Floating production storage and offloading systems’ cost and motion performance: A systems thinking application

Rini NISHANTH, Andrew WHYTE, V. John KURIAN

PDF(1653 KB)
PDF(1653 KB)
Front. Eng ›› 2018, Vol. 5 ›› Issue (3) : 357-368. DOI: 10.15302/J-FEM-2018022
RESEARCH ARTICLE
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Floating production storage and offloading systems’ cost and motion performance: A systems thinking application

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) units increasingly represent a practical and economic means for deep-water oil extraction and production. Systems thinking gives a unique opportunity to seek a balance between FPSO technical performance(s), with whole-cost; stakeholder decision-making is charged to align different fit-for-use design specification options’ that address technical-motion(s), with respective life-cycle cost analyses (LCCA). Soft system methodology allows situation based analyses over set periods-of-time by diagnosing the problem-at-hand; namely, assessing the antecedents of life-cycle cost relative to FPSO sub-component design alternatives. Alternative mooring- component comparisons for either new-build hulls or refurbished hulls represent an initial necessary consideration to facilitate extraction, production and storage of deep-water oil reserves. Coupled dynamic analysis has been performed to generate FPSO motion in six degrees of freedom using SESAM DeepC, while life-cycle cost analysis (LCAA) studies give net-present-value comparisons reflective of market conditions. A parametric study has been conducted by varying wave heights from 4 – 8 m to understand FPSO motion behavior in the presence of wind and current, as well as comparing the motions of turreted versus spread mooring design alternatives. LCCA data has been generated to compare the cost of such different mooring options/hull conditions over 10 and 25-year periods. Systems thinking has been used to explain the interaction of problem variables; resultantly this paper is able to identify explicit factors affecting the choice of FPSO configurations in terms of motion and whole-cost, toward assisting significantly with the front-end engineering design (FEED) phase of fit-for-purpose configured FPSOs, in waters off Malaysia and Australia.

Keywords

FPSO / LCCA / spread/turret-mooring / DeepC / cost / motion / soft-systems

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Rini NISHANTH, Andrew WHYTE, V. John KURIAN. Floating production storage and offloading systems’ cost and motion performance: A systems thinking application. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(3): 357‒368 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2018022

References

[1]
AECOM (2017). Spon’s Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book 2018. Boca Raton: CRC Press
[2]
Ahiaga-Dagbui D D, Love P E D, Whyte A, Boateng P (2017). Costing and technological challenges of offshore oil and gas decommissioning in the U.K. North Sea. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(7): 7
CrossRef Google scholar
[3]
Al Hajj A (1991). Simple Cost-significant Models for Total Life-cycle Costing in Buildings. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Dundee: University of Dundee
[4]
Ashworth A (1996). Life-cycle costing: Predicting the unknown. Building Engineer, 71(3): 18–20
[5]
Barton C, Hambling H, Albaugh E K, Mahlstedt B, Davis D (2017). Worldwide Survey of Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Units. Offshore Magazine
[6]
Chakrabarti S K (1987). Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures.Heidelberg: Computational Mechanics Publications
[7]
Checkland P (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
[8]
Checkland P (2000). Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(S1): S11–S58
CrossRef Google scholar
[9]
Checkland P, Scholes J (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
[10]
Cordell (2014). Cordell’s Building Cost Guide. Sydney: Cordell Building Publications
[11]
Farag F, McDermott P, Huellin C A (2016). The development of an activity zone conceptual framework to improve social value implementation in construction projects using human activity systems. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference. Manchester, 2: 975–984
[12]
Ferry D J O, Flanagan R (1991). Life-cycle Costing – a Radical Approach. CIRIA Report No.122, London, UK
[13]
Gratsos G A, Psaraftis H N, Zachariadis P (2009). Life cycle cost of maintaining the effectiveness of a ship’s structure and environmental impact of ship design parameters: An update. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Design and Operation of Bulk Carriers 2009. 69–182
[14]
Howell G B, Duggal A S, Heyl C, Ihonde O (2006). Spread moored or turret moored FPSO’s for deepwater field developments. In: Proceedings of Offshore West Africa. 1–21
[15]
Kayrbekova D (2011). Activity-Based Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Stavanger: University of Stavanger
[16]
Kurniawati H A, Aryawan W D, Baidowi A (2016). Long-term fso/fpso charter rate estimation. KAPAL, 13(1): 7–12
CrossRef Google scholar
[17]
Langdon and Seah (2015). Spon’s Asia Pacific Construction Costs Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press
[18]
Li H, Love P E D (1998). Developing a theory of construction problem solving. Construction Management and Economics, 16(6): 721–727
CrossRef Google scholar
[19]
Mattos D M, Mastrangelo C F G (2000). Portrait of FPSO use offshore Brazil. In: Proceedings of FPSO Workshop. Houston: 54–63
[20]
Miranda J M C, Sakugawa P M, Corona-tapia R, Paik J K, Cabrera-miranda J M (2018). On design criteria for a disconnectable FPSO mooring system associated with expected life-cycle cost expected life-cycle cost. Ships and Offshore Structures, 13(4): 432–442
CrossRef Google scholar
[21]
Muzathik A, Wan Nik W, Ibrahim M, Samo K (2010). Wave energy potential of Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5(7): 11–23
[22]
Nam K, Chang D, Chang K, Rhee T, Lee I B (2011). Methodology of lifecycle cost with risk expenditure for offshore process at conceptual design stage. Energy, 36(3): 1554–1563
CrossRef Google scholar
[23]
Nishanth R, Kurian V J, Whyte A (2016a). Dynamic behaviour Of FPSO in Kikeh Field under different loading conditions. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(4): 2302–2307
[24]
Nishanth R, Kurian V J, Whyte A, Liew M S (2016b). Coupled analysis for the effect of wave height on FPSO motions. Engineering Challenges for Sustainable Future: 69–73
[25]
Petronas (2014). Asset Reports. Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd
[26]
Rawlinsons (2014). Rawlinson’s Construction Cost Guide
[27]
Ralinsons Press Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2013). Building Cost Information Service. BCIS
[28]
Santos L C, Gareia G P, Casas V D (2013). Methodology to study the life cycle cost of floating offshore wind farms. Energy Procedia: 1–8
[29]
Thalji I, Liyanage J P, Hjollo M (2012). Scalable and customer – Oriented life cycle costing model: A case study of an innovative vertical axis wind turbine concept (Case – VAWT). In: Proceedings of the Twenty – second ISOPE Conference. Rhodes, 42
[30]
Watson R B (2012). Suggestions for new application areas for soft systems methodology in the information age. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 25(5): 441–456
CrossRef Google scholar
[31]
Wessex (2013). BCIS Wessex Comprehensive Building Price Book. Building Cost Information Service
[32]
Whyte A (2015). Integrated Design and Cost Management for Civil Engineers. Boca Raton: CRC Press
[33]
Wood-Mackenzie (2014). Asset Reports. Wood Mackenzie Limited

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2018 The Author(s) 2018. Published by Higher Education Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF(1653 KB)

Accesses

Citations

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/