SPE-172483-MS

Subsea Production System (SPS) - A Solution to Marginal Offshore Fields

Development in the West African Waters
A. Umofia, NAOC; A Kolios, Cranfield University, UK

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 05– 07 August 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Globally, the search for hydrocarbon is witnessing a dramatic shift from the land and swamp terrain to the
offshore frontier with significant challenges in terms of technology requirements, safety, reliability and
economics. The challenges become more apparent in offshore marginal fields where operators struggle
with cutting edge technological demands, high CAPEX, lean reservoir and a possible poor return on
investment (ROI).
The last two decades have seen a huge increase in the application of subsea systems as the preferred
concept for offshore production of oil and gas. Subsea is a term generally used to refer to equipment,
technology, and methods employed to explore, drill, and develop oil and gas fields that exist below the
sea bed.
This paper explores the use of subsea production systems (SPS) as a possible solution to marginal field
developments in West African waters. An SPS case study for marginal fields developed with a floating
system is analysed and compared to other offshore development concepts from applicable equipment’s,
schedule to CAPEX and OPEX considerations.
Key words: Offshore · Subsea Production System (SPS) · Marginal Field

Introduction
The search for hydrocarbon is witnessing a dramatic shift from land and swamp into the offshore
environment with attendant challenges from technology, equipment’s reliability, safety, environment and
economics.
This is particularly more challenging for offshore fields classified as ‘marginal’.
Several definitions for marginal fields exist. Nischal (2012) defines marginal fields as fields for which
the projected expected net revenue may not justify its development due to technological, geographic,
geologic or economic constraints. Often times, the production profile is associated with a relatively
short-lived plateau that is not sustainable to match the associated investment. According to the Nigerian
Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), a field is classified as being marginal if its reserves has been
booked and reported annually to the department and has remained unattended to for a period of ten (10)
years. The department stipulates the following as the characteristics of a marginal field (Adetoba 2012):
2 SPE-172483-MS

● Field with low stock tank original oil in place (STOIIP) (i.e. low reserve)
● Field located at long distance from existing production facilities, thereby making them uneco-
nomically viable to be produced
● Field with difficult crude characteristics (e.g. low API), making it difficult to be produced with the
conventional techniques
● Fields with unattractive economics due to prevailing market and fiscal conditions
● Fields with one/some wells not developed by the operating firm due to the company’s ranking
including unappraised discoveries
● Producing fields that have become uneconomical when close to passed their abandoned limits
● Small fields that cannot produce 10,000 barrels per day.
A couple of factors affect the development of marginal fields. This includes Price of oil and gas
(including future predictions), Volume of recoverable reserve, Field characteristics (e.g. water depth, sour
gas, reservoir pressure, hydrocarbon GOR. . .etc), Environmental concerns, Political concerns/Legislation
including fiscal regimes, Access to the field, Remoteness of the field/Existing facilities, Operator’s IRR
and Interface/Collaborative challenges between licenses. Globally, these factors present a huge concern to
marginal fields’ development. Typical strategies adopted by operators for developing these fields are as
follows:
● The use of new technologies for improved economics
● Integrated development – Developing economical fields along with the marginal ones
● Emphasis on accurate reserve estimation, recovery factor and cost of development
● Incentive for development of Marginal Field
In Gomathi (2010), an integrated approach is adopted for the development of offshore marginal field
– Krishna Godavari in the coast of India. Located in shallow waters at depths ranging from 8 to 20m and
some 15km from the shore, the fields was developed using the clustering approach. Here, the author
demonstrates that though reserves and rate of depletion largely determines the capex and opex projections
for a field development, careful facilities planning with minimizing and modulization of the required
structures presents a huge benefit on field development profitability.
Common structures used for marginal field development in shallow water includes Monotower, Tripod,
Caisson and Jacket. These systems, which could be in different configurations depending on the
reqyuirements have very limited oil and gas processing capacities, deck weight, deck size and their
feasibility in deeper waters is limited.
In the mono tower, for example, a large diameter pile supports the deck with a single leg. It is
sometimes augmented with additional skirt piles in order to reduce the bending on the mono tower. The
mono tower houses three (3) or four (4) conductors within, thereby reducing the wave loads. Sometimes,
conductors are placed outside the mono pile to provide support.The jacket concept has three to four legs
with conductors inside the jacket frame. The legs are either vertical or battered. Three common concepts
for the jacket systems for shallow water applications are 4 legged jacket structure, 4 legged jacket
structure with batter piles and the 3 legged jacket structure.
Nimi (2010) advocates the use of floating storage units (FSU) or transportation of the hydrocarbon to
the nearest fixed or floating processing facility for long tie-back marginal fields which might be located
at distances of up to 100km. The author evaluates the use of subsea boosting systems for managing
hydrocarbon flow for long step outs and advocates the use of FSUs as it offers many advantages in power
management and efficiency. Again, the FSU brings in control, power supply, storage and other facilities
at closer range eliminating the associated CAPEX for the pipeline and boosting systems for a typical
100km pipeline on a satellite configuration. Finally, the author posits that using a full subsea processing
SPE-172483-MS 3

system along with an FSU for identified fields in close proximity offers a good solution for the
development of marginal fields along with a cheaper and less laborious decommissioning configuration.
Nigeria is known to have the largest oil and gas reserve in sub-Saharan Africa with an estimated reserve
of over 30billion barrels of oil, over two thousand producing wells and a daily average oil production of
2.0m bbl (OPEC 2013). The Nigeria crude is known to be of high quality, which is a huge attraction to
the major oil companies in the likes of Shell, Agip, Chevron, Total and Exxonmobil. Industry statistic for
West Africa waters shows that about 40% of the offshore reserves are located in deep and ultra-deepwaters
offshores and a chunk of this is in Nigeria. Going deep and ultra-deep introduces heavier challenges as
a huge qualification program may be required for a successful exploitation and poses the big question on
how the marginal fields in this terrain will be developed.
No two field configurations are the same. Understanding the marginal field requirement is key to
delivering a fit-for-purpose and economical structure for the development of the field. Pile loads and
configurations drive the economics on the concept to be chosen for shallow water field structures. Typical
cost being considered covers Engineering, Structure, Equipment and installation.
Due to the lean hydrocarbon reserve, deepwater offshore marginal oil fields do not justify the
construction of huge stand alone surface facilities. The conventional structures for exploiting the reserves
in the shallow waters are virtually unfeasible at this depth; hence a requirement for economic development
using advanced field architectures with short tie-back distances to already installed facilities, use of
systematic clustering strategies. . .etc. Common floating systems favoured in this terrain includes a TLP,
SPAR, Semis and FSU/FPSO. This paper discusses the conceptual strategy for the development of these
fields using subsea production system (SPS). The focus is strictly on facilities. A comparative analysis is
conducted for different SPS concepts using multi-criteria decision making technique called TOPSIS
(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution). The concepts are evaluated using
CAPEX, OPEX, Schedule and Technology as risk factors to the development of the field.
Offshore Field Development Concepts
Though offshore fields present opportunities for increasing oil reserves. They present huge technological
and economic challenges. Reduced capital cost is a key factor that allows for a profitable development of
an offshore oil and gas field. To achieve this, a careful study of the development concept has to be
conducted.
Key parameters for concept considerations of offshore oilfield development includes reservoir char-
acteristics, distance to shore, drilling/installation and well intervention plan, topside weight, utilities, field
layout, flow assurance, accessibility, regional influences, financials, well count and HSE considerations
with water depth as a major player for offshore field concept selection.
Offshore Field Architecture Considerations
Production facilities are essentially for safe and efficient recovery of the hydrocarbon from the reservoir,
processing of same and delivery to the market place. So much goes into this decision process and
interestingly it’s mostly undertaken at a point in the field life cycle where the information available is not
enough for an accurate evaluation. The objective of this evaluation is normally to maximize the return on
investment (ROI) within a tolerable level of risk. Typical issues covered in this evaluation include:
● Existing Infrastructure: Deepwater infrastructure installation can sometimes be prohibitively
expensive. Hence, the first though for deepwater development is to sough and evaluate the
closeness of an existing infrastructure. This includes the existing of nearby pipelines, platforms,
floating units and even wells.
● Well Clustering: The possibility of grouping of wells in a template and through manifold could
bring significant capex savings during a field development. This brings flowline saving, optimized
recovery and a huge advantage even in drilling and well intervention considerations.
4 SPE-172483-MS

Figure 1.0 —(a) TLP Technology (b) SPAR Technology (c) Semi-FPS Technology

Table 1.0 —Comparison between TLP, SPAR, Semi and FPSO

Feature TLP Spar Semi FPSO

Water depth Sensitive to motion Less Sensitive to motion

Platform Motions Minimal vertical Low vertival motion, Motion limit application Motion limit application
motion but sensitive to long to wet trees to wet trees
period of waves.
Transport Single piece Single piece hull Single piece complete Single piece complete
complete
Installation Quayside deck lift Hull upending and Quayside deck lift and Shipyard module lift and
and integration offshore deck lift integration integration
and integration
Mooring System Vertical tendons Taut or semi-taut spread mooring legs Turret or spread mooring
Wellbay Through the Through the N/A N/A
columns moonpool
Storage Capability No Yes, but not typical No Yes, typical

