Sie sind auf Seite 1von 117

FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers

Houston, TX

FPSOs Present and Future Workshop

Presentations

Session I
Panel of Invited Speakers
June 7, 2000

1
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Table of Contents

Speaker page
James Regg, U.S. Minerals Management Service 3
LCDR Russell Proctor, U.S. Coast Guard 13
Paul Finnigan, Dept. of Minerals & Energy, W. Australia 25
Deborah M. Mattos, Petrobras, Brazil 53
Stephen Ovens, Occupational Safety & Health Service,
New Zealand 64
Daniel Salas, PEMEX, Mexico 81
Oyvind Tuntland, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Norway 105
Peter Mills, Health & Safety Executive, United Kingdom 111

2
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

James Regg
United States
Minerals Management Service

3
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Regulating an FPSO-based
Development in the U.S. GOM
Jim Regg
Regg,, MMS

FPSO’s Present and Future


June 7, 2000

Why None to Date?

§ FPSO’s around the world


§ 70 in “current fleet”
§ Offshore Magazine survey - August 1999
§ Water depth: 85% in WD<1000 ft
§ Areas with minimal existing infrastructure
§ Why not the U.S. GOM?
§ Need; infrastructure; preference; technology
§ Risk perception

4
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO Decision Model


Guidelines
Standards/RP’s
Policies/Regs
Review Strategies

MMS; USCG; Industry


Iterative Process
Strategy for
FPSO’s in the
U.S. GOM
Programmatic Environmental and
Technical Studies

Level of certainty increases


as move to the right

Likely Configuration
Analyzed in EIS

§ 1MM bbl oil storage


§ Processing
§ Up to 300,000 BOPD
§ Up to 300MM CFGPD
§ Multi
Multi--well subsea cluster(s)
§ Transport
§ 500,000 bbl shuttle tankers
§ Gas pipeline

5
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Comparative Risk
Assessment
§ Relative risk of FPSO compared to existing
deepwater GOM production facilities
§ OTRC, EQE, DeepStar
DeepStar,, MMS, USCG
§ Project Update
§ Phase I: System definitions completed
§ Phase II: Events and Outcomes completed
§ Phase III: Consequence and Frequency
§ Refinements and Mitigation Alternatives
§ Project Completion by January 2001

What Happens After the EIS?

Application Filed Prepare a Site-


Within the Bounds Specific EA
Investigated in EIS

Engineering and Safety Review

Application Filed Prepare another


Outside the Bounds EIS?
Investigated in EIS

6
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Current MMS Regulatory


Authority

Existing Reviews
§ Development Operations
Coordination Document
§ Development intentions
§ Public input; environmental
§ Conservation Review
§ Other existing plans,
permits, submittals
§ Deepwater Operations Plan

Graphic courtesy of APL Inc.

Capability exists for review of FPSO-based development

7
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

DWOP Strategy
§ DWOP
§ Conceptual, Preliminary, Final Parts
§ Guideline - Industry/MMS effort
§ Early dialogue; focus on “total system”
§ Sand face to transportation
§ MMS approval prior to major $$ commitments
§ Alternative compliance and departures
§ Avoid unnecessary regulatory rewrites
§ Best Available and Safest Technology

DWOP Timing

Discovery Conceptual
Conceptual System Selected Part
30 days

Preliminary Engineering Preliminary


ID Alternative Compliance Part
90 days

Final
First Production + 90 days
Part
60 days

8
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Planned Enhancement to MMS


Regulations

Subpart B Enhancements
§ Subpart B - Plan
submittal requirements
§ Incorporate DWOP
§ Curtailment of
operations planning
§ Hazards analysis
§ Conservation review
§ full development
§ premature abandonment
Photo courtesy of Bluewater Offshore

9
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Subpart I Enhancements
§ Platforms and Structures - design,
fabrication, installation, use, inspection, and
maintenance
§ Application process; verification program;
certified verification agents; fixed platforms only
§ Technical modification
§ Reference existing industry standards
§ Eliminate prescriptive details
§ Rewrite
§ All types of Floating Production Systems

Industry Standards
§ API RP 2FPS - Planning, Design, and
Construction of Floating Production
Systems
§ API RP 2RD - Design of Marine Risers for
Floating Production Systems and TLP’s
§ API RP 2SK - Design and Analysis of
Stationkeeping Systems
§ API RP 14J - Hazard Analysis for Offshore
Production Facilities
§ Others?
§ Offloading guidelines

10
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Interface with USCG

§ Memorandum of Understanding
§ Effective 12/16/98
§ Implementation
§ Identifying standards and regulations
§ Determine where changes or enhancements
needed to table of responsibilities
§ Clear jurisdictions; component level
§ Active and ongoing dialogue with USCG

FPSO’s in the U.S. GOM?

§ No decision has been made


§ Moving forward with “Regulatory Model”
§ regulations; policy; MMS/USCG jurisdictions
§ Must be assured FPSO does not increase general
risk over other development options

11
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Thank You!

