gulf Marine Fabricators (Drawing courtesy of Gulf Marine Fabricators)
3.1.2.
Reefing
Many large offshore platform jacket sections are placed in designated artificial reef locations in the Gulf of Mexico offshore Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Permits are required for placing jackets in these locations by each state reefing commission, the MMS, the U S Coast Guard and the U S Army Corp of Engineers. These artificial reefs create under water habitat for fish. This increases fish populations for sport and commercial fishing and support an infrastructure of numerous recreational diving ventures. For fixed structures shown in Figures 3.5 through 3.7, the decks would normally be removed and taken to shore for disposal. The jackets would be candidates for possible reefing. Tethered and moored structures in Figures 3.8 through 3.11 would normally be removed and transported to shore, except the hulls on Spar platforms shown in Figures 3.5 and 3.10 could be considered as possible candidates for reefing. The state programs are presented in detail in the Reefing section later in this report and the effective reefing communities are discussed in Section 3.5. 3.1.3. Reuse of Production Facilities There is an increasing trend towards salvaging and reusing all types of offshore production facilities. This includes: Well Protector Platforms Production Platforms Tension Leg Platforms Semisubmersible Production Units Spars Floating Production Storage & Offloading Systems (FPSO) Subsea Wells Subsea Pipelines & Umbilicals
These systems are shown in the following diagrams so that we can better understand how they are installed, decommissioned or reused.
Figure 3.5 Deepwater System Types
Disposal Section 3
7 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.6 Deepwater Fixed Platforms
Disposal Section 3
8 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.7 Compliant Towers
Figure 3.8 TLPs
Disposal Section 3
9 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.9 Semisubmersible Facilities
Fig 3.10 SPARs
Disposal Section 3
10 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.11 FPSOs
Disposal Section 3
11 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
3.2.
SPECIFIC DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES 3.2.1. Fixed Jacket Platforms Generic fixed platform decommissioning methodology and assumptions are presented in Section 5 of this report. This section presents typical fixed platform decommissioning methods and options, including several conceptual methods, and possible disposal options and the options selected to provide cost estimates in this study. Estimated decommissioning costs are presented in Section 4. Offshore well protector platform and production platform decks and jackets are typically dismantled offshore using decommissioning crews. First they thoroughly clean the deck section and the production equipment inside and out. This means cleaning and removing production any petroleum or test chemical residue from the piping, separators, separators, heater treaters, glycol units, pumping units, compressors, etc. This cleaning frequently takes a week or more, depending on the size and complexity of the production deck. All of the wells are plugged and abandoned according to MMS guidelines, and the conductor pipes are cut off with abrasives or explosives a minimum of 15 feet below the mud line. Pipelines in federal waters are flushed thoroughly, disconnected and the ends are buried three feet Below Mud Line (BML) typically under sand bags or concrete type mats. Figure 3.12 Typical 4-Pile Platform
Disposal Section 3
12 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Next a derrick barge moves along side of the platform and removes any equipment that may interfere with the rigging configuration that will be use to remove the deck. The derrick barge rigs to the deck, severs the deck from the jacket with torches and lifts off the well protector or production deck section sets it on a cargo barge. Lift Boat derrick barges are used in shallow water for removing small deck sections with relatively small 75- 100 ton capacity cranes. This study is dedicated to deep water over 400 feet with large platforms, so large floating derrick barges are required for heavy lifts. A derrick barge is usually held in place with a 4 to 8 anchor spread mooring system, 2 or larger woven wire cables and 25,000 pound anchors set several thousand feet out from the barge. The decks are typically lifted off in one piece for 4-pile decks or cut up into sections for removal for 8-pile or larger decks. The decision to cut the deck into smaller sections will be dependent on the lifting capacity of the derrick barge selected. For heaver lifts in the 5,000 st and larger range, a Dynamically Positioned Semi Submersible Crane Vessel (SSCV) is used. See the pictures of a typical Lift Boat, Anchored Derrick Barge and SSCV in figures 3.13 through 3.15. 3.2.2. Lift Boats
Figure 3.13 Lift Boats typical water depths <250 ft.
Disposal Section 3
13 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
3.2.3.
Derrick Barge
Figure 3.14 Anchored Derrick Barge
Disposal Section 3
14 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.15 Heerema SSCV Thialf (Photo courtesy of Heerema) Fixed Platform Removal Options After the deck sections of a platform have been removed, the jacket must be removed either in a single lift or in multiple lifts. The number of lifts is dependent on the lifting capacity of the crane barge selected. For cost estimating purposes in this study, multiple lifting methods with various crane barges were evaluated to determine the most economical method. The following are removal options for jackets: 1. Complete Removal in a single lift 2. Cut jacket into smaller sections in place (in-situ) and remove 3. Deballast the jacket and tow the jacket to consecutively shallower water locations where the top sections are removed until the bottom section can be removed 4. Tow the jacket to a reef site and place the jacket on the seabed 5. Topple the jacket in-situ as a reef 6. Removing the top 85 of the jacket and leaving the bottom section in-situ as a reef 7. Cutting the top 85 of the jacket off, placing it on the seabed next to the jacket and leaving the jacket as a reef
Disposal Section 3
15 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Removal methods 1 and 3 are considered in the scope of this study for cost estimating purposes. Removal methods are discussed in Section 5.7 of this study. Estimated decommissioning costs are presented in Section 4. Additional conceptual methods are presented in Section 5.7 and conceptual decommissioning comparison costs are presented in Section 4. Bullwinkle is the deepest conventional fixed platform at 1300+ feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. The jacket piling and well conductors would be internally cut off 15 feet below the mud line using abrasives or explosives. The conductors are severed and removed either prior to the derrick barge arrival or during the platform removal operations. The jacket platform is typically lifted out of the water and placed on board an ocean going cargo barge for transport to a shore based steel scrap yard for recycling. The piling and well conductor pipe are also taken to the scrap yard. An alternative to a conventional fixed jacket type platform is the compliant tower which has a long slender jacket in deep water with guide wires for side sway horizontal stability, like a television tower on land. The Petronius compliant tower stands in 1754 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. An alternative to the conventional derrick barge is the VERSABUILD catamaran lifting barge in that is quite active in the Gulf of Mexico for removing hurricane damaged wreckage from the ocean floor. VERSABUILDs Bottom Feeder is currently rated at 4,000 st. as shown in Figure 3.16. It typically picks up decks and jackets sections that lie on the ocean floor after a hurricane. VERSABUILD is currently constructing a similar lifting system to be rated at 10,000 st. as shown in Figures 3.17 to 3.19.
Disposal Section 3
16 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.16 Versabar Bottom Feeder (Photo and Drawings courtesy of Versabar)
Disposal Section 3
17 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.17 Versabar 10,000 ton Bottom Feeder
Figure 3.18 10,000 ton Bottom Feeder
Disposal Section 3
18 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.19 Versabar Bottom Feeder
The disposal method used for cost estimating purposes in this study was complete removal the deck and jacket to cargo barges that are transported to a GOM shore scraping facility. Other options for removal are presented in Section 5.7. An alternative to bringing deep water jackets to shore for recycling is to reef them in designated reef sites in water depths from approximate 200 to 400 feet depending on the jacket base dimensions to maintain a minimum 85 feet navigation clearance to the surface. Production decks are generally not reefed due to potential chemical residues. Placing the jackets in designated reef sites or Special Artificial Reef Sites (SARS) increases fish populations for sport and commercial fishing. All states bordering the Gulf of Mexico have reefing programs, and this is covered in detail in the REEFING section of this report. Removal Using Conceptual Methods Floatation Devices Floatation devises have recently been used in the North Sea to remove the Frigg DP2 platform. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 2. Similar devices could be developed for use in the GOM. As an alternative, in lieu of using heavy lift vessels, deep water jackets could be removed with floatation devices where the jacket is rotated to the horizontal position and transported to a shallow water location of the Texas coast were bottom conditions would allow the jacket to be placed on the seabed. This method is presented in Section 2 with estimated conceptual costs presented in Section 4. The jacket could then be
cut up by divers using various severing methods, including explosives, sheers, mechanical, etc. and placed on cargo barges with the use of smaller crane vessels than would be necessary for offshore severing and removal. The lifting capacity required would be dependent on the size and tonnage that the jacket is sectioned into. Twin Marine Lifting Vessels At the time of this report, SeaMetric has advertised that they are building a Twin Marine Lifting Vessel system that well have a lifting capacity of 19,842-22,046 tons without the height and width restrictions that are inherent with crane heavy lift vessels. This method could allow the jackets to be transported by the twin system or by placed on cargo barges and transported to a shore facility for refurbishment or disposal. Some of the challenges here would be: Engineering the correct rigging, attachment points and lifting sequence Configuring a multi cargo barge layout for the jacket for the larger dimensioned jackets in the GOM Assessing transportation routes to handle jacket / barge dimensions
This SeaMetric lifting system is presented in Section 2 with estimated conceptual costs presented in Section 4.
3.2.4. Tension Leg Platforms
There are quite a few Tension Leg Platforms (TLP) in the Gulf of Mexico. The Magnolia TLP, owned by Conoco Phillips, floats in Figure 3.20 TLP 4670 feet of water is the deepest to date. These floating production systems have buoyant hulls containing a drilling / work over rig, production facilities, utilities and crew quarters. Oil and gas production is pipelined to shore just like a jacket or compliant tower platform. You can see sketches of various TLPs in the pictures in this section. The buoyant main hull has several hollow columns that extend well below the water line. Ballast water can be added or subtracted from these columns to adjust the tension in the vertical tension legs that tie the buoyant hull to the ocean floor. So far one TLP has been lost in a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico and one has been decommissioned. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that the driven piles or suction piles anchoring the structure to the seabed will remain in place, but the chain, cable and or steel tubulars connecting to the TLP will be removed. The upper chain sections were estimate removed with the HLV during hull removal. Providing the TLP has sufficient storage capacity, the chains could also be lifted with the TLPs mooring system. Cables were estimate removed with anchor handling vessels with twin wench spools. The tendons were estimated removed with the HLV but could also be removed by spooling on a pipelay barge. The risers were estimated removed with the HLV but could also be removed by spooling on a pipelay barge.
Disposal Section 3
20 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
The basic method for removing a TLP is as follows: Plug and abandon all of the wells Flush the pipelines to shore, disconnect and bury the ends Shut down, decommission and clean all top sides production equipment Remove the drilling rig Ballast down the hull to slacken the tension leg tendons Disconnect the tendons from the hull Drop these tendons to the ocean floor Disconnect/ cut tendons loose from anchorage at the ocean floor with Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Retrieve the tendons using an ROV and a dynamically positioned derrick barge The deballasted buoyant hull can then be floated and towed to near shore for reuse or scrapping The tension legs extend well below the water line so it cannot be docked easily Docking at Ingleside, Texas is a potential decommissioning location A TLP could be dry towed on a barge to Mexico, China, Korea, India for scrap
Conventional TLP
Disposal Section 3
21 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.21 Conventional TLP The MiniTLP (MTLP) is of an alternate design as shown in figure 3.22. The typical hull is a single column with three radial tapering pontoons that are anchored to the seabed by neutrally buoyant steel tubular tendons. Some of the hulls were installed with the use of installation aids on the pontoons. Where the aids are removed, this will present a challenge as the aids will need to be re-fabricated and installed or an alternate means of removal will need to be presented. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that the, fluke anchors, driven piles or suction piles anchoring the structure to the seabed will remain in place, but the chain, cable and or steel tubulars connecting to the MTLP will be removed. Figure 3.22 Mini TLP The basic method for removing a MTLP is as follows: Plug and abandon all of the wells Flush the pipelines to shore, disconnect and bury the ends Shut down, decommission and clean all top sides production equipment Remove the drilling rig and remove the deck Ballast down the hull to slacken the tension leg tendons Disconnect the tendons from the hull Drop these tendons to the ocean floor Disconnect/ cut tendons loose from anchorage at the ocean floor with Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Retrieve the tendons using an ROV and a dynamically positioned derrick barge The hull can then be floated or placed on a cargo barge and transported to near shore for reuse or scrapping Docking at Ingleside, Texas is a potential decommissioning location A MTLP could be dry towed on a barge to Mexico, China, Korea or India for scrap Figure 3.23 TLP Installation
Disposal Section 3
22 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
3.2.5.
Semisubmersible Production Units
The SEMISUBMERSIBLE PRODUCTION UNIT is basically a floating drilling and production hull similar to a semi-submersible drilling unit. Its anchor lines connect it to the ocean floor in deep water, extending out diagonally to ocean floor anchors for horizontal stability. These units are currently operating in a water depth range of 2000 to 8000 feet. The INDEPENDENCE HUB floats in 7920 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. These units can be towed away to a shipyard in the vertical position for decommissioning. Photo below is INDEPENCENCE towed to installation. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that the piles anchoring the structure to the seabed will remain in place, but the chain and cable connecting to the SEMI will be removed. The upper chain sections were estimate removed with the HLV during hull removal. Providing the TLP has sufficient storage capacity, the chains could also be lifted with the TLPs mooring system. Cables were estimate removed with anchor handling vessels with twin wench spools. The risers were estimated removed with the HLV but could also be removed by spooling on a pipelay barge. Figure 3.24 Independence Hub Semi Steps for decommissioning include: Plug and abandon all of the wells Flush the pipelines to shore, disconnect and bury the ends Shut down, decommission and clean all top sides production equipment Keep the drilling rig on board Slacken the tension in the anchor lines by reeling out the anchor winches Disconnect/ cut anchor lines loose from anchorage at the ocean floor with an ROV Retrieve the anchor lines using anchor winches on board The buoyant hull can then be floated to a ship yard for reuse or scrapping SPARS
3.2.6.
The SPAR is basically a floating drilling and production deck attached to a long slender column that extends far below the ocean surface. Vertical tendons connect it to the ocean floor in deep water, with guide wires extending out diagonally to ocean floor anchors for horizontal stability. There are several types of Spars as shown in Figure 3.5. The Shell PERDIDO Truss Spar floats in 7816 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. SPARs will be more difficult to decommission than a TLP, because they cannot be towed away in the vertical position for decommissioning. The deck will be removed and the hull will have to be deballasted, rotated horizontally and placed on a cargo barge(s) for the smaller <14,000 tons hulls and transported for reuse or scrap. For hulls greater that the lifting capacity of the current HLV fleet, the hull will need to be towed deballasted and towed horizontally to a scrap or reuse facility. For the purpose of this study, it is
assumed that the piles anchoring the structure to the seabed will remain in place, but the chain and cable connecting to the Spar will be removed. The upper chain sections were estimate removed with the HLV during hull removal. Providing the TLP has sufficient storage capacity, the chains could also be lifted with the TLPs mooring system. Cables were estimate removed with anchor handling vessels with twin wench spools. The risers were estimated removed with the HLV but could also be removed by spooling on a pipelay barge.
Steps for decommissioning include: 3.2.7. Plug and abandon all of the wells Flush the pipelines to shore, disconnect and bury the ends Shut down, decommission and clean all top sides production equipment Remove the drilling rig Remove the deck section Ballast down the hull to slacken the tension leg tendons Disconnect the vertical and diagonal tendons from the hull Drop these tendons to the ocean floor Disconnect/ cut tendons loose from anchorage at the ocean floor with an ROV Retrieve the tendons using an ROV and a dynamically positioned derrick barge The buoyant hull can then be upended and towed in the horizontal position floated to a reef site or near shore for reuse or scrapping The hull extends well below the water line so it cannot be docked easily Docking at Ingleside, Texas is a potential decommissioning location A SPAR could be dry towed on a barge to Mexico, China, Korea, India for scrap Floating Production Storage & Offloading Systems (FPSO)
FPSOs have been producing offshore around the world since the 1970s. These are typically 25 year old oil tanker ships that have been converted to production units by
Disposal Section 3
24 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
adding oil production facilities on the
Figure 3.25 FPSO (Courtesy of Petrobras America) main deck of the ship. The ships are spread moored or turret moored over a remote offshore oil field. These units usually produce in isolated offshore areas where there is no market for oil and gas within pipeline range. The oil, gas and water production are separated with the on board production facilities. The oil is stored in the oil storage tanks in the ship, with an inert nitrogen blanket over the oil. Water is separated out of the production train and small amounts of oil are separated out of the water with a hydrocyclone to about 15 to 25 parts per million (ppm). The cleaned water is then dumped overboard into the ocean, or the water may be re-injected back into the oil reservoir. The natural gas is separated from the oil and water production and it is used to fuel electrical generators on board the FPSO ship. Excess gas that is not used in the generators is usually flared. Gas production cannot be flared in the Gulf of Mexico, except for a short term well test. This is why FPSOs are not used in the Gulf of Mexico. No flaring! Oil and gas production must go to a shore based market. There are no FPSOs currently operating in the Gulf of Mexico, but Petrobras plans to introduce the first one (see figure 3.25) in 2011.
FPSOs have a high re-use and may be used to produce 3-4-5 fields in a production life of 20-25 years. They are usually self propelled and easy to move from one location to the next. There are quite a few operating offshore West Africa. They are quite easy to be modified or adapted from one oil field to the next. Therefore they are not often decommissioned. They can be easily scrapped by bringing them to dock side. 3.2.8. Subsea Wells & Tie Backs
Central offshore production facilities frequently gather production from far reaches of an oil and gas reservoir with isolated vertical wells, rather than by slant hole drilling from the central facility. Vertical wells may be drilled many miles away from the central facility and production is gathered with a series of subsea pipelines and electro hydraulic well control umbilicals as shown in Figures 3.26 and 3.28. Each well has a tree on the ocean floor and it is remotely controlled by the umbilical from the central facility. The control umbilicals are used to transmit hydraulic control fluids, chemicals, and electrical power signals to operate and monitor subsea wells and manifolds for the development of the oil field. Mechanical intervention with the subsea well tree is done with the use of a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) and is discussed further in Section 2. Likewise a floating drilling rig can be moved directly over the subsea well to re-enter the well. When the field is depleted and no longer economic, then a work over rig can plug and abandon the well and remove the well tree, with the assistance of an ROV as needed. The subsea well head tree must be decommissioned and removed above the template. The deep water template can be left in place nearly flush with the sea floor. The trees are frequently reconditioned in a repair shop and put out on another well. They are highly reusable. Otherwise they can be cut up for scrap steel. Trees up to 15,000 psi operating pressure are in use. Over 4000 subsea wells have been installed in the GOM as shown in Figure 3.27. The newer subsea wells and supporting subsea structures have been designed as ROV friendly. Many of the older subsea wells may prove more difficult for ROV decommissioning operations. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that subsea wells will be removed, subsea structures anchored to the seabed will remain in place and subsea structures that are attached to or stabbed over the anchored structure will be removed. 3.2.9. Subsea Pipelines & Control Umbilicals Subsea pipelines and control umbilicals that tie a subsea well tree back to a central production facility are abandoned by: Shut in the well Flush the pipeline with sea water pumped from the central production facility to the tree and returned to the central production facility in a pipeline loop Disconnect the pipeline from the subsea tree Plug and bury the pipeline end with sand bags or concrete type mats Disconnect, plug and bury the pipeline with sand bags or concrete type mats at the central production facility Disconnect and reel in the control umbilical and recondition it for reuse Flush, disconnect, plug and bury the umbilical ends with sand bags or concrete type mats and leave the umbilical in-situ would be an option with approval, if not reused
26 of 36 Rev.0 Oct 2009
Disposal Section 3
Figure 3.26 The Subsea Landscape (Drawing courtesy of Schlumberger)
Disposal Section 3
27 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.27 Growth in Subsea Developments (Drawing courtesy of Schlumberger)
Disposal Section 3
28 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Figure 3.28 Subsea Templates (Drawing courtesy of FMC)
Disposal Section 3
29 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
3.3.
REMOVAL & REUSE OPTIONS There are a number of options for the reuse of offshore production facilities, rather than scraping them. Some of the Mobil Offshore Production Systems (MOPU) has been reused on 4 or 5 different fields over a 25 year life of the system. The capital cost per location steadily drops as facilities are reused, and the construction and installation time goes from a year or two to several months. Recycling makes good sense. 3.3.1. Platforms Conventional jacket type platforms have been reused for many years in the Gulf of Mexico, but that is in steep decline as shallow water fields are becoming depleted. Major oil companies sell off depleted offshore fields to smaller independent producers who squeeze the last drops out of the fields, at their lower operating costs. The majors want to get rid of the decommissioning liability. Some of the smaller independents go bankrupt over the cost of decommissioning production facilities in totally depleted uneconomic fields. Shallow water fields have been depleted, so the market is drying up for reuse of these platforms. There are nearly 2000 jacket platforms that are due to come out of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. There is a market for reuse of jacket platforms in international locations where reserves are plentiful in shallow shelf waters. West Africa has plentiful reserves in shallow water, so platforms from the Gulf of Mexico can be reconditioned and modified for relocation to places like Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, etc. There are a few Compliant Towers that are specialized and unique for their specific locations, and they would probably head to the scrap yard. These structures could also be candidates for the reefing programs. Towing these deep water structures to the shallower water depths that would benefit a reef community would only be economical where the towing resource is by other than the HLV resource. Flotation bladders and tow tugs would be an option that would need to be developed. 3.3.2. Tension Leg Platforms TLPs are fairly easy to reuse in the Gulf of Mexico or international locations out to perhaps 5000 feet of water. Change in water depth for relocation involves changing the length of the tendons and installation of anchoring systems on the new location. Reuse of a TLP on multiple fields is economically much more attractive than scraping. 3.3.3. Semisubmersibles These units have a market for reuse in the Gulf of Mexico out to perhaps 8000 feet of water, and 10000 feet on some international locations with milder storm criteria than the Gulf of Mexico. Like the TLP, they can be towed to a new location, with adjustments to their mooring system. 3.3.4. SPARS These are more difficult to reuse, because they are difficult to move around. The long slender under water column cannot be towed around in the vertical position. It has to first have the drilling and production deck cut off and then the hull must be deballasted and then rotated into the horizontal and loaded on a very large ocean going cargo barge or a submersible cargo barge or left in a semisubmersible position for towing. The anchor lines and sea floor anchoring systems can be modified for the new relocation. SPARS can be reused out to 8000 or 10000 feet of water. This is an expensive piece of equipment, so it is a wasted investment to send it to a scrap yard. Also it is difficult to get this huge long slender column physically into a scrap yard. A possible option in the GOM would be a facility in Ingleside, Tx. area. These structures could also be candidates
for the reefing programs but present the same economical considerations as fixed platforms above. Deballasting on these structures may present challenges. Where the ballast on these structures is other than water, for instance a barite slurry or iron ore that sets up in solid form, the ballast compartment would need to be separated from the Spar. This would need to be performed in a controllable procedure either offshore or, preferably safer and more economically feasible, in shallow water. 3.3.5. Floating Production Storage & Offloading Systems (FPSO) FPSOs are deployed on many international locations, but so far they have not been used in the Gulf of Mexico, because flaring of natural gas is not allowed here. A typical FPSO is a 25 year old retired oil tanker that has been converted into an FPSO for an additional 20-25 years of production service as an FPSO. They are comparatively easy to relocate from one field to another. Their 8 anchor spread mooring or turret mooring system can be picked up and relocated to the next field. FPSOs often produce 4-5 fields in their life. They would have to be in really bad shape to consider a one way trip to the scrap yard. They usually go into a ship yard to replace some hull steel; modify production equipment, general repairs, painting and class recertification between assignments. 3.3.6. Subsea Well Heads Subsea well heads/ trees and supporting subsea structures are routinely decommissioned and removed from their initial location. They are sent to their manufacturers shop for reconditioning and then reused on the next location. They can be reused in the Gulf of Mexico and internationally. The newer deep water units are ROV friendly so that a diver is not required for normal intervention tasks. 3.3.7. Subsea Pipelines & Umbilicals Rarely is subsea pipelines reused. They are usually flushed with sea water, disconnected and the ends buried/ abandoned in place either three feet below mud line or with sand bags or concrete type mats. Occasionally small diameter flow lines have been reeled up and relocated to a new location. Electro hydraulic umbilical control cables are more frequently retrieved reeled up, reconditioned, tested, recertified and reused.
Disposal Section 3
31 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
3.4.
REEFING PROGRAMS There are artificial reefing programs in place across the Gulf of Mexico for improvement of sport and commercial fisheries. Decommissioned offshore production facilities are thoroughly cleaned and then they can be placed in designated reef locations, under permit from the states. There are reefing programs offshore: Texas Louisiana Mississippi Alabama Florida
Reef locations are generally in water depths ranging from 100 to 300 feet as shown in fish concentration vs. water depths figures below. There must be sufficient clearance above the top of the reef so that there is no interference with the draft of large cargo ships, cruise liners, commercial and sport fishing boats. This is currently regulated at a minimum of 85 feet clearance from the top of the reef structure to the surface unless special wavers are granted. Fisheries are benefitted most in this 100 to 300 feet water depth range, where there is optimum sunlight, oxygen and nutrients. A general overview presentation of Artificial Reefs is presented in the Appendix Section 5.10. Details of each states reefing program are presented below. The major differences in state programs is that the Louisiana program has designated reef planning areas and has authorized special artificial reef sites (SARS) outside of these areas. Texas does not have designated reef planning areas but exercises control over where platforms are reefed by geographical proximity. Where operators have received authorization to reef their facility, all other operators within a specified distance to this reefed platform wishing to apply for reef authorization will be required to transport their jacket to this reef site. All applicants outside of this specified distance area will need to apply for reefing at their location. Mississippi and Alabama have programs similar to Texas. Floridas reefing program does not have any oil and gas facilities in reef sites.
Disposal Section 3
32 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
A conclusion of effective reefing communities is provided in Section 3.5. An alternate to the reefing program is presented in Section 3.6.
3.4.1.
Texas
This section is presented in a separate report as an Appendix Section. 3.4.2. Louisiana
This section is presented in a separate report as an Appendix Section. 3.4.3. Mississippi
This section is presented in a separate report as an Appendix Section. 3.4.4. Alabama
This section is presented in a separate report as an Appendix Section. 3.4.5. Florida
This section is presented in a separate report as an Appendix Section.
3.5.
EFFECTIVE REEFING COMMUNITIES The purpose of reefing is to create under water habitat that will increase ocean fish populations for sport fishing, scuba diving and commercial fishing. The increase in fish populations strengthens our economy by creating jobs in the tourism business and in commercial fishing. It supplies an economical source of sea food to the market place. Additionally financial contributions by an oil and gas company to the state to obtain a reefing permit help support state government programs. The oil and gas industry see it as an economical alternative for decommissioning offshore production facilities, as opposed to finding a reuse for the facilities in another location, or recycling the steel through an onshore domestic or foreign scrap yard. Fish prefer shallow water versus deep water habitat, because they have more sun light, oxygen and nutrients there. The graphs in our reefing section show that mean fish density decreases as water depth increases. Shallower is better. Deck sections with production equipment will be taken to shore based scrap yards for steel recycling which removes chemical contamination, but platform jacket sections are good candidates for reefing. Generally, platform jackets can be reefed by: Tow to designated reef site and lay down in a single piece Topple the jacket in place. See the comment below for toppling Partial removal of the top of the jacket
Reefs must allow at least 85 feet of clearance below the ocean surface to allow for clearance of ocean going ships, freighters, tankers, cruise ships, commercial fishing boats, yachts, sport fishing boats, etc. This means that waters below 85 feet depth are required to accommodate the jacket members sticking up off of the bottom. A good water depth range for platform reefs is 100 to 200 feet of water. In general, water depth of 300 feet (See Figures below) would probably be the outer limit for a reef, but jackets placed in deeper water depths could benefit the reefing
community, for that portion of the jacket that is in the optimal range. For example, the Bullwinkle jacket has a base 300 feet by 350 feet. To obtain the 85 feet navigation clearance, the jacket would be placed in 385 feet or greater water depth with most or a portion of the jacket in the desired reefing water depth. Onsite reefing single piece toppling below would not be an option, as the water depths of >400 feet included in this study are beyond the beneficial water depths for reef communities. Partial removal of structures as shown below would be beneficial to the reefing community for that portion of the jacket that is in the 100-300 foot range but the typical distance to the jackets deepwater location would be outside the normal travel distance that most sporting activities would consider. A normal rule of thumb would be towing a jacket with a HLV to a nearby reef site for a distance of <10 nautical miles may be economical. Each jacket would need to be evaluated and the cost of complete removal vs., tow to a reef site removal compared. Towing these deepwater jackets on the HLV hook to the optimal water depth for reefing communities far exceeds the optimal and economical distance. A Rig-to-Reef reefing program (RTR) has been ongoing in the GOM for the past 21 years. Prior to the program, removal of platforms from the GOM resulted in the loss of valuable reef and fishery habitat. Researchers report fish densities to be 20 to 50 times higher at oil and gas platforms than in nearby open water, down to approximately 100 m, as can be seen by the Fish Density Figure below, from a Louisiana State University (LSU) study, a substantial fish density exists around platforms to at least this depth.
Fish Density Study of Offshore Platforms
Disposal Section 3
34 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
3.6.
ALTERNATIVE TO PLATFORM REMOVAL An alternative to platform removal is the use of Aquaculture. The National Aquaculture Act (NAA), enacted in 1980, established a national policy of encouraging development of aquaculture in the United States. Virtually every coastal country in the world, including the GOM, is either moving into or actively engaged in the area of Fish Farming (a.k.a. Aquaculture and Mariculture), in inshore and offshore waters. These countries have either government agencies, industries and or organizations controlling or pursuing these endeavors. The list of species grown in production for world consumption or for research is just as staggering, i.e., to name a few: salmon, halibut, flounder, trout, tilapia, abalone, shrimp, oysters, grouper, red snapper, kingfish, scallops, cod, cobia and even alligators and crocodiles. Science and the world media are focusing ever more in this area. See examples of recent or ongoing aquaculture below.
Disposal Section 3
35 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Examples of Recent or Ongoing Aquaculture

Shell Oil Fish Farming The company has been running a demonstration fish farm since 1982 on eight hectares at OgbeIjoh, Nigeria, 35 kilometers east of Warri. The farm keeps tilapia and catfish, researching farming techniques and selectively breeding desirable characteristics including fast growth. Staff trained in aquaculture help people establish their own fish farms advising on site selection, pond design and breeding techniques. Fish 'fingerlings' bred at the Shell farm are given away to new farmers starting up and sold at a subsidized rate to others. The farm supports some 90 fish farmers in the area and distributed more than 150,000 'fingerlings' to them in 1994. A second fish farm was established in Iko Town in 1993 and started producing 'fingerlings' in late 1994, and a third is expected to be ready in November in 1995. Already these two projects have helped establish 11 fish farms. A fourth onshore farm is planned for Buguma Creek Field, and a fish processing plant in Iko Town was completed in 1996.(8) Shell Oil supports the Marine Habitat Program, a $5 MM cooperative grant effort between Shell Oil Company and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to create a fund for conservation of the GOM marine and estuarine environment.(9) Grace Oil The MagnusonStevens Act includes a provision allowing for permits for offshore fish farming operations that are "experimental." HubbsSeaworld Research Institute in San Diego submitted a permit application on February 12, 2004 to use a decommissioned oil platform 10 miles offshore to build an experimental fish farm. The operation proposes to produce up to 300 tons of cod, halibut, abalone, tuna and striped bass annually. Profits from the sale of these fish would be used for marine research.
Disposal Section 3
36 of 36
Rev.0 Oct 2009
Section 4 DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS & COSTS
Contents
Section 4 DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS & COSTS ................................................................................. 1 4.1 Fixed Platforms Decommissioning Costs ...................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Spar Decommissioning Costs ...................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 Mini TLP (MTLP) & TLP decommissioning costs ..................................................................................... 25 4.4 SEMI decommissioning costs ..................................................................................................................... 30 4.5 FPSO structure decommissioning ............................................................................................................... 33 4.6 Subsea structure decommissioning .............................................................................................................. 33 4.7 Probabilistic Decommissioning Cost........................................................................................................... 34
This Section presents cost data to determine estimated decommissioning liabilities for typical fixed, tethered and moored structures and associated pipelines and wells in the GOM. The following are accounted for in the cost data: Project Management & Engineering Heavy Lift Vessel mobilization Cargo Barge Mobilization Well P&A Platform Removal Preparation Pipeline Abandonment Conductor Removal Platform Removal Site Clearance and Verification Onshore Disposal
BACKGROUND Section 1, Tables 1.2 and 1.3 shows the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Major Asset Inventory sorted by Type / Block location and by water depth, respectively. Numerous public sources including MMS and other websites were visited to obtain information on the GOM major assets. Some of the sources of information provided conflicting data and the data believed to be more credible was used. It is believed that the most reliable information is used in this study. Input as to platform characteristics was requested from a number of Operators / Owners but was not made available for this study. As such there are many gaps in available data. The inventory was separated into similar type platforms in similar water depth and a representative platform was selected from each group as shown in Section 1, Table 1.4. For platforms where data was available, such as number of piles and or skirt piles, deck and jacket weights, etc., the platform was placed in the appropriate group. For other platforms were only the water depth was known, the platform was placed in a group with similar water depth. This is one of the areas where MMS could collect and
Decommissioning Options & Costs Section 4 1 of 36 Rev.1 Dec 2009
make available general characteristics of the platforms in its inventory. The deterministic decommissioning cost for the complete removal of each representative platform was estimated and is provided in this section. Deterministic costs are the cost that we believe would most likely occur. Following the deterministic cost is a discussion of deterministic and probabilistic modeling and a sample cost comparison. All costs in this section are estimates based on information, durations and resource costs available at the time of this study. ESTIMATED COSTS The estimates were developed in a manner that satisfies the reporting and audit requirements of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement (SFAS 143); i.e., what a willing 3rd party would consider in todays costs with no future adjustments. By this standard, scrap values must be treated separately from decommissioning costs. Credit for scrap is not included in this study. See Section 3, Scrap Yards, Scrap Value Reporting. The cost estimates have been developed with the objective of producing P50 estimates, i.e., costs that have a 50% chance of being exceeded. Put another way, we have attempted to estimate the average or median cost. In general, we expect the cost estimate accuracy to within 20%, with the assumptions stated in Section 2 and in Section 5.7. PROSERV has taken a conventional approach to decommissioning based on what is known and by use of industry standard decommissioning assumptions. However, a potential increase or decrease in decommissioning costs may be driven by changes in resources used, resource cost and duration elements at any given facility and by the possibility of sharing resources between locations decommissioned in the same time period. Based on experience, PROSERV considers these changes to be a possibility, but not easily quantifiable. The costs included in this study are a snapshot-in-time, based on available information and resources economically selected for use. All costs in this section are estimated assuming trouble free operations and have not considered sharing of resources or using new emerging technology. All resources are assumed to be available in the GOM and costs for mobilization outside of the GOM are not included. The intent of this section is not to identify a decommissioning cost for a specifically named platform but rather to identify the costs for a type of platform in a particular water depth and provide the opportunity for the viewer to obtain similar cost conclusions. Therefore, where costs are included, the platform names / locations have been omitted. Since each platform in the GOM will have different quantities of wells and pipelines, the costs are provided separately on a per unit basis. Backup data for the representative platform deterministic estimates is provided in the Appendix, Section 5. Probabilistic estimates are discussed in Section 4.7. The representative platform deterministic decommissioning costs are presented in the following format: 4.1 Fixed platforms decommissioning costs Platform only without conductors Conductors severing and removal
Pipeline and Umbilical Abandonment Well Plug & Abandonment (P&A) Cost Summation Conceptual Fixed Platform Removal Costs 4.2 Spar decommissioning costs Platform preparation Deck removal Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal Hull removal Cost Summation TLP & MTLP decommissioning costs Platform preparation Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal Deck / hull removal Cost Summation SEMI decommissioning costs Platform preparation Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal Hull removal Cost Summation Floating Production Storage Offloading (FPSO, FSO) decommissioning costs Platform preparation Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal Hull removal Subsea structure decommissioning Probabilistic decommissioning Cost
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6 4.7
Decommissioning Options & Costs Section 4
3 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
4.1 Fixed Platforms Decommissioning Costs