● Intrafield Configuration optimisation: The field well testing requirements will be evaluated
along with other layout considerations like pigging.
● Flow Assurance: Flow assurance requirement of the field will also be evaluated. This will cover
immediate and future requirements of the field like subsea boosting and pumping including
re-injection requirements.
In deepwater and ultradeepwater architectures, the use of the TLP, SPAR, Semi and FPSOs are highly
favoured as the conventional fixed structures are virtually unfeasible. Table 1.0 shows key comparison
parameters across all these:
Offshore fields are basically developed using a dry tree, wet tree or hybrid system. The options are
influenced by a number of decisions starting from the subsurface formation distribution, drilling plan,
field architecture, storage and export strategy to be used in the field. These are typically also influenced
by the amount of reserve in place, closeness of the field to existing infrastructures. . .etc. Dry tree systems
offer well access at the surface for possible intervention. With developments shifting into deep and
SPE-172483-MS 5

ultra-deepwater basins, developments with dry tree systems present a huge technological challenge to the
industry due to the requirement of the host structures. Facilities for dry tree developments include
compliant Tower, surface piercing articulated riser (SPAR), Tension Leg Platform (TLP) and jacket
platforms. Some of the benefits of dry tree developments include:
● Easy access to tree at the surface for well control
● Well Drilling and Completion from the facility – reduced CAPEX
● Intervention: Direct vertical access to the well
● Minimal offshore construction
● Provision for future drilling and wells expansion
Despite the above merits, the dry tree system is faced with a couple of challenges - Safety concerns
due to well access at the surface, Requirement for large vessel payloads to support the riser system,
Requires high cost vessels (e.g. TLP, SPAR. . .etc) due to the sensitivity to vessel motions, Complex
design requirements for riser tensioning and riser interface with vessel, Installation: Complex and HL
demand during deployment.
Wet tree systems otherwise known as subsea trees are implemented with remote tree/well access
isolated from people, flexibility to be deployed with any hull type, feasibility to deploy with low cost hull
forms and a relatively simplified riser/vessel interfaces. However, drilling a subsea well requires a
separate MODU and/or support vessel at the minimum. A large vessel would also be needed to support
the payloads from the riser system and flow assurance challenges also come due to low seabed
temperature and long satellite tie-ins that may be required. Additionally, high spec pipe-lay vessels are
normally required for flowline and riser installations with excellent station keeping systems.
Subsea Production System (SPS)
In the last decades, the oil and gas industry has come to accept the subsea production system (SPS) as the
technology of choice for the exploration and production of deep and ultra-deepwater findings. There are
four main manufacturers of subsea equipment’s, globally – GE Oil and Gas, Aker Solution, FMC
Technologies and Onesubsea (formerly Cameron).
A subsea production system comprises a wellhead, valve tree (‘x-mas tree’) equipment, pipelines,
structures and a piping system, etc., and, in many instances, a number of wellheads have to be controlled
from a single location (Haritonov 2009). Subsea systems deployments typically requires specialised and
expensive vessels, which need to be equipped with diving systems for relatively shallow waters and
robotic devices for deeper water depths. Figure 2.0 below shows the schematic of a subsea production
system.
An SPS is basically divided into three main parts (see figure 2.0):
1. Topside control equipment’s
2. The Umbilical/Controls & Distribution equipments and
3. The subsea hardware and completions equipment’s
The topside is basically made up of the electronic power unit (EPU), hydraulic power unit (HPU) and
the master control station (MCS) providing controls to the subsea equipment’s. The HPU stores and
deliver hydraulic fluids to the entire subsea system. Located topsides with redundant pumps, accumulators
and hydraulic circuitry, the HPU supplies low pressure (LP) and high pressure (HP) control fluids through
the topside umbilical termination unit (TUTU) into the subsea production system (SPS) umbilical. The
control umbilical is a critical link in the subsea production system and provides the connection between
the topside and the subsea parts of the system. They provide hydraulic power and electrical signals to
operate and control the production centers and also convey fluids (production chemicals, gas lift, annulus
bleed) to assist in the recovery process and to maintain the life and operability of the trees and flowlines.
6 SPE-172483-MS

Figure 2.0 —Schematic of an SPS showing the topside, umbilical and subsea equipment.

The heart of a typical subsea production system

(SPS) is the subsea Xmas tree. A Christmas (Xmas)
tree is an assembly of valves, spools, and fittings
used for an oil well, gas well, water injection well,
water disposal well, gas injection well, condensate
well and other types of wells (Bai 2010). Christmas
trees are used on both surface and subsea wells.
Trees installed on the seabed are called subsea trees
(see figure 3.0) while those on topside structures are
called surface/dry trees.
There are lots of variations depending on the
field requirements, features and functions. For this
report, the focus is on subsea Xmas trees. Below are
the typical functions of a subsea Xmas tree system: Figure 3.0 —Subsea Xmas tree, courtesy of GE Oil and Gas

● Control the production of hydrocarbons

● Provide a Safety barrier between the sea and
the reservoir
● Safely stop produced or injected fluid
● Enables Injection of chemicals to well or flowline
● Provides control of downhole valves
● Deliver electrical signals to downhole gauges
● Excess pressure bleed off from the annulus
● Regulate of fluid flow through a choke (optional)
● Allow for well intervention
SPE-172483-MS 7

