FDP-Zubara Gas Field

ZUBARA GAS FIELD

Development Plan

Team members:
Stefi Hooft van Huysduynen
Menno de Nooij
Payman Veisi Zadeh
Niels Viezee
Stef Vlaanderen

Date: May 27, 2009

Zubara Gas Field Development Plan, Concession 2 May 2009

Preface
Gas N’ Roses is very proud to present this field development plan to you that is the best solution to develop concession 2
of the Zubara Field. This final scenario is selected out of three scenarios.

Part A explains how three scenarios are created and which scenario is chosen for the final development. In Chapter 1,
some general information about the Zubara Field itself and characteristics of the gas and its pressure will be given. Also a
global risk analysis and a stakeholder analysis are included because they have much influence on how Gas N’ Roses
decided to develop the three scenarios for this project.
The method used to create three solutions is explained in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 gives information about all three scenarios.
In the next chapter, 4, a cost analysis of all three scenarios is given. On basis of the TECOP, HSSE and cost studies, a
proposal of the best scenario is given in Chapter 5, the last chapter of part A.

Part B of the report is the final field development plan. Chapter 6 provides general information about the field layout and
the value chain. Chapter 7 gives a thorough risk analysis consisting of an HSSE study and a TECOP risk identification. All
technical specifications of the selected scenario such as the well plan, structures, topside and process plant are elaborated
in Chapter 8. The costs of the total project and some sensitivity analyses are given in Chapter 9. And finally, in Chapter 10,
a final conclusion is presented.
2

Summary
Gas N’ Roses is an engineering consultant in the field of oil and gas production which provides the client with a strategic
plan concerning the development of gas or oil. The focus lays mainly on upstream production but we can also provide the
client with downstream engineering solutions.

The objective is to make a field development plan for the Zubara gas field northwest of Qatar. The field has a total GIIP of
900 Tscf but for this project Gas N’ Roses will focus on concession 2, which has an area of 30,000 acres. The recoverable
GIIP of concession 2 is 12.3 Tscf and the CIIP is 948.8 MMbbls. The distance to shore is 65 km and the water depth is 250
m.

Next to the technical information about this project other issues like the stakeholders and several risks are important. The
most important stakeholders which come out of the stakeholder analysis are the Qatar government, Qatar Petroleum,
Shell and the gas and condensate consumers. Important risks in this project are the relations with surrounding countries.
In the gas and oil branch, fluctuations in gas prices are a big issue and can have a large influence on the economical part of
the development and continuity of the project.

Risks concerning the specific field are the presence of sinkholes and the large amount of H2S. These issues will influence
the technical aspects of the project. Because of the high H2S production, selling this product could be also economical
attractive and profitable.

The kite model is used to determine different scenarios. The scenarios are built up from different building blocks and
finally rated with help of a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). The criteria are based on both Gas N’ Roses’ and Shells vision.
Also the stakeholder analysis and the global risk analysis are taken into account. Finally three different scenarios are
gained from the MCA. The first scenario is a jacket structure platform, the second a semisubmersible platform and the
third scenario consists of only subsea units.

The three scenarios are worked out as detailed as possible to compare them. The major criteria to compare these three
scenarios are the HSSE Study, TECOP Risk Analysis, Cost Analysis, Execution, and the First Day To Gas. After this
comparison, a sensitivity analysis is used to be certain one scenario will be the best option. In all cases the unmanned
jacket structure seems to be the most feasible scenario.

The second part of the report consists of the development plan of the selected scenario.
The jacket platform is a proven technology with a relatively low CAPEX and OPEX. The CAPEX will be 2.7 billion USD, the
OPEX, over a field life of 45 years, will be 5.5 billion USD.

The processes will be controlled and monitored at an onshore facility which means a safer work area. The jacket is
accessible by helicopter for maintenance.

The production topside will produce 1,500 MMscf/day with 17 wells (1 vertical, 10 horizontal and a manifold with 6
deviated wells). Gas, water, condensates and impurities will be separated offshore. The gas and condensates will be
evacuated separately. The water will be dumped overboard after being treated and the CO2 will be re‐injected into an
injection well. The H2S will not be separated offshore, but onshore in the LNG and GTL plants.

Before the conversion of gas to any product, the NPV of this project will be 3,940 billion USD with an internal rate of
return of 42. If 70 % of the gas is delivered to the Pearl GTL plant, the remaining 30 % to the Q4 LNG plant and the
condensates to the Laffan Refinery which are all located in Ras Laffan.
3

Table of Contents
Preface.......................................................................................................................................................................................2
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................3
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................4
Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................................................................6
Company Profile ........................................................................................................................................................................7
Company background ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Vision ....................................................................................................................................................................................7
The Team ..............................................................................................................................................................................7
Part A: General Information and Three Possible Scenarios.......................................................................................................8
1. Problem Definition...........................................................................................................................................................9
1.1. General Field Information ........................................................................................................................................9
1.2. Boundary Conditions................................................................................................................................................9
1.3. Stakeholders.............................................................................................................................................................9
1.4. General Risk Analysis..............................................................................................................................................10
1.5. Gas Characteristics and Metocean Data ................................................................................................................11
1.5.1. Gas Composition ...........................................................................................................................................11
1.5.2. Gas Pressure ..................................................................................................................................................11
1.5.3. Waves, Wind and Earthquakes......................................................................................................................12
2. Development of Scenarios .............................................................................................................................................13
2.1. Criteria and Weighting Factors ..............................................................................................................................13
2.2. Building Blocks .......................................................................................................................................................14
2.3. Multi Criteria Analysis ............................................................................................................................................15
2.4. Selected Three Scenarios .......................................................................................................................................16
3. Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................................................17
3.1. Scenario 1...............................................................................................................................................................17
3.1.1. General Layout ..............................................................................................................................................17
3.1.2. Wells and Subsea Arrangement ....................................................................................................................17
3.1.3. Topside ..........................................................................................................................................................18
3.1.4. Structure........................................................................................................................................................18
3.1.5. Costs ..............................................................................................................................................................19
3.1.6. HSSE Study.....................................................................................................................................................19
3.2. Scenario 2...............................................................................................................................................................20
3.2.1. General Layout ..............................................................................................................................................20
3.2.2. Wells and Subsea Arrangement ....................................................................................................................20
3.2.3. Drilling Schedule and Field Life......................................................................................................................21
3.2.4. Topside ..........................................................................................................................................................21
3.2.5. Structure........................................................................................................................................................22
3.2.6. Costs ..............................................................................................................................................................22
3.2.7. HSSE Study.....................................................................................................................................................22
3.3. Scenario 3...............................................................................................................................................................23
3.3.1. General Layout ..............................................................................................................................................23
3.3.2. Drilling Schedule and Field Life......................................................................................................................23
3.3.3. Multiphase Pipeline.......................................................................................................................................24
3.3.4. Costs ..............................................................................................................................................................24
3.3.5. HSSE Study.....................................................................................................................................................24
4. Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................25
4.1. Economical evaluation of three scenarios .............................................................................................................25
4.2. Sensitivity analysis of the three scenarios .............................................................................................................26
5. Selection of Final Scenario .............................................................................................................................................27
Part B: Final Field Development Plan ......................................................................................................................................29
4

6. General Information.......................................................................................................................................................30
6.1. Layout.....................................................................................................................................................................30
6.2. Introduction of the Field Development Plan..........................................................................................................30
6.3. Value Chain ............................................................................................................................................................32
6.3.1. Re‐injecting of Carbon Dioxide......................................................................................................................32
6.3.2. Removal of Hydrogen Sulphide .....................................................................................................................34
6.3.3. Condensates ..................................................................................................................................................34
6.3.4. Destination of Gas .........................................................................................................................................35
6.3.5. Revenues .......................................................................................................................................................36
7. Risks ...............................................................................................................................................................................38
7.1. HSSE .......................................................................................................................................................................38
7.2. TECOP.....................................................................................................................................................................39
8. Technical Aspects...........................................................................................................................................................42
8.1. Well Layout ............................................................................................................................................................42
8.1.1. Drilling Schedule............................................................................................................................................43
8.1.2. Subsea Equipment.........................................................................................................................................44
8.1.3. Controls .........................................................................................................................................................47
8.1.4. IMR ................................................................................................................................................................48
8.2. Topside...................................................................................................................................................................49
8.2.1. Non‐processing modules...............................................................................................................................49
8.2.2. Process plant .................................................................................................................................................49
8.3. Structure ................................................................................................................................................................50
8.3.1. Jacket.............................................................................................................................................................50
8.4. Pipelines .................................................................................................................................................................52
8.5. Execution Plan........................................................................................................................................................53
8.5.1. Fabrication & Transportation ........................................................................................................................53
8.5.2. Installation.....................................................................................................................................................53
8.5.3. Decommissioning ..........................................................................................................................................54
8.5.4. Contracting ....................................................................................................................................................54
8.5.5. Schedule ........................................................................................................................................................55
9. Economical .....................................................................................................................................................................56
9.1. Costs.......................................................................................................................................................................56
9.2. Revenues................................................................................................................................................................56
9.3. Profit.......................................................................................................................................................................57
9.4. Economical sensitivity analysis ..............................................................................................................................58
9.5. Maximum exposure ...............................................................................................................................................60
10. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................61
Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................................62
Appendix I GIIP/ CIIP Calculations.......................................................................................................................................63
Appendix II Building Blocks .................................................................................................................................................66
Appendix III Calculation Production per Day and per Well.................................................................................................69
Appendix IV Calculation of Dimensions of and Loads on Jacket.........................................................................................70
Appendix V Calculation Semisubmersible...........................................................................................................................72
Appendix VI.A HAZID Scenario 1.........................................................................................................................................73
Appendix VI.B HAZID Scenario 2 .........................................................................................................................................75
Appendix VI.C HAZID Scenario 3 .........................................................................................................................................77
Appendix VII Calculation Production Deviated Wells Final Scenario..................................................................................78
Appendix VIII H2S calculations............................................................................................................................................79
Appendix IX Pipeline calculations .......................................................................................................................................80
5

Abbreviations

bbl Barrels
Btu British Thermal Unit
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CIIP Condensate Initially In Place
FDTG First Day To Gas
FDU Floating Drilling Unit
FPSO Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading unit
GBS Gravity Base Structure
GIIP Gas Initially In Place
GTL Gas To Liquid
HAZID Hazards Identification
HSSE Health, Safety, Sustainability, Environment
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning
IMR Inspection, Maintenance and Repair
IRR Internal Rate of Return
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
L.Q. Living Quarters
MRI Maintenance Repair and Inspection
NGO Non‐Governmental Organization
NPS Net Present Value
OPEX Operational Expenditure
ppm Parts per million
psi Pounds per square inch
PVT Pressure, Volume and Temperature
QG Qatar Government
QP Qatar Petroleum
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
Scf Standard cubic feet
SIMOPS Simultaneous Operations
TECOP Technical, Economical, Commercial, Organizational, Political
TLP Tension Leg Platform
VIR Value to Investment Ratio
6

Company Profile
Gas N’ Roses is an engineering consultant in the field of oil and gas production. Our goal is to provide our clients with a
strategic plan concerning the development of a gas or oil field in order for them to improve their E&P performance. From
our history we are specialized in fields offshore, however in recent years we have successfully completed a number of
onshore projects. Our focus lays mainly on upstream production but we can also provide the client with downstream
engineering solutions in most parts of the world. Gas N’ Roses is one of the world leaders when it comes to safety and
creating a sustainable environment for our clients
Company background
Gas N’ Roses was established in 1975 as a spin‐off company from the Delft University of Technology. At this time, the
Dutch government was looking for ways to become less dependent on oil from the middle east and in particular from
OPEC after the first oil crisis of 1973. Gas N’ Roses received funding from the government for her first project, which was
in cooperation with the Norwegian government, and successfully finished it in 1977. For Gas N’ Roses the project mainly
involved offshore engineering consult with respect to the development of an oilfield in the North Sea. Gaining more
experience in following years after the energy crisis of 1979, Gas N’ Roses was later involved in projects in the Middle East
and in the West Coast of Africa. The number of employees grew rapidly from 20 to 150 in a decade. By finding a good
balance by recruiting experienced engineers as well as young, talented, innovative graduates, Gas N’ Roses was able to
diversify and become more familiar with new technologies such as FPSOs and semisubmersibles. With gas becoming
increasingly profitable the company diverted its attention not only to oil field development, but also to the development
of gas fields.
Vision
As the oil and gas industries are more and more of a controversial issue nowadays, Gas N’ Roses is very keen on protecting
the environment but also on providing infrastructure and work in countries where the project is. To protect the
environment, not only will Gas N’ Roses find a way of installation with a minimal impact on the environment, also Gas N’
Roses will provide a strategy for decommissioning, so that after development the field can be returned as ‘virginal’ as
possible. The hiring of local people for less specialized jobs is something we urge our clients to do, in order for these
people to contribute to their society, as well as for the country to develop as a nation as a whole.

To minimize hazards, a thorough risk analysis is made before the start of each project. In this analysis, technical risks, but
also economic and political risks are assessed in order to provide the client with fair and truthful information on forehand.
Gas N’ Roses is in particular very clear about possible human casualties: we cannot accept them. By selecting
subcontractors with a background of few incidents, we are proud to say that so far no human casualties have been
reported in any of our projects.
The Team
The team for this project is carefully selected from our available workforce. As a rule of thumb, Gas N’ Roses includes a
senior engineer that has sufficient experience in all fields. The senior engineer for this project will be Payman Veisi Zadeh.
His responsibilities within the team are such as the installation, decommissioning, the transport and the risk analysis. As
mister Veisi Zadeh’s background lays in Iran and is familiar with this part of the world, he was selected for this project.
Name Function Responsibilities

Stefi Hooft van Team leader and
Huysduynen reservoir engineer Soil data, drilling, reservoir, time management
Payman Veisi Zadeh Senior engineer Installation, decommissioning, transport, risk analysis
Menno de Nooij Mechanical engineer Costs of project, pipelines, subsea
Niels Viezee Process engineer Gas quality at surface, gas quality onshore, equipment
Stef Vlaanderen Offshore engineer Structure, metocean, HSSE, contracting/political
7

Part A: General Information and Three Possible Scenarios
8

1. Problem Definition
1.1. General Field Information
The Zubara Field is a part of North Dome South Pars gas field, which is the
biggest known gas field in the world. It is located offshore northeast of
Qatar and partly in Iranian territorial waters, see Figure 1.1. Besides gas,
the field also contains oil reservoirs near the border with Iran.
Concession
Concession 2 is located 65 km from shore and its area is 36000 x 36000 ft
which is ~29750 acre. The GIIP and CIIP of concession 2 can be found below
in Table 1.1. 85 % of these are recoverable. For a calculation of these values,
one is referred Appendix I.
Figure 1.1: Zubara Field and Concession 2
Table 1.1: GIIP & CIIP
Low Mid High
GIIP [Tscf] 7.38 14.48 24.27
CIIP [MMbbls] 590.50 1158.59 1941.41
Recoverable gas [Tscf] 6.27 12.31 20.63

Recoverable condensate [MMbbls] 501.93 984.80 1,650.20
1.2. Boundary Conditions
This project consists of lots of aspects which can all be worked out very detailed. Of course Gas N’ Roses cannot be
responsible for all phases of the field development. That is why some boundaries are stated:
• The project contains all equipment the gas passes from the moment it is extracted out of the reservoir until it
reaches the shore. This means onshore pipelines to the LNG and/or GTL plants are not a part of the project.
• Also the export of the LNG/GTL from the plants to other countries will not be a part of this project. The thing we
will provide is a number of countries where it can be transported to.
• The commercialization is based on the Tax‐Royalty Contract.
• Every solution provided by Gas N’ Roses does fit in Shell’s Business Principle.
• Qatar has signed the Kyoto protocol and that is the reason why, in this project, CO2 emission will be minimized.
1.3. Stakeholders
During the field life many stakeholders, like governments, oil/gas companies and locals will be involved in this project and
have to be well‐informed during all processes and perhaps brought together. Without the necessary permissions, great
knowledge and experience of these stakeholders, this field cannot be developed.
Below in Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3, two stakeholder maps are shown: an interest versus influence map and a support
versus influence map.
• Iran Government • QP
High • Competitors • NGOs
• Subcontractors • Shareholders
• Employees • Fishermen • LNG consumer
Interest
Medium • Local • Pearl divers • GTL consumer

contractors
• Surrounding
Low countries

Low Medium High

Influence
Figure 1.2: Stakeholders Mapping: Interest versus Influence
9

• Subcontractors • QP
High • NGOs
• Shareholders
Support
• Employees • Iran Government • LNG consumer

Medium • Local • Competitors • GTL consumer
contractors
• Surrounding countries
Low • Fishermen
• Pearl divers

Low Medium High
Influence
Figure 1.3: Stakeholders Mapping: Support versus Influence
1.4. General Risk Analysis
Before the development of possible scenarios commences, a global risk analysis is performed to investigate what aspects
will mainly influence the development of the field. This global risks analysis contains a TECOP Risk Identification, Table 1.2,
and an HSSE Study, Table 1.3.

TECOP Risk identification
For all Technical, Economical, Commercial, Organizational and Political aspects, risks are assigned.

Table 1.2: General TECOP Risk Identification
Technical Economic Commercial Organizational Politic
Flow Assurance Increase CAPEX Problem on gas sale Project manager War in Middle East
agreements, e.g. change in
gas price
Sinkholes Increase OPEX Main contract termination International employees Russia‐Iran‐Qatar gas
cooperation
Gas migration Gas price changes Change in contract with Work done in different Iran‐Qatar Government
subcontractors location relations
Subsea processing Oil price changes Gas demand Operation by local people Religious people (Muslims)
Gas composition Shareholders Local regulation in IMR locally Terrorism attack
contracts
High content of H2S Lack of budget
Pressure drop in reservoir World economic crisis
Technical problem on GTL
plant and/or LNG plant

HSSE Study
Of course not all risks can be grouped under technical, economical, commercial, organizational or political risks. Offshore,
the most important issue is of course safety and that is the reason why an HSSE study is done before the development of
scenarios. In this HSSE study most of the risks concerning Health, Safety, Sustainability and the Environment are assessed.

Table 1.3: General HSSE Study
Health Safety Sustainability Environment
Exposure to gasses Fire Degradation of structure and Leak (pipeline, process plant)
equipment
Falling from heights Explosion CO2 emission during transport Destruction of sea life
and fabrication
Electric shocks Accidents due to weather
Falling into the sea Falling objects
Training not sufficient
Failure of emergency equipment
Using these two risks analyses, it is clear where the focus has to lay during the development of scenarios.
When, at the end of this phase, the choice has to be made which scenario will be the final scenario, a much more detailed
risk analysis will be performed. In this risk analysis, an HSSE Study will be done for all three possible scenarios. Based on
these risk analyses and a cost calculation, the final scenario will be chosen.
10

1.5. Gas Characteristics and Metocean Data
1.5.1. Gas Composition
The gas in the Zubara Field has a gravity of 0.81 relative to air and consists of the following components:

Table 1.4: Gas Composition Zubara Field
Component Chemical Name Percentage [%]
Methane CH4 77
Ethane C2H6 6.5
Propane C3H8 3
Carbon Dioxide CO2 1
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S 2.5
Total 90

The value of H2S in the reservoir differs between 1 and 5 %. The other 7.5 – 11.5 % of the gas consists of butane, pentane,
etcetera and form the condensate part of the wet gas. When the gas composition of the Zubara Field is compared to a
typical natural gas, it is clear that the H2S percentage of the Zubara Field is quite high.
Because of the amount of H2S is high in the wet gas, the probability of sour corrosion is very high. Also because of the
toxicity of H2S and the lack of heating value of CO2 natural gas being prepared for sales is required to contain no more
than 5 ppm H2S and to have a heating value of no less than 920 to 980 Btu/scf. This means action has to be undertaken to
prevent corrosion caused by the H2S. Using a pipe material that doesn’t corrode, means a very expensive material will
have to be used to prevent corrosion. This means the total costs of all the pipelines will become unnecessarily high.
Corrosion allowance is also not an option for this gas composition, because the amount of corrosion will be too high to
allow it because the pipeline will damage too much. There are already sulfur units in both the GTL and LNG plants present
in Qatar. So desulfurization offshore will not be necessary because it can be done onshore and it is a very expensive
procedure to perform offshore. Therefore, chemical injection is the solution for the high amount of H2S in all scenarios. To
determine the amount of chemical inhibitors, a sample of the gas is taken continuously to check what the current
percentage of H2S is. This is done to reduce costs because the chemicals are inhibited continuously and too much chemical
inhibitor is a waste of money and not environmental friendly.
1.5.2. Gas Pressure
The initial pressure in the reservoir is around 6000 psi. The temperature at reservoir depth is 127 °C. As the reservoir
produces, formation temperature does not change, but pressure decreases. This pressure drop will decrease the
production because pressure and production are directly linked.
When the production starts, the hydrocarbons that exist in pressurized formations will naturally rise up through the well
to the surface. This is most commonly the case with natural gas. Since natural gas is lighter than air, once a conduit to the
surface is opened, the pressurized gas will rise to the surface with little or no interference. This is most common for
formations containing natural gas alone, or with a light condensate. In these scenarios, once the christmas tree is
installed, the natural gas will flow to the surface on its own. This means probably no water‐ or gas‐injection will be
necessary to keep the pressure high enough to prevent the gas from flowing out of the wells.

Condensate blockage
The largest pressure drops occur near producing wells. When the pressure in a gas‐condensate reservoir decreases to a
certain point, called the saturation pressure or dewpoint, a liquid phase
rich in heavy ends drops out of solution; the gas phase is slightly
depleted of heavy ends. A continued decrease in pressure increases the
volume of the liquid phase up to a maximum amount; liquid volume then
decreases. This behavior can be displayed in a pressure‐volume‐
temperature (PVT) diagram.
Once the bottomhole pressure drops below the dewpoint, a near‐well
pressure sink forms around the well. As gas is drawn into the pressure
sink, liquid drops out. After a brief transient period, enough liquid
accumulates that its mobility becomes significant. The gas and liquid
Figure 1.4: Phase Diagram Gas‐Condensate System compete for flow paths. Condensate blockage is a result of the
11

decreased gas mobility around a producing well below the dewpoint. Reservoir pressure dropping below the dewpoint has
two main results: gas and condensate production decrease because of near‐well blockage, and the produced gas contains
fewer valuable heavy ends because of dropout throughout the reservoir, where the condensate has insufficient mobility
to flow towards the well.

