MEIDP The Deepwater Gas Route toMEIDP The Deepwater Gas ...

MEIDP The Deepwater Gas Route toMEIDP The Deepwater Gas Route to IndiaIndia

1

IntroductionIntroduction

Who? SAGE– South Asia Gas Enterprise Pvt Ltd (SAGE),

– Joint venture between the Indian Siddhomal group and UK based deepwater technology company

– Considering building a deepwater, transnational, natural gas pipeline system from the Middle East to India

OTC 21259 – May 2011Ian Nash & Peter Roberts

2


Why? India needs gas– Reserves over 2,000 TCF in India trading countries

(including Qatar, Iran and Turkmenistan)

– The deepwater route provides a short secure distance between huge reserves and industrial heartland of India

– Route from Middle east is too short for LNG to be an economic transportation option


3


How? A pipeline across the Arabian Sea– Building on the extensive study Oman to India Pipeline in

th Mid 1990’the Mid 1990’s

– Sage concept studies have strengthened technical Vi bilitViability

– Major body of deepwater design and pipelay experience has been accumulated over the last decade


4

Indian Natural Gas SupplyIndian Natural Gas Supply

14000

Indian Natural Gas SupplyMMSCFD

3500

4000

10000

12000 3560

KG‐D6

2000

2500

3000

MSCFD

6000

8000

500

1000

1500

2000

MM

2000

4000 0

500

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Year

2007 2008 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Import Requirement 1096 1096 1096 2740 3288 3562 3288

Indian domestic Supply 3014 3014 7397 8219 8767 9041 9041

0

Year


5U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0484(2010)

SAGE MOU’s and AgreementsSAGE MOU s and Agreements

MOUs/Agreements to Co-operate with SAGE in developing MEIDP have been signed with:

• Saipem spa• Heerema Marine

• Indian Oil Corporation• Oman Ministry of Oil and

Contractors• TATA-CORUS steel

yGas

• GAIL• WELSPUN• FUGRO GeoConsulting Ltd.

• NIGEC• Peritus International Ltd.

• INTECSEA (UK) Ltd.• Det Norske Veritas

• Engineers India Ltd.


6

Gas Routes to IndiaGas Routes to India


77

Historical Route Options

O dOman-India 1995I I diIran-India 1997Iran IndiaIran-India (200NM) 2003003Iran-India (350NM) 2003MEIDP 2010OTC 21259 – May 2011Ian Nash & Peter Roberts

88

Difficulty of Deep Pipelay Projects

1991 Zeepipe IIB 40''

1992 Campos Bain 10''

1993 Transmed 26''

1993 Auger 12''

1994 Marlim 12''

1995 Troll Olienor 10''

1995 Popeye 6''

1995 Oman India 24''

Oman India Ahead of its Time

1996 Mars 8''

1996 Mensa 12''

1997 Europipe 2 42''

1998 Roncador 10''

1999 Allegheny 12''

2000 Agaba 30''

2000 Malampaya 16''

2000 Ursa 18''d

Installed

Under Construction

Under Design2000 Diana 18''

2000 Horn Mountain 12''

2001 Mica 8''

2001 Blue Stream 24''

2002 Canyon Express 12''

2004 Ceasar 24''

2004 Cleopatra 16''

2005 Cleopatra Lateral 16''

2005 Ceasar Lateral 24''

Year an

d Field g

Under Consideration

2005 Ceasar Lateral 24

2005 Proteus 24''

2006 Okeanos Lateral 20''

2006 Atlantis Lateral ‐ Ceasar 24''

2006 Atlantis Lateral ‐ Cleopatra 16''

2006 Independence Hub ‐ Atlas 8''

2009 Perdido 10''

2009 MedGaz 24''

2009 Cascade‐Chinook 14''MEIDP Th Ti h

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

2010 Block 31 ‐ PSVM 12''

2009 Galsi 24''

2009 Jack‐St.Malo 24''

2010 Southstream 32''

2010 MEIDP (SAGE) 24''

Water Depth (m)

