SPE 56708
FPSO Trends
B.F. Ronalds, SPE, and E.F.H. Lim, U. of Western Australia
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A review of trends in floating production, storage and
offloading (FPSO) technology is presented, using an extensive
database of past, current and planned developments around the
world. The review commences with the first FPSOs in the
mid-1970s, explores the stimuli for FPSO development in
Asia, in particular, over the next two decades and their
widespread acceptance in the North Sea in the late-1990s.
Current and future FPSO innovations in both hardware and
applications are discussed against this background.
Introduction
Floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) facilities
generally comprise a ship-shaped vessel, held on location by a
mooring system. Well fluid is passed from the seabed to the
vessel through a fluid transfer system and is processed by
equipment mounted on the deck. Produced oil is then stored
in tanks in the hull, awaiting periodic transfer to a shuttle
tanker to take it to shore.
Two key components of the FPSO system are single-point
moorings (SPMs) and subsea trees. Both technologies were
pioneered by Shell in the early 1960s, and they came together
in 1977 in the prototype FPSO (Castellon), installed offshore
Spain. Shell chose the scheme as the most cost-effective
system to develop a single well in moderately deep water
(117m), remote from pipeline infrastructure for oil export.
Economics were improved by converting a second-hand
tanker, which enabled the scheme to come on stream just 11
months after the start of engineering2.
FPSOs have evolved continuously since the 1970s and are
now a favoured solution in many petroleum provinces.
However, they still constitute only 1% of the world’s offshore
facilities and are yet to find acceptance in the Gulf of Mexico.
Details of FPSO applications to date are listed in the
Appendix. The sections below summarise the state-of-the-art
in relation to mechanical and fluid swivels, factors affecting
vessel selection, and the increasing applicability of FPSOs to a
wide range of field developments.
Mooring System
FPSOs are generally, but not always, held on station by a
SPM. This configuration enables the vessel to rotate about a
vertical axis such that it always faces into the weather.
Without this weathervaning capability the ship-shaped hull
would experience severe motions under beam seas.
Components of the mooring system may include:
• structure linking the hull to the SPM
• rotating connector to allow weathervaning
• SPM body
• one or more anchor-legs linking the SPM body to the
seabed
• foundation system
SPMs were first developed as an anchor point for tankers,
generally to transfer oil, and have been the subject of
extensive research effort over the years. Early SPMs were
categorised according to their mooring system as either
catenary anchored or a single anchor point.
SALM. In a single anchor-leg mooring (SALM), the SPM is
attached to the seabed at a single point. This mooring
arrangement was first adopted in 1963 in Italy, by using a
small jacket structure mounted with a rotating head, and
similar schemes have also been utilised for several FPSOs (eg.
Adanga/Akam/Ebughu in Nigeria4, Fig. 1).
A very simple form of SALM comprises a single vertical
chain connected to a base. The chain remains tensioned and
essentially vertical due to buoyancy forces generated by a tank
either atop the chain or attached under the mooring yoke (see
below). Such a system was adopted for Castellon and the
product riser was clamped to the chain. In a further
alternative, the anchor-leg may comprise a rigid riser tube,
connected to the base by a universal joint (eg. Tazerka, Fig. 2).
The tube may provide buoyancy to assist in keeping the
SALM upright and also gives protection to the product risers
within.
The most recent SALM installation on a FPSO is Suizhong
in 1993. Hondo, in 150m, was the deepest water FPSO
2 B.F. RONALDS, E.F.H. LIM SPE 56708

moored by a SALM.

Fig. 2: Tazerka SALM

Fig.1: Adanga/Akam/Ebughu SALM

CALM. Early catenary anchor-leg mooring (CALM) systems

were developed by Imodco in 1959 and Single Buoy Moorings
(SBM) in 1960. These comprise a shallow-draft buoy that is
held in position by restoring forces generated by the weight of
a number of catenary chains. Cadlao (Fig. 3) is an early
example of a FPSO CALM system; a recent example is the
reuse of the FPSO II vessel in 1997 at South Marlim in 1420m
water depth.

Turret. A later innovation was to adopt a long spar-shaped

buoy, called a riser turret. The Jabiru SPM installed in 1986 is
the first such turret mooring5, although a somewhat similar
Fig. 3: Cadlao CALM
shape had earlier been adopted for offloading systems (eg. From [8]
Brent Spar, 1976). Riser turrets have since been adopted for
three other FPSOs offshore Australia (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Griffin FPSO with riser turret

Courtesy BHPP
SPE 56708 FPSO TRENDS 3

Further variations arise when the SPM is not a floating
buoy but is mounted directly on the vessel, either within or
external to the hull. Recent examples include Maui B13 in
1996 (Fig. 5) and Escravos in 1997. These turrets are located
well above waterline and so care must be taken to guard
against contact between the mooring lines and the hull. Other
external turrets extend down into the water – Nilde (1987)
offshore Italy was the first example, and this facility is
currently being reused at the Aquila field in 850m water.
valves and a pig receiver.
A new innovation is the submerged turret, comprising a
conical-shaped buoy that locks into a recess in the underside
of the hull. Like other SPMs, it was first used for shuttle
tankers and floating storage units (FSUs). Its first application
on a FPSO is Lufeng (1997).

Fig. 5: Maui B external turret

Courtesy Shell Todd Oil Services

Petrojarl 1, commissioned in 1986, utilised the first

internal turret mooring. To date, all moored FPSOs in UK and
Norwegian waters have internal or submerged (see below)
turrets. Through this, internal turrets have become the most
popular mooring type (Table 1).