Solutions
Hydraulic fracturing is the most common mitigation technology. This technique increases the effective contact area with a
formation. Production can be improved with less drawdown in the formation. However, hydraulic fracturing does not
generate a conduit past a condensate saturation buildup area, at least not for long. Horizontal or inclined wells are also
being used to increase contact area within formations. The condensate still builds up around these longer wells, but it
takes a longer time. The productivity of the wells remains high longer, but the benefit must be weighed against the
increased well cost. Dry gas and solvent injections are able to mobilize some condensate, but the liquid saturation profile
near a producing well reforms and the blockage effect returns.

To prevent the production from becoming too low due to the decreasing pressure and due to condensate blocking, the
reservoir pressure should not drop below a value of 4500 psi. This will be achieved by gas‐ or water‐injection later in the
field life of the reservoir. To prevent condensate blocking, all three options mentioned above are kept in mind.
1.5.3. Waves, Wind and Earthquakes
Wave conditions
Table 1.5: Wave Conditions Concession 2 For maximum load calculations on a fixed or floating structure,
extreme conditions must be taken into account. As can be seen
Unit Value
in Table 1.5, the wave conditions are not very extreme and will
Water depth [m] 250
not cause many problems.
Significant wave height [m] 5.8

Zero‐crossing wave period [s] 11 Wind conditions
Steady current speed at [m/s] 1.15 The 10 minute wind speed is 26.2 m/s, which is also not a
mid depth significant value. In the Zubara Field, shamals occur quite often.
Storm surge [m] 0.38 A shamal is a summer northwesterly wind blowing over Iraq and
the Persian Gulf states, often strong during the day, but decreasing at night. This weather effect occurs anywhere from
once to several times a year. The resulting wind typically creates large sandstorms. Shamals normally last three to five
days. Since the resultant dust and sandstorm is several thousand feet deep, travelling by air and ground comes to a
standstill. When they spread to nearby bodies of water, fishing and shipping becomes difficult. During these wind events,
several Southwest Asia international airports have recorded winds as high as 49km/hour which can drive dust over large
distances downwind. Shamals can have quite some impact on a floating platform. An unmanned jacket or subsea system
will not be severely disrupted.

Earthquakes
For extreme load calculations it is also important to know that the seismic activity is substantial at this location. The
Persian Gulf is a marginal sea located next to the southern flanks of the Zagros Mountains between the Persian Plateau
and Arabian Plate. Natural seismic activity around northern parts of the Persian Gulf is sometimes associated with great
and devastating earthquakes. These earthquakes seem to be caused by the convergent movement between Arabia‐
Eurasia. The southern parts and the Persian Gulf itself are considered to be seismically quiet. Normally, one earthquake
per 20 years occurs in this region, with a maximum magnitude of 6.5 on Richter scale. From historical data tsunami danger
is limited.
12

2. Development of Scenarios
To determine what the best method is to develop concession 2 of the Zubara Field, the Kite‐
Orientation
Model, as shown in Figure 2.1, will be used. This means that first several scenarios are
composed out of a limited number of building blocks. Then all scenarios are rated using
criteria and weighting factors. The best three scenarios are selected and further developed.
Many scenarios Before several scenarios can be made, it is necessary that the criteria have been identified.
These criteria will be selected according to the vision of Gas N’ Roses and keeping in mind the
values of Shell. Because these criteria are not all equally important, a weighting factor will be
Three scenarios given to each criterion. What these criteria are will be discussed later in this chapter.

After the selection of the criteria is done, an identification of the building blocks will be made.
A combination of these building blocks will make up the whole development plan of one
FPDD scenario to develop concession 2 of the Zubara Field. The building blocks will together form a
possible field layout, from the extraction of gas, up to the moment the gas enters the facility

Figure 2.1: Kite‐Model onshore. By grading the scenarios and multiplying them by their weight factors, a ranking will
be made between the scenarios.
2.1. Criteria and Weighting Factors
In order to make a selection of which scenarios are most feasible, three main criteria are selected. As a company that likes
to profile itself as one that pursues sustainability and safety, HSSE is regarded as a very important criterion. The second
main criterion is Economics. And the third criterion is Execution and contracting.

These three main criteria are subdivided into other sub criteria. By giving the main criteria a weighting factor, with a
maximum of 18 points, an opinion of which criterion is most important can be made. The weighting factors of the main
criteria are divided over the sub criteria. For each scenario a grade between 1 and 5 is given to each sub criteria. By
grading each scenario by criteria, a final feasibility ranking of the scenarios can be made.
The selection of these criteria and sub criteria, and their weighting factors is based on the experience of Gas N’ Roses. The
top six scenarios will be considered as possible options for development of the field.

The criteria matrix including the weights is shown in Table 2.2. Later on the criteria are explained.

As one can see, CAPEX and OPEX are the two most important criteria for choosing the best scenarios. This is the case
because the whole project won’t be performed if it is not profitable, which completely depends on the CAPEX and OPEX.
Gas N’ Roses believes HSSE and keeping all risks as low as practical (ALARP) are equally and extremely important. With a
maximum of 18 point per main criterion, human safety, operation and environment are all graded six points.
Execution and contracting is of course a main criterion, but not as important as economics and HSSE & risks. The way the
project will be installed and decommissioned is very important for Gas N’ Roses because it is one of our main goals to
keep the environment the same after the project as it was before the development of the field started. Maintenance,
supply and fabrication are considered less important than all other sub criteria.
13

2.2. Building Blocks
In order to create scenarios, five main building blocks are selected. These building blocks will be sufficient to create a field
layout without going too much into detail yet. Other building blocks include risers, umbilicals, L.Q.’s and such but are not
essential in creating a scenario. A brief introduction on the different building blocks is given below. More information and
details can be found in Appendix II Building Blocks.

Figure 2.2: Structure Options

• Structure
To keep open all scenario options, all possible structures have been considered, an artist impression of possible
structure solutions is shown in Figure 2.2. These are the available structures to choose from. Also a combination
of these structures is possible, something that has been proven to work in the past.
• Process/topside
The process of the gas, condensate and water mixture can be done onshore, offshore, subsea or a combination of
these locations. These processes include mostly phase separation, pressure control and gas treatment in order to
make a pipelineable product. The types of processes required together with the maximum production rate will
influence the size of the deck/topside.
• Subsea equipment
To get the gas and condensates out of the reservoir, of course well casing and trees are necessary. How the wells
are arranged can be done in several ways: wells connected to the platform individually, in clusters or in templates.
• Drilling
Drilling can be done in different ways depending on the subsea arrangement and the kind of structure. Methods
considered are vertical, deviated and horizontal drilling. For each of these methods it is extremely important to
know where exactly the gas is trapped. This can be estimated by looking at the bathymetry, fault lines and by
surveying techniques.
• Gas transportation
For the transportation of the gas or gas/condensate mixture there are two ways of doing this: single phase flow
or multiphase flow
14

2.3. Multi Criteria Analysis
After making the selection of these main building blocks and their subdivisions, 13 scenarios are sketched by selecting
compatible options from each main building block, see Table 2.1 below. These 13 scenarios are composed based on the
knowledge and experience of Gas N’ Roses and are the result of a thorough brainstorming session.

Table 2.1: All 13 Scenarios and their Building Blocks
Structure Process Subsea Drilling GT
Template Manifold
Subsea equipment
Semi‐submersible
Compliant Tower
Cluster Manifold
Single phase
Multiphase
Horizontal
Individual
Deviated
Offshore
Onshore
Vertical
Subsea
Jacket
None
FPSO
Both
Spar
GBS
TLP
1
2
3
4
5 3X
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

After grading each sub criterion, the criteria matrix can be substituted, resulting in Table 2.2. The column ‘weighted sum’
is the multiplication of the grades for all criteria with their weighting factor, and results in the graph next to the table.

Table 2.2: Grading of the Scenarios
Economics HSSE & Risk Execution and contracting
Supply/Fabrication
Decommissioning
Weighted Sum
Human safety
Maintenance
Environment
Installation
Operation
Scenario
CAPEX
OPEX
FdtG
0 50 100 150 200
1 5 4 2 2 1 4 3 3 4 5 155 1
2 5 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 142 2
3 1 4 4 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 110 3
4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 130 4
5 4 4 2 4 1 2 2 1 3 4 133 5
6 5 4 2 2 1 2 3 1 4 3 133 6
7 5 4 2 2 2 4 2 3 4 4 154 7
8 3 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 133 8
9 1 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 2 148 9
10 1 4 1 3 1 4 3 4 2 1 120 10
11 1 5 4 2 3 2 1 4 2 2 125 11
12 3 5 3 2 2 4 3 4 2 2 151 12
13 2 3 5 5 5 4 1 5 3 3 171 13
Weighting factor 7 7 4 6 6 6 4 4 2 2
18 18 12
15

Of course, also a sensitivity analysis on the weighting factors is performed, using the five different factor combinations as
shown in Table 2.3. This results in Figure 2.3. As can be seen, the same scenarios are the best options.

Table 2.3: Different Weighting Factors Combinations
Total Total
Economics HSSE & Risk Execution and contracting weight score rate
Supply/Fabrication
Decommissioning
Weight factor
Human safety
combinations
Maintenance
Environment
Installation
Operation
CAPEX
OPEX
FdtG
Combination1 7 7 4 6 6 6 4 4 2 2 48 240 2.4

Combination2 7 7 4 7 7 7 4 4 4 4 55 275 2.75
Combination3 7 7 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 45 225 2.25
Combination4 7 7 5 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 49 245 2.45
Combination5 7 7 5 7 7 7 3 2 2 3 50 250 2.5
Sensitivity Analysis on Weight Factors
80
70 combination 1
60 combination 2
50
40 combination 3
30
20 combination 4
10 combination 5
0
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
10
11
12
13
1
Figure 2.3: Result of Sensitivity Analysis
2.4. Selected Three Scenarios
The six best scenarios, scenario 1, 2, 7, 9, 12 and 13, were evaluated and most of them have very many similarities. That is
why some scenarios were combined and eventually three final scenarios were selected:

1. Jacket scenario: In this scenario, a jacket will be used. This jacket consists of a process plant and the gas is
separated offshore from its condensates. There is no subsea equipment and the gas is transported to shore using
two single‐phase pipelines. The platform could be unmanned.
2. Semi submersible scenario: Now not a fixed structure, but a semisubmersible will produce the gas. As in scenario
1, the gas is treated offshore and also transported in two single‐phase pipelines. Now there is subsea equipment,
namely clustered wells around manifolds.
3. Subsea scenario: This is the most innovative solution: everything is subsea. The gas is not separated offshore and
transported to shore using one multiphase pipeline.
The scenarios will become clearer when the field lay‐out plan is discussed. In the next chapters the scenarios will be
explained into more detail and the remaining building blocks will be addressed. When this is done, a full financial and
HSSE analysis will be made, based on the values and visions of Gas N’ Roses, for each scenario. These analyses will be
compared so that advantages and disadvantages will become apparent.
16

3. Scenarios
3.1. Scenario 1
3.1.1. General Layout
In this scenario, a jacket will be used. Because the jacket has no heave motions, rigid risers and dry trees are used. This
means no subsea arrangement is necessary.
Figure 3.1 below shows a side view and a top view of this scenario. The jacket is unmanned and that is why all IMR
operations are performed by a subcontractor.

Jacket
Risers
820
Export
Pipelines

7800
Sinkhole
800
Jacket
CO2‐Injector
1400

Figure 3.1: Side View Structure and Top View Scenario 1 Figure 3.2: Cross Section Reservoir and Jacket with dimensions [ft]
3.1.2. Wells and Subsea Arrangement
Well plan
In this scenario there is no subsea equipment like manifolds and templates. This means all wells will have to be drilled
below the jacket. To get as much gas as possible out of the
reservoir, several horizontal wells and only one vertical well will
be drilled. The differences between vertical, deviated and
horizontal wells are shown in Figure 3.3.
A cross section of the reservoir, showing the wells, is given in
Figure 3.2. The green well is the CO2‐injector.
The maximum daily production is 1500 MMscf/day. The number
of wells is based on this plateau production. For the calculation
of the production per day and of the production of each type of
well, one is referred to Appendix III.
• Vertical well: A vertical well produces 85 MMcft/day.
• Horizontal wells: The total production of all horizontal
wells is 1500 – 85 = 1415 MMscf/day. The production Figure 3.3: Vertical, Deviated and Horizontal Wells
per horizontal well is 153 MMscf/day. So the total number of horizontal wells necessary is 1415 / 153 = 10.
17

Drilling Schedule and Field Life
All wells will be pre‐drilled using a drilling semisubmersible. When it is possible to keep a plateau production of nine years,
a field life as shown in Figure 3.4 will be applicable to this scenario. Due to the pressure drop, the production will decline
after the plateau period. Using CO2‐injection, the pressure will not drop too much and the production rate will always be
above 10 % of the plateau production.
Production Scenario 1
1600
Production [MMscf/day]
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 3 5 7 8 10 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 42 43 45
Time [years]
Figure 3.4: Field Life Scenario 1

As one can see in the graph in above, the total field life using scenario 1 will be 45 years. The area below this graph is
equal to 85 % of the GIIP.
3.1.3. Topside
Gas N’ Roses will not install a drilling unit on this topside.
Pre‐drilling has the advantage of earlier first gas. It should
also be mentioned that a drilling derrick is a relative
expensive CAPEX, as it will not be used all the time. Structure piles

Unmanned topside
In this case, an unmanned production platform is chosen. Risers, injection and
product pipeline
This reduces the chance of human harm on the platform.
An unmanned platform does not have to stop production Flare
during a Shamal. Because no people are needed on Storage
the platform, the needed number of employees is low.
Inhibitor
This has its advantages, because the living situation for Compressors
employees in Ras Laffan is below standards.
It is proven in the region that an unmanned platform is Life boats
and rescue
possible.
Dehydration and
40 m cleaning installation
3.1.4. Structure
The weight of the topside will be around 9,000 mt. To L.Q. and
estimate the further dimensions of the jacket structure Controls
assumptions are made based on experience. For a Separation
calculation, one is referred to Appendix IV. 40 m installation
Because of the water depth, skirt piles will be used. Each
of the legs will have 3 foundation piles, so for the whole Figure 3.5: Side View and Top View Topside Jacket
structure 12 foundation piles are necessary. Also mud
pads will be needed. The estimated diameter for the legs of the structure will be 3 meters. The total weight of the jacket
will be 14,000 t. In the table below, Table 3.1, can be seen how the minimum height of the jacket structure is determined.
18

The total height of the structure can also be seen in the adjoining picture. Lowest astronomical tide (LAT) is taken as 250
m. This figure also shows the dimensions at the bottom of the structure. The size of the structure at the top will be
30x30m. This will be enough to support the topside, which is estimated at dimensions of 50 x 50m.
Air Gap [m] 1.50
Wave Crest [m] 2.90
Storm Surge [m] 0.38
Tide [m] 4.00
Total Deck Elevation Above LAT [m] 8.78

LAT [m] 250.00
Total Height Structure [m] 258.78

Table 3.1: Minimum Deck Elevation
Figure 3.6: Jacket Structure
Dimensions
3.1.5. Costs
The CAPEX and OPEX for this scenario have been calculated using QUE$TOR. Some additional costs have been estimated
and manually added, such as onshore expenditures, as they are not featured in QUE$TOR. When the scenarios are
compared, more financial information about the scenario will be given.
CAPEX (Billion $) OPEX (Billion$) DRILLEX (Billion$) Decommissioning costs (Billion$)
Scenario 1 1.53 5.02 1.19 0.50
3.1.6. HSSE Study
The hazard identification for this scenario is based on different areas/subjects such as the process plant, power generation,
drilling, reservoir, L.Q.’s and geohazards. The hazard identification, HAZID, is classified and expressed in Appendix VI.A.
Based on the hazard identification table and probability of occurrence, an ALARP table, Table 3.2 for this scenario is
developed.

Table 3.2: ALARP Table Scenario 1
ALARP, As Low As Reasonably Practical, Scenario 1
● Condensate leakage ● Dropped object
● Gas leakage in process plant
Frequent
● Loss of electrical power ● Fire in power generation unit
● Gas leakage in power generation ● Coral damage
Unfrequent ● Gas migration
● Flow assurance
● Corrosion due to H2S ● Gas leakage from risers ● Fire in process plant ● Politic issues
● Change in gas composition ● Sink hole ● Structure Failure ● Blow out

Unlikely ● Collapse of well ● Fatigue
● Deviation on Drilling ● Flare Failure ● Fault and Fractures ● Explosion in process plant
● Shallow water flow (SWF) ● Helicopter crash ● Landslide ● Terrorist Attack

Remote ● Active Faulting
Insignificant Minor Major Catastrophic

CONSEQUENCE
Intolerable Area
ALARP Area
Negligible Area

19

3.2. Scenario 2
Scenario 2 consists of a semisubmersible without drilling equipment. To reach the wells with a Floating Drilling Unit (FDU)
without moving the semisubmersible, the wells are arranged in clusters. The centers of these clusters are the manifolds
that gather the production. This production is transported to the semisubmersible using flexible risers. At the semi, the
production is separated into a gas and a condensate part. An overview of scenario 2 is shown below in Figure 3.7.

Semisubmersible
Mooring Lines
820
Riser

7800
800

Sinkhole
1400
Semisubmersible
Manifold
Production Well Figure 3.8: Cross Section Reservoir Scenario 2,
Dimensions in Feet.
CO2‐Injector
Figure 3.7: Side View Structure and Top View Subsea Arrangement Scenario 2
3.2.2. Wells and Subsea Arrangement
The semisubmersible has no drilling equipment so all wells will have to be drilled using an FDU. When an MRI operation
has to be performed on the wells, an FDU will have to be used to reach the well and do the workover actions. This means
the semi cannot be located above a manifold because then the drilling unit cannot reach the wells. All wells will be vertical
wells and arranged in clusters.

Well Plan
Because of the wells not having to be underneath the structure and the option to bundle the flows of the wells subsea,
only vertical wells will be used in this scenario. Another reason to use only vertical wells is that the wells are located quite
far apart from each other. This means the wells will not produce the gas in the production area of another well and each
well will produce the maximum amount of gas.
The wells are arranged in clusters. The general function of the manifolds is to gather and distribute the production
through an arrangement of piping and valves. The wells are positioned at places where the reservoir is closest to the
seabed, so where the location of the gas is the least deep. The CO2‐injection wells will be drilled at the lowest locations of
the reservoir because otherwise the gas that is still in the reservoir will get trapped. Figure 3.7 shows the arrangement of
the wells and manifolds and Figure 3.8 gives a cross‐section of the reservoir and the semisubmersible. The maximum
production of a vertical well in this field is 85 MMscf/day. With a plateau production of 1500 MMscf/day, 1500 / 85 = 17
wells are necessary.
20

3.2.3. Drilling Schedule and Field Life
This subsea arrangement of this scenario consists of four manifolds and 17 satellite, vertical wells.

A semisubmersible has too many and heavy motions for using dry trees. This means flexible risers and subsea trees will
have to be installed. There are two types of trees: Horizontal and conventional trees. Horizontal trees will be used in this
scenario because these trees have all their valves and chokes outside of the tree which leads to easier IMR actions.
The manifolds will contain valves and chokes to control the production flows from the wells. Besides the chokes and
valves, the manifolds also consist of control modules to control the chokes and valves and of instrumentation. The
instrumentation is for the pressure, temperature and H2S readings on the commingled production. The information about
the H2S content will be used to determine the amount of chemicals that will have to be injected into the wells. The
chemicals will be injected where the flows of the satellite wells commingle at the manifold. This means an umbilical has to
connect the semisubmersible with the manifold that provides the control fluids and chemicals.

Drilling one vertical well will take two months. So the total installation period will take 34 months. Figure 3.9 below shows
the ideal production profile of this scenario
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 3 5 7 8 10 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 42 43 45
Time [years]
3.2.4. Topside
For scenario 2 a semisubmersible is used to create a floating production platform. The assumed weight of the topside for
his semisubmersible is around 15.000 mt. The size of the deck is approximately 70 x 90 m. This should be enough room for
all the equipment and to let the floaters be large enough to carry the load. The two figures below, Figure 3.10 and Figure
3.11 show a top and side view of the topside.
Flare boom

Living Quarters
and Controls

Inhibitor injection

Compressors

Life boats
Floater
Dehydration and
cleaning installation

Condensate and gas Separation
flowlines installation

Risers, injection pipeline
and umbilicals
Figure 3.11: Top View Topside Semisubmersible
Figure 3.10: Side View Topside Semisubmersible
21

Accommodation
This unit is also very well engineered to make this facility as safe as possible during emergency situations. For example at
the vicinity of this unit, several equipment, like life boats and the helicopter deck, are located which will be necessary to
leave the platform safely. Fire and blast protection is needed to protect the people and other equipment. Also, the L.Q.
should contain HVAC (heating, ventilation and air condition). It would be wise to place a blast wall in front of the L.Q. to
minimize potential injuries or even casualties.
3.2.5. Structure
To determine the dimensions, estimations are done. These estimations are done based on a semisubmersible with two
floaters and six columns. An impression of how the semisubmersible could look like is given in Figure 3.12 and the
dimensions are given in Table 3.3.

