FPSO Benchmarking Report 2000

Performance Forum
Final Report
On
FPSO
Cost & Schedule
Performance Study
Phase I
September 2000
Pace Project Services Ltd
5 St Vincent Street
Edinburgh
EH3 6SW
Tel: +44 (0) 131 220 4242
Fax: +44 (0) 131 225 7299
E-mail: pf@pace-control.co.uk
Issue No 1
565/031/028
e - distribution
PERFORMANCE FORUM FINAL REPORT
FPSO COST AND SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
Pace Project Services Ltd Issue No. 1 Page 2 of 66
565/031/028
Page No.
1.0 Foreword 3
2.0 Executive Summary 5
3.0 Introduction 12
Study Synopsis 13
Performance Forum 14
4.0 Overview 15
Study Initiative 16
Funding 17
Study Process 18
Methodology 19
Deliverables 20
Participants Response 21
5.0 Study Findings 23
Cost, Schedule and Technical Analysis 24
Business Analysis 28
Charts 33
Conclusions and Way Forward 51
Appendices 52
Appendix I Participants Response to Study
and Interim Report 53
Appendix II Participating Companies 54
Appendix III Work Breakdown Structure 55
Appendix IV Target FPSO 56
Appendix V Questionnaire Template and
Definition of Terms 57
This report has been compiled using the best information available at the time of
preparation. Pace Project Services Ltd do not accept responsibility or liability for any
reliance upon the information contained herein.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
565/031/028
1.0 FOREWORD
565/031/028
This Final Report concludes phase one of the FPSO cost and schedule
performance study for the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS),
Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS), Australian Northwest Shelf/Timor
Sea (ANWS) and Canadian Northwest Atlantic (NWA) sectors. The layout
of this report follows the format established at the interim report, issued in
February 2000, presenting results first on FPSO facility information
cascading down to elements and functions by topsides, hull and turret.
Each section is followed by appropriate technical analysis. This final
report is a comprehensive and complete document and can be read
independently of the interim report.
The report includes all of the 23 original charts from the interim report and
an additional 11 new charts showing more detailed analysis relating to
topsides, hull conversions and turrets. The charts have been organised
following the structure described above, as a consequence the chart
numbers are not necessarily the same as in the interim report.
Clarifications to the supplied data have resulted in minor changes to the
original charts but the trendline curves remain almost identical.
The additional data and clarified information received since issuing the
interim report has permitted the production of a limited number of more in-
depth metrics, such as cost per tonne for the engineering, materials and
joint fabrication/integration functions; and manhours per tonne for the
engineering and joint fabrication/integration functions. The results of these
bring an enhanced understanding of performance of topsides delivery.
Indicative metrics for turrets, which vary widely technically, have been
developed. The results try to cross the spectrum of technical solutions to
provide an overall indication of performance, irrespective of the selected
option. The curves provide a sense check and a guide to ranges norms
for an FPSO turret.
The response to requests for additional data following the issue of the
interim report mirrored the original effort. Sufficient clarification and fresh
data was received to permit the additional analysis resulting in the new
charts, however the observations made and the conclusions drawn at the
interim stage on the level of response from participants remain valid. The
Executive Summary and Study Findings sections have been modified only
to reflect additional information gleaned from the new charts. The
Introduction, Overview and Appendices sections are unchanged from the
Interim Report other than to remove reference to this Final Report.
1.0 FOREWARD 1.0 FOREWORD
565/031/028
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
565/031/028
Overview
An increasing number of development opportunities that could
successfully employ floating production storage and offloading (FPSO)
vessels, as part of the development solution, has prompted several
requests from operators for performance information on FPSO capex -
cost and schedule. This study, initiated by the Performance Forum
members (PF - see section 2), attempts to establish the past and
current cost, schedule and technical performance within the oil and
gas industry for FPSO.
The study aims to provide a comprehensive report and overview of cost,
schedule, technical and business statistics on both new build and
conversion FPSO. This initiative is intended to be self-funding, using the
existing PF processes (see section 3). The vessels targeted include 26
new build and conversion FPSO with start-up post 1994, in the UKCS,
NCS, NWA and ANWS regions.
FPSO activity globally remains high with a recent report by Norland
Consultants forecasting 53 shipshaped FPSO to be installed in the
offshore regions of the world by 2004. General sentiment in the industry
is that, if performance is genuinely to be improved, there is a need for a
more open approach towards sharing feedback and benchmarking
information. Establishing or identifying a forum where the industry can
confidently exchange information and establish joint initiatives without
compromising individual projects or company confidentiality is a first step
in satisfying this need. The PF, through this study, has initiated a
process to take FPSO benchmarking forward and to facilitate improved
performance.
2.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
565/031/028
Participants Response
The total response to EPC, technical and general questions was good at
73%, reflecting the weighted-average of the technical and general over
the EPC questions. Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC)
cost and schedule information provided was less than expected, however,
the level of response to detailed cost and schedule information on
the questionnaires was well below expectations. One upside to this is
that for each FPSO the responses were either at the detailed or EPC
level, giving jointly a reasonable selection of data to analyse. This level of
response, however, suggests one of two scenarios:
1) that detailed cost and schedule information is not readily
available, or
2) an unwillingness to divulge and share information for
benchmarking purposes.
Achieving the original study aims has proved difficult given this level of
detailed response. However, amalgamating the detailed and EPC data,
with reference to existing PF and PFA data, has permitted the
development of a number of useful performance metrics shown on a
variety of scatter and pie charts. No data points have been identified by
FPSO name on the charts. Where it is believed individual data points
would allow identification of a specific FPSO, in accordance with the
requests of participants, these have been hidden from the chart. The
data has, however, been included in calculating the trendlines curves,
which are of the power type shown, in the past, to give the best fit for
this type of data.
Study Findings
General
Analysis on the elements of the vessel in sail away condition, i.e. hull,
topsides, turret has been undertaken. Cost and schedule metrics have
been generated along with technical statistics for the hull and topside
elements of FPSO. Indicative allocations for FPSO elements and
topsides functions have also been produced with the data provided. A
clear result from the analysis, and a key issue for initiating the study, is
that FPSO consistently exceed budget in cost terms and are
completed later than planned. These trends shown in the analysis are
reinforced by anecdotal evidence from public domain sources.
2.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
565/031/028
Several metrics for internal turrets have been developed that attempt to
cross the spectrum of technological solutions. The wide variety of turret
types and technological differences result in a wide scatter of data points,
however, the resultant trendline provides an overall indication of out-turn
performance and a guide on range norms for internal turrets.
The small sample of data for moorings, risers and offshore elements of
FPSO have precluded the production of metrics for these categories. It is
hoped that information relating to risers can be made available from
participants in phase II of the study, as there is considerable interest in
this element of work, particularly in relation to deep water.
Performance
The study findings indicate the primary element suffering the cost
overruns and schedule delays is the FPSO topsides. Examination of
the data suggests the three principal technical reasons for this are:
growth in technical parameters, e.g. increased weight/throughput.
integration issues, e.g. hull upgrades, PAU interconnections.
adoption of increasingly sophisticated equipment, e.g. process
and control.
It should be noted that a contributing factor to the delays in completion of
topsides integration is the layout of PAU on FPSO constrained by the
vessel beam. This might not be fully understood when sanction budgets
and schedules are being prepared.
Also a large proportion of recent FPSO projects have been the subject of
litigation or contractual claims which might indicate there is a problem with
contracting strategies. Whereas, on recent conventional platform projects
litigation or contractual claims have not been particularly evident.
Early definition of technical parameters and a clearly defined
execution and contracting strategy were identified as prerequisites
for success. This supports earlier comment where growth in technical
parameters has been recognised as a key contributor to the cost
increases and schedule delays. Establishing realistic baselines -
technical, cost, and schedule, from the outset will assist in delivering
projects to plan.
2.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
565/031/028
Contractor Experience
From the data provided a pattern emerges, which is that few
engineering, fabrication or integration companies have completed
two or more FPSO. This is true for all functions (refer to work breakdown
structure in Appendix II), excluding hull engineering and construction
where a number of players dominate the market. This pattern is
reinforced by information in published literature on FPSO (OPL Mobile
Production Systems of the World) where experience on FPSO has been
limited to a small number of projects, sometimes years apart. The above
suggests that, even for companies with experience on more than one
FPSO, it is unlikely the same core team would have been responsible
for the work.
The data from this study confirms that the FPSO industry is a global
business and reinforces the idea, identified in a paper to the OTC by
Farrell and Watzke, that national, industry and company cultures
must all be managed if a project is to be successful. Responses also
support the expansion of this idea by J Melvyn Green who, in a later
paper to the OTC, identified that the problems cultural issues present
very often do not become apparent until later in the project lifecycle,
often during construction, when generating solutions is more difficult.
One factor that has emerged, and a common problem on many FPSO
projects, is the culture clash between the shipbuilding and offshore
industries. This results primarily from differences in specification and
standards between the two industries. Shipping standards, where