Table 1
FPSO Moorings

Mooring Number

SALM 11
CALM 12 Fig. 6: Bottom mounted internal turret
Riser turret 4 Courtesy SBM
External turret 7
Internal turret 22 Mechanical connection between hull and SPM body. In its
Submerged turret 2 simplest form, the mechanical link between the vessel and an
Spread 9
external SPM might be just a hawser. In this case the vessel
DP 2
may also require an independent station-keeping method,
Total 69 using its thrusters and/or a tug boat where necessary to ensure
it does not collide with the SPM. This system is generally
There are many internal turret arrangements (eg. Fig. 6). restricted to loading/offloading purposes, but has also been
The anchor chain table is typically at the bottom. The risers adopted for extended well tests (EWT), eg. Liuhua (1988)7.
are pulled through guide tubes and hung off at a riser Where a more permanent mooring system is required, an
termination deck, and fluid lines are combined at a manifold A-framed yoke may be used to make the mechanical
deck. Above this are the swivel stack and gantry structure. connection, and the SPM provides positive anchorage for the
The bearing system may be located at deck level and/or within vessel. This system was first used for an oil terminal in 19732.
the hull. Other equipment housed in the turret may include Early yokes were often either “soft” (eg. Adanga/Akam/
chain and riser winches, production and test manifolds, ESD Ebughu, Fig. 1) or incorporated hinges at their connections to
4 B.F. RONALDS, E.F.H. LIM
the vessel to accommodate relative heave and pitch motions
between the SPM and the ship (eg. Tazerka, Fig. 2).
Riser turrets and external turrets are connected to the hull
through a rigid arm; the turret then heaves with the vessel.
Riser turrets are generally suspended below the rigid arm via
an articulated joint to allow angle changes in the vertical plane
in addition to weathervaning. External and internal turrets are
founded directly on the arm or hull structure through a system
of bearings.
Mooring lines. Turrets are generally held on station through a
series of mooring lines which hang off the chain table and are
anchored at their base by either drag embedment anchors,
piles, suction anchors or gravity bases. In moderate to deep
water the lines typically comprise both chain and wire
segments. Wire rope is cheaper and lighter than chain.
However, the robustness of chain is advantageous at rubbing
points at the top and bottom terminations of the mooring and
in the touchdown region. The chain and wire lengths may be
tuned to optimise the restoring response.
The Fife field development in 1995 pioneered a new
mooring arrangement where the lines are concentrated in three
groups at 120 degrees spacing17. The wide arcs between
mooring groups may enable a greater number of risers to be
installed and are of assistance when performing additional
riser tie-ins at a later date.
Spread Mooring. FPSOs may be held in position by a spread
mooring system rather than a SPM in locations where the
environmental conditions are benign and highly directional,
such as Africa and parts of Asia. A spread mooring system
generally comprises a number of mooring lines arranged
around both the bow and stern of the FPSO. It was first
adopted for Geisum in the Red Sea in 1985 and has since been
chosen for water depths as shallow as 15m (Gombe Beta,
19919) and as deep as 1360m (Girassol, 2001).
Dynamic Positioning. Small FPSOs used for EWT or for
draining small fields have relied on dynamic positioning (DP)
rather than a mooring system to remain on station. Examples
include Crystal Sea, commissioned in 1994 for well testing,
and Seillean, developed by BP in 1990 and reused in 1999 in
1853m water offshore Brazil19.
Many larger FPSOs, including those designed by Maritime
Tentech, use DP to assist station-keeping. Active DP reduces
vessel excursions, facilitating the design of risers and allowing
lighter mooring lines. An additional advantage of thrusters is
that they provide self-propelling capability. Fife (1995) is the
first FPSO in the North Sea to be passively moored without
DP assistance.
Disconnectable Moorings. In some circumstances it is
advantageous to design the mooring and fluid transfer systems
to be readily disconnectable. Disconnectability enables the
mooring system to be much lighter in regions that experience
harsh environmental conditions only occasionally. Discon-
SPE 56708
nectable mooring systems have been adopted to date to enable
FPSOs to avoid cyclonic conditions off North West Australia,
typhoons in the South China Sea, and ice off Canada and in
Bohai Bay. A disconnectable FPSO may readily return to port
for class reinspection (which allows a lower design service
life) or for upgrades.
In environments like the North Sea where hostile weather
is more prevalent, permanent connections are designed to
withstand extreme storms, because disconnection would give
excessive down-time. The cost advantage of a disconnectable
mooring also tends to diminish in deeper water and with more
risers.
The first use of a disconnectable turret mooring system
was on Jabiru (1986)5. Disconnection occurs immediately
below the universal joint and the riser turret then drops down
to its position of neutral buoyancy, avoiding the possibility of
recontact with the vessel.
Huizhou, offshore China, adopted the first disconnectable
internal turret mooring in 19906. In this system the mooring
lines and risers are hung off a buoyant tank which clamps into
the base of the internal turret. The submerged turret concept
adopted for Lufeng also has rapid disconnection capability.
Rapid disconnect systems have additionally been
developed for several SALMs, beginning with Weizhou
(1986). The extremely shallow water at Gombe Beta dictated
a disconnectable spread mooring which is activated when the
mooring line loads become excessive.
Fluid Transfer System
The fluid transfer system generally includes flowlines and
risers linking the wells to the SPM body, and a swivel to
enable the fluid transfer to the vessel. With spread mooring
systems a swivel is unnecessary and the risers simply hang
over the side amidships.
Depending on the field requirements, the system may need
to transfer the following to or from the vessel:
• well fluid (test and production)
• injection fluids including gas, water and chemicals
• export gas (and possibly export oil)
• utility and control fluids including hydraulics, air and
heating media
• electric power, communication and control signals
Risers. The vast majority of FPSOs have flexible risers in
order to withstand vessel motions. The flexibility is provided
by both material and configuration. Flexibles typically
comprise interlocking steel and plastic layers with steel
armouring to provide strength, and are arranged in catenary
patterns.
However, a number of alternatives exist. With SALMs,
the product risers may be of hard piping with jumper hoses
across the bottom and/or top articulations (eg. Tazerka).
Seillean is equiped with a rigid product riser that disconnects
when its maximum operating conditions are approached.
In very deep water, further alternatives become technically
and economically feasible18. In 2001, Girassol will produce
SPE 56708 FPSO TRENDS 5

through three self-standing buoyant riser towers, with flexibles

only over the final 50m to the water surface. There are also
proposals to trial steel catenary risers (SCRs) on future
deepwater FPSOs offshore Brazil.

Fluid Swivel. Often fluid is passed across the weathervaning

bearing though swivels. Each swivel comprises an annulus
around which the fluid flows. The inner wall of the annulus is
connected to the SPM body and remains stationary while the
outer wall connects to piping on the vessel and thus rotates
with the ship around the inner wall. Fig. 7 shows the Cossack
Pioneer product swivel stack with five separate toroidal fluid
paths.
Many swivel systems can freely weathervane. However,
stern thrusters are commonly incorporated to allow heading
control; for example, when an adjusted heading gives greater
comfort than that taken up naturally by the vessel in a
particular wind, wave and current condition. The turret may
also be locked down to maintain a particular heading, for
example, during offloading.

Drag Chain Transfer System. An alternative transfer system

uses drag chain technology. Here the individual flexible risers
are arranged within the drag chain, which winds or unwinds to
allow a maximum rotation of approximately ±270 degrees
from neutral position11. A large diameter turret is required to
accommodate the high riser rotations. Early drag chain
systems were installed on Petrojarl 1, Gryphon A, Captain and
Balder, and Norne has both drag chain and swivel technology.
Drag chain systems require active rotational control,
provided by thrusters fore and aft. The turret drive system
may include a turning and locking mechanism to overcome the
friction which also tends to rotate the turret as the vessel’s
heading is altered.

