Early Stages of a Pre-salt Ultra-deepwaterField Development in Brazil: An IOC Approach

Gustavo Ponce López – Repsol Sinopec BrasilLuis Felipe Batalla Toro – Repsol Sinopec Brasil

• The “Problem”: Ultradeepwater Offshore Field, located in a pre‐salt block in Brazil discovered in 2012

• A methodology for the field development which presents adetailed and consistent process to select the best developmentscenarios must be developed in accordance with RepsolIntegrated Project Management (GIP) Process, consideringBrazilian peculiarities

• Multiple possibilities for field development must be generatedand screened aligned with the project drivers defined

• These presentation outlined the methodology that was used inorder to fulfill with the above requirements for screening thepotential field development options.

Problem Statement / Objectives

Development Concept Type Benchmarking

Early Development Phases considering Brazilian “Peculiarities”1. Non‐technical risks will be the biggest issue and will require time to built into the plan

2. Good understanding of Local Content requirements and local market overheated situation is criticalto define a successful project execution strategy from the very beginning .

• Will require early involvement of specialist with proven in‐country planning and constructionexpertise

3. Think about execution much earlier that normal (“We have a Project Assumption”)

• “Overreaction” on early engineering efforts with focus on the mitigation of the risks associatedto the critical items: technical (ultradeepwater frontier development issues) and executionrisks (local market environment)

4. Non‐technical aspects of gas export are critical (Existing onshore infrastructure, local distributionnetwork access, international market options ,etc).

• The sooner these aspects are addressed the more robust will be the development optionselected for the field

Development Options Framing and Screening Methodologies - RSB General Guidelines

Problem:Overwhelm

Problem:Blindness

Results:• Non‐decisions (“paralysis 

by analysis”)• OversightLack of Clarity 

Results:• Errors of the third kind:

right answer; wrong question

• Unforeseen threats• Lost opportunities

A Well Developed Frame

Results:• Smoother crossings between 

each decision point

Why Framing is Critical?

Phases of the Framing and Screening Process1. Establish Design Basis

• Reservoir characterization and model: fluid properties, well count and preliminarylocation, production profiles (early, mid and late life)

• Drilling, Completions and Interventions

• Site and regional conditions: Water depth, metocean conditions, seabed bathymetry, geohazards, local content requirements

2. Definition of building blocks 

• Selection of applicable blocks consistent with Design Basis requirements

3. Generation of developments scenarios by combination of building blocks

4. Screening and ranking of development scenarios based on Project Drivers

• Qualitative ranking method to clasify scenarios

• Score each scenario against each driver based on prestablished criteria

Workshop approach for phases 2, 3 and 4

Project Objectives and Drivers1. To meet or exceed company HSE goals;

2. To meet or exceed local content commitments; 

3. To maximize project NPV;

4. To optimize date of first oil production;

5. Reserves booking as early as possible; 

Development Options Visualization Study• To develop viable field development options consistent with Design Basis that satisfy a

list of project drivers and project objectives.

• The different screening and ranking steps must be performed in a logical order.

• Concept Selection Process:

Framing Workshop

• 59 Main Host options and 45 Secondary/Onshore Host options were generated.

• Some options were disregarded by logical.

• A initial number of 503 scenarios were obtained in the framing workshop.

Technical Screening

• Each option is scored based on thetechnical project drivers.

• Technical options selected basedon two criteria:

‐ Individual Technical Scoreabove threshold

‐ Representative TechnicalOptions

• Goal is to select representativedevelopment cases.

• A total of 46 scenarios were carried over for commercial screening.

Commercial Screening

• The scenarios were ranked against the commercial project drivers.

• The commercial drivers scores for each scenario were added to the technical scores,obtained previously, to yield a total score for each scenario.

• Some options that were not among the highest scoring cases were also selected to befurther technically studied.

• A total of 13 scenarios were selected to the next stage.

Risk Assessment• Following the technical studies of the 13 viable scenarios selected, a Risk Assessment

Workshop was performed.

• The team reviewed and scored 52 risks: 12 opportunities and 40 threats. There wereclassified in 4 categories as per GIP guidelines

• Response Plans were identified if risks were classified as Critical or Significant.

• A process was carried out to assign each uncertainty to one or more scenarios andcases. Some uncertainties were more applicable to a particular scenario or case relativeto the others.

• After the uncertainties were allocated to each case and scenario, a simple weightingwas used to separate them according to whether they apply or not to a scenario.

Technical Ranking• The score used in this step combined the earlier scores (technical and commercial

evaluations) and added a risk score based upon risk assesment scores prepared in theRisk Assessment phase.

• A final ranking was established combining the cost benefit (Revenue/CAPEX) scoreswith the previous steps scores results.

Conclusions

• Detailed and consistent process was used to select the best development scenarios.

• The methodology developed is systematical and can be applied for future works.

• The intention is not only select the highest scoring cases for further progression but to selectrepresentative cases for comparison.

• This development options screening process is semi‐quantitative and seeks more thetechnical side than the economical side, so further studies must be performed in addition tothis one for the choice of field development.

• The technical ranking results were consistent with the final economical evaluation.

• The methodology (although semi‐quantitative) is a very good reference to select adevelopment option even without doing a detailed economical analysis.

Thank you / Questions