vessels are inspected annually and are subject to five-year dry dock
inspections, do not meet the requirements for an FPSO with a long
operational life with possible 20-25 years on location.
It is therefore important that when planning an FPSO project adequate
effort and attention is given to identifying and managing the cultural
influences and interfaces. Included in this are the issues of language
and location, which on projects involving global participation must all be
managed.
2.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
565/031/028
Lessons learned and sharing of feedback within the industry has been
identified as a shortcoming. Not all companies require projects to go
through this process whereas others produce and publish thorough
reports for the benefit of all. In short, the lessons learned and
experience gained from each project is often lost to the industry.
Painful experiences, in terms of cost and schedule, are often
unnecessarily repeated.
Consultants Comments
The key issues identified in the study raise a number of questions to be
asked of all potential FPSO projects:
Have correct/valid norms been used in the sanction estimate?
Have correct/valid durations been applied to the sanction schedule?
Have cultural/soft issues for project been adequately addressed?
Have the development concept/technical parameters been fixed?
Have FPSO industry lessons learned been recycled to project?
Has an execution strategy been agreed is it right?
Has a contracting strategy been agreed is it right?
Has risk analysis been performed?
Has the project been benchmarked? Where is the project positioned?
Is FPSO best in class? Worst in class? If so, why? What is different?
What are you doing differently and will it make a difference?
Opportunities/Way Forward
Having initiated a process and delivered results, the opportunity to
develop the study and take it into a second phase clearly exists. Before
proceeding to a second phase, however, a workshop is planned for
Novemeber 2, 2000 where the results of the final report will be
presented, discussed and challenged. Guest speakers from operators,
contractors, ship owners and ship builders will share experiences and
present their views relating to cost and schedule performance on FPSO
developments.
2.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
565/031/028
It is proposed the key issues to be addressed in a second phase, should
sufficient support and interest be obtained, would include but not be
limited to the following:
Increase the sample with FPSO from West Africa, Brazil, Far East.
Investigate and recycle industry experience, i.e. lessons learned
commercial, schedule, technical and business issues.
Investigate business strategies on own/lease options.
Develop standard management and project control processes.
The PF Consultant would welcome recommendations on specific
company issues or desired areas of focus to be addressed in a second
phase or at the November 2, 2000 workshop. Details should be
addressed to e-mail <pf@pace-control.co.uk>.
2.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
565/031/028
3.0 INTRODUCTION
565/031/028
Study Synopsis
Following a number of requests from operators for information on FPSO
capex, both cost and schedule, the PF members have taken the decision
to initiate a jointly funded study to establish the past and current cost and
schedule performance within the oil and gas industry for FPSO. The
increased FPSO activity results primarily from an increasing number of
development opportunities worldwide. The key issues are:
Perception in the oil and gas industry poor capex performance
Oil and gas industry nervous of future performance
Identification of world-wide experience and major participants
Opportunity to improve communication between all parties within
FPSO industry
Identify realistic metrics and benchmarks
Promote improved performance
To enhance the cost and schedule metrics, it was envisioned that
valuable technical benchmarks could also be developed.
The study was launched on 9 September 1999 with 24 participants (refer
to Appendix 1) and a target of 26 FPSO (refer to Appendix III) in the
UKCS, NCS, NWA and ANWS regions. These locations were selected, as
it was believed, data would be readily available and comparable statistics
could be drawn for FPSO built to a similar specification and standard of
operation.
The original timetable envisaged completion by December 1999.
Unfortunately this date has slipped due to slow return of questionnaires,
with in many cases, incomplete data. This has resulted in an increased
volume of research undertaken by the Edinburgh based study team,
which has in turn delayed the data analysis effort. As a consequence, an
interim report was issued covering the items where sufficient data was
available, including the vessel in sail away condition, hull, topsides, turret.
The other elements of FPSO are not covered here, e.g. risers, moorings
or, for conversions, the purchase price of the vessel as information was
not available from the majority of participants.
3.0 INTRODUCTION
565/031/028
Performance Forum
The Performance Forum (PF) is a co-operative oil and gas industry
initiative, set up to measure and compare the performance of production
facilities in terms of their total life cycle costs. This means taking into
account not only capital cost but also operating and decommissioning
costs. The purpose of this report is, however, to measure performance in
terms of capital cost (capex) and schedule durations for FPSO vessels.
The PF offers a practical way to establish realistic targets for reduced
barrel costs and improved production methods in oil and gas fields. At its
heart is the PERFORMER database containing recorded costs and
schedules of a number of recent developments. By establishing common
terminology and consistency of data, the database allows realistic
comparisons to be made between different projects.
Participating oil and gas companies are responsible for planning the
structure and overall direction of the initiative. The PF is administered by
Pace Project Services Ltd, an independent consultant, who collects,
validates, holds and analyses the data. This not only ensures
confidentiality in respect of raw data but also helps to maintain a
consistency of analysis.
Further information is available on the PF website:
www.performance-forum.com
3.0 INTRODUCTION
565/031/028
4.0 OVERVIEW
565/031/028
Study Initiative
The study initiative aimed to provide a comprehensive report and
overview of cost, schedule, technical and business statistics on both new
build and conversion FPSO. Also, the study aimed to identify the
strengths and weakness of the international oil and gas industry to serve
the FPSO market, and key areas of competency and competitiveness.
The vessels targeted include new build and conversion FPSO with start-
up post 1994.
The study data provided by the participants would be merged with the
current data held by the PF and PF Australia (PFA). It was envisaged that
the study would identify key statistics on cost and schedule related to
technical parameters and also produce range norms for both new build
and conversion FPSO.
Requests for analysis on FPSO outside the targeted locations were
requested, however, it was proposed to expand the study into these areas
in a later phase should there be sufficient continued participation.
Security of data is of the highest priority. To guarantee security and
confidentiality of data supplied by all of the participants the study is
managed and administered within the approved PF processes developed
since inception in 1993.
4.0 OVERVIEW
565/031/028
Study Funding
The study was designed to be self funded with the participants and the
current PF and PFA members providing data, funding or a mix of both.
Other interested organisations were approached with a view to obtaining
supplementary funding to finance the study for which agreements have
yet to be reached.
The total cost of the study was estimated at 45,000 with the following
sources of funding:
PF and PFA to part fund study (25% of 45,000)
Invitation to operators, engineers, contractors, shipbuilders,
consultants, etc. (data and/or funding - 2,500 or US$4,000)
Funds raised from third parties to date amount to 27,500. The resultant
shortfall has yet to be secured, however, Pace continues to encourage
other parties to participate.
4.0 OVERVIEW
565/031/028
Study Process
The PF capex performance measurement process has been developed
and implemented since 1993. The PF continues to provide its members
with independent and validated performance reports covering many areas
of the offshore industry. PF practices were utilised within the FPSO study
to ensure that all data was processed and stored within approved
procedures. Study phases are:
Preparation of questionnaire template for data
Collection of data
Validation and analysis of data
Provision of report
Workshop (planned 2 November, 2000)
The questionnaire responses are discussed in detail later, however, it
should be noted that fewer than expected respondents provided detailed
data with respect to cost and schedule and much of the data relating to
manhours is imprecise. This has made achieving the overall study aims
difficult, however, where detailed data is missing EPC data has been
used. Some public domain data has also been used, primarily technical
data. Where public domain data has been referenced the source has
been noted.
4.0 OVERVIEW
565/031/028
Methodology
The data analysed is that provided by study participants returned in
standard questionnaires, and with reference to data contained within the
PF and PFA databases. The data submitted in the questionnaires has
been consolidated in a single excel workbook. Every effort has been
made to validate technical information and verify that in each case the
cost and schedule information is correct to compare like for like. After
analysis, metrics have been developed and a variety of pie and scatter
charts have been produced.
The charts contained in this report were prepared in accordance with the
PF definition of terms and the standard data collection methods described
above. Comparisons are shown in the form of scatter charts. No data
points have been identified by FPSO name. Where it is believed
individual data points would allow identification of specific FPSO, in
accordance with the requests of participants, these have been hidden
from the chart. The data, however, has been included in calculating the
trendline curves. Each scatter chart contains a regression trendline of the
power type, which has been found in the past, to produce the best fit for
this type of data. The following points should be noted:
All cost data is as reported and no escalation or normalisation has
taken place.
Gas has been converted to oil equivalent using a conversion factor of
1 boe = 155 Sm
3
.
The term throughput refers to design oil and gas production rate.
All weights are net dry installed in tonnes.
Operator/owner project management costs are excluded.
Data points shown on the charts are taken from new build and
conversion FPSO, deployed on oil and gas developments located in
the UKCS, NCS, NWA and Australian NWS/TS.
A wide variety of vessels have been used to prepare the charts. The
trendlines do however, given the lower than expected level of
response, provide a reasonable indication of achieved norms.
Those not familiar with the PF definition of terms should refer to the
Definition of Terms attached to the sample questionnaire in Appendix IV.
4.0 OVERVIEW
565/031/028
Deliverables