12
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

LCDR Russell Proctor


United States Coast Guard

13
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

OTRC: June 7-
7-8, 2000

Floating Production, Storage and


Offloading Systems Regulatory
Scheme

Lieutenant Commander Russ Proctor


USCG Headquarters
Offshore Compliance Program

Assumptions for this


Presentation

1. United States Regulatory Scheme as it


applies to FPSOs
2. Focus of discussion is U.S. Coast Guard
Requirements
3. The position presented represents the
current policies of the United States Coast
Guard

14
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO POLICY CLARIFICATION


§ Are FPSOs considered vessels for regulatory
purposes?
§ Answer: Yes (Title 1 U.S. Code, Section 3)
§ Is produced oil stored on board an FPSO considered
cargo?
§ Answer: Yes.
§ Tank vessel requirements & manning apply,
including Tankerman
Tankerman--PIC
§ Tank vessel pollution prevention requirements and
OPA’90 requirements apply

FPSO POLICY CLARIFICATION


§ Do FPSOs have to meet OPA- OPA-90 double hull standards?
§ Answer: Yes, if oil is stored in hull tanks adjacent to the
sea
§ Some existing single hull FPSOs may be able to
operate on the U.S. OCS…but are subject to the OPA- OPA-
90 “phase out” schedule.
§ In general…FPSOs
general…FPSOs constructed or converted after
June 30, 1990 must comply with the double hull
requirements in 33 CFR 157.10d
§ Each vessel undergoing a conversion will be
considered on a case-
case-byby--case basis for the application
of OPA-
OPA-90 double hull requirements

15
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

USCG FPSO INSPECTION


REQUIREMENTS

• The Coast Guard’s inspection policy stems from USCGHQ


Office of Compliance (G-MOC) Policy letter No. 13-92

• Established use of applicable Tank Vessel regulations


for FPSOs
• Identifies standards for foreign flagged FPSOs to
operate upon US OCS

USCG FPSO REQUIREMENTS

§ U.S. flag FPSOs


§ Must undergo USCG “plan review” & approval
§ Must be issued a Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection
and comply with:
§ 46 CFR Subchapter D (Tank Vessels)
§ 46 CFR Subchapter F (Marine Engineering)
§ 46 CFR Subchapter J (Electrical Engineering)
§ 46 CFR Subchapter I-A (Mobile Offshore Drilling Units)
§ 46 CFR Subchapter W (Lifesaving Appliances and
Arrangements)

16
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

USCG FPSO REQUIREMENTS

• U.S. flag FPSOs (continued)


• 33 CFR Subchapter N (Outer Continental Shelf
Activities)
• 33 CFR Part 96 (Rules For The Safe Operation of
Vessels and Safety Management System)
• 33 CFR Part 155 (Oil or Hazardous Material Pollution
Prevention Regulations for Vessels)
• 33 CFR Part 156.200 (Lightering Regulations)
• 33 CFR Part 157 (Pollution Prevention)
• 33 CFR Part 159 (Marine Sanitation Devices)

USCG FPSO REQUIREMENTS

§ Foreign flag FPSOs


§ Must receive a USCG Letter of Compliance (LOC)
§ Expected to comply with International treaties
§ SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea)
§ MARPOL 73/78 (Pollution prevention)
§ Non
Non--signatory countries or failure to comply with
international treaties will result in:
§ Treatment as a U.S. flag vessel, including:
§ Plan review for full compliance to U.S. regulations
§ Issue a Certificate of Inspection upon compliance

17
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

USCG FPSO REQUIREMENTS

Pollution Response Plans for U.S. and Foreign flag FPSOs

FPSOs must have the following approved plans while


operating on the U.S. OCS:

• SOPEP (Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan)


• VRP (Vessel Response Plan)

These plans must be approved by the USCGHQ Office of


Response (G-MOR) prior to operation

ISM CODE and STCW FOR Foreign


Flag FPSOs

• FPSOs are vessels with a myriad of integrated complex systems,


marrying the characteristics of a tank ship with a production
platform.
• These vessels will have a unique blend of maritime crew and
industrial personnel
• The Coast Guard considers foreign flag FPSOs to be “engaged in
a foreign voyage” when they are producing crude oil on the U.S.
OCS.
• STCW does apply to the maritime crew and tankerman/PIC for
lightering operations
• ISM Code does apply.

18
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

ISM CODE & STCW


for U.S. Flag FPSOs

• U.S. flagged FPSOs operating on foreign OCS will have to comply


with both ISM Code and STCW
• U.S. flagged FPSOs are engaged in domestic voyages
• STCW and ISM does not apply to the maritime crew.
• The Coast Guard does encourage voluntary compliance with
the ISM Code or MMS SEMP.

33 CFR - Subchapter “N”


OCS Activities
§ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published
December 7, 1999
§ 33 CFR Part 144 (Floating Facilities)
§ New regulations address floating OCS facility
(FPSO) design & equipment requirements
§ API RP2 FPS
Expected to be published in 2000
Expected to become part of the ISO standard
§ NPRM Comment period extended until 5 July
2000

19
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

33 CFR - Subchapter “N”


OCS Activities
§ U.S. floating facilities (33 CFR 144.705)
§ MODU design & equipment reqmts in 46 CFR 108
§ Design & equipment reqmts in API RP 2FPS
§ Marine engineering reqmts of 46 CFR, Subchapters
F & J (Marine engineering & electrical)
§ 33 CFR 159 (Marine Sanitation Devices)
§ For floating facilities that store oil in bulk
§ 46 CFR, Parts 30-
30-40 (Tank Vessels)
§ 33 CFR, Part 157 (OPA-
(OPA-90 HULL REQUIREMENTS)

33 CFR - Subchapter “N”


OCS Activities
§ U.S. flag tanker conversions (33 CFR
155.715)
§ Must comply with 33 CFR 154.705
§ Mr. Jim Magill (USCG HQ Offshore Standards)
Session IV presentation Thursday
§ Plan Approval Requirements (33 CFR
144.800)
§ General requirements (All floating facilities)
§ Design Basis (Novel or unconventional
facilities)