Floaters Columns Deck
number 2 [‐] number 6 [‐] area 6300 [m2]
length 110 [m] height 20 [m] length 90 [m]
width 16 [m] length 10 [m] width 70 [m]
depth 8 [m] width 10 [m] depth 7 [m]

Figure 3.12: Impression of the Table 3.3: Dimensions of the Semisubmersible
Semisubmersible (Atlantis Platform)
The calculations are given in Appendix V and show that a semisubmersible with the given dimensions is sufficient for the
dimensions of our topside.
3.2.6. Costs
Scenario 2 2.47 6.04 1.19 0.40
3.2.7. HSSE Study
As with scenario 1, the HAZID table is shown in Appendix VI.B. The ALARP table is shown in Table 3.4 below:
● Gas leakage in process plant
Frequent
● Loss of electrical power ● Fire in power generation unit
● Gas leakage in power generation ● Coral damage
PROBABILITY
Unfrequent ● Gas migration
● Flow assurance
● Corrosion due to H2S ● Fire inside LQ ● Fire in process plant ● Politic issues
● Change in gas composition ● Sinkholes ● Fire and explosion around LQ ● Blow out

Unlikely ● Collapse of well ● Fatigue
● Gas leakage from risers ● Semi‐submersible instability
● Shallow water flow (SWF) ● Flare Failure ● Fault and Fractures ● Explosion in process plant
● Helicopter crash ● Landslide ● Blocked escape routes

Remote ● Loss of mooring line ● Active Faulting
● Terrorist Attack

CONSEQUENCE
Intolerable Area
ALARP Area
Negligible Area
22

3.3. Scenario 3
In scenario 3, all equipment is subsea, as can be seen in Figure 3.13. The only treatment done offshore is the injection of
chemical inhibitors downhole. The fluids and gases produced are immediately transported to shore without treatment
and separation. Because there is no separation of the flow subsea, the CO2 cannot be separated offshore and cannot be
re‐injected. That is why in this scenario, water‐injection wells will be drilled in the future if the pressure drops too much.
Because of the field not having a floating or fixed
support structure, the wells itself should be very well
protected against dropped objects because IMR

operations are difficult to perform. This means the best
option is a template subsea arrangement.
To determine the size of the templates, the number of
wells will have to be determined first.
In this scenario, only deviated wells will be drilled.
Compared to the deviated well at another location in
the field, this well will produce 120 MMscf per day.
With a peak production of 1500 MMscf/day, 13
deviated wells will be necessary.
The best solution is to build four templates all
containing four well slots. Because the wells are very
close together in such a template, placing all wells in

Production Well one our two templates will not be very wise because
Test Well the wells will produce from a relatively small area, even
CO2‐Injector
CO2 Separator
though the wells are a bit curved and reach out of the
area a vertical well can reach. These templates will
contain three or four production wells and one test well.
The four templates are located at the highest location
Figure 3.13: Side View Structure and Top View Subsea Arrangement
Scenario 3
of the reservoir as can be seen in Figure 3.13. On the
main pipeline, an umbilical is connected that carries the
hydraulics and electrics for control of the four templates. This umbilical also transports the chemicals for the chemical
injection from shore to the subsea templates.
3.3.2. Drilling Schedule and Field Life
The drilling will be done by an FDU once the templates are installed. Drilling one deviated well will take three months per
well. Drilling 13 deviated wells will take 39 months and the production profile as shown in Figure 3.14 will be applicable to
scenario 3.
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 3 5 7 8 10 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 42 43 45
Time [years]

23

3.3.3. Multiphase Pipeline
Evacuating the gas untreated, leads to quite some complications.
There are some issues related to the design, installation, operation and
maintenance of a multiphase pipeline that should be taken into
account. Even though multiphase flow is more complex than single
phase flow, there are several reference projects where multiphase
pipeline are used, like in Ireland, Norway and also the Persian Gulf.
Hydrate formation is one of the main issues regarding to the
multiphase flow assurance. According to Figure 3.15 the risk of
hydrates is moderate. This could be more important, especially in
winter and during shut down or start up. Injection of chemical inhibitor,
MEG, will be done continuously to prevent hydrate formation. A special
shut down and start up procedure should be made and performed Figure 3.15: Typical Hydrates Curve
correctly to avoid this risk. These procedures change from time to time due to the variation of temperature, pressure, flow
composition, etcetera.
Table 3.5: Multiphase Pipeline Specifications
Items Unit Value
Corrosion is another important issue in this pipeline. Based on the gas
Pipe diameter inch 42 composition, H2S corrosion can be a major problem especially when
Pipe length m 63000 the H2S content is up to 5%. In this case, chemical inhibitor injector is
Input pressure Barg 125 the way that will protect the pipeline against corrosion.
Output pressure Barg 90 A slug catcher unit is needed for phase separation onshore. There is a
Wall thickness mm 20
Flow rate, gas MMscf/day 1650
slug catcher unit in both the LNG and GTL plant and their capacities are
enough to deliver and separate the Zubara Field’s gas production.
Flow rate, Condensate bbls/day 132000
Therefore, there is no need to build a new slug catcher for this field.
The multiphase pipeline calculations can be found in Appendix IX and its specifications are listed in Table 3.5
3.3.4. Costs
Scenario 3 2.05 6.09 1.07 0.30
3.3.5. HSSE Study
As with the two previous scenarios, the ALARP, Table 3.6, and HAZID, Appendix VI.C, are given below.
● Condensate leakage ● Gas leakage in process plant
Frequent
● Gas migration ● Coral damage ● Dropped object

● Flow assurance ● Fishery / pearl industry
PROBABILITY
Unfrequent
● Corrosion due to H2S ● Collapse of well ● Fatigue ● Politic issues

● Change in gas composition ● Sinkholes ● Loss of umbilical ● Blow out
Unlikely
● Shallow water flow (SWF) ● Fault and Fractures ● Active Faulting
● Landslide ● Terrorist Attack
Remote

CONSEQUENCE
Intolerable Area
ALARP Area
Negligible Area

24

4. Cost Analysis
4.1. Economical evaluation of three scenarios
The following inputs based on calculations done by QUE$TOR are used for financial calculations, see Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Costs of the three scenarios
CAPEX (Billion $) OPEX (Billion$) Drillex (Billion$) Decommissioning costs (Billion$) Total costs (Billion$) 1st day to gas
Scenario 1 1.53 5.02 1.19 0.50 8.24 5 years
Scenario 2 2.47 6.04 1.19 0.40 10.10 5 years
Scenario 3 2.05 6.09 1.07 0.30 9.51 5 years

Using this input the cash flows are calculated and showed graphically in Figure 4.1.
The cash flows are based on a number of base
Cash flows of 3 different scenarios variables. A base discount rate of 12% is
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
chosen. The profit of each scenario is the same
for each as the production profiles have exactly
5000
the same aspects: 10 years plateau production,
4000
45 years field life and a plateau production of
3000 1,500 MMscf/day. Also the same gas (4.5
$/MMBTU) and condensate price (0.8 x 60$ per
NPV (Million$)
2000
1000 barrel = $48 per barrel) has been applied to

0 each scenario.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
‐1000
‐2000 Apart from the yearly cash flows, the net
‐3000 present value (NPV), internal rate of return
Time (years) (IRR) and the value to investment ratio (VIR)
can be calculated, listed in Table 4.2 below.
Figure 4.1: Annual Cash Flows of Three Different Scenarios

Table 4.2: NPV, IRR and VIR of 3 Scenarios The differences in these results are accounted for by
NPV (Million$) IRR VIR the difference in expenditures, CAPEX because it
Scenario 1 3,941 42% 1.95 influences the amount of invested money and the
Scenario 2 3,870 37% 1.46
effect of OPEX depends on the amount and which
Scenario 3 3,935 38% 1.71
amount is spent at what time. Revenues are almost
identical in each scenario and will therefore not influence the NPV, IRR and VIR much.
The first scenario scores highest in each category. The CAPEX is low, mainly due to the fact that it is a conservative
development plan and therefore no expensive equipment is needed. The CAPEX in scenario 2 is high because of the use of
a lot of expensive subsea equipment just like in scenario 3. This high CAPEX of scenario 2 can be seen in Table 4.1. The
lowest trough in year 4 indicates a high CAPEX. Scenario 3 also makes use of expensive subsea equipment such as
submerged pumps to evacuate the multi phase flow to shore and the costs of the slug catcher are substantial.
The OPEX in scenario 1 is also lowest. Although all three scenarios are unmanned, scenario 2 and 3 make use of more
expensive subsea equipment which also brings a higher OPEX than a conventional well. Additionally, scenario 3 has a high
CAPEX of three scenarios Cumulative cashflows of 3 different scenarios
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
1600 5000
1400 4000
1200
3000
1000
2000
MM$
NPV ($)
800
1000
600
0
400 2 3 4 5 6 7
‐1000
200
‐2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ‐3000
Years Time (years)

Figure 4.2: CAPEX of the Three Scenarios Figure 4.3: Cumulative Cash Flows of Three Scenarios
25

OPEX because of the onshore use of the slug catcher.
Decommissioning costs are highest in scenario 1 which can also be seen in Table 4.1 from the trough in year 48 and 50.
The reason for this is the following: The Semisubmersible in scenario 2 can easily be disconnected and moved away. The
jacket in scenario 1 will be more difficult to decommission. The costs for the subsea/pipeline decommissioning are similar
in all three scenarios.
A factor that has a large influence on the NPV is the time and amount of money that is spent. If the amount can be as low
and spread out as much as possible and as late as possible, the NPV, IRR and VIR will improve. This is the reason scenario 1
scores high compared to the other two scenarios. Two graphs below are given of the expenditure of the CAPEX and the
NPVs in the first years for the three scenarios, see Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3. The graphs are directly linked to each other.
The high CAPEX in year 3 in scenario 2 generates the highest negative cash flow in this year, which can be seen in Figure
4.3.
4.2. Sensitivity analysis of the three scenarios
In order to estimate how sensitive a scenario is to a change in a variable, a sensitivity analysis is made. In this analysis, the
NPV, IRR and VIR are calculated. Variables that have been changed are given a low, mid and high value. Listed below are
the variables and their low, mid and high values respectively.
• Condensate price (32, 48, 64 $/bbl)
• Gas price (4, 4.5, 5 $/MMBTU)
• Discount rate (14, 12, 10 %)
There are more variables that can be given a low, mid and high value. These will be considered in the sensitivity analysis of
the final selected scenario.
Values for NPVs are given in Table 4.3:

Table 4.3: The NPVs One can conclude that the NPV of
NPV
scenario 1 is least sensitive to a change in
Low (USD Billion) Mid (USD Billion) High (USD Billion) Difference
1 $ 3,149 $ 3,941 $ 4,732 $ 1,583
condensate price, gas price and discount
Consensate price
2 $ 3,014 $ 3,840 $ 4,665 $ 1,651 rate. Scenario 2 and 3 are both equally
(32,48,64 $/bbl)
3 $ 3,110 $ 3,935 $ 4,761 $ 1,651 sensitive.
1 $ 3,622 $ 3,941 $ 4,259 $ 637 Values for IRRs are given in Table 4.4:
Gas price (4,
2 $ 3,507 $ 3,840 $ 4,172 $ 665
4.5, 5 $/MMBTU)
3 $ 3,603 $ 3,935 $ 4,267 $ 665
A change in condensate price has the
1 $ 3,225 $ 3,941 $ 4,841 $ 1,616 same result on the IRR for each scenario.
Discount ratio (14,
12, 10 %)
2 $ 3,079 $ 3,840 $ 4,805 $ 1,727 A change in gas price has a very limited
3 $ 3,173 $ 3,935 $ 4,902 $ 1,728 effect on the IRR, both scenario 1 and 2
Table 4.4: The IRRs
are least sensitive to a change in gas price.
IRR
Low Mid High Difference A change in discount rate has no effect on
1 37% 42% 46% 9% the IRR.
Consensate price
(32,48,64 $/bbl)
2 32% 37% 41% 9%
3 34% 38% 43% 9% Values for VIRs are given in Table 4.5.
1 40% 42% 43% 3%
Gas price (4,
2 35% 37% 38% 3%

4.5, 5 $/MMBTU) The sensitivity of the VIR is lowest for
3 36% 38% 40% 4%
Discount ratio (14,
1 42% 42% 42% 0% scenario 2 if a change in condensate price,
2 37% 37% 37% 0% gas price and the discount rate occurs.
12, 10 %)
3 38% 38% 38% 0%
Scenario 1 is most affected by a change in
Table 4.5: The VIRs
VIR
discount rate.
Low Mid High Difference
1 1.56 1.95 2.34 $ 0.78
Consensate price
2 1.14 1.46 1.77 $ 0.63
(32,48,64 $/bbl)
3 1.35 1.71 2.07 $ 0.72
1 1.79 1.95 2.11 $ 0.32
Gas price (4,
2 1.33 1.46 1.58 $ 0.25
4.5, 5 $/MMBTU)
3 1.57 1.71 1.86 $ 0.29
1 1.67 1.95 2.29 $ 0.62
Discount ratio (14,
2 1.23 1.46 1.73 $ 0.50
12, 10 %)
3 1.45 1.71 2.03 $ 0.58
26

5. Selection of Final Scenario
A jacket, a semi‐submersible and a subsea system are the concepts which have been considered as field development
scenarios for the Zubara gas field. The major criteria to compare these three scenarios are the HSSE Study, TECOP Risk
Analysis, Cost Analysis, Execution, and the First Day to Gas.

HSSE
The HAZID for all scenarios are listed in Appendix VI. According to these tables, major hazards for scenario 1 are: politic
issues, explosions in the process plant, active faults and blowouts. Losses of mooring lines, semisubmersible instability and
dropped object have more impact on scenario 2. Finally, in scenario 3 dropped objects, loss of umbilicals and problems
due to fishery activities are more important issues.
TECOP
The main issues and related drivers are listed in Table 1.2. Although some issues are the same for all scenarios, there are
some particular items for only specific scenarios. For instance, the budgeting problem is more important for the scenario
which has high CAPEX. Also, subcontractors and local contractors will be satisfied with scenario 1 rather than others.
Costs Analysis
One of the most important parameters to evaluate the scenarios is the financial criterion. The cost analysis for all
scenarios is done including CAPEX, OPEX, Royalty, Tax, and NPV. QUE$TOR is the program which is used for the cost
analysis. The results of the cost analysis are summarized in Chapter 4 and are significant parameters for comparing the
scenarios economically.
Execution
Fabrication, supply of equipment and materials, transportation, installation, decommissioning and contracting are the
issues that have been considered as execution criteria to compare the scenarios.
First Day to Gas
The FDTG plays a main role for the financial analysis. It means the time it takes before a project can start making money.

Advantages and disadvantages
Based on the scenario specifications the comparison table is made. Table 5.1 shows advantages and disadvantages of each
scenario.

Table 5.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Three Scenarios
Advantages Disadvantages
• Low CAPEX • Risk on launching
• Low OPEX • Fatigue
• Dry trees • Political issues, Iran
Scenario 1 • Easy maintenance • One drilling center
(Jacket) • Local fabrication • Modular topside installation
• Proven system in field area • Short time to first gas
• Less sensitive to delay
• Less CO2 emission
• Easier abandonment • High CAPEX
• Easier installation • High OPEX
Scenario 2 • Low sensitivity to geohazards • More impact by Shamal wind
(Semisubmersible) • Less CO2 emission • Longer time to fabricate
• Wet trees
• No local experience to fabricate
• No offshore separation process • Need to Slug ‐ Catcher unit onshore
• More flexible for well pattern • Power supply
• Less political problem by Iran • High installation costs
Scenario 3
• Short time to first gas • High Maintenance costs
(Subsea)
• Limitation on Subcontractors for
fabrication, supply and IMR
• New technology in field area

27

Comparison
The major items for scenarios comparison are listed in Table 5.2. Each criterion is evaluated by poor, medium, good and
excellent.

Table 5.2: Scenarios Comparison
Scenario 1 (Jacket) Scenario 2 (Semisubmersible) Scenario 3 (Subsea)
CAPEX Excellent Medium Good
OPEX Excellent Medium Medium
Impact on Environment Medium Good Good
Impact on people Health Good Medium Excellent
Safety Good Medium Excellent
Security Medium Good Excellent
Easy Fabrication / Supply Excellent Good Medium
Easy Transportation / Installation Medium Good Medium
Stakeholders satisfaction Good Medium Medium
Easy Maintenance Good Medium Medium
Future development sensitivity Medium Good Good
Technology availability Good Medium Poor
Contracting plan flexibility Good Medium Poor
Time to first gas Medium excellent Good
Decommissioning Medium Good Medium

Scenario Ranking
Based on the advantages and disadvantages and also on the qualify comparison of the three scenarios, a table of scenario
ranking is made. In Table 5.3different weighting factors and scores are assigned for criteria and scenarios respectively. The
weighting factor for each criterion varies from 1 to 5 and scenario scoring varies form 1 to 4. Therefore, the maximum
score of each scenario can be 100.
Table 5.3: Scenario Ranking Sensitivity Analysis
Criteria Weight Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 A sensitivity analysis on
(Jacket) (Semisubmersible) (Subsea) weighting factors is done to
CAPEX 5 4 2 3 consider the effect of this
OPEX 5 4 2 3 variable on the selecting of
NPV 5 4 2 3 a scenario. The results are
HSSE 4 3 2 4 shown in Figure 5.1. If the
Time to first gas 2 2 4 3 weight of financial criteria
Contracting 1 4 3 2 such CAPEX and /or OPEX
Fabrication / installation 2 4 4 3 changes, scenario 1 still will
Decommissioning 1 2 3 2 be the best option versus
TOTAL 25 90 60 77
each combination of
weighting factors (Table 5.4).
Table 5.4: Weight Factor Combinations
Sensitivity Analysis on Weighting Factors Weight factor Weight factor Weight factor
Criteria
100 combination 1 combination 2 combination 3
90 89
90 87 CAPEX 5 4 3
77 78 78
80 OPEX 5 4 3
70
60
64 NPV 5 4 3
60
HSSE 4 4 4
50 44
Time to first gas 2 2 2
40
Contracting 1 1 1
30
Fabrication/Installation 2 2 2
20
10
Decommissioning 1 1 1
0
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
weight factor combination 1 weight factor combination 2 weight factor combination 3

Figure 5.1: Sensitivity Analysis on Weighting Factors
28

Part B: Final Field Development Plan
29

6. General Information
6.1. Layout
Figure 6.1 below shows the layout of the total field development plan. As can be seen, a jacket structure without drilling
equipment will be used. Besides the wells located underneath the jacket, also a manifold with six wells shall be installed.
The gas is separated offshore at the topside, the CO2 is reinjected using the CO2 injection well and the gas and
condensates are evacuated to shore in two separate pipelines.

Figure 6.1: Total Layout Final Field Development Plan
6.2. Introduction of the Field Development Plan
Based on the scenario comparison given in Chapter 5, the jacket concept is selected as the best option to develop
concession 2 of the Zubara gas field. The field development plan is elaborated in the following chapters. The general
layout of the field development, shown above in Figure 6.1, and the value chain show the overall impression of the
development plan. After performing basic studies, technical aspects of the field are designed. These technical aspects
include the well layout, the jacket structure, the topside and the pipelines. Fabrication, transportation, installation,
decommissioning and contracting are considered in the execution plan. The field development plan schedule is made
based on all these categories. Finally, a cost analysis for this plan is performed by use of the QUE$TOR software. The
sensitivity analysis of the cost study shows that when changing the variables, the financial impact on the project can be
large.
This development concept consists of a jacket, an unmanned topside, two drilling centers, subsea manifolding and two
single phase pipelines. 70 % of the raw gas will be delivered to the Pearl GTL plant and the rest of it to the Q4 LNG plant.
The produced condensate will be delivered to the Laffan Condensate refinery. The main drilling centre which is located
under the jacket includes one vertical well and ten horizontal wells. To keep the plateau production time longer than the
plateau duration of an individual well, a second drilling centre is provided. It contains six deviated wells. A subsea cluster
and manifold system is used for this drilling centre. There is also one vertical well for CO2 injection, and another CO2
injector can be drilled later in the field life. If the pressure still drops too much, a water injection well can be drilled. All
wells are pre‐drilled by using a semisubmersible drilling rig. The unmanned platform will separate the liquid and gas
offshore and there is a water treatment module to clean the produced water. After the cleaning, the water can be
discharged into the sea. This water can also be used for possible water injection in the future.
The jacket and topside will be fabricated near the field, namely in Dubai. The launching method is used to install the jacket.
The foundation consists of skirt piles, that will be driven by an underwater hammer. An integrated topside will be installed
by a float over system. ROVs and supply vessels will be used to install the subsea systems and S‐lay is the method for the
pipe laying. The decommissioning method of each part of equipment is taken into account during the design steps.
All general specifications of the development plan of concession 2 of the Zubara Field are summarized in Table 6.1.

30

Table 6.1: Zubara Field Development Plan Specifications
General
Location Persian Gulf, North of Qatar
Area 30,000 Acres
Water depth 250 m
Distance to shore 63 km
Total gas 14.5 Tscf
Total condensate 1159 MMbbls
Recovery factor 85%
Gas destinations 70% Pearl GTL plant, 30% Q4 LNG plant
Condensate destination Laffan Condensate Refinery
Technical
Field life 45 years
Peak plateau: gas 1500 MMscf/day
Peak plateau: condensate 120,000 bbls/day
Jacket height 259 m
Jacket weight 14,000 tonnes
Topside weight 9,000 tonnes
Piles weight 1,400 tonnes
Production wells 1 vertical, 10 horizontal, 6 deviated
CO2 injection wells 1 vertical
Possible water injection wells 2 vertical
Subsea system 6 cluster, 1 manifold
Gas pipeline length 63 km
Gas pipeline diameter 32 inches
Condensate pipeline length 63 km
Condensate pipeline diameter 16 inches
Execution
Jacket installation method Launching
Integrated topside installation method Float over
Pipe laying method S‐ lay
Subsea system installation ROV
Drilling Pre‐drilling by semisubmersible rig
Well completion Via Platform and semisubmersible rig
First gas time 2014, first quarter
Financial
CAPEX 2.7 Billion USD
OPEX 5.5 Billion USD
Total Revenue 91.8 Billion USD
Royalty 20%
Tax 75%
VIR at 12% discount rate 1.95
NPV at 12% discount rate 3.9 Billion USD
UTC at 12% discount rate 4.4 USD/bbls
IRR 42%
31

6.3. Value Chain
The gas that is extracted from the reservoir travels a long way in which its composition changes tremendously. Below in
Figure 6.2 an overview is displayed how the natural gas is transformed into GTL.

Subsea
Re‐injected
CO2‐
Gas wells into reservoir CO2 injectors
Raw gas
Jacket
Water Treatment Unit
Clean
water
Membrane skid CO2
Separators Condensates
Dumped
Gas overboard
Condensates
Gas pipeline Condensate pipeline

Condensates
Onshore Gas Gas
Sold to refinery
LNG plant GTL plant in Qatar
LNG GTL
products Sold to China
Sulfur
Sold to: Sold to:
Thailand India and Qatar.

Figure 6.2: Processes of Transportation and Separation
In the following paragraphs, the final destinations of CO2, H2S, the condensates and the gas are elaborated.
6.3.1. Re‐injecting of Carbon Dioxide
Qatar has signed the Kyoto Protocol. The intent of this Protocol is: ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6,
HFCs and PFCs) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system’.
Table 6.2: CO2 Emissions of Leading Oil and Gas Producing Countries
32

Qatar is already producing the most CO2 per capita, as shown in Table 6.2, and is not fulfilling the Kyoto requirements. It
costs a lot of money when no solution is found for achieving a lower CO2 emission and of course it is not good for the
image of Qatar. That’s why Qatar is very busy looking for solutions to reduce its CO2 emissions. Nowadays, most of the
acid gas, which is gas containing CO2, H2S, etcetera, is injected in Ras Laffan itself as can be seen in the picture below, see
Figure 6.3..
Dolphin
Laffan
Refinery
Shell GTL Qatargas
Ras Gas
ORYX
Acid Gas Injectors GTL
Camp

Figure 6.3: Location of Gas Injection in Ras Laffan
The CO2 content of the gas in the Zubara Field has an average of 0.75 %. With a total amount of 12.3 Tscf of natural gas
being produced, a volume of 92 MMscf of CO2 will be produced during the development of concession 2 of the Zubara
Field.
This field will probably need water‐ or gas‐injection to maintain a high enough pressure for two reasons:
• To prevent condensate blocking
• To keep the project profitable because the production is high enough.
These two reasons are explained in Chapter 1.5.2.
An option to combine the CO2 problem and the pressure problem is to inject CO2 in the reservoir.
Reservoir simulation and laboratory studies have suggested that injecting carbon dioxide into mature natural gas
reservoirs for carbon sequestration with enhanced gas recovery (CSEGR) is technically feasible. Reservoir simulations show
that the high density of carbon dioxide can be exploited to favor displacement of methane with limited gas mixing by
injecting carbon dioxide in low regions of a reservoir while producing from higher regions in the reservoir.
In water‐drive reservoirs where the potential additional CH4 recovery potential is much higher, CO2 injection will maintain
reservoir pressure that will tend to keep water out of the reservoir. If CO2 breakthrough to production wells occurs,
separation of CO2 from CH4 can be carried out as a gas processing step with reinjection of the captured CO2.

Of course several extra processing units should be located on the topside.
These processing units separate the CO2 from the gas and pressurize it to
allow it to flow to the gas‐injection wells. For the separation, membrane
skids will be used. A typical example of such a membrane skid is shown in
Figure 6.4. Membrane technology can be seen as a promising, upcoming
technology for effective CO2 removal from natural gas.
If the CO2 produced by the concession itself is not enough to keep the
pressure high, additional CO2 produced by other platforms can be
transported to the CO2 injectors in this concession.

Figure 6.4: Offshore CO2 Separator
33

6.3.2. Removal of Hydrogen Sulphide
As explained in Chapter 1.5, the hydrogen sulphide is toxic in relatively low concentrations and causes corrosion in the
process plants and pipelines.
Therefore, chemical inhibitors are injected into the wells to prevent the process plants and pipelines from being damaged.
The H2S is still very toxic to human beings so a leakage should be prevented at any time and a lot of H2S detection
equipment should be present at the topside.
The gas and the inhibitors are not completely treated offshore. At the topside only condensates and water are separated
from the natural gas. When the gas reaches the shore, it is transported to the GTL plant via onshore pipelines.
In the GTL plant the raw gas is treated and the acid gas goes to the sulfur unit. In this sulfur unit, the hydrogen sulphide is
converted into elemental sulfur and water by the following chemical reaction: 2H2S + O2 → S2 + 2H2O.
The total value chain from natural gas to GTL, including the sulfur unit, is shown below in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5: Value Chain: from Natural Gas to GTL

This by‐product of the gas recovery, elemental sulfur, is becoming an important phenomenon to the financial books of
many corporations.
Currently, the sulfur market is increasing at a slow pace particularly over the last couple of years to a current price of $64
USD/MT FOB Vancouver. In order for organizations to be profitable, logistical costs, long‐term contracts and planning
need to be assessed or result in losses as some companies are currently experiencing.
The sulfur created in the sulfur unit in the GTL plant is stored by means of blocking or forming the element into small, solid
pastilles where it can be retailed to markets such as the United States, China and Africa. Shell Canada, a leader in the
sulfur market, has devised a number of methods to earn an annual profit. Its strategy was to penetrate the Chinese
market in 2001 whereby it is now one of the largest exporters of sulfur. Second, Shell has implemented a number of
alternative sulfur products such as fertilizer, enhanced asphalt, concrete and other viable products that utilize the by‐
product. The sulfur produced in this project of Shell, will have the same purposes.
6.3.3. Condensates
The Condensate Gas Ratio (CGR) in Concession 2 is 80 bbls/MMSCF. With a plateau production of 1500 MMscf/day, the
maximum daily production of condensates will be 120,000 barrels. The destination of these condensates will be the Laffan
Refinery. The Laffan Refinery Company’s plant is one of the largest condensate refineries in the world, with a processing
capacity of 146,000 barrels per stream day. Probably, its capacity will be doubled in 2012. This means when the gas is
being produced from the Zubara Field, all condensates can be sold to Laffan Refinery. The condensates will be sold for
approximately 80% of the crude oil price of that moment.
34

6.3.4. Destination of Gas
In order to make a decision into what products the gas will be made, it is important to look at the plateau production,
which is 1,500 MMscf/day and the existing infrastructure in Qatar. There are 4 LNG plants owned by Qatargas, and there
is one GTL plant. Shell is owner for 30% of the GTL plant and for 49% of the Qatargas 4 refinery which makes LNG. CNG is
something common in the area and is used in countries like Iran, but Qatar doesn’t hold a CNG plant at the moment. In
Table 6.3 below one can read the maximum capacities of the plants.
This means there are two options: The gas can be converted to either GTL or LNG.
The choice of a 70% GTL and a 30% LNG conversion is made. This choice is complex and depends on different variables.
• LNG is a gas and will mostly be used to create electricity. It is a proven technology; therefore quite an accurate
estimation of a profit can be made. There are many destinations
thinkable for LNG. Also, the price of gas doesn’t fluctuate much, so Table 6.3: plateau production of several plants
again a good estimation of income can be made. Plateau production
• GTL has a different destination than gas. It will mostly be used in the MMscf/d
transportation sector. Also costs are lower to export GTL than for LNG, Qatargas 1 1,600
and no regasification facility is needed. These are the main reasons Qatargas 2 2,600
that the value of GTL is 115% of the value of crude oil. The price for Qatargas 3 1,300
GTL will depend strongly on a fluctuating oil price. The future of GTL is Qatargas 4 1,300
less sure than for LNG, therefore the profit analysis will be less GTL Plant 1,600
accurate.
The reason for the choice of two different products is made in order to spread the risks, such as changing demand of a
product in the future. Another reason for the choice of more conversion of gas into GTL than into LNG, has to do with the
fact that Shell has invested a large sum of money in the GTL plant in Qatar and is looking forward to the return of this
investment.

Destination of LNG
As mentioned above, LNG and GTL have different destinies: transport versus creation of electricity. Therefore, the
countries buying the products are also different. A typical LNG client:
• Has a surplus in energy consumption. A reason could be that it is a growing economy and is not capable of
producing this extra need themselves.
• Is interested in a long term contract, therefore for Qatar it is advised to sell it to a country which is politically
stable.
• Is not too far away from Qatar, unless the transportation costs can be paid for by the client.

A country that is a potential buyer of LNG could be Thailand. Thailand has signed the Kyoto Protocol but has had a rapid
rising in CO2 emissions in the last 15 years, see Figure 6.6. Thailand has experienced a rapid growth and has an energy
deficit as can be seen in Figure 6.7 Also Thailand is not located very far away from Qatar.

Figure 6.6: CO2 Emission from Thailand (source: http://www.wikipedia.org) Figure 6.7: Thailand's Oil Production and Consumption (source: EIA)

35

Destination of GTL
GTL products are more valuable and make more profit for the producer than LNG products. It is also less dependent on
the customer’s demand and gas sale agreement than with LNG. The capacity of the Pearl Plant is big enough to process all
production gas of concession 2 of the Zubara field. Shell has gained unparalleled technical knowledge and expertise in GTL
production and marketing and has demonstrated that GTL technology is safe, efficient, reliable and profitable.
A country interested in buying GTL:
• Needs to lower CO2 emission, especially in its cities. A country that is not meeting the Kyoto protocol goals could
be an option.
• Is a little more daring than other countries, as the future for GTL is less certain.

Possible buyers could be India and Qatar.
According to a study done be “The Economist”, India is a country in which people are concerned by global warming, see
Figure 6.8. Although this study was done in 2006, it can be assumed this concern has not dropped significantly because
the amount of CO2 emissions has risen considerably, see Figure 6.9. India has many highly polluted cities in which an
environment friendly product such as GTL could improve the air quality considerably. At last, India is not located far away
from Qatar, and therefore transportation costs will not make it unprofitable.

Figure 6.8: Percentage of People Concerned about Global Warming Figure 6.9: Cumulative Percent Change in CO2 Emissions
(Source: www.instituteforenergyresearch.org)
The reason Qatar is nominated as well is mostly due to the amount of CO2 emission see Table 6.2. If Qatar wants to meet
the Kyoto Protocol requirements, something fundamental has to change. Since the GTL plant is located in Qatar itself,
Qatar can acquire GTL relatively cheap.
6.3.5. Revenues
The financial calculations for the project presented later in the report, are based on the boundary conditions mentioned in
Chapter 1.2. These state that the objective is to deliver the gas to a gas treatment plant onshore. However, a quick
estimation of the revenue received after conversion of the gas could give a feel of the potential of the development of the
field. If it is decided to convert 70% of the gas into GTL and 30% into LNG, and to sell the condensate and extracted H2S
the following potential revenue is calculated. GTL revenue: 70% ⋅ 12.3 Tscf = 8.6 Tscf .
The capacity of the GTL plant is 1.6Bcf which yields 140,000 bbls of GTL each day. The ratio therefore is
140,000
=87.5bbls/MMscf .
1,600

8.6 TCF will be converted to 753.4 million barrels of GTL throughout the project lifetime. One barrel of GTL has the price of
115% of crude oil. If the oil price is 60$ per barrel, a barrel of GTL will cost $69. Total revenue of GTL will be 753.4 x $69=
51.9 $ Billion. LNG revenue: 30% ⋅ 12.3 Tscf = 3.7 Tscf
Since 1 MMscf=1,000 MMBTU and 1 MMBTU=8 $ the revenue of the GTL is calculated as follows:
3.7 ⋅ 1,000,000 ⋅ 1000 = 3,690,000MMBTU

8$
3,690,000MMBTU ⋅ = 29.5 $ Billion
MMBTU
36

Condensate revenue:
The total amount of condensate that will be produced is roughly 984 MMbbls based on the Condensate/Oil ratio. If a
barrel of condensate can be sold for 80% the oil price of $60, the total revenue of condensate is 47.2 $ Billion. H2S revenue:
The amount of H2S that can be extracted is calculated in Appendix VIII. Based on a conservative concentration of 2% of H2S
and a price of 300$/tonne, this comes out to be:
2.7 $ Billion

Total total revenue of 131.3 Billion dollar can be made. It should be noted however that the CAPEX and OPEX onshore and
offshore are not taken into account. Therefore this number should not be mistaken with total profit.

Item Revenue ($ Billion)
Revenue from GTL 51.9
Revenue from LNG 29.5
Revenue from Condensate 47.2
Revenue from H2S 2.7
total 131.3

37

7. Risks
In this chapter, the HSSE and TECOP risks analyses will be elaborated.
7.1. HSSE
The hazard identification is determined based on different areas/subjects such as the process plant, power generation,
drilling, reservoir and geohazards. The hazard identification, HAZID, is classified and expressed in Table 7.1. As this table
shows, for each issue potential causes and risk reducing measurement methods are considered. Then, consequences and
following up are given according to risk mitigation strategy.

Table 7.1: Summary of HAZID Table
Area/Subject Hazard Potential Causes Risk Reduction Potential Follow up/Action

Measures Consequences
Process Explosion Ignition of gas leak Ignition source Explosion load Design for explosion scenarios.

plant/deck control, electrical inside process plant.
equipment in External explosion
Plant load on LQ.
Process Flare failure Fire in area close to Flare boom may tip Evaluate the passive fire protection of
plant/deck flare boom over lower part of flare
Power Gas leak from fuel Gas detection Gas may ignite. It
generation / gas supply in system will result in a small
open air local fire
Drilling Fault and Tectonic structure Geology and Cause severe Drilling through these hazards should
fractures seismic study drilling problems be avoided if possible, or if relocation
is not an option, appropriate
mitigating measures taken.
Helideck Helicopter crash Unfavorable Injuries, fatalities, Location of helideck must fulfill all
location of damage to topside regulations for helideck.
helideck. Difficult and Jacket
weather conditions
Reservoir/well Sinkholes Geology structures Geology study Loss of the well, Change the drilling location or use
sever problem for deviated drilling to avoid the
drilling hazardous area
Risers/pipeline Corrosion due to H2S in gas Measurement H2S Corrosion in Use suitable material for pipeline,
H2S composition content, use pipeline inhibitor injection, offshore
suitable material desulfurization
for pipeline,
inhibitor injection
Geohazard Coral damage Environment Field investigation Problem for Change the pipeline path
pipeline and risers
Other hazards Politic issues Political issues Be aware about May cancel the Negotiation with Qatar government
politic issues, project and other countries which have
good relation influence on project
with government

ALARP
Based on the hazard identification table and probability of occurrence, an ALARP table, Table 7.2 is provided. As it is
mentioned in this table, there are some risks in the ALARP area which need more attention.
38

Table 7.2: ALARP Table
ALARP, As Low As Reasonably Practical
● Gas leakage in process
plant
Frequent
● Loss of electrical ● Fire in power
power generation unit
● Gas leakage in power ● Coral damage
Unfrequent
generation
● Gas migration
● Flow assurance
● Corrosion due to H2S ● Gas leakage from ● Fire in process plant ● Politic issues
● Change in gas risers ● Structure Failure ● Blowout
composition ● Sinkholes ● Fatigue
Unlikely ● Collapse of well
● Deviation on Drilling ● Flare Failure ● Fault and Fractures ● Explosion in process

● Shallow water flow ● Helicopter crash ● Landslide plant
(SWF) ● Earthquake ● Terrorist Attack
Remote ● Active Faulting

Consequence

Intolerable Area
ALARP Area
Negligible Area

7.2. TECOP
TECOP is the method which is used to evaluate the risks. According to
this method, different kinds of issues for the risk assessment are
considered, namely Technical, Economical, Commercial, Organizational,
and Political risks. These risk categories are illustrated in Figure 7.1.

The major issues for this field are listed in Table 7.3.
The issues which have more influence on the project are categorized as
opportunity and / or threat, Table 7.4. The Opportunity & Threat Grid
provides a framework for examining the uncertainties and risks as well
as the opportunities associated with the project. The tool highlights and
ranks uncertainties and risks according to their impact on the value of
the opportunity and on Gas N’ Roses’ ability to influence and / or

Figure 7.1: Risks Categories based on TECOP control the impact of the uncertainty or risk.

39

Table 7.3: TECOP Risk Identification
Technical Economic Commercial Organizational Politic
Flow Assurance Increase CAPEX Problem on Gas sale Project management War in Middle East
agreements, e.g. change team
in gas price
Sink Hole Increase OPEX Main contract International employees Russia‐Iran‐Qatar gas
termination cooperation
Gas migration Gas price changes Change in contract with Work done in different Iran‐Qatar Government
subcontractors location relations
Variation of GIIP / CIIP Oil price changes Gas demand Operation by local Media, TV
people
Gas composition Less interest for Local regulation in IMR locally Terrorism attack
shareholders contracts
H2S high content Lack of Budget GTL Products market Local subcontractors Competitors
Pressure drop in World economic crisis LNG market Limited suppliers for Iran government
reservoir special technologies
Technical problem on By products sales Condensate market Interaction between NGOs
GTL plant and/or LNG installation activities
plant

Risks mitigation
As shown in Table 7.4, some of the issues can be both an opportunity and a threat. There are also risks that have an
impact on the project as an opportunity or threat only. Some of these points are described below.
• Technical
Reservoir uncertainties have a high impact on the project. For instance, reservoir pressure drop can make more water and
then the wells can be blocked, as mentioned in Chapter 1.5.2. In this case, the production rate will decrease extremely.
Besides, gas pressure should be increased to keep the availability of delivering the gas by pipeline. Water injection is the
option to maintain the reservoir pressure. GIIP and CIIP also have an impact on the production facilities, pipeline,
production life, etc. If the GIIP and CIIP increases, extra equipments / trains, and longer production profile can be things
to deal with. Therefore, reservoir characteristics should be monitored continuously.
High content of H2S can be a serious problem. Chemical inhibitor injection, use of suitable steel, and a desulfurization unit
can be taken into account to prevent this problem. Nevertheless, sulfur sale as a byproduct can make valuable benefit for
the project.
CO2 is the other technical issue that acts as both an opportunity and a threat. Carbon dioxide emission is a significant
environmental problem. CO2 injection is an option to get rid off of it. However, it is also possible to sell it to neighbor oil
field for gas injection and maintain their reservoir pressure.
• Economic
Gas price is the main issue regarding to economical risks. If it increases, more revenue will be available. On the other hand,
if the gas price falls, the revenue will decrease significantly.
Oil price fluctuation is a key issue in the oil and gas industry. There are several parameters that have influence on the oil
price. The point is that most of these parameters are out of Shell’s control. Therefore, it can be a serious threat if the price
falls. Oil price variation can also have influence on other costs of the project like material, transport, equipments, etc. GTL
product prices usually are based on the oil price.
By product sales, is a suitable option to increase the revenue of the project. Sulfur and carbon dioxide are two of these
products. Essential requirements to the process, such as a desulfurization unit, should be taken into account.
• Commercial
Gas sale agreements are usually based on long term conditions. In case there are some changes in the agreement terms,
several problems can occur that have their influence on revenue, production, etc. For instance, the client may tend to
decrease the gas price in the agreement because of gas market variation, government instability, and/or politic issues.
The LNG market, GTL market and Condensate market are the major objectives of this project. Thus, variations of these
markets have significant impact on the project directly. Long term agreements are an important method to secure the
project objectives.
• Organizational
A well organized project management team affects on maintain the project in right direction. On the other hand, lack of
project management is a serious threat for the field development.
40

Local subcontractors can help the project to keep it less expensive especially to fabricate the jacket and topside. Moreover,
engaging the local subcontractors not only spreads the risks but also satisfy the local stakeholders. The disadvantage is
they usually need more training and supervision.
• Political
Political issues in the oil and gas industry are one of the main key parameters. Middle‐East and Persian Gulf especially, is a
very complicated political area. Therefore, working in this area needs more attention to this category. The relation
between Iran and Qatar is the most important one. Although, nowadays this relation seems good, everything can be
changed easily due to the next president election in Iran and pressure on the Qatar government by the USA.
To avoid most of the political issues, having a good relation with the Qatari government and being aware of political news
is essential.
Table 7.4: Opportunity / Threat Grid
OPPORTUNITY

• Gas price • Decrease CAPEX • Project Management
• Oil price • Decrease OPEX team
• GIIP / CIIP • Local subcontractors High
• GTL market
• LNG market
• Iran‐Qatar governments • IMR locally
relation • Operation by local people
• Gas demand • Sub contractors contracts Medium
• By products sales

• International employees
Low
Impact
• Russia‐Iran‐Qatar gas • IMR locally • Sub contractors contracts

cooperation • Special suppliers • Flow assurance
• High H2S content
• Sinkholes Low
• Iran‐Qatar governments
relation
• GTL plant problem • Gas sales agreement
• LNG plant problem • Local low in contract
• Gas composition • Gas migration
• Gas demand • Lack of budget Medium
• Pressure drop
• Economic crisis
• Gas price • Main contract • Project Management

• Oil price termination team
• GIIP / CIIP • Increase CAPEX
• War in Middle East • Increase OPEX High
• Terrorism
• NGOs
THREATS

Low Medium High

Ability to Influence
41

8. Technical Aspects
This chapter provides the information on all technical aspects of the Final Field Development Plan. First the well layout is
given and it is explained what the production profile will be. Then the layout and weight of the topside and structure are
elaborated in two separate subchapters. Another major aspect of the scenario is of course the pipelines that will transport
the gas and condensates to shore. And at the end of this chapter, the way everything is fabricated and, at the end of the
field life, decommissioned, is explained.
8.1. Well Layout
Figure 8.1 below shows the layout of the wells in the final field development plan.
Figure 8.1: Well layout Reservoir Final Field Development Plan

In this final field development plan, 10 horizontal wells and one vertical well will be drilled.
Long‐radius horizontal wells will be used because this kind of well is used for achieving large horizontal displacements
from platforms or drilling pads and for achieving very long horizontal sections, to more than 6,000 ft. In this case,
horizontal wells with a length of 6000 ft will be used. The radius of these wells is ~4 degrees/ 100 ft. This means a total
distance of 2250 feet is necessary to make a bend of 90 degrees. The reservoir depth is 7800 feet so that is more than
enough to drill the horizontal wells.
The capacity per foot of horizontal wells is not the same as for vertical wells. So the production is not directly related to
the length of the horizontal well. Horizontal wells with a length of 6000 ft produce of course quite some more than
vertical wells. This ratio is normally between 1.4 and 1.8. Because the horizontal wells are long and produce more than
shorter horizontal wells, a factor of 1.7 times the productivity of vertical wells is used.
The ten horizontal wells and one vertical well will be drilled before the jacket is installed. Once the jacket is installed, no
extra wells can be drilled anymore under the jacket because the jacket does not consist of a drilling derrick and is
unmanned.
As can be seen in Chapter 3.1.2, a production profile of 45 years will be reached when the plateau production is ten years.
But the maximum production of one well will only last for four years. Because all wells are predrilled and it is a waste of
money to not use them immediately when the jacket is installed, all wells will start producing at the same moment once
everything is placed and installed. So in this case, the plateau period will only be four years long and not all the gas will be
produced in 45 years.
This means that during the production, additional wells should be drilled. Because the jacket is standing in the way, a
manifold will be placed and satellite wells are drilled. The maximum jumper length nowadays is ±160 ft and this means the
maximum distance between the satellite wells and the manifold is 160 ft. Vertical wells have a producing area of 1000
acres, which is 43560000 ft2. When these vertical wells are all placed around the manifold with a distance of 160 ft, the
overlap would be too much. That is the reason why the satellite wells will be deviated wells. These deviated wells will still
have some overlap in the reservoir and will not produce at their maximum rate of 120 MMscf/day. As can be seen in
Appendix III, the deviated, satellite wells will produce 85 MMscf/day.
42

Gas migrates to places where the pressure is the lowest and
because the gas in the reservoir has a lower density than air
and water, it will migrate upwards. This means most of the
gas will accumulate at the highest point of the reservoir.
Nevertheless, the jacket will not be located above this point
because it is not in the middle of the field. When the jacket is
placed somewhat more to the south, the horizontal wells will
reach much wider area in the concession. The jacket is not
placed on a sinkhole and also the wells will not perforate the
sinkholes, as can be seen in Figure 8.2. One pipeline for a
CO2‐injector is located on a sinkhole but that is not a problem
because it is possible to place surface equipment above the Sinkhole
Jacket
sinkholes. CO2 Injector
The gas that is present at locations that aren’t reached by the Manifold
Satellite
horizontal wells will still be produced. This will happen Well
because the gas will migrate towards the wells because the Figure 8.2: Top View Final Field Development Plan
wells are located less deep and the pressure near the wells is
lower because of production. When this natural migration will not occur fast enough, the injection of CO2 at the CO2‐
injector will help. The produced CO2 is separated at the jacket and reinjected into the reservoir using the CO2 injector well
at the southern part of the concession. When the pressure still drops too much, an additional CO2 well can be drilled at
the left corner of the field or even a water‐injector can be drilled.
The additional deviated wells are located at the highest part of the reservoir and will produce the gas that has migrated
towards this area.
8.1.1. Drilling Schedule
Three kinds of wells are used in this scenario: horizontal, vertical and deviated.
Table 8.1: Drilling Time per Well The drilling time of one well consists of the time of the drilling itself and four
extra days for completion. Of course drilling a horizontal well will take a
Well Type Drilling Time [days] longer time than a vertical well because it is more complicated and the well
Vertical 64 itself is longer. This gives an overview of drilling times per type of well listed
Deviated 94 in Table 8.1.
Horizontal 109 The drilling schedule, Figure 8.3 will consist of two phases. Phase one
consists of the drilling and completion of the horizontal wells, vertical well
and CO2‐injector. After phase 1 has finished, production can start. When the plateau period of the wells is over after four
years, the additional cluster wells are drilled. To keep the production at its plateau level for ten years, every year one
deviated well will be completed. The drilling of the six additional wells will be done right after each other because hiring a
drilling semi for only three to four months per year for six years is too expensive. To let the wells start producing one year
after each other, the completion of a well will be done once per year.
First Gas
Months
Type of well Start Finish 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Horizontal well 1 0 4
Horizontal well 6
Horizontal well 7
Horizontal well 8
18
22
25
22
25
29
Phase 1
Vertical well 36 38
CO2 injector 38 41
Deviated well 1 98 101
Deviated well 4 107 110 Phase 2
Figure 8.3: Drilling Schedule Final Scenario

The drilling and completion of the deviated wells can be grouped in some phases as shown in Figure 8.4.
43

8 Phase 1: Drilling all the wells, as can be seen in Figure 8.3 this will take 3.5
7
months per well times 6 wells = 21 months.
1 6
Phase 2: Installation of the manifold, jumpers and pipeline and umbilical
1
3 connecting the jacket and manifold.
1
4 2 Phase 3 till 8: Placing of the horizontal trees on the pre‐drilled wells. This is
5 called the completion of the wells and this will be done once per year.
1
1 According to this drilling and completion schedule, the following production
1
profile as shown in Figure 8.5 will obtained:
Figure 8.4: Drilling and Completion Phases

Production
Total Production
Pre‐drilled Wells
1600
Cluster Wells
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [years]
Figure 8.5: Production Profile Final Scenario
8.1.2. Subsea Equipment
Well configuration
The well completion is the same for vertical, deviated and horizontal wells.
Completing a well consists of several steps:
1. Installing the well casing
a. Stove pipe: This 30” conductor casing has a length of 330 ft.
b. Conductor casing: Has a diameter of 20” and a length of 1640 ft.
c. Surface casing: to a depth of 3000 ft.
d. Intermediate casing: to a depth of 7000 ft.
e. Production casing: This casing runs to the target depth of 9200 ft.
2. Completing the well.
Production casing is run through the formation and the sides of this casing
are perforated with tiny holes along the sides facing the formation. This
type of well completion is called conventional perforated completion.
3. Installing the wellhead.
The wells will have a wellhead as is shown in
Figure 8.7. Figure 8.6: Well Casing
4. Treating the formation.
As explained in Chapter 1.5, the gas needs to be treated with a chemical inhibitor to prevent corrosion due to the
large amount of H2S.
These chemicals will be injected in the well itself to prevent corrosion in the wellhead and risers. This will be done
by inserting chemical injection tubing into the production tubing, as can be seen in Figure 8.8. The chemicals that
are injected passivate steel surfaces. These compounds are generally mixtures of organic amines. Exact
formulations are not always known, as the vendors are usually secretive about analyses.

44

18 ¾” Wellhead
housing
Wellhead to
casing
30” Conductor
20” Casing
13 3/8” Surface
casing
9 5/8” Intermediate
casing
7” Production
casing

Figure 8.7: Wellhead Figure 8.8: Chemical Injection Tubing: Dual Completion

Drilling the horizontal and deviated wells
An assembly consists of the parts that make up the drill string that the rig lowers into the hole to
drill the well. They include the following:
• Mud Motor: The directional assembly consists of a "mud motor" which is a machine that
contains a rotor and stator inside it which are turned by the force of the drilling fluid or
"mud" that is pumped down the drill pipe. This motor turns the drill bit so instead of
turning the entire length of drill pipe, the motor, which is bent at a certain angle, can
remain in a fixed position drilling the hole in whatever direction the bend of the motor is
aimed toward. An image of a mud motor is shown in Figure 8.9.
Figure 8.9: Mud Motor
• MWD Probe: A probe full of instruments is placed inside a nonmagnetic length of drill pipe just above the mud
motor to show the driller on the surface which direction he is drilling in and at what angle or inclination he is
heading. This instrument is an MWD or "Measure While Drilling" probe. It typically consists of instruments that
measure inclination utilizing accelerometers and instruments that measure azimuth or compass heading using
magnetometers. This information is sent via a series of pressure pulses in the column of drilling fluid flowing
down to the bit from pumps on the surface. At the surface a device called a transducer picks up these increases
in pressure (similar to Morse code signals) and they are decoded by surface equipment in the MWD company’s
mobile lab that is placed on deck of the offshore rig. This equipment is connected to a display on the rig floor
where the driller can see which way the bent motor is sliding.
The directional driller can then turn the entire length of drill pipe ever so
slightly in the direction he wants the well to go and the motor which is
being turned by the flow of drilling mud coming down the drill pipe
causes the bit to chew away at the rock and drill ahead. MWD equipment
can also be combined with sensors that record gamma rays given off from
the rock formations below, instruments that measure resistivity and
conductivity, etc. This is known as "logging while drilling" or LWD. It
enables the oil company geologists to see if they are staying in, or have
reached, the oil or gas bearing zones in real time instead of having to pull
all the drill pipe out of the hole and run a wireline based logging tool
down the hole. An image of a drilling platform drilling a horizontal well is
Figure 8.10: Horizontal Well from a Drilling Platform shown in Figure 8.10.
45

Trees
The horizontal and vertical wells will all have dry trees on the jacket itself. In contrary, the
six deviated wells drilled later in the field life will be controlled using wet trees.
Horizontal shallow water trees are used because the tubing hanger is installed within the
treehead, and this means heavy workover, like tubing retrieval, can be achieved without
the need to recover the tree system. A horizontal shallow water tree of Vetco is shown in
Figure 8.11. This range of horizontal trees is usually deployed on guidelines in water
depths up to 500m from an anchored semisubmersible drilling rig.

Figure 8.11: Horizontal Vetco Tree
Jumpers
The wells are located 160 feet from the manifold. To connect the trees and manifold, jumpers are used. Figure 8.12 shows
the installation of a horizontal jumper connecting a manifold and a horizontal well. The jumpers are designed in such a
way that they can resist the pressure of the gas coming out of the well.
Figure 8.12: Horizontal Jumper

Figure 8.13: Reliance Project Subsea Layout

Manifold
To determine the right size for the manifold, a similar gas field development plan is analyzed. The Reliance Project, in the
KG‐DWN‐98/1 (KG‐D6) field in India, produces 14 Bscf of natural gas with a forecasted daily production of 2800 MMscf/d.
This daily production is achieved by using 18 wells. These 18 wells are clustered around three 6‐slot manifolds. Figure 8.18
below shows the subsea layout of this project.
Because the production in the similar project is twice as high per well than in this
Zubara project, the size and weight of the manifold will be somewhat smaller. The
manifolds in the Reliance Project have a weight of 225 t so 200 t for the manifold of
the Zubara Project is a good estimation.
A typical size for a 6‐slot manifold is 15 x 10 x 5 m.
The manifold can have several options for its foundation:
• Piles: not very commonly used because special equipment needed during
installation.
• Mudmat: Used in hard to medium soil conditions. Large areas required, high
slamming loads in splash zone
• Suction Pile: robust foundation concept from soft to “ultra soft” soil
conditions. Guide mast on suction pile interfaces centre column on manifold.
Levelling possible by adjustment of position of guide cone. Images of the
guide mast and guide cone are shown in Figure 8.14.
Because of its robustness, a suction pile will be used as foundation of the manifold.
The soil in this area consists mainly of clay and sand and in the top 10 meters, it is not
very strong. That is the reason why the suction pile will be relatively wide and not so
long. The rules of thumb for determining the dimensions of a suction pile in clay are:
L/d = 3 to 6 and d/t = 100 to 250. With a diameter of 5 meter, a suction pile with a
length of 15 meters and a wall thickness of 35 mm will be obtained. Figure 8.14: Suction Pile and Manifold

46

8.1.3. Controls
To control the manifold and wells a control system is necessary. This control system consists of equipment at the topside
and components subsea:

Topside Hydraulic Power Unit
Methanol / chemical injection skids
Accepts platform ESD signals
Topside Umbilical Termination Unit
Subsea Umbilical Termination Assembly
Control Pod on Tree / Manifold
Readback of pressure / temperature / choke position / downhole data

This equipment is connected to each other in the following way as displayed in Figure 8.15.

Master Control
Hydraulic Station
Power Unit Computer/Power
Supply
Platform Junction Chemical
Box Injection Unit
Topside

Umbilical
Subsea
Electrical/Hydraulic Power Process Instrumentation
Subsea Umbilical Communications Subsea Control Xmas Tree and
Termination / Module Hydraulic Power Manifold
Distribution
Chemical Injection Downhole

Figure 8.15: Control System

The umbilical can be seen in Figure 8.16 and has the following three functions:

1. Transportation of the chemicals that are injected downhole to prevent corrosion caused by the H2S.
2. The chokes and valves on the trees and manifold are controlled by hydraulics. These hydraulics are flowing
through the umbilical from the jacket to the manifold.
3. Providing electric power to operate all the chokes and valves on the trees and manifold.
47

Figure 8.16: Umbilical

Figure 8.17: Subsea Controle Unit
The Subsea Control Unit (SCU) will be both hydraulic and electric. This design offers several advantages over conventional
direct hydraulic control systems, including instantaneous hydraulic venting of the actuators, increased instrumentation
capabilities, and ROV retrievability with down line. An image of such a SCU is shown in Figure 8.17.
The manifold and six cluster wells including the jumpers and SCU is shown in Figure 8.18 below:

Figure 8.18: Subsea Layout Final Scenario
8.1.4. IMR
Because of safety reasons and cost reduction, ROVs, as shown in Figure 8.19 will be used for
all IMR operations subsea and divers are never used. The jacket is a fixed structure so dry
trees are used instead of wet trees. This means workover operations on the dry trees of the
horizontal and vertical wells can be done at the topside itself which makes IMR operations
easier and much less expensive. These IMR operations should be planned and performed
very well because the jacket is unmanned. This means workover operations are relatively
expensive compared to a manned platform because first specialists will have to be arranged Figure 8.19: Typical ROV
and first brought to the platform, but that will be done by the subcontractor responsible for
all IMR operations.
Wellheads and casings deteriorate with age and if left unchecked, these processes will eventually cause structural failure.
Structural inspection provides a means of detecting damage before failure occurs and is thus an important element in
failure prevention. Once per year an ROV will be used to inspect all the wells and risers.
The deviated wells will need other IMR actions because their trees are wet.
The chokes are the piece of subsea equipment that is most subject to wear. It is very likely that the subsea chokes will
have to be replaced every two to three years. All satellite wells are connected to the manifold via jumpers. Nowadays, all
templates and Christmas trees are designed in such a matter that an ROV can do all necessary actions.
48

8.2. Topside
This unmanned jacket will consist of non‐processing modules and processing modules. In 8.2.1 the non‐processing
modules are explained and in 8.2.2 the process plant.
8.2.1. Non‐processing modules
The platform should be accessible by helicopter for inspection and maintenance. These periodical inspections could take
several days perhaps weeks and therefore the platform has accommodation for the crew along with a control and
communication centre. Control and monitoring of the installation will normally be carried out onshore.

During hazards the personal must be able to escape the platform safe and quickly.
A range of facilities are provided for the safe evacuation to the sea, primarily Totally Enclosed Motor Propelled Survival
Crafts (TEMPSC). These are backed up by life rafts, survival suits, life jackets, smoke hoods, and lifebuoys which coupled
with alternate means of escape, provide a large range of appliances. Beside this, more emergency equipment will be on
deck like fire water installations, fire and blast walls.

During emergency situations, fire and blasting are the main serious problems on the platform. To prevent these kinds of
situations different measurements have been taken. First of all monitoring the equipment constantly, failures that can
cause fire or blasting will be noticed soon enough so measurements could be taken very quickly. Secondly different
hazardous platform areas should be designed separately from each other so in times of emergency the fire or blasting
won’t spread like a chain reaction through the platform. And at last fire and blast walls will have their tasks to prevent that
fire will spread over the decks. In case of fire, the common fire water installation can be used to put out the fire.
8.2.2. Process plant
The main functions of the unmanned platform are:
‐ Import of gas, condensates, water and impurities
‐ Processing the gas, condensate, water and impurities
‐ Injection of CO2 and chemicals
‐ Evacuation of gas, condensate and impurities
Metering and gas quality monitoring is performed at the production platform constantly. The gas flow, pressure and
temperature will be monitored precisely which will give the most important information about the properties of the gas to
know exactly what’s needed to be done to process the gas.
The gas and condensate processing unit is illustrated in Figure 8.20.

Incoming raw gas, condensation
and water will be separated on
deck and after this processed to
make a pipeline able product.
After the separation the gas will
be compressed. The
condensates will be after
processing evacuated to shore
as well. The acid gas CO2 will
also be separated from the gas
and re‐injected into the ground.

Next to gas and condensates,
water will be produced,
separated and after cleaning it
carefully, dumped overboard.
Later in the field life this water
can be used for water injection.

Figure 8.20: gas and condensate processing unit
49

There will be no H2S separation on the platform which means that H2S will be evacuated from the platform together with
the inhibitor to prevent corrosion. Like almost every production platform, this platform has a flare structure for flaring
excess gas.
The power unit on the platform provides electric and hydraulic power. In cause of emergency or maintenance an extra
generator provides the necessary power to control all the processes.
With the QUE$TOR program the weight of each topside equipment of the platform can be calculated and rough
estimations are made. In Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 the weights of the units are listed.

Table 8.2: Weight of Topside Equipment Table 8.3: Total Topside Weight of the Scenario

Equipment (in tons)
Fabrication details (in tons)
Manifolding 450
Primary steel 2900
Condensate separation 550
Secondary steel 2600
Gas processing 500
Equipment 2300
Gas compression 150
Piping 800
Gas injection 30
Electrical 150
Control and
communications 10 Instruments 110
Helideck 30 Others 140
Utilities 300 Total Topside weight 9000
Flare structure 80
Power 100
Others 100
Total topside equipment
weight 2300

The total topside weight consist of all the steel that is necessary, equipment for separating the water, gas and
condensates, piping to connect the units with each other, electrical units and finally all the instruments to control the
different units. The weights of the non‐processing units are included as well. The weight of the equipment is more
detailed in upper table. See Table 8.3 for the weights.
8.3. Structure
8.3.1. Jacket
For a safe and reliable design the minimal height of the platform above sea level should be calculated. How this is done
can be seen in Table 8.4 below. The different values are all taken for the maximum value in 100 years. The LAT is taken as
250 m.

Table 8.4: Deck Elevation
Air Gap [m] 1.5

Wave Crest [m] 2.9
Storm Surge [m] 0.38
Tide [m] 4
+
Total Deck Elevation Above LAT [m] 8.78
LAT [m] 250
+
Total Height Structure [m] 258.78
50

The weight of the topside is 9000 mt as found in the previous part. For dimensions for the legs of the jacket a diameter of
3 m with a D/t ratio of 40 is chosen, which results in steel thickness of 7.5 cm. These estimations are based on experience.
To examine the dimensions of the legs of the structure, a buckling analysis is made. For this buckling analysis both topside
weight and jacket weight are taken into account. For the jacket weight one third of the total weight is taken. Calculations
can be found in Appendix IV.

In the calculations, the legs of the jacket are taken as slender cylinders with the same diameter at top and bottom. For the
final design, different diameters along the legs can be chosen. Also the D/t ratio could be varied. In this case the diameter
at the top of the structure would be less, which would also have an impact on the load calculations
For a jacket structure there are different loads to take into account. The most important loads are given in Figure 8.21 and
Table 8.5below. Calculations can be found in Appendix IV.
Topside weight Table 8.5: Loads on Jacket
Wind
Topside weight [mt] 9.00E+03
Topside load [kN] 8.83E+07
Jacket weight [mt] 1.40E+04

Wave & current
Jacket load [kN] 1.37E+08
loading Jacket
Buoyancy &
Current load [kN] 3.02E+03
Weight
Wave load [kN] 2.16E+04
Wave + Current [kN] 2.46E+04
Wind load [kN] 6.66E+02

Figure 8.21: Loads on Jacket

The load from the jacket weight is determined by the total amount of steel. To make sure not only the steel of the legs,
but all the steel is covered, a multiplying factor of 2.5 is chosen. This means that the weight of 4 legs is multiplied by 2.5.
For the wave and current loads the Morrison equation is used. This equation consists of an inertial and a drag force part. A
detailed calculation can be found in Appendix IV. The estimation of the equivalent diameter for the whole structure is
taken as 5 times the diameter of one leg. For the wave load the structure is divided in 5 parts to get a more accurate load.
For the current load, one calculation is made.
Wind load calculations are based on the drag force for the area of one side of the topside. The load is calculated for a
single area of 20x50m.

Corrosion
The field life is 45 years, so the structure should resist the environmental impact for
this period. A steel structure in salt water is heavily exposed to corrosion, so this is a
very important thing to take into account.
To protect the structure against this, sacrificial protection is used. Aluminum alloy
anodes will be used, because they have a high electrochemical efficiency and

because they are light. Light parts are more easy, because they have to be replaced a
Figure 8.22: Anodes on Jacket number of times. The upper part of the structure, at the sea level will be covered
with a protective coating. An example of anodes is shown in Figure 8.22.

51

8.4. Pipelines
There are two single phase pipelines for gas and condensate. One extra pipeline is provided to return the MEG (Mono
Ethylene Glycol) from onshore plant to the jacket. The reason for this extra piggy back on the pipeline is that if the
required quantity of MEG as chemical inhibitor is quite high, then MEG recovery is a suitable option to decrease the costs.
The gas and condensate pipelines are steel pipes with concrete protection cover layer. MEG pipeline is a 4 inch
polypropylene pipe that will be bundle to the gas pipe, see Figure 8.23.
The total offshore length of each pipeline is 63 km. The shore crossing is near Ras
Laffan port that is an industrial area and it is close to the Pearl GTL Plant, LNG
Plant Q4 and Laffan condensate refinery. The existing onshore pipelines will be
used to transport the gas and condensates from the shore crossing point to their
final destinations. As it is already mentioned, the gas delivery plan is 30% of raw
gas to the Pearl GTL plant, 70% of raw gas to the LNG plant Q4 and 100% of
condensate to the Laffan refinery.
Calculation of pipelines is based on different conditions which are listed as below:
1. 100% of peak production as maximum flow rate

Figure 8.23: Piggy Back with MEG 2. 30% of peak production as minimum flow rate
3. 50% of peak production as pigging time condition
According to above mentioned conditions, some pipelines calculations are done. The results are summarized in Table 8.6.
Details of the calculations are listed in Appendix IX.

Table 8.6: Pipeline Characteristics
Gas pipeline Condensate pipeline
Item Unit Value Unit Value
Maximum Flow rate MMscf/d 1350 bbls/d 108000
Maximum Flow rate m3/s, standard condition 442 m3/s 0.2
Pipe diameter inch 36 inch 18
Pipe length m 63000 m 63000
Input pressure bar 125 bar 80
Output pressure bar 75 bar 34.4
Flow velocity m/s 1.6 m/s 1.2
Wall thickness mm 18 mm 10
Pumping power kW 1800 kW 1200

Based on the bathymetry, geotechnical data and the shore crossing location, the pipeline route is determined. As it is
shown in Figure 8.24, the pipeline won’t cross the concession 1 to avoid the steep slope and any interaction during the
installation activities over there. Also, the pipeline reaches the shore location, Ras Laffan, by passing the area where the
seabed undulation is as low as possible. To minimize the pressure drop effects, seabed preparation is performed. Rock
dumping is the best method to the prepare seabed for the pipelaying.

‐

Figure 8.24: Pipeline Route to Ras Laffan and in Concession 2 Itself
52

8.5. Execution Plan
Fabrication, transportation, installation, decommissioning and contracting are considered as execution plan. These
categories have also impact on design of project. Therefore, interaction between design and execution should be kept in
mind. According to design and execution specification, a time schedule for field development is provided.
8.5.1. Fabrication & Transportation
Fabrication methods and the transportation loads have significant influence on the design of the structures. Also, these
issues play a main role in the project schedule.
Fabrication of the jacket and the topside is possible near the field, for instance in Dubai. This can decrease the costs
dramatically. In this case, transportation will be easier and less expensive than when the jacket and topside are fabricate
far away. Some parts of the topside modules can only be fabricated outside the field area. After fabrication elsewhere,
they are assembled in a fabrication yard to finally get integrated topside. Then, the topside will be transported to location
by barge.
8.5.2. Installation
Jacket
There are two methods for installation the jacket: lifting and launching. In this project, the total weight of the jacket is
about 14,000 tonnes. For this weight, both lifting and launching is possible. Although existing lifting capacity is higher than
14,000 tonnes, there are just a few contractors who can lift this jacket. To decrease dependency on these companies,
launch method is selected in this case. The Launch method sequences are shown in Figure 8.25. As a result, the design of
the jacket will be affected by is installation method. The geometry of jacket, number of legs, transportation load and loads
during launching are some of the effects of the installation on the design.

Figure 8.25: Launch Method Sequences for the Installation of the Jacket, Samedan field, Mediterranean Sea

Topside
Lifting is the main method to install the topside. The topside weight
and the capacity of the lifting vessel play the biggest roles in this
system. If the total weight is higher than the available lifting
capacity, topside should be built and transported in several modules.
This means more offshore work for the topside installation.
Otherwise, it is possible to use the float over method for the
topside installation, as shown in Figure 8.26. First, all topside
facilities are built at an onshore yard. Then, the topside will be
installed almost as one module. In this case, the offshore activities
for the topside installation are less than for lifting and installation of
the topside in separate modules. Consequently, the float over
method will be deployed for this project.

Figure 8.26: Float Over Method to Install the Topside
Soroush, South Pars field, Iran
53

Risers
The platform is a fixed structure, jacket; hence, steel rigid risers are used. The risers will be attached to jacket during the
jacket fabrication. All the production risers, future risers and export line will be fabricated and connected to jacket before
launching. A special piece will be needed to connect a vertical riser to a horizontal riser on the sea bed. There are extra
risers on the jacket for future programs such as water injection wells.

Pipelines
The J‐lay method is more suitable for deeper water and is relatively more expensive in a water depth of 75 to 250 meters.
The reel method is limited for pipe diameter less than 18 inches. Another limitation is fabrication of the required pipes
that is usually done by a few companies.
The S‐lay method meets all requirements in this field such as pipe diameter and the limited water depth near the coast.
Therefore, S‐lay is used for the pipelaying in this case.
Shore crossing is very important to connect the subsea and onshore pipeline. Pipe laying in shallow water and pulling the
pipeline to shore are significant parameters in the pipelaying activities.

Sea bed preparation
According to bathymetry and seabed specifications, seabed preparation will be done before pipe laying. Rock dumping is
the common technique to prepare the sea bed for the installation of the pipeline. Crossing new pipeline and existing
pipeline needs more attention to avoid damage to the existing pipeline and new‐laid pipeline.
8.5.3. Decommissioning
Decommissioning of all structures and equipment is a part of the
project lifecycle that should be taken into account. This can be a
major criteria to design the structures.
It should be noted that decommissioning methods will be
improved in future, at the end of the field life: 50 years later. At
that time, more knowledge, experience, and facilities will be
available for removal of the structures.

The decommissioning will, probably, be done in the following
matter:
• Jacket: Split in several parts (underwater cutting) and
then removed by a lifting vessel, as shown in Figure 8.27.
• Topside: removal in several modules by a lifting vessel
• Pipelines: Split in several parts (underwater cutting)
and then removed by a lifting vessel
Figure 8.27: Removal of the Jacket by Cutting it in Several Parts
• Subsea system: removal of all subsea equipment by
ROVs and lifting vessel
• Wellhead: removal of all production and injection wells by an FDU
8.5.4. Contracting
According to project specification, contract conditions, client visions, field area facilities and subcontractors availabilities, a
contracting plan for major parts of the project is provided. This plan consists of 8 different packages as below:
• Package 1: Fabrication, transportation and installation of the jacket
• Package 2: Fabrication, transportation and installation of the topside
• Package 3: Drilling and completion
• Package 4: Supply of Subsea system
• Package 5: Subsea system installation
• Package 6: Sea bed preparation
• Package 7: Subsea pipelines and shore crossing
• Package 8: Onshore control and operating facilities
54

8.5.5. Schedule
Now, the field development plan is determined. Based on this plan, a time schedule for field development is provided,
Table 8.7. Each task, such as jacket, consists of a detailed design, material supply, fabrication, transportation and
installation. As this table shows, the schedule consists of different phases of the project, from design till decommissioning.
First gas is dated in the fifth year. To keep longer a plateau production, a second drilling phase will be started from the 8th
year. The production profile will take 45 years. Then, abandonment will be done in years 51 and 52.

Table 8.7: Field Development Time Schedule
Time (year)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 49 50 51 52
FEED study
Contracting
Jacket
Topside
Drilling, Phase I
Offshore pipelines
Onshore pipelines,
Shore crossing
Commissioning
First Gas
Production, Operation
Drilling, Phase II
Subsea Systems
IMR
Decommissioning

55

9. Economical
9.1. Costs
The cost estimation of the project has been done using the software programme QUE$TOR which is based on a database
with existing projects. Some additional costs have been added such as onshore OPEX. In the following two tables, Table
9.1 and Table 9.2, one can see what the main costs will be and how they are divided.
The years in which the CAPEX and OPEX are spent is graphed in
Figure 9.1. For most projects OPEX is spent after CAPEX, however since this development strategy has a second phase in
which wells are drilled and subsea equipment, such as pumps, wellheads and risers, is needed after the first gas had been
produced in phase 1, this is not the case.
Table 9.1: The CAPEX
CAPEX and OPEX
CAPEX Million $
CAPEX OPEX
Subsea equipment 98.62
Pipelines 352.73 1000.00
Topside 952.90 900.00
Structures 123.78 800.00
DRILLEX 1,190.00 700.00

Total 2,718.04 600.00
USD Million
500.00
400.00
Table 9.2: The OPEX
OPEX Million $ 300.00
Offshore 4,566.21 200.00
Onshore 454.38 100.00
Decommissioning 500.00 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50
Total 5,520.59 Years

Figure 9.1: CAPEX and OPEX
Due to the work over rate of four years, a peak can be seen every four years. In year 8 the OPEX increases due to the
installation of subsea equipment in phase 2.
9.2. Revenues
Total Revenues ($ MM)
The revenues have been calculated and
were based on a few variables. These Total Revenues ($ MM)
variables are listed and explained below:
• A gas price of 4.5 $/MMBTU is
$5,000.0
$4,500.0
assumed, this is also the base
$4,000.0
estimate of the gas price. The
$3,500.0
low and high values are 4 and 5
Total revenue ($ MM)
$3,000.0
$/MMBTU.
$2,500.0
• A condensate price of 80% of $2,000.0
the price of crude oil is selected. $1,500.0
This is based on the fact that $1,000.0
condensate has more limitations $500.0
to the conversion to final $0.0
products than crude oil. The oil 0 10 20 30 40 50
Years
price chosen is 60$ per barrel.

Low and high estimates are 40$ Figure 9.2: Total revenues
and 80$ per barrel relatively.
The annual production of gas and condensate multiplied by their prices gives the annual revenue. This revenue of the
project before royalty and tax is graphed in Figure 9.2.
56

9.3. Profit Table 9.3: Economical Data
The NPV and cash flows calculated for scenario 1 are based on the input Item value
described above and on the financial structure in Qatar: NPV @12% (USD MM) $ 3,940
• The discount rate is chosen to be 12%. An estimation of 10% is a VIR @12% 1.95
discount rate of projects of this size. An additional 2% is added for UTC @12% $ 4.43
inflation. IRR 42%
• The payment of tax can and will be carried forward one year and is
75%. Table 9.4: key financial information
• Depreciation is paid off in 5 years Item $ Billion
• Royalty take is 20%. Total Revenues $ 91.78
Total CAPEX $ 2.72
With the CAPEX and OPEX and discount rate estimated, and the legal tax Total OPEX $ 5.52
system in Qatar known, a final conclusion to what the yearly cash flows will Royalty $ 18.36
be can be made. Under these conditions mentioned above, the NPV is $3.94 Total Depreciation $ 2.63
billion and the IRR is 42%. The unit technical cost is 4.43$ per barrel and the Tax $ 49.33
Value Investment Ratio (VIR) is 1.95. This is listed in Table 9.3. In Table 9.4 Pretax cashflow $ 83.74
other key financial information is listed. Post tax cash flow $ 16.05

The graph below (Figure 9.3) shows financial results such as the cash flow for a discount rate of 0% and 12%, the post tax
cash flow and the gas and condensate production per year.
Post tax cash flow ($ MM) Cumulative cashflow 12% ($ MM)

cumulative cash flow ($ MM) Gas production field including condensate (MM scf)
$20,000.0 600,000.0
500,000.0
$15,000.0
400,000.0
$10,000.0
USD MM
MMscf
300,000.0
$5,000.0
200,000.0
$0.0
100,000.0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52
-$5,000.0 0.0
year

Figure 9.3: Financial results
In this figure one can also read off the pay‐out time of concession 2 by looking at the year the cumulative cash flow
crosses the x‐axis, in this case this is after five years. It is quite unique that a project of this size has a breakeven point after
one year of production. This has to do with the fact that in the first production year plateau production is reached, an
therefore maximum revenue is generated, see
Figure 9.2. This strategy has profitable consequences because
Table 9.5: Tax and Royalty
money generated early has a high present value. Item Percentage of revenue
Royalty 20%
The project is based on a tax‐royalty contract. In Table 9.5 and Total Capex 3%
Figure 9.4 below show this distribution. The top slice of the Total Opex 6%
barrel is the profit the Shell Gas N’ Roses consortium generates; Tax 54%
17%. Post tax cash flow 17%
57

Profit based on royalty‐tax contract
Post tax cash flow ($ MM)
100% Tax ($ MM)
90%
80% Total Opex ($ MM)
70%
60% Total Capex ($ MM)
50%
40% Royalty ($ MM)
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
Figure 9.4: The distribution barrel
9.4. Economical sensitivity analysis
There are a number of sensitivities in the project that could have an impact on the financial result. By altering these
variables a low mid and high estimation can be made. The variables are briefly listed below. Base variables are:
• Error in calculation of recoverable gas and condensate
• Discount rate: 12%
• Oil price: 60$/barrel (condensate price of 0.8 x 60 = 48 $/barrel)
• Gas price: 4.5$/MMBTU
• OPEX and CAPEX: 100% of value calculated in QUE$STOR.
• Carry forward of tax: 1 year

In the following page(s) these variables are altered to a low and high estimation in order to create different profitability
grids.

The most serious error that can be made in the calculations is the one for the recoverable gas and condensate. The low
estimate for recoverable gas was calculated to be 6.27 Tscf. This is done by multiplying the low estimate of the GIIP by the
recovery factor of 85%. This gives a decrease in recoverable gas of 49%. For further calculations see appendix I. The low
estimate for recoverable condensate is calculated the same way and yields 502 MMbbls. High estimates for recoverable
gas and condensate are 20.6 Tscf (+133%) and 1650 MMbbls respectively. Results of this error are listed in the following
Table 9.6.
Table 9.6: Error in gas and condensates calculations

Error in recoverable gas and condensate
This error is serious as can be seen in Table 9.6. In a low
calculations
case scenario, the NPV decreases with 2.6 billion dollars,
Low Mid High
the IRR drops down 18%, and the VIR goes down to 0.68.
However, a higher recovery of gas and condensate yields NPV ($MM) 1,371 3,940 6,844
an increase in NPV of 2.9 billion dollars, 9% in IRR and the IRR (%) 24% 42% 51%
VIR increases to 3.23. VIR 0.68 1.95 3.23

Discount rate Table 9.7: Changes in discount rate
The base discount rate of 12% is chosen. Low and high Discount rate
rates are 10% and 14% respectively. Results are listed in 10% 12% 14%
the following table, see Table 9.7. NPV ($MM) 4,839 3,940 3,224
IRR (%) 42% 42% 42%
The NPV and VIR change dramatically whereas the VIR 2.29 1.95 1.67
internal rate of return stays unchanged. Figure 9.5 shows
graphically what the cumulative NPVs are for discounts at different rates. Rates taken are 0% and 12%, 17% because this is
based on 15%, (a maximum rate for a project of this size), plus 2% for inflation and 42% because this is the IRR.
58

Oil price
Even though this is a gas field, the oil price is an Cumulative NVP's at different discount rates
important variable. If the gas is converted to GTL, Discount rate of 0% Discount rate of 12% Discount rate of 17% Discount rate of 42%
20000
the price of oil is very relevant because a GTL
price of 115% of the crude oil price can be
assumed. The condensate price is linked also 15000
directly to the oil price by a multiplication factor
of 0.8. The oil price is a variable that is hard to 10000
USD MM
predict. In the last 3 years we have seen a high
price of 147 $/barrel and a low price of 33 5000
$/barrel. It is therefore very important to know

what the economical result will be if the oil price 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
is low or high. 40 $/barrel is selected as a low
price, 80 $/barrel is selected as a high price, see ‐5000
Years
Table 9.8.
Figure 9.5: Cumulative NPVs at different discount rates

It can be seen that an increase of 33% to 80 dollars per barrel means an increase of NPV of 800 million dollars. The current
oil price is 60$ per barrel, therefore this price is used in other financial calculations, however a higher oil price is likely.
This has to do with a relatively fixed supply (most Table 9.8: Changes in condensate price
countries produce at near 100% capacity) and an Condensate price
increasing demand. Some OPEC countries such as 32 $/barrel 48 $/barrel 64 $/barrel
Venezuela are dependent on an oil price o 85$ per
NPV ($MM) 3,149 3,940 4,732
barrel. An increasing oil price of one dollar per year over
IRR (%) 37% 42% 46%
the next 50 years, i.e. 60$ per barrel in 2009, 110$ per
VIR 1.56 1.95 2.34
barrel in 2059, simulates this scenario. In this case, the
Table 9.9: The condensate price after increasing the oil price
NPV comes out to be 4,327 $ MM, the IRR is then 43%
Condensate price
and the VIR is 2.14 as can be seen in Table 9.9.
incr. oil price of 1
48 $/barrel
USD/ year
Gas price
The gas will be brought to the plants in gas phase, NPV ($MM) 3,940 4,327
therefore for Gas N’ Roses and for Shell a good IRR (%) 42% 43%
estimation of the gas price is essential. Low, mid and VIR 1.95 2.14
Table 9.10: Changes in gas price
high prices are 4, 4.5 and 5 $/MMBTU.
Gas price
The differences are not as large as for an increase in 4 $/MMBTU 4.5 $/MMBTU 5 $/MMBTU
condensate price. The reason for this is that the gas NPV ($MM) 3,628 3,940 4,259
price is fixed, and therefore a big change in price is not IRR (%) 40% 42% 43%
expected. This is also the reason a scenario in which gas VIR 1.79 1.95 2.1
prices rise is not calculated. Table 9.11: Increasing of CAPEX and OPEX
5% increase in CAPEX and OPEX
CAPEX and OPEX 100% 105%
The cost estimations done by QUE$TOR are not NPV ($MM) 3,940 3,875
necessarily 100% correct but can come out up to 5% IRR (%) 42% 40%
higher. If this is the case, the NPV, IRR and VIR come out. VIR 1.95 1.82
Table 9.12: Financial results after carrying forward the taxes
Carry forward tax Carry forward tax payment
Carrying forward the taxes one year, makes a big 1 year 2 years
difference in the financial result. If an agreement can be NPV ($MM) 3,940 4,944
made with Qatar to carry forward tax one more year,
IRR (%) 42% 49%
NPV and IRR will improve significantly as can be seen in
VIR 1.95 2.44
the next table.

From practice this is usually a very tough negotiation and will probably come at a price.

59

9.5. Maximum exposure
It is important to know what the maximum exposure for a project of this size is. This maximum exposure is based on a
combination of the most negative variables:
o Recoverable gas and condensate are actually 49% lower
o Discount rate is 17%
o Condensate price is 32 $/bbl
o Gas price is 4 $/MMBTU
o CAPEX and OPEX come out to be 5% more expensive

The highest possible profit estimation is based on the following variables.
o Recoverable gas and condensate are actually +133% higher
o Discount rate is 0%
o Condensate price is 64 $/bbl
o Gas price is 5 $/MMBTU
o CAPEX and OPEX come out to be as calculated
Table 9.13: Highest possible profit estimation
The carrying forward of tax to 2 years is not included as Low Mid High
in practice this is hardly ever achieved. The results are NPV ($MM) 149 3,940 8,573
listed in Table 9.13.
IRR 19% 42% 58%

VIR 0.08 1.95 4.05
Even in this unlikely scenario of all variables to come out
lowest, the project will be profitable.

It is also important to know what the biggest Highest investment costs for Low, Mid and High cases of NPV's
negative cash flow in a year could be in order Mid High Low
to estimate if this project can actually be 8000
financed. If a cash flow in one year is lower

than what the enterprising company has in its 6000
cash position in that year, this project cannot
4000
be executed. Also the last possible break even
USD MM
year is important information. The cumulative 2000
cash flows in a low and mid scenario are

calculated. 0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
The first few years of the projects are plotted
‐2000
below, see Figure 9.6.
‐4000
The conclusion can be made that the Years
maximum negative cash flow in any Figure 9.6: Highest investment costs

reasonable scenario thinkable, would be $2.5
billion in the 4th year, generated by the most profitable (high) scenario. The reason for this has to do with the time value of
money. The discount rate in this scenario is taken as 0%. This means expenditures are relatively more expensive. However
this scenario has the soonest break‐even point after 4.5 years. The last possible break‐even point is in the least profitable
scenario (low) and is after 6.5 years.

60

10. Conclusion
The solution to develop concession 2 of the Zubara gas field is an unmanned jacket. This production platform will produce
1,500 MMscf of gas per day, together with 120,000 bbls of condensates per day. The gas will be extracted from the
reservoir by using ten horizontal, one vertical and six deviated wells. The horizontal and vertical wells are located beneath
the jacket and the deviated wells are clustered around a subsea manifold. To produce 85 % of the GIIP of 14.5 Tscf of gas,
the field will have a production life of 45 years.

The platform is unmanned to minimize the risk of human casualties. Other, more field related risks are the presence a high
amount of H2S in the gas and sinkholes in the soil. The risk of corrosion caused by the high amount of H2S is dealt with by
downhole chemical injection and the presence of sinkholes is dealt with by avoiding them during drilling and installing the
jacket.

To maintain a high enough pressure in the reservoir to keep the production going and to prevent condensate blocking
near the wells, the produced CO2 is reinjected into the reservoir. Another advantage of CO2 injection is that the field will
not raise the CO2 emission of Qatar, which is already too high according to the Kyoto protocol.

Before the conversion of gas to any product, the NPV of this project will be 3,940 billion USD with an internal rate of
return of 42%. In a worst case scenario, the maximum negative cash flow in a year will be $2.5 billion, but the project will
still be profitable.

If 70 % of the gas is delivered to the Pearl GTL plant, the remaining 30 % to the Q4 LNG plant and the condensates to the
Laffan Refinery, all located in Ras Laffan. The total pre‐tax revenue in this case for Shell will be 131.3 billion dollars
excluding CAPEX and OPEX.
61

Appendices
62

Appendix I
GIIP/ CIIP Calculations

Reservoir data:
Reservoir depth: 8500‐9000 ft True Vertical Depth Subsea (TVDSS)
Initial pressure: 6000 psia
Reservoir thickness: 1300 – 1500 ft
Temperature at reservoir depth: 260°F
Permeability: 10 – 500 mD
Porosity: 8 – 15 %, with an average of 10%.
Gas saturation: 85 – 90 %
Recovery factor: 85 %
Gravity of the gas: 0.81 relative to air.
H2S amount: 1 – 5 %
Condensate – Gas Ratio (CGR): 65 bbls/MMscf.

Formulas:

6°

N 1
GIIP = GRV ⋅ ⋅ n ⋅ Sgas ⋅
G Bg

CIIP = GIIP ⋅ CGR

GIIP = Gas Initially In Place [Tscf]
GRV = Gross Rock Volume [m3]
N/G = The net to gross ratio: Thickness of productive (net) reservoir rock within the total (gross) reservoir thickness [‐]
n = Porosity [‐]
Sgas = Saturation of Gas
Bg = Volume of gas at reservoir temperature and pressure / Volume of gas at surface conditions.

Low Mid High

GIIP [Tscf] 7.38 14.48 24.27
CIIP [MMbbls] 590.50 1158.59 1941.41

Table 0.1: Final recoverable gas/ condensate

63

Low Mid High
Height layer [ft] 1300 1400 1500
Radius [ft] 20310 20310 20310
Base (big circle) [ft2] 1.296E+09 1.296E+09 1.296E+09
Base (small circle) [ft2] 1.947E+08 1.503E+08 1.116E+08
Top big cone [ft] 2.135E+03 2.135E+03 2.135E+03
Top small cone [ft] 8.275E+02 7.270E+02 6.264E+02
Big cone [ft3] 9.221E+11 9.221E+11 9.221E+11
Small cone [ft3] 5.372E+10 3.642E+10 2.330E+10
GRV [ft3] 8.684E+11 8.857E+11 8.988E+11
GRV [rcf] 8.684E+11 8.857E+11 8.988E+11

N/G [‐] 0.5 0.6 0.8
n [‐] 0.08 0.1 0.15
S_gas [‐] 0.85 0.875 0.9
Bg [rcf/scf] 0.004 0.004 0.004
GIIP [scf] 7.381E+12 1.162E+13 2.427E+13

CIIP [bbls] 4.798E+08 7.556E+08 1.577E+09
GIIP [Tscf] 7.38 11.62 24.27

Table 0.2: First estimation of GIIP/ CIIP

The calculations on the gas field are based one the outer layer of a cone. The radius is chosen as 20310 ft, to get an equal
base area for the circle, compared to the area of the real square area.

