Subsea Market Overview

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


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


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


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


‐ Cameron (Australia)

‐ Diversity in SEA

• Key Markets:

‐ Norway

‐ UK

• Key Operators:

‐ Statoil

‐ Variety of Independents


‐ FMC & Aker Solutions (FA)

‐ GE & Cameron

Deep Water Activity, 2013- 2017: US$105bn Africa and Latin and North America represent 86% of overall Capex


9

North America

Latin America

Africa

Asia Pacific

• Key Operators:

‐ Shell

‐ BP

‐ Anadarko

‐ Chevron

‐ ExxonMobil


‐ FMC - 63%

‐ Cameron - 28%

‐ Dril-Quip - 4%

• Key operators:

‐ Petrobras


‐ FMC

‐ Cameron

‐ Aker Solutions

‐ GE & Dril-Quip mainly for dry solutions

• Key Markets:

‐ West Africa

‐ Egypt

• Key Operators:

‐ International Oil Companies


‐ FMC

‐ Cameron

• Key Markets:

‐ Malaysia

‐ India

• Key Operators:

‐ Murphy & Shell - Malaysia

‐ Reliance & ONGC - India


‐ 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


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


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

[email protected] +44 207 423 5028

Luke Davis Senior Analyst


Gregory Brown Associate Consultant



James Hall Director


Steve Adams Sales Manager


Disclaimer


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

Subsea Market Overview

Documents

Transcript of Subsea Market Overview