IPTC-18464-MS

Managing the Upstream-Midstream Integration for FLoating LNG Projects

Harry van der Velde, Shell Projects and Technology

Copyright 2015, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 6 –9 December 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum 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 where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax ⫹1-972-952-9435

Objectives
The objectives of this paper are:
● To explain that conventional interface management is not sufficient to design an integrated system
for a Floating LNG facility
● To describe methods used by Shell to design upstream and midstream components ensuring that
they will jointly work as an integrated system from well bore to off-loading arm
● To explain FLNG specific issues i.e. differences in FLNG upstream – midstream integration
relative to conventional FPSO and onshore LNG design
Introduction
In conventional oil and gas projects, the interaction between separately designed sub-systems is normally
dealt with using interface management systems. Such an approach leads to a result where two or more
optimised sub-systems are able to work with each other. However such an approach does not ensure an
optimum design is created for the whole system. This paper illustrates ways of working and an
organisational set-up that facilitates a design process that leads to a more optimised integrated system.
Such a system is essential for a FLNG facility given the closely linked interface with the seabed
infrastructure below it. Although equally applicable to other areas, this paper focusses on upstream-
midstream integration.
After introducing FLNG facility characteristiscs and features of the FLNG design process, the paper
describes how the interface management process is set up for a typical integrated FLNG project. A few
-FLNG specific examples demonstrate how to define the interface boundaries taking into consideration
discipline and scope issues and also aiming to minimise interface complexity. It will explain how premise
documents can be used and their content controlled to deliver a consistent handshake for the teams
working on either side of the interface.
Secondly technical integration will be discussed by explaining tools and methods that ensure:
– Sub-system performance is fully aligned with the functional requirements of the integrated system
and optimized according to project value drivers, such as maximising project value, integrated
production system throughput and uptime or reducing process safety risks;
2 IPTC-18464-MS

– That systems that cross project interfaces – such as MEG injection, flare and safeguarding systems
- will operate in a robust manner.
This paper therefore aims to illustrate a way of working and an organisational set-up that facilitates a
design process to maximize project value and success in arriving at an optimised FLNG-Seabed-
Subsurface integrated system.

FLNG Characteristics
Floating LNG is much more than just a liquefaction plant built on a ship. As shown in figure 1 below, a
FLNG facility, typically moored a few hundred kilometres from shore, combines offshore production, gas
and condensate treatment, liquefaction and storage and offloading. As such it connects upstream gas
processing directly with the liquefaction plant. In such an integrated facility, both hydrocarbon processing
and liquefaction effectively take place on top of the cryogenic LNG storage tanks. And all of this is built
on a plot space one-quarter the size of an equivalent plant on land as illustrated in figure 2. Besides space
and weight limitations, special attention needs to be given to close coupling of the FLNG facility and the
wells as well as to product offloading. Close coupling means that the traditional buffer capability of long
transmission lines is not present as the FLNG facility is located quite close to the reservoir. Extensive
dynamic modelling needs to be performed to understand this in depth and to ensure the FLNG facility can
manage the effects of transients in the subsea gas gathering system.

Figure 1—Functionality provided by a FLNG facility

IPTC-18464-MS 3

Figure 2—Typical FLNG plot space relative to FPSO and Onshore FLNG facility

After taking into account safety considerations, the FLNG design is determined to a large extent by
upstream characteristics like feed gas composition, geotechnical and metocean data, reservoir manage-
ment and flow assurance strategies and resulting functional requirements of the subsea production system.
This is illustrated in table 1. It should be noted that most of these FLNG design requirements are largely
determined from outside the FLNG. This means that – as is the case in the design of other upstream
facilities - the information needs to be managed by some kind of interface management system to control
the flow of information between the FLNG engineering disciplines and other ‘external’ parties.

Table 1—Examples of upstream aspects impacting FLNG design

UPSTREAM ASPECTS IMPACTING FLNG DESIGN IMPACT ON FLNG DESIGN DURING CONCEPT SELECT

Feed gas composition Choice of CO2 removal technology

Mercury treatment requirements
LPG fractionation or Separate LPG export
Refrigerant make-up
Geo survey data, Mooring design
Meteorological and Vessel motion in normal operational and extreme cases
Metocean data Prodution losses due to offloading downtime
Well and Reservoir Well testing requirements
management strategy Depletion compression
FLNG functional Requirement for (intelligent) pigging
requirements following Commissioning and Start-Up philosophy
from subsea system design Flare design and capacity
Flow assurance strategy Gas sweeping of flow line
Flow line (de-)pressurisation
Chemical injection and MEG regeneration

FLNG design process

To better appreciate how external requirements are managed in the FLNG design process, it is important
first to understand some key features of how a FLNG facility is designed. The FLNG design process can
be characterized as:
● Safety driven;
● Fully integrated;
● Re-iterative with an inherent likelihood of design recycle.
Each of these will be explained briefly. Safety is the dominant decision criteria for FLNG design and
it is through the Hazards & Effects Management process that layout, process-type and equipment-type will
be decided upon to drive the overall concept risks to as low as reasonably practical (ALARP). To
determine the lowest overall risk, engineering detail needs to be accelerated into earlier project phases
compared to traditional upstream and midstream projects. For instance, at the end of the concept select
4 IPTC-18464-MS

phase, typically assessments are available confirming the safety case and how the main hazards will be
mitigated including ALARP assessments for hazards where alternative options may be available.
A fully integrated design means that the output of one engineering work stream is used as input to
another engineering workstream. This illustrated in the figure below.