The most uncertain parameters in this calculation are N/G ratio and porosity. To get a better estimation than the first mid
estimation, these parameters are differed. The net to gross ratio is taken from 0.5 to 0.8, the porosity from .08 to 0.15.
Both parameters were differed and afterwards combined, as can be seen in Table 0.3. Figure 0.1 shows a chart of this
table, for the gas recovery. The average outcomes are taken as the estimation for final mid GIPP and CIPP.
Recovery Gas probability
120%
100%
80%
Probability
60%
40%
20%
0%
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Recovery gas (Tscf)

Figure 0.1: Recovery Gas Probability
64

N/G n GIIP [MMscf] REC. GAS [Tscf] REC.COND. [MMbbls]
0.5 0.08 7,749,735 6.6 428
0.5 0.09 8,718,452 7.4 482
0.5 0.1 9,687,169 8.2 535
0.5 0.11 10,655,886 9.1 589
0.5 0.12 11,624,603 9.9 642
0.5 0.13 12,593,319 10.7 696
0.5 0.14 13,562,036 11.5 749
0.5 0.15 14,530,753 12.4 803
0.55 0.08 8,524,709 7.2 471
0.55 0.09 9,590,297 8.2 530
0.55 0.1 10,655,886 9.1 589
0.55 0.11 11,721,474 10.0 648
0.55 0.12 12,787,063 10.9 706
0.55 0.13 13,852,651 11.8 765
0.55 0.14 14,918,240 12.7 824
0.55 0.15 15,983,828 13.6 883
0.6 0.08 9,299,682 7.9 514
0.6 0.09 10,462,142 8.9 578
0.6 0.1 11,624,603 9.9 642
0.6 0.11 12,787,063 10.9 706
0.6 0.12 13,949,523 11.9 771
0.6 0.13 15,111,983 12.8 835
0.6 0.14 16,274,444 13.8 899
0.6 0.15 17,436,904 14.8 963
0.65 0.08 10,074,656 8.6 557
0.65 0.09 11,333,987 9.6 626
0.65 0.1 12,593,319 10.7 696
0.65 0.11 13,852,651 11.8 765
0.65 0.12 15,111,983 12.8 835
0.65 0.13 16,371,315 13.9 905
0.65 0.14 17,630,647 15.0 974
0.65 0.15 18,889,979 16.1 1,044
0.7 0.08 10,849,629 9.2 599
0.7 0.09 12,205,833 10.4 674
0.7 0.1 13,562,036 11.5 749
0.7 0.11 14,918,240 12.7 824
0.7 0.12 16,274,444 13.8 899
0.7 0.13 17,630,647 15.0 974
0.7 0.14 18,986,851 16.1 1,049
0.7 0.15 20,343,054 17.3 1,124
0.75 0.08 11,624,603 9.9 642
0.75 0.09 13,077,678 11.1 723
0.75 0.1 14,530,753 12.4 803
0.75 0.11 15,983,828 13.6 883
0.75 0.12 17,436,904 14.8 963
0.75 0.13 18,889,979 16.1 1,044
0.75 0.14 20,343,054 17.3 1,124
0.75 0.15 21,796,130 18.5 1,204
0.8 0.08 12,399,576 10.5 685
0.8 0.09 13,949,523 11.9 771
0.8 0.1 15,499,470 13.2 856
0.8 0.11 17,049,417 14.5 942
0.8 0.12 18,599,364 15.8 1,028
0.8 0.13 20,149,311 17.1 1,113
0.8 0.14 21,699,258 18.4 1,199
0.8 0.15 23,249,205 19.8 1,285
AVERAGE: 14,482,317.3 12.3 800.1
Table 0.3: Estimation recoverable gas/ condensate
65

Appendix II
Building Blocks
Structure
The structures that are looked at will briefly be explained below. They are listed from being used in shallow to deeper
water.
• Jacket:
A jacket, being bottom founded, is used in shallow water up to 300 m.
Advantages are that jackets: can support large deck loads, can be constructed in sections and are able to support
a large number of wells. Disadvantages are there are high initial and maintenance costs and a jacket is not
reusable.
A project specific advantage is that a fabrication contractor can easily be found in the Qatar area.
• Gravity Base Structure (GBS):
GBSs are constructed of steel reinforced concrete, often with tanks or cells which can be used to control the
buoyancy of the finished GBS. When completed, GBSs are towed to their intended location and sunk.
A project specific disadvantage is that GBSs need a high water depth for construction which is not available at the
Qatar coast. A advantage is that there is enough concrete in the area to be able to construct this type of structure.
• Compliant Tower:
As well as a jacket, a tower is bottom founded but is used in deeper water, up to 900 meter. Because the water
depth at concession 2 is only 250 meters, using a compliant tower may not be possible.
• FPSO:
An FPSO has different abilities than bottom founded structures. They are maneuverable and can be new built or
made of a converted oil tanker, but they can also be leased. Advantages of FPSOs are that there is an earlier cash
flow because they are faster to develop than fixed platforms and they retain their value because they can be
relocated to other fields.
As FPSOs have a lot of deck space this can be a solution if the oil or gas from the field needs to be processed and
separated offshore. FPSOs can be used for storage of oil, and therefore it can be used in remote area so that no
pipeline is needed. A project specific disadvantage is that much more gas than condensates are produced which
makes storage of oil not so very important.
• TLP:
A Tension Leg Platform is used in a water depth of up to 1500 meters. By having a taut mooring system, the
heave is minimized and therefore it can make use of dry trees, making IMR operations easier. TLPs are relatively
expensive, especially in shallower water.
• Semi submersible:
Semisubmersibles are also floating structures and can be used in very deep waters and they can be equipped
with a drilling derrick. Compared to other floating structures, semisubmersibles have higher transit speeds and
large deck areas. They are also very stable, but not as stable as spars and TLPs. And because they don’t need to
weathervane like FPSOs, they can support a large number of flexible risers.
Disadvantages of semisubmersibles are the high initial and operational costs and the deck load being limited. The
motions, whilst considerably smaller than those of a ship‐shaped structure, are too large to permit rigid risers.
As well as for an FPSO and a TLP, a semisubmersible has the advantage of not being bottom founded. This
eliminates the problem of have to deal with weak soil conditions such as sinkholes.
• Subsea production equipment:
Subsea equipment, being the most expensive option, can be used up to 2700 meters water depth. The
equipment however depends strongly on the water depth due to the surrounding pressure. Subsea equipment is
quite advanced nowadays making it possible to even process the gas or oil on the sea bottom. The biggest
advantage of using only subsea equipment is the fact that during operation no people are needed offshore.
• A spar, SEVAN FPSO and a jack‐up structure are also options but are not considered too seriously. A spar in a field
with a water depth of only 250 meters is unlikely to be economically feasible. A jack‐up is usually used for drilling
or for the production of smaller fields for a shorter period of time and in shallower water. As a SEVAN is mostly
used for oil storage, and only a limited amount of condensate is produced, a SEVAN is not likely to be used for the
development of this concession.
66

Process/topside
• Onshore:
The biggest advantage of onshore processing that there is lot of space and therefore it is a lot cheaper than
offshore. A disadvantage of onshore treatment is that toxic gas could corrode the pipelines, therefore making the
pipelines more expensive due to coating, inserting inhibitors offshore, etc.
• Offshore:
The advantage of offshore processing is that toxic components can be taken out of the gas before transporting it
to shore. By making use of offshore phase separation, the destination of gas and condensate can differ. The
condensates can, for example, be transported to another platform in the neighborhood. This can be turned into
an advantage. The biggest disadvantage of offshore processing is the cost and safety of the personnel. By taking
toxic components out of the gas, corrosion of the pipelines can be reduced.
• Subsea:
Risks of hazards are reduced to a minimum because a collision with a ship is practically impossible and also the
chance of human casualties is very small. However, subsea processing is expensive because all the treatment is
being done on the bottom of the Gulf.

Subsea equipment
• Clustered manifold:
When using manifolds, all wells are arranged around a manifold and connected to that manifold using jumpers.
The manifold regulates the flow of all wells using chokes and valves.
Advantages of this clustered manifold arrangement are that the number and location of wells is flexible and
appraisal wells can be tied in. Also the access and IMR opportunity are good.
Disadvantages are that the wells are not located closely together and not very well protected against dropped
objects.
• Template:
Templates control, just as with clustered manifolds, the flow of all the wells. But the difference with a clustered
manifold is that all wells are located inside the template. In this way the wells are very well protected and close
together.
Disadvantages of templates are the complexity due to number of components and contractor interfaces, the
restricted access to the central manifold and tree faces and a heavy lift vessel being required for both the
installation and decommissioning.
• Individual:
All wells are individually connected to the structure at the waterline. This requires a riser per well which can
result in very much risers being connected to the structure. Also will it be very expensive to process and regulate
the flow subsea because this means all wells will need chokes, valves and control modules with an umbilical per
well.
• None:
All wells are connected to the structure without subsea trees and processing. This option is only available for
fixed structures, TLPs and spars because all other structures have too much heave motions.
A disadvantage of no subsea control is that if something goes wrong, it goes wrong at the topside which can harm
people.

67

Drilling
• Vertical drilling:
It is the cheapest option as no expensive directional drilling heads are needed. A serious disadvantage of vertical
drilling is the limited length of reservoir that is reached per well, which will make a lot of wells necessary. A lot of
wells means very big templates/manifolds or a lot of risers.
• Deviated drilling
Deviated drilling is drilling under an angle with the vertical.
This method can be applied to increase the production of one well. A well at an angle will produce more as it has
more length in the reservoir than with vertical drilling. For a large field, multiple drilling centers are needed in
order to extract as much gas as possible.
• Horizontal drilling
Horizontal drilling had the disadvantage that the field depth cannot be too small. Since the maximum deviation
angle is approximately 4 degrees per 100 feet, the minimum required depth will be:
90 ⋅ 100 = 2250 ft.
4
For concession 2, the reservoir depth is a lot deeper than 2250 ft so horizontal drilling is certainly an option.
Horizontal drilling has the advantage that from one drilling centre a much wider area, than using only vertical
wells, can be reached.

Gas transportation
• Single phase flow:
An advantage of single phase flow is that pressure, temperature, the effect of inhibitors and such, in single phase
flow are better controllable. Also by choosing for single phase flow the gas and the condensate could have
different destinations. However, by using single phase flow, an offshore separation plant is needed, and possibly
also two separate pipelines.
• Multiphase flow:
Only one pipeline is needed, which means less separation equipment is necessary offshore. However the
pressure drop is substantially greater than with single phase flow, meaning that the pump capacity will need to
be higher than for single phase flow.
68

Appendix III
Calculation Production per Day and per Well
Concession 2
Low Mid High BEST
Recoverable gas [Tscf] 6.27 9.88 20.63 12.31
Recoverable condensates [MMbbls] 501.93 790.47 1,650.20 984.80
Production per day during peak production years
Low Mid High BEST
GIIP [MMscf] 773.52 1,218.19 2,543.12 1,517.67
CIIP [bbls] 61,881.38 97,455.53 203,449.24 121,413.40
Total production per day [MMscf/day] 1,500.00
Scenario 1 Kind of wells Total Production Number of wells Production per well

Horizontal 1,415.00 9.826 144.00
1 Vertical 85.00 1 85

Vertical 1,500.00 17 88.24

Deviated 1,500.00 13 120.00
Type of well Length Production

Vertical well 1400.0 85.0 according to nearby well log
Horizontal well 5000.0 144.5 1.7 * production vertical well
Deviated well (30°) 1616.6 120.0 according to nearby well log
69

Appendix IV
Calculation of Dimensions of and Loads on Jacket

Dimensions
Buckling analysis for Jacket Leg
Topside weight [mt] 9000
Jacket weight [mt] 1.40E+04
Height structure [m] 258.78
Number of legs [‐] 4
Diameter legs [m] 3
D/t legs [‐] 40
E steel [Pa] 2.10E+11
Density steel [kg/m3] 7.85E+03
K [‐] 0.5
Wall thickness [m] 0.075

r out [m] 1.5
r in [m] 1.425
I [m4] 7.38E‐01
Critical Force [N] 9.13E+07
Force Topside [N] 8.83E+07

Max Force Jacket [N] 4.58E+07
Max Force [N] 1.34E+08
Max Force on each leg [N] 3.35E+07
Calculations for weight of Jacket
Steel For 1 Leg [m3] 1.78E+02
Steel For 1 Leg [kg] 1.40E+06
Steel 4 Legs [mt] 5.60E+03
Total Steel Jacket [mt] 1.40E+04

Wind
Rho [kg/m3] 1.293
Wind speed [m/s] 26.2
Area [m2] 1000
Drag coefficient [‐] 1.5
Fd [N] 665675.2
Fd [kN] 665.7
70

Waves
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Total
Diameter of the (circular) member at point (x,y,z) D [m] 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
Significant Wave Height Hs [m] 5.80 5.80 5.80 5.80 5.80
Zero‐crossing wave period Tz [s] 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00
2π / T ω [rad/s] 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
1.56 * T^2 λ 188.76 188.76 188.76 188.76 188.76

2π / λ k [rad/s] 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Location z [m] 0.00 ‐50.00 ‐100.00 ‐150.00 ‐200.00

water depth h [m] 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
mass density of water rho [kg/m3] 1025.00 1025.00 1025.00 1025.00 1025.00
Horizontal velocity component ω * H/2 * e^kz u(t) [m/s] 1.66 0.31 0.06 0.01 0.00

Horizontal acceleration component ω * u(t) u'(t) [m/s2] 0.95 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.00
Keulegan Carpenter Number u(t) * T / D KC 1.21 0.23 0.04 0.01 0.00

Keulegan Carpenter Number π * H/D KC [‐] 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21
Roughness 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000
Inertia coefficient Cm [‐] 1.90 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Drag coefficient Cd [‐] 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
inertial force per unit length at point (x,y,z) π/4 * rho * Cm * D^2 * u'(t) dFi [N/m] 325628.37 64891.61 12285.09 2325.78 440.31

drag force per unit length at point (x,y,z) 1/2 * rho * Cd * D * u(t)|u(t)| dFd [N/m] 25312.60 907.23 32.52 1.17 0.04
Force per unit length of cylinder (N/m) dFi + dFd dFmax [N/m] 350940.97 65798.83 12317.61 2326.94 440.35
dFmax * h Fmax [kN] 17547.05 3289.94 615.88 116.35 22.02 21591.24

Block 1
50 m
Block 2
50 m
Block 3
50 m
Block 4
50 m
Block 5
50 m

Current
Diameter of the (circular) member at point (x,y,z) D [m] 15.00
Significant Wave Height Hs [m] 5.80
water depth h [m] 250.00
mass density of water rho [kg/m3] 1025.00
Total velocity vector U [m/s] 1.15
Cone angle between U and cylinder axis k rad 1.47
Keulegan Carpenter Number π * H/D KC [‐] 1.21

Roughness 1/1000
Drag coefficient Cd [‐] 1.20
Current force per unit length at point (x,y,z) 1/2 * rho * Cd * D * U^2*sin2(k) dFc [N/m] 12076.53

Fc [kN] 3019.13
71
OE4652 exercise EXAMPLE input orange g = 9.81 m/s2
Appendix V
try/error blue sg water 1.025 t/m3

INPUTS result black
Floaters Columns Deck

number 2 number 6 area 6300 m2 min deck area 4000
length 110 m height 20 m length 90 m ok
width 16 m diameter 0m width 70.00 m
depth 8m length 10 m depth 7 m
width 10 m airgap 12 m column draft 8
spec grav 2 kN/m3 spec grav 2 kN/m3 min airgap 12 m max draft 16
spacing 62 m spec grav 1.5 kN/m3
advies sp. 60.00 m Behaviour
Components unit mass/weightz cog ref for cog Tn heave 18 s
Calculation Semisubmersible
drlling sys mt 0 6 upper deck Tc heave s

variable load mt 12000 4 upper deck Ca, added m 1
anchor pull kN 2000 0 floater deck GM min 0.5 m
transition GM min 0.1 m
Weights weight Buoyancy operational Stability at operational draft

kiloNewtons z COG moment tonnes weight z COB moment draft 16 m4 spacing plus eigen
floaters 56320 4 225280 5741 283155.84 4 1132623.4 WL inertia 581600 m4 transverse is 576600 plus 5000
Zubara Gas Field Development Plan, Concession 2
columns 24000 18 432000 2446 48265.2 12 579182.4 MB 17.645631

deck 66150 31.5 2083725 6743 0 BK 5.17
drilling sys 0 41 0 0 0 KG 22.27
variable load 117720 39 4591080 12000 0 GM 0.541 excl free surface
anchor pull 2000 8 16000 204 0 WL inertia 965000 m4 longitudinal, based on not extending beyond deck and 4 columns
ballast 65231 0.5 32615.52 6649 0 MB 29.277913
Total 331421 22.27 7380700.52 33784 331421.04 5.17 1711805.8 BK 5.17
Light disp 148470 volume 32960 m3 GM 12.17 excl free surface
mass 33784 tonnes Vol floaters 28160
Checks : ballast volume less than floater volume ok Awl 600 m2 28160
transverse GM over 0.5 m ok Theave 21.03 sec w0 0.2988144
longitudinal GM over 0.5 m ok Tc FK 13.13 sec wc 0.4787049 kc 0.0233597
transition GM over 0.1 m ok Tc vSanten 19.85 sec wc 0.3166045 kc 0.010218 0.0119749 0.0103728 0.0118337 0.0105015 0.0117163
draft 16 m Tc gemengd 19.01 sec wc 0.3305587 exp() 1.0417187 1.0490652 1.0423639 1.048473 1.0429007
0.0111738 0.0111032 0.0111676 0.0111089
Loading at transition Stability at transition 0.0111385 0.0111354 0.0111383
Disp 283155.84 4.0 1132623.36 Volume 28160 m3
floaters 56320 4 225280 WL inertia 581600 m4
columns 24000 18.0 432000 MB 20.653409
deck 66150 31.5 2083725 BK 4.00
drilling sys 0 41.0 0 KG 9.92
GM 14.73
variable load 0 39.0 0
anchor pull 0 8.0 0
ballast 136686 0.5 68342.92 13933.317
72
May 2009


Appendix VI.A
HAZID Scenario 1
Hazard Identification for Zubara Gas Field, Scenario 1
RISK REDUCING POTENTIAL RISK
ID AREA/SUBJECT HAZARD POTENTIAL CAUSES FOLLOW UP/ACTION COMMENTS
MEASURES CONSEQUENCES CLASSIFICATION
A.1 A.process plant/deck Explosion Ignition of gas leak Ignition source control, electrical Explosion load inside process Design for explosion scenarios. Ensure that there will be 3
equipment in Plant plant. External explosion load no activities in the
on LQ. process plant that causes
sparkes during normal
operation.
A.2 A.process plant/deck Fire Ignition of gas leak Fire detection. Deluge system Exposure of compact flange Consider shut down and 3
which may rupture. blowdown philosophy of process
area.
A.3 A.process plant/deck Dropped objects Failure during lifting Procedure for maintanace of This should be considered in 2

operations when doing process plant and lifting material handleing procedures
maintenance activities
A.4 A.process plant/deck Crane operation above movement of crane protecting structure and lift possibility to damage the pipe protecting structure and lift 2

operation restrictions and vessels. Gas leak. operation restrictions to be
evaluated.
A.5 A.process plant/deck Flare Failure Fire in area close to flare flare boom may tip over Evalute the passive fire 3

boom protection of lower part of flare
A.6 A.process plant/deck Condensate leak from valves, flanges,etc reduce the number of valvec 3

and flanges/ control the flange
and valves during operation
continiousely
A.7 A.process plant/deck fire and explosion fire and explosion in make distance between different This may cause failure of Extremely important to keep 3

different process modules modules/ keep distance process plant process module away of LQ.
between deck and process
modules elavation
A.8 A.process plant/deck gas leak gas leak from process flammable gas clouds may Fire and explosion scenarios 3

modules,valves,flanges occure. If ignited, fire and have to be evaluated.
explosion will occure.
A.9 A.process plant/deck loss of electrical power and fire fire resistance and redundant 2

signal cables are planned to be used.
B.1 B.Power Generation gas leak flanges,valves pipe in pipe solution provided Confirmed gas in two separate engine 2

for fuel gas inside hull. Inert gas HVAC/combusion air intake must room
with gas detection installed in lead to shut down.
room between two pipes.
B.2 B.Power Generation Gas leak from fuel Gas detection system gas may ignite.will result in a 2

gas supply in open air small local fire
B.2 B.Power Generation fire in the generator fire in electrical total flooding fire extinguisher Define emergency power Important that the power 1

equipment system consumers, and make sure that source is available for the
there are sufficient power supply fire water pumps.
during emergency situations.
C.1 C.Drilling Unit Shallow water flow Sands SWF sands can flow out of Seismic data Analysis, cause severe drilling problems Seismic data Analysis, when pore pressure in 2

(SWF) the formation, into the unconsolidated sands is
borehole high enough to suspend
the grains so that rock
strength diminishes.
C.2 C.Drilling Unit Fault and fractures Techtonic structure Geology and seismic study cause severe drilling problems Drilling through these hazards 2

should be avoided if possible, or
if relocation is not an option,
appropriate mitigating measures
taken.
73

D.1 D.Helideck helicopter crash Unfavorable location of Injuries,fatalities, damage to location of helideck must fulfill all 3
helideck. Difficult weather topside and Jacket regulations for helideck.
conditions
E.1 E.Reservoir/well collapse of well wall Mud composition/pressure, Control and adjust the mud loss of the well, sever problem Use deviated drilling 2

shallow water flow compsition for drilling
E.2 E.Reservoir/well Sink hole geology structures geology study loss of the well, sever problem Change the drilling location or 2

for drilling use deviated drilling to avoid the
hazrdous area
E.3 E.Reservoir/well Change in gas composition reservoir property measerment the gas Different processing/ it may Adjust the process procedure 2

composition continuously make problem for high H2S according to gas composition,
content/ Different production define suitable scenarios based
rate for gas and condensate on different gas composition
E.4 E.Reservoir/well Gas migration reservoir property measerment the reservoir decrease the recovery factor, Adjust the production rate 2

property, Control the migration problems for drilling
during drilling activities
F.1 F.Risers/pipeline Riser leak/rupture risers failure/ Inspection, suitable material gas leakage , air /water Inspection the risers 2

corrosion/fatigue selection, gas detection pollution, fire/ explosion
F.2 F.Risers/pipeline flow assuranse gas composition Measermentgas composition, Blocked the risers, pipeline Start up/ shut down procedures, 2

insulation, pigging chemical inhibitor injection
F.3 F.Risers/pipeline Corrosion due to H2S H2S in gas composition Measerment H2S content, Use Corrosion in pipeline Use suitable material for pipeline, 1

suitable material for pipeline, inhibitor injection, offshore
inhibitor injection desulfurization
G.1 G.GeoHazard Active Faulting Underground activities Geology and seismic study Problem for pipeline, Drilling Change the drilling location, and 3

string,foundation pile, Jacket pipeline path/ Calculate the
due to earthquake probability of earthquake
G.2 G.GeoHazard landslide Dredging, earthquake Field investigation Loss of pipeline, Jackect failure Change the location of 2

jacket,Change the pipeline path
G.3 G.GeoHazard coral damage Environment Field investigation Problem for pipeline and risers Change the pipeline path 1
H.1 H.Other Hazards Politic issues political issues Be aware about politic issues, May cancel the project Negotiation with Qatar 4

good relation with government government and other countries
which have influence on project
H.2 H.Other Hazards terrorist attack political issues Be aware about politic issues, may lead to severe Negotiation with Qatar 3

good relation with government consequence government , local group and
international organizations
H.3 H.Other Hazards Fatigue Frequent load on structure Condider fatigue problem in structural Failure Inspection to prevent fatigue 1

e.g. waves design, Inspection of structure problem
especially connection
H.4 H.Other Hazards structural failur/equipment Sever environment Define suitable specifications for large load on deck, damage to Check different design scenarion. 2

damage materials/ equipments in design process module and Select proper material/
documents piping/equipment on deck equipments
74