20
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

33 CFR - Subchapter “N”


OCS Activities
§ Foreign flag floating OCS facility requirements
§ Meet U.S. Floating facility (33 CFR 144) and MODU
inspection & equipment requirements in 46 CFR 107
§ OR
§ Design & equipment requirements of the flag state if
found EQUIVALENT to U.S. by Commandant
§ OR
§ IMO MODU Code
§ OR
§ SOLAS Safety Construction & Equipment Certificates

33 CFR - Subchapter “N”


OCS Activities
§ Foreign flag floating OCS facilities used to store oil in
bulk must ALSO meet the following
§ Non self propelled facilities
§ 33 CFR 157 (incl. OPA-
OPA-90 HULL REQUIREMENTS)
§ 46 CFR, Subchapter D Requirements for Tank Barges (COI)
§ Self Propelled facilities
§ Same requirements as Non-
Non -self propelled …OR
§ Have valid SOLAS and IOPP (MARPOL) Certificates
§ Foreign facility converted from a tank vessel
§ Requires a “major conversion” determination from CG MSC
§ Determine OPA
OPA--90 applicability (DOUBLE HULL) on a case by
case basis

21
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

OCS U.S. Citizenship


Employment Issues
FPSOs operating on US OCS are subject to U.S.
citizenship employment regs found in Subchapter N.
• 33 CFR 141 contains these regulations
3 Options are spelled out in regulations
• U.S. flagged FPSOs must employ U.S. citizens - No Waiver or
exemptions are granted
• Foreign Flagged - U.S. controlled. U.S. citizens must fill all
positions, However, a waiver may be granted for a limited period
of time.
• Foreign Flagged - Foreign Controlled is eligible for an exemption
• All requests for exemptions or waivers must be processed by
G-MOC
• NVIC No. 7-84 provides additional guidance to the regulations.

Lightering Activities
FPSOs will engage in lightering activities
• Lightering operations are governed by the regulations in
33 CFR 156.200
• Tankerman/Persons-In-Charge are required for all lightering
operations
• Work-Rest periods apply
• Designated Lightering Zones may be established by the
District Commander
- The District Commander sets operating restrictions
- Gulf of Mexico operating regulations found in 33 CFR
156.330
Shuttle tankers or tank barges must be U.S. flagged if they are
delivering the produced crude oil to facilities on U.S. shores.

22
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Coast Guard & MMS


Coordination
§ CG involved in MMS’s Environmental Impact
Statement on FPSOs
§ CG has formed NOSAC Subcommittee to review
any added risk of deepwater activities
§ CG participating in MMS’s study on the
Comparative Risks of FPSOs & other production
options
§ MMS and CG will continue to work together at all
levels to define the FPSO regulatory environment

MMS/CG Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)

§ MOU Purpose:
Purpose: clarify agency
responsibilities
§ New MOU signed December 16, 1998
§ Replaces old CG/MMS MOU from 1989
§ Developed with considerable industry input
§ Clarifies agency responsibilities…especially for
floating OCS units including FPSOs

23
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

CONCLUSION

§ FPSOs considered tanks vessels by USCG


§ Coast Guard COI or LOC is required
§ OPA--90 hull requirements....case by case basis
OPA
§ NPRM on 33 CFR Subchapter N is a Roadmap for
determining CG position & philosophy on FPSOs
§ MMS & USCG have joint jurisdiction of FPSOs
§ CG/MMS MOU clarifies agency responsibilities
§ MMS & CG working together to develop an
integrated regulatory approach

LCDR Russ Proctor

USCG Headquarters (G- (G-MOC)


Offshore Compliance Program
2100 Second Street SW
Washington, DC 20593-
20593-0001
(202)--267
(202) 267--0499 / Fax: (202)-
(202)-267267--0506
RProctor@
RProctor @comdt
comdt..uscg
uscg.mil
.mil
http://www.uscg
http://www. uscg.mil/
.mil/hq
hq/g
/g--m/
m/gmhome
gmhome..htm

24
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Paul Finnigan
Australia
Department of Minerals & Energy
Western Australia

25
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO’s - Australian
experiences
Paul Finnigan

Western Australian Dept of Minerals & Energy

e mail - p.
p.finnigan
finnigan@
@dme
dme..wa
wa..gov
gov.au
.au

Workshop objectives

§ Discussion on experiences and


concerns from worldwide FPSO
operations
§ Identify operational and regulatory
issues, and successful practices
§ Identify needs for new technologies to
address these concerns

26
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Workshop focus

§ Permanent vs disconnectable
§ Conversion vs new build vessels
§ Oil storage and offloading
§ Manning and evacuation
§ Vessel motion and stability
§ Gas handling / transport

27
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

28
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO overview
§ As at Oct 98, some 47 FPSO’s in use
worldwide, plus 24 under construction
(Bluewater figures)
§ 23 in use in UK / Norway, 7 in Australia
§ Relatively few owned by oil companies,
(Cossack Pioneer, Griffin Venture, (Aus),
Schiehallion, Anasuria, (UK), Petrobras,
(Brazil))
§ Main players - PGS, Bluewater, Modec

BP ‘Schiehallion’

29
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Australian FPSO’s
§ BHPP ‘Griffin Venture’ - newbuild, (94)
§ Woodside ‘Cossack Pioneer’ - conversion, (97)
§ BHPP ‘Buffalo Venture’ - conversion, (99)
§ Woodside ‘Northern Endeavour’ - newbuild, (99)
§ BHPP ‘Skua Venture’, (now removed), (91) **
§ Newfield ‘Challis Venture’ (ex BHPP), (89)
§ Newfield ‘Jabiru Venture’ (ex BHPP), (86)
§ Phillips Elang-Kakatua ‘Modec Venture 1’ **