Number of Wells, Risers and Articulated Flow Paths. As

subsea and floating production technologies have gained
maturity, FPSOs have been adopted to produce larger and
more complex reservoirs with more wells. The number of
risers and articulated flowpaths has been managed in various
ways by manifolding at the seabed and/or the SPM, and by
bundling risers.
In 1977, Castellon produced from one subsea well through
a flexible riser to a single-bore swivel. Four years later,
Cadlao was producing from two wells. The system included
four flexible risers and a 4-flowpath swivel stack to give
independent production and test lines for each well2.
This approach becomes less feasible, however, with greater
numbers of wells. The next year (1982) Tazerko came on
stream, with the capability to produce from up to eight wells
and the possibility of gas lift or water reinjection. The
solution in this case comprised 24 hard pipe risers inside a
SALM, manifolded at the top (well above waterline) prior to
passing through a 6-path swivel3. Barracuda’s P34 (1997) has Fig. 7: Wanaea/Cossack swivel stack
Courtesy SBM
6 B.F. RONALDS, E.F.H. LIM SPE 56708

23 product risers together with 11 umbilicals to serve 11
individual wells scattered around the field. A manifold deck
in the turret reduces the fluid paths to single production, test
and gas lift lines to enable a 6-path multi-product swivel,
including two spares13. Marlim’s P35 accommodates the
largest number (47) of flexible risers and umbilicals to date.
In various other recent developments, the trees have been
grouped in drilling centres, facilitating manifolding at the
seabed to reduce the number of flexible risers (Table 2).
Foinaven, for example, includes 14 production and 8 injection
wells, reducing to 10 risers and then a 6-path swivel. Swivel
volumes and pressure ratings have increased markedly in
recent years to accommodate these requirements, although
riser diameters are still limited in very deep water. Griffin
(Fig. 4) represents an intermediate layout with some seabed
manifolding. In its namesake, Gryphon, 23 flowlines and 14
umbilicals are bundled together to form 6 large risers.
Vessel
Storage Capacity. Important determinants of a FPSO’s
required storage capacity are the production rate, and the size
and availability of offtake tankers. In the North Sea, FPSOs
may have dedicated shuttle tankers regularly performing the
round trip to a relatively nearby oil terminal. The FPSO
therefore only needs storage capacity for a few days,
depending on the frequency of tanker visits and including a
buffer so that production may continue with late arrival or in
bad weather when offloading is not possible. Schiehallion,
currently the largest FPSO in the North Sea, has a storage
capacity of 0.95 million barrels.
In more remote areas like Africa, the sailing time to an oil
terminal may be much greater. Tankers are likely to be
chartered as required, and a much larger ratio of storage to
production rate is therefore desirable. Production rates are
typically smaller in these regions than for the major fields
Table 2
Relationships between Number of Wells, Risers and Articulated Flowpaths
developed recently in the North Sea using FPSOs, but larger
vessels have been adopted to maximise the offloading interval
and also because some offtake tankers may be bigger than
those in the North Sea. These FPSOs are generally
conversions rather than new-buildings and so the cost penalty
of a larger vessel may not be high. Table 3 illustrates the
relationship between production rate and vessel size for typical
large FPSOs in various regions.
Other factors that may influence the chosen vessel size
include the volumes of off-specification product requiring
temporary storage, and sea-keeping requirements.
Deck Layout. Two FPSO layouts have evolved from
different sources: tankers and drillships.
Many FPSO conversions are from tankers (one notable
exception is Foinaven). For tankers, the living quarters are at
the stern of the vessel, where there is little spray or green
water and reduced heave. A natural location for the SPM in a
converted FPSO is the bow as it enables the vessel to continue
to head into the weather. As long as the wind is nearly co-
directional with the effective environmental force, helicoptors
are able to approach upwind, but this also puts the
accommodation and temporary refuge downwind of the SPM
and process deck. For the early facilities FPSO II and FPSO
VI, SBM therefore adopted a stern external mooring after its
feasibility was proved in model testing1.
Amidships has optimum pitch response and is therefore the
ideal location for motion-sensitive process equipment. It may
also be a good place for an internal SPM, to minimise first
order excitation of the mooring system and risers, and with
sufficient beam to accommodate a large turret. In Maritime
Tentech designs, beginning with Petrojarl 1, the internal turret
is placed just forward of amidships (Fig. 8), following the
tradition of drillships15. However an amidships turret location
may have a number of potential disadvantages, including:

Field Water First Recoverable Peak Wells Risers Umbilicals Product Swivel
Depth Oil Oil Oil Production Injection Fluid Max
Reserves Production Paths Diameter
(m) (MMbbl) (k.bbl/d) (in)

Castellon 114 1977 40 20 1 0 1 1 4

Cadlao 96 1981 30 2 Possible 4 4 6
Tazerka 140 1982 10 20 8 Possible 24 6 4
Gryphon 120 1993 96 55 8 6 6 2
Griffin 130 1994 117 80 9 1 14 5
Fife 70 1995 30 50 4 3 9 4 4
Wanaea/Cossack 80 1995 239 115 9 0 7 2 5 12
Liuhua 11-1 310 1996 200 65 20 0 3 3 12
Lufeng 22-1 330 1997 33 40 5 0 2 2 2 7
Norne 380 1997 470 173 7 7 9 3 5 12
Barracuda P34 835 1997 30 11 0 23 11 6
Foinaven 460 1997 233 100 14 8 10 2 6 16
Schiehallion 400 1998 450 142 16 13 14 5
Asgard 280 1999 830 200 40 19 16 5 12
SPE 56708 FPSO TRENDS 7

Table 3
Relationships between Peak Production and Vessel Size

Region Field Vessel Storage Peak Oil Ratio New-build

Size Production
S P S/P
(k.dwt) (MMbbl) (k.bbl/d) (days)

North Sea Schiehallion 154 0.95 142 7 Yes

Australia Wanaea/Cossack 152 1.10 115 10 No
Asia Huizhou 255 1.45 80 18 No
Brazil Albacora (P31) 282 2.00 100 20 No
Africa Ukpokiti 275 1.70 20 85 No