Appendix VI.B
HAZID Scenario 2

A.process plant/deck Explosion Ignition of gas leak Ignition source control, electrical Explosion load inside process Design for explosion scenarios. Ensure that there will be 3
equipment in Plant plant. External explosion load no activities in the
on LQ. process plant that causes
sparkes during normal
A.1 operation.
A.process plant/deck Fire Ignition of gas leak Fire detection. Deluge system Exposure of compact flange Consider shut down and 3
which may rupture. blowdown philosophy of process
area.
A.2
A.process plant/deck Dropped objects Failure during lifting Procedure for maintanace of This should be considered in 2
operations when doing process plant and lifting material handleing procedures
maintenance activities
A.3
A.process plant/deck Crane operation above movement of crane protecting structure and lift possibility to damage the pipe protecting structure and lift 2
operation restrictions and vessels. Gas leak. operation restrictions to be
evaluated.
A.4
A.process plant/deck Flare Failure Fire in area close to flare flare boom may tip over Evalute the passive fire 3
boom protection of lower part of flare
A.5
A.process plant/deck Condensate leak from valves, flanges,etc reduce the number of valvec 3
and flanges/ control the flange
and valves during operation
continiousely
A.6
A.process plant/deck fire and explosion fire and explosion in make distance between This may cause failure of Extremely important to keep 3
different process modules different modules/ keep process plant process module away of LQ.
distance between deck and
process modules elavation
A.7
A.process plant/deck gas leak gas leak from process flammable gas clouds may Fire and explosion scenarios 3
modules,valves,flanges occure. If ignited, fire and have to be evaluated.
explosion will occure.
A.8
A.process plant/deck loss of electrical power and fire fire resistance and redundant 2
signal cables are planned to be used.
A.9
B.Power Generation gas leak flanges,valves pipe in pipe solution provided Confirmed gas in two separate engine 2
for fuel gas inside hull. Inert gas HVAC/combusion air intake must room
with gas detection installed in lead to shut down.
room between two pipes.
B.1
B.Power Generation Gas leak from fuel Gas detection system gas may ignite.will result in a 2
gas supply in open air small local fire
B.2
B.Power Generation fire in the generator fire in electrical total flooding fire extinguisher Define emergency power Important that the power 1
equipment system consumers, and make sure that source is available for the
there are sufficient power supply fire water pumps.
during emergency situations.
B.2
C.Drilling Unit Shallow water flow Sands SWF sands can flow out of Seismic data Analysis, cause severe drilling problems Seismic data Analysis, when pore pressure in 2
C.1
C.Drilling Unit Fault and fractures Techtonic structure Geology and seismic study cause severe drilling problems Drilling through these hazards 2
C.2 taken.
D.LQ/Helideck helicopter crash Unfavorable location of Injuries,fatalities, damage to location of helideck must fulfill all 3
helideck. Difficult weather topside and Jacket regulations for helideck.
conditions
D.1
D.LQ/Helideck Fire and explosion from other for instance, fire and fire wall and blast wall towards exposure of sides of LQ. exposing windows in control identify the relevant 3
part of the installation explosion in the process process plant and side wall room facing turret. scenarios that LQ shall
plant or power generation withstand.
unit
D.2
D.LQ/Helideck fire and explosion insufficient temporary refuge Define the design requirements 3
of temporary safe refuge.
D.3
D.LQ/Helideck Fire inside LQ several reasons e.g. injuries and fatalities Use non‐combustible materials 2
smoking, electrical problem as far as possible.
D.4
E.Escape/Evacuation blocked escape routes smoke/radiation from fires alternative escape routes. personnel entrapped,injuries Make sure there is at least one 2
Protected escape routes. and fatalities. available escape route for all
relevant scenarios.
E.1
E.Escape/Evacuation blocked longitudinal escape smoke/radiation from fires alternative escape routes. personnel entrapped,injuries Make sure there is good 2
routes Protected escape routes. and fatalities. transverse escape routes
between the longitudinal escape
routes
E.2
75

F.Reservoir/well collapse of well wall Mud composition/pressure, Control and adjust the mud loss of the well, sever problem Use deviated drilling 2
F.1
F.Reservoir/well Sink hole geology structures geology study loss of the well, sever problem Change the drilling location or 2
hazrdous area
F.2
F.Reservoir/well Change in gas composition reservoir property measerment the gas Different processing/ it may Adjust the process procedure 2
F.3
F.Reservoir/well Gas migration reservoir property measerment the reservoir decrease the recovery factor, Adjust the production rate 2
F.4
G.Risers/pipeline Riser leak/rupture risers failure/ Inspection, suitable material gas leakage , air /water Inspection the risers 2
G.1
G.Risers/pipeline flow assuranse gas composition Measermentgas composition, Blocked the risers, pipeline Start up/ shut down procedures, 2
G.2
G.Risers/pipeline Corrosion due to H2S H2S in gas composition Measerment H2S content, Use Corrosion in pipeline Use suitable material for pipeline, 1
G.3
H.GeoHazard Active Faulting Underground activities Geology and seismic study Problem for pipeline, Drilling Change the drilling location, and 3
H.1
H.GeoHazard landslide Dredging, earthquake Field investigation Loss of pipeline Change the pipeline path 2
H.2
H.GeoHazard coral Environment Field investigation Problem for pipeline and Change the pipeline path 1
risers
H.3
I. Mooring Loss of Mooring line Sever weather condition, measurment the movement of Movement of the semi, risers Redundancy in mooring lines, 1
earthquake semi failure define a scenario for loss of
mooring line in design
I.1
I. Mooring Loss of anchors landslide control the mooring line force loss of connection of mooring redundancy in mooring lines, 1
line define a scenario for loss of
mooring line in design, install the
new anchor
I.2
I. Mooring Fatigue in chain close to fatigue Inspection loss the mooring line Use suitable method to 1
seabed installation mooring line i.e. S
wave, inspection and pull up the
mooring line a few meter every 4‐
I.3 5 years
J. Semi‐submersible ship collision supply ship, ballast tanks as buffer damage of semi, instability Deside what kind of collision the fulfill the collision loads. 1
hull hull can resist.
J.1
J. Semi‐submersible Fatigue in structural Frequent load on structure inspection structural instability Design based on fatigue, use 1
hull connection e.g. waves suitable material for hazardoud
part of structure
J.2
K. Subsea equipments Dropped objects Supply ship, During work procedure for maintanace / Loss of subsea equipments subsea equipment location and 2
over / maintenance unloading the equipments from arrangement, Cover equipments
supply ship with shelter structure
K.1
K. Subsea equipments hazard By fishery / pearl fishery / pearl people protecting the area above damage on subsea protecting the area above subsea 2
industry and people subsea equipments equipments systems
K.2
L. Other Hazards Politic issues political issues Be aware about politic issues, May cancel the project Negotiation with Qatar 4
L.1
L. Other Hazards terrorist attack political issues Be aware about politic issues, may lead to severe Negotiation with Qatar 3
L.2
L. Other Hazards structural failur/equipment Sever environment Define suitable specifications for large load on deck, damage to Check different design scenarion. 2
L.3
76

Appendix VI.C
HAZID Scenario 3
A. Drilling Shallow water flow Sands SWF sands can flow out of Seismic data Analysis, cause severe drilling problems Seismic data Analysis, when pore pressure in 2
A.1
A. Drilling Fault and fractures Techtonic structure Geology and seismic study cause severe drilling problems Drilling through these hazards 2
A.2 taken.
B. Reservoir/well collapse of well wall Mud composition/pressure, Control and adjust the mud loss of the well, sever problem Use deviated drilling 2
B.1
B. Reservoir/well Sink hole geology structures geology study loss of the well, sever problem Change the drilling location or 2
hazrdous area
B.2
B. Reservoir/well Change in gas composition reservoir property measerment the gas Different processing/ it may Adjust the process procedure 2
B.3
B. Reservoir/well Gas migration reservoir property measerment the reservoir decrease the recovery factor, Adjust the production rate 2
B.4
C. Risers/pipeline Riser leak/rupture risers failure/ Inspection, suitable material gas leakage , air /water Inspection the risers 2
C.1
C. Risers/pipeline flow assuranse gas composition Measermentgas composition, Blocked the risers, pipeline Start up/ shut down procedures, 2
C.2
C. Risers/pipeline Corrosion due to H2S H2S in gas composition Measerment H2S content, Use Corrosion in pipeline Use suitable material for pipeline, 1
C.3
D.GeoHazard Active Faulting Underground activities Geology and seismic study Problem for pipeline, Drilling Change the drilling location, and 3
D.1
D.GeoHazard landslide Dredging, earthquake Field investigation Loss of pipeline and subsea Change the pipeline path 2
equipments
D.2
D.GeoHazard coral Environment Field investigation Problem for pipeline and Change the pipeline path 1
risers
D.3
E. Subsea equipments Dropped objects Supply ship, During work procedure for maintanace / Loss of subsea equipments subsea equipment location and 1
over / maintenance unloading the equipments from arrangement, Cover equipments
supply ship with shelter structure
E.1
E. Subsea equipments hazard By fishery / pearl fishery / pearl people protecting the area above damage on subsea protecting the area above subsea 1
industry and people subsea equipments equipments systems
E.2
E. Subsea equipments Loss of power / data, umbilical fishery / pearl people protecting the area above stop the production protecting the area above subsea 1
subsea equipments systems
E.3
F. Other Hazards Politic issues political issues Be aware about politic issues, May cancel the project Negotiation with Qatar 4
F.1
F. Other Hazards terrorist attack political issues Be aware about politic issues, may lead to severe Negotiation with Qatar 3
F.2
F. Other Hazards structural failur/equipment Sever environment Define suitable specifications for large load on deck, damage to Check different design scenarion. 2
F.3
77

Appendix VII
Calculation Production Deviated Wells Final Scenario
Deviated wells
Production area 43560000 ft2 based on: 1000 acres
Production radius 3724 ft
Production diameter = Dwell 7447 ft
30°
Manifold 8000 ft
Distance well ‐ manifold at seabed 160 ft based on maximum jumper length Well
Distance well ‐ manifold TVDSS = D 4779 ft D = tan(30°) ⋅ 8000 + 160 depth
Perimeter 30026 ft P = 2 ⋅π ⋅ R
Length per well 5004 ft Lwell = P / 6
Producing length per well 5255 ft Lp ,well = 1.05 ⋅ Lwell
Efficiency per well 0.71 η = Dwell / Lwell

Production per well 84.7 MMscf/day Q = η ⋅ Qdeviated = 0.65 ⋅ 120
4619 ft
Because of overlap 5 % extra
production per well
78

scenario 1 2 3
amount of gas 1.23E+13 1.23E+13 1.23E+13 cf

35.314667 35.314667 35.314667 cf/m3
Appendix VIII
gas 3.48297E+11 3.48297E+11 3.483E+11 m3

H2S 2 3 4 %
Amount of h2s 6965944207 10448916310 1.3932E+10 m3
H2S calculations
density H2S 1.393 1.393 1.393 kg/m3

H2S 9703560280 14555340420 1.9407E+10 kg
1/3 van H2S 3234520093 4851780140 6469040187 kg

2/3 van H2S 6469040187 9703560280 1.2938E+10 kg
H2S 34 g/mol
O2 32 g/mol 8 H2S + 12 O2 _> 8 SO2 + 8 H2O
SO2 64 g/mol
H2O 18 g/mol 16 H2S + 8 SO2 _> 3 S8 + 16 H2O
S8 256 g/mol
first reaction ratio SO2/H2S 1.882352941

second reaction ratio S8/SO2 1.5
First reaction SO2 6088508411 9132762616 12177016822 kg

second reaction S8 9132762616 1.3699E+10 18265525233 kg
9132762.616 13699143.9 18265525.23 tons
Zubara Gas Field Development Plan, Concession 2
2% 3% 4%
Amount of ton S8/12.3TCF 300 $ 2,739,828,784.92 $ 4,109,743,177.38 $ 5,479,657,569.84 $
22830000 ton 400 $ 3,653,105,046.56 $ 5,479,657,569.84 $ 7,306,210,093.12 $
12300000 MMscf 500 $ 4,566,381,308.20 $ 6,849,571,962.30 $ 9,132,762,616.40 $
79
May 2009


Appendix IX
Pipeline calculations
Part A: Gas pipeline calculation, single phase
Pressure drop
Value Unit
Pout #NUM! Mpa
Pin 12.500Mpa
L 63000.000m
C 5.70E-10Mpa/K
f 0.016-
z 0.530-
Tabs 308.955K
rho 70.418kg/m^3
Q 540.773m^3/s
d 1.067m
Pipeline
Value Unit
Area 0.894m2
Diameter 42.000inch
Conversion factor inch to m 0.025m/inch
Production 1650.000MMscf/d
Conversion seconds per day 86400.000second/day
Cubic feet per second 19097.222ft^3/second
Conversion factor ft^3 to m^3 0.028m3/ft^3
Cubic meters per second, standard 540.773m^3/second
Compressed to 87 bar in pipeline 13.946m^3/second
Flow speed 15.602m/s
P, V, T in process plant and in pipeline

Value Unit
P1 1.000bar
P2 125.000bar
V1 1.000m3
V2 0.026m3
R 8.314J/mol K
T1 95.841K
T2 308.955K
k 1.320-
Density of air
Value Unit
Temperature 15.000Degrees Celsius
Density of air at 15 degrees 1.225kg/m3
81% of value of air 0.992kg/m3
80

Rho
Gas % density Fraction Unit
Methane 0.77 6.67E-04 5.14E-04g/cm3
Ethane 0.065 1.25E-03 8.15E-05g/cm3
Propane 0.03 1.88E-03 5.64E-05g/cm3
CO2 0.075 1.84E-03 1.38E-04g/cm3
Other 0.06 1.41E-03 8.46E-05g/cm3
Average 1.75E-04g/cm3
Average 1.75E-01kg/m3
Reynolds number to determine value of f

Value Unit
V 15.602m/s
kinematic visc. 1.44E-05m2/s
dynamic viscosity 1.43E-05Pa*s
D 1.067m
Re 1.17E+06
f 1.60E-02
new
Value Unit
Q, gas flow rate, measured at
standard condition 46722796.890m3/day
f, frction factor 0.02[-]
Pb, base pressure 100.00kPa
Tb, base temprature 288.000K
P1, upstream pressure 1250.000kPa
P2, downstream pressure 650.000kPa
G, gas gravity (air=1.0) 0.810[-]
Tf, average gas flowing temperature 303.000K
L, pipe length 63.000Km
Le, equivalent pipe length 65.97Km
Z, gas compressibility factor at
the flowing temperature 0.53[-]
D, pipe diameter 1901.76mm
D, pipe diameter 74.87inch
F, transmission factor 15.81[-]
H2, end point elevation 265.00m
H1, start point elevation 0.00m
S, elevation adjustment parameter 0.09[-]
Flow velocity 4.91m/s
Area of pipe 2.84m2
Wall thickness 3.24E+01 mm

Pressure 1.25E+07 Pa
Yield strength 2.06E+08 Pa
Outer diameter 1.07E+00 m
81

82

Part B: Condensate pipeline calculation, single phase

Pressure drop
Value Unit
Pi 3.142
Pressure in pipeline (input) 80.000bar
L 63000.000m
f 0.038-
rho 709.000kg/m3
Q 0.199m^3/s
d 0.406m
h 265.000m
Pressure drop (friction) 4895386Pa
Pressure drop (elevation) 1843152Pa
Pressure drop (total) 6738537Pa
Pressure drop (total) 67.385bar
Pout, output pressure 12.615

Pipeline
Value Unit
Area 0.130m2
Diameter 16.000inch
Conversion factor inch to m 0.025m/inch
Production 107923.000bbls/d
Conversion seconds per day 86400.000second/day
Production per second 1.249bbls/second
Conversion factor bbls to m^3 0.159m3/bbls
Cubic meters per second 0.1986m^3/second
Flow speed 1.53109m/s
Rho
Condensate Value Unit
Density of condensate 2.70lbs/gal
Convert 0.45kg/lb
5.95kg/gal
Convert 3.79gal/liter
1.57kg/liter
kg/m3
709kg/m3
83

Reynolds number to determine value of f

Value Unit
V 1.531m/s
kinematic visc. m2/s
dynamic viscosity 4.42E-05Pa*s
D 0.406m
Re 1.41E+04
relative roughness 7.38E-03
f 3.80E-02
Wall thickness
Value Unit
Pressure 8.00E+06Pa
Yield strength 2.06E+08Pa
Outer diameter 4.06E-01m
wall thickness 7.89E+00mm
wall thickness 1.00E+01mm
Pumping power
Value Unit
Q 0.20 m3/s
Difrencial pressure 6738.54 Kpa
pump eficiency 0.75
Pumping power 1784 KW
84

Part C: Multiphase pipeline calculation
Existing pipeline in Iran
Pressure drop calculation

Q 7.761m3/s
D 0.6096m
A 0.292m2
V 26.590m/s
g 9.810m/s2
L 8648.000m
Pressure drop calculation

Q 540.7731122 m3/s
D 1.0668 m
A 0.893831993 m2
V 605.0053213 m/s
g 9.81 m/s2
L 63000 m
Wall thickness 1.71E+01mm

Pressure 1.25E+07Pa
Yield strength 3.90E+08Pa
Outer diameter 1.07E+00m
85

Pressure drop Multi-phase flow
14000000
12000000
10000000
Pressure drop (bar)
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Diam eter (inch)
86

FDP-Zubara Gas Field

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FDP-Zubara Gas Field

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ZUBARA GAS FIELD

Name Function Responsibilities

Recoverable gas [Tscf] 6.27 12.31 20.63

Medium • Local • Pearl divers • GTL consumer

• Employees • Iran Government • LNG consumer

0 50 100 150 200

Combination1 7 7 4 6 6 6 4 4 2 2 48 240 2.4

Total Deck Elevation Above LAT [m] 8.78

Total Height Structure [m] 258.78

● Corrosion due to H2S ● Gas leakage from risers ● Fire in process plant ● Politic issues

● Change in gas composition ● Sink hole ● Structure Failure ● Blow out

● Deviation on Drilling ● Flare Failure ● Fault and Fractures ● Explosion in process plant

● Shallow water flow (SWF) ● Helicopter crash ● Landslide ● Terrorist Attack

Insignificant Minor Major Catastrophic

● Corrosion due to H2S ● Fire inside LQ ● Fire in process plant ● Politic issues

● Change in gas composition ● Sinkholes ● Fire and explosion around LQ ● Blow out

● Shallow water flow (SWF) ● Flare Failure ● Fault and Fractures ● Explosion in process plant

● Helicopter crash ● Landslide ● Blocked escape routes

Insignificant Minor Major Catastrophic

● Gas migration ● Coral damage ● Dropped object

● Corrosion due to H2S ● Collapse of well ● Fatigue ● Politic issues

● Shallow water flow (SWF) ● Fault and Fractures ● Active Faulting

Insignificant Minor Major Catastrophic

1000 barrel = $48 per barrel) has been applied to

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

weight factor combination 1 weight factor combination 2 weight factor combination 3

Gas pipeline Condensate pipeline

Area/Subject Hazard Potential Causes Risk Reduction Potential Follow up/Action

Process Explosion Ignition of gas leak Ignition source Explosion load Design for explosion scenarios.

● Deviation on Drilling ● Flare Failure ● Fault and Fractures ● Explosion in process

Insignificant Minor Major Catastrophic

• Russia‐Iran‐Qatar gas • IMR locally • Sub contractors contracts

• Gas price • Main contract • Project Management

Air Gap [m] 1.5

Jacket weight [mt] 1.40E+04

Wind load [kN] 6.66E+02

Topside 952.90 900.00

Structures 123.78 800.00

DRILLEX 1,190.00 700.00

Offshore 4,566.21 200.00

Onshore 454.38 100.00

Decommissioning 500.00 0.00

Post tax cash flow ($ MM) Cumulative cashflow 12% ($ MM)

important variable. If the gas is converted to GTL, Discount rate of 0% Discount rate of 12% Discount rate of 17% Discount rate of 42%

$/barrel. It is therefore very important to know

negative cash flow in a year could be in order Mid High Low

to estimate if this project can actually be 8000

financed. If a cash flow in one year is lower

cash flows in a low and mid scenario are

The conclusion can be made that the Years

maximum negative cash flow in any Figure 9.6: Highest investment costs

Low Mid High

Recoverable gas [Tscf] 6.27 12.31 20.63

GRV [ft3] 8.684E+11 8.857E+11 8.988E+11

GRV [rcf] 8.684E+11 8.857E+11 8.988E+11

GIIP [scf] 7.381E+12 1.162E+13 2.427E+13

GIIP [Tscf] 7.38 11.62 24.27

Scenario 1 Kind of wells Total Production Number of wells Production per well

Scenario 2 Kind of wells Total Production Number of wells Production per well

Scenario 3 Kind of wells Total Production Number of wells Production per well

Type of well Length Production

Wall thickness [m] 0.075

Force Topside [N] 8.83E+07

1.56 * T^2 λ 188.76 188.76 188.76 188.76 188.76