analysis and mooring details . The importance of detailed planning is further emphasised as the IC installation barge normally has to be locked in or booked as early as two years prior to scheduled installation .
The heavy FEL activities required for the IC method may accelerate the achievement of first production date of up to six months compared with the ML method . This results in early monetisation hence maximising production during the Petroleum Sharing Contract ( PSC ) term . Figure 5 depicts an actual overall duration project comparison of two projects of similar size and complexity , constructed under both the IC and MC method respectively .
Description
Modular Concept ( Months )
Integrated Float-over ( Months )
Detail Engineering Support Engineering Procurement Support Procurement Fabrication + 4
TOTAL ( A ) ( Engineering , Procurement & Fabrication
Load out + 0.1 Transportation Topside Installation + 0.6 Jacket Installation Hook Up + 1.7 Commissioning + 1.3
TOTAL ( B ) ( Loadout , Transportation ,
+ 3.7
Installation & HUC )
TOTAL ( A + B ) PROJECT DURATION + 3.7 COMPARISON
* less lead time for structural procurement enabling early start of fabrication for IC
Figure 5 : Schedule comparison
The figures presented above validate the trend where the overall duration of a project can be shortened using the IC method . The fabrication stage of an IC deck is longer due to lower work accessibility . However with proper schedule control and starting the work earlier , the whole duration for procurement and fabrication is similar for both an IC and MC deck . In other words , the longer fabrication duration required for IC is manageable . In addition , this constraint is also well compensated for by the advantage of early achievement of first production caused by the shorter duration for the installation and HUC of an IC topsides .
Project Cost
Given the unique nature of each project , costs differ from one project to another . However , in general , the IC method normally results in a cheaper total overall project cost .
The construction costs for an IC topside is normally higher than that of the MC topside due to the requirements for the construction of the LSF , LMU , bulkhead strengthening ( if any ), dredging ( if any ) and mooring spread . However , the IC deck has a significant cost advantage when compared with the cost of installation and HUC . With the majority of the commissioning work for an IC topside done onshore , the project duration for offshore installation and HUC could be significantly reduced . This translates into cost savings from shorter duration for barge daily charter , equipment hire and offshore manpower .
The procurement and fabrication of a jacket for an IC topsides incurs a higher cost since more bracings and reinforcement are required . The tonnage of piling required for an IC jacket also exceeds that of an MC . However , the MC topsides are more expensive as more steel is required for interfacing and lifting integrity . Furthermore , the installation cost for the IC topside surpasses that of the MC due to barge preparation . This downside is however , compensated by the significant savings during HUC work whereby the cost for the IC deck is far cheaper . As a result , a total cost saving of approximately 15 % can be achieved for an IC deck as compared with an MC deck , given the same topside weight and complexity . Figure 6 illustrates the cost comparison of two similar projects executed on the MC and IC method respectively .
59