FPSO advantages
§ Large deck area, and potential topsides
weight
§ ‘Inherent safety’ via separation, by distance,
of process, from accommodation.
§ Deep water capability
§ Economics of leasing
§ Re-useable - ‘low’ decommissioning costs

30
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Permanent vs disconnectable
§ Australia has a mix of FPSO’s, dependent
upon environmental conditions at location.
§ BHPP ‘Griffin Venture’ and Woodside
‘Cossack Pioneer’ both have disconnectable
turrets, to allow to move to shelter in face of
impending cyclones.
§ BHPP ‘Buffalo Venture’ and Woodside
‘Northern Endeavour’ permanently stationed
in field.

BHP ‘Griffin Venture’

31
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Woodside ‘Cossack Pioneer’

Environmental conditions
§ North West Shelf - Cyclone season Nov -
April
§ 100 year design storm (Hmax) approx 20 m,
(60 ft), 10 - 15 sec period. Current 2 m/s,
winds upto 60 m/s (1 minute data).
§ Comparison -UK N Sea, (Hmax) approx 32
m, (96 ft)
§ Water depths - 80 m (240 ft) at Cossack,
130 m (390 ft) at Griffin

32
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Environmental conditions
(cont’d)

§ Timor Sea - cyclones immature


§ Water depths
§ ‘Buffalo’ 270 m, (810 ft)
§ ‘Challis’ 105 m, (315 ft)
§ ‘Jabiru’ 120 m, (360 ft)
§ ‘Laminaria’ 380 m, (1140 ft)

Newbuild vs Conversion - issues


§ Newbuild typically outfitted with hydraulically
driven deepwell pumps in cargo tanks.
§ Conversion almost always retains ‘traditional’
tanker central pumproom - a recognised
hazard. Additionally, the hazard is
immediately in front of, and below, the
Temporary Refuge, (TR).
§ Conversion may not be double hull / bottom.
Ship collision scenarios?, and inspection of
double bottoms.

33
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Newbuild vs Conversion,
(cont’d)
§ Newbuild allows better integration of
design process with the goal setting
philosophy of Safety Case style
legislation. (eg ‘H’ class bulkheads
rather than A60).
§ Age of vessel (for conversion) - ‘quality’
of hull, tanks etc may be an issue.
Extended period on station without
drydocking.

Woodside ‘Northern Endeavour’


§ Largest FPSO in the world.
§ 170,000 bpd production, 1.4 m bbls storage
§ 220,000 dwt, 380 m (1140 ft) water depth
§ Newbuild, with internal turret, and 7.8 m (23
ft) diameter roller bearing
§ 9 point mooring system
§ 21 riser slots in turret

34
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Woodside ‘Northern Endeavour’

35
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Laminaria turret

Mac Cullough swivel

36
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Brown Bros swivel

Oil storage & offloading - issues


§ Pool or ‘spot’ chartered offtake vessels?
§ Use of wing tanks to store oil, instead of ballast
- may have implications for ship collision
scenarios
§ Tank pressurisation / vacuum issues - UK
‘Uisge Gorm’ FPSO incident
§ Large inventory (bulk oil storage in tanks) close
to process equipment. Fire / explosion incident
on main deck can have severe consequences.

37
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Oil storage and offloading (cont’d)

§ Various offloading systems now available


§ UKOLS, (Ugland Kongsberg offshore loading)
§ Submerged Turret Loading, (STL)
§ Buoys
§ Dynamic Positioning, (DP), or non DP, for
shuttle tankers
§ Separation distances between FPSO and
tanker
§ Environmental states for offtakes.

MST ‘Berge Hugin’ (UK Pierce)

38
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

MST with STL

39
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Oil storage & offloading, (cont’d)


§ ‘Fishtailing’ in non co-linear seas.
Thrusters?
§ Cargo hose connection to shuttle tanker
- midships manifold, or for’d bowhouse?
§ Emergency shutdown systems -
interfaces between FPSO and shuttle
tanker. Telemetry?
§ Cargo hose rupture - use of weak link /
dry break coupling?

40
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Shell ‘Anasuria’

Texaco ‘Captain’

41
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Manning & evacuation -


issues
§ Extent of marine competencies onboard.
§ FPSO also registered as a ship?, or solely
as a petroleum facility? (SOLAS / Flag state
requirements, and maritime union issues)
§ FPSO’s in deepwater - may be ‘remote’ for
helicopter evacuation. Also, helideck may be
out of limits in bad weather or an
emergency.
§ TEMPSC - freefall or davit launched?

Vessel motion & stability -


issues
§ Motion envelope may have implications for
process design, (eg level control in
separators).
§ Orientation of process vessels along axis
with ‘least’ motions.
§ Vessel motions may limit certain operations,
eg maintenance, crane operations,
helicopters
§ Human response to vessel motions,
(seasickness)

42
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Vessel motion & stability,


(cont’d)

§ Stresses and bending moments upon


hull. (Hogging / sagging conditions).
§ Difference between trading tanker, and
FPSO.
§ Deckloads - topsides weight limitations,
and effect on centre of gravityetc.

