Construction Type / Project Phase
Procurement Fabrication
Offshore Installation
MC + 2 % + 32 %
HUC
Net Total Savings
IC + 11 % + 68 % + 15 %
Figure 6 : Cost Estimation Comparison
Based on similar rates for unit steel and labour , material costs for the IC method is slightly higher mainly due to additional steel requirement for LSF however , the fabrication cost for MC are higher due to additional work on steel interfacing and MSF . Furthermore , the installation cost for IC far exceeds that for MC due to more stringent barge requirement to cater for the float-over installation method for IC . In terms of offshore installation duration , the IC still took less days compared with MC . In addition , the HUC cost for IC resulted in significant cost saving of more than 60 % compared with that of MC due to less offshore HUC requirement . All the above indicates that overall , the IC method offers significant cost saving compared with MC .
Conclusion
Both integrated and modular concepts have their merits . While the IC provides opportunity for an accelerated first production date and overall cheaper project cost , it suffers from higher upfront investment , heavier FEL activities and lower design flexibility , as the installation vessel needs to be locked-in upfront . The modular concept provides the flexibility , with wider selection of fabricators and installation vessels .
Eventually , it is up to the project owner to weigh the pros and cons of both options , to suit the needs of the project .
61