The study deliverable is a report that includes analysis relating to the
performance of the FPSO industry, i.e. cost, schedule, technical and
business issues for the UKCS, NCS, NWA, NWS/TS regions. It had been
intended to categorise results are by New Build and Conversion type
FPSO, however this has not been possible due to the limited data on the
purchase price of conversion vessels. It is recognised that the study will
not capture every FPSO from the 4 regions but concentrates on the FPSO
vessels installed post 1994.
Results are presented for all FPSO for which data is available. Therefore
the sample of data points for general and technical analysis may be
greater than the sample for cost and schedule analysis. Results include:
General FPSO statistics and information.
Industry statistics and data.
Trends and metrics for the complete vessel and major elements, i.e.
hull, topsides, turret.
Report to all participants.
Workshop to review and challenge the results.
4.0 OVERVIEW
565/031/028
Participants Response
Interest in the study was high and it was envisaged that response to the
questionnaire would be timely and positive. The reality however has
proven more difficult with the latest reply arriving at the end of August
2000. Of the 26 FPSO for which data was requested questionnaires were
returned for 17 facilities. Two questionnaires were returned for FPSO
outwith the target. The data for these two FPSO has been analysed but
not included in the charts and metrics produced, as they vessels were
deemed to be outwith the study specification.
Categorising the requests for information into general, technical, cost and
schedule data, the level of response was as shown in the following table
for detailed and EPC requests:
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRES FOR FPSO STUDY
DETAILED DATA
General 85%
Technical Data 79%
Schedule Data 25%
Cost Data 16%
Detail Data Technical, Cost and Schedule 33%
Total Detailed Questions 45%
EPC DATA
EPC Schedule Data 41%
EPC Cost Data 35%
Total General, Technical, EPC Cost and Schedule 73%
Responses to general and technical information questions were high at
85% and 79% respectively. Validation of the responses revealed detailed
and accurate information has been provided. This supports the keen
interest and the level of participation in the study.
4.0 OVERVIEW
565/031/028
The total of EPC, technical and general questions had a 73% response
rate, which reflects the weighted average of the combined general and
technical questions over the EPC questions. EPC cost and schedule
information was higher than the detailed responses at 35% and 41%
respectively, but well below expectations. Replies to detailed cost and
schedule information was lower than expected with 16% and 25%
respectively. One upside to these statistics is that for each FPSO the
responses were either detailed or EPC giving jointly a reasonable
selection of data to analyse.
This level of response, however, suggests one of two scenarios:
1) that detailed cost and schedule information is not readily available, or
2) an unwillingness to divulge and share information for benchmarking
purposes.
The latter argument is echoed by Tony Brown of Woodside (Laminaria)
who feels there is generally a distinct reserve in the industry about sharing
feedback and benchmarking information (Offshore Engineer Jan. 2000).
Achieving the overall study aims has proved difficult given this level of
detailed response. However, amalgamating the detailed and EPC data,
and with reference to existing PF and PFA data, has permitted the
development of a significant number of metrics.
4.0 OVERVIEW
565/031/028
5.0 STUDY FINDINGS
565/031/028
Cost, Schedule and Technical Analysis
As suspected, and a key driver in initiating the study, results of the data
analysis show that FPSO consistently cost more and take longer to build
than planned. The key element where cost and schedule delays are most
prominent is with topsides fabrication and integration. Reported costs for
the hull and turret show minor cost and schedule overruns. This might be
expected given the indicative element distribution (chart 4), which shows
topsides costs at 50% of the total FPSO and, for the most recent FPSO
(chart 5), higher still at 60%.
Facility level analysis has produced metrics for the total FPSO (hull, turret
and topsides) per recoverable reserves (chart 1) and per topsides design
throughput (chart 3). The trends from these curves are as might be
expected. Technical analysis at this level has been limited to the number
of beds per thousand of boed, and FPSO deadweight to storage capacity.
The accommodation analysis shows an excellent trend over wide range of
throughputs and enables calculation of the number of beds that might be
required for a facility of a particular throughput (chart 6). Analysis of
FPSO deadweight shows a close correlation to storage capacity as would
be expected (chart 7).
A review of the sanction to start up information (chart 2) revealed a genral
delay of circa 5 months. Further analysis shows that typically FPSO
project work begins long before formal sanction is received. A simple
comparison with the topside element durations shows a significant jump
on activities. Actual versus planned sanction to start up curves have been
included, despite the conflicting information relative to EPC activities.
However, this chart carries the appropriate health warning.
Surprisingly, analysis of topsides cost per boed (charts 8 and 10) shows
better performance, actual versus planned, on the higher throughput
FPSO than the lower, but still incurring substantial cost overruns. The
limited data points at the higher boed end of the scale might skew the
trend, however the shape and planned to actual delta remain valid.
Comparing these results with conventional platform topsides (chart 9) a
similar trend is found with topsides cost per boed falling with increasing
throughput. This trend might be explained by the fact that heavier
topsides are naturally more complex and by the fact that heavier topsides
cost more per tonne than their lighter counterparts (chart 11).
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
When topside costs are analysed by topsides weight (chart 12) the
opposite is true, with the heavier topsides trend showing significantly
greater cost overruns than the lower weight topsides. Note, however, for
this analysis actual weight has been used as the divisor for both planned
and actual cost. Analysis of the limited planned weight information shows
the increases in absolute cost are greater than increases in cost per
tonne, when expressed as a percentage of original budget. This would
suggest that other factors over and above the increase in topsides weight
contribute to the cost overruns.
Schedule analysis of topsides activities (charts 13 - 16), i.e start of
engineering to end of integration, show a trend with a consistent five
month delay. This is true for analysis on a throughput or weight basis,
which may be more indicative of the magnitude of delays experience on
the total FPSO.
Technical analysis of topsides has been limited to topsides design
throughput per tonne (chart 17). The trend from this chart is as might be
expected with boed per tonne rising with increasing throughput. The
shape of the curve is comparable to that for conventional platforms (chart
18), however, the barrels per tonne achieved on an FPSO is greater. This
is primarily because conventional platforms have substantial primary steel
not required on FPSO and often have drilling facilities. As a consequence
conventional topsides achieve considerably lower barrels per tonne.
An analysis of topsides weight growth has been undertaken (chart 19),
which shows weight increases of between 15-20 percent. The trend
indicates lighter topsides incur greater percentage growth than their
heavier counterparts.
The indicative function distribution for an FPSO topsides (chart 20),
surprisingly shows the material cost at 43% of the total with fabrication,
integration and engineering at 25%, 19% and 13% respectively. The
material function appears higher than would initially be expected,
however, this is possibly due to certain fabrication costs for pre-
assembled units (PAU) being reported as a material cost item.
Analysis of the topsides engineering, materials, fabrication and integration
function costs per tonne show consistent results (charts 21, 23, & 24).
Engineering, materials and joint fabrication/integration costs per tonne
rising with increasing weight. The fabrication and integration functions are
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
shown together, as when viewed independently give misleading results
due to the blurred delineation between end of fabrication and start of
integration activities. These results are similar to conventional platform
trends.
Topsides manhours per tonne metrics have been produced for
engineering (Chart No 22) and, for similar reasons to above, fabrication
and integration activities jointly (Chart No 25). The results show for
engineering a trend of increasing manhours per tonne with increasing
weight and relatively flat manhours per tonne for fabrication and
integration. However, it is acknowledged the scatter of the data points on
both charts are wide, most likely as a result of the inherent difficulties with
manhour reporting.
Analysis of the hull data has not permitted categorisation of newbuild and
conversions as would have been liked. Limited information on the
purchase price of the vessel was provided for conversions, and therefore
few meaningful statistics could be developed.
However, hull newbuild costs have been analysed along with hull
newbuild durations (chart Nos 26 & 27). The indicate the cost per barrel
of storage decreasing with increasing storage and a similar result for
deadweight tonnage. This is as might be expected given the close
correlation between storage capacity and deadweight tonnage.
Hull conversion costs have also been analysed (Chart No 28) and, as
would be expected, the results show decreasing costs per barrel as
storage capacity increases. The trend curve is calculated on three of the
five hull conversions in the target sample. Although the data is limited to
the three vessels, the curve has been included as the resulting trend
seems reasonable.
Schedule analysis of actual versus planned newbuild hull durations shows
completion on, or about, planned dates. The sample of data points is
small, however the trend is that hull delivery is not a major contributor to
delays on FPSO facilities. Evidence from the sanction to start up analysis
shows that operators/owners are not risk averse to commencement of
work on the hull prior to receipt of the formal sanction.
Analysis of cost and technical data for turrets has produced four
meaningful trends. The variety of turret designs and technical options
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
contribute to the wide scatter on these charts. However the resulting
trends are indicative of what would be expected with cost per turret weight
(chart 31) and cost per topsides design throughput (chart 32) both
showing increasing cost with increasing weight or design throughput.
Turret weight expressed against riser capacity in absolute terms (chart 33)
gives an indication of the number of risers that could be expected at a
given turret weight. Lastly turret weight expressed as a function of
thousands of barrels of throughput provides a check on the expected
turret weight for a given throughput. Together the turret analysis provides
a sense check on turret weights, riser capacity and cost. However these
