Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth (2014) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference

Busan, Korea, June 15-20, 2014

Copyright 2014 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1 880653 91-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

www.isope.org

A Classification Societys Experience with Subsea Mining

Marco Figoni
ABS Brazil Offshore Technology
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Sudheer Chand
ABS Offshore Technology
Houston, US

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Growing interest in deep water minerals resources is providing

opportunities for both the mining and oil industries. Exploration and
production of ocean minerals require synergies between different
technologies. In this context appropriate standards are needed to cover
both new equipment and existing equipment that may be subject to
changed service conditions. This paper covers ABS experience with
related equipment such as deep sea oil and gas, certification of
equipment as per existing API requirements, manufacturers
Specifications and Coastal Administrations requirements

The most critical challenges with regard to the recovery of ocean bed
mineral resources, especially in deep water, are related to the
production operations, including the deep-sea excavation process, the
transport to the surface of large slurry volumes, slurry abrasiveness,
power supply management and the subsea equipment handling. While
the mining industry has taken the lead with respect to the dredging and
processing part of the system, the oil industry is contributing through
the adaptation of exploration techniques and the development of ore
lifting technology based on existing subsea knowledge. The areas of
interest for deep sea mining are:

KEY WORDS: Deep-sea mining, Certification, Classification, Risk

Assessment, Novel Concept.

NOMENCLATURE
ABS
DP
FAT
FMECA
HAZID
HAZOP
HV
ISA
JIP
LV
NDE
P&ID
PQR
REEs
SCFU
SEPS
SMS
SS
TS
UTS
WPS

American Bureau of Shipping

Dynamic Position
Factory Acceptance Test
Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis
Hazard Identification Study
Hazard and Operability Study
High Voltage
International Seabed Authority
Joint Industry Project
Low Voltage
Nondestructive Examination
Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
Procedure Qualification Record
Rare Earth Elements
Subsea Chrushing and Feeding Unit
Subsea Electrical Power Standardization
Seafloor Massive Sulphides
Seabed Systems
Topside Systems
Underwater Transportation Systems
Welding Procedures Specifications

Mid ocean ridges, volcanic arcs and back arc spreading

systems where active and extinct hydrothermal vents create
sulphide deposit commonly called Seafloor Sulphide
Deposits (SMS) and located between 1500 m and 5000 m
below sea level
Seafloor of ocean basins between 4000m and 6000 m where
it can be found polymetallic nodules deposits rich in rare
earth elements (REEs)
Seamounts and around flanks of volcanic islands between
400 m and 4000 m where it possible to find polymetallic
crusts

Several exploration techniques and offshore production systems have

already been designed and assessed, all of them with apparently
positive results. While the exploration phase is well advanced, and
subject to continuous expansion, resulting in the discovery of an
increasing inventory of different mineral resources in the worlds
oceans, production can be considered to be still at an early stage.
Subsea operations associated with offshore mining require close
cooperation between international and local authorities to preserve the
environment and leave a small footprint yet there are still many
uncertainties in this regard. Additionally, all the exploration processes
must be carefully evaluated if subsea mining is to be allowed to
develop in a sustainable manner. From a purely technical standpoint,
mining at the seabed has already been successfully demonstrated. The
process is based on three main components (fig. 1), namely Seabed
Systems (SS), Underwater Transportation Systems (UTS) and Topside
Systems (TS). This layout is based on the concept that ore, or other

78

mineral, must first be disaggregated at the seafloor, transported to the

surface in the form of a slurry and subsequently dewatered before
onward transportation to a planned location such as an onshore
processing plant . Tailings, the result of the dewatering process, are
disposed back to the sea, as is the excess water (Shimmield et al. 2010).
Industrys awareness of these challenges is increasing because the
environmental and safety issues associated with these processes must
be taken into consideration as a priority when evaluating the efficiency
of the system. SS, UTS and TS are interrelated and should be selected
taking into consideration the following:
-

The design of the equipment involved

Possible harsh met-ocean conditions
Seafloor morphology and depth
High pressures in ultra-deep waters
Slurry lifting and abrasiveness
Low or high temperature excursions depending on the nature
of the recoverable deposits
Environmental sensitivity
Cost, schedule and resources including design problems,
equipment and component selection, vendor selection and
management and the retrieval of equipment for repair and
maintenance

Fig.1: Scheme deep sea mining installation. Modified from Boomsma

W. et al. (2013).
Fig.2. SMS mining architecture (Parenteau et al. 2013)
Figure 1 show an example of mining system for polymetallic nodules
recovery where a self-propelled dredge crawls on the bottom to collect
nodules and condition them for pumping through the flexible hose. The
slurry is then lifted through a rigid steel pipe string to the surface for
processing. Possible layouts for mining SMS deposits with three
different pumping systems (i.e. topside water injection pump, positive
displacement pump and topside air compressor respectively) are shown
on figure 2. Two flexible risers anchored to the sea bed with a steep
wave layout are used separately to transport slurry to surface and to
circulate filtrated water result of surface dewatering process.
Depending on the system design, a Subsea Chrusing and Feeding Unit
(SCFU) can be used to reduce the size of SMS chunks to be lifted
(Parenteau et al. 2013, Waquet et al. 2011).

DEEP SEA MINING SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The equipment being used for seabed exploitation is expected to
operate at water depths than can exceed 6000 m and its origin comes
from the interaction of at least four main industries, namely ship, oil
and gas, land-based mining and sediment dredging industries. Methods
used to design and test a specific system must follow recognized
standards but not necessarily related to these industries if the
technology employed is derived from other sectors where specific
standards have already been recognized. In general, TS and UTS are
covered by Ship and Oil and Gas industries providing the technology
for dynamic position, power generation, pipelines, riser system, lifting
systems, umbilicals, controls, monitoring and ROVs. The land-based
mining and sediment dredging industries are responsible mainly for the

79

advances on the production tools of SS, lifting systems and ore

processing. Key components and hydrodynamic challenges of SS are:
-

Adaptation, marinization and assembly of existing proven

mining and dredging equipment
The effect of hyperbaric pressures on the excavation process
and cutting efficiency (fig.3)
SS performance depending on rock parameters, cutter
parameters, time efficiency and utilization (Jackson et al.
2007)
The hydraulic transport of the excavated material
Control and handling systems design for ultra-deep water
environment
Seafloor morphology
Fig.4. Scheme of mud-lift pump (modified from General Electrics)

The main challenges related to UTS are pipe dynamic behavior (Chung
JS, 2010), vibrations (VIV and internal pipe flow) and flow assurance.
In order to maintain excavator performance, UTS should not transfer
vessel and sea related motions to SS. One of the equipment that
determines the design and layout of the SS and UTS is the lifting
system and in particular the nature of the equipment utilized. The slurry
lifting system at the present time is based on three main methods
(Leach S. et al. 2012 and Verichev S. et al., 2012), namely:
-

CLASSIFICATION and CERTIFICATION PROCESS

In general, design, construction procedures, safety procedures and
construction supervision remain the responsibility of the designer,
shipyard, ship repairer, manufacturer, owner or other stakeholder as
applicable. Class carries out plan review, and surveys before, during
and after construction to verify that a vessel, structure, item of material,
equipment or machinery is in compliance with the applicable class
rules, guides and standards and with any other specified third party
criteria.
Classification means that a specific vessel, system, subsystem, piece of
equipment, and/or components has been designed, constructed,
installed, and surveyed in compliance with and the applicable standards
of the class society. Applicable national regulations and other statutory
requirements can either be carried out by the flag administration itself,
or by a recognized organization (RO) so authorized by the flag
administration. In many instances the RO is also the class society of
record. The classification process consists of:

