It\u2019s time\nfor the traditional approach to compression design to step aside and recognise\nthe future is subsea.<\/p>\n\n\n
Not only\nhas subsea compression arrived, it arrives with a \u2018warning shot across the bow\u2019\nto topsides compression platforms. Designed as they were in the past will\naccelerate their demise, they must evolve to stop them becoming obsolete. The\ndays when contractors would pull out old designs, change the project title, and\n\u201cfind and replace\u201d the past project name with the new project name are gone.\nThe old adage, \u201cif it ain\u2019t broke, don\u2019t fix it\u201d is simply not valid for\ntopsides any longer. Quicker, faster, stronger, subsea compression is now the\nbenchmark. It\u2019s the Tesla to the established motor industry and just as Tesla\nproved to the world that electric cars are not only viable but the future of\nmotoring, subsea compression is showing that it, too, is viable and the future\nof compression.<\/p>\n\n\n
Subsea\ncompression is no pretender to the throne; it will most definitely have higher\nvalue creation than topsides compression and comparing project metrics, will be\nbetter in most categories. Why, then, would operators consider an option that\nhas higher HES risk, lower availability, lower recovery for given compression\npower, higher OPEX and higher CAPEX? Whatever value driver is used, subsea\ncompression invariably comes out on top \u2013 yes, even in technology qualification\n(\u00c5sgard and Gullfaks are both fully qualified at TRL 7). Ormen Lange and Jansz\nsubsea compression projects are testament to the maturity.<\/p>\n\n\n
The\nanswer to why topsides compression has not yet been retired will likely include\npolitics, outdated perception, lack of knowledge or simply an unwillingness to\nchange. There has been a noticeable shift away from stubborn refusal by\noperators to those same operators now actively considering subsea compression.\nBut where it isn\u2019t taken forward is most likely due to a difference between\nwhat is perceived and what is actual, or to put another way, where a project\nrequirement exceeds the capability of the currently operating subsea\ncompression assets. Simply looking at the specifications for \u00c5sgard or Gullfaks\nwill not tell the full story as this does not take into account the 4+ years of\ntechnology development that has continued on since. Where technology hasn’t\nreached a level required by an operator, the questions to be asked are:<\/p>\n\n\n
Vendors\nhaven’t been sitting idly by waiting for the next big project to come their\nway; technology is constantly being developed but actual target specifications\nare much better than best guesses so let the vendors know the requirements. And\nthink about when that capability is actually required: if it isn’t required for\na number of years and technology development is manageable, consider a two step\napproach. Educating decision makers is key to overcoming this barrier. <\/p>\n\n\n
One of\nthe final challenges that subsea compression needs to overcome is when\ncompression is to be retrofitted on existing facilities where the focus will be\nthe extent of brownfield modifications. In reality, the equipment required is\nno more than a topsides, and solutions can minimise equipment count on the\nfacility and\/or reduce footprint. For example, the Adjustable (Variable) Speed\n(Frequency) Drives are large units and can take up valuable real estate, but by\ninstalling these on the seabed this real estate is returned to the topsides\nfacility.<\/p>\n\n\n
Just\nbecause there is space assigned to future compression doesn’t mean that it must\nbe filled with compression modules! And this appears to be the crux of this\nparticular challenge: an unwillingness to change from an original basis of\ndesign, when prior to subsea compression being an option, space has been\nearmarked for topsides compression and topsides compression it must be.\nRetrofitting compression topsides will require large gas turbines regardless of\nwhether topsides or subsea is employed and operators and contractors should now\nbe considering replacing direct drive compressors with generators and electric\ndriven compressors \u2013 not only does this improve reliability, but also provides\nflexibility for subsea compression in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n
For\nprojects already in FEED or where topsides has been selected ahead of subsea,\noperators and engineering companies alike, need to recognise that any future\nbrownfield addition of compression on that facility will unlikely be topsides.\nThe future designs shouldn\u2019t have direct drive compressors in the frame;\ngenerator sets and motor driven compressors should be the starting point and\nprovision for subsea compression written into the Basis of Design. In most\ncases this provision for subsea compression should be less onerous than\ntopsides modules, particularly if subsea ASDs are deployed.<\/p>\n\n\n
With the\ntwo main compressor technologies in operation since 2015, the suite of enabling\ntechnologies qualified this year, and the two subsea compression projects in\nFEED, the Future is Subsea: long live the King.<\/p>\n\n\n
To be\ncontinued ….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It\u2019s time for the traditional approach to compression design to step aside and recognise the future is subsea. Not only has subsea compression arrived, it arrives with a \u2018warning shot across the bow\u2019 to topsides compression platforms. Designed as they were in the past will accelerate their demise, they must evolve to stop them becoming … <\/p>\n