
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Carey
Johnston,
USEPA/
EAD
FROM:
Mary
Willett,
Joy
Abel,
and
Mark
Briggs,
ERG
DATE:
August
11,
2004
SUBJECT:
Phase
III
316(
b)
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Control
Costs
for
Existing
In­
scope
O&
G
Extraction
Facilities
This
memorandum
documents
the
costs
developed
for
existing
in­
scope
oil
and
gas
(
O&
G)
extraction
facilities
under
the
final
Phase
III
316(
b)
regulations.
This
memorandum
is
organized
into
the
following
sections:

°
In­
scope
Facilities
for
Costing;
°
Summary
of
the
Regulatory
Options
Costed;
°
Source
of
the
Costing
Equations
and
Assumptions;
°
Weighting
Factors
for
Scaling
Up
the
Costs;
and
°
Summary
of
the
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs
(
for
each
option
as
well
as
the
incremental
costs
between
options).

Facility­
level
costs
are
provided
in
the
attached
Excel
file
entitled,
O&
GCosts6_
04.
xls.

In­
scope
Facilities
for
Costing
Existing
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
were
identified
as
being
"
in­
scope"
for
purposes
of
costing
if
they
met
two
criteria.
The
first,
is
that
the
facility
had
design
or
actual
water
intake
flows
of
greater
than
2
Million
Gallons
Per
Day
(
MGD)
and
the
second
is
that
there
were
data
(
or
a
documented
assumption)
to
support
a
determination
that
25
percent
or
greater
of
the
intake
water
(
on
an
intake
flow
weighted
basis)
is
used
for
cooling
purposes.

Some
Mobile
Offshore
Drilling
Units
(
MODUs)
did
not
have
cooling
water
flow
data
for
the
25
percent
or
greater
cooling
water
criteria
assessment.
Based
on
the
May
7,
2001
Memorandum
to
the
File,
From:
Carey
A.
Johnston,
RE:
Notes
from
April
4,
2001
Meeting
with
the
Coast
Guard,
it
was
assumed
that
most
MODUs
use
approximately
80%
of
their
intake
water
for
cooling
purposes
and
therefore
meet
the
second
"
in­
scope"
criteria.
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
2
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Summary
of
the
Regulatory
Options
Table
1
presents
the
Phase
III
CWIS
control
regulatory
options
and
the
technologies
costed
by
option.
The
technologies
costed
are
determined
by
the
type
of
rig
unit
involved.
There
are
in
general
two
types
of
intakes.
The
first
type
includes
simple
pipes,
caissons
and
submerged
pump
intakes
which
involve
pipe
intakes
that
can
be
fitted
with
velocity
caps
or
cylindrical
wedge
wire
screens.
Velocity
caps
result
in
impingement
control
and
cylindrical
wedge
wire
screens
result
in
both
impingement
and
entrainment
control
and
are
designed
to
create
an
intake
velocity
of
equal
to
or
less
than
5
feet
per
second.
The
second
type
of
intakes
are
sea
chests
which
are
openings
along
the
side
or
bottom
of
a
ship
or
barge
type
rig.
These
intakes
can
be
fitted
with
horizontal
flow
diverters
and/
or
flat
panel
wedge
wire
screens.
Horizontal
flow
diverters
result
in
impingement
control
while
flat
panel
wedge
wire
screens
result
in
entrainment
control.
To
achieve
both
impingement
and
entrainment
control
on
a
sea
chest,
both
the
flat
panel
wedge
wire
screen
and
a
horizontal
flow
diverter
are
required.