Gas handling & transport -


issues
§ Excessive heat radiation from flare, leading
to ‘no go’ areas on deck.
§ Angled or vertical flare tower and size of
knockout drum - to reduce frequency and
consequence of liquids carry over.
§ Rotary vs reciprocating compressors.
§ Gas reinjection swivels - integrity of seals?
§ LNG FPSO’s and gas-to-liquids (GTL)
systems

43
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO incidents
§ Gas turbine rotor disintegrated, leading to
large scale fire in FPSO engine room. No
fatalities, but field shut in for 4 months, whilst
refit / repairs undertaken. FPSO taken to
shipyard.
§ Omissions in hazard identification process.
§ Some protective systems failed to operate -
inadequate design and procurement of
equipment.

Shuttle tanker near misses


§ A tsunami wave (generated by earthquake
off Indonesia), caused an offloading tanker
to ‘slide down’ the face of the wave, resulting
in relative movement towards the FPSO.
Some vessel damage to fairleads etc, but
high potential for more serious
consequences.
§ Shuttle tanker lost power whilst
manouevering in proximity to FPSO.

44
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Other issues
§ Fitment of VOC (volatile organic
compound) gas / vapour return systems
to FPSO and shuttle tanker,
(environmental issue). (BP Schiehallion)
§ ‘Green water’ on decks, (damage to
process equipment, (eg Chevron ‘Alba’
FSU) or hull, (BP ‘Petrojarl Foinaven’)
§ Integrity of swivel seals, (loss of
containment)
§ Type of mooring - drag chain vs turret.

Green water on deck

45
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Bluewater ‘Uisge Gorm’

Texaco ‘Captain’

46
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Other issues, (cont’d)

§ Type of turret - internal / external


§ Accommodation up or down wind?
§ (High) pressure fuel gas into engine /
boiler rooms - explosion hazard
§ ‘Cultural’ differences between marine
(shipyards), and oil industries. (Several
FPSO projects have over ran in costs
and time).

PGS ‘Ramform Banff’

47
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

PGS ‘Ramform Banff’

Maersk ‘Curlew’

48
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

PGS Petrojarl ‘Foinavon’ (BP)

PGS ‘Petrojarl Foinavon’ (BP)

49
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Loading reel on Petrojarl

UK FPSO’s

§ Conoco ‘Ramform Banff’


§ Pierce ‘Berge Hugin’ MST
§ Bluewater ‘Bleo Holm’ on Ross
§ Bluewater ‘Glas Dowr’ on Amerada
Durward / Dauntless
§ BP ‘Schiehallion’ (West of Shetlands)
§ Shell ‘Anasuria’

50
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

UK FPSO’s (cont’d)
§ Bluewater ‘Uisge Gorm’ on Amerada Fife
§ PGS ‘Petrojarl Foinaven’ (West of
Shetlands)
§ PGS ‘Petrojarl 1’ (1986)
§ Reading & Bates, (ex BP) ‘Seillian’ SWOPS
§ Maersk Curlew
§ Maersk ‘North Sea Producer’ on Conoco Mc
Cullough
§ Kerr McGee ‘Gryphon A’

UK FPSO’s (cont’d)

§ Texaco ‘Captain’

51
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

52
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Deborah M. Mattos
Brazil
Petrobras

53
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

WORKSHOP: FPSOs – PRESENT AND FUTURE


June 7-8, 2000
Houston, USA

“PORTRAIT OF FPSO USE OFFSHORE BRAZIL”

Deborah Martinez de Mattos


PETROBRAS R&D Center

Carlos Ferraz Mastrangelo


PETROBRAS E&P Department

ABSTRACT

Petrobras has presently six FPSOs operating in Campos Basin and the forecast is to complete fourteen
units until 2003, including recently installed FSOs and other units in conversion, installation or contract
phase. Some aspects of the design, conversion and operational ex perience are discussed in this paper.
The Brazilian ruling scenario in terms of petroleum, environment and maritime political and technical aspects
is briefly mentioned. Environmental impact studies, safety requirements, risk assessment and studies
developed in this area are highlighted, including: gas dispersion in open areas, fire propagation and passive
protection, explosion and fire prevention in cargo tanks, and risk of collision. Some technical aspects as “as
new” x “all new” conversion philosophy and plate replacement are examples of typical subjects to be faced
during conversion phase. Vessel motion and offloading represent important feedback from the operation, to
the designers of new FPSOs. Finally, technological needs are shown, concerning mooring and risers
systems and development of new concepts such as FPDSO.

INTRODUCTION

The experience acquired by Petrobras in Floating Production Storage and Offloading Systems (FPSOs)
becomes evident when it is noticed that six units with this conc ept are already in operation in Campos Basin.
Adding three FSOs in operation and five more units under construction, installation or contract stage, the
figures grow to fourteen systems in the beginning of 2003.

Although some initiatives in the use of FPSO/FSO concept in Braz il started in 1979 and several mooring
systems, such as spread mooring, tower-yoke, calm system and calm-yoke were adopted (1), the decision of
their intensive use began in 1994. At that time Petrobras decided to convert the P.P. Moraes FPSO,
renamed P-34, into an Early Production System (EPS) for Barracuda and Caratinga Field, installing a new
process plant and a turret system to moor the unit in 840 m of water depth. First oil of P-34 came in mid-
1997, through 11 production wells.

