Post on 14-Feb-2017
Subsea Market Overview
Anna Karra – Associate Consultant
6th of February 2013
I. Subsea Market Drivers
II. Global Market Overview
III. Supply Chain
IV. Subsea Technologies
Presentation Contents
2
Subsea Market Drivers
3
Subsea Market Drivers – Going deeper
Shallow 90%
Deep 8%
Ultra-Deep 2%
Fields by WD Group, 1998-2007 (1,963 fields)
Fields by WD Group, 2008-2017 (2,372 fields)
Shallow 83%
Deep 12%
Ultra-Deep 5%
• Since 2000, important deep and ultra-deep discoveries ‐ 17% of the 2008-2017 fields expected to lie in such
environments • Key offshore oil fields were discovered in:
‐ pre-salt Brazil ‐ the US GoM ‐ West Africa ‐ Malaysia
• E&A deep and ultra-deep water activity led to the discovery of significant gas finds in: ‐ East Africa ‐ Australia ‐ Israel ‐ India ‐ Associated gas in Brazil
• Excluding Petrobras, deep and ultra-deep fields are
primarily operated by: ‐ Internationals ‐ Large Independents
4
17% of the 2008-2017 fields are located in deep and ultra-deep waters
Infield Systems Limited
Subsea Market Drivers – Going further
Average Tieback Distance (km), 1970-2017
5
Maximum Tieback Distance (km), 1970-2017
Key Projects: • 1997: Shell’s MC Mensa in US GoM – Ultra-deep subsea tieback to fixed platform – 110km
• 2007: Statoil’s Snøhvit/Albatross (Melkoya Island) in Norway – Shallow subsea tieback to shore – 156km
• 2016+: Chevron et al Gorgon area fields in Australia – Deep subsea tiebacks to shore – up to 188km
• 2017: Woodside’s Browse Basin CCS in Australia – Subsea CO2 injection from shore – 280km
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Avg Tieback Distance (km)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Max Tieback Distance (km)
Average tieback distance is increasing. Currently stands at 17 kilometres
Infield Systems Limited
Global Market Overview
6
Subsea contracting sentiment is improving
Subsea Tree Market, 2005-2012
Subsea Tree Market Share Q1 to Q3 2012 (345 trees)
345 confirmed subsea tree orders in the first 3 quarters of 2012. Expect to surpass 400 trees by FYE
• Contracting activity has improved in 2012
‐ FYE >400 unit threshold
• Q1 to Q3 2012
‐ FMC largest market both in terms of volume and EPC revenues
• FMC key 2012 awards include:
‐ Pre-salt Brazil
‐ Statoil FA
‐ IOCs in ultra-deep water US GoM
• GE - 55% of the shallow water market
‐ UK, Nigeria & Australia
‐ Deep water: Eni & ExxonMobil - Angola
• Cameron
‐ Post and pre-salt assets in Brazil
• Aker Solutions
‐ Statoil FA
‐ Murphy - Malaysia
Infield Systems Limited
7
Aker Solutions 9%
Cameron 20%
FMC 36%
GEOG VetcoGray
33%
Dril-Quip 2%
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
50
100
150
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012E
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Market (RHS)
Shallow Water Activity, 2013-2017: US$19bn Europe largest market for SW subsea with 52% of overall Capex. Asia Pacific and Africa also significant
Infield Systems Limited
8
North Sea
Africa
Asia Pacific • Key Markets:
‐ West Africa
• Key Operators:
‐ Eni
‐ Chevron
‐ Sinopec
• Key Manufacturers:
‐ GE
• Key Markets (80% of APAC):
‐ Australia
‐ China
‐ Indonesia
• Key Operators:
‐ Chevron
‐ Apache
‐ CNOOC
• Key Manufacturers:
‐ Cameron (Australia)
‐ Diversity in SEA
• Key Markets:
‐ Norway
‐ UK
• Key Operators:
‐ Statoil
‐ Variety of Independents
• Key Manufacturers:
‐ FMC & Aker Solutions (FA)
‐ GE & Cameron
Deep Water Activity, 2013- 2017: US$105bn Africa and Latin and North America represent 86% of overall Capex
Infield Systems Limited
9
North America
Latin America
Africa
Asia Pacific
• Key Operators:
‐ Shell
‐ BP
‐ Anadarko
‐ Chevron
‐ ExxonMobil
• Key Manufacturers:
‐ FMC - 63%
‐ Cameron - 28%
‐ Dril-Quip - 4%
• Key operators:
‐ Petrobras
• Key Manufacturers:
‐ FMC
‐ Cameron
‐ Aker Solutions
‐ GE & Dril-Quip mainly for dry solutions
• Key Markets:
‐ West Africa
‐ Egypt
• Key Operators:
‐ International Oil Companies
• Key Manufacturers:
‐ FMC
‐ Cameron
• Key Markets:
‐ Malaysia
‐ India
• Key Operators:
‐ Murphy & Shell - Malaysia
‐ Reliance & ONGC - India
• Key Manufacturers:
‐ Aker Solutions (45%)
‐ FMC, Cameron &GE
• Chinese Sinopec & CNOOC ↑presence in:
‐ West Africa
‐ USA
‐ Brazil
• Secure reserves & earn deep water expertise
Supply Chain
10
Supply Chain
Global Subsea Tree Capacity, 2007-2017 Deliveries
Global supply is capable of dealing with demand. Regional issues exist
Infield Systems Limited 11
Drilling Rigs by Build Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017EAker Solutions CameronFMC GEOG VetcoGrayDril-Quip Global Capacity (LHS)Utilisation Rates (RHS)
• 2012-2019: High spec JackUps and Ultra-Deep water rigs expected to experience most significant CAGR: 5.4% and 7.1% respectively
• Brazil, US GoM, West Africa, Norway and Mexico – areas where Ultra-Deep water fleet will operate • Tree manufacturers have expanded their manufacturing capacity since 2007 in Malaysia and Brazil
