Field Development Plan — Aspen

Generated by the worldenergydata field-development playbook (epic #567). Recommendation is heuristic (Concept Select / FEL-1 fidelity), not a sanctioned design.

Engineering rationale

The engine's top recommendation (Tlp) differs from the concept actually built (Subsea Tieback). The recommendation is produced on a blind probe (the as-built concept stripped before scoring); the shortlist below shows where the built concept ranks. Divergence is expected where the real choice turned on data outside the engine's inputs (reserves, schedule, operator preference).

Field parameters

Water depth
926.0 m
Concept
subsea_tieback
Fluid
oil
Operator
Marathon
Wells
—
Plateau
—
Tieback
—
First oil
—

Recommended concept shortlist

ConceptScoreTreesRationale / flags
tlp0.783drytypical of gom development practice
spar0.771drytypical of gom development practice
semisub_fps0.751wettypical of gom development practice
subsea_to_shore0.688wet—
fpso0.602wet— atypical concept for gom

★ = the concept actually selected for this field (where known).

Economics & execution (engine estimate)

Dev system
subsea15
Est. CAPEX
300.0 $MM
Est. NPV
—
Install vessels
32
Max crane
14200.0 t
Hardware
MC-CH-R4-120

As built (actuals)

Block
Green Canyon 243
BSEE code
GC243
Operator
Marathon
Concept (as built)
Subsea Tieback
Engine top pick
Tlp
Match
✗ differs

Architecture & layout (subsea_tieback)

Subsea architecture — Aspen flowline umbilical jumper control jumper control jumper control jumper control export Export Existing Host (tieback) Manifold 1 XT 1 XT 2 XT 3 XT 4
Subsea architecture block diagram
Field layout — Aspen Subsea manifold Manifold 1 Subsea tree (wet XT) XT 1 Subsea tree (wet XT) XT 2 Subsea tree (wet XT) XT 3 Subsea tree (wet XT) XT 4 Existing host (tieback) Existing Host (tieback) Export Export N 1 km
Plan-view field layout (to scale)

Sources: SubseaIQ field catalog (~2014) + BSEE + curated vessel/ subsea catalogs. Schematics are deterministic, generated from the field concept.