Positive displacement pumps

Multi-stage centrifugal pumps
Air lift system

Development of rules, guides, standards and other criteria for

the design, construction, installation and maintenance of a
vessel, its systems, subsystems, equipment, and/or
components
Review of the design and subsequent survey during and after
construction to verify compliance with the applicable rules,
guides, standards or other criteria
Assignment and registration of class when such compliance
has been verified
The issuance of a renewable classification certificate, the
maintenance of which is subject to satisfactory periodic
surveys.
Existing standards that can be applied for SS, UTS and TS are related
to equipment that has already been utilized in an environment similar to
the one being proposed. These standards can be organized as follows:

Fig.3. Difference between a shallow water and deep water excavation

process (Verichev S. et al., 2011)
Each solution has its own advantage/disadvantages (Leach S. et al.
2012) that should carefully be assessed during the design phase. The
most important parameters that should be optimized are:
-

Pump efficiency for long vertical distances

Power consumption
Maintenance requirements that should be kept as low as
possible due to
Environmental disturbance

One aspect to take into consideration is that some positive displacement

pumps installed close to the seabed have the ability to dispose the
tailings from dewatering process close to the sea bottom without the
need of return pipe installation (fig. 4). TS should have a Dynamic
Position (DP) able to keep the vessel steady and at the same time in
constant motion following the SS excavation path without overstressing
UTS. The processing of the excavated material on board an offshore
operating vessel, the effects of motions on process equipment, the
power supply and the handling system for mining equipment are the
main challenges related to TS.

Subsea Systems
API RP 17H, API RP 17M and API 610 for ROVs and
Remote Operated Tools (ROTs)
API 17E and API 17F for subsea umbilicals and controls
ABS Rules for Building and Classing Underwater Vehicles,
Systems and Hyperbaric Facilities
Underwater Transportation Systems
API RP 2RD, API 17B, API 17K and API 17J for flexible
and rigid risers
API Technical Report per15K for high pressure and high
temperature equipment

80

API 674, API 610, API 526 and API 682 for pumps
ABS Guide for Building and Classing Subsea Riser Systems

at later stages of the concept development due to the fact that they
require considerably more details related to the engineering and/or
testing. Due to the fact that the nature of equipment involved in deepsea mining may be unique or include unique features, it is not possible
to give precise guidelines on how to decide what level of third-party
verification is appropriate for each piece of equipment. For this reason
ABS certification utilizes a cross reference matrix with two main
variables and three levels of risk to define the categories of equipment
which should be considered critical in terms of design verification and
approval. One variable is the safety/environment, evaluated in terms of
consequence of an equipment failure, and the other is the level of
design maturity. For the cross reference matrix, if a failure can result in:

Topside Systems
ABS Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Units
ABS Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore
Drilling Units (some support vessel designs include a moon
pool area)
ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Barges
A process for the evaluation of novel concepts should be utilized for
SS, UTS and TS applications that have never been utilized in the
environment being proposed and when existing industry Standards are
not directly applicable. In the case of the deep-sea mining industry,
existing Standards can only be applied when considered compatible.
Following this philosophy, the ABS methodology for the review and
approval of new concepts, when applicable, follows 3 main stages (Fig.
4):
Conceptual Design and Approval in Principle (AIP)
Detailed Design, Construction and Installation approval
Operations and Maintenance of Class

Loss of life and/or major environmental pollution it is to be

considered a critical event
Injury and/or minor environmental pollution it is to be
considered a moderate event
No impact to safety and/or environment it is to be
considered a non-critical event

The equipment design can be:

The AIP stage uses a risk based approval process and requires submittal
of conceptual engineering and risk assessment studies to allow for
acceptance of the concept for classification. In this phase it must be
demonstrated that failure modes and consequences have been identified
and at least considered in the concept design. When a project involves a
detailed design, the approval must include an advanced risk assessment
and testing. This phase of the project would involve traditional class
participation in the form of design review and survey and would
ultimately result in class approval. At the third stage, maintenance of
class would be performed in the traditional sense, involving periodic
surveys to validate renewal of the class certificate.
However, in this instance, the maintenance of class for a novel concept
may involve a modified and/or expanded survey scope or frequency as
a condition of class, until the concept has built up a satisfactory service
experience (ABS, 2003). The graph on fig.5 shows the evolution of a
concept in terms of engineering and operation, risk assessment and
ABS involvement in these phases.