charts carry appropriate health warnings and must be viewed in the
context of the complex issues surrounding the selection of turret solutions.
Thus, the evidence suggests the primary element suffering the cost
overruns and schedule delays is the FPSO topsides. The data suggests
three principal reasons for this being:
growth in technical parameters, e.g. increased weight/throughput.
integration issues, e.g. hull upgrades, PAU interconnections.
adoption of increasingly sophisticated equipment, e.g. process and
control.
It should be noted that a contributing factor to the delays in completion of
topsides integration is the layout of PAU on FPSO constrained by the
vessel beam. This might not be fully understood when sanction budgets
and schedules are being prepared.
Also a large proportion of recent FPSO projects that have been the
subject of litigation or contractual claims which might indicate there is a
problem with contracting strategies. Whereas, on recent conventional
platform projects litigation has not been evident.
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
Business Analysis
A pattern emerges from the data provided, which is that few engineering,
fabrication and integration companies have completed two or more FPSO.
This is true for all functions (refer to work breakdown structure in
Appendix II for details), excluding hull engineering and construction where
a number of players dominate the market.
This pattern is reinforced by information in published literature on FPSO
(OPL Mobile Production Systems of the World) where experience on
FPSO has been limited to a small number of projects, sometimes years
apart. This suggests that, even for companies with experience on more
than one FPSO, it is unlikely the same core team would have been
responsible for the work. In short, the lessons learned and experience
gained from each project is often lost to the industry. Painful lessons in
terms of cost and schedule are repeated over and over. This situation
however, should improve as the number of FPSO projects grow.
One factor in FPSO development that is increasingly evident, and a
common problem on many projects, is the culture clash between the
shipbuilding and offshore industries. A second factor is the differences in
the specifications and standards between the two industries. Shipping
standards, where vessels are inspected annually and are subject to five-
year dry dock inspections, do not meet the requirements for an FPSO with
a long operational life with possible 20-25 years on location. Encouraging
the shipbuilding industry to adopt the required mind set for offshore work
has, in the past, not proved successful.
It is recognised that the practical solution is to leave it to the shipbuilder to
build the ship and to convert it to an FPSO at a specialised yard at the
next phase of the work. There may be exceptions to this rule, where a
small number of shipyards have built the hull and been responsible for
conversion, however, it is arguably not the most economic option.
The following table shows the hull engineering contractor, shipyard and
integration yard contract for respective FPSO hulls. More often than not
the hull is designed and built by the same company. This is supported by
the data and is valid for both new build and conversion FPSO.
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
Note: Company names have not been listed however, letters A-Z, AA-XX,
AB - AIC represent individual companies, n = Newbuild, c = Conversion.
Hull
n/c FPSO Engineering
Contractor
Shipyard Integration
Yard
Contractor
n 1 S T U
n 2 R R R
n 3 R R D
n 4 R R R
n 5 N N HH
c 6 Y Q I
c 7 Y Q DD
c 8 E E E
c 9 E E C
n 10 E E E
c 11 R R R
n 12 BB BB EE
n 13 M M G
n 14 G J AA
n 15 S, EE EE VV
c 16 BB BB C
n 17 O O C
The data also supports the view that integration works, and upgrades to
the hull, are generally executed outwith the shipyard. There are regional
differences to this argument, where if the hull is constructed in a European
shipyard, upgrades and topsides integration have been carried out in the
same yard. This variance may result from differences in execution
strategy or contractual arrangements, whereas in the Far East upgrades
to the hull and integration works are rarely carried out in the hull
fabricators shipyard.
The data suggests that for new build hulls cost and schedule targets are
not major problems. The concern begins to be raised with the delivered
product, which comes back to the conflict between standards for the
shipbuilding and offshore industries. Upgrading hulls to meet the stringent
offshore standards during the integration phase very often has major cost
and schedule implications. This cost and schedule impact is very often
5.0 STUDY FINDINGS
565/031/028
lost in the integration figures, which end up overstated, including a much
greater scope of work by the integration contractor.
The following table shows that for the FPSO in the study, in only one
instance has the same combination of engineers, fabricators and
integration contractors completed two FPSO topsides.
Topsides
FPSO Engineering
Contractor
Fabrication
Contractor(s)
Integration
Yard
Contractor
1 S XX,PP U
2 A MM,NN,OO R
3 S OO, WW, XX D
4 R R R
5 K HH HH
6 Z KK I
7 DD ZZ, AB DD
8 X YY, KK, H E
9 G C C
10 A II E
11 P P R
12 S AC EE
13 G JJ G
14 G AA, JJ AA
15 S QQ, RR, TT VV
16 B C, LL C
17 B C, O, LL C
The above suggests, similar to the lessons learned and experience
gained by the main engineering contractors, that much valuable
knowledge is being lost across all three functions. This scenario may
have been inevitable with the small number of FPSO built to date,
however, with the fleet expected to double over the next five years and
with continued consolidation within the industry, a pattern of specialist
FPSO consortia, similar to the one exception, may emerge.
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
For the seventeen FPSO in the study eight different companies
engineered the turrets. This range is evidence of the wide choice in turret
technology. Similar to topsides, where the combination of engineering,
fabrication, and integration contractors with experience of more than one
FPSO is small, the combination of turret engineering and integration
contractors is likewise small. From the FPSO in the study only once has
the same combination of engineers and integration contractors completed
more than one FPSO.
Turret
FPSO Engineering
Contractor
Fabrication
Contractor
Integration
Contractor
1 F AD U
2 R R R
3 W U D
4 R R R
5 F AD HH
6 CC - Q
7 FF AE Q
8 H E E
9 W E E
10 W E E
11 CC EE R
12 CC AE EE
13 CC AG, AH, AI M, G
14 FF AF J
15 F AD VV
16 L L C
17 W O C
Despite the above and from the cost and schedule data provided, turret
engineering, fabrication and integration works do not pose significant cost
and schedule problems. However, in certain cases of the data provided,
some of the costs for the turret integration work may be included in the
topsides integration costs.
The above explains in part the problems experienced with FPSO
developments, which includes cost and schedule overruns. However, the
data from this study confirms that the FPSO industry is a global business
and reinforces the idea, identified in a paper to the OTC by Farrell and
Watzke, that national, industry and company cultures must all be
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
managed if a project is to be successful. Responses also support the
expansion of this idea by J Melvyn Green who, in a later paper to the
OTC, identified that the problems cultural issues present very often do not
become apparent until later in the project lifecycle, often during
construction, when generating solutions is more difficult. It is therefore
important that when planning an FPSO project adequate effort and
attention is given to identifying and managing the cultural influences and
interfaces.
Likewise the issues of language, location and communications on projects
involving global participation must all be managed. Selection of the most
appropriate location for the management teams and ensuring
communications do not breakdown, both contribute to a projects success.
Also, comments on the returned questionnaire identify a requirement for
early definition of technical parameters and a clearly defined execution
and contracting strategy as prerequisites for success. This supports
earlier comment where growth in technical parameters has been
recognised as a key contributor to the cost increases and schedule
delays. Establishing realistic baselines technical, cost and schedule,
from the outset will assist in delivering projects to plan.
Lessons learned and sharing of feedback within the industry has been
identified as a shortcoming. This includes a thorough review of technical,
commercial, schedule and business issues affecting the project. Not all
companies require projects to go through this process, separately from
the close-out reports. Others companies produce and publish thorough
reports for the benefit of all. In short, the lessons learned and experience
gained from each project is often lost to the industry. Painful experiences
in terms of cost and schedule are often unnecessarily repeated.
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
Charts
The following charts and metrics have been developed using the data
provided by the study participants. Every effort has been made to validate
technical information and verify that in each case the cost and schedule
information compare like for like.
In accordance with the requests of participants, where it is believed
individual data points would allow identification of specific FPSO, these
have been hidden from the chart. The data, however, has been included
in calculating the trendline curves. All curves have been calculated using
the regression trendline of the power type, which has been found in the
past, to produce the best fit for this type of data. The curves are indicative
of range norms for a particular metric, however a degree of caution should
be exercised in the use of the data contained in this report.
Following each chart is a brief description of the performance
measurement metric. Two charts showing FPSO topside performance
with conventional topsides have been included for comparison purposes.
The charts are organised with FPSO facility information first cascading
down to element and function details, by topside, hull and turret.
5.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
Chart No 1
Composite FPSO cost (hull, topsides and turret) per boe of recoverable reserves as declared by
the operator. The data points used to produce this chart have been hidden to prevent
identification of particular developments. As would be expected, as the recoverable reserves
increase the cost per boe decreases.
Chart No 2
Actual versus planned FPSO sanction to start up duration in months, as declared by operators.
This chart must be viewed with a degree of caution as individual operators definitions of sanction
vary. Compared with topsides duration charts (Chart Nos 15-17), it is apparent engineering
activities have often commenced prior to receipt of formal sanction.
FPSO Sanction to Start Up Durations
(Actual v Planned)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
Topsides Design Throughput (boed)
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
M
o
n
t
h
s
)
Planned Duration Actual Duration Actual Trend Planned Trend
FPSO Cost ( Topsides Hull Turret)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Estimated Recoverable Reserves (mmboe)
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

