OTC 20282

Moho Bilondo—Compact Development: Layout and Planning Management Pascal Carrier, Total

Copyright 2009, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 4–7 May 2009. This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract

Moho Bilondo - Compact development: layout and planning management During the concept studies of Moho Bilondo, it was decided to develop two reservoirs: BILONDO and the new reservoir MOBIM, discovered in September 2004. This development is considered as a compact field, due to small distance between the two reservoirs: only 4.6Km. A flexible pipeline concept for flow lines and risers was selected in order to develop this field, which was capable of accommodating the flow assurance, and insulation (cool down time) requirements of the fields. In addition, this concept reduced the development costs. The field layout is comprises two developments areas MOHO and BILONDO with a FPU (Floating Production Unit) moored in the middle of these two reservoirs. Each field is linked to the FPU by:

- 2 flexible production 8’’ (flow lines + risers) in loop - 1 GLU (Gas lift Umbilical) - 1 E/H Umbilical

Water injection on BILONDO field is provided via a rigid pipe 8’’ coming from NKF2 platform on NKOSSA field, and the water injection for MOBIM is perform by a flexible network from FPU desulfatation unit (flexible riser and flowline 8’’ from FPU to ITA, and flexible flowline 6’’ from the ITA to remote WI well).

2 OTC 20282

OTC 20282 3

Very early in the project it was identified that the bottleneck was having only 2 production centres (manifolds on MOBIM and BILONDO), especially in terms of interference during the installation phase. A major COMPANY constraint was the fact to utilise an anchored rig for the drilling campaign on these two manifolds – the constraint is the time it takes to relocate the rig if required (increased NPT). This constraint had to be considered as COMPANY had to deal with the installation barges from CONTRACTOR which performed the installation of flexible lines and umbilical from Manifolds to FPU. COMPANY issued, early in the CFT, an access planning for the two manifolds, with a notification system in the CONTRACT, which permitted anticipation of clashes between barges and rig, and to change the drilling sequence, in order to reduce the rig stand-by. In parallel, COMPANY have performed a comparison study between the price of WI well WI- MI1 close to the manifold MOBIM, and the price of this WI well remote at 3Km at North-West with additional WI flow line 6” and additional umbilical, resulting in a decision to relocate this well at 3Km. The relocation of the WI well gave an opportunity to the project team to relocate the rig to this remote position, during the time that UFL CONTRACTOR performed the installation of flowlines and umbilical initiated from manifolds. With the notification system, a clear anticipation was possible in order to move the rig from the manifold area to remote WI well MI1 position.

The two parties involved with the installation work were engaged using different contracting methods: The drilling was performed on a day rate basis, with the sequencing determined by the COMPANY and the risk managed by the COMPANY

4 OTC 20282

The UFL work was performed on a lump sum basis with the Contractor responsible for all aspects of the work and who had to cope with problems of overbooking of its vessels, internal management directives to deliver positive results and a free access to site providing it fulfilled the notification system in the contract. The initial rig planning on which the project installation sequencing was based was delayed during the project , due to a loss and replacement of the riser tower , However as we had a remote well, this allow us to re-sequence the works to mitigate this delay. A further problem arrived with the change of installation barge and change of UFL installation planning. CONTRACTOR announced in 2006, that the barge which was contractually toe used was no longer available, and would be replaced by a new barge “POLAR QUEEN” which was under modification and refitting.. Contractor announced that as this new barge had been booked on another project with a fixed delivery date, the installation window for the Moho Bilondo works would be will earlier than foreseen and outside of the contractual installation window. In fact, the modification of this barge took longer than expected, and the barge was available 6 month after the date expected impacting Moho Bilondo and delaying the installation works , but also it impacted the Kizomba project which CONTARCOR was performing for an another Oil Company CONTRACTOR had to deal with all these constraints and his responsibilities and there impact in the financial results of the projects. CONTRACTOR managed these problems by multiplication of installation campaigns on each project, in order to treat the priority for each field, and to avoid or minimise the application of liquidated damages. In the end, we have performed the complete installation of Moho Bilondo project in 11 installation campaigns, instead of the 3 phases planned in the contract. From 2006 COMPANY increased its interventionism in the planning management, in order to minimise the drilling rig stand by and in order to preserve the best drilling sequence. The first action was to take the opportunity of a planning “chemin de fer” (time line planning) performed by CONTRACTOR, and to develop it with all information added concerning the rig. This allowed us to see on a single planning, the timing (date), the location of intervention (with initiation point and abandon point for a pipe laying). This planning gave a good view of the potential clashes between spreads.

OTC 20282 5

The second action was to impose a weekly planning meeting between CONTRACTOR and COMPANY where discussions concerning all modification of barge and rig arrival, sequences, position, etc. were held in order to anticipate as much as

6 OTC 20282

possible the problems and clashes, and to anticipate the rig sequence modifications again, in order to limit rig stand by and moving. In order to have efficient meeting in term of technical aspect, and in order to avoid any pollution of technical discussion, CONTRACTOR and COMPANY established an open method functioning so as to allow the parties to juggle the priority of COMPANY – no delay to first oil and, and to allow the CONTRACTOR to manage correctly its Kizomba project. This was achieved by disconnecting completely the technical and commercial aspects of the planning, therefore efficient planning meetings were held permitting the limitation of installation barge and drilling rig standby. Separate commercial meetings were then held in order to resolve the impact incurred by the decision taken in planning meetings. We can consider that, on both aspects, Moho Bilondo was a success.

We have performed the installation in several campaigns with minimum impact on drilling rig and without impact on the first oil date, and,

CONTRACTOR have completed both installation of KIZOMBA and MOHO BILONDO with success and in due time.