New, unproven and not previously used

Proven, previously qualified or field proven
Established, accepted by industry as a standard design

The combination of these variables identifies three main equipment

categories (fig. 6) as follow:
-

Category A; detailed documentation and supporting

calculation/analysis are required for design verification and
approval
Category B; acceptance can be based on unit certification
from a classification society and a report showing the
acceptance criteria with assumptions and design conditions.
Otherwise, detailed design documentation and supporting
calculation/analysis are required for design verification
Category C; acceptance can be based on manufacturers
affidavit of compliance with an applicable recognized
standard. Otherwise, detailed design documentation and
supporting calculation/analysis are required for design
verification.

A new equipment design is considered part of category A only when its

failure leads to a critical event as described above; when the
consequence of a failure is moderate or non-critical, the new design
falls inside category B and C respectively. Equipment with already
proven technology can be part of categories B or C depending on
whether the consequence of a failure is critical or moderate
respectively.

Fig.5: Building Up a Novel Concept (ABS, 2003)

Qualitative and quantitative risk assessment tools are used to identify
the hazards and assess the risks introduced by the novel features,
operability and any interface issues with other systems.
At an early stage of concept development, qualitative tools such as.
What-if, HAZID, HAZOP, FMECA are employed. Quantitative risk
assessments or reliability analysis tend to be more appropriately applied

Fig.6: Categorization of Consequences of Failure (Figoni et al. 2013)

Equipment considered standard by the industry is only part of category
B when an equipment failure cannot generate a critical event and, in the
case of moderate or non-critical failure, such equipment is excluded

81

from ABS approval in the same way as the equipment with already
proven technology (fig. 6). Once categorized, the equipment should
follow ABS requirements as described in figure 7.

reports as appropriate
Installation procedures
Fabrication specifications, including welding heat treatment,
NDT and testing
Process flow sheets
Equipment layout drawing
P&IDs, hydraulic, electrical and control schematics
HAZID/HAZOP and FMECA as applicable

Fig.7: Requirements for Various Categories (Figoni et al. 2013)

Equipment belonging to category A, the most sensitive level, is the
only one that requires a detailed fabrication inspection. Pressure and
load tests and witness of final operation are only required for categories
A and B. When an equipment category requires a detailed review, not
only design but also fabrication and installation phases should be
covered. The design should verify the:
-

Fig.9 Environmental Parameters (Figoni et al. 2013)

Construction procedures, safety procedures and construction
supervision remain the responsibility of the shipyard, ship repairer,
manufacturer, owner or other client.
Surveyors apply normally accepted examination and testing standards
to those items specified for each survey by the rules.
The survey process should include:

Operational environment and loads parameters (fig.8, fig.9

and fig. 10 respectively)
Compliance with laws/regulations, industry standards and
ABS rules/ guides
Suitability for the full range of operating conditions
Analysis results by running the critical load cases
Consistency of the design with applicable design standards

Material verification
WPS and PQR
Critical phases (fit-up, alignment, NDE)
Witness and report on pressure testing
Operational test
FAT
System qualification and integration between various
contractors equipment
Installation based on approved procedures

Fig.8: Definition of Service Conditions (Figoni et al. 2013)

The design review should cover at least:
-

Fig.10: Loads Parameters (Figoni et al. 2013)

UNIT CERTIFICATION PROCESS

Design basis
Drawings, bill of materials and material specifications
Corrosion protection systems
Strength calculation (stress and structural analysis)
Environment, Geotechnical/Geophysical reports or other

Conformity assessment applies to equipment that is considered part of

category B as previously described. Conformity assessment is a process
whereby a product, process, service, or system is evaluated against