Figure 4.0 —Types of Subsea Xmas tree, self-addition

There are basically two categories of subsea Xmas trees – Vertical trees (VT) and the horizontal trees
(HT) (see figure 4.0). The vertical trees are further broken down into basic conventional trees (CXT) and
the enhanced conventional trees (ECXT) while the horizontal trees are divided into the basic horizontal
trees (HXT) and the enhanced horizontal tree (EHXT).
The main difference between the vertical and the horizontal trees are the configuration, size and weight.
In consideration of water depth, trees could be driverless or have diver assist facilities (figure 4.0). In the
VT, the tubing hanger (TH) is installed on the wellhead and the well is completed before installing the
tree. This differs from HT where the tree is installed before completions and the TH is installed in the tree
body instead of the wellhead. This configuration requires the tree to be installed on the wellhead before
the completion of the well. The pressure ratings for the subsea Xmas trees are 5000, 10,000 and 15,000psi
in accordance to API 17D.
Subsea tree valves are operated directly from the topside using the subsea control system (SCS) or
through a manual override with an ROV/diver. The main component of the tree mounted control system
is the Subsea Control Module (SCM). The SCM contains electronics, instrumentation, and hydraulics for
safe and efficient operation of subsea tree valves, chokes, and downhole valves. Other tree mounted
equipment includes various sensors, electrical and hydraulic connectors. A typical horizontal subsea Xmas
tree will contain the following valves as a minimum:
● Production wing valve, PWV
● Production master valve, PMV
● Annulus wing valve, AWV
● Crossover valve, XOV
● Methanol Injection valve, MIV (optional)
8 SPE-172483-MS

Figure 5.0 —(a) Well clusters on a tie-back to an FPSO (b) well cluster on the seabed.

● Chemical Injection Valve, CIV

During a subsea tree operation, a typically a well start-up would be - Open PMV - Open MIV - Open
AMV - Open AWV - Open SCSSV - Open CIV - Open PWV while a well shutdown would be - Close
PWV - Close AWV - Close AMV - Close XOV - Close PMV - Close CIV - Close MIV - Close SCSSV.
These operations on an E-H SCS all pass through the subsea control module (SCM) for its execution.
Developing offshore oil and gas fields is a very expensive venture and so requires a careful evaluation
of the architecture. Key factors considered when performing the evaluation include existence of infra-
structure, well clustering and flow assurance. In the case of clustered satellite wells see figure 5.0, wells
may be placed from several meters to tens of meters from one another. The wider well spacing is often
dictated by a desire to be able to position the drilling rig over one well without imposing dropped object
risk on adjacent wells, whereas a more compact well spacing can optimise well jumper construction and
installation. It is hard to precisely control the spacing of individual satellite wells, so well jumpers and
control umbilicals must be able to accommodate the variations in spacing. Another way of clustering wells
is by means of a template manifold. Templates are structures that are designed to closely position a group
of well conductors. Templates may support two or more wells, as well as allow for direct tie-in of Xmas
trees. Apart from reservoir considerations, the number of wells in a template is only limited by the size
of the template that can be handled by the installation vessel. Small templates may be deployed from the
drilling rig. Larger ones may require a special installation vessel with large crane capacity and without the
moonpool dimensional constraints of a drilling rig.
Flow assurance considerations in deep and ultra-deepwater include slug challenges; hydrate formation,
wax/paraffin, asphaltenes/naphthalene, scales, erosion/corrosion, emulsion/viscosity. . .etc. High hydro-
static pressures, equipment guidance considerations, diverless Installation/Use of ROV, low temperatures,
long trip times also come into play due to the water depth.
SPS concepts analysis as a solution to Marginal Field Development
Generally, marginal field development face a host of challenges from technology, schedule through to cost
and the requirement to meet the statutory laws of the government and host communities. These challenges
are further amplified in the offshore arena with attendant risks demanding the application of unconven-
tional concepts and strategies to ensure profitability. In this analysis, the application of subsea production
system (SPS) for offshore marginal field development is being explored.
SPE-172483-MS 9