B
O
E

(
$
)
565/031/028
Chart No 3
Composite FPSO cost (hull, topsides and turret) expressed as a cost per boed of design
throughput. (Chart contains hidden data points).
Chart No 4
Indicative cost allocation by WBS element for newbuild FPSO. Moorings, risers and offshore
installation are grouped together as insufficient detailed data was available to identify these
separately.
FPSO Facility Costs
Indicative Element Distribution
Hull
30%
Turret
10%
Topsides
50%
Moorings, Risers, Offshore
Instal'n etc.
10%
FPSO Cost (Topsides Hull Turret)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

B
O
E
D

(
$
)
565/031/028
Chart No 5
Indicative cost allocation by WBS element for recent newbuild FPSO facilities for which data was
received. The increased allocation to topsides on the recent FPSO might result from more
complex process/integrated control systems and pioneering topsides facilities being installed, e.g.
debutaniser column installed on a recent FPSO.
Chart No 6
This chart shows the relationship between design throughput and the number of beds per
thousands of boed. For example, an FPSO with a throughput of 80,000 boed should require, in the
order of, 64 beds (80x0.80).
FPSO (Newbuild Hull) Facility Cost
Indicative Element Distribution
Recent Facilities
Topsides
60%
Hull
22%
Turret
10%
Moorings, Risers, Offshore
Instal'n etc.
8%
Accommodation Capacity / Topsides Design Throughput
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
B
e
d
s

p
e
r

T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

B
O
E
D
565/031/028
Chart No 7
FPSO vessel deadweight expressed against FPSO storage capacity. The results verify the close
correlation between deadweight and the storage capacity of a vessel.
Chart No 8
Topsides composite cost (engineering, materials, fabrication and integration) expressed as a cost
per boed of design throughput. As design throughput increases cost per boed decreases. (Chart
contains hidden data points).
FPSO Deadweight / Storage Capacity
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000
Storage Capacity (bbl)
D
e
a
d
w
e
i
g
h
t

(
d
w
t
)
Topsides Cost (Eng Mat Fab Int)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

B
O
E
D

(
$
)
565/031/028
Chart No 9
Comparison of FPSO and conventional topsides composite cost (engineering, materials,
fabrication and integration) expressed as a cost per boed of design throughput. The trendline for
both have similar slope, however, as expected FPSO have much lower costs per boed.
Chart No 10
Actual versus planned composite topsides cost (engineering, materials, fabrication and integration)
per design throughput (boed) expressed against topside design throughput. Actual costs are
consistently higher than planned. (Chart contains hidden data points).
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

B
O
E
D

(
$
)
FPSO Topsides Trend NS Conventional Platform Topsides Trend
Topsides Cost per BOED
(Actual v Planned)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

B
O
E
D

(
$
)
Actual Cost per BOED Planned Cost per BOED Actual Cost Trend Planned Cost Trend
565/031/028
Chart No 11
Topsides composite cost (engineering, materials, fabrication and integration) expressed as a cost
per tonne of topsides net dry weight. Surprisingly, as topside weight increases cost per tonne
increases, however, this trend is consistent with data held for conventional platforms. (Chart
contains hidden data points).
Chart No 12
Actual versus planned composite topsides cost (engineering, materials, fabrication and integration)
per topside weight expressed against topside weight. Actual costs are consistently higher than
planned. (Chart contains hidden data points).
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Topsides Weight (te)
T
o
p
s
i
d
e
s

C
o
s
t

p
e
r

T
o
n
n
e

(
$
)
Topsides Cost per Tonne
(Actual v Planned)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

T
o
n
n
e

(
$
)
Actual Cost per Tonne Planned Cost per Tonne Actual Cost Trend Planned Cost Trend
565/031/028
Chart No 13
Topside composite duration in months (engineering, materials, fabrication and integration) from
start of engineering to the end of integration activities expressed against design throughput. As
expected as throughput increases schedule duration increases (chart contains hidden data points).
Chart No 14
Topside composite duration in months (engineering, materials, fabrication and integration) from
start of engineering to the end of integration activities expressed against topside weight. Again, as
topsides weight increases schedule duration increases (chart contains hidden data points).
Topsides Actual Duration
(Start of Engineering to End of Integration)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
A
c
t
u
a
l

D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
n
t
h
s
)
Topsides Actual Duration
(Start of Engineering - End of Integration)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
A
c
t
u
a
l