54
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

The increasing production in the Campos Basin, assured by the oil from Albacora and Marlim Fields, lead to
a re-evaluation of the Basin export system, since the existing pipelines were already at maximum capacity.
The appointed solution was the use of FPSOs, converted from available Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs)
of Petrobras ’ fleet. These vessels, being of the single hull type, were restricted on some international sea-
lanes. In spite of the average service age of 22 years, they were always maintained up to the standards
required by the Classification Society.
In this scenario began almost at the same time, the conversion of four former tankers, namely Vidal de
Negreiros (P-31), Cairu (P-32), Henrique Dias (P-33) and Jose Bonifacio (P-35). A few months later, another
unit (P-37) was contracted, but this time, the main contractor supplied the tanker (also a VLCC). Two FSOs,
P-47 and P-38, were added to the initial conversion list, incorporating turret mooring systems. A small tanker
(28,000 dwt), named Avare, was the first unit in Campos Basin installed through a Differentiated Compliance
Anchoring System (DICAS), a spread mooring system.
The experience with leased FPSOs started with Early Production Systems: FPSO II installed in Marlim Sul
through a calm-yoke mooring system and Seillean, a full Dynamic Positioned (DP) vessel, for Roncador.
Former FPSO VI, renamed Espadarte FPSO, is the only example of a leased Permanent System. Table I
shows some data about the mentioned FPSOs /FSOs, not including FSOs moored to monobuoys.
All FPSOs used as Permanent Systems have a large number of risers connected (up to 47), implying in
large diameter internal turrets. They also have large process plants installed and present a large number of
swivel paths. A 20 years design life was specified.
Experience gained from operating ship shape production units has been useful for improving technical
specifications and determining the life expectancy design for future conversions, and keeps us confident that
safe operational procedures are the main way to prevent oil spills.

Table I – Characteristics of FPSOs/FSOs located in Campos Basin


Production Water
Unit Field Capacity (bopd) First Oil Depth Status
(m)
FPSO P-34 Barracuda 45,000 Sep/1997 840 Operating
FSO P-32 Marlim *** Jun/1998 160 Operating
FPSO P-31 Albacora 100,000 Aug/1998 330 Operating
FPSO P-33 Marlim 50,000 Dec/1998 780 Operating
FSO Avaré Marimbá Leste *** Dec/1998 550 Operating
FPSO Seillean (*) Roncador 20,000 Jan/1999 1853 Operating
FPSO P-35 Marlim 100,000 Aug/1999 850 Operating
Marlim Sul 20,000 May/1997 1420 Relocated
FPSO II (*) Nov/1999
Marlim Sul 20,000 1215 Operating
FSO P-47 Roncador *** May/2000 815 Operating
ESPADARTE FPSO (*) Espadarte 100,000 Jun/2000 950 Installation
FPSO P-37 Marlim 150,000 Jul/2000 905 Installed
FSO P-38 Marlim Sul *** Jan/2001 1020 Conversion
FPSO P-43 Barracuda 150,000 Dec/2002 790 Contract
FPSO P-48 Caratinga 150,000 Jan/2003 1040 Contract
(*) FPSOs contracted on daily rate bases.

55
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

RULING SCENARIO: POLITICAL & TECHNICAL ASPECTS


RULING SCENARIO: POLITICAL & TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Petroleum Politics

The first official step in the history of petroleum in Brazil was the creation of the National Petroleum Council
(CNP) in 1938, to assess the requests for research and mining of oil reservoirs, which was enforced by law
to be performed by Brazilians.

Petrobras – Petroleo Brasileiro S. A. - was created in 1953 to run the oil business in Brazil, according to the
law which instituted the state monopoly for research and mining, refining and transportation of petroleum
and its byproducts. In 1963, the monopoly was extended to include imports and exports of petroleum and its
byproducts. However, since November 1995, as a result of a Constitutional Amendment, Brazil has now
permitted the presence of other companies which can compete with Petrobras in all branches of the oil
industry.

With the purpose of regulating, contracting and controlling economical activities linked to the petroleum
industry, for the benefit of the country, in August 1997 the Nat ional Petroleum Agency (ANP) was created,
being subordinate to the Ministry of Mines and Energy. ANP is in the organization process to fully assume
its attributions.

Environmental Politics and Regulations

The responsibility for the protection and improvement of the env ironmental quality is attributed to several
organizations, among which it is worth mentioning: the Ministry of Environment, Hydric Resources and
Legal Amazon – MMA – (Central Body); the Environment National Council – CONAMA – (consulting and
deliberating organ) and the Brazilian Institute for Environment and Renewable Natural Resources – IBAMA
– (executing organ).
The warranty of the environmental equilibrium is the main target of the IBAMA, which was created in 1989
to attend public and private action that could interfere in the environmental resources quality, aiming at the
ecologically sustainable economical development.

One of the instruments to control potentially polluting and/or natural resources demanding activities is the
requirement of an Environmental License. In the case of offshore installations, this license is issued by
IBAMA, following regulation by CONAMA.
For the issuing of the Operation License for FPSOs, IBAMA has been demanding Environmental Impact
Studies, which considers the impacts of continuous activity, and some studies related to Risk Assessment
techniques, in order to identify and evaluate the consequences of accidental scenarios. It is foreseen a
trend of governmental organizations to formalize requirements, and even though to create federal laws .
Maritime Politics and Regulations
The Rules of the Maritime Authority for traffic and permanence of vessels in Brazilian Waters are the
attribution of the DPC (Harbor and Coast Directory), an organization of the Brazilian Navy.
The Brazilian administration follows the International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements stated in
the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and in the Code for the Construction and Equipment
of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU Code) and in the amendme nts to the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention).
Only formally recognized Classification Societies by DPC are qualified to perform audits, inspections,
surveys and to issue certificates related to conventions and regulations in the name of the Brazilian
Government .
Classification Society Rules

Petrobras owned FPSOs are classified by American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Lloyd’s Register of
Shipping (LRS) and Bureau Veritas (BV). Guides and Rules for FPSOs are normally directed to new
building units, and conversion cases receive an individual treat ment.

In order to guarantee a suitable performance of the FPSO during its life span, special requirements were
established by Petrobras for structural verification, taking into account peculiar conversion aspects, such
as previous fatigue damage as an oil tanker, thickness corrosion rates, Brazilian environmental and new
cargo loading conditions (2).

56
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

DESIGN EXPERIENCE

FPSOs owned by Petrobras have been converted from oil tankers adopting the lump sum type contract. In
the integrated bidding process, the Main Contractor, that means the Conversion Yard, associated with a
Detailed Engineering Design Company, has been the responsible for all items supply. Petrobras technicians,
with the aim of achieving a good operational performance, have generated a large amount of technical
specifications called Basic Design.

The mentioned documentation was based on previous experience with other concepts of production units
and has being improved during the last five years as the result of conversion and operational experience with
FPSOs. The relevant technical requirements have been addressed in other opportunities (3), including a
more detailed discussion on structural (2) and turret (4) requirements, and here only safety and risk
assessment aspects will be mentioned.

Environmental Protection and Design Boundary Conditions


Since the field appraisal analyzes, basic design, detailed engineering design, and construction phase, all
boundary conditions are considered to fulfill all safety and env ironmental requirements. Environmental
Impact Studies are developed considering that the unit will comply with the CONAMA regulation.
It can be depicted some restrictions to be considered during des ign as: maximum twenty part per million oil
content in the discharge water; maximum temperature of 40 degrees Celsius of any discharge fluid
overboard; not using CFCs and HCFCs refrigeration gas according to the Montreal Protocol.

Safety Philosophy
The safety philosophy for offshore installations has been consolidated in a document that comprehends the
following points:
•· Life-saving appliances and equipment;
•· Active and passive fire protection systems;
•· Safety requirements for electrical, drainage, ventilation and air conditioning systems;

•· Fire and gas detection systems;


•· Pressure relief and depressurization systems;
•· Lay-out facilities;
•· Noise protection;
•· Emergency shutdown system;
•· Safety Interlocking system;
•· Inert gas system for cargo tanks.
Quantitative Risk Assessment
The objective of this analysis is to identify hazards and events that could initiate accidents and their
consequences, with the respective mitigating measures. The use of this analysis has emphasized the
importance of the inertization and depressurization system to the FPSOs safety.

Gas Dispersion in Open Areas

Gas detection is an essential step in all safety procedures, allowing starting safety measures like flow
interruption, elimination of ignition sources and personal evacuation.

Using a methodology based on computational simulation of the airflow around and inside the open areas of
the process plant, an optimized gas detection system can be reac hed (5). This methodology has been used
by Petrobras since 1995. Until now, several offshore units, including FPSOs have been analyzed and the
studies were approved by Classification Societies.

Fire Propagation & Passive Protection

In order to rationalize the criteria for structural passive prot ection design against fire accidents, in 1988
Petrobras created a work group which opted for the development of specific procedures aiming to analyze
the severity and consequences of fire accidents (6).

57
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

These procedures allow quantitative analysis by computational simulation of the various steps present in a
fire accident, considering: leakage process, flame development, heating of structure and nearest
equipment, propagation risk, and changes in the structural strength and behavior as a function of thermal
and mechanical loads.

The first successful results of the application of these procedures in the conversion of semi-submersible
platforms, like increase in installation safety and reduction in the initially designed passive protection, and
also in evaluation of old passive protection elements replacement in existing fixed platforms, encouraged
further applications.

Considering FPSOs , besides the process plant fire risks similar to a semi-submersible platform, a significant
inventory is added from cargo tanks. Safety devices as inert gas system and water cannons to comply with
SOLAS requirements were provided, but Petrobras technicians have been still concerned and intensive
studies have been performed.

To avoid that fires at process plant could ignite fire in cargo tanks, two basic philosophies can be applied:
using grated floors at process plant deck (avoiding gas accumulation between the deck and the tank top) or
using plated floors (avoiding that a fire at the process plant deck reaches and propagates to cargo tanks).
Through computational simulation, the choice was for adopting plated floor, surrounding possible fire focus,
avoiding the strong heating of the cargo tanks. Other important point found is the necessity of keeping the
integrity of pipe racks, since normally this is the route of control cables, deluge lines and large hydrocarbon
piping.

Explosion and Fire Prevention in Cargo Tanks

In order to define preventive actions against explosion and fire in cargo tanks, a work group was created
at Petrobras in December 1998. The task included: bibliographic research, data gathering, preliminary
hazard analysis, reliability analysis of the inertization system of a FPSO already installed, computer
simulation of the effects of a fire in the process plant, etc. As a result of this study, several
recommendations were addressed, which are going to be issued as operational directives and
procedures.

Recommendations of the International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers & Terminals (ISGOTT), a publication
by the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) are usually followed, mainly in hot work
execution, in Petrobras ’ FPSOs as reference for operational procedures.

58
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Risk of Collision

Petrobras is one of the participants in the JIP “Risk and Reliability of a FPSO in Deepwater Gulf of
Mexico”. Regarding the collision scenarios identified in the JIP (7), that is, passing vessel collisions,
visiting supply vessels and offloading shuttle tankers, some comments can be made regarding Campos
Basin reality.