Figure 6.0 —Subsea wells on tie-back to a SPAR

Nimi (2010), Nischal (2012), Gomathi (2010), Giannesini (1991), Raustein (1994), all show that
economic development of an offshore marginal field requires a certain level well clustering in order to
achieve savings from flowline, processing, gas export, storage and offloading systems cost.
Clustered satellite subsea well developments are less expensive than widely spaced satellite wells
because of flowline, control umbilical and installation savings. If several satellite wells are in close
proximity, a separate production manifold may be placed near the wells to comingle the production from
all the wells and deliver it in a single production flowline to the production facility. Also, a single
umbilical can be used between the well cluster and the production platform.
A comparative analysis is performed between four clustered subsea development concepts namely:
● Concept1 (A1) - Subsea wells with newbuilt SPAR
● Concept2 (A2) - Subsea wells with Rented FPSO
● Concept3 (A3) - Subsea wells with newbuilt TLP and
● Concept4 (A4) - Subsea wells with newbuilt FPSO
The assumption is that the wells are placed within a reasonable radius to allow for well clustering and
optimum distance for satellite tie-in devoid of huge flow assurance challenges requiring boosting/pumping
along the line. Also, these wells are located in deep and ultra-deep locations where the application of
conventional techniques (e.g. monopod and tripod) is virtually unfeasible. There is no existing offshore
infrastructure in the vicinity of these wells and they are located at a reasonably long distance from any
terrestrial facility that may allow a hookup to a land facility. It is also assumed that the reservoir conditions
of these wells allows for the co-mingling of the fluids through a manifold system.
Concept-1 - Subsea wells with newbuilt SPAR
Here the subsea wells are tied back to SPAR located at a reasonable distance from the well cluster.
Concept-2 - Subsea wells with rented FPSO
In this concept, the clustered subsea wells including the satellite one is tied back to rented FPSO, where
the gas is also evacuated through a dedicated export pipeline. . The marginal field operator pays for the
10 SPE-172483-MS

Figure 7.0 —Subsea wells on tie-back to an FPSO

Figure 8.0 —Subsea wells on tie-back to a TLP

facility at the start of operations with a significant upfront CAPEX savings. The FPSO here might be a
direct rental or through a 3rd party.

Concept-3 - Subsea wells with newbuilt TLP

Here the subsea wells are tied back to a tension leg platform (TLP) located at a reasonable distance from
the well cluster.

Concept-4 - Subsea wells with newbuilt FPSO

The configuration here is similar to that of concept2. The only difference is that the FPSO facility is new
built with huge CAPEX implication.
SPE-172483-MS 11

Multi-criteria TOPSIS Methodology

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) sometimes called multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) or
multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA) is one of the fastest growing areas in the last decades and a
popular topic in decision making and refers to the process of making selection from a number of actions
in the face of multiple and often conflicting attributes (Virine 2007, Bejari 2010, Jahanshahloo 2006).
According to Jahashahloo (2006), the primary concerns in discrete decision analysis are listed below:
1. The choosing of the a most preferred alternative
2. The ranking of the alternatives in the order of importance or
3. Screening of the alternatives with the aim of a final decision
TOPSIS, known as the technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution gives perfor-
mance ratings including the weights of the criteria in clear exact values and has been used extensively in
the analysis of MCDA issues as exemplified by Kolios (2010) and Braglia (2003). TOPSIS starts with
creating a decision matrix:
1

Where the ith alternative (i ⫽ 1, 2. . .. . .. . .,n) is evaluated with respect to jth criteria (j ⫽ 1,
2. . .. . .. . .,m).
The next step is the normalisation of the judgment matrix X ⫽ [xij] to establish unit-free elements.
Many approaches are used for this. From Deng at al 2000, to transform each element [xij], the equation
below is used:
2

The weight of each criterion is then evaluated. This could be done by directly assigning the values or
through pair-wise comparison.
Next, the positive and negative ideal solution is then determined. This gives the performance indicator
for each of the criterion of comparison.
3

and
5

The distance of the criterion between the positive ideal and negative solutions is then computed. The
following equation is used in the calculation of the euclinean distance of each alternative to and :
7

The gives the distance of the ith criterion relative to the positive ideal solution while represents
th
the distance of the i criterion measured from the negative ideal solution. Finally, the preference order of
the alternatives is then ranked.
12 SPE-172483-MS

Table 2.0 —Linguistic scale for importance weight of each criterion

(C, S, O and T)
Linguistic variable Corresponding triangular fuzzy number

Very Low (VL) (0.0, 0.0, 0.1)

Low (L) (0.0, 0.1, 0.3)
Medium Low (ML) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
Medium (M) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
Medium High (MH) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
High (H) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0)
Very High (VH) (0.9, 1.0, 1.0)

Table 3.0 —Linguistic scale for rating the development concepts

against criterion
Linguistic Variable Corresponding TFN

Very Poor (VP) (0, 0, 1)

Poor (P) (0, 1, 3)
Medium Poor (MP) (1, 3, 5)
Fair (F) (3, 5, 7)
Medium Good (MG) (5, 7, 9)
Good (G) (7, 9, 10)
Very Good (VG) (9, 10, 10)

In fuzzy TOPSIS all the input data are fuzzified. This includes the weight of the criterion including
the rating of the criterion in correspondence to the alternatives being evaluated.
In the fuzzy TOPSIS analysis, the alternative closest to the fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS) and
farthest from the fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS) is selected as the optimal alternative. FPIS is
indicative of a higher performance compared to that of the FNIS, which is being attributed to a worse
performance. According to Lee (2013), the use of FUZZY TOPSIS has the following advantages:
● a sound logic that represents the rationale of human choice;
● a scalar value that accounts for both the best and worst alternatives simultaneously
● a simple computation process that can be easily programmable.
● the performance measures for all alternatives can be visualized

Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS on SPS concepts evlauation

The criterion (factors) to be considered in the evaluation of the field development concepts are CAPEX
(C), Schedule (S), OPEX (O) and Technology. The development concepts (AI) are as shown in section 4.0.
CAPEX refers to the capital expenditure required for the successful development of the specified concept.
Schedule here means the time required for such concept till first oil. Opex considerations evaluate the
magnitude of operational expenditure that is expected if the concept is selected. Lastly, Technology refers
to the level of maturity of the technology with respect to the deep and ultra-deepwater terrain, the
feasibility of its implementation in an offshore marginal field and ease of implementation.
In fuzzy TOPSIS application, the importance (weight) of each evaluation criterion is expressed in
linguistic terms as shown in table 2.0
Similarly, the linguistic scale for evaluating the alternatives (development concepts) to the correspond-
ing criterion is depicted in table 3.0
Consider that we have K number of experts or decision makers making use of the linguistic variables
shown in table 2.0 and 3.0 to evaluate the weight of each criterion and the rating of these criterions to the
SPE-172483-MS 13

corresponding alternatives, the fuzzy rating and importance weight of a kth decision maker about an ith
alternatives based on jth criterion are:
9

where i⫽1,2,. . .,m, and j⫽1,2,. . .,n. Then the aggregated rating, xij of the alternatives (i) in corre-
spondence to the respective criterion (j) is given by: xij ⫽ (aij, bij, cij), where:
10

Similarly, the aggregated weights wij of each criterion is wij ⫽ (wj1, wj2, wj3), where
11

Accordingly, a fuzzy decision matrix of the alternatives can then be represented in the format below:

W ⫽ w1, w2,. . .. . .. . .wn denoting the weight of the criterion.

Here xij are built by development concepts Ai(i ⫽ 1,. . .. . .,m), which are evaluated against criterion Cj
⫽ 1,. . .. . .. . .n).
To avoid complication, a linear scale transformation is used for the normalisation process of the criteria
scale. The fuzzy normalised decision matrix,
12

Where i⫽1, 2, . . .m, j⫽1, 2. . ..,n. The normalised values for benefit and cost related criteria are as
shown below:

The normalisation process here preserves and maintains the triangular fuzzy numbers within the range
[0, 1].
Considering the weight of each criterion, the weighted normalised fuzzy matrix is computed as :
13

Where
The fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS) and fuzzy ideal negative solution (FNIS) of the development
concepts (Ai) are then defined as follows:
14

Where,
14 SPE-172483-MS

Table 4.0 —Importance weight of the risk factors, C, S, O and T

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

CAPEX (C) VH VH VH VH VH
Schedule (S) VH H VH VH VH
OPEX (O) MH H H MH MH
Technology (T) M M MH M MH

15

Where,

The distances of the development concepts (Ai, i⫽1,2. . ..m), from the FPIS (A*) and FNIS
(A-) respectively is computed as follows:
16

17

Where denotes the Euclidean distance between two fuzzy numbers ã and .
The closeness coefficient CCi is then calculated to determine the ranking of each alternative (Ai,
i⫽1,2,. . ...m). The closeness coefficient,
18

With respect to concept evaluation using the fuzzy TOPSIS methodology, the alternatives with the
highest closeness coefficient CCi represents the concept with the highest risk and is closest to the FPIS
and farthest from the FNIS. The sheer implication of this is that the alternative would have the highest
challenges for development.
Five experts, D1 to D5, from the industry used the weighing variables shown in table 2.0 to assess the
importance of the criterion, CAPEX (C), Schedule (S), OPEX (O) and Technology (T) in developing an
offshore marginal field located in deep and ultra-deepwaters. The rating of these criterions against the
alternatives (concepts) was also evaluated by each of them. Every criterion was treated as a risk factor.
For example, a concept with a high CAPEX value implies a risk to the field development and is assigned
the highest value. In rating the alternatives against the criterion, a higher value is assigned where the
criterion has the highest effect on the alternatives. For example, renting an FPSO implies little or no
CAPEX, hence the effect of CAPEX on Concept2 (A2) is expected to be on the low side of the scale. On
the other hand, a huge amount of fund is required for a newbuilt FPSO in concept4, hence a higher value
would be expected.
The experts used the weighing variables shown in table 2.0 to assess the importance of the risk factors
Capex (C), Schedule (S), Opex (O) and Technology (T). The results are presented in table 4.0.
Next, the experts use the linguistic variables shown in table 3.0 to evaluate the rating of the risk factors
to the corresponding development concept. Result is shown in Table 5.0.
SPE-172483-MS 15

Table 5.0 —Rating of the five experts for all the risk factors
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

