Enhancing the value of offshore developments with flexible subsea tiebacks

Lin, Jijun; Weck, Olivier L. de; Neufville, Richard de; Yue, Howard K.

doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2013.01.003

Cited by 46 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Uncertainty can arise from both endogenous and exogenous sources [8]. Decision-makers can actively manage endogenous uncertainty, and examples are propulsion power, steel weight, deadweight, painting area, vessel parameters that the designer is not 100% certain about until the vessel performs, for example its sea trials.…”

Section: Uncertainty In Early Stage Ship Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handling commercial, operational and technical uncertainty in early stage offshore ship design

Agis

Pettersen

Rehn

et al. 2016

2016 11th System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In this paper, we assess state-of-the-art methods for handling aspects of technical, commercial and operational uncertainty in the early stages of offshore ship design. Uncertainty affects the lifecycle performance of a ship in a complex manner, which is difficult to assess in the early design process. We approach this problem by decomposing uncertainty into technical, commercial and operational aspects, and investigate how it can be identified, modelled and handled. Methods discussed include design structure matrix, tradespace exploration and evaluation methods, real options theory, stochastic optimization, and system dynamics. Strategies for handling uncertainty discussed include margins, and specific system lifecycle properties "-ilities". We argue that a decomposition of uncertainty facilitates the use of current methods and approaches for decision-making in early stage ship design.

show abstract

Section: Uncertainty In Early Stage Ship Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handling commercial, operational and technical uncertainty in early stage offshore ship design

Agis

Pettersen

Rehn

et al. 2016

2016 11th System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples of real options include staging or phasing capacity deployment over time, allocating resources dynamically to different markets or users, increasing or shutting down operations when needed, or switching between different activity types. Many studies have shown lifecycle performance improvements ranging between 10% and 30% as compared to standard design and project evaluation approaches in the aerospace [de Weck et al., ; Silver and de Weck, ], automotive [Suh et al., ], defense [Mikaelian et al., ], oil and gas [Lin et al., ], water [Zhang and Babovic, ], and several other industries [Cardin, ].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Evaluation of Flexibility in the Design of IGCC Plants with Integrated Membrane Reactor Modules

Zhang

Cardin

Kazantzis

et al. 2015

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle with embedded membrane reactor modules (IGCC-MR) represents a new technology option for the coproduction of electricity and pure hydrogen endowed with enhanced environmental performance capacity. It is viewed as an alternative to conventional coal-and gasfired power generation technologies. An IGCC-MR power plant needs to be techno-economically evaluated in the presence of irreducible regulatory and fuel market uncertainties for the potential deployment of an initial fleet of demonstration plants at the commercial scale. This paper applies a systematic methodological framework to assess the economic value of flexible alternatives in the design and operation of an IGCC-MR plant under the aforementioned sources of uncertainty. The main objective is to demonstrate the potential value enhancements associated with the long-term economic performance of flexible IGCC-MR project investments, by managing the uncertainty associated with future environmental regulations and fuel costs. The paper provides an overview of promising design flexibility concepts for IGCC-MR power plants and focuses on operational and constructional systems flexibility. Operational flexibility is realized through temporary plant shutdown with considerations of regulatory and market uncertainties. Constructional flexibility is realized by considering the installation of a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) unit at three strategic periods: (1) installation at the initial construction phase, (2) retrofitting at a later stage, and (3) retrofitting at a later stage with preinvestment. Monte Carlo simulations and financial analysis demonstrate that, in the presence of irreducible uncertainty, the most economically advantageous flexibility option is to install CCS in the initial IGCC-MR construction phase. C⃝ 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 18: 208-227, 2015

show abstract

“…The use of specific ilities has also become integrated with different focus areas, for example: manufacturing flexibility, machinery flexibility, and product flexibility . Other applications of changeability in the literature include oil and gas systems, ships, power systems, and spacecrafts—to mention a few. This illustrates the wide application area of changeability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification of changeability level for engineering systems

Rehn

Pettersen

Garcia

et al. 2018

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper outlines a generic method for quantifying changeability level, to support better decision making in the early stages of design of engineering systems. Changeability represents the ability of a system to change form, function, or operation, and is a collective term for characteristics such as flexibility, adaptability, and agility. Quantification of changeability level must not be confused with valuation of changeability. The level of changeability in a design is essentially under the control of the designer. Two aspects of changeability are discussed, the first being how to structure changeable design alternatives using the Design for Changeability (DFC) variable. The DFC variable represents combinations of path enablers built into a design. Path enablers are characteristics of systems enabling them to change more easily. The second aspect is to quantify the level of changeability for a given design alternative, based on change cost and time. For the latter, we propose two measures for quantification: (1) bottom-up, measuring the reduction of cost and time enabled for each relevant change, and (2) top-down, measuring the span of change opportunities at given cost and time thresholds. A case study of a ship is presented to demonstrate the proposed generic method. K E Y W O R D S changeability, flexibility, systems design, uncertainty 80

show abstract

Enhancing the value of offshore developments with flexible subsea tiebacks

Cited by 46 publications

References 23 publications

Handling commercial, operational and technical uncertainty in early stage offshore ship design

Handling commercial, operational and technical uncertainty in early stage offshore ship design

Economic Evaluation of Flexibility in the Design of IGCC Plants with Integrated Membrane Reactor Modules

Quantification of changeability level for engineering systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About