• little propensity to weathervane, commonly requiring
thrusters
• significant hull strengthening to support the turret and
compensate for loss of hull continuity in a region of high
bending moment
• significant hull deformations under overall hogging and
sagging which may affect the operation of the turret
bearings
• significant loss of oil storage capacity
• splitting of the process plant
These effects are mitigated by placing the internal turret at
the bow; Anasuria (1996) is the first new-building in which
this location was adopted. With an internal bow turret the
quarters are at the stern; however, for all other new-buildings
they are located at the bow. In several very recent designs, eg.
Varg and Jotun (both 1999), the turret is located well forward
of amidships and immediately behind the accommodation
(separated only by a fire and blast wall), as a compromise
between the various conflicting layout criteria.
New-buildings and Conversions. With FPSOs traditionally
being converted from oil tankers, they have ship-shaped steel
hulls. A notable exception is Ardjuna (1976), commonly
considered to be the world’s first FPSO, which was a purpose-
built concrete barge. The first new-build steel FPSOs came on
stream in 1986 and, since then, have become an important
feature of the industry. Conversions have also remained
popular, however (Fig. 9). Around 60% of the FPSOs coming
on stream in 1997-99 are converted either from tankers or
from other field locations; the only region where conversions
and reuse do not dominate the market is the North Sea. The
UK has now seen four conversions, all in the period 1995-97,
but there is yet to be one in Norway.
Conversions often have an external SPM, with the yoke
configured to facilitate attachment to an existing vessel. New-
build FPSOs, in contrast, commonly have internal turrets.
However, there are numerous exceptions to these trends. For
example, the new-build Australian FPSOs Challis (1989) and
Griffin (1994) have a SALM and riser turret, respectively.
The first conversion to have an internal turret fitted was
Huizhou in 1990.
Major field developments in harsh environments are likely
to be new-buildings. Purpose-built vessels may be designed
with the strength, fatigue and operating performance required
at the location. Although immobilised vessels are currently
exempt from MARPOL requirements for a double hull,
double-sided FPSOs are now expected in a number of
countries. Double sides safeguard against oil spillage in the
event of a collision or other damage. The wing tanks can
carry segregated ballast and, with the hull stiffening on the

Fig. 8: Gryphon vessel

8 B.F. RONALDS, E.F.H. LIM SPE 56708

Table 4
FPSO Reuse

Vessel Owner Entered Fields

Service

P34 (PP de Moraes) Petrobras 1979 4

FPSO II SBM 1981 3
Acqua Blu Bluewater 1985 2
Petrojarl 1 Golar-Nor 1986 7
San Jacinto Oceaneering 1986 3
FPSO Firenze (Agip Firenze) SBM 1987 2
Lan Shui Bluewater 1988 2
Modec Venture 1 (Skua Venture) Modec 1991 2
Ocean Producer Oceaneering 1991 2
Seillean Reading & Bates 1990 3
Armada Perkasa (Red Teal) Bumi Armada 1995 2
Berge Hugin Navion 1997 2

ballast side of the shell, cleaning and inspection of the oil
storage cargo tanks is facilitated. When there is a requirement
for double sides, many older tankers are eliminated from
consideration for conversion.
Conversions are often suited to developments with short
field life. They are generally quicker than a new-building and
the reduced lead-time to first oil improves the rate of return
substantially. A short field life is also likely have less
stringent fatigue and corrosion requirements.
The trend for ship owners or builders to commence FPSO
fabrication on speculation, eg. Bleo Holm (1998), may
accelerate the delivery of a new-building. In other cases a
new-build tanker has been used for immediate conversion, eg.
Durward/Dauntless and Lufeng (both 1997).
As described in Ref. 12, the balance between conversions
and new-buildings will continue to be influenced over time by
the cost, age and suitability of available second-hand tankers
and demand on the ship-building yards.
Reuse. A further alternative to tanker conversion or a
purpose-built FPSO is reuse of an existing FPSO. This was
first done at Badejo in 1981 using Petrobras’ PP de Moraes
FPSO from the Garoupa field. The vessel, which is currently
performing an early production role at Barracuda16, has been
moored using four different SPMs in its life: a SALM, two
CALMs and now an internal turret (Table 4). FPSO II,
another early FPSO, has moored at three locations in 96m,
Table 5
Breakdown of FPSO Applications
Category Number
Currently Operating 55
Retired 10
Reused 22
Total 87
360m and 1420m water depth with a CALM system10.
Petrojarl 1 has seen extensive reuse, having produced at 7
locations in the North Sea. These cases demonstrate the
feasibility of FPSO reuse, and have led to the concept of an
“FPSO fleet” (Table 5). With abandonment issues gaining
increasing profile, they also emphasise the relatively small
decommissioning costs for FPSOs relative to fixed platforms.
Ownership and Operatorship. Production platforms are
generally owned by an oil company whereas mobile offshore
units are commonly owned by a contractor and leased by oil
companies as required. FPSOs fall somewhere in between.
Currently around 40% of operating FPSOs are contractor-
owned, with Cadlao (1981) being an early example. It is
typical in these cases for the contractor to operate the vessel
while the oil company operates the field. However, there is a
trend for increasing responsibility to be taken by the
contractor, eg. Fife (1995), where the FPSO owner is the
safety case duty holder.
Leasing may be economic for an oil company for fields
with short life or high reservoir uncertainty, or for early
production systems (EPS) and EWT. The contractor is then
able to spread the facility capital costs over several field
developments. Large oil companies may achieve the same
effect internally (eg. Petrobras). Leasing may also be
beneficial when the oil company has little experience in FPSO
operations or is producing in a new region. In Norway, the tax
system discourages the use of leased facilities.
Field Parameters
Location and Size. The first decade of floating production
saw 12 FPSO developments, in Asia, Africa, Southern Europe
and North and South America (Fig. 10). These were generally
small-to-medium oil fields in mild environments and where
infrastructure for pipeline export is limited. 1986 saw a step
change in FPSO development with the entry of Golar-Nor’s
Petrojarl 1 vessel to give first production in the North Sea.
FPSO applications then continued relatively steadily over the
SPE 56708 FPSO TRENDS 9

2000
New-build SALM
CALM
Reuse
15 Spread Mooring
Conversion Riser Turret
External Turret
1500 Internal Turrret
Submerged Turret

Water Depth (m)

DP
Number

10
1000

5
500

0 0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year Year

Fig. 9: Distribution of new-buildings, conversions and reuse Fig. 11: FPSO water depths for various mooring types

through gas lift or reinjection, and similarly with water

North Sea
injection. In each of these cases the gas and water (unlike the
15 America produced oil) must pass back through the fluid transfer system
Australasia to the wells.
South Europe With increasing pressure to monetize associated gas, major
Africa
Asia
gas export from a FPSO became a reality in Australia in 1994
(Griffin) and 1995 (Wanaea/Cossack). In 1997-99 nearly 40%
Number