The Time has come


9

Design BasisDesign BasisMECS OGCS GPRTMECS– Dehydration

400B

OGCSWater Monitoring400B

GPRTWater Monitoring90B– 400Barg

– Cooling400BargCooling

90BargHeating

GeneralGeneral– 1.1BSCFD– Sales QualitySales Quality

Natural Gas


1010

Pipeline route Profile MECS => OGCS => GPRT


1111

Pipeline route Profile MECS => GPRT


1212

2010 Activities Completed

Overall Project Management• Overall Project Management• Design Basis definition• Flow Assurance Studies• Flow Assurance Studies• Mechanical Design• Onshore Compression Station DefinitionOnshore Compression Station Definition• Offshore Compression Station Definition• Quantified Risk Assessment - OIP UpdateQuantified Risk Assessment OIP Update• Geohazard and Fault Crossing Assessment Phase 1• Metocean data Phase 1• GIS Data collection Phase 1• Assessment of the effects of moderate heat treatment


1313

2011 Activities Completed

Overall Project Management• Overall Project Management• Vessel & equipment capabilities review• Pipeline intervention review• Pipeline intervention review • Geohazard and fault crossing assessment phase 2• Metocean data phase 2Metocean data phase 2• GIS data collection• Riser and subsea by-pass definitionRiser and subsea by pass definition


1414

Seabed Slope Mapp p


1515 The route stays to the South of the Indus Fan to avoid expensive, difficult crossings.

Identified RisksIdentified Risks Geohazard LocationGeohazard Location

Tsunami Oman and Indian coastlineSteep slopes Oman and Indian continental slopes and the Qualhat

SeamountSeismic activity Northern Oman, Kathiawar Peninsula (Gujarat, India)

and along the Owen Fracture Zoneand along the Owen Fracture ZoneFault displacements

Faults of the Owen Fracture Zone and the Indian shelf and slopep p

Liquefaction Oman and Indian (inner) shelfSlope failures Oman and Indian Continental slope, Qualhat

Seamount, channels of the Indus FanTurbidity currents Indus Fan


Murray Ridge and Qualhat Seamounty g

Qualhat Seamount location (Compression facility)Q ( p y)Outside of all Territorial WatersWithin helicopter supply range.N h Sl 20d i il L df ll


Northern Slope 20deg similar to Landfalls.1717

Indus Fan and Indian Slope


1818

Completed Studies – Metocean Phase 1

North West Monsoon

Environmental ParametersMean Surface Currents

North West Monsoon

Mean Surface Currents Mean Significant Wave Heights (3hr Storm)Heights (3hr Storm)Seabed CurrentsTemperaturesTemperaturesWinds

South East Monsoon


1919

Completed Studies - Mechanical Design

DNV-OS-F101 using DNV 485 DSAW linepipeSupplementary requirement U material strength factorDNV t h i l t F b i ti f t 1 0DNV technical report => Fabrication factor αfab = 1.0, Ovality = 0.5%


2020

Completed Studies - Mechanical Design

Selected WT’s

Pressure Collapse

40.5mm 36.6mm 32.9mm796500 tonnes

DCC Buckling

Seabed Profile


2121

Installation Vessel J-Lay Demandy

MEIDPTop Tension Demand J‐Lay

5000

6000

2000

)

MEIDP Top Tension Demand J Lay

Top TensionDemand (Empty) tonne

Top Tension Demand (Flooded) tonne

J-Lay Demand1060 tonne normal lay>1950 tonne A&R

3000

4000

1000

1500

nsion Dem

and (ton

ne)

Water Depth (m) >1950 tonne A&R

0

1000

2000

0

500

Top Ten

J-Lay Capacity1600 tonne normal lay

‐2000

‐1000‐500

Dep

th (m

)

lay>2000 tonne A&R

‐4000

‐3000

‐1500

‐1000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

Water D

KP (km)


22

KP (km)

New Pipelay Vessels under Constr ctionConstruction

CastorONE (Saipem SpA)CastorONE (Saipem SpA)Operational early in 2012Rated for 3500m Pipelayp yJ-Lay & S-Lay

Aegir (HMC)Aegir (HMC)Operational early in 2014Rated for 3500m Pipelay

Pieter Schelte (Allseas)

J-Lay

ete Sc e te ( seas)Operational Mid 2014Rated for 3500m Pipelay


S-Lay2323

QRA UpdateQRA Update

The following hazards have been quantified: • Trawling • Anchoring • Objects dropped from ships • Ship sinking • Ship grounding • Internal corrosion • External corrosion • Material and construction defects


MEIDP v’s OIP Failure FrequencyMEIDP v s OIP Failure Frequency

2 50E 023.00E-023.50E-024.00E-02

1 00E 021.50E-022.00E-022.50E-02

-5 00E-036.00E-175.00E-031.00E-02

elf ak

pe

pe e)

S-

gh

an

pe

pe ak f

-5.00E-03

Om

an

Sh

e

Sh

elf

Bre

a

Om

an

Slo

p

Om

an

Slo

p

(Om

an

Sid

idg

e (

ME

CG

CS

)

ay

Rid

ge

S

-GP

RT

)

mp

le T

rou

g

Pla

in (

Ind

iaS

ide

)

ind

ian

Slo

p

Ind

ian

Slo

p

Sh

elf

Bre

a

nd

ian

Sh

el

MEIDP

Om

an

Up

pe

r O

Lo

we

r O

ssa

l Pla

in (

Mu

rra

y R

iO

G

Mu

rra

(OG

CS

Da

lrym

Ab

yssa

l P S

Lo

we

r i

Up

pe

r I

Ind

ian

In

OIP


Ab

ys

Ongoing 2011 studiesOngoing 2011 studies

E t bli h h d t t i i l• Establish no hydrotest principle• Onshore compression station review• Offshore layout optimisation• Offshore layout optimisation• Receiving terminal conceptual design• Emergency repair equipment reviewEmergency repair equipment review


2626

Planned 2011 studiesPlanned 2011 studies

I i k i• Insurance risk review • Survey definition and scope of work• Define survey ITT and tender• Define survey ITT and tender • Environmental statement • Mill Prequalification and Ring Test Collapse ProgrammeMill Prequalification and Ring Test Collapse Programme• Examine the effect of moderate heat treatment)


2727

Project Development ScheduleProject Development Schedule

The project Goal =>first Gas in 20172010-2011 Feasibility Studies2011-2012 Reconnaissance Surveys2012-2013 FEED Studies, Detailed surveys.2013-2015 Detailed Design, Equipment Trials,2013-2015 Procurement of long lead items2015-2017 Installation


2828

Technical summaryTechnical summaryMEIDP are no longer a giant leap forward but rather theMEIDP are no longer a giant leap forward, but rather the logical next step Th d l t f d t i l l bl fThe development of deepwater pipelay vessels capable of installing MEIDP due by 2014

St di f d i 2009 2011 f ibilit f thStudies performed in 2009-2011 prove feasibility of the MEIDP projectFabrication technologies exist within current mill capacities for MEIDP size/wall

Routes established to avoid the worst features of the Indus Fan, minimising project technical risks


29

Economic and commercial summary

The MEIDP pipeline– Provides the most economic method of gas supply to

th W t t f I dithe Western coast of India

– Enhances the security of energy supply for Indian b ti tsubcontinent

– Promotes competition in the Indian energy markets

– Will contribute significantly towards the implementation of sustainable development strategies of an integrated energy plan for the Indian Subcontinent


30

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

The authors would like to thank South Asia Gas Enterprise

PVT Ltd. for giving permission to publish this work, the g g p p ,

team in Peritus, for their continued hard work on the

project, DNV, Fugro GEOS, Fugro William Lettis and

IntecSea for their contributions and support.


31

ReferencesReferencesU S Department of Energy DOE/EIA 0484(2010) “International Energy• U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0484(2010) International Energy Outlook 2010”, July 2010, U.S. Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Washington, DC 20585. Tables I1 & I4 pp293 &pp296I4, pp293 &pp296.

• NOAA, “Different types of production platforms” http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/media/types 600 htmltypes_600.html

• Saipem Vessel Data Castoronehttp://www.saipem.it/site/article.jsp?idArticle=5420&instance=2&node=2012&channel=2&ext=template/37DueColonne&int=article/1DefaultArticolo

• HMC Vessel Data Aegirhttp://hmc.heerema.com/tabid/1838/language/en-US/Default.aspxp g g p

• Allseas Vessel Data Pieter Scheltehttp://www.allseas.com/uk/19/equipment/pieter-schelte.html


32

MEIDP The Deepwater Gas Route toMEIDP The Deepwater Gas ...

Documents

Transcript of MEIDP The Deepwater Gas Route toMEIDP The Deepwater Gas ...