This means that where a design process for an onshore LNG plant will follow a more straightforward
sequence of design steps because the workstreams are less interdependent, a FLNG design may require
a few iterations between the various workstreams to ensure feasibility and to satisfy design requirements.
In case such a reiteration cannot be accommodated within the constraints of all engineering disciplines
involved, a full or partial design recycle is required. As such a design recycle is time and resource
consuming when the design is well advanced i.e. during FEED or detailed design. The risks associated
with a design recycle need to be understood and mitigated early i.e. in the concept select phase of the
project.

Interface Management and Project Integration

Combining these two insights i.e. that FLNG design is safety and upstream driven and manifests a
iterative character, it is clear that FLNG engineers have to be very strict as to what can be accommodated
on the FLNG facility and as such will challenge and prioritise the external i.e. mainly upstream
requirements. In a ‘classic’ interface management system, this would lead to a situation where individual
disciplines or workstreams would ‘negotiate’ an outcome. This outcome may, however, not be the best for
the project in terms of providing a solution that also fits with the overall project. The agreed way forward
may exclude resolutions in other areas where similar problems need to be solved.
As a start to remedy such a situation, the project needs to recognize when what appears to be a simple
interface issue is in reality a project integration issue requiring multidisciplinary discussion at the
appropriate level. For the upstream midstream interface, this means that integration needs to happen at
IPTC-18464-MS 5

project level as only at this level can the FLNG and upstream systems be viewed as an integrated
production system.

How Project Integration can be implemented

Having explained the requirement for project integration in a FLNG development, this section will explain
how such a methodology can be implemented.
To that end, a project integration team should be set-up. This team is accountable for the scope
definition and its integration from well bore to LNG offloading arm. As per normal good practice in
integrated projects, the scope is defined in basis of design type documents by the individual workstreams.
The basis of design document describes the design as a result of the decisions taken in the select phase
for each workstream.
Once a consistent scope across workstreams is established, the project integration team now needs to
be able to function within the project organization in a way that ensures:
● There is a seamless transfer from one work stream’s scope definition to another
● Any future and significant changes to the production system design are managed with overall
project drivers in mind.
A succesfull way to achieve the first objective i.e. ensuring seamless transfer between workstreams is
by compiling so called ‘handshake’ documents –as part of BoD writing- where both workstreams
document the:
● Values of key parameters at agreed interface points
● Operational, commissioning and start-up requirements
● Design features of systems that cross interfaces
The second aim is when the project integration team takes ownership of changes of scope which go
across workstream boundaries, by managing them with the overall project drivers in mind.
In order to do that, the project integration teams needs to be capable of calculating integrated
production system uptime and production forecasts over time to be able to assess what impact proposed
changes would have and to assess trade-offs between CAPEX, OPEX, schedule and production. In
addition, (system) engineering disciplines like process engineering - including dynamic simulation and
flow assurance, and production chemistry if required - should be included to be able to analyse issues and
their impact requiring a system wide view.
Besides sitting at the same level as the individual project workstreams, the project integration teams
also need to establish a strong link with the operations, commissioning and start-up teams as these project
disciplines will also be looking at system wide integration from their perspective. The project integration
team can contribute (system) engineering knowledge to operation and commissioning deliverables.
Project integration and interface management teams should work closely together to decide how
interface boundaries can be best defined. Normally these are set either per discipline or scope element. It
may however be worthwhile to consider defining some interfaces such that the total number of interfaces
is reduced or that it is easier to optimise the design across an interface. Examples are:
● Risers and umbilicals can be included in FLNG or subsea scope
● Pig traps and receivers can be considered be part of SURF scope or topsides piping
● Topside process equipment located in the substructure can use marine or topsides engineering
standards
As part of this effort, workshops are required to ground the identified interface and to pre-populate
interface registers. In addition, additional and dedicated interface drawings and deliverables that clarify
the agreed interface boundaries need to be identified and created.
6 IPTC-18464-MS

Conclusion
Project integration means real project wide issues need to be elevated in order to be discussed at the right
level to ensure the correct trade-off is made. Project integration therefore needs to ensure issues are
recognized as integration issues and therefore do not stay hidden in the indivual workstreams but are
elevated and recognized at senior project level.