Table
1.
Regulatory
Options
and
Technologies
Costed
for
Each
Option
A
Option
B
Option
C
Option
D
Option
E
Option
Requirements
I&
E
control
for
facilities
with
>
2
MGD
I
control
for
facilities
with
>
2
MGD
I&
E
control
for
facilities
with
>
50
MGD
and
I
control
for
facilities
with
2­
50
MGD
I&
E
control
for
facilities
with
>
50
MGD
I
control
for
facilities
with
>
50
MGD
Type
of
Rig
Option
A
Option
B
Option
C
Option
D
Option
E
Platforms
and
Drill
Barges
which
use
simple
pipes
and
caissons
for
cooling
water
intake
Cylindrical
Wedge
Wire
Screens
for
>
2
MGD
Velocity
Caps
for
>
2MGD
Cylindrical
Wedge
Wire
Screens
for
>
50
MGD
and
Velocity
Caps
for
2­
50
MGD
Cylindrical
Wedge
Wire
Screens
for
>
50
MGD
Velocity
Caps
for
>
50
MGD
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
3
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Jack
Ups
which
use
sea
chests
while
in
transport
and
simple
pipes/
caissons
when
stationary
for
cooling
water
intake
Cylindrical
Wedge
Wire
Screens
plus
Flat
Panel
Wedge
Wire
Screens
and
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
>
2
MGD
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
and
Velocity
Caps
for
>
2
MGD
Cylindrical
and
Flat
Panel
Wedge
Wire
Screens
plus
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
pipes
and
sea
chests
for
>
50
MGD
and
Velocity
Caps
and
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
2­
50
MGD
Cylindrical
Wedge
Wire
Screens
plus
Flat
Panel
Wedge
Wire
Screnns
and
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
>
50
MGD
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
and
Velocity
Caps
for
>
50
MGD
Submersibles,

Semisubmersibles
and
Drill
Ships
which
use
sea
chests
for
cooling
water
intake
Flat
Panel
Wedge
Wire
Screens
and
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
>
2
MGD
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
>
2
MGD
Flat
Panel
Wedge
Wire
Screens
and
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
>
50
MGD
and
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
2­
50
MGD
Flat
Panel
Wedge
Wire
Screens
and
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
>
50
MGD
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
>
50
MGD
I
=
Impingement
Control
(
includes
velocity
caps
and
horizontal
flow
diverters)
I&
E
=
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Control
(
includes
cylindrical
wedge
wire
screens
and
flat
panel
wedge
wire
screens
with
a
horizontal
flow
diverter)

Source
of
Costing
Equations
and
Assumptions
Tables
2
through
5
presents
the
costing
equations
and
their
source
for
each
technology
costed.
Costs
were
prepared
for
both
stainless
steel
flat
panel
and
cylindrical
wedge
wire
screens
and
also
for
copper­
nickel
(
Cu­
Ni)
flat
panel
and
cylindrical
wedge
wire
screens.
Costs
were
also
developed
for
cylindrical
wedge
wire
systems
with
air
sparging
and
without.
Air
sparging
is
used
for
cylindrical
wedge
wire
screens
installed
in
waters
of
shallow
to
medium
depth
(
pipe
depth
less
than
200
feet)
to
help
prevent
biofouling
of
the
wedge
wire
screen.
Copper­
nickel
screen
material
is
more
expensive
than
stainless
steel
but
has
also
been
shown
to
have
a
greater
resistance
to
biofouling.
In
addition,
costs
were
developed
for
both
side
and
bottom
horizontal
flow
diverters
as
well
as
velocity
caps.
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
4
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Table
2.
Installed
Capital
Cost
Equations
and
Variables
for
Stationary
Platforms
Category
CWIS
Type
Description
Cost
Equations
Variable
Ref.

Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Stainless
steel
wedge
wire
screen
­
no
air
sparge
cleaning
$
=
585.1
x
dia
+
113,231
Single
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
(
417.8
x
dia
+
15,993)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
585.1
x
dia
+
161,981
Single
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
(
417.8
x
dia
+
24,493)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
585.1
x
dia
+
265,481
Single
CWIS
200­
350'

$
=
(
417.8
x
dia
+
27,993)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
200­

350'

$
=
585.1
x
dia
+
326,981
Single
CWIS
>
350'

$
=
(
417.8
x
dia
+
38,493)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
>
350'
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1
Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Stainless
steel
wedge
wire
screen
­
with
air
sparge
cleaning
$
=
1100.1
x
dia
+
122,921
Single
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
(
623.4
x
dia
+
12,841)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
1100.1
x
dia
+
171,671
Single
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
(
623.4
x
dia
+
21,341)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
1100.1
x
dia
+
275,171
Single
CWIS
200­
350'

$
=
(
623.4
x
dia
+
24,841)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
200­

350'

$
=
1100.1
x
dia
+
336,671
Single
CWIS
>
350'

$
=
(
623.4
x
dia
+
35,341)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
>
350'
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
5
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
CuNi
wedge
wire
screen
­
no
air
sparge
cleaning
$
=
1036.8
x
dia
+
113,231
Single
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
(
1036.8
x
dia
+
15,993)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
1036.8
x
dia
+
161,981
Single
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
(
1036.8
x
dia
+
24,493)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
1036.8
x
dia
+
265,481
Single
CWIS
200­
350'

$
=
(
1036.8
x
dia
+
27,993)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
200­

350'

$
=
1036.8
x
dia
+
326,981
Single
CWIS
>
350'

$
=
(
1036.8
x
dia
+
38,493)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
>
350
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1*

Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
CuNi
wedge
wire
screen
­
with
air
sparge
cleaning
$
=
1551.8
x
dia
+
122,921
Single
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
(
1075.1
x
dia
+
12,841)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
1551.8
x
dia
+
171,671
Single
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
(
1075.1
x
dia
+
21,341)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
1551.8
x
dia
+
275,171
Single
CWIS
200­
350'

$
=
(
1075.1
x
dia
+
24,841)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
200­

350'

$
=
1551.8
x
dia
+
336,671
Single
CWIS
>
350'

$
=
(
1075.1
x
dia
+
35,341)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
>
350'
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1*

Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Stainless
steel
and
CuNi
velocity
caps
$
=
482.8
x
dia
+
135,863
Single
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
(
482.8
x
dia
+
35,613)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
482.8
x
dia
+
184,613
Single
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
(
482.8
x
dia
+
44,113)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
482.8
x
dia
+
288,113
Single
CWIS
200­
350'

$
=
(
482.8
x
dia
+
47,613)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
200­

350'

$
=
482.8
x
dia
+
349,613
Single
CWIS
>
350'

$
=
(
482.8
x
dia
+
58,113)
x
(
No.
CWIS
­
1)
Additional
CWIS
>
350'
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1
References
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
6
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
1.
Hatch
Report
"
Off
Shore
and
Coastal
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Sea
Water
Intake
Structure
Modification
Cost
Estimate:
Caisson
and
Simple
Pipe",

March
12,
2004.

*
Note:
Hatch
Cu­
Ni
costs
were
<
Stainless
Steel
costs.
To
adjust
­
we
used
the
Hatch
slope
for
Cu­
Ni
+
the
Stainless
Steel
intercept.
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
7
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Table
3.
Operating
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Cost
Equations
and
Variables
Used
for
Stationary
Platforms
Category
CWIS
Type
Description
Cost
Equations
Variable
Ref.

Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Inspection
and
cleaning
of
stainless
steel
wedge
wire
screens
using
commercial
divers
­
no
air
sparge
system
$
=
(
45.77
x
dia
+
16,180)
x
No.
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
(
45.77
x
dia
+
19,180)
x
No.
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
(
45.77
x
dia
+
24,680)
x
No.
CWIS
200­
350'

$
=
(
45.77
x
dia
+
28,180)
x
No.
CWIS
>
350'
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1
Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Inspection
and
cleaning
of
stainless
steel
wedge
wire
screens
using
commercial
divers
­
with
air
sparge
system
Add
$
=
(
50.5
x
dia
+
9888.8)
+
((
21.9
x
dia
+
9229)
x
No.
CWIS
­
1)
to
each
stainless
steel
screen
inspection
equation
above
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1
Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Inspection
and
cleaning
of
CuNi
wedge
wire
screens
using
commercial
divers
­

no
air
sparge
system
$
=
(
18.63
x
dia
+
16,444)
x
No.
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
(
18.63
x
dia
+
19,444)
x
No.
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
(
18.63
x
dia
+
24,944)
x
No.
CWIS
200­
350'

$
=
(
18.63
x
dia
+
28,444)
x
No.
CWIS
>
350'
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1
Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Inspection
and
cleaning
of
CuNi
wedge
wire
screens
using
commercial
divers
­

with
air
sparge
system
Add
$
=
(
50.5
x
dia
+
9888.8)
+
((
21.9
x
dia
+
9229)
x
No.
CWIS
­
1)
to
each
CuNi
screen
inspection
equation
above
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1
Platform
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Inspection
and
cleaning
of
stainless
steel
or
CuNi
velocity
caps
using
commercial
divers
$
=
(
12.5
x
dia
+
17,802)
x
No.
CWIS
<
60'

$
=
(
12.5
x
dia
+
20,802)
x
No.
CWIS
60­
200'

$
=
(
12.5
x
dia
+
26,302)
x
No.
CWIS
200­
350'

$
=
(
12.5
x
dia
+
29,802)
x
No.
CWIS
>
350'
CWIS
Pipe
Diameter
(
inches)

and
depth
of
CWIS
opening
1
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
8
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
9
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Table
4.
Installed
Capital
Cost
Equations
and
Variables
for
Jack­
Up
MODUs
Category
CWIS
Type
Description
Cost
Equations
Variable
Ref.

Jackup
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Cylindrical
wedge
wire
screen
over
tower
inlet
$
=
(
684.5
x
dia
+
30,399)
x
No.
CWIS
(
stainless
no
air
sparge)

$
=
(
1538.8
x
dia
+
50,540)
x
No.
CWIS
(
stainless
with
air
sparge)

$
=
(
834.96
x
dia
+
30,389)
x
No.
CWIS
(
CuNi
no
air
sparge)

$
=
(
1688.6
x
dia
+
50,541)
x
No.
CWIS
(
CuNi
with
air
sparge)
CWIS
Tower
Assembly
Diameter
(
inches)
2
Jackup
Simple
Pipe
or
Caisson
Horizontal
Flow
Modifier
$
=
(
1106.1
x
dia
+
30,400
x
No.
CWIS)
CWIS
Tower
Assembly
Diameter
(
inches)
2
Jackup
Sea
Chest
Flat
panel
wedge
wire
screen
over
sea
chest
opening
$
=
(
4.74
x
flow
(
gpm)
+
29,700)
x
No.
sea
chests
(
stainless
steel)

$
=
(
5.05
x
flow
(
gpm)
+
29,700)
x
No.
sea
chests
(
CuNi)
Flow
through
sea
chest
(
gpm)
2
Jackup
Sea
Chest
Horizontal
Flow
Diverter
for
Side
Sea
Chests
$
=
(
2.93
x
flow
(
gpm)
+
20,520)
x
No.
sea
chests
Flow
through
sea
chest
(
gpm)
2
Jackup
Submersible
Pumps
Cylindrical
wedge
wire
screen
over
suction
pipe
inlet
$
=
(
349.1
x
dia
­
1,030)
x
No.
suction
pumps
(
stainless
steel)

$
=
(
564.7
x
dia
­
1,389)
x
No.
suction
pumps
(
CuNi)
Pump
suction
diameter
(
inches)
2
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
10
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Table
5.
Installed
Capital
Cost
Equations
and
Variables
for
Submersibles,
Semi­
Submersibles,

Drill
Ships,
and
Drill
Barge
MODUs
Category
CWIS
Type
Description
Cost
Equations
Variable
Ref.

Submersibles,

Semi­
Submersibles
and
Drill
Ships
Sea
Chests
Flat
panel
wedge
wire
screen
over
sea
chest
$
=
(
6.4621
x
flow
(
gpm)
+
0.287)
x
No.
CWIS
(
stainless
steel)

$
=
(
6.773
x
flow
(
gpm)
­
0.273)
x
No.
CWIS
(
CuNi)
Flow
through
sea
chest
(
gpm)
2
Submersibles,

Semisubmersibles
and
Drill
Ships
Sea
Chests
Horizontal
flow
diverter
over
side
sea
chest
$
=
(
3.4995
x
flow
(
gpm)
+
0.014)
x
No.
CWIS
Flow
through
sea
chest
(
gpm)
2
Drill
Barges
Simple
Pipes
Cylindrical
wedge
wire
screen
over
simple
pipes
$
=
(
393.67
x
dia
­
1208)
x
No.
CWIS
(
stainless
steel
­
no
air
sparge)

$
=
(
908.67
x
dia
+
8481)
x
No.
CWIS
(
stainless
steel
­
air
sparge)

$
=
(
845.33
x
dia
­
5603)
x
No.
CWIS
(
CuNi
­
no
air
sparge)

$
=
(
1360.3
x
dia
+
4087)
x
No.
CWIS
(
CuNi
­
air
sparge)
Diameter
of
CWIS
opening
(
inches)
2
Drill
Barges
Simple
Pipes
Velocity
Cap
on
the
CWIS
$
=
(
291.33
x
dia
+
21423)
x
No.
CWIS
(
stainless
steel
or
CuNi)
Diameter
of
CWIS
opening
(
inches)
2
References
1.
Hatch
Report
"
Off
Shore
and
Coastal
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Sea
Water
Intake
Structure
Modification
Cost
Estimate:
Caisson
and
Simple
Pipe",

March
12,
2004.
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
11
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
2.
Hatch
Report
"
Off
Shore
and
Coastal
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Sea
Water
Intake
Structure
Modification
Cost
Estimate:
Mobile
Off
Shore
Drilling
Units
(
MODUs)",
March
12,
2004.
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
12
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Several
assumptions
were
used
in
developing
the
costs
including
the
following:

°
Operating
and
Maintenance
costs
are
associated
with
fixed
platforms
only.
Based
on
the
May
7,
2001
Memorandum
to
the
File,
From:
Carey
A.
Johnston,
RE:
Notes
from
April
4,
2001
Meeting
with
the
Coast
Guard,
the
current
Coast
Guard
requirements
are
that
operators
must
inspect
sea
chests
twice
in
five
years
with
at
least
one
cleaning.
This
regular
cleaning
and
inspection
schedule
should
be
enough
to
control
marine
biofouling
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico.
It
was
therefore
assumed
that
MODU's
will
undergo
CWIS
control
maintenance
as
part
of
their
regularly
scheduled
dry
dock
service.

°
Operating
and
Maintenance
costs
for
fixed
platform
facilities
do
not
include
any
costs
associated
with
downtime.
Based
on
email
correspondence
from
Elmer
Danenberger,
MMS
to
Carey
Johnston,
EPA
(
dated
06/
08/
04)
and
from
Kent
Satterlee,
Shell
to
Carey
Johnston,
EPA
(
dated
06/
09/
04),
off­
shore
platform
facilities
regularly
shut­
in
for
planned
or
scheduled
maintenance.
This
generally
occurs
1­
2
times
per
year
and
a
typical
shut­
in
would
be
for
2­
3
days.

°
For
fixed
platform
facilities
using
simple
pipe
and/
or
caisson
intakes,
the
depth
of
the
water
intake
is
needed
to
determine
maintenance
costs
for
CWIS
control
inspection
and
cleaning.
Since
intake
depth
was
not
available
for
many
of
the
fixed
platform
facilities
costed,
an
estimate
of
the
intake
pipe
depth
was
developed
using
available
data.
Based
on
an
assessment
of
intake
depth
performed
by
Simon
(
from
TetraTech
file
xxx),
a
linear
equation
was
developed
to
represent
intake
pipe
depth
versus
total
design
intake
flow.
In
general,
the
greater
the
DIF
the
deeper
the
intake
depth.

°
The
facility­
level
option
costs
(
summarized
below)
include
air
sparging
equipment
for
biofouling
control
at
intake
depths
less
than
200
feet
for
both
stainless
steel
and
Cu­
Ni
cylindrical
wedge
wire
screens.
According
to
Linda
Cook
at
Johnson
Screens
(
email
correspondance
dated
May
20,
2004),
the
water
is
typically
clean
at
depths
below
40
to
50
feet
and
biofouling
is
typically
not
a
concern,
however
it
depends
on
the
water
quality
at
the
actual
location.
As
a
conservative
estimate,
ERG
assumed
air
sparging
systems
may
be
needed
at
depths
up
to
200
feet.
In
addition,
for
sea
chests,
costs
were
developed
for
both
bottom
and
side
horizontal
flow
diverters.
Since
it
was
unknown
in
most
cases
whether
facilities
had
bottom
or
side
sea
chests,
the
costs
included
in
the
facility­
level
option
costs
used
the
more
expensive
option
(
i.
e.,
assumed
side
sea
chests).

Weighting
Factors
for
Scaling
Up
the
Costs
Table
6
presents
the
weighting
factors
used
to
scale­
up
the
facility­
level
costs.
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
13
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Table
6.
Weighting
Factors
used
for
Cost
Scale­
up
Email
ID
Parent
Company
Name
Facility/
Rig
Name
Weighting
Factor
029
Transocean
Deepwater
Natilus
9.4
055
Global
Santa
Fe/
Glomar
High
Island
2
9.4
063
Global
Santa
Fe/
Glomar
Adriatic
10
9.4
065
Aera
Energy
Eureka
(
Beta)
2
072
Global
Santa
Fe/
Glomar
Main
Pass
4
9.4
080
Noble
Sam
Noble
9.4
086
Global
Santa
Fe/
Glomar
Arctic
1
9.4
100
ENSCO
ENSCO
88
9.4
107
Rowan/
Rowan
International
Inc.
Rowan
Anchorage
9.4
111
Rowan/
Rowan
Companies
Inc.
Charles
Rowan
9.4
115
Unocal
King
Salmon
Platform
6
Source:
weights
for
existing.
xls,
Anne
Jones,
ERG,
August
11,
2004.

Summary
of
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
Table
7
presents
a
summary
by
geographic
region
of
the
O&
G
extraction
facility
costs
for
CWIS
control
options
A
through
E
(
these
results
do
not
represent
scaled­
up
values).
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
14
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
Table
7.
Summary
of
O&
G
Costs
by
Option
No.
of
Facilities
Included
in
Costs
Option
A
Option
B
Option
C
Option
D
Option
E
Capital
Costs
Platforms,
GOM
16
4,047,201
4,187,716
4,187,716
0
0
Capital
Costs
Platforms,
California
6
2,546,486
2,598,198
2,598,198
0
0
Capital
Costs
Platforms,
Alaska
5
1,543,426
0
0
0
0
Capital
Costs
MODUs
87
21,653,766
11,440,066
14,408,685
4,502,389
1,533,770
Total
Capital
Costs
($)
114
29,790,879
18,225,980
21,194,599
4,502,389
1,533,770
O&
M
Costs
Platforms,
GOM
16
905,315
675,924
675,924
0
0
O&
M
Costs
Platforms,
California
6
576,504
539,340
539,340
0
0
O&
M
Costs
Platforms,
Alaska
5
573,804
0
0
0
0
O&
M
Costs
MODUs
87
0
0
0
0
0
Total
O&
M
Costs
($)
114
2,055,623
1,215,264
1,215,264
0
0
Option
A
=
I
&
E
control
for
facilities
with
>
2
MGD
Option
B
=
I
control
for
facilities
with
>
2
MGD
Option
C
=
I
&
E
control
for
facilities
with
>
50
MGD
and
I
control
for
facilities
with
2­
50
MGD
Option
D
=
I
&
E
control
for
facilities
with
>
50
MGD
Option
E
=
I
control
for
facilities
with
>
50
MGD
When
these
costs
are
scaled­
up
using
the
weighting
factors
from
Table
6,
the
total
capital
and
O&
M
costs
become:

Option
A
Option
B
Option
C
Option
D
Option
E
Total
Capital
Costs
($)
48,354,142
27,766,279
30,734,897
4,502,389
1,533,770
Total
O&
M
Costs
($)
3,054,978
1,257,368
1,257,368
0
0
Memorandum
11
August
2004
Page
15
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