CAPEX (C) A1 VG VG VG VG VG
A2 P P P P VP
A3 VG G G VG G
A4 G G VG G G
Schedule (S) A1 VG G VG VG VG
A2 MG MG MG G G
A3 VG G G G VG
A4 G VG MG MG G
OPEX(O) A1 G G G MG G
A2 VG G VG VG G
A3 MG F F F F
A4 F F MP F F
Technology (T) A1 F F MG F F
A2 MP F F F F
A3 VG MG G MG MG
A4 MG MG G G MG

Table 6.0 —Fuzzy decision matrix for the development concepts

CAPEX (C) Schedule (S) OPEX(O) Technology (T)

Weight WC Weight WS Weight WO Weight WT

Development Concepts (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) (0.7, 0.98, 1.0) (0.5, 0.78, 1.0 (0.3, 0.58, 0.9)

A1 (9, 10, 10) (7, 9.8, 10) (5, 8.4, 10) (5, 8.4, 10)
A2 (0, 0.8, 3) (5, 7.8, 10) (7, 9.6, 10) (1, 4.6, 7)
A3 (7, 9.4, 10 (7, 9.4, 10) (3, 5.4, 9) (5, 7.6, 10)
A4 (7, 9.2, 10) (5, 8.4, 10) (1, 4.6, 7) (5, 7.8, 10)

Table 7.0 —Fuzzy decision normalised matrix for the development concepts
C S O T

Weight WC Weight WS Weight WO Weight WT

Development Concepts (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) (0.7, 0.98, 1.0) (0.5, 0.78, 1.0 (0.3, 0.58, 0.9)

A1 (1.8, 2.0, 2.0) (1.40, 1..96, 2.0) (1.0, 1.68, 2.0) (1.0, 1.68, 2.0)
A2 (0.0, 0.16, 0.60) (1.0, 1.56, 2.0) (1.40, 1.92, 2.0) (0.20, 0.92, 1.4)
A3 (1.40, 1.88, 2.0 (1.40, 1.88, 2.0) (0.6, 1.08, 1.80) (1.0, 1.52, 2.0)
A4 (1.40, 1.84, 2.0) (1.0, 1.68, 2.0) (0.20, 0.92, 1.40) (1.0, 1.56, 2.0)

The fuzzy Decision matrix and fuzzy weights of the development concepts applying tables 2.0 and 3.0
to tables 4.0 and 5.0 respectively is as shown in table 6.0:
Applying equation 12, the normalised fuzzy decision matrix for the development concepts is shown
below:
Applying equation 13, the weighted normalised fuzzy decision matrix of the development concepts are
shown below:
From the above table, the FPIS and FNIS are obtained using equations 14 and 15
FPIS, A* ⫽ [(1, 1, 1), (1, 1, 1), (1, 1, 1), (0.9, 0.9, 0.9)] and
FNIS, A⫺ ⫽ [(0, 0, 0), (0.35, 0.35, 0.35), (0.05, 0.05, 0.05), (0.03, 0.03, 0.03)]
16 SPE-172483-MS

Table 8.0 —Fuzzy weighted normalised decision matrix for the development concepts
Development Concepts C S O T

A1 (0.81, 1.0, 1.0) (0.49, 0.96, 1) (0.25, 0.66, 1.00) (0.15, 0.49, 0.90)
A2 (0.00, 0.8, 0.0) (0.35, 0.76, 1) (0.35, 0.75, 1.00) (0.03, 0.27, 0.63)
A3 (0.63, 0.94, 1) (0.49, 0.92, 1) (0.15, 0.42, 0.90) (O.15, 0.44, 0.90)
A4 (0.63, 0.92, 1.0) (0.35, 0.82, 1) (0.05, 0.36, 0.70) (0.15, 0.45, 0.90)

Table 9.0 —Summary of the SPS concepts evaluation using Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology
C* S* O* T* dⴙ C- S- O- T- d- CCi Fuzzy TOPSIS RANKING

d (A1; A*) 0.11 0.30 0.48 0.25 1.14 d (A1, A*) 0.94 0.52 0.66 0.57 2.12 0.65 1
d (A2, A*) 0.88 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.08 d (A2, A*) 0.18 0.45 0.70 0.37 1.70 0.45 4
d (A3, A*) 0.22 0.30 0.60 0.28 1.39 d (A3, A*) 0.87 0.51 0.54 0.56 2.48 0.64 2
d (A4, A*) 0.22 0.39 0.68 0.27 1.56 d (A4, A*) 0.86 0.46 0.42 0.56 2.31 0.60 3

Next, the distance of the development concepts to the FPIS and FNIS is then evaluated using the vertex
method (equation 16 and 17). A correlation coefficient for each concept is evaluated and ranked. Table
10.0 shows the results and the ranking of the development concepts.
Clearly, the evaluation shows that development concept1 (A1) has the highest risk for the development
of clustered marginal field using a subsea production system (SPS). This concept advocates the use of the
single piercing articulated riser (SPAR) system for the development of a deep and ultra-deepwater
marginal field. On the other hand, development concept2 (A2) is most favoured, ranked with the lowest
risk among the four. In A2, a rental FPSO is used, which implies a virtually zero capital investment for
the processing, storage and offloading facility for the marginal field operator. This is not surprising as one
of the key focus of marginal field operators is to reduce the CAPEX and ensure the flow of hydrocarbon
as soon as possible.

