Bergen, Norway 11 – 13 June, 2019

Backup presentations

Change day
  • Field Development Concepts and Experiences

    Method for evaluation of technology impact on subsea system lifetime costs and risks
    Keld Lund Nielsen, R&D Project Manager Deepwater Engineering, ENI spa

    Subsea systems engineering has come to a situation where costs, time and risks are of major concern. It is proposed to move beyond classical “document based engineering” and to assess a “model based engineering” approach. It is inspired by “Lean and Six-Sigma” methodologies. The “Lean” aspect concerns the overall systems view. It must enable global evaluation of several phases of the subsea plant life, such as: construction and installation, operation and maintenance, scenario analysis for resilience assessment etc. The “Six Sigma” aspect relates to risk and uncertainty. The idea has been adapted by deploying a Markov-Chain-Monte-Carlo method (MCMC). It permits to assess operational scenarios of test cases. Our work demonstrates that economics and risks can be explicitly connected to the technical design. It has been obtained by a multi-physics approach. Mainly the Modelica modelling language is deployed. A case with a FPSO and 40 km tieback is proposed. Different designs are compared, e.g. one with active heating layout and one with hybrid loop design. The active heating approach is technically very innovative, i.e. risks and uncertainties are relatively high. Conversely, there are interesting features in terms of handling during shut-in cases. The hybrid loop is more conventional. The shut-in simulation shows longer time to recovery of production due to the replacement with diesel, i.e. system characteristics are radically different. The test-cases are compared in terms of costs and risks.

  • Improved Asset Value and Significant Cost Reductions

    Subsea Intervention and permanent technologies getting closer?
    Knut A. Nilsen, Technical Advisor, Innova AS

    Brownfield rejuvenation, lifetime extension, increased recovery and the development of marginal fields results in increased demand for subsea instrumentation, processing, power conversion and communication. This leads to development of new subsea technology and the transfer of technology from surface to subsea. Examples of this are electro hydraulic power systems (subsea HPU systems) for local generation of hydraulic power and control functions; use of acoustic technology (sonars, hydrophones) and cameras e.g. for leak detection; and use of fibre optic communication technology. At the same time, these technologies have been applied subsea by the ROV/intervention industry for several years, but based on the ability to recover the equipment. Technology that is considered “new” for permanent applications, such as subsea HPU systems, is “old” (and field proven) in intervention applications. Development has been done largely by taking existing or new technology from other areas and applying this subsea. I.e the companies working with intervention technology already have massive experience with the transfer of technology from surface to subsea. At the same time, increased demands for regularity and reliability means that requirements for “traditional” intervention technology is slowly merging with the requirements for permanent subsea equipment. Some ROV-equipment is undergoing the same qualification tests regime that is used for permanent equipment (e.g. to ISO 13628-6). These facts open up for a wider potential for using the experience and already existing technology from the intervention industry in the development of new technology for permanent applications.

  • Simplification, Standardization and Enhanced Industry Collaboration

    The “Good enough Philosophy” – material and manufacturing requirements at the right level for the subsea industry”
    Hans Christian Ly, Head of Materials Technology, Subsea, Aker Solutions

    The requirements in the oil and gas industry need to be improved and aligned in several areas. The key to success is the communication between the parties involved, oil companies, equipment manufacturers, and the sub-suppliers performing the manufacturing.  Most oil companies have a variety of requirements added to industrial standards, like the ISO 13628 series, ASTM, API, Norsok, etc. In order to standardize, the equipment manufacturers make specifications with a mix, covering requirements from all oil companies, resulting in longer lead time and increased cost.  The current industry consensus is control, quality surveillance and assurance systems, with approvals of documents in ERP-systems as the key to success. Few have focus on the critical processes where the properties of our products are set, for instance during forging, heat treatment or welding.   We have all learnt that good quality can never be inspected into a product already made. It seems that we have forgotten this lesson learned. In order to cut cost and lead times, we need to focus on how we can re-use manufacturing process specifications (MPS) and standardize qualifications for the whole industry. This will result in products with lower cost, precise quality and predictable delivery time.  Improvement potentials can be found in all parts of the industry. In addition, the window of opportunity is here as everyone are looking for cost reductions.