At first, such efforts were limited to land operations involving simple but effective drilling methods that satisfactorily recovered reserves from large, productive fields.
Initially, deepwater exploration and production efforts consisted of expensive, large scale drilling operations supported by tanker storage and transportation systems, due primarily to the fact that most
offshore drilling sites are associated with difficult and hazardous sea conditions, and thus large scale operations provided the most stable and cost-effective manner in which to search for and recover
hydrocarbon reserves.
A major drawback to the large-scale paradigm, however, is that explorers and producers have little financial incentive to work smaller reserves, since potential financial
recovery is generally offset by the lengthy
delay between exploration and production (approximately 3 to 7 years) and the large
capital investment required for conventional platforms and related drilling and production equipment.
Moreover, complex regulatory controls and industry-wide risk aversion have led to
standardization, leaving operators with few opportunities to significantly alter the prevailing paradigm.
As a result,
offshore drilling operations have traditionally been burdened with long delays between investment and profit, excessive cost overruns, and slow, inflexible
recovery strategies dictated by the operational environment.
However, since lognormal distributions of recoverable reserves tend to be spread over a large number of small fields, each of which yield less than would normally be required in order to justify the expense of a conventional large-scale operation, these regions have to date been under-explored and under-produced relative to their potential.
Consequently, many potentially productive smaller fields have already been discovered, but remain undeveloped due to economic considerations.
However, the Hopper system cannot be adjusted during completion, testing and production of the well, and is especially ineffective in instances where the well bore starts at a mud line in a vertical position.
The Hopper system also fails to support a variety of different surface loads, and is therefore self-limiting with respect to the flexibility drillers desire during actual operations.
The O'Reilly system, however, is inflexible in that it fails to admit to practice while the well is being completed and tested.
Moreover, the method utterly fails to contemplate functionality during production and
workover operations.
The Atlantis ABS system is deficient, however, in several practical respects.
For example, the '322 Magnussen patent specifically limits deployment of the buoyancy chamber to environments where the influence of surface
waves is effectively negligible, i.e., at a depth of more than about 500 feet beneath the surface.
Those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that deployment at such depths is an expensive and relatively risk-laden solution, given that installation and maintenance can only be carried out by
deep sea divers or remotely operated vehicles, and the fact that a relatively extensive
transport system must still be installed between the top of the buoyancy chamber and the bottom of an associated
recovery vessel in order to initiate production from the well.
The Magnussen system also fails to contemplate multiple anchoring systems, even in instances where problematic drilling environments are likely to be encountered.
Moreover, the system lacks any control means for controlling adjustment of either vertical tension or
wellhead depth during production and
workover operations, and expressly teaches away from the use of lateral stabilizers that could enable the
wellhead to be deployed in shallower waters subject to stronger tidal and wave forces.
Another issue encountered with deepwater wells is that there is difficulty in maintaining a flow of water, gas, and oil from the well hole to a production facility such as an FP50, or young distances to a central
processing center.
However, one of the disadvantages of using a
subsea injection well with a production tree is the challenge of maintaining a flow of water, gas, and oil from the reservoir to a production facility or a central
processing facility.
As the
reservoir pressure drops because of depletion, there is not enough pressure to retain the well production, and the flow rate drops until the flow completely ceases.