Subsea boosting is one of the last significant untapped value creation windows in the upstream sector, with more than 200 projects globally where technology could make an immediate impact by increasing production profitability, according to Rystad Energy.
The analysis was produced utilizing Rystad’s new subsea processing screening tool—a dashboard that analyzes the different components of subsea processing—evaluating offshore projects worldwide and identifying the best candidates for subsea boosting. The analysis has quantified costs, profits, and the potential extent of increased output that are related to applying the sparsely used technology.
The increase in recoverable reserves for the top 100 projects averaged 61 million bbl of oil per project, with the amount varying widely depending on each project’s size and location. For every extra bbl of oil produced due to subsea boosting, operators can expect an average profit of $11.30.
The average investment to apply the subsea boosting solution for the mentioned projects is about $475 million, again varying widely depending on project characteristics.
Most of the identified candidate projects, nearly 50, are in the US. Countries rounding out the top 10 are Brazil, Angola, Norway, the UK, Guyana, Nigeria, Ghana, Malaysia, and Suriname.
The 10 companies operating most of the projects identified by Rystad are Petrobras, ExxonMobil, Shell, Equinor, BP, Chevron, Eni, LLOG, Murphy Oil, and Apache.
Subsea boosting is the most mature technology within the subsea processing toolbox, and yet, much like the other subsea processing technologies, it is not widely adopted. Framo Engineering (now OneSubsea) installed the first subsea booster pump on Shell’s Draugen platform off Norway in 1993 but since then only another 50 projects have installed boosting equipment worldwide.
“Subsea boosting offers significant value creation, both for brownfield and greenfield developments, by reducing the wellhead backpressure at the seabed, which in turn accelerates production and increases total recoverable resources,” said Erik Vinje, an analyst with Rystad Energy’s energy service team.
The project candidates deemed suitable in the analysis were identified by studying field characteristics and calculating the net present value from installing a subsea boosting system. This process considered the impact to the production profile, any increase in recoverable reserves and costs related to equipment, installation, power investments and topside modification. About 50% of the candidate projects are brownfield initiatives, where the quicker subsea boosting is applied, the larger the positive impact.
One of the main reasons for the low adoption rate seen thus far for boosting equipment relates to the reliability of these units. The operational downtime ratio of the pumps was a critical issue in the early days of subsea boosting, as any need for intervention involved expensive specialized vessels or drilling rigs to repair the unit. However, with advancing technology, the reliability of subsea units has increased in recent years.