82

specified requirements and is typically known as Unit Certification or

Type Approval. Unit Certification may include one or more activities
such as design review, material test or type test that result in the
issuance of an ABS document. It provides consumers a means on which
to rely in selecting products in the marketplace. And it permits
governments to enforce the regulations for which they are responsible
in protecting the public health and safety. For these reasons, companies
tend to request Type Approval even though it is not a formal
requirement. Conformity assessment may consist of any one of, some
of, or all of the following:
-

NATIONAL REGULATIONS
Article 153, paragraph 4, of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea states that the obligation of the sponsoring States in
accordance with article 139 of the Convention entails taking all
measures necessary to ensure compliance by the sponsored contractor.
Administrations that have already informed ISA of their laws
applicable to subsea mining are Belgium, China, Cook Islands, Czech
Republic, Fiji, France, Germany, Guyana, Japan, Mexico, Nauru,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Pacific Islands Region, Republic of
Korea, Tonga, United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, United States of
America (as Observer) and Zambia.

Design Assessment
Material testing
Sample testing
Item inspection
Factory acceptance tests
Process evaluation
Management system registration and product certification

TECHNOLOGICAL BOTTLENECK
Historically, both the marine, offshore oil and gas and mining industries
have been innovative ones. The subsea mining industry has adapted
many advances in the subsea oil and gas industries, especially as they
pertain to exploration. A technological barrier to large scale production
remains the ability to provide ample amounts of power at the seabed.
ABS is assisting in mitigating this bottleneck by participation in various
joint industry and sponsored research projects involving cables, power
distribution and connectors for subsea use. Subsea resource recovery is
being envisioned to occur at increasing depths and far from shore.
The quantity of energy and power required to operate resource recovery
equipment is increasing as the magnitude of the recovery efforts grow
ever larger and processing is displaced from the surface/shore to the sea
bed. Subsea electrification has been identified as a facilitating
technology to subsea endeavors such as resource recovery, i.e.
petroleum and gas as well as minerals (subsea mining). The large scale
deployment of high energy, high power electrical systems and
equipment to the seafloor is a new endeavor that is in its initial stages.
Early scenarios envisioned that power will be delivered to the subsea
equipment from a surface based source. In recent times the focus has
shifted towards anticipation of power delivery from shore utilizing
step-outs ranging in the 100s of kV. There has been some discussion
of seabed based power sources however at this time it is not believed to
be considered for commercial applications. To date industry is working
to adapt surface or terrestrial equipment for use in systems deployed on
the sea floor as well as attempting to develop uniform standards for the
design of equipment suitable for use in the subsea environment.
The United States Government sponsored Research Partnership to
Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) has participation from both US
based and European based equipment makers and operators. There are
a variety of challenges to the successful commercial deployment of
high power subsea systems. These challenges may be broken down
into:

When carried out by a party other than the supplier (the first party) or
the purchaser (the second party), the conformity assessment is said to
be provide by a third party, one independent of buyer or seller. Reliance
on a third party may be required by a government regulator or specified
by the customer. Based on the intended service and application, some
products do not require unit certification and they are considered
belonging to category C; they are not directly related to the scope of
classification or normal practices for their construction within the
industry are considered adequate. Such products may be accepted based
on the manufacturers documentation on design and quality.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is an autonomous
international organization established under the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement relating to
the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea. The Authority is the organization through which States
Parties to the Convention shall, in accordance with the regime for the
seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction (the Area) established in Part XI and the Agreement
organize and control activities in the Area, particularly with a view to
administering the resources of the Area. ISA has published several
documents, downloadable from its website. Prominent among these is
the Mining Code. The "Mining Code" refers to the whole of the
comprehensive set of rules, regulations and procedures issued by the
ISA to regulate prospecting, exploration and exploitation of marine
minerals in the international seabed Area (defined as the seabed and
subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction).
All rules, regulations and procedures are issued within a general legal
framework established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea and its 1994 Implementing Agreement relating to deep
seabed mining. To date, the Authority has issued Regulations on
Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area
(adopted 13 July 2000) which was later updated and adopted 25 July
2013; the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic
Sulphides in the Area (adopted 7 May 2010) and the Regulations on
Prospecting and Exploration for Cobalt-Rich Crusts (adopted 27 July
2012). These regulations include the forms necessary to apply for
exploration rights as well as standard terms of exploration contracts.
The complete set of these regulations will form part of the Mining Code
together with recommendations by the Authority's Legal and Technical
Commission for the guidance of contractors on the assessment of the
environmental impacts of exploration for polymetallic nodules.