Conclusion
Offshore Marginal fields generally demands minimal investment and quick recovery. Its viability depends
heavily on the field characteristic, the cost of the infrastructural concept considered, feasibility for tie-in
to an existing facility and application of less demanding technology to ensure a successful and profitable
development.
Subsea production system (SPS) has come of age as the preferred technology for deep and ultra-deep
offshore field development with attendant flexibility for clustered wells, satellite wells and fields with a
combination of these configurations.
In this paper, we saw that the development of offshore marginal fields, placed in close proximity using
a subsea production system (SPS) along with a rented FPSO is preferred option for deep and ultra-
deepwater developments. Development of offshore marginal fields with subsea production system (SPS)
using a rented FPSO presents a huge merit in CAPEX. Again, with an SPS, close wells could be developed
with clustered strategy. Dispersed wells on satellite configuration and all tied back to an FPSO for the
processing, storage, off-loading and export of processed gas through a common infrastructure.
The viability of an SPS for offshore field development demands a well laid out gas infrastructure. This
will ensure minimal pipeline investment for the tie-in to the FPSO.
Ultimately, the analysis shows marginal deep and ultra-deepwater architecture with SPS on a rented
FPSO is favoured as it reduces the required initial CAPEX and Schedule, shifting the expenditure into
OPEX. This invariably improves the investment internal rate of return (ROI).
SPE-172483-MS 17

References
1. Kolios, A. et alet al (2010), A multicriteria decision making method to compare support
structures for offshore wind turbines, Europe wind energy conference and exhibition, 20-23 April
2010, Warsaw, Poland.
2. Gomathi, M. et alet al (2010), An Integrated approach for development of KG Offshore Marginal
Fields, Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Oil and Gas India conference and exhibition,
Mumbai, India.
3. Abili, N. et alet al (2012), Subsea Processing: A holistic approach to Marginal Field develop-
ments, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston, Texas, USA, 30 April-3 May 2012
4. Adetoba, L. (2012), The Nigerian Marginal Field Initiative: Recent Developments, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Nigeria International Conference and Exhibition, 6-8 August 2012, Abuja,
Nigeria.
5. Maji, A. (2012), An integrated cost effective approach for development of marginal fields
through cluster system: A case study from Western Offshore Basin, India, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, SPE Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, 28-30 March 2012.
6. Gianessini, J.F (1991), Innovative Technologies bring new economic concepts for developing
offshore marginal fields, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Offshore Europe Conference held in
Aberdeen, 3-6 September 1991.
7. Raustein, L.E (1994), The potential for satellite and marginal field developments on the
Norwegian continental shelf, Offshore Technology conference (OTC), 26th Anuual OTC, Hous-
ton, Texas, USA, 2-5 May 1994.
8. Braglia et alet al (2003), Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode effects and criticality analysis,
Quality and reliability engineering international, vol.19, Issue 5, 425–443, 2003.
9. Jahanshahloo, G.R. et alet al (2006), Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making
problems with fuzzy data, Applied mathematics and computation, vol. 181, 2006, pp. 1544 –1551.
10. OPEC (2013), Annual Statistics Bulletin, Orgnaisation of Petroleum Exporting Contries, 2013,
Helferstorferstrasse 17, A-1010 Vienna, Austria.

Accronyms
AMV – Annulus Master Valve
AWV – Annulus Wing Valve
CAPEX – Capital Expenditure
CXT – Conventional Xmas tree
DPR – Department of Petroleum Resources
EH – Electro-hydraulic
ECXT – Enhanced conventional vertical tree
EHXT – Enhance Horizontal Xmas Tree
EPU – Electrical Power Unit
FPSO – Floating Production Storage and Offloading
FSU – Floating Storage Unit
HL – Heavy lift
HPU – Hydraulic Power Unit
HT – Horizontal Tree
HXT – Horizontal Xmas Tree
IRR – Internal Rate of Return
MCDM – Multi-criteria decision making
MADA – Multi attribute decision analysis
18 SPE-172483-MS

MCS – Master Control Station

MIV – Methanol Injection Valve
MODU – Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
NPV – Net Present Value
OPEX – Operating Expenditure
PMV – Production Master Valve
PWV – Production Wing Valve
ROI – Return on Expenditure
SPAR – Surface Piercing Articulated Riser
SCM – Subsea Control Module
SCS – Subsea Control System
SCSSV – Surface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve
SPS – Subsea Production System
STOIIP – Stock tank original oil in place
TH – Tubing Hanger
TLP – Tension Leg Platform
TOPSIS – Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution.
TUTU – Topside Umbilical Termination Unit
VT – Vertical Tree
WD – Water depth
XOV – Crossover Valve