Field Development Plan — Jack/St. Malo

Summary

Two fields share a semisubmersible host through subsea completions; the source reports startup in December 2014.

Historical source snapshot, not a current operating-status assertion or a sanctioned engineering design. Missing inputs are preserved as unknown.

Revision history

RevisionDateWhat changed and why
Initial2026-10-19 Documented the reported development concept and evidence gaps to provide a field-level portfolio reference.
12026-10-20Formatted whole-number inputs without decimal padding for readability.

Engineering rationale

The co-development places the floating production unit between the fields and routes subsea production to a shared processing facility. The source also describes seafloor boosting. Shared-host capacity is not allocated to either field here.

Field parameters

InputValueSource and scope
Operator at source dateChevronS1: Opening announcement names Chevron as operator.
Reported development conceptsemisub_fpsS1: Co-development paragraph identifies the single semi-submersible host and subsea completions.
HostShared semisubmersible floating production unitS1: Shared host sits between the fields; no per-field host split is assigned.
Water depth (m)UnknownRequired input; not established by the cited evidence.
Wells (scope stated below)UnknownRequired input; not established by the cited evidence.
Designed peak capacity (boe/d)UnknownRequired input; not established by the cited evidence.
Reported oil capacity (bbl/d; not a boe/d plateau)170000S1: Shared FPU capacity is 170,000 bpd; not the separate first-stage ramp-up rate and not an individual field plateau.
Recoverable resources (MMboe)UnknownRequired input; not established by the cited evidence.
Actual first-oil year2014S1: Article dated December 2, 2014 reports production has started.

Architecture

Jack and St. Malo subsea completions feed the shared floating production unit. The source does not establish a complete well and manifold inventory or measured connection lengths.

Well coordinates, manifold counts and interconnection lengths are required inputs for a detailed layout. Layout: NOT_EVALUATED; no assumed geometry is drawn.

Recommended concept shortlist

NOT_EVALUATED. The reported concept is documented above; a comparative ranking requires sourced screening limits and criteria weights.

Economics and execution

NOT_EVALUATED. No cost or investment return is inferred from facility capacity. Required inputs include scope-matched capital cost, operating cost, production profile, prices, discount rate and schedule. Equipment qualification and installation feasibility also require project-specific design evidence.

Known limits and way forward

The published host capacity is distinct from the development-stage ramp-up rate. No current capacity allocation, well inventory, water depth or scope-matched reserves are inferred. Obtain those inputs and a dated operating basis before ranking alternatives or evaluating economics.

Sources

Input citations refer to the source dates below. Capacity, planned well count and forecast startup are not measured production.