83

Equipment


Wet mate power connectors (LV, HV,
Communication)


Subsea cable


Subsea Transformers


Motors for subsea compression, pumping and down
hole applications


Subsea Switchgear


Subsea Drives


Subsea power supplies (UPS, Batteries, etc.)
Network Topology
Network Characteristics


DC or AC (low frequency, commercial frequency,
high frequency)


Transmission, distribution and operation voltages
Network Control

API 17K (2006). Specification for Bonded Flexible Pipe.

API 17J (2009). Specification for Unbonded Flexible Pipe.
API Technical Report per15K (2013). Protocol for Verification and
Validation of High-pressure High-temperature Equipment.
API 526 (2009). Flanged Steel Pressure-relief Valves.
API 610 (2011). Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Petrochemical and
Natural Gas Industries.
API 674 (2010). Positive Displacement PumpsReciprocating.

There are several pilot projects in various stages of development. Some

projects are qualifying equipment in test pools, dry docks and Fjords;
others are near to going into production. The industry, especially
equipment makers are concerned about non-uniform standards,
specifications and qualification requirements from operators. The
observed variances greatly increase cost and time to deployment as
operators are often not willing to accept previous qualification results.
A consequence of this chaos was the formation of the SEPS JIP and the
recent efforts by IEEE and IEC to develop uniform standards,
specifications and qualification procedures. ABS is participating the
IEEE efforts. One area where ABS is very active is in the development
of guidance for subsea network topology, operating parameters and
analysis techniques. The subsea network may be thought of as the
glue that will bind together all the various components. ABS has
begun to model subsea electrical systems utilizing Simulink a part of
the Matlab suite of applications. An advantage that Simulink offers
is the ability to model the pipeline along with the electrical system and
to couple the pipeline to the electrical network. These coupled models
allow ABS to see how transients in either system propagate in the
specific system and between systems.

API 682 (2011). PumpsShaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and

Rotary Pumps.
Boomsma, W, Ortega, A, de Wit, L (2013). Towards Zero Impact:
Assessment of ecological impact for tailings return. Recent
Developments in Atlantic Seabed Minerals Exploration and Other
Topics of Timely Interest, The 42nd Conference of the Underwater
Mining Institute, Rio de Janeiro. pp.1-9.
Brink, AW, and Chung, JS (1981). Automatic Position Control of a
30,000 tons Ship during Ocean Mining Operations Proc Offshore
Tech Conf, Houston, Texas, Paper 4901.
Chakala, M (2010). Subsea Equipment, ABS Offshore Engineering.
Chand, S (2013). A Classification Society's Experience with Deep Sea
Mineral Recovery. DeepSea Mining Summit, London.
Chung, JS, Cheng, BR (1996). Effects of Elastic Joints on 3-D
Nonlinear Responses of a Deep-Ocean Pipe: Modeling and Boundary
Conditions. The International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers Vol. 6, No. 3, September 1996, pp. 16.
Chung JS (2010). Full-Scale, Coupled Ship and Pipe Motions
Measured in North Pacific Ocean: The Hughes Glomar Explorer with
a 5,000-m-LongHeavy-Lift Pipe Deployed. The International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2010,
pp. 16.
Figoni M, Chand, S (2014). A Classification Societys Experience
with Deep Sea Mining. Poster on the 42nd Conference of the
Underwater Mining Institute, October 2129, 2013 Rio de Janeiro.
ISA - http://www.isa.org.jm/en/mcode
Jackson, E, Clarke, D (2007). Subsea Excavation of Seafloor Massive
Sulphides , MTSIEEE Oceans Conference 2007.
Kocurek, C, Pathak, P, Melancon C, Sohn, S et al., (2012). Merging
ASME and API Design Methods for Subsea Equipment Up To 25000
PSI Working Pressure. Proc Offshore Tech Conf, Houston, Texas,
Paper 23063.
Leach, S, Smith, G, Berndt, R (2012). SME SPECIAL SESSION:
Subsea Slurry Lift Pump Technology SMS Development, Proc
Offshore Tech Conf, Houston, Texas, Paper 23224.