10
5
0
1975 1980 1985
Year
Fig. 10: FPSO developments by year and location
next decade, with the majority being in Asia. Over half of the
North Sea applications in this period utilised Petrojarl 1, often
for EWT or EPS.
The first major field development by FPSO in the UK was
Gryphon A in 199311. In Norway, Norne (1997) was the first.
These developments signalled a third era for FPSOs with their
adoption for large fields in harsh environments. The
production capacity record has been broken regularly since
1995 (Wanaea/Cossack, Norne, Asgard). The rapid growth of
FPSOs in 1997-99 is due largely to their extensive use in the
North Sea, along with increasing applications in Brazil.
Gas Production. The simplest application for a FPSO is to
produce, store and offload oil. In early FPSOs, any associated
gas surplus to power requirements was vented, flared or
incinerated. More recently such gas has been disposed of by
reinjection. Gas may be beneficial in enhancing oil production
of the FPSOs to come on stream have gas export capability.
These include Tantawan (1997), which has been billed as the
first gas FPSO. Again, export occurs via the fluid transfer
system to an export pipeline. In some instances, eg.
MacCulloch (1997), the oil is also exported by pipeline
without utilising the storage capability of the vessel.
Natural gas liquids may be stored and offloaded from a
FPSO in the same way as oil; Skua (1991) was the first FPSO
with plant on board to recover NGLs. At Ardjuna3, and more
1990 1995
recently Escravos13, gas is refrigerated on board to produce
LPG. (These vessels are sometimes referred to as floating
storage units (FSUs) rather than FPSOs because fluid
processing occurs on a nearby platform.) Several companies
are currently developing schemes by which gas may be chilled
to form LNG on a FPSO, or converted to methanol or other
forms, allowing gas export without a pipeline.
Water Depth. To date, FPSOs have produced in water depths
ranging between 15m and 1853m (Fig. 11). Mooring and riser
system design presents challenges in both very deep and very
shallow water. In shallow water it is difficult to build in
sufficient flexibility to withstand the motions generated in
extreme sea states. The current shallow water limit for a
FPSO moored permanently in a harsh environment is Fife in
the North Sea (70m)17, having a ratio of design maximum
wave height to water depth approaching 40%.
The trend to produce major fields from FPSOs in ultra-
deep water and/or harsh environments generates large loads on
the SPM. Internal turrets are more suitable for these
applications than external turrets (with their less direct load
10 B.F. RONALDS, E.F.H. LIM
path through the rigid arm), although the loads may still
present challenges for the design of the turret bearing system.
The effective weight of the risers may be reduced by attaching
buoyancy. Suitable configurations may include distributed
buoyancy, subsea arches, or buoyant riser towers (eg.
Girassol). Buoyancy may also be adopted for mooring lines.
A further option is to use polyester, which is neutrally buoyant
and thus much lighter than chain and wire. The first uses of
synthetic mooring lines for a FPSO are Barracuda P34 (835m
water) and South Marlim (1420m water), both in 1997. In
future the polyester lines may be arranged at a steeper angle to
the seabed with anchors that can resist vertical uplift. Added
advantages of the resulting taut-leg configuration are that it
gives a tighter watch circle for the vessel, which aids riser
design, and a smaller anchor pattern.
Drilling and Workover. Current FPSOs have the
disadvantage of lacking drilling capability. FPSOs with large
turrets may have a workover derrick, eg. Petrojarl 1, and it is
expected that future FPSOs may enable drilling through the
turret for wells directly beneath the vessel. A further
possibility is a double bow, where both bow and stern of the
FPSO are shaped to face into the weather. Such an
arrangement avoids the need for full 360 degrees
weathervaning. This may allow the mooring and fluid transfer
systems to be separated, which would facilitate drilling.
The distinction between FPSOs and drillships is becoming
increasingly blurred: most of the new-generation drillships
currently under construction have oil storage and offloading
capability, making them suitable for EWT, and may readily be
converted to FPSOs with the addition of full processing
facilities.
There are numerous examples where FPSOs have been
utilised for field development in combination with other
facilities to help overcome their deficiencies. In some
instances the development also includes one or more wellhead
jackets; this allows surface trees, which can be cost-effective
when the wells are numerous and/or require frequent
intervention, and reduces the number of risers entering the
SPM. Recent examples include Captain (1997) and Jotun
(1999). In deeper water, the FPSO may be teamed with a
semi-submersible (eg. Liuhua, 1996).
Conclusions
FPSOs were developed the late 1970s to produce from small-
to-medium oil fields in remote locations and/or moderately
deep water where pipeline and fixed platform infrastructure
would be uneconomic. The mild weather conditions allowed
tanker conversions to be used, generally moored through an
external SPM.
1986 was a pivotal year in the evolution of FPSOs,
generating the first:
• turret mooring (independent development of internal and
disconnectable external turrets)
• North Sea production
• new-build ship-shaped hull
SPE 56708
These three factors have had a major influence on subsequent
FPSO development.
During 1997-99, the number of FPSOs to come on stream
has surged. The increased popularity is due to their adoption
in the North Sea and Brazil. Many of these recent applications
are characterised by relatively large field reserves and the
export of gas as well as oil. The need for a pipeline has
negated one of the major drivers for FPSO selection and
demonstrates that other advantages of FPSOs must now be
important. Indeed, in some fields even the oil is exported by
pipeline.
The North Sea now dominates the FPSO market. The
majority of FPSOs have internal turrets; these have benefits
for harsh weather conditions, large numbers of risers, gas
export and very deep water. Around 40% of recent FPSOs are
new-buildings. It should be remembered, however, that
alternatives are still adequate for many developments.
Examples include the recent reuse of FPSOs with a CALM, an
external turret mooring and DP in three of the deepest water
applications to date.
FPSOs have proven over the past two decades to have
numerous benefits over alternative field development options.
In addition to oil storage capability, these may be grouped as
follows:
Construction. Ship construction is standardised and
automated, making it relatively fast and inexpensive in
comparison with jacket fabrication15. The process modules,
being small and low-rise, may also be built quickly and have
reduced structural steel requirements. Modules can be
installed at the fabrication yard, avoiding the need for a heavy
lift vessel at the field site, and allowing inshore hook-up and
commissioning. These features can significantly reduce the
lead-time to first oil (although the extent of schedule
compression has been less than expected in a number of more
complex recent developments).
Versatility. The large deck area allows safe and
convenient layout of process and other equipment. Combined
with the large vessel displacement, it gives versatility to cope
with changes to production equipment, for example, when
tying in a new field. It also enables vessel construction to
commence on speculation. FPSOs are relatively insensitive to
water depth and geotechnical conditions. The flexibility of
FPSOs is demonstrated by their significant reuse, which
further suggests that field abandonment is relatively simple,
with the facility retaining significant residual value. This is
particularly helpful in making high-risk or small fields
economically feasible.
Deep water. FPSOs may have advantages in deep water
applications, where their considerable buoyancy assists in
supporting heavy riser and mooring line loads.
All field development options have disadvantages as well
as advantages. Constraints induced by the necessity for all
fluids to pass though a SPM have been diminished with
advances in turret and swivel technology, combined with
manifolding and bundling of flowlines. Drilling capability on
a FPSO is likely to improve in the near future.
SPE 56708 FPSO TRENDS 11