FIXED PLATFORMS Table 4.1 shows representative fixed platforms (PLTF) selected for use in this study. The Pile Column is descriptive of the type of platform leg, leg pile and or skirt pile configuration. See Note Examples at the bottom of the table. Other than water depth, the type of platform listed in the Table 4.1 for a type of leg and pile and or skirt pile configuration for fixed platform are shown in increasing water depths in the GOM. The most economical heavy lift vessel Derrick Barge or Semi Submersible Lift Vessel - SSCV (DB Column) was selected on the basis of the lifting capacity required for the platforms complete removal using the removal method selected and listed in the method column. Proserv maintains an extensive database on many but not all the fixed platforms in the GOM. For the representative platforms, the deck and jacket weights for the most part were known or reasonable assumptions were made based on similar type of platforms in similar water depths from Proservs database and the appropriate derrick barge was selected. Several estimates were developed for a number of the representative platforms to determine the appropriate derrick barge selection and the most economical decommissioning method used. For instance, one 8-pile jacket was estimated to require a 4000 st derrick barge to remove the platform In-Situ in a single lift. An alternate study was conducted to determine if it was feasible to use a 2000 st derrick barge and cut the jacket vertically between rows 2 & 3 using divers and lift the jacket in two sections. Because of the increased duration of the diving intensive cutting and the additional lift, the costs increased by 32%. Another comparison was estimating an 8-pile jacket in approximately 500 feet water depth that would require a lift capacity greater than 10,000 st. This jacket was also estimated removed using a 4000 st derrick barge by repeatedly hopping the jacket to shallower water depths and removing the upper sections by cutting in above the water line until the bottom section could be removed. The greater removal duration required for the hopping was offset by the lower cost for the derrick barge. The hopping method generated a 15% savings. This would be true for the large day rate difference for the larger derrick barges but not so for the smaller derrick barges. Only the most economical removal method estimated is included for each representative platform. The two methods of determining decommissioning cost that were found to be most economical were 1) removal In-Situ in a single lift or 2) removal by use of the hopping to shallower water method. See Section 3.2 Fixed Platform Removal Options for other methods. Table 4.1 shows there is considerable fluctuation in the leg / pile / skirt pile configuration in the 400500 feet rage but generally increases in proportion to the deeper ranges. This fluctuation in platform configuration impacts the decommissioning cost as shown in Figure 4.1 but the fluctuation is smoothed out using a trend line. Costs include platform preparation, deck and jacket removal and site clearance. Conductor, pipeline and well decommissioning costs are presented in later sections of Section 4. The reader can use the estimated representative platform cost and apply the cost to the platforms in the group or he can use the normalized tables and figures included in this section.
4 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Water Depth ft. Pile 400 4L-1P-4SP 410 8P-12SP 446 4P4S 480 8P-12SP 483 8P-12SP 484 4P 523 4P4S 619 4P4S 622 4L-8SP 693 4L-8SP 774 8P-12SP 863 8P-12SP 925 4P-8SP 935 8P-16SP 1027 12L-24SP 1100 6P-24SP 1300 12L-32SP
DB DB4K DB4K DB4K SSCV DB4K DB2K DB2K DB4K DB4K DB4K SSCV SSCV DB4K SSCV SSCV SSCV SSCV
Method Tow to Shallow Situ Situ Situ Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow Tow to Shallow
# Cond uctors 6 5 5 18 19 2 7 8 16 3 24 26 14 21 62 34 29
Cost w/ Conductors $6,794,943 $5,544,182 $8,430,101 $13,038,260 $20,518,220 $4,933,951 $8,640,382 $10,249,430 $11,780,440 $10,988,250 $15,143,860 $45,369,260 $30,350,280 $40,495,860 $86,445,920 $54,881,968 $89,750,768
Cost w/o Conductors $6,020,616 $4,581,874 $6,734,501 $10,230,640 $17,920,870 $4,638,561 $7,396,079 $8,707,836 $9,122,286 $10,246,070 $10,021,430 $39,186,120 $26,559,480 $34,910,432 $63,470,620 $43,519,160 $78,508,472
Table 4.1 Representative Fixed Platforms Note Examples: Pile: 4L-1P-4SP = 4-leg platform with 1-Center Pile and 4-Skirt Piles Pile: 4P4S = 4 leg platform with 4-leg piles and 4-Skirt Piles
Representative platform characteristics data was available for platforms up to 1300 feet. Current fixed platforms in the GOM are installed in water depths in excess of 1700 feet. Decommission costs for the Representative Platforms are shown graphically in Figure 4.1 to 1300 feet with trend lines projected to 1700+ feet. The Artificial Trend line is with conductors for the representative platform and would not be descriptive of the all the platforms in the representative group. It is included here to show the major impact that the cost of conductor severing and removal can have on the cost of decommissioning platforms. The lower labeled Trend line is without conductors and would be representative of the platforms in the group. Representative platforms were selected for all fixed GOM platforms except for the compliant towers in 1600+ feet water depths. Platform characteristics and installation information was not available to estimate these platforms. As an alternate the Trend line in Figure 4.1 should be used. In Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1, piles and or skirt piles 60 inch diameter were severed with explosives and piles >60 inch in diameter were severed abrasively. The fixed platforms have all been estimated removed and placed on cargo barges and transported to an onshore facility. Cost is included for the cargo barge usage during offloading. No dock charges or crane charges have been included. See Section 3 for information on improvements in technology.
5 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
$160,000,000 $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 400 446 483 523 622 774 925 1027 1300 1500 1700 WaterDepthft. Costw/Conductors Costw/oConductors ArtificialTrend Trend
Figure 4.1 Estimate Decommissioning Cost w/and w/o Conductors CONDUCTOR SEVERING AND REMOVAL The deeper the water depth, the more costly the conductors are to remove, as more sections are required to be cut and removed in deeper water. Because conductor severing and removal can be a major cost in water depths included in this study and is dependent on the number of conductors, water depth and the removal method selected, costs are shown for both with and without conductors in Figure 4.1 with a further breakdown in conductor cost below. Aside from the number of conductors and water depth, cost drivers in conductor removal are the number of conductors, the method of severing and the method of removal. For a platform with few conductors the costs for the mobilization of resources and to set up and rig down the equipment must be allocated to the conductors increasing the cost per conductor, whereas for a platform with many conductors the allocation of these costs are small per conductor. The two most common conductor severing options used in the GOM are explosive severing and abrasive severing. Several comparisons between explosive and abrasive operations conducted during the platform removal phase are provided in Figures 4.2 and 4.3.
6 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
ExampleBlock ECArea WaterDepthft. 224 Piles 4 42" Cond 4 30" Comparison Explosive Abrasive Delta+% Hours tosever 15 38 TotalWorkExposureHours 1865 2081 11.6% PLTFCost 3408108 4018630 17.9%
Includesstandby andpre/post
Doesnotinclude mob/demobof abrasive spread fortotalof 62 hrs.
Table 4.2 Sever Method Comparison Severing w/Derrick Barge
Derrick Barge Severing Method Task Durations Cost* DB 1700 Explosive 4251 $ 6,062,260 DB 1700 Abrasive 4494 $ 6,954,753 6% 15% Delta+% *Does not include the following: Engineering Typ. 8% Weather GOM Typ. 20% Work Contingency or extra work Typ. 15% See estimates in appendix for breakdown in costs and durations.
Table 4.3 Sever Method Comparison Severing w/Derrick Barge The figures above show that though the actual duration to sever abrasively is more than double the duration to sever explosively, the work exposure hours to the platform removal project using abrasive severing is between 6%-12% longer in duration than explosive and overall platform removal costs using abrasives increased between 15% and 18% over explosives. Using explosives are faster and less expensive, but there is always the possibility that the conductors will flare out from the detonation and get stuck when being pulled through the conductor guides. The key here is that the severing in the comparisons above was performed during the derrick barge operations with the higher cost of the derrick barge spread and with the higher lifting capacity of the derrick barge to overcome the possibility of excessive flaring. Abrasive severing would be the preferred method to eliminate flaring, but takes longer in duration, thus driving up costs. To minimize these costs the majority of representative platforms in Table 4.1 were estimated with the conductors severed abrasively and removed with casing jacks prior to the derrick barge arrival. Though removal with casing jacks generally takes longer that removal with a derrick barge, the reduction in work spread is more economical especially for large number of conductors in deeper water where typically a larger and more costly derrick barge or heavy lift vessel (HLV) would be required. Figure 4.2 provides a breakdown of the abrasive severing and casing jack removal costs for a number of conductors by water
depth. As shown, the allocation of costs per conductor is higher per the number of conductors and the per unit cost is higher for deeper water depths. For larger numbers of conductors, the cost per water depth is higher but the difference in cost per unit negligible. The reader can extrapolate and apply these costs to the platform removal costs.
800000
Costs Include
$726,261 700000
Overhead Engineering Weather Wk Provision Overhead OH % 0.08 0.2 0.15 0.43
600000
$645,047 WDft 2Conductors 6Conductors 10Conductors 14Conductors 18Conductors 22Conductors 26Conductors
500000
400000
300000 $229,110 200000 $164,515 100000
30Conductors 34Conductors 38Conductors 42Conductors 46Conductors 50Conductors 54Conductors 58Conductors 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Figure 4.2 Total cost for Conductor- Abrasive Severing and Removal with Casing Jacks Normalized per foot of WD ft. The gap between 2 conductors and 6 conductors is attributed to the fact that all the mobilization, demobilization, set up and rig down cost are allocated to two only 2 conductors, whereas the greater the number of conductors the lower the allocation per conductor. As the number of conductors per platform increases the difference in cost per conductor decreases until the curves appear to merge. PIPELINE and UMBILICAL ABANDONMENT Pipelines All pipelines are abandoned with the pipeline flushed, the ends severed, plugged and buried with sand bags or concrete type mats and the line left in place (insitu). The challenges in deepwater pipeline
abandon are discussed further in Section 2 and general abandonment methodology is presented in the appendix Section 5.7. The variables in pipeline abandonment in order of cost impact are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Type of vessel required for abandonment Pipeline termination point Riser-to-Riser or Riser-to-Subsea Tie-in (SSTI) Flushing volume (pipeline diameter and length flushed at 2.5 X one volume) Water depth Mobilization and demobilization distance
Though there are exceptions, the following are typical types of vessels utilized in pipeline abandonment for the GOM fixed platform water depths. Each type of vessel as listed is consecutively more expensive to operate. Anchored 4-point dive boats (4PDB) are used in water depths <400 to approximately 500 feet, using a rule-of-thumb 7:1 anchor cable length to water depth ratio. The limiting factor is the length of anchor cable typically onboard. Using a lower anchor cable ratio, a water depth of 600+ feet would be a typical upper limit. Dynamically positioned dive boats (DPDB) can operate in all water depths but are typically used where subsea tie-ins are involved or where water depths are from 600 feet to approximately 1000 feet, that being the upper range of saturation diving. DPDBs are also used in shallower water depths where there is a lot of bottom debris or where there are several or more pipelines located in the area. Dynamically positioned deep sea intervention type vessels (DSI) with remotely operated vehicle (ROV) capability can operate in all water depths but are typically used in water depths >1000 feet.
As described above, the pipeline termination point may be better suited to a particular vessel, under a variable of conditions. As described, the vessels vary per location and depth requirements, but most of the tasks in pipeline abandonment are the same for a given type of abandonment; i.e., pipelines that start and end at a platform riser have the similar tasks and pipelines that have a platform riser at one end and end in a SSTI at the other have similar abandonment tasks. The major variable that changes is the flushing duration. The pipeline flushing volume (length multiplied by the pipeline diameter multiplied by the number of times the pipeline is flushed) at a predetermined gallon per minute rate provides the flushing duration. Water depth affects the duration and cost of diving operations and to a lesser extent mobilization costs increases for deeper platforms. Pipeline decommissioning costs were estimated from the representative platforms. Flushing volumes, water depth, mobilization distance and vessel spread requirements were evaluated. It was determined that the two variables flushing volume and vessel spread can be used to determine a reasonable decommission costs. The following five PIPELINE SPREAD USAGE configurations, where applicable, were evaluated, grouped, placed in tabular and graph format as shown in Table 4.4 and Figures 4.3 through 4.7.1:
9 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
PIPELINE SPREAD USAGE
4-Point Dive boat (4PDB) for riser to riser in depths 400-500 feet 4-Point Dive boat (4PDB) SSTI for riser to SSTI in depths 400-500 feet DP Dive boat (DPDB) for riser to riser in depths >500 to <1000 feet DP Dive boat (DPDB) SSTI for riser to SSTI in depths >500 to <1000 Diving Surface Intervention Vessel (DSI) SSTI for depths >1000 feet
Pipeline costs estimates include 8% for engineering, 20% contingency for weather and 15% for project work contingency which adds a total of 43% to the project costs.
Water Depth ft. 400 446 446 446 400 410 483 622 693 622 693 774 863 622 619 935 1300 1000 1000 1027 Mob Pipeline Distance Diameter Volume Nm in Length ft. 1000cuft. 137 4 6160 1 122 6 101713 20 122 8 194110 68 122 16 67266 94 137 200 100 75 96 75 96 110 193 75 110 181 100 119 119 157 6 10 12 6 12 10 14 8 12 4 12 12 4 8 8 12 4884 74250 120000 42375 14217 22707 13611 66706 49106 56586 46503 68774 64962 17713 36959 39673 1 40 94 8 11 12 15 23 39 5 37 54 6 6 13 31 Decom. Cost Dive Vessel $871,826 4PDB $980,068 4PDB $1,287,956 4PDB $1,404,745 4PDB $1,115,536 $1,814,937 $2,554,483 $1,207,983 $1,173,191 $1,247,214 $1,192,076 $1,738,753 $1,910,969 4PDB-SSTI 4PDB-SSTI 4PDB-SSTI DPDB DPDB DPDB DPDB DPDB DPDB
1 3 3 3 1 2 5 9 10 9 10 11 12 9 8 14 17 16 16 15
$1,576,304 DPDB-SSTI $1,607,715 DPDB-SSTI $2,098,081 DPDB-SSTI $1,910,650 $2,443,825 $2,458,871 $2,977,249 DSI-SSTI DSI-SSTI DSI-SSTI DSI-SSTI
Table 4.4 Pipeline Decommissioning Cost per Volume
SSTI cost is dependent on water depth at SSTI location. The decommissioning costs in Table 4.4
are shown graphically in Figures 4.3 through 4.7.1.
10 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
4PointDiveboat(4PDB)
1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 $$ 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1 20 68 94 FlushVolume1000cuft DecommissioningCost
Figure 4.3 Pipeline Decommissioning Cost per Volume per Spread
4PointDiveboat(4PDB)SSTI
3,000,000 2,500,000
2,000,000
$$
1,500,000
FlushVolume1000cuft DecommissioningCost
1,000,000
500,000
0 1 40 94
11 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
DPDiveboat(DPDB)
2,500,000 2,000,000
1,500,000 $$ FlushVolume1000cuft 1,000,000 DecommissioningCost Expon.(DecommissioningCost)
500,000
0 8 11 12 15 23 39
DPDiveboat(DPDB)SSTI
2500000 2000000 1500000 $$ 1000000 500000 0 5 37 54
FlushVolume1000cuft. DecommissioningCost Linear(DecommissioningCost)
12 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
DivingSurfaceInterventionVessel(DSI)SSTI
3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 $$ 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 6 6 13 31 FlushVolume1000cuft. DecommissioningCost Linear(DecommissioningCost)
Figure 4.7.1 Pipeline Decommissioning Cost per Volume per Spread Umbilical Abandonment For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that all umbilicals are flushed of chemicals and removed. As in pipeline abandonment, depending on water depth and umbilical length different removal spreads can be used. Because the majority of umbilicals in the GOM will be in deeper water at various lengths this section focuses on the use of an anchor handling vessel (AHSV) and ROV spread performing the tasks in Figure 4.7.2. The cost per umbilical per foot of length and water depth is estimated in Figure 4.7.3 and graphed in Figure 4.7.4 with an average cost plotted using a solid line.
Task Umbilical Line Removal Generic 2.5" diameter Flush Umbilical Locate Umbilical line at Host Cut umbilical and attach to cable spool on AHSV Spool umbilical Locate and Cut umbilical at termination point Relocate AHSV to next Umbilical Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime
Figure 4.7.2 Umbilical Removal Tasks
13 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Estimated Umbilical Removal Cost per Length and Water Depth

Nautical Mil 400' WD 1000' WD 2000' WD 4000' WD 6000' WD 8000' WD 10000' WD Average 1 13.3 17.4 19.9 24.3 27.9 32.3 36.7 28.2 2 7.5 9.6 10.8 13.0 14.8 17.0 19.2 15.0 3 5.6 6.9 7.8 9.2 10.4 11.9 13.4 10.5 5 4.0 4.8 5.3 6.2 6.9 7.8 8.7 7.0 10 2.8 3.3 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.2 4.3 20 $2.26 $2.46 $2.59 $2.81 $2.99 $3.21 $3.43 3.0
Figure 4.7.3 Umbilical Removal Costs

$39.00 $38.00 $37.00 $36.00 $35.00 $34.00 $33.00 $32.00 $31.00 $30.00 $29.00 $28.00 $27.00 $26.00 $25.00 $24.00 $23.00 $22.00 $21.00 $20.00 $19.00 $18.00 $17.00 $16.00 $15.00 $14.00 $13.00 $12.00 $11.00 $10.00 $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00
EstimatedUmbilicalRemovalCostperLength andWaterDepth
(DoesnotincludeMobilizationCosts)
RemovalCost$/Length(FT)atWD
400'WD 1000'WD 2000'WD 4000'WD 6000'WD 8000'WD 10000'WD Average
1 2 (6076.12)
3 5 Length NM
4
10
5
20
6
Figure 4.7.4 Umbilical Removal Costs Graphed
14 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
WELL P&A For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that the well casings were grouted to the surface and the 9 5/8 and smaller strings were pulled during T&A operations and the remainder pulled during conductor severing and removal operations, as discussed earlier in this study. The wells were estimated as typical trouble free wells plugged using rigless methods. Predicting the percent or cost of problem wells per platform without evaluating current well bore schematics and well history is outside the scope of this study. Operators would need to confirm if wells can be accessed with rigless methods or will require other methods. The estimates here are approximately 25% conservative and include the work provision, weather and engineering percentages as discussed earlier in this section. It was calculated that the typical platform crane of 25 tons was insufficient to pull the 9 5/8 on platforms in water depths >400 feet. All stings were estimate pulled with casing jacks. The typical T&A spread and operation durations are shown in Table 4.5. Problem free accessible dry tree wells are estimated in this section. See the Executive Summary for recommendations on well data collection.
FIXED PLATFORM Casing Jack Total Spread / P&A Platform Support Spread Support Equip. Vessel X2 /Day Day per Day per Day $6,000 $18,000 $3,700 $50,212 $250 $750
T&A equipment and personnel per $22,512 day* Consumables per well $17,000 Subtotal $39,512 Assumed freeboard ft 78 Cut bml for surface plug ft 450 String cut length ft 40 Duration per cut&pull hr 1.5 Typical T&A hr 60 Ratio T&A to Cut and pull 60:40 % T&A 60 % Cut and pull 40 % pull w/jacks 50 T&A and cut & pull w/o jacks hr 48 * Using 10K psi pump @ 24 hr / day Well count* 60 Work Provision % 15 Weather % 20 Engineering % 8
Casing jack / day Tons Rental Jacking Specialist 24 hr 300 $1,500 $2,200 $3,700
Table 4.5 Well T&A Basic Parameters
The cost to T&A dry tree wells at water depths from 400 to 5000 feet were estimated for a platform with 60 wells as shown in Table 4.6. Fixed platforms have dry tree wells in water depths from 400 feet to <1800 feet. TLPs have dry tree wells in water depths from 1500 feet to >4600 feet. The costs were then estimated at well count intervals from 1 to 60 wells and then normalized to one well per foot of water depth as shown in Figure 4.8.
Water Depth Ft. Dia in. #/' 400 9-5/8 53.5 500 9-5/8 53.5 600 9-5/8 53.5 700 9-5/8 53.5 800 9-5/8 53.5 900 9-5/8 53.5 1000 9-5/8 53.5 1100 9-5/8 53.5 1200 9-5/8 53.5 1300 9-5/8 53.5 1400 9-5/8 53.5 1500 9-5/8 53.5 1600 9-5/8 53.5 1700 9-5/8 53.5 1800 9-5/8 53.5 1900 9-5/8 53.5 2000 9-5/8 53.5 2100 9-5/8 53.5 2200 9-5/8 53.5 2300 9-5/8 53.5 2400 9-5/8 53.5 2500 9-5/8 53.5 2600 9-5/8 53.5 2700 9-5/8 53.5 2800 9-5/8 53.5 2900 9-5/8 53.5 3000 9-5/8 53.5 3100 9-5/8 53.5 3200 9-5/8 53.5 3300 9-5/8 53.5 3400 9-5/8 53.5 3500 9-5/8 53.5 3600 9-5/8 53.5 3700 9-5/8 53.5 3800 9-5/8 53.5 3900 9-5/8 53.5 4000 9-5/8 53.5 4100 9-5/8 53.5 4200 9-5/8 53.5 4300 9-5/8 53.5 4400 9-5/8 53.5 4500 9-5/8 53.5 4600 9-5/8 53.5 4700 9-5/8 53.5 4800 9-5/8 53.5 4900 9-5/8 53.5 5000 9-5/8 53.5
ft. 928 1028 1128 1228 1328 1428 1528 1628 1728 1828 1928 2028 2128 2228 2328 2428 2528 2628 2728 2828 2928 3028 3128 3228 3328 3428 3528 3628 3728 3828 3928 4028 4128 4228 4328 4428 4528 4628 4728 4828 4928 5028 5128 5228 5328 5428 5528
tons 24.8 27.5 30.2 32.8 35.5 38.2 40.9 43.5 46.2 48.9 51.6 54.2 56.9 59.6 62.3 64.9 67.6 70.3 73.0 75.6 78.3 81.0 83.7 86.3 89.0 91.7 94.4 97.0 99.7 102.4 105.1 107.7 110.4 113.1 115.8 118.4 121.1 123.8 126.5 129.1 131.8 134.5 137.2 139.8 142.5 145.2 147.9
Typ. Strings to pull during T&A 7" @ 29#/ft or 9-5/8" @ 53.50 #/ft (Assumes 13"+26"+30" grouted and pulled during PLTF Prep) T&A Added per T&A Setup well hours Pull Total cost Mob & Rig hrs per /Cut per well /Demob down w/50% water per w/o Setup Total cost hrs hrs cut and depth well & Mob per platform each each pull per well hrs /Demob wells 30 12 48 14 35 $219,940 $13,372,152 31 12 48 15 39 $230,401 $14,003,986 32 12 48 16 43 $240,862 $14,635,821 33 12 48 17 47 $251,323 $15,267,655 34 12 48 18 50 $259,691 $15,773,959 35 12 48 19 54 $270,152 $16,405,794 36 12 48 20 58 $280,613 $17,037,628 37 12 48 21 62 $291,074 $17,669,462 38 12 48 22 65 $299,443 $18,175,767 39 12 48 23 69 $309,903 $18,807,601 40 12 48 24 73 $320,364 $19,439,435 41 12 48 25 77 $330,825 $20,071,270 42 12 48 26 80 $339,194 $20,577,574 43 12 48 27 84 $349,655 $21,209,408 44 12 48 28 88 $360,115 $21,841,243 44 12 48 29 92 $370,576 $22,468,893 44 12 48 30 95 $378,945 $22,971,013 44 12 48 31 99 $389,406 $23,598,663 44 12 48 32 103 $399,867 $24,226,313 44 12 48 33 107 $410,327 $24,853,963 44 12 48 34 110 $418,696 $25,356,083 44 12 48 35 114 $429,157 $25,983,733 44 12 48 36 118 $439,618 $26,611,383 44 12 48 37 122 $450,079 $27,239,033 44 12 48 38 125 $458,447 $27,741,153 44 12 48 39 129 $468,908 $28,368,803 44 12 48 40 133 $479,369 $28,996,453 44 12 48 41 137 $489,830 $29,624,103 44 12 48 42 140 $498,198 $30,126,223 44 12 48 43 144 $508,659 $30,753,873 44 12 48 44 148 $519,120 $31,381,523 44 12 48 45 152 $529,581 $32,009,173 44 12 48 46 155 $537,950 $32,511,293 44 12 48 47 159 $548,410 $33,138,943 44 12 48 48 163 $558,871 $33,766,593 44 12 48 49 167 $569,332 $34,394,243 44 12 48 50 170 $577,701 $34,896,363 44 12 48 51 174 $588,162 $35,524,013 44 12 48 52 178 $598,622 $36,151,663 44 12 48 53 182 $609,083 $36,779,313 44 12 48 54 185 $617,452 $37,281,433 44 12 48 55 189 $627,913 $37,909,083 44 12 48 56 193 $638,374 $38,536,733 44 12 48 57 197 $648,834 $39,164,383 44 12 48 58 200 $657,203 $39,666,503 44 12 48 59 204 $667,664 $40,294,153 44 12 48 60 208 $678,125 $40,921,803
Total cost per platform wells Total cost w/Work per Provision, platform Engineeering normalized and Weather to 1 well $19,122,177 $318,703 $20,025,700 $333,762 $20,929,224 $348,820 $21,832,747 $363,879 $22,556,762 $375,946 $23,460,285 $391,005 $24,363,808 $406,063 $25,267,331 $421,122 $25,991,346 $433,189 $26,894,869 $448,248 $27,798,393 $463,307 $28,701,916 $478,365 $29,425,931 $490,432 $30,329,454 $505,491 $31,232,977 $520,550 $32,130,517 $535,509 $32,848,548 $547,476 $33,746,088 $562,435 $34,643,627 $577,394 $35,541,167 $592,353 $36,259,198 $604,320 $37,156,738 $619,279 $38,054,277 $634,238 $38,951,817 $649,197 $39,669,848 $661,164 $40,567,388 $676,123 $41,464,927 $691,082 $42,362,467 $706,041 $43,080,498 $718,008 $43,978,038 $732,967 $44,875,577 $747,926 $45,773,117 $762,885 $46,491,149 $774,852 $47,388,688 $789,811 $48,286,228 $804,770 $49,183,767 $819,729 $49,901,799 $831,697 $50,799,338 $846,656 $51,696,878 $861,615 $52,594,417 $876,574 $53,312,449 $888,541 $54,209,988 $903,500 $55,107,528 $918,459 $56,005,067 $933,418 $56,723,099 $945,385 $57,620,638 $960,344 $58,518,178 $975,303
Using typicalplatformcrane at25 standtypical largeststringtopull duringT&A(95/8"),at 400' WDthe crane capacity isexceededandthereforecasingjacksare necessaryforall platformP&A>400' WD(Aleapfrogcouldalsobe installedforwhensome of the stringis removed savingtime)
Table 4.6 Dry Tree Well T&A
16 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
T&Acostperplatformnormalizedto1wellper numberofwellsonplatform
$1,400,000 $1,304,800 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $565,825 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 $320,797 $521,057 $850,046 $978,095 WaterDepthFt. 1WellT&A 3WellT&A 5WellT&A 15WellT&A 30WellT&A 45WellT&A 60WellT&A
Figure 4.8 T&A cost per well The costs were then evaluated by water depth and number of wells as shown in Figure 4.9.
T&Acostnormalizedto1wellperfootofWD ft.pernumberofwellsonplatform
$1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 1T&A 3T&A 5T&A 15T&A 30T&A 45T&A 60T&A
Figure 4.9 T&A cost per foot of WD

The gap between one well and three wells is attributed to the fact that for a single well, all the mobilization, demobilization, set up and rig down cost are allocated to one well, whereas the greater the number of wells the lower the allocation per well. As the number of well per platform increases the difference in cost per well decreases until the curves appear to merge. Table 4.6 only shows costs for a platform with 60 wells. Well P&A costs for platforms with other well counts in varying water depths can be obtained from either Figures 4.8 or 4.9. For example the cost of 60 platform wells in 1800 feet in Table 4.6 is $31 MM. Using Figure 4.8 at 1800 feet the 60 well curve shows $521K. Multiplying this times 60 equals $31 MM. Using Figure 4.9 at 1800 feet the 60 well curve shows a cost per well under $300 per feet of water depth. Using $290 multiplied by the water depth of 1800 feet and further multiplying by the number of wells 60 equals $31 MM. PLATFORM COST SUMMATION In order to calculate the total project decommissioning cost Figure 4.1 would be used to determine the base platform decommissioning cost, Figure 4.2 would be used to add the conductor severing and removal cost based on the number of conductors and the water depth. The next step is to determine the volume of each pipeline and the appropriate chart to use from Figures 4.3 through 4.7, depending on the PIPELINE SPREAD USAGE above. The volume of each line can be determined from length and diameter listed in MMS databases. The last step would be to determine the well abandonment costs depending on the water depth and number of wells to plug from Figure 4.8 or 4.9.
CONCEPTUAL FIXED PLATFORM REMOVAL COSTS

A number of conceptual alternate removal methods are presented in Sections 2 and 3 of this study. Information has been received and or assumed for two of these methods in sufficient detail to provide a conceptual only comparison. A representative platform in approximately 700-800 feet water depth was selected and estimated with each of these methods and compared to the complete removal estimate cost for the platform only. The two conceptual resources and methods selected for the complete removal comparison were: 1. Removal with Floatation Devices in the GOM. See Section 2.2.9. 2. Removal with SeaMetrics new Twin Marine Lifter (TML) design. See Section 2.2.9. The two methods were selected because of possible viability past the conceptual stage. A similar version of the floatation method was recently employed in the North Sea and engineer / designers are studying similar applications in the GOM but have declined to provide information on their concept. Floatation devices have no upward limitations on lifting capacity as larger devices can be installed if more lift is required. SeaMetric TML uses lifting arms rather than cranes, and according to SeaMetric will be able to lift 18,000-20,000 metric tons (19,842-22,046 tons) compared to the maximum lifting capacity of traditional heavy-left vessels (HLV) at 14,000-15,000 metric tons (15,432-16,535 tons).
18 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Both of these methods would allow for removal of a larger platform inventory from the GOM, including the lighter tonnage moored and tensioned facilities. SeaMetric has announced that it currently has the TML vessels under construction. Comparison Floatation Devices vs. HLV The fixed platform selected for this cost comparison was an 8 pile 12 skit pile platform in 863 feet water depth. The platform weight was estimated at 20,000 st and Proserv estimated that the removal cost by hopping to shallower water depths with conventional HLVs is $30 MM. See Section 5.1 FIXED PLATFORM Jacket Only Comparison Cost Estimate. The same jacket was estimated by a third party engineering firm using floatation devices developed and recently used in the North Sea. The cost to remove the jacket is estimated at $60 MM before outside services are deducted. Estimated Cost (+/- 40%) $16,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,200,000
Item 1 2 3 4 5
Description Manufacturing & testing of Buoyancy units ( over 4 Jobs) Preparation of Buoyancy Units at Stord, Norway Transport of Buoyancy Tanks & Equipment to Site in GOM Onshore Mobilization Operations in GOM Mobilization, operation & demobilization of full subsea cutting spread (diamond wire saw) Offshore Operations including installation of buoyancy system, cutting of legs, tow to reverse upending area, reverse upending, trimming Offshore towing to disposal location Inshore trimming for entry to disposal area Tow to disposal area Demobilization of Buoyancy tanks, two MSVs and two Tugs TOTAL
6 7 8 9 10
$12,000,000 $3,000,000 $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $60,200,000 (+/- 40%)
For a comparison of a reusable system in the GOM, the costs for services outside of the GOM were removed for a total decommissioning cost using floatation devices of $36.2 MM. The reader is reminded that the estimate here is derived from methods and durations designed and actually used in the harsher and stricter regulated environment of the North Sea. This shows that this method and estimate is comparable and it is believed that as the technology, methods and durations are refined and established in the GOM, the prices will decrease to a level below current conventional lifting technology.
See Section 5.1 Conceptual Decommissioning Removal Methods for the complete estimate. Section 2 for a further description of this method. Comparison TML vs. HLV
See
Offshore Magazine article SeaMetric develops new heavy-lift vessel, April 1, 2008 informs that the TML can install a medium-size platform including a topside of 5,000 tons and a jacket at 3,000 tons for about $24 MM. This equates to $3000 / ton for installation. Conventional removal of the 8P-12SP jacket with HLVs discussed above was estimated at $30 MM with 20,000 tons. This equates to a removal cost of $1500 per ton. This presents an installation to removal cost ration of 2:1 ($3000:$1500) for this jacket. Using the $24 MM quoted above at the 2:1 ratio would project a removal cost using the TML of $12 MM. This would be a substantial savings over costs $30 MM using current HLVs. See Section 2 for a further description of this method.
4.2 Spar Decommissioning Costs

Platform preparation and deck removal Mooring system removal Hull removal Preparation costs The Spar deck was installed on the hull after hull installation and the deck is estimated removed offshore. Platform preparation is performed offshore and would be dependent on the extent of production equipment and whether the facility is primarily a gas, oil or both facility and would be estimated on a per facility or similar facility basis. Spar platform preparation is presented in Table 4.7 and without further information could be estimated on a deck tonnage basis. With a Representative Spar deck weight of 17,210 st. and estimated preparation cost including 8% engineering costs would be $918,000 or $53.4 /per st.
Task Platform Removal Prep Flush, Purge and Clean Facilities, Tanks and Vessels Prepare Modules for Removal Prepare Mooring Anchors Platform Removal Prep Subtotal Hours 24 96 504 624 Days 1 4 21 26 Cost $32,699 $130,796 $686,679 $850,174
Table 4.7 Spar Platform Removal Prep
20 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Pipelines and Wells The variables are the number of pipelines and wells. The Figure 4.7 can be used for pipeline abandonment (flushed with the ends cut, plugged and buried). Pipeline risers would be removed with a similar spread and procedure as removal of the TLP platform tubular tendons estimated below. The same cost of $78 per riser per foot of water depth can be used. For problem free accessible dry tree wells, Figures 4.8 and 4.9 can be used. Subsea wells and associated structures to be removed is estimated at $9.8 MM per well if a drilling rig is necessary and $3 MM per well if the well is problem free and accessible with a deep sea intervention vessel, as shown in Section 5.1 Subsea Wells and Template. Drilling rigs would be necessary where the well is not accessible with an intervention vessel. The wells were estimated as typical trouble free wells plugged using rigless methods. Predicting the percent or cost of problem wells per platform without evaluating current well bore schematics and well history is outside the scope of this study. Operators would need to confirm if wells can be accessed with rigless methods or will require other methods. See the Executive Summary for recommendations on well data collection. Dry tree subsea wells that are accessible and problem free are estimated at $3.7 MM per well, as shown in 5.1 Dry Tree Subsea Well Estimate. Deck Removal Costs The primarily cost driver in deck removal is the HLV selected for deck removal and is dependent on the weight and configuration of the deck. As shown in Section 1 Table 1.4 the SPAR deck tonnages range from 3600 st to 18,000+ st. Where a 5000 st or less HLV is used the decommissioning cost is estimated at $20 MM and where >5000 st HLV is used the decommissioning cost is estimated at $29 MM, as shown in Tables 4.8 and 4.9, respectively.
21 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Task SPAR Topsides Removal Cargo Barge Grillage and Tie-dow n Material Mobilize SSCV (DP type vessel) 5000 st Set-up DP SSCV vessel Mobilize Cargo Barges for Equipment and Deck Rig & Remove Topside Equipment Rig & Remove Deck Demobilize Cargo Barges w ith Equipment and Deck DeMobilize SSCV (DP type vessel) Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime Sub Total
Hours 0 24 4 33 180 360 33 24
Days 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.4 7.5 15.0 1.4 1.0 0 27
Cost $400,000 $581,900 $96,983 $32,340 $4,540,650 $9,081,300 $32,340 $581,900 $2,057,840 $2,743,787 $20,149,040
658
Table 4.8 Deck Removal using HLV 5000 st or less
Task SPAR Topsides Removal Cargo Barge Grillage and Tie-dow n Material Mobilize SSCV 7000 (DP type vessel) Set-up DP SSCV vessel Mobilize Cargo Barges for Equipment and Deck Rig & Remove Topside Equipment Rig & Remove Deck Demobilize Cargo Barges w ith Equipment and Deck DeMobilize SSCV (DP type vessel) Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime Sub Total
Hours 0 24 4 33 180 360 33 24
Days 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.4 7.5 15.0 1.4 1.0 0 27
Cost $400,000 $852,300 $142,050 $32,340 $6,568,650 $13,137,300 $32,340 $852,300 $2,977,200 $3,969,600 $28,964,080
658
Table 4.9 Deck Removal using HLV >5000 st
22 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Platform and Mooring System Platform preparation, mooring line disconnection and towing are estimated at $6.5 MM for a SPAR in 5000 feet water depth as shown in Table 4.10.
Task SPAR Hull Removal/Tow Route Survey Mobilize DB2000, cargo barge and tug Mobilize Tugs (4-12000 HP) Secure Tow Tugs to top of DDCV Ballast to relieve tension on Mooring lines Sever low er chain from mooring system. Sever low er chain from cable and remove chain @ 8 hours each Remove Mooring lines from Hull, by rigging to upper cable/chain connections. ROV sever upper chain from cable. Move aw ay from Hull and low er cable to mudline @ 8 hours per line. Prepare Hull for transportation Release DDCV from Derrick Barge to Tow Tugs Demobilize Derrick Barge accounted for under Template Abandonment Tow DDCV to Onshore Location Demobilize Tow Tugs Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime DDCV Hull Removal/T ow Sub T otal Hours 48 24 48 6 24 96 Days 2 1 2 0 1 4 Cost $30,000 $212,720 $280,000 $88,180 $352,720 $1,410,880
96 48 4 0 48 24
4 2 0 0 2 1 0 18
442
$1,410,880 $705,440 $58,787 $0 $280,000 $140,000 $650,533 $867,377 $6,487,517
Table 4.10 Deck SPAR Hull Disconnect and Removal
The anchor chain / cable or polyester line mooring assemblies would be severed from the pile system and removed and, for the purpose of this study, the pile system would be allowed to remain in place. The chains are removed during the hull removal operation above and the cables are removed as described below. The mooring system estimated in Table 4.10 consisted of 12 lines. The cost is broken down to a hull removal cost of $3.7 MM exclusive of the chain mooring system and a chain mooring severing and removal cost of $2.8 MM. At 12 mooring lines, this would generate a severing cost of $235,000 per mooring line or $49 per line per foot of water depth. This would be applicable to all SPARs in the GOM.
23 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
An anchor handling vessel with ROV would mobilize and hook up to two mooring cables, reel the cables onboard, demobilize and unreal the cables at a shore facility. The process would be repeated until all 12 lines are removed for a total cost of $8.5 MM including the percents below. The mooring system removal costs above do not include: Work Contingency 8% Work Contingency 15% Weather Downtime 20% The mooring cable line removal for this representative SPAR breaks down to $401,000 per cable line for this platform and or $83 per mooring line per feet of water depth. The $83 would be applicable to other Spars in the GOM. Costs for removal of two mooring cables are shown in Table 4.11.
Task Mooring Line Removal Mobilize Anchor Handling Supply Vessel (AHSV) Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from low er chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Hours 24 2 17 24 15 Days 1 0 1 1 1 Cost $83,000 $6,917 $57,218 $83,000 $50,301
Table 4.11 SPAR Mooring Cable Removal Cost Summation Pipeline abandonment cost Umbilical Removal Riser Removal Dry tree Well P&A Dry tree subsea Well P&A Subsea Well P&A and structure Deck removal costs Hull removal cost exclusive of the mooring system Mooring Chain disconnect and removal Mooring cable or polyester line removal cost
Decommissioning Options & Costs Section 4 24 of 36
Figure 4.7 Figure 4.7.4
Adjustable per volume and vessel used and number of lines Adjustable at $78 per riser per foot of water depth.
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 $3.7 $9.8 Rig $3 - Rigless $20 for <5000 st $29 for 5000 st $3.7 MM
Fixed per deck tonnage Fixed Adjustable at $49 per line per foot of water depth. Adjustable at $83 per mooring line per feet of water depth
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Engineering cost
Disposal cost Site Clearance
8% of total exclusive of disposal $150 ton 1% of total exclusive of disposal
Fixed
Fixed Fixed
Table 4.12 Spar Decommissioning Cost Summary See Section 5.1 for the representative SPAR estimate.
4.3 Mini TLP (MTLP) & TLP decommissioning costs

