Scribd
Upload
33 views

"All-Subsea": Feasibility Assessment of The Subsea Factory Concept

Sistemas submarinos

Uploaded by

MauroLopes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views

"All-Subsea": Feasibility Assessment of The Subsea Factory Concept

Sistemas submarinos

Uploaded by

MauroLopes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

“All-Subsea”: Feasibility Assessment of the

Subsea Factory concept


Cranfield University MSc Group Project Presentation

Evening Meeting, London



Thursday, 12 May 2016
By Samuel Eka

Chairman: Alex Hunt, Technology Director, Woodview Technology Limited


Cranfield University Speakers: Project Team – Oboho Asanwana, Emmanuel
Ikpeme, Seyed Masoud, Saviour Okeke, Petros Panagakis and John Sagoe.

Venue: Imperial College London, Skempton Building.

The evening of the 12th of May saw SUT host an industry audience for an interesting
presentation delivered by Cranfield MSc students on their MSc group research project.
The students discussed the technical feasibility of undertaking an all‐subsea field
development ‐ a much discussed concept within the industry which seeks to totally
eliminate the use of any floating production facilities by transferring all production and
processing underwater.
The Chairman, Alex Hunt, introduced the topic by referencing a recent DNV GL position
paper which discussed various process steps to manage raw fluid streams for an all‐
subsea scenario. With the simplified process layout being limited in scope, Cranfield MSc
students were given the task of expanding the work carried out by DNV GL, by adding as
many process steps as possible and critically analysing each step based on technology
readiness levels (TRLs) for each process module to in order to determine the maturity of
the subsea factory concept.
The project goal was to “assess the technical feasibility and operational desirability of
locating each sequential processing step of a full process‐facility on the seabed to identify
items that require further development and qualification”.
Full wellstream processing generally consists of 2 or 3 parallel streams (oil, gas and
water). Depending on the field’s characteristics, each stream could consist of a number of
processes such as compression, boosting, separation, heating, etc. (including storage). For
each processing step in sequence, students were required to:
 Identify different possible technology solutions, the major equipment items and
monitoring/control requirements.
 Assess the suitability for subsea deployment based on technical feasibility and
operational desirability, providing recommendations on solution and location (i.e.
subsea or onshore).
 Identify technology gaps and recommend areas for further development.
The students were given parameters based on a large volatile oil field scenario of 150,000
bpd oil processing, 250 MMSCFD gas processing, 120,000 bpd water processing, 180,000
bpd water injection, 5% CO2, 0.5% H2S, 2,200m water depth and 100 km from landfall.
This was based on a Santos Basin “Replicant” FPSO, offshore Brazil.

www.sut.org


The students argued the case for the subsea factory concept as it improves personnel
safety and solves the problem of space on topside. It was also highlighted that proximity
to wells provided by the subsea factory greatly increases hydrocarbon recovery. The
students also assessed existing technologies based on ease of maintenance, flexibility and
robustness. Examples were drawn from existing subsea processing developments such as
the Statoil’s Åsgard subsea dry‐gas compressor which scores high on safety but low on
OPEX (high cost) due to high power consumption. Other field concepts such as the
Gullfaks subsea wet‐gas compressor (Statoil) and Ormen Lange subsea dry‐gas
compressor (Norske Shell) also score high on safety.

Conclusions
Oil stream: Analysis of the oil stream shows that the process chain breaks for subsea
processes requiring desalting or mercury removal, as more work is required in
technology qualification for subsea deployment. In such situations, the students
recommended crude oil transport via single‐phase pumps to onshore processing facility.
The students also concluded that subsea oil storage may also be a suitable option for
smaller fields and remote locations.
Gas stream: For the gas stream, cryogenic requirements cause the process chain to break
at the NGL modules (NGL recovery, separation and storage modules). However, the
removal of gas impurities is feasible with the use of semi‐permeable membranes.
Water stream: Although the requirements for water polishing and seawater treatment are
largely dependent on reservoir rock properties, the technologies for subsea water
processing are fairly mature (moderate to high) as the only major challenge to full scale
all‐subsea field deployment is water handling for ultra‐deepwater applications.
Commercial feasibility: Alex Hunt rounded up the presentation by discussing the major
issues surrounding the commercial feasibility of the subsea factory concept. Subsea gas
production would generally require a gas reception terminal to be constructed at shore.
It would therefore be more practical to have the complicated production processes
onshore rather than subsea due to ease of accessibility and lower OPEX. For the oil stream,
desalting may not be required due to downstream refining processes carrying out this
function. The Q&A session concluded a fascinating presentation, with guests being treated
to fine refreshment of cheese and wine.
DNV‐GL study scope (image © DNV GL)

2
www.sut.org
Student’s adopted processing scope with recommendations (image © Cranfield University)

3
www.sut.org

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy