Model Form Deepwater Production Handling Agreement Pam Bikun Mark - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

model form deepwater production handling agreement
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Model Form Deepwater Production Handling Agreement Pam Bikun Mark - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Model Form Deepwater Production Handling Agreement Pam Bikun Mark Thompson Chevron Corporation Shell Exploration & Production Company January 19, 2006 Model Form Deepwater PHA Outline Review project history Assumptions


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Model Form Deepwater Production Handling Agreement

Pam Bikun Mark Thompson Chevron Corporation Shell Exploration & Production Company January 19, 2006

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Model Form Deepwater PHA

 Outline

 Review project history  Assumptions established  Facility animation  Key issues  Next steps  Questions and Answers

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Model Form Deepwater PHA

PHA MODEL FORM DRAFTING TEAM Drafting Consulting Chevron Exxon Mobil Shell

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Model Form Deepwater PHA

CASE FOR ACTION

  • PHA evaluations, negotiations and contractual

agreements are complex.

  • No consistent framework relative to terms and

conditions of contractual agreements (i.e. lack

  • f standardization).
  • Negotiations are time and resource

consuming.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Model Form Deepwater PHA

OBJECTIVE

  • Facilitate efficient use of time and resources.
  • Standardize, but simplify, to extent possible

(recognizes that each PHA is unique with its

  • wn set of issues/circumstances).
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Model Form Deepwater PHA

DRAFTING PROCESS

  • Assemble and review example forms
  • Identify common/unique themes
  • Select base form to develop preliminary model

form

  • Develop guiding principles
  • Draft major components
  • Draft “Boiler Plate” language
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Model Form Deepwater PHA

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

  • Standardize but simplify to extent possible
  • Facilitate efficiency while negotiating
  • Generic
  • Broadly applicable
  • Simplify in terms of readability
  • Basis for making business decisions
  • Use as a catalyst for Shelf Model Form PHA
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Assumptions Established

 Guideline document  Written for most common development

scenarios

 Subsea tieback to floating, compliant or fixed

platform

 Individual circumstances will dictate

approach needed

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Tension Leg Platform

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Spar

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Subsea Production System

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Multi-Field Development

NaKika Facility

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Model Form Deepwater PHA

Facility Animation

slide-14
SLIDE 14

KEY PHA COMPONENTS

  • Definitions
  • Infrastructure & Facilities
  • Services
  • Fees and Expenses
  • Processing & Handling Capacity
  • Metering & Allocation
  • Gathering and Transportation
  • Suspension of Operations and Force Majeure
  • Term, Default, Termination & Continuation of Services
  • Liabilities & Indemnification
  • Insurance and Bonds
  • Exhibits
slide-15
SLIDE 15

KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED

 Entry Point/Delivery Point on Host  Satellite Production System

 Understand Facilities upstream of Entry Point  Ownership of equipment located on Host

Transfer of equipment raises tax questions

 Division of responsibilities between Host and

Satellite for facilities on Host serving Satellite

  • nly.
slide-16
SLIDE 16

KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED

 Services provided by Host

 Host operating services  Production handling services

 Fees and Expenses  Capacity  Accounting Procedures

slide-17
SLIDE 17

KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED

 Metering and Allocation

 Use MMS and industry practices

 Gathering and Transportation

 Required to take in kind  Imbalances

 Indemnities

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Expenses

Approaches Considered:

 Various expense recovery methods considered

(e.g. actual operating expense vs. fixed expenses)

 Operation and Maintenance Expenses (O&M)

 Directly charge satellite for facilities

serving satellite only?

 Allocate and charge satellite for shared

facilities?

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Expenses

 Result

 Satellite Producers pay their pro-rata share of

  • perating and maintenance expenses.

 Calculated by formula.  Satellite Operator invoiced monthly.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Access Fees

Approaches Considered:

 Volumetric or Upfront? Or combination?  Investment Recovery Component?  Profit Component?  Is this in addition to shared O&M Expenses?  Is this in lieu of shared O&M Expenses?  Upfront boarding fee?

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Access Fees - Result

 Infrastructure Access Fee  Rejected initial upfront boarding fee  IAF designed to cover:

 Access to Host  Utilization of Host facilities, deck & riser space  Services provided by Host Owners  Other

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Access Fees - Result (Continued)

 Volumetric based fee  Premium for firm capacity  Fee adjusted annually  Minimum monthly fee (associated with firm

capacity)

 Is in addition to shared O&M expenses

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Invoicing and Payments

Approaches Considered:

 Monthly Billing and Payments  Accounting Procedures  Overhead

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Invoicing and Payment - Result

As currently drafted PHA provides:

 Certain fees billed operator to operator

O&M

Installations of equipment on Host

 Other fees billed by Host Operator to each

Producer

Infrastructure Access Fee

Quality Bank Payments

Costs designated as borne by Producers

Will reconsider approach based on comments

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Overhead - Result

 Host Operator receives overhead rate on

O&M and Major Construction.

 No overhead on Infrastructure Access Fee,

Deferred Production Compensation and other specified costs.

 Will reconsider approach based on comments.

 Made a distinction between compensation to

Host Operator versus compensation to Host Owners.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Accounting Procedures

Approaches Considered:

 Full blown AP versus pared down version

 COPAS recommended full blown AP

 Result

 Pared down version tailored to PHA

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Capacity – Approaches Considered

 Access

Define Host Capacity

Establish Capacity Types

Interruptible

Firm

Flow Assurance

Interruptible Capacity with Option for Firm Capacity

Grant utilization of Flow Assurance Capacity

Will consider simplification based on comments.

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Capacity - Result

 Remains work in progress.  Received numerous comments on Flow

Assurance and Interruptible Capacity and how each fits into scheme.

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Production Prioritization

Approaches Considered:

 Establish Constraint Types

 Processing facilities  Export Pipeline System

 Provide for utilization of Host Capacity in

event of constraints

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Production Prioritization - Results

 Interruptible

 Reduced or suspended based on Host Ullage

 Firm

 Reduced on a pro-rata basis

 Formulas given for each calculation  Host production proportionately reduced only

in firm pro-rata reduction

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Status

Remaining Activity Revise PHA 1Q-06 OCS Committee Endorsement Mid-06 AAPL Forms Committee Approval Mid-06 AAPL Board Approval Late-06

slide-32
SLIDE 32

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS