This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper OTC 20482, ’FDPSOs: The New Reality, and a Game-Changing Approach to Field Development and Early Production Systems,’ by W.D. Harris, SPE, H.J. Howard, SPE, and K.C. Hampshire, SPE, Murphy West Africa; J.A. Moore and K.J. Bayne, SPE, Doris Inc.; and Jean Pepin-Lehalleur, Doris Engineering, originally prepared for the 2010 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 3-6 May. The paper has not been peer reviewed. The Azurite field development, installed in the Republic of Congo in 2009, employed the industry’s first floating drilling, production, storage, and offloading (FDPSO) vessel to develop the field. While the FDPSO concept has been a subject of interest within the industry for some time, the Azurite project team took the FDPSO from concept to reality. The concept has tremendous potential as a “game changer” for field developments. Introduction The Azurite field lies within the Mer Profonde Sud (MPS) Block offshore the Republic of Congo, just north of the border with Cabinda Block 14. Water depths across MPS range from 1100 to 2000 m. Azurite field was discovered in January 2005 with the AZRM-1 well. The field was appraised in late 2005 and early 2006 with the drilling of the AZRM-2 and AZRM-3 wells. Each of the latter two wells was sidetracked (ST). AZRM-2ST also was cored and tested. Aquifer support was found to be essentially nonexistent along the producing trend, necessitating water injection to support reservoir pressure. Concepts Considered The Azurite integrated project team began the task of identifying and evaluating field-development alternatives. Multiple development schemes were identified and evaluated. The four main alternatives evaluated were: Subsea tiebacks to third-party facilities Subsea tieback to infield floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) vessel Dry-tree unit (DTU) producing to FPSO Infield FDPSO A subsea tieback to third-party facilities in the Republic of Congo or Angola was considered and deemed technically feasible, with the aid of subsea boosting. However, tiebacks to third-party facilities in the Republic of Congo or tiebacks to third-party facilities in Angola, with the associated cross-border issues, would have introduced too much schedule and political risk. Hence, tieback schemes involving third-party facilities were not selected. A subsea tieback to an infield FPSO was considered. However, strong market demand for deepwater floating rigs exposed the project to significant schedule delays. Likewise, their associated day rates adversely affected project economics.