CONCLUSIONS
In any emerging industry, there is uncertainty regarding suitability of
equipment. In the absence of clear codes, designers may be at a loss to
refer to a generally accepted standard of design, quality, testing, and
inspection. In such an environment, equipment manufacturers,
fabricators and integrators such as shipyards tend to cover the
uncertainty by estimating their costs to be on the higher end of the
scale. Initially certification and then classification processes help in
reducing such uncertainty and thus help to provide an impetus to
growth for emerging industries.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank ABS Corporate Managers for their
constant support during the project and helpful insights during peer
review of this paper

REFERENCES
ABS (2014). Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels
ABS (2014). Rules for Building and Classing Underwater Vehicles,
Systems and Hyperbaric Facilities
ABS (2014). Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore
Drilling Units
ABS (2014). Rules for Building and Classing Steel Barges
ABS (2008). Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Units
ABS (2006). Guide for Building and Classing Subsea Riser Systems
ABS (2003). Guidance Notes on the Review and Approval of Novel
Concepts
API RP 2RD (2006). Recommended Practice for Design of Risers for
Floating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension-Leg Platforms
(TLPs).
API RP 17H (2009). Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Interfaces on
Subsea Production Systems.

Parenteau, T, Espinasse, F, Benbia, A, Ngim, B (2013). Subsea

Mining Field Development Concept Using a Subsea Crushing and
Feeding Unit, Proc Offshore Tech Conf, Houston, Texas, Paper
23953.
Ridley, N, Graham, S, Kapusniak, S (2011). Seafloor Production
Tools for the Resources of the Future, Proc Offshore Tech Conf,
Houston, Texas, Paper 21443.
Shimmield, TM, Black, KD, Hove, JA, Hughes, DJ, Sherwin, T (2010).
"Independent Evaluation of Deep-Sea Mine Tailings Placement
(DSTP) in PNG. Project Number: 8.ACP.PNG.18-B/15.
Smith S. (2010). Deep Ocean Seafloor Mineral Extraction
Environmental and Social Considerations, Proc Offshore Tech
Conf, Houston, Texas, Paper 20502.
Verichev, S, Drobadenko, V, Malukhin, N, Vilmis, A, Lucieer, P,
Heeren, J (2012). Assessment of Different Technologies for Vertical

API RP 17M (2009). Recommended Practice on Remotely Operated

Tool (ROT) Intervention Systems.
API 17E (2011). Specification for Subsea Umbilicals.
API 17F (2006). Specification for Subsea Production Control
Systems.
API 17B (2008). Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe.

84

Waquet, B, Faulds, D, Benbia, A (2011). Understanding the Effects of

Deep-Sea Conditions on Seafloor Massive Sulfide Deposits Crushing
Process,Proc Offshore Tech Conf, Houston, Texas, Paper 21414.
Yu, A (2009). Extending Deepwater Technology to Seafloor Mining,
OTC 19912

Hydraulic Transport in Deep Sea Mining Applications. Proc of the

ASME 2012 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil , Paper 83156.
Verichev S, van Gelder R, Alvarez Grima M and van Wijk J (2011).
Into The Deep: A Risk-Based Approach For Research To Deepsea
Mining, CEDA Dredging Days 2011 - Dredging and Beyond.

85