D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
n
t
h
s
)
565/031/028
Chart No 15
Actual versus planned topside composite duration in months (engineering, materials, fabrication
and integration) from start of engineering to the end of integration activities expressed against
design throughput. Refer also to Chart No 2 for additional comments. (chart contains hidden data
points).
Chart No 16
Actual versus planned topside composite duration in months (engineering, materials, fabrication
and integration) from start of engineering to the end of integration activities expressed against
topside weight and design throughput. Surprisingly, the delay in planned and actual trendlines
appears almost parallel at circa five months delay in both charts.
Topsides Actual V Planned Durations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
n
t
h
s
)
Actual Duration Planned Duration Actual Trend Planned Trend
Topsides Actual V Planned Durations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
n
t
h
s
)
Actual Duration Planned Duration Actual Trend Planned Trend
565/031/028
Chart No 17
Topsides weight, in tonnes, expressed against topsides design throughput. As the design
throughput increases topside weight increases. This metric can be used as a measure of design
efficiency.
Chart No 18
Comparison of FPSO and conventional topsides weight, in tonnes, expressed against topsides
design throughput. The trendline for both have rising boed per tonne, however, as expected FPSO
has a steeper slope and a much higher boed per tonne.
Topsides Design Throughput / Weight
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000
B
O
E
D

p
e
r

T
o
p
s
i
d
e
s

T
o
n
n
e

FPSO Topsides Trend NS Conventional Platform Topsides Trend
Topsides Design Throughput / Weight
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
B
O
E
D

p
e
r

T
o
p
s
i
d
e
s

T
o
n
n
e

565/031/028
Chart No 19
Chart prepared with data supplied following issue of the interim report. The trend indicates a 15-
20 percent increase in topsides weight with the percentage falling with increasing weight. The
result is as would be expected with lower weight topsides suffering greater percentage increases.
Chart No 20
Indicative cost allocation by WBS function. The materials function appears higher than would
initially be expected. This is possibly due to certain fabrication costs for PAU being reported as a
material cost item. Note owner/operator project management costs are not included.
FPSO Topsides
Indicative Function Distribution
Engineering
13%
Fabrication
25%
Integration
19%
Materials
43%
Topsides Weight Percentage Increases
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
Topsides Weight % Increase Topsides Weight % Increase Trend
565/031/028
Chart No 21
Topsides engineering cost expressed as a cost per tonne of topside net dry weight. Cost per
tonne increases with increasing topsides weight, i.e. with complexity, etc. This is similar to
conventional topsides trends (chart contains hidden data points).
Chart No 22
Topsides engineering manhours expressed as a function of topside weight. A wide distribution at
the heavier end of the weight scale may result in a skewed trend. The inherent inaccuracies with
manhour reporting must be borne in mind when reading this chart, however, increasing manhours
per tonne with increasing weight is similar to conventional topsides trends (chart contains hidden
data points).
Topsides
Engineering Cost per Tonne
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Topsides weight (te)
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

t
o
n
n
e

(
$
)
Topsides
Engineering Manhours per Tonne
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
M
a
n
h
o
u
r
s

p
e
r

T
o
n
n
e
565/031/028
Chart No 23
Topsides material cost expressed as a cost per tone. Surprisingly, the cost per tonne increases
with increasing weight. An explanation for this fact could be the use of more exotic and expensive
materials in an effort to reduce weight on heavier topsides. This trend differs somewhat from
conventional topsides, which has a flatter curve (chart contains hidden data points).
Chart No 24
Topsides fabrication and integration costs expressed as a cost per tonne. Chart shows marginally
increasing costs with increasing weight. The fabrication and integration functions are shown
together as, when viewed independently, give misleading results due to the blurred delineation
between these activities (chart contains hidden data points).
Topsides
Materials Cost per Tonne
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

T
o
n
n
e

(
$
)
Topsides Fabrication and Integration Costs per Tonne
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

T
o
n
n
e

(
$
)
565/031/028
Chart No 25
Topside fabrication and Integration manhours expressed jointly as a function of topsides weight.
Interestingly, despite the wide scatter as topsides weight increases mahours per tonne trend
increases only incrementally. The inherent inaccuracies with manhour reporting must be borne in
mind when reading this chart. (Chart contains hidden data points).
Chart No 26
Composite newbuild hull costs (engineering, materials and construction) expressed as a function
of hull storage capacity. As would be expected, the cost per barrel of storage decreases as
storage capacity increases. (Chart contains hidden data points).
Hull Newbuild Cost (Eng Mat Const)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

B
b
l

S
t
o
r
a
g
e

(
$
)
Topsides Fabrication & Integration Manhours per Tonne
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
M
a
n
h
o
u
r
s

p
e
r

T
o
n
n
e
565/031/028
Chart No 27
Composite newbuild hull costs (engineering, materials and construction) expressed as a function
of vessel deadweight. As would be expected, the cost per barrel of storage decreases as vessel
deadweight increases. (Chart contains hidden data points).
Chart No 28
Hull conversion costs expressed as a cost per barrel of storage capacity. The chart shows
decreasing costs per barrel as storage capacity increases. Three of the five conversions in the
target FPSO are included in the above chart. The data points have been hidden as the vessels
can be readily identified.
Hull Conversion Cost per Storage Capacity
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

B
b
l

S
t
o
r
a
g
e

(
$
)
Hull Newbuild Cost (Eng Mat Const)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000
Deadweight (dwt)
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

D
e
a
d
w
e
i
g
h
t

T
o
n
n
e

(
$
)
565/031/028
Chart No 29
Hull composite duration in months (engineering, materials, construction) from start of engineering
to the end of construction activities expressed against deadweight tonnage. As expected as the
deadweight tonnage increases schedule duration increases.
Chart No 30
Actual versus planned hull composite duration (engineering, materials, and construction) from start
of engineering to the end of construction activities expressed against deadweight tonnage. The
trends indicate that hull actual durations are on, or about, planned dates.
Hull Newbuild Actual Duration
(Start of Engineering to Completion of Build)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000
Deadweight (dwt)
A
c
t
u
a
l

D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
n
t
h
s
)
Hull Newbuild Actual V Planned Duration
(Start of Engineering to Completion of Build)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000
Deadweight (dwt)
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
n
t
h
s
)
Actual Duration Planned duration Actual Trend Planned Trend
565/031/028
Chart No 31
Turret cost in absolute terms plotted against topsides design throughput. Interestingly, a close
correlation exists when expressed in this format despite the technical variation in turret types.
(Chart contains hidden data points).
Chart No 32
Turret cost in absolute terms plotted against topside weight. Technical variation in turret types
contributes to the wide scatter of data point. Also, limited data on the heavier turrets may skew the
trend. However, it would be expected that turret costs would increase with increasing weight.
(Chart contains hidden data points).
Turret (Internal)
Cost v Turret Weight
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Turret Weight (te)
T
u
r
r
e
t

C
o
s
t

(
$
0
0
0
'
s
)
Turret (Internal)
Cost v Design Throughput
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
T
u
r
r
e
t

C
o
s
t

(
$
0
0
0
'
s
)
565/031/028
Chart No 33
Technical analysis of turret weight expressed against riser capacity in absolute terms. The variety
of turret designs and options contribute to the lack of correlation on this and other measures,
however despite the wide scatter of data points the trend is interesting.
Chart No 34
Technical analysis of turret weight expressed as a function of topsides design throughput. For a
given throughput the trend turret weight can be calculated, e.g. for a throughput of 130,000 boed
turret should weigh in the order of 2600 te (130kboedx20).
Turret Weight V Risers
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Number of Risers
T
u
r
r
e
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
t
e
)
Turret Weight per Thousand BOED / Topsides Design Throughput
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
T
u
r
r
e
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

p
e
r

T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

B
O
E
D
565/031/028
Conclusions and Way Forward
Valuable cost and schedule metrics have been generated along with
technical statistics for the hull, topside and turret elements of FPSO.
Likewise, metrics for topsides engineering, materials, fabrication and
integration functions have been produced. Indicative allocations for FPSO
elements and topsides functions have also been generated with the data
provided. The small sample of data for moorings, risers and offshore
elements has precluded the production of metrics for these categories.
A greater sample of detailed data from vessels worldwide would allow
categorised analysis by technical parameters, producing more detailed
metrics for FPSO with specific characteristics. From the sample of FPSO
in this report such analysis has not been possible.
Interesting conclusions can be drawn with respect to definitions within
the industry, e.g. sanction to start-up date. This benchmark is frequently
used within the industry but can be mis-leading or lead to confusion as
can be seen from the start of engineering to end of integration duration
charts. In most instances, engineering and procurement activities have
commenced well before sanction.
The difficulty in collecting data raises the question of whether the data is
readily available and what can be done to simplify that aspect of capital
expenditure. Improving the data capture process, to extract the valuable
lessons that can be learned and to recycle the information internally and
across the industry, would aid the understanding of FPSO performance.
FPSO activity globally remains high with a recent report by Norland
Consultants forecasting 53 shipshaped FPSO to be installed in the
offshore regions of the world by 2004. General sentiment in the industry
is that, if performance is genuinely to be improved, there is a need for a
more open approach towards sharing feedback and benchmarking
information. Establishing or identifying a forum where the industry
can confidently exchange information and establish joint initiatives
without compromising individual projects or company confidentiality
is a first step in achieving this objective. The PF, through this study,
has initiated A process to take FPSO benchmarking forward and facilitate
the drive for improved performance.
4.0 STUDY
FINDINGS
565/031/028
APPENDICES
565/031/028
APPENDIX I
Participants Response to Study
Participants Response to Interim Report
FPSO STUDY ASSESSMENT
0
1
2
3
4
5
Promotion of Study
Objectives of Study
Style of Study
Regions Covered
Data Acquisition
Level of Detail
Definition of Terms
Data Security
Communication
Duration
Effort versus Benefit
Overall
Maximum Rating Achieved Rating
FPSO REPORT ASSESSMENT
0
1
2
3
4
5
Potential Value to Client
Layout & Presentation
Executive Summary
Introduction
Overview Study Findings
Charts
Conclusions
Overall
Maximum Rating Achieved Rating
565/031/028
APPENDIX II
Participating Companies
The following companies have contributed to the study:
Amerada Hess Enterprise Oil LASMO Texaco
Astano Enron Marathon Total Oil Marine
BHP Foster Wheeler MOBIL UIE Offshore
BRES J. Ray McDermott Navion Veba Oil & Gas UK
Chevron Keppel FELS Norsk Hydro WAPET
Conoco Kerr McGee Phillips Woodside
If required, the PF will make the necessary arrangements for participating companies to contact other
participants on points of common interest.
565/031/028
APPENDIX III
The above WBS represents the methodology used to categorise the elements and functions of work in the
realisation of an FPSO development. This structure facilitates the collection of data, on a like for like basis,
and subsequent analysis to develop useful metrics and norms.
Element
Function
HULL
Materials
Engineering
Facility
CAPEX
OFFSHORE TOPSIDES
Engineering
Materials
Integration
Fabrication
Build/
Conversion
TURRET
FPSO
Installation
MOORING
Supply
RISERS
FLOATER - SHIP SHAPE
FPSO WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
Vessel
Purchase
EPC EPC
Engineering
Materials
Integration
Fabrication
EPC
Supply
Mooring
Installation
Riser
Installation
Hook-Up,
Commission
Integration
Carryover
Total
Offshore
If Conversion WBS Functions EPC Option WBS Legend
565/031/028
APPENDIX IV
Target FPSO
UK Sector Norwegian Sector Australian Sector Canadian Sector
Anasuria Asgard A Challis Venture Terra Nova
Bleo Holm Norne Cossack Pioneer
Captain Varg Griffin Venture
Glas Dowr Balder Jabiru Venture
Gryphon A Jotun Modec Venture (I) & (II)
North Sea Producer Buffalo
Mearsk Curlew Northern Endeavour
Petrojarl 4
Ramform Banff
Uisge Gorm
Schiehallion
Berge Hugin
Triton
565/031/028
APPENDIX V
Study Questionnaire and Definition of Terms
PERFORMANCE FORUM FPSO STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
Section 1.0 Development
Development Name: Sanction Date (Month/Year):
Operator: Start Up Date (M Planned Actual
(Month/Year):
Recoverable Reserves: Region:
Oil Condensate Gas
mmbbl mmbbl bcf
Location:
GOR API
Section 2.0 Facility
FPSO Vessel Name: Number of Beds:
Deadweight (dwt): Water Depth (metres):
Section 3.0 Elements
3.1 Topsides
Engineering Contractor: Engineering Location:
Fabrication:
Item Description Contractor Location
Integration Yard Contractor: Integration Yard Location:
Design Capacity:
Oil Condensate Gas Produced Water Gas Power
Throughput Throughput Throughput Water Injection Compression generation
bpd bpd mmscfd bpd bpd mmscfd mw
LQ Part of Topsides: Topsides Weight (tonnes):
Fabricated Items
Total
Option 1 - If details available complete inputs on engineering, materials, fabrication and integration.
Engineering: Planned Actual Materials: Planned Actual
Duration Months Duration Months
Manhours N
o
Cost $000 Cost $000
Fabrication: Planned Actual Integration: Planned Actual
Manhours N
o
Manhours N
o
Cost $000 Cost $000
565/031/028
Option 2 - If above details not available input total topsides duration and cost against EPC.
EPC: Planned Actual
Duration Months
Cost $000
3.2 Hull
Shipyard: Shipyard Location:
Type: Construction:
Dimensions/Capacity:
Length Breadth Depth Weight Crude
Overall Moulded Moulded Net Dry Storage
m m m te bbl
Systems:
Main Thrusters Dynamic LQ Part of
Propulsion Positioning Hull
Previous Vessel Name: Purchase of Vessel/Hull ($000):
Option 1 - If details available complete inputs on engineering, build/conversion and transport.
Engineering: Planned Actual Build/Conversion: Planned Actual
Manhours N
o
Manhours N
o
Cost $000 Cost $000
Transport Hull: Planned Actual
Duration Days
Cost $000
Option 2 - If above details not available input total hull duration and cost against EPC.
EPC: Planned Actual
Duration Months
Cost $000
3.3 Turret
Fabrication Contractor: Fabrication Location:
Integration Yard Contractor: Integration Yard Location:
Turret Type: Fluid Transfer Method:
Dimensions:
Height Diameter Weight Riser
Capacity
m m te N
o
565/031/028
Option 1 - If details available complete inputs on engineering, materials, fabrication and integration.
Engineering: Planned Actual Materials: Planned Actual
Manhours N
o
Cost $000 Cost $000
Fabrication: Planned Actual Integration: Planned Actual
Manhours N
o
Manhours N
o
Cost $000 Cost $000
Option 2 - If above details not available input total turret duration and cost against EPC.
EPC: Planned Actual
Duration Months
Cost $000
3.4 Moorings:
Supplier: Supplier Location:
Anchor Type: Line Type:
Moorings: Supply Planned Actual
Anchors Length Duration Months
N
o
m Cost $000
3.5 Risers
Supplier: Supplier Location:
Description:
Service Type N
o
Length m
Supply Planned Actual
Duration Months
Cost $000
3.6 Offshore
FPSO Installation Contractor: FPSO Hook UP Contractor:
Moorings Installation Contractor: Riser Installation Contractor:
Option 1 - If details available complete inputs on FPSO, moorings and riser installation.
FPSO Installation: Planned Actual Moorings Installation: Planned Actual
Duration days Duration days
Cost $000 Cost $000
Riser Installation: Planned Actual
Duration days
Cost $000
565/031/028
Option 2 - If above details not available input total installation duration and cost against Installation.
Complete Installation: Planned Actual
Duration days
Cost $000
Hook Up, Completion and Commissioning.
FPSO Hook Up: Planned Actual Integration Carryover: Planned Actual
Duration days Duration days
Manhours N
o
Manhours N
o
Cost $000 Cost $000
Section 4.0 General
4.1 Unallocated Cost
General Cost Items Not Allocated To Section 3.0
Description Cost ($000)
4.2 General Comments
Section 5.0 Data Source
Company:
Name: Position:
Telephone: Fax: e-mail:
565/031/028
Section 1.0 Development
Development Name: Operator designation for geographical area that contains recoverable hydrocarbon
reserves to be exploited (field name).
Sanction Date (Month/Year): Date of operator and partner agreement to commence works associated
with the development - Format mmm/YYYY.
Operator: Name of company, normally part of a consortium, which is responsible for exploitation of oil or
gas field.
Start Up Date (Month/Year):
Planned: Original planned start up date, normally at project sanction - Format mmm/YYYY.
Actual: Actual start up date at completion of project - Format mmm/YYYY.
Recoverable Reserves: Amount of hydrocarbons expected to be recovered from field as estimated and
declared by operator.
Region: Political and geographical description of field location, e.g. UKCS, Norway, Australia Canada, etc.
Location: Geographical description of field location, e.g. for UKCS CNS, NNS or WOS, Australia NWS or
Timor Sea, etc.
Section 2.0 Facility
FPSO Vessel Name: Vessel designation when on station and in production.
Number of Beds: Number of permanent beds available in vessel living quarters.
Deadweight (dwt): Deadweight of completed FPSO vessel.
Water Depth (metres): Water depth, LAT, at position in field where FPSO vessel is moored.
Section 3.0 Elements
Engineering Contractor: Name of contractor responsible for detailed design and other related activities.
Engineering Location: Geographical location where majority of engineering activities performed, e.g.
London, Houston, etc.
Fabrication: Items fabricated remote from integration yard.
Item Description: Description of fabricated item, e.g. process module, compressor package, etc.
Contractor: Name of contractor responsible for fabrication and delivery of item.