References
1. Williams LM, Pierce DM and Van Berkel PB (1982), FPSO II – a
second generation floating production system for offshore
Philippines. Proc. 14th OTC, OTC 4274
2. Carter JHT and Foolen J (1982), Evolutionary developments
advancing the floating production, storage, and offloading
concept. Proc. 14th OTC, OTC 4273
3. Remery GF (1985), Tanker-based marginal field production:
eight years’ operational experience. Proc. 17th OTC, OTC 5036
4. Eppley DR and Van Berkel PB (1987), 12 months’ operational
experience with a FPSO handling the production from three fields
offshore Nigeria. Proc. 19th OTC, OTC 5491
5. de Boom WC (1989), The development of turret mooring systems
for floating production units. Proc. 21st OTC, OTC 5978
6. O’Nion G, Calo D, Seguin R and Huang SP (1990), Innovative
disconnectable mooring system for floating production system of
HZ-21-1 oil field at Huizhou, South China Sea. Proc. 22nd OTC,
OTC 6251
7. Paces RS and DeFu L (1990), South China Sea extended well
testing program: implementation and results. Proc. 22nd OTC,
OTC 6200
8. Clauss G, Lehmann E and Ostergaard C (1992), Offshore
Structures, Vol 1 – Conceptual Design and Hydromechanics,
Springer-Verlag, London
9. Liles EG (1992), Spread moored FPSO for very shallow water
depth, Proc. 24th OTC, OTC 6964
10. Vincent-Genod F and Jeannin O (1993), Cadlao’s successful
FPSO II redeployed at the deepwater West Linapacan field. Proc.
25th OTC, OTC 7179
11. Addy PD, Dickerson J, Doble PA, Smith G and Young RJ
(1994), Gryphon A: the first purpose-built permanently moored
FPSO in the North Sea. Proc. 26th OTC, OTC 7424
12. D’Souza RB, Delepine YM and Cordy AR (1994), An approach
to the design and selection of a cost-effective floating production
storage and offloading system. Proc. 26th OTC, OTC 7443
13. Mack RC, Gruy RH and Hall RA (1995), Turret moorings for
extreme design conditions. Proc. 27th OTC, OTC 7596
14. Henery D and Inglis RB (1995), Prospects and challenges for the
FPSO. Proc. 27th OTC, OTC 7695
15. Jeannin O (1995), FPSOs today: what is the optimum concept?
Proc. 27th OTC, OTC 7697
16. Carneiro PRB (1995), Barracuda field: new records for turret
moored FPSOs. Proc. 27th OTC. OTC 7700
17. Lowie PM (1997), Today’s world of FPSOs changes quickly.
World Oil, Part 1: 79-91, April, Part 2: 95-104, May
18. Carter BA and Ronalds BF (1998), Deepwater riser technology.
APOGCE ’98, SPE 50140, Perth, October
19. Garcia AL, Pinto FJCP, Dias MAG and Mattos AMCGF (1998),
Roncador field – a rapid development challenge in ultra-deep
water. OMAE ’98 – Petrobras Workshop, 56-61, Lisbon, July
12 B.F. RONALDS, E.F.H. LIM SPE 56708

Appendix – FPSO Applications

Left side
No Field Vessel Owner Oil Location Water First Last Recoverable Field EPS/
Company Depth Oil Oil Oil Life EWT
Reserves
(m) (MMbbl) (yr)
1 Ardjuna B Ardjuna Saki Arco Indonesia 43 1976
2 Castellon Shell Shell Spain 114 1977 Yes 40 9
3 Garoupa PP de Moraes Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 118 1979 1985
4 Cadlao FPSO II SBM Alcorn (Amoco) Philippines 96 1981 1991 10
5 Hondo Santa Ynez Exxon Exxon USA 150 1981 Yes
6 Badejo PP de Moraes Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 117 1981 Yes
7 Nilde Agip Milano Agip Agip Italy 90 1982 1986
8 Tazerka Tazerka FPSO Samedan Shell Tunisia 140 1982 Yes 10
9 Lucina Banio Shell Gabon 34 1984 6
10 Mila Acqua Blu Bluewater Selm Italy 27 1985 1987
11 Geisum Al Kahera 1 Conoco Egypt 50 1985 Yes
12 Bach Ho Chi Linh Vietsovpetro Vietnam 50 1985 Yes 200
13 Kepiting San Jacinto Sarida Conoco Indonesia 90 1986 1989
14 Oseberg Petrojarl 1 Golar-Nor Norsk Hydro Norway 125 1986 1988 EWT
15 Jabiru Jabiru Venture Gulf (BHPP) Gulf (BHPP) Australia 120 1986 13
16 Weizhou 10-3 Nan Hai Xi Wang NHWOC NHWOC China 38 1986 9
17 Adanga/Akam/Ebughu FPSO VI SBM Ashland Nigeria 38 1986 50
18 Kakap KH Kakap Natuna Modec Clyde Indonesia 87 1986 30
19 Albacora PP de Moraes Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 238 1987 1993 EPS
20 Nilde Agip Firenze Agip Italy 98 1987 1989
21 Lyell Petrojarl 1 Golar-Nor UK 146 1988 1988 EWT
22 Liuhua 11-1 Lan Shui Bluewater Amoco China 305 1988 1989 EWT
23 Troll West Petrojarl 1 Golar-Nor Norway 330 1989 1991 EWT
24 Talisman Acqua Blu Bluewater Marathon Australia 78 1989 1992 8 3
25 Ikan Pari San Jacinto Sarida Conoco Indonesia 100 1989 1994 10 5
26 Intan Lan Shui Bluewater Maxus Indonesia 30 1989 Yes 90 EPS
27 Bozhong 28-1 Bo Hai You Yi Hao JCODC JCODC China 23 1989 30
28 Challis Challis Venture Gulf (BHPP) Gulf (BHPP) Australia 110 1989 50 8
29 Lufeng 22-1 Ayer Biru Bluewater Occidental China 335 1990 1991 EWT
30 Cyrus Seillean (Swops) BP BP UK 108 1990 1992 5 2
31 Huizhou 21-1 Nan Hai Fa Xian ACT ACT China 116 1990 80 10
32 Bozhong 34-2 Chang Qing Hao JCODC JCODC China 20 1990 34
33 Anoa Anoa Natuna Modec Premier Indonesia 77 1990 25
34 Balder Petrojarl 1 Golar-Nor Norway 125 1991 1991 EWT
35 Gombe Beta Ocean Producer Oceaneering Kelt (Amoco) Gabon 15 1991 1993 2
36 Angus Petrojarl 1 Golar-Nor Amerada UK 80 1991 1993 11 1
37 Skua Skua Venture BHPP BHPP Australia 82 1991 1997 20 6
38 Yombo Conkouati Walter Walter Congo 113 1991 34 8
39 West Linapacan FPSO II SBM Alcorn Philippines 360 1992 1996 4
40 Belida Intan Conoco Indonesia 100 1992 1992 190 EPS
41 Donan Seillean Reading & Bates BP UK 140 1992 1997 26 5
42 Hudson Petrojarl 1 Golar-Nor Amerada UK 158 1993 1995 17 2 EPS
43 Suizhong 36-1 Bo Hai Ming Zhu Bohai Bohai China 30 1993 100
44 South Tano Discoverer 511 Ghana Petroleum Ghana 93 1993 135 15 EWT
45 Lufeng 13-1 Nan Hai Sheng Kai JHN JHN China 330 1993
46 Gryphon Gryphon A Kerr McGee Kerr McGee UK 120 1993 96 15
47 Griffin Griffin Venture BHPP BHPP Australia 130 1994 117
48 Sembilang San Jacinto Oceaneering Conoco Indonesia 90 1994
49 Xijiang 24-3 Nan Hai Kai Tuo Phillips Phillips China 100 1994 100 12
50 Kiabo Ocean Producer Oceaneering Sonangol Angola 56 1994 20
51 Rong Bavi Vietsovpetro Vietsovpetro Vietnam 48 1994 30
52 Zaafarana Al Zaafarana Zaafarana Zaafarana Egypt 60 1994 40 15
53 Crystal Sea Halliburton Conoco North Sea 120 1994 WT
SPE 56708 FPSO TRENDS 13

