Road Testing a Decommissioning Cost Reduction...
Transcript of Road Testing a Decommissioning Cost Reduction...
Road Testing a
Decommissioning
Cost Reduction
Opportunity Tool
Win Thornton
VP Decommissioning BP
28 November 2017
WHAT IS THIS TOOL?
A transparent way to assess the impact of various strategies/scenarios on the decommissioning costs
of the UKCS versus an established reference case.
A way to measure the journey toward the OGA aspiration of reducing decommissioning costs by 35%
In lieu of access to existing confidential UKCS basin wide decommissioning cost estimates
– BEIS cost estimate for fiduciary accountability (confidential)
– OGA Asset Stewardship cost estimate as summarized in Insight (confidential)
Team
– Bill Sutherland
– Peter Adlington
– Willem Van Es
– Win Thornton
– Don Orr
2
PROBABALISTIC APPROACH (A WORK IN PROGRESS)
• A high level probabilistic model developed to help understand the key uncertainties relating
to the cost of decommissioning offshore assets in the UKCS
– cost estimating has been carried out at a level of aggregation which does not identify individual
assets
– it has been based on the current assets in the UKCS, utilises the OGUK WBS structure, and
makes maximum use of existing norms and benchmarks
– separate models for five key sections in the cost estimate (wells P&A, post-CoP Opex, topsides,
jackets, subsea)
– use of a top-down approach which concentrates completely on the key uncertainty drivers and
levers (AACE Class 5)
– The modelling has been carried out using Excel and @Risk
• The probabilistic model will tests the potential benefits of implementing different
decommissioning approaches to those which have been assumed in the base estimate3
4
P&A TOPSIDES JACKET
POST COP OPEX SUBSEA
Minimize Duration
Flexible Contractor Window
MAJOR DECOMMISSIONING WBS ELEMENTSCurrent Approach and Sequencing
Sequence
COP
4
RESOURCE DAYS ARE “ATOMIC” UNITSTarget Supply Chain Metrics – Equipment Utilization
Rig Days (P&A)
Operating Days (OPEX) Manned NUI Lighthouse
HLV Days (Topsides & Jacket)
CSV (Subsea)
5
USE GEOGRAPHIC BASINS AS PROXY FOR ARCHTYPEUncertainty on Asset, Count, Configuration & Condition
FPSO
CGBX
X NNS
CNS
SNS
6
OUTPUT DECOMMISSIONING COST DISTRIBUTIONSimilar Distribution to OGUK Insight
7
WELL P&A INPUT UNCERTAINTIES
Inputs Ranked by Effect on Output Mean
8
OUTPUT WELL P&A COSTS
9
EXAMPLE COST SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES FOR WELL P&A
Wells P&A Opportunities Assumptions/Rationale% Red Well
P&A
Reduce the number of well
barriers
Save between 4-6 days/well. Assume that 15% of the well stock will
benefit3%
Improved FEL prior to starting
P&ASave between 25% and 50% of train wrecks 3%
Improved platform systems
reliability during Wells P&A
Save between 3-5 days/well via better systems reliability. Assume that
10% of the well stock will benefit1%
Use of campaigns (efficiency
gains)
Save between 10/11/17 days per well, but only for 30% of SNS wells
since such efficiency gains cannot be for all SNS wells4%
Use of LWIVs in place of rigs
for subsea well P&As
Save of on the day rate for subsea wells that a LWIV vessel can be
used for, compared with using a semi-sub rig. Assume that this is
applicable to 15% of the relevant rig days
1%
10
FACILITIES INPUT UNCERTAINTIES
11
Inputs Ranked by Effect on Output Mean
OUTPUT FACILITIES DECOMMISSIONING COSTS
12
EXAMPLE COST SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES FOR FACILITIES
Facilities Opportunities Assumptions/Rationale% Red
Facility
P&A platform wells prior to
CoP
Save on post-CoP Opex by plugging & abandoning wells prior to CoP.
Saving of 25%/35%/50% range was applied to P&A platform days.8%
Minimise the Post-CoP
unmanned period
Save 25%/50%/75% range compared to P50 estimate from minimising
the post-CoP period. 3%
Transfer Duty Holder for
cleaning and preparation
phase
Transfer Duty Holder from Operator to contractor to save cost. Percent
saving for phase in range 30%/40%/50%.2%
Flotel in lieu of HLV for
accommodation during
topsides preparation
Percentage range of 60%/65%/72% is the saving by using flotels
compared with the NNS and SNS HLV rates.2%
Additional derogation for NNS
jackets
Percentage range of 12%/15%/20% saving if greater derogation is
allowed for NNS jackets.2%
13
INTIAL OBSERVATIONS OF A WORK IN PROGRESS
• Upside cost risks exist due to condition uncertainties
• Input duration ranges based on latest best performance
• Best cost reduction strategy is to perform work during downcycle
market conditions
• Cost reduction through higher rig/vessel utilization
• Cost reduction through P&A pre-COP
• Stay tuned for final work product in 2018
14