Platform preparation Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Deck Removal (MTLP Only) Hull removal Mooring system removal MTLP were assumed unstable to support the deck weight after the mooring system is severed. decks are assumed removed offshore. MTLP
TLP were assumed stable to support the deck tonnage after the mooring systems are severed. All TLP decks are estimated removed with the hull and transported to a shore facility. Preparation costs Platform preparation performed would be dependent on the extent of production equipment and whether the facility is primarily a gas, oil or both facility and would be estimated on a per facility or similar facility basis. TLP platform preparation is presented in Table 4.13c and without further information could be estimated on a cost per deck tonnage basis. Assuming a TLP deck weight of 8,100 st. the estimated preparation cost including engineering costs would be $877,000 or $108 /per st. Pipelines and Wells The variables are the number of pipelines and wells. The Figure 4.7 can be used for pipeline abandonment (flushed with the ends cut, plugged and buried). Pipeline risers would be removed with a similar spread and procedure as removal of the platform tubular tendons estimated below. The same cost of $78 per riser per foot of water depth can be used.
25 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
For problem free accessible dry tree wells, Figures 4.8 and 4.9 can be used. Subsea wells and associated structures to be removed is estimated at $9.8 MM per well if a drilling rig is necessary and $3 MM per well if the well is problem free and accessible with a deep sea intervention vessel, as shown in Section 5.1 Subsea Wells and Template. Drilling rigs would be necessary where the well is not accessible with an intervention vessel. The wells were estimated as typical trouble free wells plugged using rigless methods. Predicting the percent or cost of problem wells per platform without evaluating current well bore schematics and well history is outside the scope of this study. Operators would need to confirm if wells can be accessed with rigless methods or will require other methods. See the Executive Summary for recommendations on well data collection. Dry tree subsea wells that are accessible and problem free are estimated at $3.7 MM per well, as shown in 5.1 Dry Tree Subsea Well Estimate. Platform and Mooring System MTLP were assumed unstable to support the deck weight after the mooring system is severed. MTLP decks are assumed removed offshore. Removal costs would be dependent of deck tonnage. The primarily cost driver in deck removal is the HLV selected for deck removal and is dependent on the weight and configuration of the deck. As shown in Section 1 Table 1.4 the MTLP deck tonnages range from 3000 st to 8,600+ st. Where a 5000 st or less HLV is used, the MTLP deck removal decommissioning cost is estimated at $1.4 MM and where a >5000 st HLV is used the deck removal decommissioning cost is estimated at $4.3 MM, as shown in Tables 4.13a & b. TLP were assumed stable to support the deck tonnage after the mooring systems are severed. All TLP decks are estimated removed with the hull and transported to a shore facility. Platform preparation could be performed near shore or offshore. Data for shore platform preparation was not available. Conservatively, offshore costs are included here. Platform preparation, tendon disconnection and removal and deck and hull removal are estimated at $10 MM for a MTLP in 1700 feet water depth with a deck <5000 st per Tables 4.13a and 4.13c and 13.9 MM for a MTLP in 2900 feet water depth with a deck >5000 st. as shown in the combined costs of Tables 4.13b and c. Platform preparation, tendon disconnection and removal and deck / hull towing are estimated at $20.2 MM for a TLP in 3000+ feet water depth as shown in Table 4.13d.
Task M TLP Deck Removal Mobilize Derrick Barge Spread (DB4000 & CB 400) Rig up to deck Sever, Remove Deck & Seafasten Demobilize Derrick Barge Spread Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime Platform Removal Subtotal Hours Days Cost
24 6 36 24 5 7 103
1 0 2 1 0 0 0 4
$320,360 $80,090 $480,540 $320,360 $72,081 $96,108 $1,369,539
Table 4.13a MTLP <5000 st Deck Removal
26 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Task M TLP Deck Removal Mobilize Derrick Barge Spread (SSCV 7000 & CB 400) Rig up to Deck Sever, Remove Deck & Seafasten Demobilize Derrick Barge Spread Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime Platform Removal Subtotal
Hours
Days
Cost
24 8 48 24 7 10 121
1 0 2 1 0 0 0 5
$858,680 $286,227 $1,717,360 $858,680 $257,604 $343,472 $4,322,023
Table 4.13b MTLP >5000 st Deck Removal

Task M TLP Removal Route Survey Mobilize Derrick Barge DB 2000 Mobilize 3 Tow Tugs Mobilize Cargo Barges ROV Sever and Remove 3 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 8 hours each Secure TLP to Derrick Barge Secure Tow Tugs to TLP ROV Sever and Remove 3 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 8 hours each Release TLP to Tow Tugs Tow TLP to Onshore Location Demobilize Cargo Barge Demobilize Derrick Barge Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime Platform Removal Subtotal Onshore Disposal Offload Modules Dispose of Material Onshore Disposal Subtotal Site Clearance Mob Vessels to Site Side Scan at Platform Location Inspect and Clean up Demob Vessels from Site Weather Dow ntime Site Clearance Subtotal Project M anagement and Engineering (8% of the Total) Hours 48 24 24 36 26 6 6 26 4 192 36 24 46 61 558 Days 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 8 2 1 0 2 3 23 Cost $30,000 $213,720 $105,000 $141,120 $363,630 $85,560 $85,560 $363,630 $57,040 $2,737,920 $141,120 $213,720 $554,001 $738,668 $5,830,689
120 120
120 120
$30,000 $877,500 $907,500
24 24 48 24 120
1 1 2 1 0 5
$60,274 $60,274 $120,548 $60,274 $36,164 $337,534 $740,589
Table 4.13c MTLP Preparation, Tendon & Hull Disconnect and Removal
27 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
The tubular tendon mooring assemblies would be severed from the pile system and removed and, for the purpose of this study, the pile system would be allowed to remain in place. The mooring system estimated in Table 4.13c consisted of 6 tendons. The cost is broken down to a hull removal cost of $5.9 MM exclusive of the tendon costs and a tendon severing and removal cost of $684,000. At 6 tendons, this would generate a severing and removal cost of $114,000 per tendon for this platform or $67 per tendon per foot of water depth. The $67 cost would be applicable to all MTLPs in the GOM. The hulls will be towed to a scrap or refurbishment facility. See Section 5.1 for the representative MTLP estimate.
Task Platform Removal Prep Flush, Purge and Clean Facilities, Tanks and Vessels Prepare Modules f or Removal Replace Tension Units for Tendons Platform Removal Prep Subtotal TLP Removal Route Survey Mobilize Derrick Barge DB 2000 Mobilize 4 Tow Tugs Mobilize Cargo Barges ROV Sever and Remove 4 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 16 hours each ROV Sever and Remove 4 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 16 hours each Secure TLP to Derrick Barge Secure Tow Tugs to TLP ROV Sever and Remove 4 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 16 hours each Release TLP to Tow Tugs Tow TLP to Onshore Location Demobilize Cargo Barge Demobilize Derrick Barge Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime Platform Removal Subtotal Onshore Disposal Offload Modules Dispose of Material Onshore Disposal Subtotal Site Clearance Mob Vessels to Site Side Scan at Platf orm Location Inspect and Clean up Demob Vessels f rom Site Weather Dow ntime Si te Cl earance Subtotal Project M anagement and Engineering (8% of the Total ) Hours 101 60 504 665 Days 4 3 21 28 Cost $123,342 $73,273 $615,489 $812,104
48 24 24 36 64 64 6 6 64 4 192 36 24 67 90 749
2 1 1 2 3 3 0 0 3 0 8 2 1 0 3 4 31
$30,000 $213,720 $140,000 $141,120 $1,005,973 $1,005,973 $94,310 $94,310 $1,005,973 $62,873 $3,017,920 $141,120 $213,720 $943,100 $628,733 $8,738,847
120 120
120 120
$300,000 $8,400,000 $8,700,000
24 24 48 24 120
1 1 2 1 0 5
$60,274 $60,274 $120,548 $60,274 $36,164 $337,534 $1,649,464
Table 4.13d TLP Preparation, Deck, Tendon & Hull Disconnect and Removal
The tubular tendon mooring assemblies would be severed from the pile system and removed and, for the purpose of this study, the pile system would be allowed to remain in place. The mooring system estimated in Table 4.13d consisted of 12 tendons. The cost is broken down to a deck / hull removal cost of $6.5 MM exclusive of the tendon costs and a tendon severing and removal cost of $3.0 MM. At 12 tendons, this would generate a severing and removal cost of $251,500 per tendon for this platform or $78 per tendon per foot of water depth. The $78 cost would be applicable to all TLPs in the GOM. The hulls will be towed to a scrap or refurbishment facility. See Section 5.1 for the representative TLP estimate. Cost Summation Pipeline abandonment cost Umbilical Removal Riser Removal Dry tree Well P&A Dry tree subsea Well P&A Subsea Well P&A and structure Deck removal costs (For MTLP) Hull removal cost exclusive of the mooring system Mooring Tendon disconnect and removal Figure 4.7 Figure 4.7.4 Adjustable at $78 per riser per foot of water depth. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 $3.7 $9.8 Rig $3 - Rigless $1.4 for <5000 st $4.3 for 5000 st $5.9 MM MTLP $6.5 MM TLP Adjustable per volume and vessel used and number of lines
Fixed per deck tonnage Fixed Adjustable at $67 and $78 per tendon per foot of water depth, for MTLP and TLP, respectively Fixed
Engineering cost
Fixed Fixed
Table 4.14 MTLP & TLP Decommissioning Cost Summary
29 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
4.4 SEMI decommissioning costs

Decommissioning is similar to all SEMIs. The following tasks are employed: Platform preparation Pipeline Abandonment Well P&A Mooring system removal Hull removal
Platform Preparation Since the deck is an integral part of the structure, platform preparation can be performed dockside or offshore. The SEMI Platform preparation in this study is estimated to be performed onshore. To date, these large structures have not been decommissioned and appropriate onshore preparation costs have not been established, but it is assumed the onshore costs would be lower because marine assets would not be required during preparation operations. An estimate of the representative Spar and TLP platform offshore preparation is presented in those sections above. The representative SEMI structure here has an estimated 20,000 st deck weight. Using the Spar for similar deck weight deck preparation cost of $53 /st would be appropriate for offshore preparation. Pipelines and Wells The variables are the number of pipelines and wells. The Figure 4.7 can be used for pipeline abandonment (flushed with the ends cut, plugged and buried). Pipeline risers would be removed with a similar spread and procedure as removal of the TLP platform tubular tendons estimated above. The same cost of $78 per riser per foot of water depth can be used. Problem free accessible subsea wells and associated structures to be removed is estimated at $9.8 MM per well if a drilling rig is necessary and $3 MM per well if the well is problem free and accessible with a deep sea intervention vessel, as shown in Section 5.1 Subsea Wells and Template. Drilling rigs would be necessary where the well is not accessible with an intervention vessel. The wells were estimated as typical trouble free wells plugged using rigless methods. Predicting the percent or cost of problem wells per platform without evaluating current well bore schematics and well history is outside the scope of this study. Operators would need to confirm if wells can be accessed with rigless methods or will require other methods. See the Executive Summary for recommendations on well data collection. Dry Tree Subsea wells are estimated at $3.7 MM per well, as shown in 5.1 Dry Tree Subsea Well Estimate.
30 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Platform and Mooring System Platform preparation, mooring line disconnection and towing are estimated at $6 MM for a SEMI in 6000+ feet water depth as shown in Table 4.15.
Task Platform Removal Prep & Removal Mobilize Tugs (4-12000 HP) Prepare f acilities for tow . Mobilize DB2000, cargo barge and tug Secure Tow Tugs to top of Hull Ballast to relieve tension on Mooring lines Sever low er chain f rom mooring system. Sever low er chain f rom cable and remove chain @ 8 hours each Remove Mooring lines from Hull, by rigging to upper cable/chain connections. ROV sever upper chain from cable. Move aw ay f rom Hull and low er cable to mudline @ 8 hours per line. Demobilize DB2000, cargo barge and tug Tow facilities to Ingleside facility Mothball facilities onshore Demobilize Tugs Platform Removal Prep Subtotal Hours Days 48 168 24 6 24 128 Cost $280,000 $286,867 $198,520 $84,630 $338,520 $1,805,440
7 1 0 1
128 24 93 168 48 763
5 1 4 7 26
$1,805,440 $198,520 $542,500 $205,163 $280,000 $6,025,600
Table 4.15 SEMI Platform Severing and Chain and Hull Removal The anchor chain / cable or polyester mooring assemblies would be severed from the pile system and removed and, for the purpose of this study, the pile system would be allowed to remain in place. The chains are removed during the hull removal operation and the cables are removed as described below. The mooring system estimated in Table 4.15 consisted of 16 lines. The cost is broken down to a hull removal cost of $2.4 MM and a chain mooring line severing and removal cost of $3.6 MM. At 16 mooring lines, this would generate a severing cost of $225,700 per mooring line or $35 per line per foot of water depth. This would be applicable to all SEMIs in the GOM. Cost for removal of two mooring cables are shown in Table 4.16
Task M ooring Line Removal Mobilize Anchor Handling Supply Vessel (AHSV) Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from low er chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums
Table 4.16 Semi Mooring Line Removal
Hours Days 24 2 21 24 19 1 0 1 1 1
Cost $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 $64,266
31 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
An anchor handling vessel with ROV would mobilize and hook up to two mooring cables, reel the cables onboard, demobilize and unreal the cables at a shore facility. The process would be repeated until all 16 lines are removed for a total cost of $3.4 MM including the percents below. The above costs do not show: Work Contingency 8% Work Contingency 15% Weather Downtime 20% Mooring line removal costs for this representative SEMI are estimated to cost $441,000 per cable line or $68 per mooring line per feet of water depth. This cost would be applicable to other SEMIs in the GOM.
Cost Summation Asset Pipeline abandonment cost Umbilical Removal Riser Removal Dry tree subsea Well P&A Subsea Well P&A and structure Hull removal cost exclusive of the mooring system Mooring Chain disconnect and removal Mooring cable or polyester line removal cost Engineering cost Driver Figure 4.7 Figure 4.7.4 Adjustable at $78 per riser per foot of water depth. $3.7 $9.8 Rig $3 - Rigless $2.4 MM Fixed or Adjustable Adjustable per volume and vessel used and number of lines
Fixed Adjustable at $35 per line per foot of water depth. Adjustable at $68 per mooring line per feet of water depth Fixed
Fixed Fixed
Table 4.17 SEMI Decommissioning Cost Summary
32 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
4.5 FPSO structure decommissioning

There are currently no FPSOs in the GOM. Internationally there many types FPSO designs, with some permanently secured with mooring lines, permanently secured to single point mooring (SPM) systems that allow the vessel to rotate with environmental conditions. Information received during this study indicated that Petrobras will install the first FPSO in the GOM. The FPSO will be moored to a detachable SPM, allowing it to detach and demobilize during inclement weather. See Section 3 for a depiction of the FPSO. The FPSO will disconnect from the SPM and demobilize under its own power. Topside decommissioning will be performed onboard. Pipelines and Wells The variables are the number of pipelines and wells. Figure 4.7 can be used for pipeline abandonment (flushed with the ends cut, plugged and buried). Pipeline risers would be removed with a similar spread and procedure as removal of the TLP platform tubular tendons estimated above. The same cost of $78 per riser per foot of water depth can be used. Problem free accessible subsea wells and associated structures to be removed is estimated at $9.8 MM per well if a drilling rig is necessary and $3 MM per well if the well is problem free and accessible with a deep sea intervention vessel, as shown in Section 5.1 Subsea Wells and Template. Drilling rigs would be necessary where the well is not accessible with an intervention vessel. The wells were estimated as typical trouble free wells plugged using rigless methods. Predicting the percent or cost of problem wells per platform without evaluating current well bore schematics and well history is outside the scope of this study. Operators would need to confirm if wells can be accessed with rigless methods or will require other methods. See the Executive Summary for recommendations on well data collection. Dry Tree Subsea wells are estimated at $3.7 MM per well, as shown in 5.1 Dry Tree Subsea Well Estimate. Platform Mooring System The platform SPM mooring system would be removed similar to the SEMI mooring system with costs allocated per mooring line per feet of water depth as described in SEMI above.
4.6 Subsea structure decommissioning

Consideration for subsea structures, wells, manifolds, jumpers, etc., would be to remove everything to 15 feet below the mudline or leave selected structures in place. For the purpose of this study, it was agreed that removal would be required for wells and structures that are stabbed over or attached above anchored templates, but the anchored template would be allowed to remain in place. Subsea structures with wells would be removed during well P&A operations. The Major Asset Inventory for the GOM is provided in Section 1 but the subsea inventory was not available at the time of this study. See the intro to GOM Inventory in Section 1. An example of subsea template removal is provided in Table 4.18. An engineering cost would be added. An 8% engineering cost is used in this study for a total template
removal cost of $323,000. Further study in the subsea inventory would be needed to capture Section 1 Recommendations.
Task Template Abandonment Remove all flow lines and umbilical lines from the w ells to the maninfold.Remove flow lines from manifold to flow line Tie-in base. Remove Tie-in bases from flow lines, plug and cover end of flow lines Work Contingency Weather Dow ntime Template Abandonment Hours Days Cost
72
3 0 3
72
$239,160 $35,874 $23,916 $298,950
Table 4.18 Example Subsea Template Removal
4.7 Probabilistic Decommissioning Cost

This section focuses on determining the estimated decommissioning costs on a probabilistic basis for a selected example platform. The platform selected from Table 4.1 for the probabilistic modeling is a 12 leg 32 skirt pile platform, identified as platform 12P-32SP. The costs included in Table 4.1 were derived on a deterministic basis as described below. Deterministic estimates address static most likely values for the elements of cost such as task duration and spread rates. This is the value that a knowledgeable contractor would expect to occur most of the time. Probabilistic modeling addresses the possible variance in these values. This leads to a cost estimate result that is best described in a distribution, as compared to the single number of a deterministic estimate. The starting point for the probabilistic estimate was the individual task durations and work spread rates (cost elements) used to derive the deterministic estimate above. The values used in the deterministic estimate were assumed to be the most probable values of each element for the purposes of establishing a Triangular Probability Distribution Function (PDF). This type of PDF is commonly used for construction (in this case destruction) cost estimates because they can be described by three variables: an assumed Maximum, Minimum and Most Likely value. The probabilistic cost estimates were derived by selecting a deterministic estimate, in this cast the platform identified as 12L-32SP, and building a project model in which probability distribution functions (PDFs) are assigned to all task durations and spread rates (cost elements), starting with the most likely/probable (the modal) value which would be used in a deterministic estimate. A Triangular Distribution is assumed for all cost elements. The decommissioning project model is then simulated repeatedly until convergence and a smooth distribution is achieved in the resulting output. This is accomplished with 1500 iterations, or individual outcome scenarios, for the project using a Latin Hypercube method of individual value selection. This is similar to Monte Carlo random value selection, but converges to the desired distribution faster. If the distribution were symmetrical, the Mode and Median (Mean or P50) would be the same. Unfortunately, in most construction-type projects the individual cost elements have more opportunity for
increase than for decrease. It is important to note in this context that the ranges used in this study were derived independently by the developers of the original deterministic estimate, but after that work was completed. The Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) for Total Gross Cost is shown in Figure 4.10 below. The P10 and P90 values are US$ 65.38 MM and US$ 69.56 MM, respectively. It is noted that the estimated deterministic cost is approximately a P19 number. The deterministic cost is shown to be somewhat optimistic. This results from the individual cost element PDFs often being skewed in the direction of a cost increase, as noted above. If all cost element PDFs were symmetrical, we would expect the deterministic and probabilistic P50 costs to be equal.
8P-32SP - Probablistic Decommissioning Cost

80.0%Range 1 10.0% 65.38 69.56 10.0%
0.8
0.6
Totals
0.4
0.2
Deterministic Estimate $65,982,224
0 62 64 66 68
ExpectedCost $67,443,824
70 72 74
Values in Millions
Figure 4.10 CDF for Total Gross Cost for 12L-32SP*
35 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
*Costs for variables in Table 4.19 have been removed from the probabilistic model. Operator / Owner overhead costs are not included in the scope of this study.
Overhead Engineering Weather Wk Provision Overhead OH % 0.08 0.2 0.15 0.43
Table 4.19 Overhead costs.
36 of 36
Rev.1 Dec 2009
Section 5
APPENDIX
Section 5 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................. 1 5.1 Decommissioning Cost Estimates............................................................................................... 2 Representative Platform Cost Estimates ............................................................................ 2 FIXED PLATFORM Representative Cost Estimates............................................................. 2 FIXED PLATFORM Jacket Only Comparison Cost Estimates .............................................. 3 SPAR PLATFORM Representative Cost Estimates ............................................................. 4 MTLP PLATFORM Representative Cost Estimates ............................................................. 9 TLP PLATFORM Representative Cost Estimates ............................................................. 11 SEMI Representative Cost Estimate ................................................................................ 13 Conceptual Decommissioning Removal Methods .......................................................... 22 Floatation Device Estimate .............................................................................................. 22 Comparison TML vs. HLV Estimates ................................................................................ 38 Pipelines ............................................................................................................................ 39 Dry Tree Platform Wells ................................................................................................... 39 Dry Tree Subsea Wells ..................................................................................................... 39 Subsea Wells and Template ............................................................................................ 41 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5a 5.1.5b 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.7.1 5.1.7.2 5.1.10 5.1.11 5.1.12 5.1.13 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10
List of Figures/Tables ............................................................................................................... 44 References/Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 46 MMS Contract Work Scope ...................................................................................................... 47 Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................................... 48 Explosive Permit Stipulations ................................................................................................... 59 Fixed Platform General Methodology & Assumptions ............................................................. 59 International Construction Inflation Trends ............................................................................. 75 Crossmar Subsea Report Submittal ......................................................................................... 80 Presentation on Artificial Reefing Programs ........................................................................... 85
Page 1 of 108
5.1
Decommissioning Cost Estimates
5.1.1 Representative Platform Cost Estimates 5.1.2 FIXED PLATFORM Representative Cost Estimates This page is blank
Page 2 of 108
4L-1P-4SP 400 Ft. WD
TWACHTMAN SNYDER & BYRD, INC.
MMS Platform Decommission Task Information 4L-1P-4SP - 400 Ft. WD

Task
Fab Explosive Charges Mobilize Work Boat Standby for Daylight Det. Pre/Post Detonat'n Survey Sever Conductors- Explosive Remove Conductors Platform Removal Preparation Demob Work Boat Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize CB 240 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug Jet/Air Skrt Pile Mud Plg Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Demob CB 240 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 4000 Site Clearance - with Trawler Site Clearance Verify Offload CB 240 Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. two two includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
0.00 16.70 8.00 1.00 4.48 0.00% 0.67% 0.32% 0.04% 0.18%
Task Cost
$19,200.00 $22,857.40 $11,001.30 $1,375.20 $35,992.78 $432,902.50 $504,000.00 $22,857.40 $271,925.15 $37,364.00 $97,384.00 $93,791.25 $87,330.00 $72,775.00 $174,660.00 $76,413.75 $448,294.00 $18,787.50 $179,190.00 $18,787.50 $23,364.00 $111,160.00 $111,160.00 $83,370.00 $93,791.25 $277,900.00 $93,791.25 $27,790.00 $178,500.00 $322,787.50 $322,787.50 $69,384.00 $93,791.25 $278,425.15 $35,800.00 $14,400.00 $77,600.00 0.28% 0.34% 0.16% 0.02% 0.53% 6.37% 7.41% 0.34% 4.00% 0.55% 1.43% 1.38% 1.28% 1.07% 2.57% 1.12% 6.59% 0.28% 2.64% 0.28% 0.34% 1.63% 1.63% 1.23% 1.38% 4.09% 1.38% 0.41% 2.62% 4.75% 4.75% 1.02% 1.38% 4.09% 0.53% 0.21% 1.14%
Added extra time on some tasks for mudslide area Includes manual calc for casing jacks and specialists
314.80 12.66% 504.00 20.26% 16.70 19.57 35.40 35.40 6.75 6.00 5.00 12.00 5.25 30.80 16.70 8.00 16.70 35.40 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.75 20.00 6.75 2.00 12.00 21.70 21.70 35.40 6.75 19.57 0.00 0.00 0.67% 0.79% 1.42% 1.42% 0.27% 0.24% 0.20% 0.48% 0.21% 1.24% 0.67% 0.32% 0.67% 1.42% 0.32% 0.32% 0.24% 0.27% 0.80% 0.27% 0.08% 0.48% 0.87% 0.87% 1.42% 0.27% 0.79% 0.00% 0.00%
384.00 15.44%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
MMS Platform Decommission Task Information 4L-1P-4SP - 400 Ft. WD

Task
Offload CB 300 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
624.00 25.09%
Task Cost
$167,920.00 2.47% 73.68% 7.53% 10.04% 2.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.89% 100.00%
2281.27 91.72% $5,010,610.63 88.28 117.71 3.55% 4.73% $512,076.70 $682,768.90 $194,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $400,848.80 2487.26 100.00% $6,800,305.03
Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc.
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2
MMS Platform Decommission Resources Breakdown 4L-1P-4SP - 400 Ft. WD

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 240 Cargo Barge 300 CB 240 & Tug CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Expl Charge - Cond Expl Technician Helicopter Trips Manual Calculation Nets (Heavy Duty, Non-Repairable) Nets (Heavy Duty, Repairable) Nets (Non-Repairable) Nets (Repairable) NMFS Observers (2) Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Rig Up CB 240 Rig Up CB 300 Trawler Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $3,600.00 $4,920.00 $660.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $3,200.00 $95.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $2,600.00 $2,200.00 $1,300.00 $126.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $416.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Conductor per Hour per Round Trip Independently Calculated ea ea ea ea per Hour per Cut per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour $25,875.00 $57,600.00 $127,920.00 $90,981.00 $193,060.00 $60,000.00 $29,832.00 $252,000.00 $2,442,195.00 $736,147.35 $19,200.00 $34,359.60 $6,500.00 $55,543.30 $15,000.00 $20,800.00 $6,600.00 $7,800.00 $45,571.68 $53,750.00 $53,495.70 $14,000.00 $28,000.00 $0.00 $634,380.00
Cost
0.38% 0.85% 1.88% 1.34% 2.84% 0.88% 0.44% 3.71% 35.91% 10.83% 0.28% 0.51% 0.10% 0.82% 0.22% 0.31% 0.10% 0.11% 0.67% 0.79% 0.79% 0.21% 0.41% 0.00% 9.33%
Section III D - Platform Decommission Resources Breakdown - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, I
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
8P-12SP 410 Ft. WD
MMS Platform Decommission Task Information 8P-12SP - 410 Ft. WD

Task
Fab Explosive Charges Mobilize Work Boat Standby for Daylight Det. Pre/Post Detonat'n Survey Sever Conductors- Explosive Remove Conductors Platform Removal Preparation Demob Work Boat Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize CB 240 & Tug Mobilize CB 400 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 8 Pile Deck Demob CB 240 & Tug Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug Standby for Daylight Det. Pre/Post Detonat'n Survey Sever Piles- Explosive Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 400 & Tug Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 4000 Mobilize Dive Spread Site Clearance Verify Offload CB 180 Offload CB 240 Offload CB 400 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. includes rig up and down Includes manual calc for casing jacks and specialists
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
0.00 23.00 8.00 1.00 3.90 0.00% 0.96% 0.33% 0.04% 0.16%
Task Cost
$107,200.00 $45,045.50 $15,668.00 $8,458.50 $7,638.15 $519,002.50 $546,000.00 $45,045.50 $409,794.12 $45,680.00 $62,000.00 $95,283.00 $68,560.64 $44,328.00 $138,155.61 $31,680.00 $494,060.00 $112,928.00 $20,616.00 $68,321.44 $325,283.00 $48,000.00 $94,432.50 $406,194.30 $131,629.00 $274,704.00 $20,000.00 $77,600.00 $182,240.00 1.93% 0.81% 0.28% 0.15% 0.14% 9.36% 9.85% 0.81% 7.39% 0.82% 1.12% 1.72% 1.24% 0.80% 2.49% 0.57% 8.91% 2.04% 0.37% 1.23% 5.87% 0.87% 1.70% 7.33% 2.37% 4.95% 0.36% 1.40% 3.29% 80.18% 5.74% 7.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
265.00 11.02% 504.00 20.95% 23.00 28.57 48.00 48.00 6.75 4.64 3.00 9.35 48.00 35.00 8.00 1.00 4.84 21.70 48.00 6.75 28.57 23.00 48.00 0.00 0.96% 1.19% 2.00% 2.00% 0.28% 0.19% 0.12% 0.39% 2.00% 1.45% 0.33% 0.04% 0.20% 0.90% 2.00% 0.28% 1.19% 0.96% 2.00% 0.00%
384.00 15.96% 624.00 25.94%
2257.07 93.82% $4,445,547.75 63.74 84.99 2.65% 3.53% $318,424.00 $424,565.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task Note Contingency
Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Task Hours
Task Cost
$0.00 $355,643.80 0.00% 6.41% 100.00%
2405.80 100.00% $5,544,180.85
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2
MMS Platform Decommission Resources Breakdown 8P-12SP - 410 Ft. WD

Resource Used
Cargo Barge 180 Cargo Barge 240 Cargo Barge 400 CB 240 & Tug CB 400 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Boat Dive Serv - Basic Dive Serv - Suppl Expl Charge - Cond Expl Charge - Piling Expl Technician Helicopter Trips Manual Calculation NMFS Observers (2) Pipeline Survey Rig Up CB 240 Rig Up CB 400 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$3,000.00 $3,600.00 $6,240.00 $660.00 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,200.00 $11,400.00 $95.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $126.00 $230.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables Calculated from tables per Conductor per Pile per Hour per Round Trip Independently Calculated per Hour per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour $0.00 $57,600.00 $162,240.00 $74,573.40 $117,700.00 $60,000.00 $482,941.67 $1,660,785.01 $500,608.04 $63,900.00 $224,715.00 $112,393.00 $16,000.00 $91,200.00 $45,796.65 $26,000.00 $49,934.58 $53,556.30 $36,379.10 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $5,325.00 $575,900.00
Cost
0.00% 1.04% 2.93% 1.35% 2.12% 1.08% 8.71% 29.96% 9.03% 1.15% 4.05% 2.03% 0.29% 1.64% 0.83% 0.47% 0.90% 0.97% 0.66% 0.25% 0.25% 0.10% 10.39%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
4P4S 446 Ft. WD
MMS Platform Decommission Task Information 4P4S - 446 Ft. WD

Task
Fab Explosive Charges Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize CB 400 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug Jet/Air Skrt Pile Mud Plg Pre/Post Detonat'n Survey Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Standby for Daylight Det. Sever Conductors- Explosive Remove Conductors (DB 2/4000) Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Rig Jacket Underwater Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 400 & Tug Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 4000 Offload CB 300 Offload CB 400 Site Clearance Verify Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping at -50 ft elev Top section
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
0.00 32.33 0.00% 1.48%
Task Cost
$16,000.00 $45,683.40 $504,000.00 $249,646.20 $46,330.00 $95,283.00 $70,045.44 $30,192.00 $141,147.61 $271,728.00 $464,956.80 $21,596.00 $17,055.00 0.19% 0.54% 5.98% 2.96% 0.55% 1.13% 0.83% 0.36% 1.67% 3.22% 5.52% 0.26% 0.20% 14.73% 0.20% 1.43% 0.70% 11.22% 5.59% 2.44% 0.38% 1.73% 3.83% 0.38% 1.11% 2.94% 1.93% 1.20% 1.01% 74.26% 8.49% 11.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
504.00 23.07% 17.38 32.33 6.75 4.64 2.00 9.35 18.00 30.80 1.00 15.16 71.27 15.16 8.00 3.90 63.20 31.50 13.75 32.33 9.75 21.70 32.33 6.75 17.38 0.80% 1.48% 0.31% 0.21% 0.09% 0.43% 0.82% 1.41% 0.05% 0.69%
3.26% $1,242,070.58 0.69% 0.37% 0.18% 2.89% 1.44% 0.63% 1.48% 0.45% 0.99% 1.48% 0.31% 0.80% $17,055.00 $120,768.00 $58,874.40 $946,104.00 $471,555.00 $205,837.50 $31,683.40 $146,152.50 $323,221.50 $32,330.00 $93,791.25 $247,995.10 $162,680.00 $101,120.00 $85,200.00
696.00 31.86% 312.00 14.28% 48.00 2.20%
2056.76 94.15% $6,260,101.68 54.75 73 2.51% 3.34% $715,367.60 $953,823.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Task Hours
Task Cost
$0.00 $500,808.10 0.00% 5.94% 100.00%
2184.51 100.00% $8,430,100.78
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2
MMS Platform Decommission Resources Breakdown 4P4S - 446 Ft. WD

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 Cargo Barge 400 CB 300 & Tug CB 400 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Boat Expl Charge - Cond Expl Technician Helicopter Trips NMFS Observers (2) Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Rem. Operated Vehicle Rig Up CB 300 Rig Up CB 400 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $6,240.00 $980.00 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $900.00 $3,200.00 $95.00 $6,500.00 $126.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $800.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Hour per Conductor per Hour per Round Trip per Hour per Cut per Hour per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour $63,493.75 $142,680.00 $81,120.00 $315,628.59 $96,110.00 $40,000.00 $252,000.00 $3,539,759.88 $1,066,984.84 $43,200.00 $16,000.00 $27,672.55 $19,500.00 $19,619.46 $86,000.00 $77,537.60 $38,400.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $3,600.00 $302,795.00
Cost
0.75% 1.69% 0.96% 3.74% 1.14% 0.47% 2.99% 41.99% 12.66% 0.51% 0.19% 0.33% 0.23% 0.23% 1.02% 0.92% 0.46% 0.17% 0.17% 0.04% 3.59%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
8P-12SP 480 Ft. WD

Task
Fab Explosive Charges Mobilize Work Boat Standby for Daylight Det. Pre/Post Detonat'n Survey Sever Conductors- Explosive Remove Conductors Platform Removal Preparation Demob Work Boat Mobilize DB 2000 Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 400 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 8 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug Standby for Daylight Det. Pre/Post Detonat'n Survey Sever Piles- Explosive Cut Jacket Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Mobilize SSCV Setup Derrick Barge Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 400 & Tug Pick Up DB Anchors Demob SSCV Mobilize Dive Spread Site Clearance Verify Offload CB 300 Offload CB 400 two CBs Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Vertically two CBs includes rig up and down Includes manual calc for casing jacks and specialists
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
0.00 23.00 8.00 1.00 11.44 0.00% 0.61% 0.21% 0.03% 0.30%
Task Cost
$148,800.00 $45,045.47 $15,667.97 $8,458.53 $22,548.57 1.14% 0.35% 0.12% 0.06% 0.17% 13.71% 4.19% 0.35% 2.38% 0.47% 0.95% 0.55% 0.41% 0.36% 0.83% 0.36% 2.85% 0.65% 0.13% 0.39% 20.65% 0.54% 2.33% 3.90% 1.04% 3.51% 3.51% 0.37% 1.04% 3.90% 0.73% 1.52% 0.76% 1.65% 75.84% 7.75% 10.34%
912.40 24.20% $1,786,935.48 504.00 13.37% 23.00 28.57 48.00 48.00 6.75 4.64 4.00 9.35 48.00 35.00 8.00 1.00 4.84 234.33 6.75 28.57 25.00 6.75 21.70 21.70 48.00 6.75 25.00 23.00 48.00 0.61% 0.76% 1.27% 1.27% 0.18% 0.12% 0.11% 0.25% 1.27% 0.93% 0.21% 0.03% 0.13% $546,000.00 $45,045.47 $309,799.12 $61,040.00 $124,000.00 $71,658.00 $53,805.44 $46,384.00 $108,422.60 $47,040.00 $371,560.00 $84,928.00 $17,116.00 $51,381.44
6.22% $2,692,451.62 0.18% 0.76% 0.66% 0.18% 0.58% 0.58% 1.27% 0.18% 0.66% 0.61% 1.27% $70,807.50 $303,485.15 $508,050.00 $135,418.55 $457,045.41 $457,045.41 $48,000.00 $135,418.55 $508,050.00 $95,220.00 $198,720.00 $98,720.00 $214,720.00
384.00 10.19% 672.00 17.83%
3280.54 87.02% $9,888,788.26 209.76 279.68 5.56% $1,010,728.00 7.42% $1,347,637.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Task Hours
Task Cost
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $791,103.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.07% 100.00%
3769.98 100.00%$13,038,256.26
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Resource Used
Cargo Barge 300 Cargo Barge 400 CB 300 & Tug CB 400 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 2000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Boat Dive Serv - Basic Expl Charge - Cond Expl Charge - Piling Expl Technician Helicopter Trips Manual Calculation NMFS Observers (2) Pipeline Survey Rig Up CB 300 Rig Up CB 400 Side Scan Sonar SSCV Work Boat
Unit Cost
$4,920.00 $6,240.00 $980.00 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $3,165.00 $900.00 $0.00 $3,200.00 $11,400.00 $95.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $126.00 $230.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $16,667.00 $500.00 per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables per Conductor per Pile per Hour per Round Trip Independently Calculated per Hour per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour per Hour $78,720.00 $174,720.00 $111,710.20 $421,730.00 $60,000.00 $864,990.04 $2,602,600.00 $1,515,085.42 $63,900.00 $224,715.00 $57,600.00 $91,200.00 $125,596.65 $39,000.00 $151,047.80 $136,204.74 $110,101.00 $14,000.00 $28,000.00 $5,325.00 $1,781,702.41 $1,230,840.00
Cost
0.60% 1.34% 0.86% 3.23% 0.46% 6.63% 19.96% 11.62% 0.49% 1.72% 0.44% 0.70% 0.96% 0.30% 1.16% 1.04% 0.84% 0.11% 0.21% 0.04% 13.67% 9.44%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
8P-12SP 483 Ft. WD