Right side
Vessel Storage Purpose Double Mooring Wells Risers Peak Gas Gas Lift/ Field
Size Built Sides Type Location Disconnect Oil Export Reinjection
Production
(k.dwt) (k.bbl) (k.bbl/d) (MMm3/d)
66 375 Yes CALM 2 LPG Ardjuna B
60 350 Conversion SALM 1 1 20 Castellon
54 400 Conversion CALM (SALM) 9 35 Garoupa
127 700 Conversion CALM Stern 2 4 30 Lift possible Cadlao
50 230 Conversion SALM 37 Hondo
54 400 Reuse CALM 35 Badejo
84 Conversion SALM 2 1 20 Nilde
210 1020 Conversion SALM 8 24 20 Both possible Tazerka
530 CALM Lucina
70 390 Conversion CALM Yes 4 5 Mila
228 1000 Conversion Spread 15 1 30 Lift possible Geisum
151 975 Conversion CALM 2 70 Bach Ho
12 50 Yes Spread 2 1 10 Kepiting
31 190 Yes Turret/DP Internal 1 1 26 Oseberg
160 980 Conversion Riser turret External bow Yes 6 6 60 Lift Jabiru
152 600 Conversion SALM Yes 6 3 30 Weizhou 10-3
285 1300 Conversion Jacket Stern 27 2 40 Adanga/Akam/Ebughu
136 760 Conversion CALM Stern 9 2 70 Reinjection Kakap KH
54 400 Reuse CALM 14 50 0.4 Albacora
138 550 Conversion Yes Turret External bow 3 2 Nilde
31 190 Reuse Turret/DP Internal 1 1 26 Lyell
70 420 Conversion CALM Yes 3 1 20 Liuhua 11-1
31 190 Reuse Turret/DP Internal 1 1 26 Troll West
70 320 Reuse CALM 2 30 Talisman
12 50 Reuse Spread 5 1 10 Lift Ikan Pari
70 420 Reuse CALM 14 65 Intan
52 390 Yes Jacket Yes 8 2 12 Bozhong 28-1
132 850 Yes SALM 7 11 60 Lift Challis
45 300 Conversion CALM 20 Lufeng 22-1
76 310 Yes Yes DP 2 1 18 Cyrus
255 1450 Conversion Turret (buoyant) Internal bow Yes 30 4 80 Lift Huizhou 21-1
68 370 Yes Jacket Yes 9 3 12 Lift Bozhong 34-2
76 550 Yes Turret External bow 9 2 32 Anoa
31 190 Reuse Turret/DP Internal 1 1 26 Balder
77 510 Conversion Spread Yes 2 2 15 Lift Gombe Beta
31 190 Reuse Turret/DP Internal 2 2 32 Angus
150 990 Conversion Riser turret External bow Yes 6 6 30 Lift Skua
235 1420 Conversion Spread 22 6 35 Yombo
127 700 Reuse CALM Stern 3 3 30 West Linapacan
178 1300 Conversion Turret External bow 20 Belida
76 310 Reuse Yes DP 4 1 18 Donan
31 190 Reuse Turret/DP Internal 2 2 40 Hudson
58 390 Yes Jacket Yes 11 4 45 Both Suizhong 36-1
15 No Conversion Turret Internal 3 8 South Tano
128 700 Conversion Turret (buoyant) Internal bow Yes 5 4 23 Lufeng 13-1
94 530 Yes Yes Turret/DP Internal 14 6 55 Both Gryphon
100 750 Yes Yes Riser turret External bow Yes 10 14 80 1.4 Both Griffin
12 50 Reuse Spread 5 1 10 Both Sembilang
152 1000 Conversion Turret (buoyant) Internal bow Yes 32 2 66 Xijiang 24-3
77 510 Reuse Spread Yes 4 2 15 Lift Kiabo
155 1000 Conversion CALM 2 60 Rong
111 800 Conversion Turret External bow 2 2 25 Zaafarana
9 45 Yes DP 1 35
14 B.F. RONALDS, E.F.H. LIM SPE 56708

FPSO Applications (continued)