Location: Geographical location of contractor's fabrication facility.
Integration Yard Contractor: Name of contractor responsible for installation of topsides on vessel, hook
up and completion of all FPSO systems prior to going offshore.
Integration Yard Location: Geographical location of integration yard, e.g. Stavanger, Singapore, etc.
Design Capacity: Maximum process design capacities for items listed.
LQ Part of Topsides: Was living quarters unit fabricated and installed as a topsides module?
Topside Weight (tonnes): Net dry installed weight of items designated as part of vessel topsides.
565/031/028
Engineering: The term engineering includes various phases such as preliminary engineering, detail
engineering and follow-on or post engineering. Activities within each phase consist of design,
procurement, QA/QC, weight control, etc.
Duration: Period from start of preliminary engineering to completion of detailed design and follow on
activities.
Manhours: Direct manhours allocated to specific disciplines within the engineering function.
Cost: Total cost relating to all engineering activities.
Planned: Original planned durations and budgets, normally at project sanction. (Typical)
Actual: Final data recorded at completion of project. (Typical)
Materials: Equipment and bulk materials necessary to construct and complete facility topsides.
Duration: Period from issue of first purchase order to last delivery of major item(s).
Cost: Total cost of supplying equipment and bulk materials, including freight and vendor support charges.
Fabrication: Performance of all operations necessary to produce fabricated items ready for installation as
part of an FPSO topsides, including delivery to integration yard.
Duration: Period from start of fabrication activities to delivery at integration yard.
Manhours: Labour direct manhours allocated to specific disciplines, e.g. structural, piping, electrical etc.
Cost: Total cost of fabrication activities including overheads and management, etc. Note: cost of
equipment and materials should be included in "Materials" section.
Integration: All activities necessary to install, integrate and complete topsides with hull to produce FPSO
vessel ready for offshore installation.
Duration: Period from start of integration activities at yard to vessel sailaway.
Cost: Total cost of integration activities, including overheads and management, etc. Note: cost of
EPC: All functions necessary to provide topsides on completed FPSO vessel ready for offshore
installation.
Duration: Period from start of preliminary engineering to vessel sailaway.
Cost: Total cost of topsides functions, i.e. engineering, materials, fabrication and integration with hull.
3.2 Hull
Shipyard: Name of shipyard company responsible for hull build/conversion.
Shipyard Location: Geographical location of shipyard, e.g. Korea, Singapore, etc.
Type: General description of FPSO hull build method.
Construction: General description of FPSO hull configuration e.g. single hull, double hull etc.
Dimensions/Capacity: Dimensions and design storage capacity.
565/031/028
Weight Net Dry (te): Net dry weight of hull structure including ship machinery.
Systems: Indication of optional systems available.
LQ Part of Hull: Was living quarters unit supplied as an integral part of hull and not as a separate topsides
module?
Previous Vessel Name: Name of vessel prior to conversion to FPSO.
Purchase of Vessel/Hull ($000): Purchase price of vessel/hull to be converted to FPSO.
activities.
Build/Conversion: All activities necessary to build FPSO hull or convert existing vessel/hull to FPSO hull.
Duration: Period from start of build/conversion activities at yard to completion of FPSO hull.
Manhours: Labour direct manhours allocated to specific disciplines, e.g. structural, piping, electrical, etc.
Cost: Total cost of build/conversion activities including materials, overheads and management.
Transport Hull: Transport of FPSO hull from build/conversion yard to integration yard.
Duration: Period from sailaway at build/conversion yard to arrival at integration yard.
Cost: Total cost of transport activities.
EPC: All functions necessary to provide topsides on completed FPSO vessel ready for offshore
installation.
Duration: Period from start of preliminary engineering to vessel sailaway.
Cost: Total cost of topsides functions engineering, materials, fabrication and integration with hull.
3.3 Turret
Fabrication Contractor: Name of contractor responsible for fabrication and delivery of item.
Fabrication Location: Geographical location of contractor's fabrication facility.
Integration Yard Contractor: Name of contractor responsible for installation of turret on vessel.
Integration Yard Location: Geographical location of integration yard, e.g. Stavanger, Singapore, etc.
Turret Type: Brief description of turret type, e.g. bottom mounted internal turret (BMIT).
565/031/028
Fluid Transfer Method: Brief description of fluid transfer method between vessel and risers, e.g. swivel or
dragchain.
Turret Weight: Net dry weight of turret structure and equipment.
Riser Capacity: Number of risers turret designed to accommodate.
activities.
Fabrication: Performance of all operations necessary to produce turret unit ready for installation on FPSO
topsides, including delivery to integration yard.
Duration: Period from start of fabrication activities to delivery at integration yard.
Cost: Total cost of fabrication activities including overheads and management, etc. Note: cost of
Integration: All activities necessary to install, integrate and complete turret unit within hull.
Duration: Period from start of integration activities at yard to completion of mating with hull.
Cost: Total cost of integration activities, including overheads and management, etc. Note: cost of
EPC: All functions necessary to provide completed turret on FPSO vessel hull.
Duration: Period from start of preliminary engineering to completion of mating with hull.
Cost: Total cost of turret functions, engineering, materials, fabrication and integration with hull.
3.4 Moorings
Supplier: Name of main supplier of anchors and mooring line system.
Supplier Location: Geographical location of supplier's main facility.
Anchor Type: Brief description of anchor type, e.g. suction pile, fluke, etc.
Line Type: Brief description of mooring line type, e.g. cable, chain, chain/wire, etc.
Anchors No.: Number of seabed anchor points in mooring system.
Anchor Length: Average length of individual mooring line.
Supply: All functions necessary to provide anchor/line mooring system.
Duration: Period from issue of purchase order to delivery of anchor/line mooring system.
Cost: Total cost of supply and delivery of anchor/line mooring system.
565/031/028
3.5 Risers
Supplier: Name of main supplier of riser system.
Supplier Location: Geographical location of supplier's main facility.
Service: Brief descriptions of each riser service including umbilicals, e.g. production, gas lift, control, etc.
Type: Brief description of each riser type, e.g. flexible pipe, umbilical, etc.
No.: Number of risers of specific service and type.
Length: Average length of individual riser against each service/type.
Supply: All functions necessary to provide riser system.
Duration: Period from issue of purchase order to delivery of riser system.
Cost: Total cost of supply and delivery of riser system.
3.6 Offshore
FPSO Installation Contractor: Name of marine contractor responsible for transporting FPSO vessel from
integration yard and installation activities at field.
FPSO Hook UP Contractor: Name of contractor responsible for completion of integration and
commissioning work following installation of FPSO vessel.
Moorings Installation Contractor: Name of marine contractor responsible for installation of mooring
system.
Riser Installation Contractor: Name of marine contractor responsible for installation of riser system.
FPSO Installation: Offshore installation of FPSO vessel in field including transportation from integration
yard.
Duration: Period from sailaway at integration yard to completion of installation activities in field.
Cost: All costs associated with transporting FPSO vessel from integration yard and installing in field.
Mooring Installation: Offshore installation of mooring system in field, prelay and pull-in, including
transportation from supply base.
Duration: Period from sailaway at supply base to completion of installation activities in field.
Cost: All costs associated with transporting mooring system from supply base and installing in field.
Riser Installation: Offshore installation of riser system in field, prelay and pull-in, including transportation
from supply base.
Duration: Period from sailaway at supply base to completion of installation activities in field.
Cost: All costs associated with transporting mooring system from supply base and installing in field.
Complete Installation: Offshore installation of FPSO vessel in field including transportation from
integration yard and installation of mooring system and risers.
Duration: Period from sailaway at integration yard to completion of installation activities in field.
Cost: All costs associated with transporting FPSO vessel from integration yard and installing in field,
including installation of mooring system and risers.
565/031/028
FPSO Hook Up: Completion of integration and commissioning work unable to be performed prior to FPSO
vessel installation.
Duration: Period from start of hook up work to end of completion/commissioning work, excluding
operations activities.
Cost: Total cost of hook up work including onshore support and logistics activities, includes also
integration carryover work.
Integration Carryover: Work that should have been performed at integration yard but actually carried out
at offshore location during hook up.
Duration: Period from start to end of carryover activities.
Cost: Identifiable cost of carryover work included in hook up total.
General Cost Items Not Allocated To Section 3.0: General cost items not allocated to elements in
section 3.0, e.g. owner project management, insurance, etc.

FPSO Benchmarking Report 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FPSO Benchmarking Report 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Forum

You might also like