Task
Fab Explosive Charges Mobilize Work Boat Standby for Daylight Det. Pre/Post Detonat'n Survey Sever Conductors- Explosive Remove Conductors Platform Removal Preparation Demob Work Boat Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize CB 400 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 8 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug Jet/Air Skrt Pile Mud Plg Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Set Jacket on Bottom Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 400 & Tug Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 4000 Mobilize Dive Spread Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Cut horizintally at approx. -160 ft elevation Remove top section Cut vertically between rows 2 & 3 two includes rig up and down Includes manual calc for casing jacks and specialists
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
0.00 13.00 8.00 1.00 12.02 0.00% 0.31% 0.19% 0.02% 0.29%
Task Cost
$288,800.00 $25,460.33 $15,667.97 $8,458.53 $23,541.19 1.41% 0.12% 0.08% 0.04% 0.11% 8.15% 2.66% 0.12% 1.00% 0.41% 0.66% 0.20% 0.34% 0.43% 0.68% 0.13% 2.37% 18.77% 0.07% 10.49% 0.07% 0.61% 0.68% 0.41% 0.66% 0.45% 0.14% 0.66% 2.03% 1.58% 7.50% 1.58% 1.58% 0.14% 0.66% 1.00% 0.36%
962.20 22.89% $1,671,822.52 504.00 11.99% 13.00 14.29 28.00 9.75 28.00 4.64 6.00 9.35 28.00 35.00 277.20 13.00 137.96 13.00 9.00 10.00 6.00 9.75 6.67 2.00 9.75 30.00 21.70 110.69 21.70 21.70 28.00 9.75 14.29 13.00 0.31% 0.34% 0.67% 0.23% 0.67% 0.11% 0.14% 0.22% 0.67% 0.83% $546,000.00 $25,460.33 $205,059.55 $84,000.00 $135,476.25 $41,440.00 $69,020.00 $89,250.00 $139,081.26 $27,440.00 $486,325.00
6.59% $3,851,694.13 0.31% $14,625.00
3.28% $2,152,047.21 0.31% 0.21% 0.24% 0.14% 0.23% 0.16% 0.05% 0.23% 0.71% 0.52% $14,625.00 $125,055.00 $138,950.00 $83,370.00 $135,476.25 $92,679.65 $27,790.00 $135,476.25 $416,850.00 $323,221.50
2.63% $1,538,037.51 0.52% 0.52% 0.67% 0.23% 0.34% 0.31% $323,221.50 $323,221.50 $28,000.00 $135,476.25 $205,059.55 $74,399.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Site Clearance Verify Offload CB 300 Offload CB 400 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
48.00 384.00 1.14% 9.14%
Task Cost
$274,704.00 $98,720.00 $220,960.00 1.34% 0.48% 1.08% 71.23% 9.18% 12.25% 1.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.70% 100.00%
696.00 16.56%
3569.41 84.91%$14,615,962.23 271.77 362.37 6.47% $1,884,423.00 8.62% $2,512,564.00 $336,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,169,277.00 4203.55 100.00%$20,518,226.23
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 Cargo Barge 400 CB 300 & Tug CB 400 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Boat Dive Serv - Basic Dive Serv - Suppl Expl Charge - Cond Expl Charge - Piling Expl Technician Helicopter Trips Manual Calculation NMFS Observers (2) Pile Abrasive Cut 7 to 48 inches Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Rig Up CB 300 Rig Up CB 400 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $6,240.00 $980.00 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,200.00 $11,400.00 $95.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $126.00 $2,486.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables Calculated from tables per Conductor per Pile per Hour per Round Trip Independently Calculated per Hour per Cut per Cut per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour $102,475.01 $78,720.00 $180,960.00 $74,470.20 $149,100.00 $60,000.00 $882,711.64 $8,160,495.01 $2,459,806.45 $54,900.00 $193,065.00 $96,563.00 $60,800.00 $228,000.00 $4,466.90 $19,500.00 $155,587.80 $5,924.52 $19,888.00 $60,000.00 $178,753.70 $14,000.00 $28,000.00 $4,575.00 $1,343,200.00
Cost
0.50% 0.38% 0.88% 0.36% 0.73% 0.29% 4.30% 39.77% 11.99% 0.27% 0.94% 0.47% 0.30% 1.11% 0.02% 0.10% 0.76% 0.03% 0.10% 0.29% 0.87% 0.07% 0.14% 0.02% 6.55%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
4P 484 Ft. WD
MMS Platform Decommission Task Information 4P - 484 Ft. WD

Task
Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize DB 2000 Mobilize CB 240 & Tug Mobilize CB 400 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Demob CB 240 & Tug Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 400 & Tug Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Mobilize Dive Spread Site Clearance Verify Offload CB 240 Offload CB 400 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
16.00 8.71 115.60 16.00 48.00 0.70% 0.38% 5.09% 0.70% 2.11%
Task Cost
$26,979.00 $24,630.72 $194,921.20 $26,979.00 $38,640.00 $504,000.00 $199,535.15 $36,440.00 $48,000.00 $70,166.25 $51,295.20 $33,165.00 $103,364.25 $22,440.00 $187,110.00 $18,000.00 $373,854.40 $18,000.00 $56,975.00 $56,975.00 $68,370.00 $136,740.00 $205,110.00 $247,271.50 $247,271.50 $34,000.00 $70,166.25 $199,535.15 $91,568.00 $274,704.00 $77,600.00 $194,720.00 0.55% 0.50% 3.95% 0.55% 0.78% 10.21% 4.04% 0.74% 0.97% 1.42% 1.04% 0.67% 2.09% 0.45% 3.79% 0.36% 7.58% 0.36% 1.15% 1.15% 1.39% 2.77% 4.16% 5.01% 5.01% 0.69% 1.42% 4.04% 1.86% 5.57% 1.57% 3.95% 79.83% 5.91% 7.88% 0.00% 0.00%
Manual calc for casing jacks and specialists
504.00 22.21% 18.57 34.00 34.00 6.75 4.64 3.00 9.35 34.00 18.00 16.00 28.72 16.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 12.00 18.00 21.70 21.70 34.00 6.75 18.57 16.00 48.00 0.82% 1.50% 1.50% 0.30% 0.20% 0.13% 0.41% 1.50% 0.79% 0.70% 1.27% 0.70% 0.22% 0.22% 0.26% 0.53% 0.79% 0.96% 0.96% 1.50% 0.30% 0.82% 0.70% 2.11%
384.00 16.92% 672.00 29.61%
2200.06 96.94% $3,938,526.57 29.79 39.72 1.31% 1.75% $291,575.20 $388,766.90 $0.00 $0.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
MMS Platform Decommission Task Information 4P - 484 Ft. WD

Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Task Hours
Task Cost
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $315,082.10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.39% 100.00%
2269.57 100.00% $4,933,950.77
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2
MMS Platform Decommission Resources Breakdown 4P - 484 Ft. WD

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 240 Cargo Barge 400 CB 240 & Tug CB 400 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 2000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Boat Dive Serv - Basic Dive Serv - Suppl Helicopter Trips Manual Calculation Pile Abrasive Cut 49 to 69 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rig Up CB 240 Rig Up CB 400 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $3,600.00 $6,240.00 $660.00 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $3,165.00 $900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $230.00 $407.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables Calculated from tables per Round Trip Independently Calculated per Cut per Hour per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour $135,643.75 $57,600.00 $174,720.00 $56,093.40 $157,400.00 $40,000.00 $9,944.00 $252,000.00 $1,426,250.00 $644,868.75 $57,600.00 $202,560.00 $101,312.00 $13,000.00 $24,099.00 $43,000.00 $57,902.50 $63,618.17 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $8,400.00 $384,515.00
Cost
2.75% 1.17% 3.54% 1.14% 3.19% 0.81% 0.20% 5.11% 28.91% 13.07% 1.17% 4.11% 2.05% 0.26% 0.49% 0.87% 1.17% 1.29% 0.28% 0.28% 0.17% 7.79%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
4P4S 523 Ft. WD

Task
Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize DB 2000 Mobilize CB 240 & Tug Mobilize CB 400 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Demob CB 240 & Tug Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug Jet/Air Skrt Pile Mud Plg Set Charges in Skirt Piles Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Deck to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 240 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 400 & Tug Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. 2 barges includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
23.00 30.49 0.70% 0.92%
Task Cost
$50,282.00 $101,460.68 $950,108.20 $50,282.00 $38,640.00 $504,000.00 $303,485.15 $91,360.00 $62,000.00 $70,166.25 $48,232.80 $33,165.00 $103,364.25 $31,680.00 $187,110.00 $320,166.00 $120,062.25 $25,875.00 $678,281.60 $25,875.00 $55,275.00 $55,275.00 $66,330.00 $74,621.25 $147,363.15 $74,621.25 $22,110.00 $132,660.00 $239,893.50 $31,680.00 $51,975.00 $51,975.00 $62,370.00 $138,565.35 $187,110.00 $247,271.50 $247,271.50 $48,000.00 0.58% 1.17% 11.00% 0.58% 0.45% 5.83% 3.51% 1.06% 0.72% 0.81% 0.56% 0.38% 1.20% 0.37% 2.17% 3.71% 1.39% 0.30% 7.85% 0.30% 0.64% 0.64% 0.77% 0.86% 1.71% 0.86% 0.26% 1.54% 2.78% 0.37% 0.60% 0.60% 0.72% 1.60% 2.17% 2.86% 2.86% 0.56%
434.60 13.16% 23.00 48.00 0.70% 1.45%
504.00 15.26% 28.57 48.00 48.00 6.75 4.64 3.00 9.35 48.00 18.00 30.80 11.55 23.00 53.68 23.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.75 13.33 6.75 2.00 12.00 21.70 48.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 13.33 18.00 21.70 21.70 48.00 0.87% 1.45% 1.45% 0.20% 0.14% 0.09% 0.28% 1.45% 0.55% 0.93% 0.35% 0.70% 1.63% 0.70% 0.15% 0.15% 0.18% 0.20% 0.40% 0.20% 0.06% 0.36% 0.66% 1.45% 0.15% 0.15% 0.18% 0.40% 0.55% 0.66% 0.66% 1.45%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Mobilize Dive Spread Site Clearance Verify Offload CB 240 Offload CB 400 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
6.75 28.57 23.00 48.00 0.20% 0.87% 0.70% 1.45%
Task Cost
$70,166.25 $303,485.15 $131,629.00 $274,704.00 $151,600.00 $182,240.00 0.81% 3.51% 1.52% 3.18% 1.75% 2.11% 79.21% 6.20% 8.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.34% 100.00%
744.00 22.53% 624.00 18.90%
3159.01 95.68% $6,843,788.08 61.17 81.56 1.85% 2.47% $535,324.80 $713,766.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $547,503.00 3301.74 100.00% $8,640,382.28
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 240 Cargo Barge 400 CB 240 & Tug CB 400 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 2000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Boat Dive Serv - Basic Dive Serv - Suppl Helicopter Trips Manual Calculation Pile Abrasive Cut 7 to 48 inches Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rig Up CB 240 Rig Up CB 400 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $3,600.00 $6,240.00 $660.00 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $3,165.00 $900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $2,486.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables Calculated from tables per Round Trip Independently Calculated per Cut per Cut per Hour per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour $381,731.25 $111,600.00 $162,240.00 $186,700.80 $139,400.00 $60,000.00 $34,804.00 $252,000.00 $2,596,440.00 $1,173,961.79 $63,900.00 $224,715.00 $112,393.00 $13,000.00 $78,794.00 $19,888.00 $40,000.00 $96,351.60 $208,013.63 $28,000.00 $14,000.00 $8,925.00 $836,930.00
Cost
4.42% 1.29% 1.88% 2.16% 1.61% 0.69% 0.40% 2.92% 30.05% 13.59% 0.74% 2.60% 1.30% 0.15% 0.91% 0.23% 0.46% 1.12% 2.41% 0.32% 0.16% 0.10% 9.69%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
4P4S 619 Ft. WD

Task
Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 240 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Remove Equipment Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove 4 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Jet/Air Skrt Pile Mud Plg Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Remove Piles from Jackt Legs (DB 2/4000) Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Route Survey to Reef Site Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 2 Demob CB 300 & Tug Bottom Clean Up Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 2 Demob CB 240 & Tug Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Jacket Section 2 DP vessel-setup time Jacket Section 1 DP vessel-setup time To shallow water Skirt & Main Piles Deck, Equipment & Conductors Piles & First Jacket Section Second Jacket Section Third Jacket Section DP vessel-Set up time includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
14.00 32.33 0.45% 1.04%
Task Cost
$30,606.00 $110,454.56 0.30% 1.08% 12.25% 0.30% 4.92% 2.19% 0.42% 0.42% 0.33% 0.33% 0.56% 1.16% 1.74% 1.36% 0.29% 4.18% 2.44% 0.15% 1.40% 0.15% 8.27% 1.16% 0.73% 0.19% 0.87% 0.68% 0.58% 2.61% 3.85% 0.29% 2.09% 0.81% 0.99% 0.54% 2.56% 3.76% 0.19%
574.40 18.46% $1,255,733.80 14.00 0.45% $30,606.00 $504,000.00 $224,790.45 $43,400.00 $43,400.00 $33,800.00 $33,800.00 $57,580.00 $119,000.00 $178,500.00 $139,081.26 $29,400.00 $427,966.00 $250,110.00 $15,750.00 $143,080.00 $15,750.00 $847,577.50 $119,000.00 $74,375.00 $19,320.00 $89,250.00 $69,466.25 $59,500.00 $267,750.00 $394,187.50 $29,400.00 $213,983.00 $83,370.00 $101,850.35 $55,580.00 $261,990.00 $385,707.50 $19,800.00
504.00 16.19% 15.71 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 9.35 30.00 30.80 18.00 14.00 4.00 14.00 56.98 8.00 5.00 24.00 6.00 4.67 4.00 18.00 26.50 30.00 15.40 6.00 7.33 4.00 18.00 26.50 30.00 0.50% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.13% 0.26% 0.39% 0.30% 0.96% 0.99% 0.58% 0.45% 0.13% 0.45% 1.83% 0.26% 0.16% 0.77% 0.19% 0.15% 0.13% 0.58% 0.85% 0.96% 0.49% 0.19% 0.24% 0.13% 0.58% 0.85% 0.96%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Bottom Clean Up Demob DB 4000 Site Clearance Verify Offload CB 300 Offload CB 240 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total: Includes Mob/Demob 3 barges
Note
Jacket Section 3
Contingency
Task Hours
21.70 30.00 12.00 15.71 96.00 0.70% 0.96% 0.39% 0.50% 3.08%
Task Cost
$322,787.50 $29,400.00 $166,740.00 $224,790.45 $100,800.00 $232,200.00 $59,600.00 3.15% 0.29% 1.63% 2.19% 0.98% 2.27% 0.58% 77.23% 7.11% 9.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.18% 100.00%
840.00 26.99% 264.00 8.48%
2988.38 96.02% $7,915,233.11 53.13 70.85 1.71% 2.28% $728,989.80 $971,986.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $633,218.60 3112.36 100.00%$10,249,427.91
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 240 Cargo Barge 300 CB 240 & Tug CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Boat Helicopter Trips Manual Calculation Pile Abrasive Cut 49 to 69 inches Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rig Up CB 240 Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $3,600.00 $4,920.00 $660.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $900.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Hour per Round Trip Independently Calculated per Cut per Cut per Hour per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour $416,706.25 $39,600.00 $172,200.00 $88,770.00 $323,596.00 $80,000.00 $39,776.00 $252,000.00 $3,755,325.01 $1,131,962.25 $86,400.00 $13,000.00 $97,853.00 $40,000.00 $43,000.00 $87,779.50 $258,335.11 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $16,200.00 $916,730.00
Cost
4.07% 0.39% 1.68% 0.87% 3.16% 0.78% 0.39% 2.46% 36.64% 11.04% 0.84% 0.13% 0.95% 0.39% 0.42% 0.86% 2.52% 0.27% 0.27% 0.16% 8.94%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
4L-8SP 622 Ft. WD
MMS Platform Decommission Task Information 4L-8SP - 622 Ft. WD

Task
Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize CB 240 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 400 & Tug Mobilize Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Demob Work Boat Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove 4 Pile Deck Remove Equipment Demob CB 240 & Tug Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Work Boat Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 240 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Second cut First cut Sever Skirt Piles 2 Cargo Barges 3 Cargo Barges includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
10.50 69.68 0.20% 1.35%
Task Cost
$22,955.00 $231,883.76 0.19% 1.97% 21.00% 0.04% 2.14% 1.27% 0.74% 0.31% 0.63% 0.07% 0.33% 0.07% 0.35% 0.57% 1.24% 0.76% 0.13% 6.97% 0.16% 0.59% 0.59% 0.71% 0.71% 0.80% 2.22% 1.70% 0.59% 0.59% 0.71% 0.71% 0.80% 2.22% 1.70% 0.19% 0.59% 0.59% 0.71% 0.71%
1132.80 21.95% $2,476,489.59 10.50 504.00 10.71 23.00 23.00 23.00 10.50 48.00 10.50 3.00 4.64 9.35 6.00 23.00 46.14 10.50 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 18.00 13.75 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 18.00 13.75 23.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 0.20% 9.77% 0.21% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.20% 0.93% 0.20% 0.06% 0.09% 0.18% 0.12% 0.45% 0.89% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.12% 0.12% 0.13% 0.35% 0.27% 0.10% 0.10% 0.12% 0.12% 0.13% 0.35% 0.27% 0.45% 0.10% 0.10% 0.12% 0.12% $5,250.00 $252,000.00 $149,993.55 $87,540.00 $36,540.00 $74,000.00 $8,452.50 $38,640.00 $8,452.50 $41,685.00 $67,535.20 $146,608.01 $89,250.00 $15,180.00 $822,022.79 $18,361.00 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $83,370.00 $93,791.25 $261,990.00 $200,131.25 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $83,370.00 $93,791.25 $261,990.00 $200,131.25 $22,540.00 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $83,370.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 400 & Tug Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 400 & Tug Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 4000 Offload CB 300 Mobilize Work Boat Site Clearance Verify Demob Work Boat Offload CB 240 Offload CB 400 3 Cargo Barges 2 Cargo Barges Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total: Fourth Cut Third Cut
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
6.75 18.00 13.75 23.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 18.00 13.75 23.00 13.75 23.00 0.00 10.71 312.00 10.50 48.00 10.50 0.13% 0.35% 0.27% 0.45% 0.10% 0.10% 0.12% 0.12% 0.13% 0.35% 0.27% 0.45% 0.27% 0.45% 0.00% 0.21% 6.05% 0.20% 0.93% 0.20%
Task Cost
$93,791.25 $267,750.00 $204,531.25 $22,540.00 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $83,370.00 $93,791.25 $268,110.00 $204,806.25 $23,000.00 $204,806.25 $23,000.00 $0.00 $148,815.45 $183,960.00 $6,405.00 $29,280.00 $6,405.00 $218,400.00 $202,240.00 0.80% 2.27% 1.73% 0.19% 0.59% 0.59% 0.71% 0.71% 0.80% 2.27% 1.74% 0.20% 1.74% 0.20% 0.00% 1.26% 1.56% 0.05% 0.25% 0.05% 1.85% 1.71% 77.60% 6.94% 9.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.21% 100.00%
1056.00 20.47% 624.00 12.09%
4398.28 85.24% $9,151,595.60 326.46 435.28 6.33% $818,395.90
8.44% $1,091,195.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $732,127.70
5160.02 100.00%$11,793,314.20
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2
MMS Platform Decommission Resources Breakdown 4L-8SP - 622 Ft. WD

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 240 Cargo Barge 300 Cargo Barge 400 CB 240 & Tug CB 300 & Tug CB 400 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Manual Calculation Mesotech Sonar Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rig Up CB 240 Rig Up CB 300 Rig Up CB 400 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $3,600.00 $4,920.00 $6,240.00 $660.00 $980.00 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $0.00 $110.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour Independently Calculated per Hour per Cut per Hour per Hour per Barge per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour $799,356.25 $158,400.00 $63,960.00 $162,240.00 $111,863.40 $104,615.00 $137,500.00 $220,000.00 $79,552.00 $252,000.00 $3,636,150.01 $1,096,039.49 $189,276.00 $8,768.10 $129,000.00 $95,519.00 $497,956.35 $42,000.00 $14,000.00 $28,000.00 $5,175.00 $1,320,225.00
Cost
6.78% 1.34% 0.54% 1.38% 0.95% 0.89% 1.17% 1.87% 0.67% 2.14% 30.83% 9.29% 1.60% 0.07% 1.09% 0.81% 4.22% 0.36% 0.12% 0.24% 0.04% 11.19%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
4L-8SP 693 Ft. WD

Task
Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Demob Work Boat Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors (DB 2/4000) Demob CB 300 & Tug Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Third Cut Second cut First cut Sever Skirt Piles 6 Cargo Barges
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
504.00 11.28% 13.71 27.20 12.60 48.00 12.60 3.00 4.64 4.50 9.35 27.20 12.60 13.07 55.44 27.20 68.75 12.60 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 18.00 13.75 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 18.00 13.75 27.20 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 18.00 0.31% 0.61% 0.28% 1.07% 0.28% 0.07% 0.10% 0.10% 0.21% 0.61% 0.28% 0.29%
Task Cost
$252,000.00 $192,008.55 $243,936.00 $10,143.00 $38,640.00 $10,143.00 $41,685.00 $69,020.00 $66,937.50 $139,081.26 $26,656.00 $14,175.00 $211,227.40 2.09% 1.59% 2.02% 0.08% 0.32% 0.08% 0.35% 0.57% 0.55% 1.15% 0.22% 0.12% 1.75% 8.80% 0.22% 9.62% 0.12% 0.58% 0.58% 0.69% 0.69% 0.78% 2.22% 1.69% 0.58% 0.58% 0.69% 0.69% 0.78% 2.22% 1.69% 0.22% 0.58% 0.58% 0.69% 0.69% 0.78% 2.22%
1.24% $1,062,507.59 0.61% $26,656.00
1.54% $1,161,625.05 0.28% 0.11% 0.11% 0.13% 0.13% 0.15% 0.40% 0.31% 0.11% 0.11% 0.13% 0.13% 0.15% 0.40% 0.31% 0.61% 0.11% 0.11% 0.13% 0.13% 0.15% 0.40% $14,175.00 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $83,370.00 $93,791.25 $267,750.00 $204,531.25 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $83,370.00 $93,791.25 $267,750.00 $204,531.25 $26,656.00 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $83,370.00 $93,791.25 $267,750.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Demob DB 4000 Offload CB 300 Mobilize Work Boat Site Clearance Verify Demob Work Boat Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total: Fourth Cut
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
13.75 27.20 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 18.00 13.75 27.20 30.54 13.75 27.20 13.71 0.31% 0.61% 0.11% 0.11% 0.13% 0.13% 0.15% 0.40% 0.31% 0.61% 0.68% 0.31% 0.61% 0.31%
Task Cost
$204,531.25 $26,656.00 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $83,370.00 $115,155.00 $267,750.00 $204,531.25 $26,656.00 $454,282.50 $248,050.00 $26,656.00 $233,892.60 $720,240.00 $7,686.00 $29,280.00 $7,686.00 1.69% 0.22% 0.58% 0.58% 0.69% 0.69% 0.95% 2.22% 1.69% 0.22% 3.76% 2.05% 0.22% 1.94% 5.96% 0.06% 0.24% 0.06% 73.65% 8.77% 11.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.89% 100.00%
2928.00 65.56% 12.60 48.00 12.60 0.28% 1.07% 0.28%
4266.46 95.53% $8,896,771.19 85.6 114.13 1.92% $1,059,373.00 2.56% $1,412,498.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $711,741.70 4466.19 100.00%$12,080,383.89
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Serv - Basic Mesotech Sonar Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $0.00 $110.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour Calculated from tables per Hour per Cut per Hour per Barge per Hour per Hour $101,537.50 $600,240.00 $560,187.60 $120,000.00 $14,916.00 $252,000.00 $4,960,830.01 $1,495,335.94 $283,742.24 $9,560.10 $129,000.00 $125,501.80 $84,000.00 $5,490.00 $154,430.00
Cost
0.84% 4.97% 4.64% 0.99% 0.12% 2.09% 41.07% 12.38% 2.35% 0.08% 1.07% 1.04% 0.70% 0.05% 1.28%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
8P-12SP 774 Ft. WD

Task
Fab Deck Padeyes Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Demob Work Boat Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Sever Piles- Abrasive Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Pick Up DB Anchors Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Remaining Section Cut @ 565' EL. Cut @ 212' EL. 12 Skirt Piles includes rig up and down Manual calc for casing jacks and specialists
Note
4 - Trunnions
Contingency
Task Hours
0.00 0.00% 840.00 17.09% 14.00 24.00 14.00 14.00 96.98 0.28% 0.49% 0.28% 0.28% 1.97%
Task Cost
$120,000.00 $784,000.00 $11,270.00 $19,320.00 $11,270.00 $31,481.00 $337,403.36 0.79% 5.18% 0.07% 0.13% 0.07% 0.21% 2.23% 28.68% 0.21% 1.52% 0.29% 0.29% 0.29% 0.29% 0.65% 0.67% 1.23% 0.96% 0.19% 10.74% 0.46% 0.46% 0.55% 0.28% 0.62% 1.18% 2.13% 0.46% 0.46% 0.55% 0.49% 0.62% 1.38% 2.13% 0.19% 2.13% 0.19% 0.62%
1931.20 39.29% $4,342,625.38 14.00 15.71 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 6.75 7.00 12.00 9.35 30.00 103.13 5.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 6.75 12.00 21.70 5.00 5.00 6.00 5.33 6.75 14.00 21.70 30.00 21.70 30.00 6.75 0.28% 0.32% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.14% 0.14% 0.24% 0.19% 0.61% $31,481.00 $229,837.30 $43,400.00 $43,400.00 $43,400.00 $43,400.00 $98,010.00 $101,640.00 $186,000.00 $144,925.01 $29,400.00
2.10% $1,626,447.56 0.10% 0.10% 0.12% 0.06% 0.14% 0.24% 0.44% 0.10% 0.10% 0.12% 0.11% 0.14% 0.28% 0.44% 0.61% 0.44% 0.61% 0.14% $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $41,685.00 $93,791.25 $178,500.00 $322,787.50 $69,475.00 $69,475.00 $83,370.00 $74,060.35 $93,791.25 $208,250.00 $322,787.50 $29,400.00 $322,787.50 $29,400.00 $93,791.25
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Demob DB 4000 Mobilize Dive Spread Site Clearance Verify Offload CB 300 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
15.71 14.00 48.00 0.32% 0.28% 0.98%
Task Cost
$220,018.55 $102,270.00 $350,640.00 1.45% 0.68% 2.32% 9.27% 83.28% 4.31% 5.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.66% 100.00%
1272.00 25.88% $1,403,800.00 4813.51 97.94%$12,611,110.74 43.49 57.98 0.88% 1.18% $653,084.10 $870,778.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,008,889.00 4914.98 100.00%$15,143,862.74
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Boat Dive Serv - Suppl Manual Calculation Mesotech Sonar New Padeyes/Trunions Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $110.00 $10,000.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables Independently Calculated per Hour per Lifting Eye per Cut per Hour per Hour per Barge per Hour per Hour $1,381,325.00 $1,303,800.00 $316,001.00 $100,000.00 $119,328.00 $490,000.00 $3,373,965.01 $1,213,239.40 $55,800.00 $196,230.00 $445,505.00 $3,456.20 $120,000.00 $129,000.00 $85,865.90 $836,865.23 $56,000.00 $8,550.00 $2,376,180.00
Cost
9.12% 8.61% 2.09% 0.66% 0.79% 3.24% 22.28% 8.01% 0.37% 1.30% 2.94% 0.02% 0.79% 0.85% 0.57% 5.53% 0.37% 0.06% 15.69%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
8P-12SP 863 Ft. WD

Task
Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Fab Deck Padeyes Fab Explosive Charges Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize Work Boat Mobilize DB 2000 Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Jet/Air Skrt Pile Mud Plg Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Install Lifting Appurtenances Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Mobilize SSCV Setup Derrick Barge Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Cut above -155 elevation Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-775 WD First cut prep Lift Jkt +/-160' First cut prep Jet/airlift 10-100' sections In two sections includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
22.34 113.23 0.00 0.24% 1.23% 0.00%
Task Cost
$50,234.88 $383,888.36 $0.00 0.11% 0.85% 0.00% 11.65% 0.11% 0.09% 0.18% 0.50% 0.65% 0.02% 0.82% 0.05% 0.21% 0.19% 0.82% 0.63% 0.10% 2.11% 0.06% 5.45% 0.06% 0.45% 0.21% 0.82% 1.89% 0.53% 0.13% 0.31% 0.47% 0.53% 0.47% 0.53% 0.16% 3.22% 1.67% 0.10% 0.13% 1.10%
2350.80 25.59% $5,286,165.63 22.34 48.00 0.00 0.00 504.00 21.10 25.86 44.20 6.75 5.50 24.00 18.50 44.20 66.25 22.34 145.50 22.34 14.00 6.75 25.86 24.17 6.75 44.20 4.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 14.00 0.24% 0.52% 0.00% 0.00% 5.49% 0.23% 0.28% 0.48% 0.07% 0.06% 0.26% 0.20% 0.48% 0.72% 0.24% $50,234.88 $38,640.00 $80,000.00 $228,000.00 $294,000.00 $10,550.00 $373,159.80 $23,061.00 $97,402.50 $84,755.00 $369,840.00 $285,085.00 $43,316.00 $955,987.50 $25,132.50
1.58% $2,472,252.50 0.24% 0.15% 0.07% 0.28% 0.26% 0.07% 0.48% 0.04% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.02% $25,132.50 $202,020.00 $97,402.50 $373,159.80 $857,914.15 $239,591.25 $57,316.00 $141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00
0.44% $1,459,000.00 0.23% 0.48% 0.48% 0.15% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $496,930.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Pick Up DB Anchors Demob SSCV Mobilize DB 2000 Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Pick Up DB Anchors Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Set-up alongside Row 1 Cut and Remove braces Row 1&2 at -650 elev Cut and Remove braces row 1&2 -650 elev-(-)785 Cut and Remove braces row 1&2 -650 elev Cut and Remove A&B leg to -785 elev Cut and Remove braces Row 3&4 at -650 elev Move alongside Row 4 Cut and Remove braces row 3&4 -650 elev-(-)785 Cut and Remove braces row 3&4 -650 elev Tow to +/-125 WD Lift Jkt +/-200' Cut above -650 elevation Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-270 WD Lift Jkt +/-265' Cut above +/-390 elev. Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-535 WD Lift Jkt +/-240'
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
4.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 14.00 4.00 6.00 6.75 10.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 7.00 6.00 6.75 34.00 6.75 6.75 24.17 25.86 6.75 6.00 36.20 4.68 20.00 6.00 3.75 36.20 4.68 0.04% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.02%
Task Cost
$141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00 0.31% 0.47% 0.53% 0.47% 0.53% 0.16% 3.22% 1.67% 0.10% 0.13% 1.10% 0.31% 0.47% 0.53% 0.78% 0.53% 0.16% 3.22% 1.67% 0.10% 0.13% 0.55% 0.47% 0.53% 2.66% 0.53% 0.53% 1.89% 0.47% 0.12% 0.12% 0.73% 0.09% 0.40% 0.12% 0.08% 0.73% 0.09%
0.44% $1,459,000.00 0.23% 0.48% 0.48% 0.15% 0.04% 0.07% 0.07% 0.11% 0.07% 0.02% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $496,930.00 $141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $354,950.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00
0.44% $1,459,000.00 0.23% 0.48% 0.48% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $248,465.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25
0.37% $1,206,830.00 0.07% 0.07% 0.26% 0.28% 0.07% 0.07% 0.39% 0.05% 0.22% 0.07% 0.04% 0.39% 0.05% $239,591.25 $239,591.25 $857,914.15 $211,793.40 $55,282.50 $55,020.00 $331,954.00 $42,915.60 $183,400.00 $55,020.00 $34,387.50 $331,954.00 $42,915.60
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Task
Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Rig Jacket Underwater Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Pick Up DB Anchors Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Offload CB 300 Site Clearance Site Clearance Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc.
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
20.00 4.65 4.30 4.30 10.00 10.00 3.47 8.85 21.10 24.60 4.00 15.25 23.60 23.60 16.70 3.75 8.85 21.10 24.60 3.47 15.25 23.60 23.60 16.70 8.50 3.50 23.60 23.60 6.75 25.86 0.22% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.11% 0.11% 0.04% 0.10% 0.23% 0.27% 0.04% 0.17% 0.26% 0.26% 0.18% 0.04% 0.10% 0.23% 0.27% 0.04% 0.17% 0.26% 0.26% 0.18% 0.09% 0.04% 0.26% 0.26% 0.07% 0.28%
Task Cost
$183,400.00 $42,640.50 $39,431.00 $39,431.00 $91,700.00 $91,700.00 $31,819.90 $81,154.50 $193,487.00 $225,582.00 $36,680.00 $139,842.50 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $153,139.00 $34,387.50 $81,154.50 $193,487.00 $225,582.00 $31,819.90 $139,842.50 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $153,139.00 $77,945.00 $32,095.00 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $61,897.50 $237,136.20 $703,880.00 $117,840.00 $117,840.00 0.40% 0.09% 0.09% 0.09% 0.20% 0.20% 0.07% 0.18% 0.43% 0.50% 0.08% 0.31% 0.48% 0.48% 0.34% 0.08% 0.18% 0.43% 0.50% 0.07% 0.31% 0.48% 0.48% 0.34% 0.17% 0.07% 0.48% 0.48% 0.14% 0.52% 1.55% 0.26% 0.26% 74.70% 8.28% 11.04% 0.00%
Cut and Remove A4&B4 leg to -785 elev Cut and Remove Conductor Bay at -650 elev Cut and Remove Conductor Bat at -713 elev. Cut and Remove legsA2&A3 to -713 elev Cut and Remove legsA2&A3 to -785 elev Cut and Remove legsB2&B3 to -785 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -785 elev Cut braces rows 3&4 -860 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -785 elev to 935 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -860 elev Secure A4 and B4 legs and skirt piles to DB Cut and Remove braces -785 elev Remove A4 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove B4 leg and skirt pile cluster Removing rows 3&$ -935 elev Move alongside Row 1 Cut braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Cut and remove braces rows 1&2 -785 to -860 elev Cut braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Cut braces rows 1&2 -785 elev Cut and remove braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Remove A1 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove B1 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove Row 1&2 bracing Cut conductor bay at -855 elev Cut conductor bay at -785 elev
3336.00 36.32% 240.00 240.00 2.61% 2.61%
8687.62 94.58%$33,889,944.98 213.18 284.23 2.32% $3,757,767.00 3.09% $5,010,357.00 $0.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 3

Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Task Hours
Task Cost
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,711,196.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.98% 100.00%
9185.03 100.00%$45,369,264.98
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 4

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 2000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Basic Spread- Mixed Gas Dive Serv - Basic Expl Charge - Piling Manual Calculation New Padeyes/Trunions Pile Abrasive Cut 49 to 69 inches Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rem. Operated Vehicle Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar SSCV 7000 Suppl. Welding Crew Trawler Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $3,165.00 $890.00 $0.00 $11,400.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $800.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $32,100.00 $0.00 $416.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour Per Hour Calculated from tables per Pile Independently Calculated per Lifting Eye per Cut per Cut per Hour per Hour per Hour per Barge per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables per Hour per Hour $1,686,806.25 $692,941.00 $1,105,939.80 $20,000.00 $129,272.00 $294,000.00 $6,413,680.00 $1,364,399.84 $513,770.30 $2,145,680.09 $228,000.00 $543,553.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $129,000.00 $110,190.70 $1,021,044.99 $271,176.00 $70,000.00 $39,600.00 $13,837,989.00 $274,872.00 $199,680.00 $2,638,350.00
Cost
3.72% 1.53% 2.44% 0.04% 0.28% 0.65% 14.14% 3.01% 1.13% 4.73% 0.50% 1.20% 0.18% 0.18% 0.28% 0.24% 2.25% 0.60% 0.15% 0.09% 30.50% 0.61% 0.44% 5.82%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
4P-8SP 925 Ft. WD