Left side
No Field Vessel Owner Oil Location Water First Last Recoverable Field EPS/
Company Depth Oil Oil Oil Life EWT
Reserves
(m) (MMbbl) (yr)
54 Lion Red Teal Bumi Armada UMC Ivory Coast 70 1995 1997
55 Blenheim Petrojarl 1 Golar-Nor Arco UK 148 1995 23 3
56 Nemba Jamestown McDermott Chevron Angola 119 1995 EPS
57 Fife Uisge Gorm Bluewater Amerada UK 70 1995 30 7
58 Wanaea/Cossack Cossack Pioneer Woodside Woodside Australia 80 1995 239 25
59 Liuhua 11-1 Nan Hai Sheng Li Amoco Amoco China 310 1996 200 20
60 Zafiro Zafiro Producer Mobil Mobil Eq. Guinea 180 1996 100
61 Teal/Guillemot Anasuria Shell Shell UK 88 1996 86 15
62 Maui B Whakaaropai Shell Todd Shell Todd NZ 114 1996 25
63 Connemara Berge Hugin Statoil Statoil Ireland 114 1997 1997 EWT
64 Captain Captain FPSO Texaco Texaco UK 104 1997 350
65 Durward/Dauntless Glas Dowr Bluewater Amerada Hess UK 90 1997 100 5
66 Foinaven Petrojarl Foinaven Golar-Nor BP UK 460 1997 233 10
67 MacCulloch North Sea Producer Maersk Conoco UK 148 1997 58 5
68 Ukpokiti Independence Express Conoco Nigeria 27 1997
69 Bunga Kekwa Armada Perkasa (Red Teal) Bumi Armada IPC Malaysia 55 1997 100 EPS
70 Escravos Escravos Modec Chevron Nigeria 29 1997
71 Okwori Okwori Nigeria 1997
72 Barracuda P34 (PP de Moraes) Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 835 1997 5 EPS
73 South Marlim FPSO II SBM Petrobras Brazil 1420 1997 EPS
74 Tantawan Tantawan Explorer SBM Pogo Thailand 73 1997
75 Curlew Maersk Curlew Maersk Shell UK 92 1997 71 7
76 Lufeng 22-1 Navion Munin Navion Statoil China 330 1997 33 4
77 Norne Norne Statoil Statoil Norway 380 1997 470 20
78 Albacora P31 Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 330 1998
79 Aquila FPSO Firenze (Agip Firenze) SBM/Saipem Agip Italy 850 1998 20 6
80 Elang/Kakatua Modec Venture 1 (Skua) Modec BHPP Aust/Indo 83 1998 29 4
81 Schiehallion Schiehallion FPSO BP BP UK 400 1998 450 17
82 Marlim P33 Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 780 1998
83 Ruby Ruby Princess Nortrans Petronas Vietnam 50 1998 EPS
84 Kiame Petroleo Nautipa Nortrans Ranger Angola 142 1998 9
85 Rang Dong Rang Dong FPSO Mitsubishi Vietnam 60 1998
86 Roncador Seillean Reading & Bates Petrobras Brazil 1853 1999 1999 EWT
87 Pierce Berge Hugin Navion Enterprise UK 85 1999 104 10
88 Banff Ramform Banff PGS Conoco UK 89 1999 70 7
89 Ross Bleo Holm Bluewater Talisman UK 100 1999 75 9
90 Bittern/Guillemot Triton Amerada Amerada UK 90 1999 150 10
91 Marlim P35 Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 850 1999
92 Varg Varg B Saga Saga Norway 84 1999 50 5
93 Jotun Jotun FPSO Esso Esso Norway 126 1999 195
94 Balder Balder FPU Esso Esso Norway 125 1999 170 15
95 Marlim P37 Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 905 1999
96 Asgard Asgard A Statoil Statoil Norway 280 1999 830 20
97 Kuito Chevron Chevron Angola 400 1999
98 Laminaria Northern Endeavour Woodside Woodside Australia 383 1999 189 10
99 Abana Knock Taggart Moni Pulo Nigeria 6 1999
100 Buffalo Modec BHPP Australia 250 1999 22 3
101 Masa Petronas Malaysia 1999
102 Salema/Bijupira P45 Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 675 2000
103 Espadarte FPSO VI Petrobras Brazil 940 2000
104 Terra Nova Terra Nova FPSO PetroCanada PetroCanada Canada 95 2000 370 15
105 Girassol Elf Elf Angola 1360 2001 700
106 NC137 Elf Libya 2001 150 EPS
107 Barracuda P43 Petrobras Petrobras Brazil 785 2001
SPE 56708 FPSO TRENDS 15

Right side
Vessel Storage Purpose Double Mooring Wells Risers Peak Gas Gas Lift/ Field
Size Built Sides Type Location Disconnect Oil Export Reinjection
Production
(k.dwt) (k.bbl) (k.bbl/d) (MMm3/d)
390 Conversion CALM 2 Lion
31 190 Reuse Turret/DP Internal 5 6 35 Lift Blenheim
35 185 Conversion Spread 3 3 20 Reinjection Nemba
99 620 Conversion Yes Turret Internal bow 7 9 50 Both Fife
152 1100 Conversion Riser turret External bow Yes 9 7 115 3.2 Lift Wanaea/Cossack
140 720 Conversion Turret Internal bow 20 3 65 Liuhua 11-1
268 1600 Conversion Spread 8 8 80 Zafiro
130 850 Yes Turret Internal bow 12 7 60 1.0 Teal/Guillemot
135 660 Conversion Turret External bow 4 2 32 Yes Maui B
103 650 New Yes Turret/DP Submerged 60 Connemara
114 550 Yes Turret/DP Internal 22 9 63 Captain
105 660 New Yes Turret Internal bow 5 9 55 Both Durward/Dauntless
260 Conversion Yes Turret Internal 22 10 100 Both Foinaven
110 No Conversion Turret Internal bow 9 8 72 0.7 Lift MacCulloch
275 1700 Conversion Spread 5 4 20 Ukpokiti
60 390 Reuse Spread 4 2 15 Bunga Kekwa
340 Yes Turret External bow LPG Escravos
440 Conversion Okwori
55 340 Reuse Turret Internal bow 11 23 30 0.6 Lift Barracuda
127 830 Reuse CALM Stern 2 3 30 Lift South Marlim
137 1020 Conversion Turret Internal 50 4.2 Tantawan
100 560 Conversion Yes Turret Internal bow 3 4 45 2.8 Curlew
103 650 New Yes Turret/DP Submerged Yes 5 2 40 Lufeng 22-1
100 730 Yes Yes Turret/DP Internal 14 9 173 Reinjection Norne
282 2000 Conversion Turret Internal bow 35 100 2.6 Albacora
138 500 Reuse Yes Turret External bow 2 4 20 Lift Aquila
150 990 Reuse Riser turret External bow Yes 4 6 33 Lift Elang/Kakatua
154 950 Yes Yes Turret Internal bow 29 14 154 Reinjection Schiehallion
279 2000 Conversion Turret Internal 9 50 2.0 Marlim
140 1000 Conversion Turret External bow 8 1 30 Ruby
140 1000 Conversion Spread 2 30 Kiame
Conversion 45 Rang Dong
76 310 Reuse Yes DP 2 1 20 Roncador
103 650 Reuse Yes Turret/DP Submerged 9 45 2.8 Both Pierce
31 120 Yes Turret/DP Internal 5 7 95 Yes Banff
105 666 Yes Yes Turret Internal bow 11 18 40 1.4 Both Ross
630 Yes Turret Internal bow 100 3.4 Bittern/Guillemot
270 2000 Conversion Turret Internal 22 100 3.0 Marlim
100 440 Yes Yes Turret Internal 14 57 Reinjection Varg
93 590 Yes Yes Turret Internal 24 80 0.8 Both Jotun
87 380 New Yes Turret/DP Internal 25 10 70 Yes Reinjection Balder
280 2000 Conversion Turret Internal bow 35 150 4.6 Marlim
175 910 Yes Yes Turret Internal 59 16 200 Yes Reinjection Asgard
100 Reinjection Kuito
250 1400 Yes Turret Internal bow 6 6 170 Both Laminaria
50 Abana
104 850 Conversion Turret External bow 3 2 40 Buffalo
Conversion 35 Masa
850 Conversion 20 55 2.4 Salema/Bijupira
2000 Conversion 9 100 Espadarte
960 Yes Turret Yes 24 125 Terra Nova
340 2000 Yes Spread 40 13 200 Yes Reinjection Girassol
30 NC137
2000 Spread 24 200 6.0 Barracuda