• Despite capacity increases, tree manufacturers expected to see higher utilisation rates going forward
• Regional issues exist primarily in Brazil and Europe
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019JackUps <300 JackUps 300-349 JackUps >=350
MidWater DeepWater UltraDeepWater
Subsea Technologies
12
Subsea Processing – Fields of the Future Subsea processing technologies include seabed gas compression, seabed oil boosting and seabed separation
Infield Systems Limited 13
Subsea Processing
Subsea
Boosting
Subsea
Separation
Seabed Gas
Compression
Seabed
Multiphase
Pumps
Downhole
Boosting
Seabed
Separation
Downhole
Separation
Raw
Seawater
Injection
At times used together
Subsea Boosting
Seabed Gas Compression by Tieback Distance (km)
Subsea boosting is deployed to ensure the flow of fluids after natural reservoir pressure declines
Infield Systems Limited
14
Seabed Boosting Projects by Water Depth (m)
Seabed Oil Boosting – Drivers • Heavy oil • ↑ tieback distance • ↑ water depth • ↓reservoir pressure & temperature Seabed Oil Boosting – Key Players • Framo & Centrilift • Shell, Statoil & Petrobras
Seabed Gas Compression – Drivers • Distant offshore gas fields • ↑tieback distance • ↑ water depth • ↓ reservoir pressure & temperature • Harsh environmental conditions Seabed Gas Compression – Key Players • Aker Solutions & Framo • Statoil, Total & Chevron
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1994 2000 2005 2007 2008 2010 2012
Jubarte
MC King
Perdido Host WR Cascade
Asgard
Gullfaks South Troll
Ormen Lange
Snohvit
Laggan
Liwan
Gorgon Central
Jansz
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Subsea Separation
Subsea Separation by Operator
Subsea separation units separate oil, gas and water directly at the seabed level vs. the topside facility
Infield Systems Limited
15
Subsea Separation by Country
Seabed Separation @ Mature Fields– Drivers • Heavy oil • ↑ water production • ↑ tieback distance • ↑ water depth • ↑ number of subsea tiebacks
Seabed Separation @ Green Fields– Drivers • ↑gas volume fraction • ↑ tieback distance • ↑ water depth • ↓ reservoir pressure and temperature
Seabed Separation – Key Players • FMC
Angola 22%
Brazil 28% Norway
17%
UK 5%
USA 28%
BP 5%
DNO 6%
Petrobras 17%
Shell 39%
Statoil 11%
Total 22%
Key Contacts Infield is a globally recognised oil & gas consultancy with a dedicated international team of cross-sector specialists
16
Key Contacts
34 Energy Professionals covering all geographic regions
Office Locations
London
Aberdeen
Houston
Singapore
Head Office
Regional Office
JV/Representative Office
Anna Karra Associate Consultant
ioanna.karra@infield.com +44 207 423 5028
Luke Davis Senior Analyst
Luke.davis@infield.com +44 207 423 5023
Gregory Brown Associate Consultant
gregory.brown@infield.com +44 207 423 5031
Infield Systems Limited
James Hall Director
james.hall@infield.com +44 207 423 5024
Steve Adams Sales Manager
steve.adams@infield.com +44 1224 258 150
Disclaimer
Infield Systems Limited
17
The information contained in this document is believed to be accurate, but no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made by Infield Systems Limited as to the completeness, accuracy or fairness of any information contained in it, and we do not accept any responsibility in relation to such information whether fact, opinion or conclusion that the reader may draw. The views expressed are those of the individual contributors and do not represent those of the publishers.
Some of the statements contained in this document are forward-looking statements. Forward looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning estimates of recoverable hydrocarbons, expected hydrocarbon prices, expected costs, numbers of development units, statements relating to the continued advancement of the industry’s projects and other statements which are not historical facts. When used in this document, and in other published information of the Company, the words such as "could," "forecast”, “estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "potential," "should," and similar expressions are forward-looking statements.
Although the Company believes that its expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, such statements involve risk and uncertainties and no assurance can be given that actual results will be consistent with these forward-looking statements. Various factors could cause actual results to differ from these forward-looking statements, including the potential for the industry’s projects to experience technical or mechanical problems or changes in financial decisions, geological conditions in the reservoir may not result in a commercial level of oil and gas production, changes in product prices and other risks not anticipated by the Company. Since forward-looking statements address future events and conditions, by their very nature, they involve inherent risks and uncertainties.
© Infield Systems Limited 2013