Task
Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Fab Deck Padeyes Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize Work Boat Mobilize DB 2000 Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Jet/Air Skrt Pile Mud Plg Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Mobilize DB 4000 Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Second Cut Prep Second Cut Prep Second Cut Prep First Cut Prep First Cut Prep First Cut Prep First Cut Prep First Cut Prep First Cut Prep First Cut Prep Cut above -25 elev Place Jacket piece on Cargo Barge includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
23.90 60.97 0.00 0.35% 0.91% 0.00%
Task Cost
$53,742.80 $206,709.04 $0.00 0.18% 0.68% 0.00% 10.53% 0.18% 0.13% 0.13% 0.89% 0.04% 1.11% 0.08% 0.25% 0.19% 0.97% 0.38% 0.16% 4.57% 0.25% 1.11% 1.45% 0.09% 4.93% 0.09% 0.21% 0.34% 0.10% 0.29% 0.33% 0.32% 0.33% 0.29% 0.93% 1.35% 0.16% 0.21% 0.34% 0.10% 0.29%
1421.20 21.11% $3,195,805.38 23.90 48.00 0.00 504.00 23.90 29.86 49.80 6.75 4.64 24.00 9.35 49.80 123.20 6.75 29.86 29.86 23.90 86.18 23.90 49.80 7.00 2.00 6.00 6.75 6.67 6.75 6.00 18.00 26.00 49.80 49.80 7.00 2.00 6.00 0.35% 0.71% 0.00% 7.49% 0.35% 0.44% 0.74% 0.10% 0.07% 0.36% 0.14% 0.74% $53,742.80 $38,640.00 $40,000.00 $270,000.00 $11,950.00 $336,372.90 $24,209.00 $76,038.75 $56,816.80 $293,880.00 $114,490.75 $48,804.00
1.83% $1,387,848.00 0.10% 0.44% 0.44% 0.35% $76,038.75 $336,372.90 $440,882.90 $26,887.50
1.28% $1,495,400.19 0.35% 0.74% 0.10% 0.03% 0.09% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.09% 0.27% 0.39% 0.74% 0.74% 0.10% 0.03% 0.09% $26,887.50 $62,804.00 $103,355.00 $29,530.00 $88,590.00 $99,663.75 $98,482.55 $99,663.75 $88,590.00 $283,410.00 $409,370.00 $48,804.00 $62,804.00 $103,355.00 $29,530.00 $88,590.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 4000 Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Approx 100' WD Fourth Cut Prep Fourth Cut Prep Fourth Cut Prep Fourth Cut Prep Approx -285' WD Fourth Cut Prep Fourth Cut Prep Cut above 680' Elevation Place Jacket Piece on Cargo Barge Third Cut Prep Third Cut Prep Third Cut Prep Third Cut Prep Approx 430' WD Third Cut Prep Third Cut Prep Cut above -535' Elevation Place Jacket on Cargo Barge
Note
Second Cut Prep Approx 610' WD Second Cut Prep Second Cut Prep 305' Elevation Place Jacket on Cargo Barge
Contingency
Task Hours
6.75 6.67 6.75 6.00 24.00 26.50 49.80 49.80 7.00 2.00 6.00 6.75 10.00 6.75 8.00 36.50 26.50 49.80 49.80 6.00 5.00 6.00 6.75 10.00 6.75 8.00 36.00 21.70 49.80 49.80 6.00 6.00 6.75 6.67 6.75 10.00 6.75 29.86 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.09% 0.36% 0.39% 0.74% 0.74% 0.10% 0.03% 0.09% 0.10% 0.15% 0.10% 0.12% 0.54% 0.39% 0.74% 0.74% 0.09% 0.07% 0.09% 0.10% 0.15% 0.10% 0.12% 0.53% 0.32% 0.74% 0.74% 0.09% 0.09% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.15% 0.10% 0.44%
Task Cost
$99,663.75 $98,482.55 $99,663.75 $88,590.00 $377,880.00 $417,242.50 $48,804.00 $62,804.00 $103,355.00 $29,530.00 $88,590.00 $99,663.75 $147,650.00 $99,663.75 $118,120.00 $574,692.50 $417,242.50 $48,804.00 $62,804.00 $88,590.00 $73,825.00 $88,590.00 $99,663.75 $147,650.00 $99,663.75 $118,120.00 $566,820.00 $341,666.50 $48,804.00 $62,804.00 $88,590.00 $88,590.00 $99,663.75 $98,482.55 $99,663.75 $147,650.00 $99,663.75 $440,882.90 0.33% 0.32% 0.33% 0.29% 1.25% 1.37% 0.16% 0.21% 0.34% 0.10% 0.29% 0.33% 0.49% 0.33% 0.39% 1.89% 1.37% 0.16% 0.21% 0.29% 0.24% 0.29% 0.33% 0.49% 0.33% 0.39% 1.87% 1.13% 0.16% 0.21% 0.29% 0.29% 0.33% 0.32% 0.33% 0.49% 0.33% 1.45%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Task
Mobilize DB 2000 Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Piles from Jackt Legs Remove Piles from Jackt Legs Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Pick Up DB Anchors Demob CB 300 & Tug Demob DB 2000 Offload CB 300 Site Clearance Site Clearance Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total: Manual Calculation Remove Dummy Leg Sections Remove Jacket Pieces Braces Cut-925 Braces Underwater Cut-861 Braces Underwater Cut-805 Braces Underwater Cut vertical braces Underwater
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
29.86 6.75 172.00 80.00 44.00 22.00 76.50 6.90 94.40 47.20 45.00 6.75 49.80 29.86 0.44% 0.10%
Task Cost
$244,553.40 $55,282.50 0.81% 0.18% 5.20% 2.42% 1.33% 0.66% 2.31% 0.21% 2.85% 1.43% 1.36% 0.18% 0.16% 0.81% 2.93% 0.27% 0.27% 77.05% 7.20% 9.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.16% 100.00%
2.55% $1,577,240.00 1.19% 0.65% 0.33% 1.14% 0.10% 1.40% 0.70% 0.67% 0.10% 0.74% 0.44% $733,600.00 $403,480.00 $201,740.00 $701,505.00 $63,273.00 $865,648.00 $432,824.00 $412,650.00 $55,282.50 $48,804.00 $244,553.40 $888,000.00 $82,488.00 $82,488.00
1680.00 24.95% 168.00 168.00 2.50% 2.50%
6250.26 92.84%$23,384,103.55 206.67 275.57 3.07% $2,183,765.00 4.09% $2,911,686.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,870,728.00 6732.50 100.00%$30,350,282.55
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 3

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 2000 Derrick Barge 4000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Basic Spread- Mixed Gas Manual Calculation New Padeyes/Trunions Pile Abrasive Cut 49 to 69 inches Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rem. Operated Vehicle Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar Suppl. Welding Crew Trawler Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $10,500.00 $3,165.00 $890.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $800.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $0.00 $416.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge per Hour per barge Per Hour Per Hour Independently Calculated per Lifting Eye per Cut per Cut per Hour per Hour per Hour per Barge per Hour Calculated from tables per Hour per Hour $1,039,968.75 $778,209.00 $1,361,210.20 $120,000.00 $69,608.00 $270,000.00 $6,269,410.00 $6,167,280.00 $2,600,902.03 $588,485.80 $331,493.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $86,000.00 $11,040.00 $622,697.76 $657,416.00 $84,000.00 $28,800.00 $444,897.00 $139,776.00 $1,632,910.00
Cost
3.43% 2.56% 4.49% 0.40% 0.23% 0.89% 20.66% 20.32% 8.57% 1.94% 1.09% 0.13% 0.13% 0.28% 0.04% 2.05% 2.17% 0.28% 0.09% 1.47% 0.46% 5.38%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
8P-16SP 935 Ft. WD

Task
Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Fab Deck Padeyes Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize Work Boat Mobilize DB 2000 Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 4 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Jet/Air Skrt Pile Mud Plg Demob DB 2000 Pick Up DB Anchors Mobilize SSCV Pre/Post Detonat'n Survey Setup Derrick Barge Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Cut above -155 elevation Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-775 WD First cut prep First cut prep Lift Jkt +/-160' Mob/Demob from Rotterdam Jet/airlift 10-100' sections In two sections includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
21.10 91.46 0.00 0.24% 1.05% 0.00%
Task Cost
$47,447.20 $310,074.72 $0.00 0.12% 0.77% 0.00% 11.77% 0.12% 0.10% 0.20% 0.73% 0.03% 0.72% 0.06% 0.19% 0.17% 0.73% 0.56% 0.11% 1.84% 0.72% 0.19% 1.97% 0.10% 0.59% 0.06% 1.06% 0.06% 0.14% 1.22% 0.35% 0.52% 0.59% 0.52% 0.59% 0.17% 3.58% 1.86% 0.11% 0.14% 1.22%
2119.80 24.28% $4,766,723.63 21.10 48.00 0.00 504.00 21.10 25.86 44.20 6.75 5.50 24.00 18.50 44.20 66.25 25.86 6.75 22.63 1.00 6.75 21.10 4.84 21.10 44.20 14.00 4.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 14.00 0.24% 0.55% 0.00% 5.77% 0.24% 0.30% 0.51% 0.08% 0.06% 0.27% 0.21% 0.51% 0.76% 0.30% 0.08% 0.26% 0.01% 0.08% 0.24% 0.06% 0.24% 0.51% 0.16% 0.05% 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.08% 0.02% $47,447.20 $38,640.00 $80,000.00 $294,000.00 $10,550.00 $291,312.90 $23,061.00 $76,038.75 $67,347.50 $293,880.00 $226,532.50 $43,316.00 $746,306.30 $291,312.90 $76,038.75 $798,046.95 $41,765.00 $238,038.75 $23,737.50 $428,127.60 $23,737.50 $57,316.00 $493,710.00 $141,060.00 $211,590.00 $238,038.75 $211,590.00 $238,038.75 $70,530.00
0.46% $1,449,800.00 0.24% 0.51% 0.51% 0.16% $752,083.75 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $493,710.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Demob SSCV Mobilize DB 2000 Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Pick Up DB Anchors Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Set-up alongside Row 1 Cut and Remove braces Row 1&2 at -650 elev Cut and Remove braces row 1&2 -650 elev-(-)785 Cut and Remove braces row 1&2 -650 elev Cut and Remove A&B leg to -785 elev Cut and Remove braces Row 3&4 at -650 elev Move alongside Row 4 Cut and Remove braces row 3&4 -650 elev-(-)785 Cut and Remove braces row 3&4 -650 elev Cut and Remove A4&B4 leg to -785 elev Tow to +/-125 WD Lift Jkt +/-200' Cut above -650 elevation Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-270 WD Lift Jkt +/-265' Cut above +/-390 elev. Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-535 WD Lift Jkt +/-240'
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
4.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 14.00 4.00 6.00 6.75 10.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 7.00 6.00 6.75 34.00 6.75 22.63 25.86 6.75 6.00 36.20 4.68 20.00 6.00 3.75 36.20 4.68 20.00 0.05% 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.08% 0.02%
Task Cost
$141,060.00 $211,590.00 $238,038.75 $211,590.00 $238,038.75 $70,530.00 0.35% 0.52% 0.59% 0.52% 0.59% 0.17% 3.58% 1.86% 0.11% 0.14% 1.22% 0.35% 0.52% 0.59% 0.87% 0.59% 0.17% 3.58% 1.86% 0.11% 0.14% 0.61% 0.52% 0.59% 2.96% 0.59% 1.97% 0.52% 0.14% 0.14% 0.82% 0.11% 0.45% 0.14% 0.08% 0.82% 0.11% 0.45%
0.46% $1,449,800.00 0.24% 0.51% 0.51% 0.16% 0.05% 0.07% 0.08% 0.11% 0.08% 0.02% $752,083.75 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $493,710.00 $141,060.00 $211,590.00 $238,038.75 $352,650.00 $238,038.75 $70,530.00
0.46% $1,449,800.00 0.24% 0.51% 0.51% 0.08% 0.07% 0.08% $752,083.75 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $246,855.00 $211,590.00 $238,038.75
0.39% $1,199,010.00 0.08% 0.26% 0.30% 0.08% 0.07% 0.41% 0.05% 0.23% 0.07% 0.04% 0.41% 0.05% 0.23% $238,038.75 $798,046.95 $211,793.40 $55,282.50 $55,020.00 $331,954.00 $42,915.60 $183,400.00 $55,020.00 $34,387.50 $331,954.00 $42,915.60 $183,400.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Task
Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Rig Jacket Underwater Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Pick Up DB Anchors Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Offload CB 300 Site Clearance Site Clearance Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc.
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
4.65 4.30 4.30 10.00 10.00 3.47 8.85 21.10 24.60 4.00 15.25 23.60 23.60 16.70 3.75 8.85 21.10 24.60 3.47 15.25 23.60 23.60 16.70 10.80 8.50 3.50 23.60 23.60 6.75 25.86 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.11% 0.11% 0.04% 0.10% 0.24% 0.28% 0.05% 0.17% 0.27% 0.27% 0.19% 0.04% 0.10% 0.24% 0.28% 0.04% 0.17% 0.27% 0.27% 0.19% 0.12% 0.10% 0.04% 0.27% 0.27% 0.08% 0.30%
Task Cost
$42,640.50 $39,431.00 $39,431.00 $91,700.00 $91,700.00 $31,819.90 $81,154.50 $193,487.00 $225,582.00 $36,680.00 $139,842.50 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $153,139.00 $34,387.50 $81,154.50 $193,487.00 $225,582.00 $31,819.90 $139,842.50 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $153,139.00 $99,036.00 $77,945.00 $32,095.00 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $61,897.50 $237,136.20 $703,880.00 $117,840.00 $117,840.00 0.11% 0.10% 0.10% 0.23% 0.23% 0.08% 0.20% 0.48% 0.56% 0.09% 0.35% 0.53% 0.53% 0.38% 0.08% 0.20% 0.48% 0.56% 0.08% 0.35% 0.53% 0.53% 0.38% 0.24% 0.19% 0.08% 0.53% 0.53% 0.15% 0.59% 1.74% 0.29% 0.29% 75.16% 8.07% 10.76% 0.00%
Cut and Remove Conductor Bay at -650 elev Cut and Remove Conductor Bat at -713 elev. Cut and Remove legsA2&A3 to -713 elev Cut and Remove legsA2&A3 to -785 elev Cut and Remove legsB2&B3 to -785 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -785 elev Cut braces rows 3&4 -935 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -785 elev to 935 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -935 elev Secure A4 and B4 legs and skirt piles to DB Cut and Remove braces -785 elev Remove A4 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove B4 leg and skirt pile cluster Removing rows 3&$ -935 elev Move alongside Row 1 Cut braces rows 1&2 -935 elev Cut and remove braces rows 1&2 -785 to -935 elev Cut braces rows 1&2 -935 elev Cut braces rows 1&2 -785 elev Cut and remove braces rows 1&2 -935 elev Remove A1 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove B1 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove Row 1&2 bracing Cut conductor bay at -935 elev Cut conductor bay at -855 elev Cut conductor bay at -785 elev
3336.00 38.21% 240.00 240.00 2.75% 2.75%
8291.20 94.96%$30,434,861.95 188.61 251.47 2.16% $3,268,377.00 2.88% $4,357,835.00 $0.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 3

Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Task Hours
Task Cost
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,434,789.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.01% 100.00%
8731.28 100.00%$40,495,862.95
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 4

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Derrick Barge 2000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Basic Spread- Mixed Gas Helicopter Trips Manual Calculation New Padeyes/Trunions Pile Abrasive Cut 49 to 69 inches Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rem. Operated Vehicle Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar SSCV 7000 Suppl. Welding Crew Trawler Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $3,165.00 $890.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $800.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $32,100.00 $0.00 $416.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables per Hour per barge Per Hour Per Hour per Round Trip Independently Calculated per Lifting Eye per Cut per Cut per Hour per Hour per Hour per Barge per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables per Hour per Hour $1,437,812.50 $692,941.00 $1,116,523.80 $20,000.00 $104,412.00 $294,000.00 $5,372,780.00 $1,964,104.10 $523,382.30 $6,500.00 $488,250.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $172,000.00 $11,040.00 $917,158.24 $143,576.00 $70,000.00 $39,600.00 $14,159,310.00 $230,262.00 $199,680.00 $2,311,530.00
Cost
3.55% 1.71% 2.76% 0.05% 0.26% 0.73% 13.27% 4.85% 1.29% 0.02% 1.21% 0.20% 0.20% 0.42% 0.03% 2.26% 0.35% 0.17% 0.10% 34.96% 0.57% 0.49% 5.71%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
12L-24SP 1027 Ft. WD

Task
Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize SSCV Mobilize Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Demob Work Boat Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 8 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove 8 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Second Cut -165 First Cut -75 Remove Section 2 Remove Section 1 Sever Deck in Two sections 14 Cargo Barges includes rig up and down Manual calc for casing jacks and specialists
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
504.00 18.70 250.54 2.94% 0.11% 1.46%
Task Cost
$294,000.00 $42,050.40 $871,645.30 0.34% 0.05% 1.01% 17.77% 0.05% 0.85% 0.77% 0.02% 0.04% 0.02% 0.26% 3.90% 0.50% 0.38% 0.04% 0.38% 0.04% 0.09% 9.05% 0.02% 0.24% 0.59% 0.24% 0.16% 0.27% 0.61% 0.88% 0.04% 0.51% 0.59% 0.24% 0.16% 0.27% 0.61% 0.88% 0.04% 0.51% 0.59%
6831.60 39.83%$15,361,991.00 18.70 39.40 19.63 18.70 48.00 18.70 6.75 96.50 12.50 9.35 39.40 9.35 39.40 18.70 206.26 18.70 6.00 15.00 6.00 4.00 6.75 15.00 21.70 39.40 13.00 15.00 6.00 4.00 6.75 15.00 21.70 39.40 13.00 15.00 0.11% 0.23% 0.11% 0.11% 0.28% 0.11% 0.04% $42,050.40 $736,568.00 $666,045.90 $15,053.50 $38,640.00 $15,053.50 $229,027.50
0.56% $3,368,815.00 0.07% 0.05% 0.23% 0.05% 0.23% 0.11% $436,375.00 $326,408.50 $38,612.00 $326,408.50 $38,612.00 $80,223.00
1.20% $7,819,579.10 0.11% 0.03% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.09% 0.13% 0.23% 0.08% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.09% 0.13% 0.23% 0.08% 0.09% $21,037.50 $203,580.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $135,720.00 $235,642.50 $523,650.00 $757,547.00 $38,612.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $135,720.00 $235,642.50 $523,650.00 $757,547.00 $38,612.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Seventh Cut -870 Sixth Cut -635 Fifth Cut -520 Fourth Cut -345 Third Cut -255
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
6.00 4.00 6.75 20.00 21.70 39.40 13.00 15.00 6.00 4.00 6.75 20.00 21.70 39.40 13.00 15.00 6.00 4.00 6.75 20.00 21.70 39.40 13.00 15.00 6.00 4.00 6.75 24.00 21.70 39.40 13.00 15.00 6.00 4.00 6.75 24.00 21.70 39.40 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.12% 0.13% 0.23% 0.08% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.12% 0.13% 0.23% 0.08% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.12% 0.13% 0.23% 0.08% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.14% 0.13% 0.23% 0.08% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.14% 0.13% 0.23%
Task Cost
$203,580.00 $135,720.00 $235,642.50 $698,200.00 $757,547.00 $38,612.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $135,720.00 $235,642.50 $698,200.00 $757,547.00 $38,612.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $135,720.00 $235,642.50 $698,200.00 $757,547.00 $38,612.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $135,720.00 $235,642.50 $837,840.00 $757,547.00 $38,612.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $135,720.00 $235,642.50 $837,840.00 $757,547.00 $38,612.00 0.24% 0.16% 0.27% 0.81% 0.88% 0.04% 0.51% 0.59% 0.24% 0.16% 0.27% 0.81% 0.88% 0.04% 0.51% 0.59% 0.24% 0.16% 0.27% 0.81% 0.88% 0.04% 0.51% 0.59% 0.24% 0.16% 0.27% 0.97% 0.88% 0.04% 0.51% 0.59% 0.24% 0.16% 0.27% 0.97% 0.88% 0.04%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Task
Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize Dive Spread Cut Jacket Demob Dive Spread Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Demob SSCV Offload CB 300 Mobilize Work Boat Site Clearance Verify Demob Work Boat Remove bottom section 4 Remove bottom section 3 Remove bottom section 2 Remove bottom section 1 Cut remainder of jacket into four pieces Eighth Cut -990
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
13.00 15.00 6.00 4.00 6.75 36.00 21.70 39.40 18.70 80.00 18.70 9.00 39.40 9.00 39.40 9.00 39.40 9.00 39.40 19.63 0.08% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04%
Task Cost
$441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $135,720.00 $235,642.50 0.51% 0.59% 0.24% 0.16% 0.27% 1.45% 0.88% 0.04% 0.04% 3.31% 0.04% 0.36% 0.04% 0.36% 0.04% 0.36% 0.04% 0.36% 0.04% 0.77% 1.39% 0.02% 0.04% 0.02% 71.08% 9.96% 13.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.69% 100.00%
0.21% $1,256,760.00 0.13% 0.23% 0.11% $757,547.00 $38,612.00 $37,774.00
0.47% $2,857,600.00 0.11% 0.05% 0.23% 0.05% 0.23% 0.05% 0.23% 0.05% 0.23% 0.11% $37,774.00 $306,990.00 $38,612.00 $314,190.00 $38,612.00 $314,190.00 $38,612.00 $314,190.00 $38,612.00 $666,045.90
4488.00 26.17% $1,200,040.00 18.70 48.00 18.70 0.11% 0.28% 0.11% $15,053.50 $38,640.00 $15,053.50
Task Total 14142.71 82.46%$61,446,146.99 Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) 1289.2 7.52% $8,607,464.00
1718.93 10.02%$11,476,620.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,915,692.00
Total: 17150.84 100.00%$86,445,922.99
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 3

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Basic Spread- Mixed Gas Dive Boat Manual Calculation Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rem. Operated Vehicle Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar SSCV 7000 Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $3,165.00 $890.00 $900.00 $0.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $800.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $32,100.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables Per Hour Per Hour per Hour Independently Calculated per Cut per Hour per Hour per Hour per Barge per Hour per Hour per Hour $4,602,000.00 $920,040.00 $1,837,264.80 $280,000.00 $308,264.00 $294,000.00 $59,185.50 $104,486.00 $105,660.00 $1,542,568.00 $387,000.00 $322,637.10 $2,897,652.60 $1,904,112.00 $196,000.00 $12,810.00 $38,345,697.00 $7,326,770.00
Cost
5.32% 1.06% 2.13% 0.32% 0.36% 0.34% 0.07% 0.12% 0.12% 1.78% 0.45% 0.37% 3.35% 2.20% 0.23% 0.01% 44.36% 8.48%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
6P-24SP 1100 Ft. WD

Task
Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Remove Conductors Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize SSCV Demob Work Boat Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 6 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. third cut second cut first cut includes rig up and down
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
14.90 137.39 31.80 0.17% 1.59% 0.37%
Task Cost
$33,504.80 $477,992.48 $45,164.00 0.06% 0.87% 0.08% 15.39% 1.19% 5.26% 0.06% 0.42% 0.30% 0.51% 1.02% 0.06% 0.03% 6.74% 0.03% 0.08% 0.32% 0.32% 0.77% 0.64% 0.43% 0.38% 1.15% 0.88% 0.06% 0.08% 0.32% 0.32% 0.77% 0.64% 0.43% 1.15% 0.88% 0.06% 0.08% 0.32% 0.32% 0.77%
3757.20 43.47% $8,448,690.00 408.00 20.00 14.90 6.75 4.64 8.00 16.00 31.80 14.90 103.13 14.90 31.80 5.00 5.00 12.00 10.00 6.75 6.00 18.00 13.75 31.80 31.80 5.00 5.00 12.00 10.00 6.75 18.00 13.75 31.80 31.80 5.00 5.00 12.00 4.72% $651,156.00
0.23% $2,887,157.00 0.17% 0.08% 0.05% 0.09% 0.19% 0.37% 0.17% $33,504.80 $229,770.00 $162,492.80 $280,160.00 $560,320.00 $31,164.00 $16,762.50
1.19% $3,701,010.45 0.17% 0.37% 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.12% 0.08% 0.07% 0.21% 0.16% 0.37% 0.37% 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.12% 0.08% 0.21% 0.16% 0.37% 0.37% 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% $16,762.50 $45,164.00 $175,100.00 $175,100.00 $420,240.00 $350,200.00 $236,385.00 $210,120.00 $630,360.00 $481,525.00 $31,164.00 $45,164.00 $175,100.00 $175,100.00 $420,240.00 $350,200.00 $236,385.00 $630,360.00 $481,525.00 $31,164.00 $45,164.00 $175,100.00 $175,100.00 $420,240.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 2 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 2 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 2 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 2 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. seventh cut sixth cut fifth cut fourth cut
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
10.00 6.75 18.00 26.50 31.80 31.80 5.00 5.00 12.00 10.00 6.75 18.00 26.50 31.80 31.80 5.00 5.00 12.00 10.00 6.75 18.00 26.50 31.80 31.80 5.00 5.00 12.00 10.00 6.75 18.00 26.50 31.80 31.80 5.00 5.00 12.00 10.00 6.75 0.12% 0.08% 0.21% 0.31% 0.37% 0.37% 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.12% 0.08% 0.21% 0.31% 0.37% 0.37% 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.12% 0.08% 0.21% 0.31% 0.37% 0.37% 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.12% 0.08% 0.21% 0.31% 0.37% 0.37% 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.12% 0.08%
Task Cost
$350,200.00 $236,385.00 $630,360.00 $928,030.00 $31,164.00 $45,164.00 $175,100.00 $175,100.00 $420,240.00 $350,200.00 $236,385.00 $630,360.00 $928,030.00 $31,164.00 $34,988.00 $175,100.00 $175,100.00 $420,240.00 $350,200.00 $236,385.00 $630,360.00 $928,030.00 $31,164.00 $45,164.00 $175,100.00 $175,100.00 $420,240.00 $350,200.00 $236,385.00 $630,360.00 $928,030.00 $31,164.00 $45,164.00 $175,100.00 $175,100.00 $420,240.00 $350,200.00 $236,385.00 0.64% 0.43% 1.15% 1.69% 0.06% 0.08% 0.32% 0.32% 0.77% 0.64% 0.43% 1.15% 1.69% 0.06% 0.06% 0.32% 0.32% 0.77% 0.64% 0.43% 1.15% 1.69% 0.06% 0.08% 0.32% 0.32% 0.77% 0.64% 0.43% 1.15% 1.69% 0.06% 0.08% 0.32% 0.32% 0.77% 0.64% 0.43%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Task
Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 2 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 2 Demob CB 300 & Tug Demob CB 300 & Tug Demob SSCV Offload CB 300 Mobilize Work Boat Site Clearance Demob Work Boat Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (6.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
18.00 26.50 31.80 31.80 31.80 18.00 26.50 31.80 31.80 20.00 0.21% 0.31% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37% 0.21% 0.31% 0.37% 0.37% 0.23%
Task Cost
$630,360.00 $928,030.00 $31,164.00 $45,164.00 $45,164.00 $630,360.00 $928,030.00 $31,164.00 $31,164.00 $680,800.00 1.15% 1.69% 0.06% 0.08% 0.08% 1.15% 1.69% 0.06% 0.06% 1.24% 9.69% 0.02% 0.18% 0.02% 83.19% 7.26% 2.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.65% 100.00%
2496.00 28.88% $5,316,800.00 14.90 120.00 14.90 0.17% 1.39% 0.17% $11,994.50 $96,600.00 $11,994.50
8430.26 97.54%$45,653,981.33 152.04 60.81 1.76% $3,982,624.00 0.70% $1,593,050.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,652,318.00 8643.11 100.00%$54,881,973.33
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 3

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 CB 240 & Tug CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Manual Calculation Mesotech Sonar Pile Abrasive Cut 7 to 48 inches Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rem. Operated Vehicle Rig Up CB 240 Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar SSCV 7000 Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $660.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $0.00 $110.00 $2,486.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $800.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $32,100.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables Independently Calculated per Hour per Cut per Cut per Hour per Hour per Hour per Barge per Barge per Hour per Hour per Hour $2,535,825.00 $5,116,800.00 $20,988.00 $1,215,778.20 $200,000.00 $169,048.00 $447,156.00 $850,284.00 $86,489.70 $9,944.00 $64,500.00 $215,296.10 $1,597,226.33 $1,258,032.00 $14,000.00 $126,000.00 $11,235.00 $27,445,624.00 $4,269,755.00
Cost
4.62% 9.32% 0.04% 2.22% 0.36% 0.31% 0.81% 1.55% 0.16% 0.02% 0.12% 0.39% 2.91% 2.29% 0.03% 0.23% 0.02% 50.01% 7.78%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
12L-32SP 1300 Ft. WD

Task
Platform Removal Preparation Mobilize Work Boat Sever Conductors- Abrasive Remove Conductors Demob Work Boat Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Mobilize SSCV Mobilize Work Boat Route Survey to Reef Site Demob Work Boat Setup Derrick Barge Cut Deck/Equip/Misc Remove Equipment Remove 8 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove 8 Pile Deck Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize Abrasive Cutting Spread Sever Piles- Abrasive Demob Abrasive Cutting Spread Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Second Cut to -165 First Cut to -75 32 Skirt Piles Cut Deck in Two Sections 17 Cargo Barges includes rig up and down Manual calc for casing jacks and specialists
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
504.00 13.00 117.19 3.72% 0.10% 0.86%
Task Cost
$252,000.00 $29,774.00 $412,592.08 0.28% 0.03% 0.46% 10.41% 0.03% 0.78% 0.47% 0.01% 0.04% 0.01% 0.26% 1.87% 3.75% 0.47% 0.03% 0.47% 0.03% 0.02% 11.27% 0.02% 0.49% 0.91% 0.76% 0.23% 0.26% 0.49% 0.84% 0.03% 0.49% 0.57% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.82% 0.84% 0.03% 0.49% 0.57%
4078.20 30.10% $9,340,437.00 13.00 28.00 12.50 13.00 48.00 13.00 6.75 48.00 96.50 12.00 28.00 12.00 28.00 13.00 275.01 13.00 13.00 24.00 20.00 6.00 6.75 12.50 21.70 28.00 13.00 15.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 21.00 21.70 28.00 13.00 15.00 0.10% 0.21% 0.09% 0.10% 0.35% 0.10% 0.05% $29,774.00 $704,480.00 $424,125.00 $10,465.00 $38,640.00 $10,465.00 $229,027.50
0.35% $1,675,680.00 0.71% $3,368,815.00 0.09% 0.21% 0.09% 0.21% 0.10% $418,920.00 $27,440.00 $418,920.00 $27,440.00 $14,625.00
2.03%$10,113,475.60 0.10% 0.10% 0.18% 0.15% 0.04% 0.05% 0.09% 0.16% 0.21% 0.10% 0.11% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.15% 0.16% 0.21% 0.10% 0.11% $14,625.00 $441,090.00 $814,320.00 $678,600.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $436,375.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $733,110.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Seventh Cut to -835 Sixth Cut to -670 Fifth Cut to -520 Fourth Cut to -345 Third Cut to -255
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
6.00 6.00 6.75 15.00 21.70 28.00 13.00 15.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 17.00 21.70 28.00 13.00 15.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 20.00 21.70 28.00 13.00 15.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 21.00 21.70 28.00 13.00 15.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 28.00 21.70 28.00 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.11% 0.16% 0.21% 0.10% 0.11% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.13% 0.16% 0.21% 0.10% 0.11% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.15% 0.16% 0.21% 0.10% 0.11% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.15% 0.16% 0.21% 0.10% 0.11% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.21% 0.16% 0.21%
Task Cost
$203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $523,650.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $593,470.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $698,200.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $733,110.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $977,480.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.58% 0.84% 0.03% 0.49% 0.57% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.66% 0.84% 0.03% 0.49% 0.57% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.78% 0.84% 0.03% 0.49% 0.57% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.82% 0.84% 0.03% 0.49% 0.57% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 1.09% 0.84% 0.03%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Task
Install Closure Plates Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize Dive Spread Cut Jacket Demob Dive Spread Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Demob CB 300 & Tug Demob SSCV Section III C - Platform Decommission Task Information - Twachtman Snyder & Byrd, Inc. Remove Remainder of Jacket Remove Remainder of Jacket Remove Remainder of Jacket Remove Remainder of Jacket Cut Jacket into four sections with Divers Eleventh Cut to -1284 Tenth Cut to -1284 Ninth Cut to -1140 Eighth Cut to -990
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
13.00 15.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 15.00 21.70 28.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 20.00 21.70 28.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 20.00 21.70 28.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 20.00 21.70 28.00 13.00 100.00 13.00 9.00 28.00 9.00 28.00 9.00 28.00 9.00 28.00 12.50 0.10% 0.11% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.11% 0.16% 0.21% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.15% 0.16% 0.21% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.15% 0.16% 0.21% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.15% 0.16% 0.21% 0.10%
Task Cost
$441,090.00 $508,950.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $523,650.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $698,200.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $698,200.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $203,580.00 $203,580.00 $235,642.50 $698,200.00 $757,547.00 $27,440.00 $26,260.00 0.49% 0.57% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.58% 0.84% 0.03% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.78% 0.84% 0.03% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.78% 0.84% 0.03% 0.23% 0.23% 0.26% 0.78% 0.84% 0.03% 0.03% 3.98% 0.03% 0.35% 0.03% 0.35% 0.03% 0.35% 0.03% 0.35% 0.03% 0.47%
0.74% $3,572,000.00 0.10% 0.07% 0.21% 0.07% 0.21% 0.07% 0.21% 0.07% 0.21% 0.09% $26,260.00 $314,190.00 $27,440.00 $314,190.00 $27,440.00 $314,190.00 $27,440.00 $314,190.00 $27,440.00 $424,125.00
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 3

Task
Offload CB 300 Mobilize Work Boat Site Clearance Verify Demob Work Boat
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
13.00 48.00 13.00 0.10% 0.35% 0.10%
Task Cost
1.74% 0.01% 0.03% 0.01% 73.52% 8.83% 11.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 100.00% $7,930.00 $29,280.00 $7,930.00
5952.00 43.93% $1,560,160.00
Task Total 12894.10 95.17%$65,982,224.68 Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) 280.64 374.18 2.07% $7,924,276.00 2.76%$10,565,700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,278,578.00
Total: 13548.92 100.00%$89,750,778.68
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 4

Resource Used
Abrasive Cutter Spread Cargo Barge 300 CB 300 & Tug CB Damage Deduct Conductor Abrasive Cut 7" to 48" Decomm Platform Dive Basic Spread- Mixed Gas Dive Boat Manual Calculation Mesotech Sonar Pile Abrasive Cut 70 to 96 inches Pipeline Survey Prep Crew Rem. Operated Vehicle Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar SSCV 7000 Work Boat
Unit Cost
$625.00 $4,920.00 $980.00 $20,000.00 $2,486.00 $0.00 $890.00 $900.00 $0.00 $110.00 $5,375.00 $230.00 $407.00 $800.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $32,100.00 $500.00 per Hour per Day per Barge per Hour per Barge/Tug per Cargo Barge per Cut Calculated from tables Per Hour per Hour Independently Calculated per Hour per Cut per Hour per Hour per Hour per Barge per Hour per Hour per Hour $2,826,500.05 $1,220,160.00 $1,645,371.00 $340,000.00 $144,188.00 $252,000.00 $112,140.00 $113,400.00 $1,090,525.00 $8,140.00 $473,000.00 $370,923.30 $1,718,105.33 $2,420,336.00 $238,000.00 $5,550.00 $48,557,991.00 $4,445,895.00
Cost
3.15% 1.36% 1.83% 0.38% 0.16% 0.28% 0.12% 0.13% 1.22% 0.01% 0.53% 0.41% 1.91% 2.70% 0.27% 0.01% 54.10% 4.95%
9/29/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
5.1.3 FIXED PLATFORM Jacket Only Comparison Cost Estimates

This page is blank
Page 3 of 108
8P-12SP WD 863 Jacket Only
MMS Platform Decommission Task Information 8P-12SP - WD 863 feet

Task
Route Survey to Reef Site Mobilize SSCV Setup Derrick Barge Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Lift Jkt +/-200' Cut above -650 elevation Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-270 WD Lift Jkt +/-265' Cut above +/-390 elev. Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-535 WD Lift Jkt +/-240' Cut above -155 elevation Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-775 WD First cut prep Lift Jkt +/-160'
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
48.00 24.17 6.75 44.20 4.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 14.00 4.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 14.00 4.00 6.00 6.75 10.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 7.00 6.00 2.75% 1.38% 0.39% 2.53% 0.23% 0.34% 0.39% 0.34% 0.39% 0.11%
Task Cost
$38,640.00 $857,914.15 $239,591.25 $57,316.00 $141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00 0.13% 2.86% 0.80% 0.19% 0.47% 0.71% 0.80% 0.71% 0.80% 0.24% 4.87% 2.52% 0.14% 0.19% 1.66% 0.47% 0.71% 0.80% 0.71% 0.80% 0.24% 4.87% 2.52% 0.14% 0.19% 1.66% 0.47% 0.71% 0.80% 1.18% 0.80% 0.24% 4.87% 2.52% 0.14% 0.19% 0.83% 0.71%
2.29% $1,459,000.00 1.19% 2.53% 2.53% 0.80% 0.23% 0.34% 0.39% 0.34% 0.39% 0.11% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $496,930.00 $141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00
2.29% $1,459,000.00 1.19% 2.53% 2.53% 0.80% 0.23% 0.34% 0.39% 0.57% 0.39% 0.11% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $496,930.00 $141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $354,950.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00
2.29% $1,459,000.00 1.19% 2.53% 2.53% 0.40% 0.34% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $248,465.00 $212,970.00
10/2/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Pick Up DB Anchors Demob SSCV Mobilize DB 2000 Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Pick Up DB Anchors Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Rig Jacket Underwater Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Pick Up DB Anchors Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Set-up alongside Row 1 Cut and Remove braces Row 1&2 at -650 elev Cut and Remove braces row 1&2 -650 elev-(-)785 Cut and Remove braces row 1&2 -650 elev Cut and Remove A&B leg to -785 elev Cut and Remove braces Row 3&4 at -650 elev Move alongside Row 4 Cut and Remove braces row 3&4 -650 elev-(-)785 Cut and Remove braces row 3&4 -650 elev Cut and Remove A4&B4 leg to -785 elev Cut and Remove Conductor Bay at -650 elev Cut and Remove Conductor Bat at -713 elev. Cut and Remove legsA2&A3 to -713 elev Cut and Remove legsA2&A3 to -785 elev Cut and Remove legsB2&B3 to -785 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -785 elev Cut braces rows 3&4 -860 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -785 elev to 935 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -860 elev Secure A4 and B4 legs and skirt piles to DB Cut and Remove braces -785 elev Remove A4 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove B4 leg and skirt pile cluster Removing rows 3&$ -935 elev Move alongside Row 1 Cut braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Cut and remove braces rows 1&2 -785 to -860 elev Cut braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Cut braces rows 1&2 -785 elev Cut and remove braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Remove A1 leg and skirt pile cluster Tow to +/-125 WD
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
6.75 34.00 6.75 6.75 24.17 25.86 6.75 6.00 36.20 4.68 20.00 6.00 3.75 36.20 4.68 20.00 4.65 4.30 4.30 10.00 10.00 3.47 8.85 21.10 24.60 4.00 15.25 23.60 23.60 16.70 3.75 8.85 21.10 24.60 3.47 15.25 23.60 0.39%
Task Cost
$239,591.25 0.80% 4.02% 0.80% 0.80% 2.86% 0.71% 0.18% 0.18% 1.11% 0.14% 0.61% 0.18% 0.11% 1.11% 0.14% 0.61% 0.14% 0.13% 0.13% 0.31% 0.31% 0.11% 0.27% 0.65% 0.75% 0.12% 0.47% 0.72% 0.72% 0.51% 0.11% 0.27% 0.65% 0.75% 0.11% 0.47% 0.72%
1.95% $1,206,830.00 0.39% 0.39% 1.38% 1.48% 0.39% 0.34% 2.07% 0.27% 1.14% 0.34% 0.21% 2.07% 0.27% 1.14% 0.27% 0.25% 0.25% 0.57% 0.57% 0.20% 0.51% 1.21% 1.41% 0.23% 0.87% 1.35% 1.35% 0.96% 0.21% 0.51% 1.21% 1.41% 0.20% 0.87% 1.35% $239,591.25 $239,591.25 $857,914.15 $211,793.40 $55,282.50 $55,020.00 $331,954.00 $42,915.60 $183,400.00 $55,020.00 $34,387.50 $331,954.00 $42,915.60 $183,400.00 $42,640.50 $39,431.00 $39,431.00 $91,700.00 $91,700.00 $31,819.90 $81,154.50 $193,487.00 $225,582.00 $36,680.00 $139,842.50 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $153,139.00 $34,387.50 $81,154.50 $193,487.00 $225,582.00 $31,819.90 $139,842.50 $216,412.00
10/2/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Task
Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Note
Remove B1 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove Row 1&2 bracing Cut conductor bay at -855 elev Cut conductor bay at -785 elev
Contingency
Task Hours
23.60 16.70 8.50 3.50 23.60 23.60 6.75 25.86 1.35% 0.96% 0.49% 0.20% 1.35% 1.35% 0.39% 1.48%
Task Cost
$216,412.00 $153,139.00 $77,945.00 $32,095.00 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $61,897.50 $237,136.20 0.72% 0.51% 0.26% 0.11% 0.72% 0.72% 0.21% 0.79% 70.50% 10.22% 13.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.64% 100.00%
1365.76 78.18%$21,139,604.65 163.39 9.35% $3,065,516.00
217.85 12.47% $4,087,354.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,691,168.00 1747.00 100.00%$29,983,642.65
10/2/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 3
MMS Platform Decommission Resources Breakdown 8P-12SP - WD 863 feet

Resource Used
CB 300 & Tug Derrick Barge 2000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Basic Spread- Mixed Gas Pipeline Survey Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar SSCV 7000 Suppl. Welding Crew Work Boat
Unit Cost
$980.00 $7,000.00 $3,165.00 $890.00 $230.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $32,100.00 $0.00 $500.00 per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per barge Per Hour Per Hour per Hour per Barge per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables per Hour $1,015,583.80 $4,040,890.00 $1,364,399.84 $513,770.30 $110,190.70 $56,000.00 $3,600.00 $13,837,989.00 $173,181.00 $24,000.00
Cost
3.39% 13.48% 4.55% 1.71% 0.37% 0.19% 0.01% 46.15% 0.58% 0.08%
10/2/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
5.1.4 SPAR PLATFORM Representative Cost Estimates

Task Complete Removal Well P&A Separate Estimate Subsea North & Central Template Abandonment Topside Decommissioning/Platform Removal Prep Pipeline Decommissioning Conductor Removal * Platform Removal Onshore Disposal Site Clearance Project Management and Engineering * Conductor removal is performed during Well P&A Task Well P&A Separate Estimate 2 Template Abandonment Remove all flow lines and umbilical lines from the wells to the maninfold. Remove flowlines from manifold to flow line Tie-in base. Remove Tie-in bases from flow lines, plug and cover end of flow lines Work Contingency Weather Downtime Template Abandonment (Northern and Central Diana) Platform Removal Prep Flush, Purge and Clean Facilities, Tanks and Vessels Prepare Modules for Removal Prepare Mooring Anchors Platform Removal Prep Subtotal Pipeline Abandonment Gas Pipeline Flush, Clean and Cut Mobilize DSV Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Relocate to opposite End Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Days Cost $0 $298,950 $1,144,465 $4,045,967 $0 $37,457,531 $4,293,600 $319,452 $3,804,797 $51,364,763 Hours Days Cost
3 35 15 0 66 120 5 0 245
72
3 0 3
72
$239,160 $35,874 $23,916 $298,950
240 96 504 840
10 4 21 35
$326,990 $130,796 $686,679 $1,144,465
18 105 4 3 5 6 12 3 5
1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
161
$59,790 $348,775 $13,287 $9,965 $16,608 $19,930 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $71,250 $47,500 $118,412 $771,950
6 25 0
$46,550 $190,079 $35,494 $23,663
Page 4 of 108
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Spread Subtotal Gas Pipeline Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Oil Pipeline Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Relocate to opposite End Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Oil Pipeline Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime 31 31 1 $295,786
130 4 3 5 12 3 5
5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
$431,817 $13,287 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $80,717 $53,811 $142,118 $814,756
162
6 25 0 1
$46,550 $190,079 $35,494 $23,663 $295,786
24 4 3 5 6 12 3 5
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
62
$79,720 $13,287 $9,965 $16,608 $19,930 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $30,892 $20,594 $98,412 $355,841
6 25 0 1
31
$46,550 $190,079 $35,494 $23,663 $295,786
24 4 3 5 12 3 5
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
$79,720 $13,287 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $27,902 $18,601
Page 5 of 108
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Oil Pipeline Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal $98,412 $330,929
56
6 25
0 1 0 1
31
$46,550 $190,079 $35,494 $23,663 $295,786
15 4 3 5 12 3 5
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
47
$49,825 $13,287 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $23,418 $15,612 $98,412 $293,560
6 25
0 1 0 1
31
$46,550 $190,079 $35,494 $23,663 $295,786
Pipeline Decommissioning Subtotal
370
15
$4,045,967
Conductor Removal (Done with Well P&A)
$0
DDCV Topsides Removal Cargo Barge Grillage and Tie-down Material Mobilize SSCV (DP type vessel) Set-up DP SSCV vessel Mobilize Cargo Barges for Equipment and Deck Rig & Remove Topside Equipment Rig & Remove Deck Demobilize Cargo Barges with Equipment and Deck Demobilize SSCV (DP type vessel) Work Contingency Weather Downtime Sub Total DDCV Hull Removal/Tow Route Survey
0 24 4 33 180 360 33 24
0.0 1.0 0.2 1.4 7.5 15.0 1.4 1.0 0 27
$400,000 $852,300 $142,050 $32,340 $6,568,650 $13,137,300 $32,340 $852,300 $2,977,200 $3,969,600 $28,964,080
658
48
$30,000
Page 6 of 108
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Mobilize DB2000, cargo barge and tug Mobilize Tugs (4-12000 HP) Secure Tow Tugs to top of DDCV Ballast to relieve tension on Mooring lines Sever lower chain from mooring system. Sever lower chain from cable and remove chain @ 8 hours each Remove Mooring lines from Hull, by rigging to upper cable/chain connections. ROV sever upper chain from cable. Move away from Hull and lower cable to mudline @ 8 hours per line. Prepare Hull for transportation Release DDCV from Derrick Barge to Tow Tugs Demobilize Derrick Barge accounted for under Template Abandonment Tow DDCV to Onshore Location Demobilize Tow Tugs Work Contingency Weather Downtime DDCV Hull Removal/Tow Sub Total 24 48 6 24 96 1 2 0 1 4 $212,720 $280,000 $88,180 $352,720 $1,410,880
96 48 4 0 48 24
4 2 0 0 2 1 0 18
442
$1,410,880 $705,440 $58,787 $0 $280,000 $140,000 $650,533 $867,377 $6,487,517
Mooring Line Removal Mobilize Anchor Handling Supply Vessel (AHSV) Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Demobilize AHSV Work Contingency 15% Weather Downtime 20% AHSV Sub Total Sub Total DDCV & Mooring Removal
24 2 17 24 15 24 2 17 24 15 24 2 17 24 15 24 2 17 24 15 24 2 17 24 15 24 2 17 24 15 24
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 20
$83,000 $6,917 $57,218 $83,000 $50,301 $83,000 $6,917 $57,218 $83,000 $50,301 $83,000 $6,917 $57,218 $83,000 $50,301 $83,000 $6,917 $57,218 $83,000 $50,301 $83,000 $6,917 $57,218 $83,000 $50,301 $83,000 $6,917 $57,218 $83,000 $50,301 $83,000 $102,993 $137,324 $2,005,934 $8,493,451
487
Page 7 of 108
Platform Removal Subtotal Onshore Disposal Offload Modules Dispose of Material Onshore Disposal Subtotal Site Clearance Mob Vessels to Site Side Scan at Platform Location Inspect and Clean up Demob Vessels from Site Weather Downtime Site Clearance Subtotal Project Management and Engineering (8% of the Total) Platform Total Total Hours Derrick Barge, Multi-Service Vessel and Dive Vessels On Site
1,587
66
$37,457,531
120 120
120 120
$300,000 $3,993,600 $4,293,600
24 24 48 24 120
1 1 2 1 0 5
$60,274 $60,274 $120,548 $60,274 $18,082 $319,452 $3,804,797 $51,364,763
2,719
113
Page 8 of 108
5.1.5a
MTLP PLATFORM Representative Cost Estimates
Deck <5000 st
Task Complete Removal Well P&A Separate Estimate Topside Decommissioning/Platform Removal Prep Deck Removal Pipeline Decommissioning Conductor Removal * Platform Removal Onshore Disposal Site Clearance Project Management and Engineering * Conductor removal is performed during Well P&A Task Platform Removal Prep Flush, Purge and Clean Facilities, Tanks and Vessels Prepare Modules for Removal Replace Tension Units for Tendons Platform Removal Prep Subtotal Task MTLP Deck Removal Mobilize Derrick Barge Spread (DB4000 & CB 400) Rig up to deck Sever, Remove Deck & Seafasten Demobilize Derrick Barge Spread Work Contingency Weather Downtime Platform Removal Subtotal Task MTLP Removal Route Survey Mobilize Derrick Barge DB 2000 Mobilize 3 Tow Tugs Mobilize Cargo Barges ROV Sever and Remove 3 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 8 hours each Secure TLP to Derrick Barge Secure Tow Tugs to TLP ROV Sever and Remove 3 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 8 hours each Release TLP to Tow Tugs Tow TLP to Onshore Location Demobilize Cargo Barge Demobilize Derrick Barge Work Contingency Appendix Section 5 9 of 108 Days Cost $0 $812,104 $1,369,539 $0 $0 $5,830,689 $907,500 $337,534 $740,589 $9,997,955 Days 4 3 21 28 Days Cost $123,342 $73,273 $615,489 $812,104 Cost
28 4 10 0 23 120 5 0
Hours 101 60 504 665 Hours
24 6 36 24 5 7 103 Hours 48 24 24 36 26 6 6 26 4 192 36 24 46
1 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 Days 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 8 2 1 0 2
$320,360 $80,090 $480,540 $320,360 $72,081 $96,108 $1,369,539 Cost $30,000 $213,720 $105,000 $141,120 $363,630 $85,560 $85,560 $363,630 $57,040 $2,737,920 $141,120 $213,720 $554,001 Rev.1 Dec 2009
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Weather Downtime Platform Removal Subtotal Onshore Disposal Offload Modules Dispose of Material Onshore Disposal Subtotal Site Clearance Mob Vessels to Site Side Scan at Platform Location Inspect and Clean up Demob Vessels from Site Weather Downtime Site Clearance Subtotal Project Management and Engineering (8% of the Total) Platform Total Total Hours Derrick Barge, Multi-Service Vessel and Dive Vessels On Site 61 558 3 23 $738,668 $5,830,689
120 120
120 120
$30,000 $877,500 $907,500
24 24 48 24 120
1 1 2 1 0 5
$60,274 $60,274 $120,548 $60,274 $36,164 $337,534 $740,589 $9,997,955
384
16
5.1.5b
TLP PLATFORM Representative Cost Estimates

Days Cost $0 $812,104 $2,029,814 $0 $8,738,847 $8,700,000 $337,534 $1,649,464 $22,267,762
Task Complete Removal Well P&A Separate Estimate Topside Decommissioning/Platform Removal Prep Pipeline Decommissioning Conductor Removal * Platform Removal Onshore Disposal Site Clearance Project Management and Engineering * Conductor removal is performed during Well P&A Task Well P&A Separate Estimate Pipeline Abandonment Task Oil Pipeline Flush, Clean and Cut Mobilize DSV Mobilize CB Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Relocate to opposite End Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Appendix Section 5 10 of 108
28 10 0 31 120 5 0
Hours
Days
Cost $0
Hours
Days
Cost
18 33 42 4 3 5 6 12
1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1
$66,356 $32,340 $154,830 $14,746 $11,059 $18,432 $22,119 $44,237 Rev.1 Dec 2009
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Task Gas Pipeline Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Relocate to opposite End Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Demobilize CB Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal 3 5 0 0 0 131 5 $11,059 $18,432 $59,041 $78,722 $88,906 $620,278
6 25 0 0 Hours Days
$68,120 $278,157 $51,942 $69,255 $467,474 Cost
33 4 3 5 6 12 3 5 33
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
$121,652 $14,746 $11,059 $18,432 $22,119 $44,237 $11,059 $18,432 $32,340 $39,260 $52,347 $88,906 $474,589
104
6 25 0 0
$68,120 $278,157 $51,942 $69,255 $467,474
Pipeline Decommissioning Subtotal Conductor Removal (Done with Well P&A) Task Platform Removal Prep Flush, Purge and Clean Facilities, Tanks and Vessels Prepare Modules for Removal Replace Tension Units for Tendons Platform Removal Prep Subtotal TLP Removal Route Survey Mobilize Derrick Barge DB 2000 Mobilize 4 Tow Tugs Mobilize Cargo Barges Appendix Section 5 11 of 108
235 0 Hours 101 60 504 665
10 0 Days 4 3 21 28
$2,029,814 $0 Cost $123,342 $73,273 $615,489 $812,104
48 24 24 36
2 1 1 2
$30,000 $213,720 $140,000 $141,120 Rev.1 Dec 2009
ROV Sever and Remove 4 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 16 hours each ROV Sever and Remove 4 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 16 hours each Secure TLP to Derrick Barge Secure Tow Tugs to TLP ROV Sever and Remove 4 Tendons From TLP at 400 ft hour and load on Cargo Barge @ 16 hours each Release TLP to Tow Tugs Tow TLP to Onshore Location Demobilize Cargo Barge Demobilize Derrick Barge Work Contingency Weather Downtime Platform Removal Subtotal Onshore Disposal Offload Modules Dispose of Material Onshore Disposal Subtotal Site Clearance Mob Vessels to Site Side Scan at Platform Location Inspect and Clean up Demob Vessels from Site Weather Downtime Site Clearance Subtotal Project Management and Engineering (8% of the Total) Platform Total
64 64 6 6 64 4 192 36 24 67 90 749
3 3 0 0 3 0 8 2 1 0 3 4 31
$1,005,973 $1,005,973 $94,310 $94,310 $1,005,973 $62,873 $3,017,920 $141,120 $213,720 $943,100 $628,733 $8,738,847
120 120
120 120
$300,000 $8,400,000 $8,700,000
24 24 48 24 120
1 1 2 1 0 5
$60,274 $60,274 $120,548 $60,274 $36,164 $337,534 $1,649,464 $22,267,762
Total Hours Derrick Barge, Multi-Service Vessel and Dive Vessels On Site
537
22
5.1.6 SEMI Representative Cost Estimate
Task Complete Removal Well P&A Separate Estimate Topside Decommissioning/Platform Prep & Removal Pipeline Decommissioning Conductor Removal * Onshore Disposal Site Clearance Project Management and Engineering
Days
Cost $0 $9,416,987 $17,474,633 $0 $6,300,000 $319,452 $2,680,886 $36,191,958 Rev.1 Dec 2009
26 88 0 120 5 0 239 12 of 108
Appendix Section 5
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 * Conductor removal is performed during Well P&A
Task Well P&A Separate Estimate
Hours
Days
Cost $0
Task Platform Removal Prep & Removal Mobilize Tugs (4-12000 HP) Prepare facilities for tow. Mobilize DB2000, cargo barge and tug Secure Tow Tugs to top of Hull Ballast to relieve tension on Mooring lines Sever lower chain from mooring system. Sever lower chain from cable and remove chain @ 8 hours each Remove Mooring lines from Hull, by rigging to upper cable/chain connections. ROV sever upper chain from cable. Move away from Hull and lower cable to mudline @ 8 hours per line. Demobilize DB2000, cargo barge and tug Tow facilities to Ingleside facility Mothball facilities onshore Demobilize Tugs Platform Removal Prep Subtotal Task Mooring Line Removal Mobilize Anchor Handling Supply Vessel (AHSV) Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Appendix Section 5 13 of 108
Hours 48 168 24 6 24 128
Days
Cost $280,000 $286,867 $198,520 $84,630 $338,520 $1,805,440
7 1 0 1
128 24 93 168 48 763 Hours 24 2 21 24 19 24 2 21 24 19 24 2 21 24 19 24 2 21 24 19 24 2 21 24 19 24 2 21 24
5 1 4 7 26 Days 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
$1,805,440 $198,520 $542,500 $205,163 $280,000 $6,025,600 Cost $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 $64,266 $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 $64,266 $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 $64,266 $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 $64,266 $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 $64,266 $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 Rev.1 Dec 2009
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cables Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Mobilize AHSV Locate and rig to 2 Mooring Cable Separate cable from lower chain and spool up cable on AHSV Demobilize AHSV to Unspooling Site Unspool Drums Demobilize AHSV Work Contingency 8% Work Contingency 15% Weather Downtime 20% AHSV Sub Total 19 24 2 21 24 19 24 2 21 24 19 24 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 $64,266 $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 $64,266 $83,000 $6,917 $71,182 $83,000 $64,266 $83,000 $203,993 $382,487 $254,991 $3,391,387
737
0 30
Pipeline Abandonment Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Mobilize DSV Mobilize Cargo Barge Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Relocate to opposite End Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal Mobilize DB 2000 Mobilize Cargo Barge Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal
18 33 20 12 3 5 6 12 3 5
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
117
$59,790 $32,340 $66,433 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $19,930 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $32,885 $43,846 $113,412 $501,503
36 36 6 65
2 2
143
0 3
$252,000 $35,280 $49,130 $532,242 $130,298 $116,274 $1,115,224
Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Appendix Section 5 14 of 108
20 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0
$66,433 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 Rev.1 Dec 2009
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal at Host from Ariel Well 1 Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Gas line Flush, Clean and Cut Appendix Section 5 15 of 108 Rev.1 Dec 2009 71 $29,895 $19,930 $113,412 $362,537
0 60 3
20 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$66,433 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $29,895 $19,930 $138,118 $387,243
60
20 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$66,433 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $29,895 $19,930 $138,118 $387,243
60
20 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$66,433 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $29,895 $19,930 $138,118 $387,243
60
6 65 0 3
$49,130 $532,242 $87,206 $58,137 $726,715
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal at Host Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal 71 15 12 3 5 12 3 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 55 2 $49,825 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $27,404 $18,269 $113,412 $341,777
6 65 0 3
$49,130 $532,242 $87,206 $58,137 $726,715
Gas line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Gas line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Appendix Section 5 16 of 108
15 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$49,825 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $27,404 $18,269 $113,412 $341,777
55
14 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$46,503 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $26,906 $17,937 $113,412 $337,625
54
14 12 3 5 12 3
1 1 0 0 1 0
$46,503 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 Rev.1 Dec 2009
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal at Host Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Gas line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal at Host Appendix Section 5 17 of 108 Rev.1 Dec 2009 71 5 0 0 54 2 $16,608 $26,906 $17,937 $113,412 $337,625
16 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$53,147 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $27,902 $18,601 $113,412 $345,929
56
20 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$66,433 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $29,895 $19,930 $138,118 $387,243
60
6 65 0 3
$49,130 $532,242 $87,206 $58,137 $726,715
16 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$53,147 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $27,902 $18,601 $113,412 $345,929
56
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Oil line Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal at Host Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Oil line Flush, Filter, Clean and Cut Mobilize Multi Service Vessel Flush PL Demobilize Multi Service Vessel Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Pipeline Riser Removal at Host Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal 71 71 71 6 65 0 3 $49,130 $532,242 $87,206 $58,137 $726,715
20 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$66,433 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $29,895 $19,930 $138,118 $387,243
60
6 65 0 3
$49,130 $532,242 $87,206 $58,137 $726,715
48 161 48 12 3 5 12 3 5
2 7 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$362,332 $1,215,322 $362,332 $90,583 $22,646 $37,743 $90,583 $22,646 $37,743 $281,940 $187,960 $118,118 $2,829,947
249
10
6 65 0 3
$49,130 $532,242 $87,206 $58,137 $726,715
Gas Lift Flush, Clean and Cut Appendix Section 5 18 of 108 Rev.1 Dec 2009
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Gas Lift Riser Removal at Host Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Gas Lift Riser Removal at Host Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Gas Lift Riser Removal at Host Set up on DP Disconnect and remove Riser Demobilize DB 2000 Demobilize Cargo Barge Work Contingency Weather Downtime Spread Subtotal Gas Lift Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Gas Lift Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Appendix Section 5 19 of 108 143 71 71 15 12 3 5 12 3 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 55 2 $49,825 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $27,404 $18,269 $113,412 $341,777
6 65 0 3
$49,130 $532,242 $87,206 $58,137 $726,715
6 65 0 3
$49,130 $532,242 $87,206 $58,137 $726,715
6 65 36 36 0 3
$49,130 $532,242 $252,000 $35,280 $87,206 $58,137 $1,013,995
18 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$59,790 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $28,899 $19,266 $113,412 $354,233
58
18 12 3 5
1 1 0 0
$59,790 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 Rev.1 Dec 2009
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Gas Lift Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal Gas Lift Flush, Clean and Cut Flush PL Cut PL Riser Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Cut PL & retrieve 5' Section Plug PL End Bury PL Ends Demobilize DSV demobilize CB Work Contingency Weather Downtime Fixed price items (Burial Mats, Ball grab tools, Plugs, Cut charge) Spread Subtotal 12 3 5 1 0 0 0 58 2 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $28,899 $19,266 $113,412 $354,233
18 12 3 5 12 3 5
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
$59,790 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $28,899 $19,266 $113,412 $354,233
58
18 12 3 5 12 3 5 18 33
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
$59,790 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $39,860 $9,965 $16,608 $59,790 $32,340 $28,899 $19,266 $113,412 $446,363
109
Pipeline Decommissioning Subtotal
2,125
88
17,474,633
Conductor Removal (Done with Well P&A) Onshore Disposal Offload Modules Dispose of Material Onshore Disposal Subtotal
$0
120 120
120 120
$300,000 $6,000,000 $6,300,000
Site Clearance Mob Vessels to Site Side Scan at Platform Location Inspect and Clean up Demob Vessels from Site Weather Downtime Appendix Section 5 20 of 108
24 24 48 24
1 1 2 1 0
$60,274 $60,274 $120,548 $60,274 $18,082 Rev.1 Dec 2009
State of the Art for Removing GOM Facilities in Greater than 400 Feet Water Depth MMS M09PC00004, Proserv Offshore Project 29038-11 Final Report October 2009 Site Clearance Subtotal Project Management and Engineering (8% of the Total) Platform Total 120 5 $319,452 $2,680,886 $36,191,958
Total Hours Derrick Barge, Multi-Service Vessel and Dive Vessels On Site
2,516
105
Appendix Section 5
21 of 108
Rev.1 Dec 2009
5.1.7 Conceptual Decommissioning Removal Methods 5.1.7.1 Floatation Device Estimate
The fixed platform identified as 8P-12SP in 863 feet water was estimated conventionally using a HLV and is shown here and is followed by an estimate by a third party engineering firm using floatation devices. This Section is left Blank
Page 22 of 108
8P-12SP WD 863 Jacket Only

Task
Route Survey to Reef Site Mobilize SSCV Setup Derrick Barge Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Deballast Piles or Jkt Lg Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Set Jacket on Bottom Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Demob CB 300 & Tug Mobilize CB 300 & Tug Install Lifting Appurtenances Lift/Secure Jkt for Tow Lift Jkt +/-200' Cut above -650 elevation Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-270 WD Lift Jkt +/-265' Cut above +/-390 elev. Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-535 WD Lift Jkt +/-240' Cut above -155 elevation Place Jkt section on CB Tow to +/-775 WD First cut prep Lift Jkt +/-160'
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
48.00 24.17 6.75 44.20 4.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 14.00 4.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 14.00 4.00 6.00 6.75 10.00 6.75 2.00 40.00 20.75 44.20 44.20 7.00 6.00 2.75% 1.38% 0.39% 2.53% 0.23% 0.34% 0.39% 0.34% 0.39% 0.11%
Task Cost
$38,640.00 $857,914.15 $239,591.25 $57,316.00 $141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00 0.13% 2.86% 0.80% 0.19% 0.47% 0.71% 0.80% 0.71% 0.80% 0.24% 4.87% 2.52% 0.14% 0.19% 1.66% 0.47% 0.71% 0.80% 0.71% 0.80% 0.24% 4.87% 2.52% 0.14% 0.19% 1.66% 0.47% 0.71% 0.80% 1.18% 0.80% 0.24% 4.87% 2.52% 0.14% 0.19% 0.83% 0.71%
2.29% $1,459,000.00 1.19% 2.53% 2.53% 0.80% 0.23% 0.34% 0.39% 0.34% 0.39% 0.11% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $496,930.00 $141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00
2.29% $1,459,000.00 1.19% 2.53% 2.53% 0.80% 0.23% 0.34% 0.39% 0.57% 0.39% 0.11% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $496,930.00 $141,980.00 $212,970.00 $239,591.25 $354,950.00 $239,591.25 $70,990.00
2.29% $1,459,000.00 1.19% 2.53% 2.53% 0.40% 0.34% $756,856.25 $43,316.00 $57,316.00 $248,465.00 $212,970.00
10/2/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1

Task
Pick Up DB Anchors Tow Jckt to Shallow Water Setup Derrick Barge Pick Up DB Anchors Demob SSCV Mobilize DB 2000 Setup Derrick Barge Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Pick Up DB Anchors Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Rig Jacket Underwater Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Pick Up DB Anchors Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Set-up alongside Row 1 Cut and Remove braces Row 1&2 at -650 elev Cut and Remove braces row 1&2 -650 elev-(-)785 Cut and Remove braces row 1&2 -650 elev Cut and Remove A&B leg to -785 elev Cut and Remove braces Row 3&4 at -650 elev Move alongside Row 4 Cut and Remove braces row 3&4 -650 elev-(-)785 Cut and Remove braces row 3&4 -650 elev Cut and Remove A4&B4 leg to -785 elev Cut and Remove Conductor Bay at -650 elev Cut and Remove Conductor Bat at -713 elev. Cut and Remove legsA2&A3 to -713 elev Cut and Remove legsA2&A3 to -785 elev Cut and Remove legsB2&B3 to -785 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -785 elev Cut braces rows 3&4 -860 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -785 elev to 935 elev Cut and Remove braces rows 3&4 -860 elev Secure A4 and B4 legs and skirt piles to DB Cut and Remove braces -785 elev Remove A4 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove B4 leg and skirt pile cluster Removing rows 3&$ -935 elev Move alongside Row 1 Cut braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Cut and remove braces rows 1&2 -785 to -860 elev Cut braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Cut braces rows 1&2 -785 elev Cut and remove braces rows 1&2 -860 elev Remove A1 leg and skirt pile cluster Tow to +/-125 WD
Note
Contingency
Task Hours
6.75 34.00 6.75 6.75 24.17 25.86 6.75 6.00 36.20 4.68 20.00 6.00 3.75 36.20 4.68 20.00 4.65 4.30 4.30 10.00 10.00 3.47 8.85 21.10 24.60 4.00 15.25 23.60 23.60 16.70 3.75 8.85 21.10 24.60 3.47 15.25 23.60 0.39%
Task Cost
$239,591.25 0.80% 4.02% 0.80% 0.80% 2.86% 0.71% 0.18% 0.18% 1.11% 0.14% 0.61% 0.18% 0.11% 1.11% 0.14% 0.61% 0.14% 0.13% 0.13% 0.31% 0.31% 0.11% 0.27% 0.65% 0.75% 0.12% 0.47% 0.72% 0.72% 0.51% 0.11% 0.27% 0.65% 0.75% 0.11% 0.47% 0.72%
1.95% $1,206,830.00 0.39% 0.39% 1.38% 1.48% 0.39% 0.34% 2.07% 0.27% 1.14% 0.34% 0.21% 2.07% 0.27% 1.14% 0.27% 0.25% 0.25% 0.57% 0.57% 0.20% 0.51% 1.21% 1.41% 0.23% 0.87% 1.35% 1.35% 0.96% 0.21% 0.51% 1.21% 1.41% 0.20% 0.87% 1.35% $239,591.25 $239,591.25 $857,914.15 $211,793.40 $55,282.50 $55,020.00 $331,954.00 $42,915.60 $183,400.00 $55,020.00 $34,387.50 $331,954.00 $42,915.60 $183,400.00 $42,640.50 $39,431.00 $39,431.00 $91,700.00 $91,700.00 $31,819.90 $81,154.50 $193,487.00 $225,582.00 $36,680.00 $139,842.50 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $153,139.00 $34,387.50 $81,154.50 $193,487.00 $225,582.00 $31,819.90 $139,842.50 $216,412.00
10/2/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 2

Task
Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 1 Cut Jacket Cut Jacket Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Remove Jacket - Meth 3 Pick Up DB Anchors Demob DB 2000 Task Total Misc. Work Provision (15.00%) Weather Contingency (20.00%) Consumables Waste Disposal Structure & Equipment Disposal Offloading Storage / Scrapping Reef Donation Cost of Engineering (8.00%) Total:
Note
Remove B1 leg and skirt pile cluster Remove Row 1&2 bracing Cut conductor bay at -855 elev Cut conductor bay at -785 elev
Contingency
Task Hours
23.60 16.70 8.50 3.50 23.60 23.60 6.75 25.86 1.35% 0.96% 0.49% 0.20% 1.35% 1.35% 0.39% 1.48%
Task Cost
$216,412.00 $153,139.00 $77,945.00 $32,095.00 $216,412.00 $216,412.00 $61,897.50 $237,136.20 0.72% 0.51% 0.26% 0.11% 0.72% 0.72% 0.21% 0.79% 70.50% 10.22% 13.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.64% 100.00%
1365.76 78.18%$21,139,604.65 163.39 9.35% $3,065,516.00
217.85 12.47% $4,087,354.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,691,168.00 1747.00 100.00%$29,983,642.65
10/2/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 3
MMS Platform Decommission Resources Breakdown 8P-12SP - WD 863 feet

Resource Used
CB 300 & Tug Derrick Barge 2000 Dive Basic Spread Saturation Dive Basic Spread- Mixed Gas Pipeline Survey Rig Up CB 300 Side Scan Sonar SSCV 7000 Suppl. Welding Crew Work Boat
Unit Cost
$980.00 $7,000.00 $3,165.00 $890.00 $230.00 $14,000.00 $75.00 $32,100.00 $0.00 $500.00 per Hour per Barge/Tug per Hour per barge Per Hour Per Hour per Hour per Barge per Hour per Hour Calculated from tables per Hour $1,015,583.80 $4,040,890.00 $1,364,399.84 $513,770.30 $110,190.70 $56,000.00 $3,600.00 $13,837,989.00 $173,181.00 $24,000.00
Cost
3.39% 13.48% 4.55% 1.71% 0.37% 0.19% 0.01% 46.15% 0.58% 0.08%
10/2/2009 - Revision 1 - Page 1
Conceptual Level Planning & Cost Estimate for Removal of a Jacket in 700+ feet of Water in the GOM Using New Buoyancy Lifting Technology
Submitted to:
Mr. Robert Byrd & Steve Nichley PROSERV OFFSHORE 13105 Northwest Freeway, Suite 250, Houston, TX 77040 T: +1 713 462 9990 F: +1 713 462 2007 Email: robert.byrd@proserv-offshore.com, steve.nichley@proserv-offshore.com
BY Reverse Engineering Services Ltd and Associates Email: twomeybg@gmail.com Phone: 00 44 783 1355837 Skype: brian_atmosi Job No: Proserv- 01-09 9th October 2009
REVERSE ENGINEERING SERVICES
Page 23 of 108
Document Control Sheet

Project Title: Conceptual Level Planning & Cost Estimate for Removal of a Jacket in 700 feet of Water in the GOM Using New Buoyancy Lifting Technology Proposal Number: Proserv-01-09 Client: PROSERV OFFSHORE
5 4 3 2 1 Revisednafter operational clarifications Issued to Client 09/10/2009 07/10/2009 BT BT CQV CQV BT BT
Revisions
Document Title:
Date
REL Document No.
Orig.
Chk.
Appr.
Conceptual Level Planning & Cost Estimate for Removal of a Jacket in 700+ feet of Water in the GOM Using New Buoyancy Lifting Technology
PROSERV-01-09-PROPOSAL-REV 0
Page 24 of 108
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Proposed Work Scope 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.5 2.6 3 Input Data Required: Input Data Received: Rider on the engineering level of this work: Input Data Received Assumptions Description of the removal of the east breaks 165 a jacket with buoyancy attachment of Buoyancy System: removal of the Frigg DP2 Jacket INSTALLATION OF THE BTAS ON THE DP2 JACKET Cost Estimate of the removal of east breaks 165 a jacket with buoyancy Alternative removal method for east breaks 165 a jacket with buoyancy 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 31 31 34 35 37
METHODOLOGY FOR THE total removal of East Breaks 165 a Jacket
CONCLUSIONS
Page 25 of 108
Proposed Work Scope
The objective of this work is to provide a conceptual level cost estimate for the removal of a jacket located in 700+ feet of water in the GOM. Proserv Offshore have requested the following: 1. The development of the general specifications for, fabrication time, and estimated cost of a reuseable buoyancy tank system capable of refloating a jacket in approximately 700+ ft water depth. Proserv Offshore will provide REL with a set of general arrangement drawings. It is required that the buoyancy system is capable of rotating and floating the jacket horizontally. 2. Supply of a sketch or drawing of the above system that Proserv Offshore can use in their report. 3. A write-up describing how the system would work and the limitations it might have with respect to extending it to deep water. Proserv Offshore have consider the removal of compliant towers out to about 1800 ft. Input Data Required: The following input information and data was requested but the information was not available at short notice . 1. A full set of as-built jacket drawings and a jacket weight report. 2. The installation manuals for the jacket specifically with any barge launch details, load-out and ballasting calculations and the number, location and size of the additional buoyancy tanks used for the launch and up-ending of the jacket. 3. Jacket load-out and launch photographs would be very useful. 4. Jacket piling details, weights and sizes. 5. Details of any drill cutting of shell mounds blocking access to the lower jacket area. 6. Other information requests may follow after the received information has been reviewed. Input Data Received: Two documents were received from Preserve Offshore: SKMBT_60009091609360 SKMBT_60009091609361 These documents contained basic information and drawings on the The fixed platform identified as 8P12SP platform. Rider on the engineering level of this work: Please note that the engineering undertaken for this very brief scope will be highly conceptual and its findings should be used and interpreted with caution. Substantial engineering, planning and verification would be required before to verify the application of the reusable buoyancy to the refloating of a jacket located in 700 ft water.
Page 26 of 108
METHODOLOGY FOR THE total removal of the fixed platform identified as 8P-12SP Input Data Received The 8P-12SP jacket, is an eight legged structure arranged in a rectangular grid (Figure 2.01). The jacket is primarily constructed of tubular members with all the members except the 4 outer jacket legs designed to remain sealed against flooding throughout the life of the jacket. The outer jacket legs were designed to be flooded progressively during upending and final ballasting operations. There will be numerous assumptions made during the following work and all of the assumptions are listed in Section 2.2. The principal dimensions and weights of the jacket used are: Number of legs: 8 Water Depth: 863 feet Height: 876 feet Base : 239 8 x 310 7 Top: 162 6 x 92 6 Jacket weight (short tons): 20,400
Assumptions The following assumptions have been made during this highly conceptual evaluation. Technical Assumptions: 1. The weight and dimensions of the jacket are as stated in Section 2.1 2. Jacket weight includes the 4 main piles and the grout weight 3. All conductors and risers have been removed 4. The jacket has been cut free at the mud line (4 main & 16 skirt piles) 5. Marine growth has been estimated as 5% of the jacket weight 6. All boat landings, large bumpers etc have been removed 7. Any shell /drill cuttings mounds will not affect the removal of the jacket 8. The jacket is structurally sound. There are no flooded or damaged members and the 4 main jacket legs (A1, A4, B1 and B4) can be used as buoyancy tanks. 9. The jacket structure can take loading imposed by the buoyancy tanks during the lifting, refloat, towing and docking operations. 10. The jacket removal operations will take place in suitable weather conditions Costing Assumptions: 1. The cost of the transport of the buoyancy tanks and equipment from Norway to the GOM is included in the per weight cost. 2. The timings and manhours are based minimal engineering time and planning. Need to do a detailed study to verify.
Page 27 of 108
Description of the removal of the 8P-12SP a jacket with buoyancy The jacket weighs an estimated 20,400 short tons. An allowance of 5% of jacket weight has been added for marine growth bringing the total jacket lift weight to 21,420 short tons. See Table 2.1 below. Items Jacket Weight Marine Growth (5%) Total Jacket Weight Short Tons 20,400 1,020 21,420 Metric Tons 18507 925 19,432
Table 2.1: Estimated Total Jacket Weight
The buoyancy removal system is an add-on system that eliminates the need to use any of the original installation equipment or systems. There are two types of buoyancy units proposed for the jacket removal, passive buoyancy units (PBUs) in which the available buoyancy from each unit is fixed and remains unchanged throughout the operation and intelligent buoyancy units (IBUs) in which the buoyancy can be remotely inflated or deflated to suit operational requirements. Once the jacket is stable on the surface the IBUs can be remotely inflated or deflated to suit the tow configuration or to ballast the jacket out of the water to enable it to be taken into shallow water for further deconstruction. The passive buoyancy units (PBUs) will remain sealed during the removal operations as a pressurized unit. In Table 2.2 an estimate of the weights and the buoyancy required to remove the East Breaks 165A
Weights Jacket weight Weight of 16 Buoyancy Tanks Total weight to be Lifted Buoyancy Jacket Buoyancy (estimated 40%) Buoyancy tanks (16) Total Buoyancy Reserve Buoyancy 7,773 24,000 31,773 6% Metric Tons 19,432 10,400 29,832
Table 2.2: Estimated Buoyancy Requirement
A quick preliminary estimate (see Table 2.2) indicates that in addition to some 7,773 mt supplied the jackets inherent buoyancy, a further 24,000 mt will have to be generated by the buoyancy tanks.
Page 28 of 108
8P-12SP
Figure 2.1: Approximate Location of the 16 Additional Buoyancy Tanks on the 8P-12SP (Ref: Reverse Engineering Ltd, Dr. Brian Twomey 2009)
In Figure 2.1 there are two types of buoyancy tanks shown, the red tanks are the passive buoyancy units (PBUs), in which the available buoyancy from each unit is fixed and remains unchanged throughout the operation. The yellow buoyancy tanks are the intelligent buoyancy units (IBUs), in which the buoyancy can be remotely inflated or deflated to suit operational requirements. Sequencing the yellow IBU is the key to the up-ending of the jacket base and bringing the jacket back to the surface. Typical operational sequences showing the use of PBUs and IBUs for the controlled removal of a jacket into towing position are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3.
Page 29 of 108
Figure 2.2: SACS Simulation Showing the Removal of a Jacket Using PBU & IBU Buoyancy- Part 1 (Ref: Reverse Engineering Ltd, Dr. Brian Twomey 2000)
Figure 2.3: SACS Simulation Showing the Removal of a Jacket Using PBU & IBU Buoyancy- Part 3 (Ref: Reverse Engineering Ltd, Dr. Brian Twomey 2000)
Page 30 of 108
Attachment of Buoyancy System: removal of the Frigg DP2 Jacket A reusable buoyancy tank system was designed for removal the DP2 Jacket. Each of the buoyancy tanks can be shortened or extended depending on the lifting capacity required.
Figure 2.4: Aker Solutions Buoyancy system attached to Frigg DP2 Jacket (Ref: Aker Solutions, Stavanger & Stord 2008)
INSTALLATION OF THE BTAS ON THE DP2 JACKET Two 50 tonne bollard-pull tugs were used to tow the BTAs to site. On arrival at site the control of the BTAs was transferred to the installation vessels. The installation vessels were the multipurpose support vessels MSV Botnica and MSV Nordica. These vessels have a Mark III dynamic positioning systems which was used during the operation.
Page 31 of 108
Figure 2.5: Towing Buoyancy Tank Assembly to site (Ref: Aker Solutions, Stavanger & Stord 2008)
The two MSVs are attached to the BTA as shown in Figure 2.6 below and umbilicals for controlling the de-ballasting operation were attached. As the BTAs were towed in a horizontal position an upending operation was required to get the BTA to the installation draft before the pull-in operation could begin. The ballasting sequence of the BTA is shown in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.6: Positioning & Holding BTA (Ref: Aker Solutions, Stavanger & Stord 2008)
When the BTA is ready to be installed, the pull-in and hold-back wires are attached to each side of the BTA. To avoid snap-loads the wires are attached to high-speed constant tension winches. When the pullin operation begins the installation vessels, using their DP systems, slowly approached the jacket leg until the BTA was 3 meters from the jacket. Further pull-in and positioning will be performed by the constant tension winches and the hold-out tug which controls the hold-back wire.
Page 32 of 108
Figure 2.6: BTA Upending Operation (Ref: Aker Solutions, Stavanger & Stord 2008)
The lower guide enters the jacket leg first and during this operation an observation ROV is monitoring the mating of the BTA and the jacket. When the lower guide is in contact with the jacket leg, the winches on the main installation vessels then pulled the BTA further into the jacket, so the upper guides also engage the jacket.
Figure 2.6: Attaching BTA to DP2 Jacket (Ref: Aker Solutions, Stavanger & Stord 2008)
Page 33 of 108
Cost Estimate of the removal of 8P-12SP a jacket with buoyancy This rough cost for the removal of the 8P-12SP jacket includes the following:
DURATION: The estimated duration of items is 50 (+/- 40%) working days. COST: see rough breakdown below:
Estimated Cost Item 1 2 3 4 5 Description Manufacturing & testing of Buoyancy units ( over 4 Jobs) Preparation of Buoyancy Units at Stord, Norway Transport of Buoyancy Tanks & Equipment to Site in GOM Onshore Mobilization Operations in GOM Mobilization, operation & demobilization of full subsea cutting spread (diamond wire saw) Offshore Operations including installation of buoyancy system, cutting of legs, tow to reverse upending area, reverse upending, trimming Offshore towing to disposal location Inshore trimming for entry to disposal area Tow to disposal area Demobilization of Buoyancy tanks, two MSVs and two Tugs TOTAL
(+/- 40%)
$16,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,200,000
6 7 8 9 10
$12,000,000 $3,000,000 $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $60,200,000

(+/- 40%)
Page 34 of 108
Alternative removal method for 8P-12SP a jacket with buoyancy The jacket could be removed in two main sections, which would reduce the towing draft depending on where the jacket was cut. This would enable the jacket to be brought much closer to port. This approach would require detailed work to compare it with the jacket removed in one lift with the buoyancy. The principals to the approached are illustrated in Figures 2.7 to 2.9 below.
Figure 2.7: Total Removal of Jacket 8P-12SP using Buoyancy-Part 1 (Ref: Reverse Engineering Ltd, Dr. Brian Twomey 2009)
Page 35 of 108
Page 36 of 108
Conclusions The 8P-12SP jacket can be removed using buoyancy as discussed in this paper, but much more engineering is required to verify this approach. This merits further investigation. A second alternative method for the total removal of the 8P-12SP, jacket in two main pieces using buoyancy was presented. This merits further investigation. Significant cost savings can be realized by using the buoyancy for multiple projects in the same region.
Page 37 of 108
5.1.7.2
Comparison TML vs. HLV Estimates
This page is blank
Page 38 of 108
5.1.10
Pipelines
See Section 4 Figures 4.3 through 4.7.
5.1.11 Dry Tree Platform Wells

See Section 4 Figures 4.9 and 4.9.
5.1.12 Dry Tree Subsea Wells

Dry Tree - Subsea Well P&A Cost Estimate P&A Crew & Platform & Semi-Submersible Rigs P&A Crew & Equip. Platform Rig Semi-Submersible Rig Spreadrate $20,000 Spreadrate $50,000 Spreadrate $400,000 Number of Wells 11 Tasks Tie onto casing string and attempt to pressure up / chart test Attempt to inject down tubing into perforations Bullhead cement down tubing Wait on cement (done offline) RIH with perf guns on wireline and punch holes in tubing above packer Circulate cement plug on top of packer Wait on cement (done offline) RIH and cut tubing above plug Total Well Work (hrs) Well Work Costs Per Well Mob/ Demob Mob/ Demob Costs Per Well Work Contingency (15%) Weather Contingency (15%) SubTotal for Wells P&A / well HRS 1 1 4 0 3 4 0 3 TBW TOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 5 0 0 1 4 1 5 0 0 1 4 22 Cost ($)
P&A Crew & Equip.
18,333 40 3,030 2,750 2,750 26,864
Page 39 of 108
Dry Tree Subsea Wells Continued

ND Tree POOH with tubing Circulate cement plug above liner top (on way out with tubing) Wait on cement (done while pulling tubing) POOH and LD 10-3/4" Production Riser Total Well Work (hrs) Well Work Costs Per Well Mob/ Demob Mob/ Demob Costs Per Well Work Contingency (15%) Weather Contingency (15%) SubTotal for Wells P&A / well Run BOP and Drilling Riser Set 10-3/4" wear bushing and test BOP's Make gauge ring and Junk basket run Set 8-5/8" drillguns ( approx. 6000' ) perf.& sqz. Into 10-3/4"x 16" annu Dump cement on top of Retainer WOC Cut and Pull 10-3/4" casing Set 13-5/8" drillguns ( approx. 3600' ) perf & sqz. Into 13-5/8" x 20" ann Spot surface plug on top of retainer Move to next well Total Well Work (hrs) Well Work Costs Per Well Mob/ Demob Mob/ Demob Rig and handle anchors Costs Per Well Work Contingency (15%) Weather Contingency (15%) Total Anchor Handling Anchor Handling/ Well SubTotal for Wells P&A / well GRAND TOTAL PER WELL 3 40 4 0 20 3 40 4 0 20 67 139,583 192 36,364 20,938 20,938 217,822 24 15 4 10 2 12 20 10 2 6 24 15 4 10 2 12 20 10 2 6 105 1,750,000 300 454,545 262,500 262,500 1,000,000 90,909 3,729,545 $3,974,231
Platform Rig
Semi-Submersible
Page 40 of 108
5.1.13
Subsea Wells and Template
SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE DRILL RIG ///////// ESTIMATE \\\\\\\\\ P&A SUPPORT SERVICES

Semi-Submersible Rig option -Some Crossover Fabrication may be required. DESCRIPTION Tree Tools Lease Tree Running Tool Refurbish Tools Cross-Over Connections Fab. DESCRIPTION Tree Controls Mobilization Well Work Demobilization Dockside Standby Subtotal DURATION UNITS RATE $170,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 RATE $8,000.00 $502.00 $8,000.00 $1,725.00 ESTIMATED COST $170,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 ESTIMATED COST $8,000.00 $72,288.00 $8,000.00 $1,725.00 $345,013.00
1 Lump Sum 1 Lump Sum 1 Lump Sum DURATION UNITS 1 144 1 1 Lump Sum hrs Lump Sum day
WELL # 1 ESTIMATE ----------------------------------------------Next, the Conventional Semisubmersible Drill Rig is mobilized in order to perform the P&A work and remove the template.
$9,791,287.50
Each Anchor Handling Vessel will Include the following costs in the Dayrate Anchor Handling Vessel / Tug $23,000.00 / Day (Vessel, Lube, Crew, & Food) Fuel Cost $3,000.00 / Day (Fuel) Anchor Handling Equipment $2,500.00 / Day (Tool Box, Chaser Wire, Spooling Units, etc.) Anchor Handling Crew $7,008.00 / Day (6 AHV Specialists + Half Coordinator Cost) $35,508.00 Anchor Handling Vessel Spread Day Rate / Vessel DESCRIPTION Anchor Handling Vessel #1 Mobilization to Grand Isle Retrieve Anchors at Grand Isle Tow Rig to Template Location Set Anchor Spread Demobilization Re-mobilization Recover Anchor Spread Tow Rig back to Grand Isle Area Set Anchors at Grand Isle Final Demobilization from GI DURATION 0.25 2 3 1.75 1.25 1.25 1.5 3 1.5 0.25 UNITS days days days days days days days days days days RATE $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 ESTIMATED COST $8,877.00 $71,016.00 $106,524.00 $62,139.00 $44,385.00 $44,385.00 $53,262.00 $106,524.00 $53,262.00 $8,877.00
Page 41 of 108
Subsea Wells and Template continued

Anchor Handling Vessel #2 Mobilization to Grand Isle Retrieve Anchors at Grand Isle Tow Rig to Template Location Set Anchor Spread Demobilization Re-mobilization Recover Anchor Spread Tow Rig back to Grand Isle Area Set Anchors at Grand Isle Final Demobilization from GI AHV Crew Consummables AHV Crew Transportation AHV Crew Dock Charges Surveyor & Equip. Services Subtotal 0.25 2 3 1.75 1.25 1.25 1.5 3 1.5 0.25 1 1 1 1 days days days days days days days days days days Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Set-Ups $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $35,508.00 $10,800.00 $16,000.00 $1,600.00 $11,500.00 $8,877.00 $71,016.00 $106,524.00 $62,139.00 $44,385.00 $44,385.00 $53,262.00 $106,524.00 $53,262.00 $8,877.00 $10,800.00 $16,000.00 $1,600.00 $11,500.00 $1,158,402.00
The Drill Rig will Include the following costs in the Dayrate: Rig $400,000.00 / Day (Bare Rental of Rig) Catering, Meals & Lodging $280.00 / Day (to cover 7 additional men) Fuel Cost $3,250.00 / Day (Fuel) $403,530.00 Rig Spread Day Rate [ Inclusive of 35-man Crew, 18-3/4" BOP, Mud Pumps, Communications, and Medic ] DESCRIPTION Semi-Submersible Drill Rig Retrieve Anchors at Grand Isle Tow Rig to Template Location Set Anchor Spread Well #1 Work Remove Template Recover Anchor Spread Tow Rig back to Grand Isle Area Set Anchors at Grand Isle Subtotal DURATION 2 3 1.75 6 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 UNITS days days days days days days days days RATE $403,530.00 $403,530.00 $403,530.00 $403,530.00 $403,530.00 $403,530.00 $403,530.00 $403,530.00 ESTIMATED COST $807,060.00 $1,210,590.00 $706,177.50 $2,421,180.00 $605,295.00 $605,295.00 $1,210,590.00 $605,295.00 $8,171,482.50 ESTIMATED COST $1,500.00 $21,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,750.00 $59,640.00 $9,800.00 $18,200.00 $3,000.00 $116,390.00
DESCRIPTION DURATION UNITS RATE Miscellaneous E-Line / Slick Line Mob 1 Lump Sum $1,500.00 E-Line / Slick Line Unit 14 days $1,500.00 E-Line / Slick Line Demob 1 Lump Sum $1,500.00 CTU Tech. Travel & Freight 1 Lump Sum $3,500.00 Coiled Tubing Unit 14 days $4,260.00 Twin-Bore Completion Riser 14 days $700.00 Cementing Unit 14 days $1,300.00 Cement 200 sacks $15.00 Subtotal Explosive Services included in Misc. / Company Provided Services
Page 42 of 108
Subsea Wells and Template continued
DEEP SEA INTERVENTION VESSEL ///////// ESTIMATE \\\\\\\\\ P&A SUPPORT SERVICES
Deep Sea Intervention Vessel (DSI) - option Some Crossover Fabrication may be required. DESCRIPTION Tree Tools Lease Tree Running Tool Refurbish Tools Cross-Over Connections Fab. DESCRIPTION Tree Controls Mobilization Well Work Demobilization Dockside Standby Subtotal DURATION UNITS RATE $170,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 RATE $8,000.00 $502.00 $8,000.00 $1,725.00 ESTIMATED COST $170,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 ESTIMATED COST $8,000.00 $72,288.00 $8,000.00 $1,725.00 $345,013.00
1 Lump Sum 1 Lump Sum 1 Lump Sum DURATION UNITS 1 144 1 1 Lump Sum hrs Lump Sum day
WELL # 1 ESTIMATE
-----------------------------------------------
$3,050,204.00
The The Intervention Vessel will Include the following costs in the Dayrate: Deep Sea Intervention Vessel (DSI) $175,008.00 / Day (Bare Rental) Catering, Meals & Lodging $280.00 / Day (to cover 7 additional men) Fuel Cost $3,250.00 / Day (Fuel) $178,538.00 Rig Spread Day Rate [ Inclusive of 35-man Crew, 18-3/4" BOP, Mud Pumps, Communications, and Medic ] DESCRIPTION DSI Mobilize DSI Set up Well #1 Work Remove Template Demobilize Subtotal 3 1 6 1.5 3 days days days days days $178,538.00 $178,538.00 $178,538.00 $178,538.00 $178,538.00 $535,614.00 $178,538.00 $1,071,228.00 $267,807.00 $535,614.00 $2,588,801.00 ESTIMATED COST $1,500.00 $21,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,750.00 $59,640.00 $9,800.00 $18,200.00 $3,000.00 $116,390.00 DURATION UNITS RATE ESTIMATED COST
DURATION UNITS RATE DESCRIPTION Miscellaneous E-Line / Slick Line Mob 1 Lump Sum $1,500.00 E-Line / Slick Line Unit 14 days $1,500.00 E-Line / Slick Line Demob 1 Lump Sum $1,500.00 CTU Tech. Travel & Freight 1 Lump Sum $3,500.00 Coiled Tubing Unit 14 days $4,260.00 Twin-Bore Completion Riser 14 days $700.00 Cementing Unit 14 days $1,300.00 Cement 200 sacks $15.00 Subtotal Explosive Services included in Misc. / Company Provided Services
Page 43 of 108
5.2
List of Figures/Tables
Deepwater system Types Template Removals Explosives Distribution of GOM Platform Severing Techniques 1995 -2005 ROV Diamond Wire Tool Guillotine Saw Water Abrasive Cutting c/w internal manipulators Well Head Retrieval Tool Mechanical Cutting Tool Hydraulic Mechanical Shears and Debris Removal Equipment Oceaneerings WASP III One Atmosphere Suit Saipem 250 HP Working Class ROV Siapem 7000 and Heerema Thialf Semi-Submersible Crane Vessels Heerema H-851 Cargo Barge Versatruss Jacket Lifting System Versabar VB 4000 Bottom Feeder Lifting System Allseas Pieter Schelte Lifting System Control Variable Buoyancy Systems (CVBS) Frigg DP2 Platform Removal Buoyancy Tank Assembly Seametric International TML Lifting Barges Q4000 Well Intervention Vessel SILS Well Intervention System Oceaneering Well Intervention Vessel Expro AX-S Well Intervention System Flexlife UT Scanner Southern Scrap Yard Morgan City Southern Scrap yard Gulf Marine Fabricators yard Gulf Marine Fabricators Deepwater System Types Deepwater Fixed Platforms Compliant Towers Tension Leg Platforms Semisubmersible Facilities SPARs FPSOs Typical 4-Pile Fixed Platform Lift Boats Anchored Derrick Barge Heerema SSCV Thialf
Page 44 of 108
Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.10 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.12 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.19 Figure 2.20 Figure 2.21 Figure 2.22 Figure 2.23 Figure 2.24 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.8 Figure 3.9 Figure 3.10 Figure 3.11 Figure 3.12 Figure 3.13 Figure 3.14 Figure 3.15
Figure 3.16 Figure 3.17 Figure 3.18 Figure 3.19 Figure 3.20 Figure 3.21 Figure 3.22 Figure 3.23 Figure 3.24 Figure 3.25 Figure 3.26 Figure 3.27 Figure 3.28 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Table 0.1 Table 0.2 Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 2.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13 Table 4.14 Table 4.15
Versabar 4,000 ton Bottom Feeder Versabar 10,000 ton Bottom Feeder 10,000 ton Bottom Feeder 10,000 ton Bottom Feeder Magnolia TLP Conventional TLP Mini TLP TLP Installation Independence Hub Semi FPSO The Subsea Landscape Growth in Subsea Developments Subsea Templates Estimate Decommissioning Cost w/and w/o Conductors Total cost per foot WD for Conductor- Abrasive Severing and Removal with Casing Jacks Pipeline Decomm. Cost per Vol. per Spread (4-Point Dive boat (4PDB)) Pipeline Decomm. Cost per Vol. per Spread (4-Point Dive boat (4PDB) SSTI) Pipeline Decomm. Cost per Vol. per Spread (DP Dive boat (DPDB)) Pipeline Decomm. Cost per Vol. per Spread (DP Dive boat (DPDB) SSTI) Pipeline Decomm. Cost per Vol. per Spread (Diving Surface Intervention Vessel (DSI) SSTI T&A cost per well T&A cost per foot of WD GOM Major Assets GOM Decommissioning Projects Cost Adjustment Factor Major Assets by Type Major Asset Inventory by Type Major Asset Inventory by Water Depth Platforms Grouped by Characteristics Heavy Lift Vessels Representative Fixed Platforms Sever Method Comparison Severing w/Derrick Barge Sever Method Comparison Severing w/Derrick Barge Pipeline Decommissioning Cost per Volume Well T&A Basic Parameters Dry Tree Well T&A Spar Platform Removal Prep Deck Removal using HLV 5000 st or less Deck Removal using HLV >5000 st Deck SPAR Hull Disconnect and Removal SPAR Mooring Cable Removal Spar Decommissioning Cost Summary TLP Deck, Tendon & Hull Disconnect and Removal TLP Decommissioning Cost Summary SEMI Platform Severing and Chain and Hull Removal
Page 45 of 108
Table 4.16 Table 4.17 Table 4.18
Semi Mooring Line Removal SEMI Decommissioning Cost Summary Example Subsea Template Removal
5.3
[1] [2]
References/Acknowledgements
Marine Board National Research Council, An Assessment of Techniques for Removing Offshore Structures, Washington DC 1996 Byrd, R.C. and E.R. Velazquez, State of the art of removing large platforms located in deep water, OTC 12972, MMS Study TSB project #1435, Houston, TX, May 2001. Brian Saucier, Subsea Abandonment in Deepwater a Subsea Perspective, The Cross Group report submitted Oct 2009 MMS OCS Report 2008-013, Deepwater GOM 2008: Americas Offshore Energy Future, New Orleans May 2008 Mike Freak, Explosives technology for decommissioning applications, The Oil & Gas UK Southern North Sea Decommissioning Conference, May 2009 Gary DeMarsh, Explosive technology report, Demex September 2009 Senior, Eric A.; Svein Solversen, "Cost-effective removal of subsea exploration wellheads: Wellhead Picker, DP MSV proven in field. (PRODUCTION OPERATIONS)." Offshore. 2008. Brian Toomey, New Lifting Technology Report, Reverse Engineering October 2009 Kurt Hurzeler, Advances enable rigless intervention, The American Oil and Gas Reporter, June 2009 Kliewer, Gene, "Subsea wireline intervention system in development. (SUBSEA/SURFACE/SYSTEMS)." Offshore. 2008. Subsea World, Subsea Company Completes Major Projects Using New Scanning Technology, subseaworld.com Sept 2009
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] [7]
[8] [9]
[10]
[11]
Additional materials such as company brochures, product fact sheets, presentations, etc., were provided by the following companies: Aker Solutions Allseas Cal Dive Conmaco Demex International E H Wachs
Page 46 of 108
Expro Group FMC Fugro Halliburton Heerema Helix Interact Activity Management Marin Subsea McDermott Norse Cutting & Abandonment Oceaneering Oilstates Rotork Saipem America Seametric International Seaway Heavy Lifting Superior Energy Services TSMarine Tetra Versabar Weatherford
5.4
MMS Contract Work Scope
The overall goal of the project will be to examine the relevant issues and to quantify them in the context of industry practice, available technology, current regulations, and cost. The following specific goals will be pursued: 1. Define the types of structures to be considered, considering fixed and floating structures. 2. Review the methodology and technology currently available and identify needs for new technology, if any. 3. Evaluate the current decommissioning infrastructure and identify future needs. 4. Assess the impact on deep water decommissioning of related programs such as the State run artificial reef programs. 5. Identify and describe the decommissioning options currently available for deep water facilities, areas of uncertainty (risk) and the likely cost of decommissioning typical fixed and floating structures. TECHNICAL APPROACH The proposed detailed scope of work for the project is described in Cost-Time-Resource (CTR) sheets 100 through 500 which are attached. These list the planned work objectives, scope, assigned personnel and their estimated work effort and the cost. The scope of work is summarized as follows:
CTR 100 - Project Mobilization & Initial Assessment 1. Review the relevant previous studies. 2. Determine the current inventory of deep water facilities in the GOM.
Page 47 of 108
3. Select representative facilities for detailed evaluation. These will include typical versions of the various types of floating structures (Spars, TLPs, mono-hull vessels, etc.) and a range of fixed platforms. CTR 200 - Methodology, Technology & Infrastructure Assessment 1. With reference to the representative deep water structures, conduct an initial assessment of decommissioning requirements, including the development of the major tasks and resource requirements. 2. Evaluate these requirements and the available tools, technology, and general resources available to carry out the decommissioning process. Examples of issues which will be considered are: Explosive and non-explosive methods for severing conductors. Explosive and non-explosive methods for severing piles. Explosive and non-explosive methods for severing members in open water. Diver operations in severing members in deep water. ROV operations in severing members in deep water. Conventional heavy lift vessels (derrick barges) in deep water lift. Non-conventional lift methods, e.g., Versatruss, Offshore Shuttle, external buoyancy, etc., in deep water applications. 3. Determine the areas where improvements are needed and where the current technology and resources, including the available infrastructure, will be most challenged. CTR 300 - Assessment of Disposal Options 1. In light of the results of CTRs 100 and 200 tasks, determine the general requirements for material disposal. 2. Determine the specific disposal requirements for each representative structure selected. 3. Determine options for reuse and removal of facilities and their impacts. 4. Determine how the State-run reefing programs impact material disposal. 5. Determine the water depth limits of effective reefing communities. CTR 400 - Define Decommissioning Options & Cost 1. In light of the results of previous CTRs tasks, determine decommissioning plans for the representative structures, including the alternatives that are considered practical, in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates. 2. Determine the most important areas of uncertainty in the decommissioning processes for the deep water structures. 3. Develop cost estimates using probabilistic methods to capture the uncertainty. CTR 500 - Documentation and Final Project Meeting 1. Document the work of CTRs 100 to 400 in a draft Final Report 2. Conduct a final report. 3. Address MMS comments and issue two (2) Final Reports; one (1) proprietary version and one (1) public version.
5.5
Glossary of Terms
Page 48 of 108
Abandonment A term generally used synonymously with decommissioning. Anchor A heavy hooked instrument which, when lowered to the seabed, holds a vessel in place by its connecting cable. Anchor Buoy A barrel shaped buoy through which the anchor pendant wire passes. The buoy holds the eye free end of the anchor pendant wire above the water surface. The pendant wire is used by the anchor handling tug to set and retrieve anchors. Anchor Handling Tug (Resource) A tug equipped with a winch to lift a derrick barge's anchors. It is also used as the derrick barge's tow tug. Anchor Pile A section (20 - 50 ft.) of large diameter (30 - 48 in.) pipe, with an anchor chain attached to it, driven below the seabed to a predetermined depth, usually 20 feet or more. Anchor piles are used to moor drilling rig tenders, other vessels or terminal mooring buoys. Anchor piles are normally installed in a pattern or system consisting of 6 to 8 anchor piles. Annulus The space between the inside face of an outer casing string and the outside face of the next smaller casing string. Arc Gouging The use of an electrical arc and compressed air to cut steel. Artificial Reef A disused structure emplaced in a designated area either in situ or other designated site.
Intended as an enhanced marine habitat for animals and plants. Assistant Derrick Barge Standby (Task) The standby or idle period between the assist derrick barge's arrival at the platform location and the commencement of its work. Barge Damage Deductible (Resource) The deductible for a typical cargo barge hull insurance policy. Bell Guides See "Conductor Guides". Blasting Cap See "Detonator". Blasting Machine A mechanical or battery operated device used to electronically ignite a detonator. Bottom Clean Up (Task) The removal of debris by divers from the sea floor. Bottom Time (B.T.) The amount of time during a dive that is spent working on bottom. Brent Spar A cylindrical oil storage and loading buoy operated by Shell UK Exploration and Production on behalf of Shell and Esso. Bring In Cargo Barge (Task) The process of maneuvering and securing the cargo barge alongside the derrick barge. Buoy A float of any type used as a marker. Caisson A large diameter pipe driven into the seafloor through which well casings run. The purpose of
Page 49 of 108
the caisson is to protect and support the well casings. The caisson may have a small deck.
A large diameter pipe driven into the seafloor to protect the surface casing and to protect against a shallow gas blowout. Conductor Guides Guides built into the jacket and deck, during fabrication, used to install the conductors in their correct location. Consumable Items (Resource) Items used in the course of a typical project, the cost of which is not covered by the contract or the schedule of rates.
Cargo Barge (Resource) A flat deck barge used to transport platform components, equipment modules and other cargo. Casing Steel pipe placed in an oil or gas well as drilling progresses to prevent the wall of the hole from caving in during drilling and to provide a means of extracting petroleum if the well is productive. Casing String Pipe inside an oil or gas well conductor installed during the drilling operations often cemented to the conductor. Closure Plates Plates welded into the tops of piles or jacket legs to seal them so that water can be evacuated using compressed air. Coil Tubing (CTU) Rig-like unit with continuous length of pipe on a big coil. Used to service wells. Can perform many of the functions of a drilling rig, but is much smaller and less expensive.
Continental Shelf The seabed and subsoil beyond the territorial water over which a country has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring for and exploiting natural resources. Crew Boat (Resource) A small fast boat used to transport personnel and supplies to and from the job site to shore. Critical Path The sequence of events that determine the duration of a project. Cut Deck Legs, Equipment and Miscellaneous (Task) The cutting of all equipment, miscellaneous piping and the deck leg to pile splices to allow lifting the equipment from the deck and the deck from the jacket. Cut Jacket The cutting of all braces necessary to remove the jacket in two or more sections. If a jacket is so large that its weight will exceed the capacity of the derrick barge, or if it is not structurally sound, it may have to be cut and removed in pieces. If this is required, the members to be cut above the surface would be cut by welders in the conventional manner and those members below
Communication The movement of a substance (hydrocarbons, water, cement) from one position to another.
Concrete Gravity Base Structure A concrete substructure which is not fixed into the seabed by piles but resists wind and wave force by its own bulk and weight. Conductor or Drive Pipe
Page 50 of 108
water would be cut by divers using the Oxy-arc method. Deballast Piles (Task) The displacement of water inside the piles with compressed air to reduce the on-bottom weight of the jacket by causing it to be more buoyant. Deck The platform superstructure which supports drilling, wellhead, and/or production equipment. Decommissioning The process of deciding how best to shut down operations at the end of a field's life, then closing the wells, cleaning, making the installation safe, removing some or all of the facilities and disposing or reusing them. Decommission Pipeline (Task) The process of flushing a pipeline with water to purge it of hydrocarbons. After the pipeline is flushed, a pig is run using water and the pipeline is left filled with water. Decommission Platform (Task) A two phase operation, performed prior to the arrival of the derrick barge spread, to prepare the platform for salvage. The first phase is to make the environment safe for burning and welding. The second phase is to do any work which does not require, or will facilitate, the derrick barge operation. Deep Water Disposal Offshore disposal of a structure by emplacement at licensed, designated deep water sites. Demobilize Assist Derrick Barge (Task) The movement of the assist derrick barge from the platform location to its point of origin. Demobilize Cargo Barges (Task)
The movement of a cargo barge and its tow tug from the platform location to the disposal contractor's yard. Demobilize Derrick Barge (Task) The movement of the derrick barge from the platform location to its point of origin.
Depth Pay Premium paid to divers that dive below 50 feet, increasing at each 50 foot interval. Depth pay is paid once in 24 hours for the divers deepest dive. Derrick Barge (Resource) A barge (floating construction plant/camp) equipped with a revolving crane, a mooring system and crew quarters. Detonation The setting off of an explosive charge. Detonator A device or small quantity of explosives used for detonating high explosives. Disposal Contractor Contractor that will dispose of the platform components (scrap dealer). Diving Services (Resource) Services of a diving contractor used during a salvage or construction project. Dive boats are either four point anchor moored (4PDB) or dynamically positioned (DPDB). Dolphins A cluster of piling at the entrance to, or alongside, a dock or wharf for service as a fender, alongside of which boats may be moored. Drive Pipe or Conductor
Page 51 of 108
A large diameter pipe driven into the seafloor to protect the surface casing and to protect against a shallow gas blowout. Dumping A term sometimes used for offshore disposal. E&P Forum The Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, a global association of the oil and natural gas exploration and production industry.
type of material to be severed (steel, cement, etc.). This work is performed at the explosive contractor's facility then packages for shipment. Flame Cutting The cutting of steel using a controlled flame and oxygen Flame Washing The use of a controlled flame and oxygen to remove metal. Flared Conductor See "Flared Pile". Flared Pile The outward spreading (mushrooming) of the metal above the area where the pile is explosive severed. Gang Way A portable access walkway used to span the gap between the platform and the derrick barge. Gas Free Free of explosive or poisonous gas. working area.
Electric Line Unit A piece of equipment that allows work to be performed in an oil or gas well. Emplacement Regulated lowering of a platform in a designated disposal area, principally a designated artificial reef area. Explosive Charges (Resource) High explosives and their sized containers used to sever conductors and piles. Explosive Magazine A portable container used to transport explosive charges and equipment from the explosive contractors facility to the job site. Fabricate Deck Padeyes (Task) Replacement deck lifting padeyes are fabricated for decks cut into sections and for decks whose padeyes are no longer safe for the lift. These padeyes are fabricated at the decommissioning contractors facility. The contractor would install these padeyes during its decommissioning. Fabricate Explosive Charges (Task The assembly of high explosives in properly sized containers. The explosive charges container is sized to fit the internal diameter of either the pile or conductor pipe. The quantity of explosive material is determined based on the size and
A safe
Grout Cement slurry used between concentric structural members. Grout was used to secure one member to another. Grouted Pile The annular region between the pile outside wall and the inside wall of a jacket leg or sleeve is filled with grout. The grout may be several feet deep or fill the length of the jacket leg. Grout Plug A plug of cement/water mix placed in a pile extending above and below the mudline to strengthen the platform, sometimes with reinforcing bar cages. Hand Jet
Page 52 of 108
High pressure water nozzle used by divers to move soil on the seabed. Helideck A pad to land helicopters on an offshore vessel or platform. In-Water Decompression (IWD) The time a diver must spend in the water decompressing at specific depths enroute to the surface. In-situ In the original position, on site.
Jacket The portion of a platform extending from the seabed to the surface used as a template for pile driving and as a lateral bracing for the pile. Jet/Airlift A device used to remove the pile mud plug. High pressure water breaks up the mud plug and expanding air lifts the particles to the surface. Jet/Airlift Mud Plugs (Task) The removal of the soil from inside the piles using a jet/airlift system.
Injection Rate The rate fluids can be injected into the production formation and the pressure required to inject the fluids; example 10 barrels per minute at a pressure of 4200 pounds per square inch. Inspector (Resource) A representative of the oil company required to be present during all phases of the platform removal when work is being performed. His function is to observe the work and maintain a daily log of activities, to verify that the work is performed in accordance with the specifications and to verify extra contractual work. Installation A generic term for an offshore platform or drilling rig (but excluding pipelines). Install Closure Plates (Task) Placing and welding prefabricated steel plates in the tops of piles or jacket legs so that the water inside can be evacuated by compressed air. International Maritime Organization The United Nations body charged with shipping safety and navigation issues.
Lifting Block A block, containing one or more sheaves, connected to the crane boom by wire rope that is used to lift and lower loads. Lifting Capacity The weight a crane can lift at a given boom radius or angle. Lifting Eyes See "Padeyes". Load Spreader A pad of wood, steel, etc. Normally placed on a cargo barge to distribute a concentrated load over a larger area. London Convention An international treaty signed by more than 70 nations governing disposal of substances at sea. Magnetometer An electrical device towed by a boat over a location to locate metal objects, i.e. pipelines, wellheads, wrecks, and similar ferrous objects. Marine Growth Sea life (e.g. barnacles) attached to hard objects submerged in the sea.
Page 53 of 108
Members The structural pieces or components that make up a jacket or deck structure. Mobilize Assist Derrick Barge (Task) The movement of the assist derrick and its tow/anchor handling tug boat from its point of origin to the platform location. Mobilize Cargo Barge (Task) The movement of a cargo barge and its tug boat from their point or origin to the platform location.
OD Outside diameter. Off-Load Cargo Barge (Task) The removal of all sea fastening and the platform components from the cargo barge at the disposal contractor's yard. Offshore Operations carried out in the ocean as opposed to on land. Operator The company both solely or in a joint venture which manages the operation of oil and gas production for itself or on behalf of the partners. Oslo Commission See "Osparcom". Osparcom The Oslo and Paris Commission which regulates pollution from offshore and onshore sources in the North East Atlantic. Oxy Acetylene Torch A device using oxygen and acetylene to cut steel. Oxy-Arc Torch A device using oxygen and an electrical arc to cut metal, usually underwater. Padeyes A plate with a hole cut in it that is attached to a structure which allows a shackle connection for lifting the structure. Paris Commission See "Osparcom". Pendant Wire The cable connected to the head of an anchor used by the anchor handling tug to raise or lower the anchor. The free end is held at the water surface by a buoy.
Mobilize Derrick Barge (Task) The movement of a derrick barge and its tow/anchor handling tug boat from its point or origin to the platform location. Mosaic Number of pictures making up a big picture. Mud Plug The soil (mud, clay, sand) inside an open ended pile that has been driven into the seabed. Mudline (M.L.) The elevation of the natural seabed. North East Atlantic The sea area to which OSPAR Conventions apply, This is defined as westwards to the east coast of Greenland, eastwards to the continental North Sea coast, south to the Straits of Gibraltar, and north to the North Pole. This maritime area does not include the Baltic or Mediterranean seas. North Sea The sea bounded primarily by the coasts of Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, France and the Netherlands.
Page 54 of 108
Pick Up Assist Derrick Barge Anchors (Task) The retrieval of the assist derrick barge's anchors at the end of its portion of the project. Pick Up Derrick Barge Anchors (Task) The retrieval of the derrick barge anchors at the end of the project. Pig A plug, forced through a pipeline by liquid or gas, used to clean the pipe's interior or separate different fluid mediums. Pile Steel pipe driven into the seabed to secure and support an offshore structure. Pile Driving Hammer A steam, diesel or hydraulically operated impact hammer used to drive piles into the seabed. Pipeline A conduit of steel pipe extending from platform to platform or platform to shore used to transport oil and/or gas. Pipeline Abandonment (Task) The cutting and plugging of a pipeline that is to be abandoned in place. Prior to the jacket removal and after the pipeline decommissioning is completed; the pipeline is cut and abandoned in place using a diving crew. The diving is performed from the derrick barge or a dive boat prior to the derrick barge arriving on location. Pipeline Surveying Services (Resource) The services of a surveying contractor and his equipment or mark pipelines and other submerged objects to avoid interference with derrick barge anchor placement. Platform A structure secured to the seabed and extending above water for the production of oil and gas.
Processing Facilities Part of the topsides that treat oil and gas, remove impurities and pump the product into pipelines to shore. Production Casing A pipe set in the well after it is drilled. tubing is inside the production casing.
The
Production Formation The sub strata in which hydrocarbons are present. Where the oil and gas enters the tubing to be transported to the surface. Recycling Removal of an installation or parts of an installation to shore where they are separated into different materials and melted down or reprocessed to be reused. Remove Conductors (Task) The removal of the conductors from the jacket and placing them on a cargo barge. The conductor guides in the jacket cannot support the weight of the conductors; therefore they must be removed prior to the removal of the jacket. Remove Deck (Task) The lifting of the deck from the jacket and placement of it on a cargo barge. Remove Equipment (Task) The lifting, placing and sea fastening on a cargo barge, of all equipment removed from the deck. Remove Jacket (Task) The lifting of the jacket from the seafloor and placement of it on a cargo barge for transport to shore. Remove Piles from Jacket Legs (Task) The removal of the piles from the jacket to reduce the jacket's lift weight.
Page 55 of 108
Rig The derrick or mast, drawworks, and attendant surface equipment of a drilling or work over unit. Rigless Abandonment P&A without a rig. Rig Up Cargo Barge (Resource) The installation of protective pads to prepare a cargo barge for receiving the salvaged platform components. Rigs to Reefs A national policy in the US enshrined in legislation, promoting the conversion of disused platforms into artificial reefs for marine lift at designated sites. Riser The portion of a pipeline that rises from the seabed to the water surface, supported by the platform jacket. Riser Bend The section of the riser that turns the pipeline from horizontal to vertical. Salvage Contingency An allowance of 15% of the estimated on site derrick barge spread work time to account for unforeseen factors which will increase the time required to perform the work. Examples of items to be covered by this contingency are as follows: 1. Conductor flaring In the process of explosively severing the conductors, flaring of the cut ends occurs. This flaring will not allow the conductor to pass through the conductor bell guide framing in the jacket resulting in divers having to cut the flared end. This will require one hour of bottom time per conductor plus in water decompression time as determined by the dive tables for the applicable water depth.
2.
Pile flaring As in the case of conductor flaring described above, flaring of the pile ends also occurs. Additional time is required to trim the pile ends, eliminating the flared obstruction.
Sea Buoy The first buoy encountered when approaching the entrance of a river or port from sea. Sea fasten The securing by welding of platform components or cargo to the cargo barge for transport at sea.
Set Up Derrick Barge (Task) The placement of the derrick barge's mooring anchors on the seafloor around the platform location at pre-selected positions. The derrick barge will be positioned alongside the platform using its mooring system. A walkway will be placed between the derrick barge and the platform. Sever Conductors (Task) Cutting the conductors using high explosives. Sever Piles (Task) Cutting the piles using high explosives. Shackle A "U" shaped device with a removable pin or bolt across the end used to connect a sling or cable to a pad eye. Shaped Charge An explosive charge designed to focus its blast onto a very small area, used to cut very thick materials. Shim
Page 56 of 108
Curved steel plates wedged between and welded to the jacket leg and pile, used to tie the jacket and piles together at the top of the jacket leg. Shoe A piece of equipment installed on the end of the casing when it is run into the well bore (i.e. that point in which the casing ends). Side-scan Sonar Radar like device used to determine shapes in the water on the sea floor. Skirt Pile A steel pipe driven into the seafloor that passes through a sleeve attached to the jacket. The sleeve and skirt pile extend from the mudline up 50 to 100 feet along the jacket leg. The annular region between the pile and sleeve is filled with grout. The purpose of a skirt pile is to secure and support offshore structures. Slick line A machine with a hydraulically controlled spool of wire used for setting and retrieving safety valves, lugs, gas lift valves, and running bottom hole pressures. Slicklines are also used for a variety of other jobs such as recovering lost tools and swedging out tubing. Slick line wire generally ranges in size from .072 inches to .108 inches. Sling Usually a wire rope of a given length with a loop formed on each end, used for lifting loads. Spreader Bar A pipe or beam arrangement used to spread the slings to keep them from damaging the load while lifting. Spreader Frame See "Spreader Bar". Spud Barge
A derrick barge moored by dropping pipe or beam spuds into the seabed. Stakeholders All the parties having an interest in an issue, including among others corporate shareholders, regulators, employees, community groups, the public at large. Stiff leg Barge A derrick barge with a crane that does not revolve and which may or may not boom up and down. Stops Metal plates welded to the sides of a pile to hold the pile at a desired elevation in the jacket leg.
Subsea Tie In (SSTI) Point where a branch pipeline ties into a main pipeline on the seabed. Survey Location for Pipelines (Task) The locating and buoying of pipelines around a platform. A survey boat and crew are mobilized to the location to locate and mark, with buoys, all pipelines within a 4000 foot radius of the platform to enable the derrick barge(s) to place its anchors safely. Tension Leg Platform (TLP) A floating platform anchored to the sea bed by long steel pipes (tension legs). The tension legs keep the platform from moving up and down on the waves. Tonne 1000 Kilograms - a common weight unit used in offshore structure design and construction; also used as a measure for oil (approx. 1200 liters). Toppling
Page 57 of 108
Controlled "tipping over" of the platform (generally but not always without topsides) from its vertical position to resting horizontally on the seabed. Topsides The facilities which contain the plant for processing oil and gas and accommodations. Tow Tug (Resource) A tug boat used to tow a barge, either a cargo barge or derrick barge. It may also be used as an anchor handling tug by the derrick barge. Tubing String The smallest diameter pipe suspended in a well. The hydrocarbon product flows to the surface inside the tubing.
See "Gang Way". Weather Contingency (Task) An allowance of 6% of the estimated onsite derrick barge spread work time to account for lost time due to weather. Well The holes drilled through the seabed into the reservoir where oil or gas is trapped, often two thousand or more meters below the seabed. The hole is lined with piping which extends up through conductors onto the platform deck. Well Head The well head sits on top of the drive pipe. Casing and tubing strings are suspended from the well head. Valves on the well head allow the entrance to the tubing and the casing annuli. Wire Rope Steel wire formed into a cable.
Trunk Line, Explosives A detonation cord that connects all the explosive charges so they may be detonated in a group. Walk Way
Wood Piles Wooden (timber) piles driven into the seabed to support equipment offshore.
Page 58 of 108
5.6
Explosive Permit Stipulations
5.7
Fixed Platform General Methodology & Assumptions
This section provides an illustrated description of the general methodology involved in the decommissioning of fixed offshore platforms. Some of the removal methods in this section are noted for general information only and were not included in this study. Based on Proservs knowledge and experience in the construction and decommissioning of offshore structures, the tasks, time, and resources required to decommission the facilities in question were identified. Decommissioning efforts are based on the assumption that a knowledgeable contractor will use the most efficient technology and equipment available at this time. The decommissioning costs
Page 59 of 108
for each task is determined from actual cost data obtained from Proservs files and rental rate schedules issued by various contractors providing this service. The decommissioning estimates are based on platform information provided by the client and/or researched from Proservs files and the MMS facilities database. Where information was not available, Proserv made an assumption based on previous experience and other estimates developed. Estimates were developed using Proservs proprietary Decommissioning software. See Section 4, for a description of the cost estimates and Section 5.1 for the representative platform estimates. All pipelines in federal waters were estimated as abandoned in-place (flushed, cut, tube-turns removed and the ends plugged and buried) and pipelines in state water, if any, were estimated as complete removal (flush, cut, remove). The well P&A estimates were assumed to be carried out using a rigless method and generic trouble free wells in accordance with MMS requirements. The cost to cut and remove the conductors is included in the platform removal section of each estimate. All conductors were cut and removed prior to derrick barge arrival or during the derrick barge operations as specified on each estimate.
METHODOLOGY Platform Well P&A. Once all production ceases from the platform, the wells will be plugged and abandoned. The crew mobilizes and sets up on the platform. Once the equipment is onboard and rigged up, diagnostics (establish injection rates & wireline surveys) are made to determine each well status. Having finished the diagnostics work, the well is ready for P&A. Squeeze all perforations with cement. Set intermediate plugs. Cut and remove the tubing +/- 300-ft below the mudline. If the production / surface casing annulus are not grouted, then a cement plug is set to isolate the casing. A CIBP is set above the point the tubing is cut. A 200-ft balance plug is set above the CIBP and tested. Once tested, all strings are cut at 15' below the mudline. The well P&A estimates assume operations proceed without significant problems or complications. Should wellbore conditions change over the well life or should complications arise during the well P&A operation, actual costs could increase significantly over the estimates contained herein. General platform components. The basic components of an offshore platform (from the top) are the helideck, equipment, deck, jacket, pipelines, and piles (Figure 1). Note, all figures in this section are for general discussion purposes only and are not representative of all the fixed structures estimated in this study. Platform decommissioning. All work that can be performed prior to the arrival of the derrick barge is done during the decommissioning phase. All personnel and equipment are mobilized to the platform on a work boat. The decommissioning crew will be housed in the existing quarters or temporary quarters.
Page 60 of 108
In this phase, the crew flushes all piping and equipment which contained hydrocarbons. All equipment that will be removed separately from the deck is cut loose using oxygen-acetylene torches. The piping, electrical, and tubing interconnections between equipment are also cut. All work needed to prepare the components for lifting (such as installing lifting eyes etc.) is completed at this phase. Any pipelines connected to the platform are decommissioned at this time. The decommissioning crew flushes the line by pumping (pushing) a cleaning plug (called a "pig") through the line with seawater (Figure 2). Divers will then expose the pipeline and cut the line approximately ten feet out from the base of the jacket. The severed end of the pipeline is then plugged and buried three feet below the mudline (Figure 3). The other end of the pipeline is also exposed, cut, plugged and buried. Conductor Removal. All conductors are completely removed a minimum of 15 feet below the mudline. Conductors may be severed below the mudline during the decommissioning phase or during the platform removal operations. During the platform removal operations the conductors are severed explosively during the derrick barge operation (Figure 4) or the conductors can be severed during the decommissioning using an abrasive cutting spread (Figure 5). Once the conductor has been severed below the mudline it pulled upward with a crane until a 40-foot section is exposed. The conductor is cut using external mechanical cutters. The cut section is then removed and placed on a workboat (or away from the work area). This procedure (pulled upward, cut and remove) is repeated until the entire conductor is removed. Mobilizing. Cargo barges are outfitted at a fabrication yard with steel pads (load spreaders) to support the point loads of the jacket and deck. More than one cargo barge may be outfitted depending on the size of the deck and jacket. A tug boat then tows each cargo barge to the offshore location. Another tug boat moves the derrick barge (with its crew and equipment) to the offshore location (Figure 6). Setting up derrick barge. When the derrick barge arrives on site, the derrick barge's anchor handling tug boat sets up the anchoring system. This anchoring system holds the derrick barge in position during the platform removal process. The derrick barge's anchoring system consists of eight anchors, each connected to a mooring winch by a cable. Each anchor is equipped with a pendant wire that is long enough to reach from the seabed to the surface where it is supported by a buoy (Figure 7). The anchor handling tug picks up the anchors by securing the pendant wire and winching up the anchor. The anchor handling tug then carries the anchor to the desired location. This process is repeated for each of the derrick barge's anchors. Removing deck and equipment. Each piece of equipment that is on the top deck of the platform is removed and placed on a cargo barge. The equipment is secured by welding pieces of steel pipe (or plate) from the equipment to the deck of the cargo barge (Figure 8). The deck is then removed by cutting the welded connections between the piles and the deck legs with oxygen-acetylene torches. Depending on the size of the deck, it may be cut into sections for removal. Slings are attached to the deck lifting eyes and to the derrick barge crane. The derrick
Page 61 of 108
barge's crane lifts the deck (or deck sections) from the piles. The platform deck is then seated in the load spreaders and secured by welding steel pipe from the platform's deck legs to the deck of the cargo barge (Figure 9). Removing the deck and equipment (disposals of deck and equipment onshore). The cargo barge transporting the deck and equipment moves to the onshore fabrication yard. The equipment is lifted with cranes from the barge to the yard. The conductors are lifted with cranes from the barge to the yard. Finally, the deck is skidded off the barge into the yard. All of the structural components and equipment are cut into small pieces and disposed of as scrap. Severing piles. A jetting process is necessary to clear the mud plug to allow the explosive charges to be placed fifteen feet below the mudline. The mud plug was formed when the piles were driven in the sea floor. The mud plug must be jetted from each pile. After the mud plug is jetted from each pile, explosive charges are placed and detonated in each of the piles (Figure 10). Explosives were used for pile diameters 60 and smaller. Abrasive pile severing was use for pile diameters >60. The piles may be removed from the jacket legs if they are not grouted to reduce the lift weight. This is dependent on the derrick barge lifting capacity. In-situ. The jacket can be completely removed in place (in-situ). If the derrick barge selected is capable of lifting the jacket in a single lift, the jacket is then removed from its position on the seabed and placed on a cargo barge as described below. If the jacket weight is greater than the derrick barge lifting capacity, the jacket must be removed in several or more sections. The jacket can be cut up vertically and or horizontally underwater by divers or remotely operated vehicles (ROV) into sections that are each then removed by the derrick barge. This option presents higher risks to divers than the jacket hopping method presented below. To minimize diving exposure this method is not used in this study. Jack Hopping. If the jacket weight is greater than the derrick barge lifting capacity, the jacket must be removed in several or more sections. The jacket can be deballasted, lifted off the seabed as high as the derrick barge can lift considering the lifting configuration, secured to the derrick barge, towed to shallower water and set on the seabed (Hopping), where the top section is cut horizontally above the waterline and removed to a cargo barge. If the remaining jacket weight is greater than the derrick barge lifting capacity and the jacket must be cut horizontally at lower jacket elevations, the hopping method is repeated until the bottom section can be removed. Where the bottom section weight is greater than the derrick barge lifting capacity, the bottom section is cut up by divers and removed by the derrick barge to cargo barges. Conceptual Removal Methods. Several conceptual removal methods have been visited in this study. Removal with external floatation devices has been used successfully in the North Sea to vertically float a jacket from its installation site to a disposal site. OE August 2009. This study visits using external floatation devices in the GOM to float a jacket horizontally to either a reef site or to an onshore scraping facility. SeaMetric International ASs states SeaMetric International AS has developed the Twin Marine Lifter (TML) system for installation and removal
Page 62 of 108
of very heavy objects like platform topside and jackets with weights up to 20.000 tonnes. Section 4 of this study presents conceptual cost for use of these two systems. Setting the jacket on cargo barge (disposal of jacket onshore). After severing the main piles, the jacket is lifted, set and secured onto cargo barges (Figure 11). The cargo barge transporting the jacket travels to a fabrication yard. Skid rails and winches are rigged up, and the jacket is skidded off the barge into the yard. The jacket is cut into small pieces and disposed of as scrap. Towing and toppling the jacket at a remote reef site (disposal of jacket at remote reef site). This removal method is for information only and was not include in the scope of this study. If the jacket is to be disposed of at a remote reef location, the derrick barge rigs, lifts and secures the jacket (Figure 12). The jacket is then towed on the hook to the reef site. At the site, the derrick barge sets the jacket on the seafloor vertically. The derrick barge then topples the jacket creating an artificial reef site. A reef donation is included in the decommissioning estimate. Toppling jacket in place (in-situ). This removal method is for information only and was not include in the scope of this study. If the jacket is to be toppled in place (in-situ), the derrick barge or a specially equipped pull barge topples the jacket to create an artificial reef (Figure 13). The piles and conductors remain in the jacket as part of the reef. A reef donation is added to the decommissioning estimate. Partial removal in place (in-situ). This removal method is for information only and was not include in the scope of this study. This method considers cutting the jacket at (-) 85 below the waterline, a depth commonly accessed by commercial divers (Figure 14). Since explosives are not used, the local marine life is not affected; in fact, a major portion of the habitat is maintained. A reef donation is added to the decommissioning estimate. Clearing the site. After the platform is removed, the area is cleared of debris by using specially equipped trawlers with nets, commonly called "Gorilla Nets". The trawlers remove all debris from around the platform site and send the debris to shore for disposal.
Page 63 of 108
The graphical representations below are for general reference only and may not be indicative of all the facilities included in this study. FIGURE 1 - GENERAL PLATFORM COMPONENTS
HELIDECK
EQUIPMENT
DECK
JACKET
PIPELINE
PILES
Page 64 of 108
PLATFORM DECOMMISSIONING
PIG
PLUG
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
Page 65 of 108
FIGURE 4 Conductor Cutting Explosively

CONDUCTORS EXPLOSIVE CHARGE
Explosive Charges set inside the Conductors to Sever (-)15 Below the Mudline
FIGURE 5 Conductor Cutting - Abrasively.
CONDUCTORS ABRASIVE CUTTING
Mud Line
15'
Cut Line
Abrasive Cutters Placed inside the Conductors to Sever (-)15 Below the Mudline
Page 66 of 108
MOBILIZING
DERRICK BARGE
TUG BOAT
FIGURE 6
SETTING UP DERRICK BARGE
FIGURE 7
Page 67 of 108
REMOVING DECK AND EQUIPMENT
DERRICK BARGE CRANE
CARGO BARGE
STEP 1
STEP 2
FIGURE 8
Page 68 of 108
REMOVING DECK AND EQUIPMENT (Continued)
STEP 3
STEP 4
FIGURE 9
Page 69 of 108
FIGURE 10 - SEVERING THE PILES
EXPLOSIVE CHARGE
PILES
Page 70 of 108
FIGURE 11 - SETTING JACKET ON CARGO BARGE
Lift Jacket from Seafloor
Set Jacket on Cargo Barge
Page 71 of 108
FIGURE 12 - TOWING AND TOPPLING THE JACKET AT A REMOTE REEF SITE
Page 72 of 108
FIGURE 14 - PARTIAL REMOVAL IN PLACE (IN SITU)
STEP 1
STEP 2
Cut and Lift the Top 85 Section of the Jacket

Page 73 of 108
Placing the Top 85 Section of Jacket on
the Cargo Barge
FINAL
Remainder of Jacket Abandoned In-Place DECOMMISSIONING ASSUMPTIONS The Standard Assumptions for platform decommissioning are as follows: 1. All work will be performed during the summer work season between May 15th and September 15th. 2. Mobilization times are estimated from the Eugene Island sea buoy. 3. The current guidelines for the use of explosives are assumed. 4. Hourly rates for construction and diving spreads are developed from offshore contractors published rates. 5. No allowances have been made for the presence of sea turtles or marine mammals. 6. No allowances have been made for the presence of NORM or hazardous waste disposal. 7. Platform Wells are plugged and abandoned using rigless techniques unless otherwise noted. 8. The conductors will be severed and removed prior to derrick barge arrival or during the derrick barge operations as noted in each estimate. 9. Pipeline are pigged, flushed, plugged and abandoned in situ in federal waters. 10. Site clearance and verification is in accordance with the current NTL. 11. Operator's internal overhead or other costs are not included. 12. Engineering & Project Management cost of 8% (company or other) is included. 13. Work Contingency of 15% is included.
Page 74 of 108
14. Weather allowance of 20% is included, consisting of 14% for regular weather and 6% for named tropical storms.
5.8
International Construction Inflation Trends
MMS requested that offshore inflation trends be added to this report. A study was conducted on the inflation factors and this section presents the results. To make a determination of the appropriate inflation factor to use for POCS decommissioning project cost estimates we have evaluated construction trends internationally in the recent past. General Construction Inflation Over the past ten years the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) has seen an almost steady rise of 34% compared to 1996 levels for an average annual rate of 2.96%. (1) General Construction rates, shown in Figure 5.8.1, have increased faster than the CPI since 2003. Construction rates have increased by 36% from 2003 levels for an average annual rate of 7.99%, which is 16% higher than the 15% CPI rise since 2003.
GeneralInflationfrom2003
PriceRates(Percentageof 12/03levels) 130 120 110 100 Dec03 Dec04 Dec05 Year Dec06 Dec07 ConstructionPrice (Percentageof12/03Level) ConsumerPrice(Percentage of12/03Level)
Figure 5.8.1 U.S. General Construction Inflation (2) Heavy construction has shown a greater increase in cost since 2003 primarily due to energy costs involved in operating heavy machinery. Figure 5.8.2 shows a 41% increase in heavy construction costs, 26% higher than the CPI values, for an average annual rate of 8.97%.
Page 75 of 108
HeavyConstructionInflationfrom2003
PriceRates(Percentageof 12/03level) 140 130 120 110 100 Dec03 Dec04 Dec05 Year Dec06 Dec07 HeavyConstructionPrice (Percentageof12/03Level) ConsumerPrice(Percentage of12/03Level)
Figure 5.8.2 Heavy Construction Price Rates vs. Year. (2)
Many factors contributed to this higher rate inflation in heavy construction, including #2 diesel, concrete, gypsum, copper mill, and steel mill product prices. All of these factors, most notably #2 diesel fuel, showed a higher normalized price increase compared to the CPI since 2003 as shown in Figure 5.8.3.
ConstructionInflationFactors
ConstructionInputPrice(Percentageof12/03 Level) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Dec03 Dec04 Dec05 Year Dec06 Dec07
#2DieselPrice(Percentageof12/03 Level) ConcreteProductsPrice (Percentageof12/03Level) GypsumProductsPrice(Percentage of12/03Level) CopperandBrassmillshapesPrice (Percentageof12/03Level) SteelMillProductsPrice (Percentageof12/03Level) ConsumerPrice(Percentageof 12/03Level)
Figure 5.8.3 Construction Inflation Factors. (2)
Offshore vessel rates provide a strong correlation to overall offshore construction prices and therefore are a good indicator of offshore construction prices used in Proserv
Page 76 of 108
Offshores inflation rate recommendation for POCS decommissioning projects. Offshore vessel rates in Figure 5.8.4 show an overall trend of staying below CPI from 1996 to 2008, but since 2003 rates are shown to be rising significantly faster than the CPI in Figure 5.8.5. A major factor in this recent trend is the increase of #2 diesel fuel at a rate 170% higher than the CPI since 2003 (see Figure 5.8.3 above). (2) The general offshore vessel rate trend, excluding lift boats, has shown an annual average increase of 14.2% since 2003.
325 300 VesselPrices(%of1996value) 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 1996 1998
1996VesselPricesvs.Year
AverageCB Price AverageDB Price Average VesselPrice LiftBoat/hr DiveBoat/hr Work Boat/hr Consumer PriceIndex 2000 2002 Year 2004 2006 2008
Figure 5.8.4. Offshore Vessel Prices Normalized to 1996. (3)
Page 77 of 108
325 300 VesselPrices(%of2003value) 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 2003 2004
2003VesselPricesvs.Year
AverageCB Price AverageDB Price Overall Average VesselPrice LiftBoat/hr DiveBoat/hr Work Boat/hr Consumer PriceIndex
2005
Year
2006
2007
2008
Figure 5.8.5. Offshore Vessel Prices Normalized to 2003. (3) Table 5.8.1 shows the general construction rates for the U.S., Singapore, and India, as compiled by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Cumulative US 2.7% 3.4% 3.2% 2.9% 2.7% 15.8% Singapore 0.5% 1.7% 0.4% 1.0% 4.4% 8.2% India 3.8% 4.2% 4.2% 5.3% 5.9% 25.7%
Table 5.8.1 Comparative General Construction Inflation Rates(2) Recommended Inflation Rate for the GOM OCS Decommissioning Projects A review of the various rates shows a wide range of variation by category and from year to year. We have reviewed the available inflation data and propose the following inflation factor of 3.357% for use offshore, as shown in Derrick Barge Average in Average column in Table 5.8.2
Page 78 of 108
Derrick Barge Average (%)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Average
14.305
0.002
3.905
7.840
0.031
7.172
5.686
6.734
1.524
13.892
15.198
0.474
3.357
Table 5.8.2 GOM OCS Decommissioning Projects Cost Adjustment Factor Inflation References 1. www.cia.gov 2. http://www.agc.org/galleries/econ/AGC_CIA08_webFinal.pdf 3. Proserv Offshores PAES Rates Database Figure 5.8.6 shows the historical decommissioning cost for offshore platforms in the GOM. Recent information received by derrick barge contractors indicates that the market costs for 2009 have decreased to an approximate level of $1,300 per st for decommissioning 4-pile and larger structures in the GOM. At the time of this study, back-up information was not available.
Figure 5.8.6 GOM Decommissioning Historical Costs
Page 79 of 108
5.9
Crossmar Subsea Report Submittal
Title: Subsea Abandonment in Deepwater a Subsea Perspective Drafted by: Brian Saucier, (Subsea Systems Engineer & Business Development Lead) October 1, 2009 Background: Cross Group was solicited by Pro-Serve to provide subsea system related information specific to deepwater subsea field abandonment in the GOM. Deepwater subsea fields are typically comprised of a template/manifold structure, subsea trees, control umbilical and UTA (umbilical termination assembly), pipelines/PLETs (Pipeline End Terminations), and well/flow-line jumper assemblies. Accessibility to the tubing is typically achieved via Drilling/SSTT riser systems, Open water Intervention riser systems, or Rig-less Riser packages. Each system will require interface with the vessel or MODU. The Subsea equipment is typically diver- less and requires specific design functionality and allow for ROV installation and future abandonment. The purpose of this document is to provide supportive information to Pro-Serve related to some of the challenges and technology gaps that may be in the industry related to deepwater Subsea field abandonment. In addition, the document may also serve to highlight new or novel technologies (Patented Technology reference USPTO # 72197490 and/or # 7565931) that could be applied to benefit future installation and developments in the future aimed towards reduction of intervention, maintenance and abandonment OPEX, and allow overall improvement to abandonment process. As point of reference the abandonment/ recovery of the subsea tree , well /flow line jumper and control umbilical / flying lead are fairly routine operations , since the majority of this equipment is design to be recovered in event a failure should occur. The unique aspects of the subsea abandonment program include, but not limited to the following: Venting and management of the casing annuli within Subsea wellhead system Removal / recovery of the manifold support base or template structure. (Note: Early designs installed a larger foundation to support the manifold in soft soil environments. This was prior to the development and application of ROV suction piles which are used today Selection / application of the Intervention riser system or Rig-less Intervention package. The deployment and controls for such a system need to be carefully selected for suitability with DP Vessels without compromise to well control risks and DP events. Deeper water will require large control umbilical and/or EH Mux systems. Controls for the tree and intervention package require critical planning and upfront engineering.
Page 80 of 108
Motion compensation devices or constant tension winch packages are critical to the successful deployment and recovery of packages from a smaller vessel. Recovery of the template foundation support structures will require jetting and cutting operations in selected cases.
Conclusions: Improved Subsea Hardware design and valve packaging and configuration would offer improved functionality during intervention and abandonment for future. Consideration of such functionality should be considered in the initial stages of design without compromise to HSE. Data Management which reconciles all pertinent data of the subsea system to allow faster response time and updated tool management. This shall include data library (Cross wIMS system) allowing real time tracking and availability via the web. Integrate hardware, procedures and methods with Installation and Intervention contractor for lower cost solutions. Industry should improve inter-relationships and foster closer ties between the vessel owners and manufacturing companies of subsea equipment to improve efficiency. Improvements shall be made on jetting and soil removal processes and procedures/methods for deepwater applications. This combined with submerged object surveys. Acoustic technology exists but is limited to depth of investigation and resolution of image. Perhaps other forms of technology could be applied and researched. Improvements in technology to cut /severe large tubular member cutting strategies and techniques Diver less applications. Improvement on plastic modeling and simulation of downed platform members to improve accuracy and development of the optimized cut / removal strategies. Such software exists, but can be improved or simulated. Continue to push deepwater rig less P&A systems and technology, controls and applications with numerous spin off technologies. Continued development of e line wire technology to allow for conventional slick line pack off (style) designs to be used subsea. In addition, improved controls and well control safety provisions built into the PLC logic and linked to DP vessel should be considered. Push for deepwater lowering solutions with light weight, high strength rope verse heavy wire rope solutions and the associated reeler systems to operate and deploy this type of rope. Industry to foster and promote alliances and relationships in offering integrated tooling management solutions to improve readiness and shorter cycle time approach to performing intervention and, well abandonment. The high cost to capitalize tools for abandonment is something that could be shared across a regional area. Conduct improved camera and visualization technology enabling more work conducted from ROV and diver-less system. Such technology improvements to promote 3D visualization in high silt, debris sensitive areas.
Page 81 of 108
Work to integrate new hardware and contingency solutions, for example, secondary release mechanisms related to various subsea equipment components to ensure recovery later in field life. Such contingencies shall be routinely designed into connectors, valves, and other diver less systems. Many of the systems are not debris tolerate therefore causing high cost and problems at the abandonment phase. Appropriate ROV accessibility studies and simulation on the design stage to allow for future access and intervention for abandonment. Work towards modular, light weight subsea equipment (manifolds, trees, etc) alternatives such to open the field for more vessels for conducting the work both during installation, maintenance and recovery / abandonment. By adopting integrated design solutions with the installation contractor will provide optimized solution for installation, intervention and abandonment. Build out standardized rental systems for reeler, flexible hoses and umbilicals. Since this equipment is long lead and high cost, perhaps MMS sponsorship / group could be considered for such an offering to allow for improved cycle time and work performance. Establish improved policy and guidelines for station keeping management and systems. DP3 offers full redundancy and especially important during any form of well access, reentry or abandonment in lower risks and reducing pollution events. This is a critical interface with any DSV/MSV with the Intervention package control system. The mating of the logic and well control shut down sequences are key to the success in conducting such operations from which to manage well control risks.
Technology Abandonment of Subsea trees, well /flow line jumpers and interconnection umbilical(s) are fairly routine and should not be a cause of concern technically. The challenge is to do this work with a lower cost vessel, hence the push in industry towards DP type MSV/DSVs with large cranes, towers, moon pool (s), and accommodations. With the MSV/ DSV vessels, will require light duty intervention packages to be deployed (i.e. Rig less systems). Such systems will be cross functional to allow for live well intervention and well kill/abandonment operations via DP Vessel. The key to success will be the integration of such packages on the vessel and seamless operability that will be required to achieve low cost solutions. Due to the soft soil conditions in the GOM and shallow gas hazards, Production Manifolds in the mid 90s were installed with a bottom supported structure or template. Typically the manifold can be recovered, OR at least an attempt should be made, however the supportive template structure is the real challenge. This will be an abandonment challenge since effects of long term subsidence may require extensive jetting and soil removal. Tools and technology exist for such an operation but may not be economically feasible at such depths and with extensive ROV time to achieve. Today the production manifold systems are being installed with ROV suction piles larger piles to handle high bending loads in soft soil environments, resulting in easier recovery of the manifold system. Such systems will involve greater planning
Page 82 of 108
Technology Improvements: Clustered Production manifold configuration has been typically constant over the past 20 years. However, novel patents have been developed in this area to improve the system functionality, improve life of field maintenance and intervention using smaller, lower cost vessels. The challenge is to mold and shift the design of subsea equipment and systems to allow for ease of installation, maintenance and abandonment. The following patents and technology has been developed to achieve this goal: o USPTO # 7219740: Well Production and Multi-purpose Intervention Access Hub o USPTO # 7565931: Dual Bore Well Jumper This technology (both patents above) can offer a single intervention access hub to Subsea Manifolds and provide single connection point to well test and unload multiple wells with a single connection. Thus allowing for (1) mooring configuration to be achieved in the field and prevent handling anchors / pile over live flow lines. The dual bore well jumper technology can offer both production and Tubing/production casing annulus monitoring at the production manifold. This would improve operations during abandonment and allow for single connection to be made to manage annulus pressure during the life of well. Well serviceability, injection, well stimulation and abandonment phases will benefit from the reconfiguration of the SS manifold system. Re-configuration of existing SS hardware designs, and incorporation of this technology will provide the following o Enable fluid conduit to all wells from single hub for production/well testing and serviceability o System capability to embed backup chokes, chemical injection modules or other equipment to wells without disruption in production. o Improve risks due to not having to trip drilling riser or pull anchors multiple times for each well operations o Fluid circulation and high rate access to the Prod/Tubing annuli o Allow for active management of annulus pressure, especially on HTHP wells, when shut in for storm or other extended delay. o Improve barrier control to the environment due to the Dual Tube design and configuration o Improve flow assurance within the well jumper design
Hardware Reconfiguration: Subtle changes to the hardware design and configuration can lead to step wise improvements in the intervention efficiency, and overall safety of the production operation and abandonment functionality. Reconfiguration could also provide redundancy to the overall production startup operations and allow for initial failure modes that routine occur with subsea
Page 83 of 108
projects over the first 0 2 years of operation. Pre-planning such failures into the system design with backup contingencies could greatly improve production choke points and improve revenue with short down time durations. Software and Data Management: Cross has developed a web based project information resource (wIMS web enabled Information Management System) that provides a resource to the planning and field abandonment process by offering overall project data management services. This technology can assist operators and MMS to understand the scope, specialized tools and equipment readiness for conducting abandonment operations. The system is securely partitioned and can be project customized for security considerations. The goal is to collect updated information on the project, tools, procedures, photos, etc that would allow for a more rapid efficient response to the project either during the intervention phase or the abandonment phase. Benefits of such a system include: o Tracking and management of certification readiness o Photo Library o Training and group understanding (e.g.: ROV or Diver accessibility)
Subsea Vessel and Intervention Equipment Factors Related to Subsea Abandonment cost and methods, the type of vessel (DSV/MSV or MODU) and the type of intervention equipment used either open water intervention riser, Subsea Test Tree systems, or Rig-less Intervention packages will be overall cost driver to the project. Recently industry push to build light duty intervention vessel with moon pool, motion compensation cranes / towers have enabled the rig less intervention equipment market to expand and allow for overall lower cost of abandonment to be realized. System related interfaces between the intervention equipment and the vessel are key to the overall success of the project in terms of weather risks, operability and safety. Integrated planning and equipment customization will the vessel will aid in reducing risks and provide lower cost solutions. Well bore status, configuration, pressure, fluids, and equipment reliability will impact the overall cost and related scope of the Subsea abandonment project. In summary, equipment can and should be optimized for late life and future subsea abandonment functionality. Integration with vessel and intervention equipment will allow and provide lower cost solutions to optimize production and life of field support and maintenance. Development of new technology, methods and development of service / client operator relationships will provide a seamless transition between production, intervention/maintenance and abandonment phases.
Page 84 of 108
5.10
Presentation on Artificial Reefing Programs
Page 85 of 108
Page 86 of 108
Page 87 of 108
Page 88 of 108
Page 89 of 108
Page 90 of 108
Page 91 of 108
Page 92 of 108
Page 93 of 108
Page 94 of 108
Page 95 of 108
Page 96 of 108
Page 97 of 108
Page 98 of 108
Page 99 of 108
Page 100 of 108
Page 101 of 108
Page 102 of 108
Page 103 of 108
Page 104 of 108
Page 105 of 108
Page 106 of 108
Page 107 of 108
Page 108 of 108

639 Aa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

639 Aa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

639 Aa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the study?

What is the purpose of the study?

What facilities are included in the study?

What facilities are included in the study?

A Study for the U.S.

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service

PROSERV OFFSHORE HOUSTON, TX PROJECT NO. 29038-11 OCTOBER 2009

Rev.0 Oct 2009

GOM DEEP WATER DECOMMISSIONING STUDY Final Report

Date Oct 2009 Oct 2009

Revisions Draft Report Final Report, Revised All Sections

Rev.1 Dec 2009

GOM DEEP WATER DECOMMISSIONING STUDY Final Report

SECTION 5 APPENDIX 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10

Rev.0 Oct 2009

Executive Summary Section

Rev.1 Dec 2009

DECOMMISSIONING COST INFLATION INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION INFLATION TRENDS

Table 0.2 GOM OCS Decommissioning Projects Cost Adjustment Factor

Executive Summary Section

Rev.1 Dec 2009

Section 1 DEEPWATER FACILITIES OVERVIEW

Figure 1.1 Deepwater System Types

1.2 GOM Asset Descriptions

Project Initial Assessment Section 1

Rev.1 Dec 2009

1.3 GOM Major Asset Inventory

Project Initial Assessment Section 1

Rev.1 Dec 2009

3,850 533 2,245 2,000 1,800 8,100 2,400 5,200 6,500

925 10,000 11,023 8,500 13,228 57,267 16,755 14,881

2,000 2,300 3,261 900

17,000 54,427 6,000 3,670

3,261 23,000 1,845 1,197 1,004 1,124 1,290

23,810 59,000 8,600 9,025 23,366 5,910

4 4 4-72" & 4-72"

1,400 668 638 892 900

4,120 5,080 4,400 4,279 5,447

48" leg-skirt 4-skirt 72" leg-skirt

Project Initial Assessment Section 1

Rev.1 Dec 2009

4825 2590 1930 3

17,210 12,500 3,300

35,831 28,700 12,885

12 Chain-wire-chain 14 5.25in. Chain-wire-chain 6 Chain-wire

Suction 8' OD Anchor 48"OD Piles

18' OD Suction 9 Piles 9 Piles

6 chain polyester lines

1700 1500 3294 4232 4375 2850 6

3,000 3,450 3,000 3,200 8,684 5,500

2,850 2,850 5,900 12,493 4,500

84" Driven piles

96"OD Piles 96" piles

Project Initial Assessment Section 1

Rev.1 Dec 2009

2097 7050 6378 6480 3000 5724 6200 8000

14,125 20,000 7,400

Chain-wire-chain 16 Chain-wire-chain Catenary