The area of oil exploitation in Campos Basin is not permitted to commercial shipping routes, so the
“passing vessel collision scenario” is not so relevant.
During offloading operations, the boundary conditions help for decreasing collision risk in the “offloading
shuttle tanker scenario”:

•· a tug-boat is permanently connected to the shuttle tanker;


•· the distance between FPSO and shuttle tanker is required to be about 150 m;
•· as the storage capacity of the FPSOs is very big, most of them in the magnitude of 2
• millions barrels, the offloading frequency is once a week per unit or less;
•· quick release connector of the hose and the hawser both sides (FPSO and shuttle tanker)
• are provided.

Nevertheless, some additional care is being taken, including:

•· improvement of knowledge and experience of the mooring master on board


• the shuttle tanker;
•· following strict procedures for shuttle tanker approach;
•· hawser tension and meteocean data monitoring, to guarantee that both are
• within safety values;
•· periodical replacement and tests of floating hoses and mooring hawsers;
•· personnel training on maintenance programs;
•· performance data record of main components of the system; systematic failure analysis.

“Visiting supply vessels scenario” although identified in the JIP as not so relevant, because of the
unexpected significant oil spill, represent the main concern of Petrobras technicians. The use of fenders,
supply boats with bow thrusters capabilities, and increase in its bollard pull capacity are some examples of
mitigating measures that have been adopted.

Its worth mentioning that weather conditions in Brazil are mild, mainly related to significant wave heights
(7.8 m for 100-years return period and 5.7 m for 1-year) and the absence of hurricanes.

CONVERSION EXPERIENCE

The conversion work in the shipyards has brought some unexpected problems that were evaluated and
some modification had to be done in relation to the original specifications. Although contract strategy
affects the conversion final result, and, consequently, the performance of the FPSOs on site, this subject
will not be addressed here. Technical experience resulted from tasks developed in different parts of the
world, like China/Korea, Singapore, Spain and Brazil is briefly shown in sequence.

Conversion philosophy: “as new” x “all new”

The “as new” philosophy considers that there is no need to substitute all the existing equipment of the
tanker, as pumps and piping, by new ones. However, this equipment should be repaired to become like
new. This criterion was adopted in the first converted units.

It was soon noticed that this concept was too abstract, and lead to a lot of discussion between the
operator and the shipyard (1). In addition, many equipment that seemed suitable from the out side proved
to be in bad condition when disassembled and had to be replaced. It has caused a problem to the
shipyard that suffered from some delays in its procurement process. Finally, some equipment were very
old and it would be very difficult to get spare parts during the 20 years lifetime of the FPSO.

59
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Therefore, after P-35, it was decided to change the conversion philosophy to “all new” what meant that
all equipment and piping should be necessarily changed. Only the hull of the tanker would be kept.

Petrobras ships x 3rd party ships

As already mentioned, first FPSOs were converted tankers from Petrobras ’ own fleet. Later, as there
were no more VLCCs available, it was required to the conversion contractor to supply the ship to be
converted. It was quickly noticed, that in the second phase the tankers were in much worse situation
than in the previous, as can be confirmed by Table II that shows the amount of steel replaced in each
FPSO. The case of P-35 is an exception, where the large amount of steel renewal may be explained by
the fact that the ship was an ore-oil.

It must be highlighted that our specification requires that all plates shall not reach substantial corrosion
range during the unit operating life of 20 years without dry-docking. Therefore, it is requested an
additional corrosion margin, based on Petrobras ’ experience.

Table II - Steel renewal in Petrobras FPSOs (converted VLCCs)

Unit Supplier of Ship Steel (t)


P-31 Petrobras 540
P-32 Petrobras 300
P-33 Petrobras 900
P-35 Petrobras 2,560 (*)
P-37 EPC Contractor 2,000
P-38 EPC Contractor 1,200
(*) Ore-oil tanker (VLOO).

OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Vessel motion

The environmental condition in the Campos Basin is multi-directional. Sometimes, occurrences of wind and
current misaligned with long period wave (swell) induces a beam sea condition and consequently high roll
motion response.

Another reason of high vessel motion is due to Cargo Loading and Offloading Procedure. Several tanks with
certain oil amount cause the FPSO to have a very low KG (vertical position of center of gravity) when the ship
finishes the offloading. The low KG results in a high metacentric height, causing the natural period of the ship
to be very low (around 13 s), in that situation.

The two facts above (multi-directional environmental and low KG), when taken together, caus es the FPSO to
have resonant roll motions. In P-31, for instance, there were four shutdowns in one year caused by excessive
motions (angles greater than 12 degrees).

Moreover, excessive amplitude of roll motions has many consequences:


•· affects the oil-water process;
•· fixed davits for lifeboats have to be replaced by retractable davit or free-fall
• lifeboat shall be used;
•· cargo handling is not adequate and some accidents during cargo handling
• were reported.

For the design of new FPSOs, a more realistic cargo loading and offloading plan will be considered. In
addition, the enlargement of the bilge keel, that in a VLCC usually has only 45 cm and covers only 40% of the
vessel length, will be specified. A model test investigation, performed in the Institute for Technological
Research of the State of Sao Paulo - IPT – Brazil, indicated that the enlargement and extension of the
existing bilge keels can reduce vessel motions to a compatible level for a proper process plant design with no
downtime expected.

60
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

For the existing units, however, the only possible solution is to define some limits on the cargo loading and
offloading plan in order to try to reduce or to avoid having the ship in a resonant situation.

One of our units has an automation of the sequence cargo loading, according to a pre-defined loading plan.
This system comprises two main software. The first one is to proceed a pre-defined cargo sequence that will
minimize the roll motion, bending moment and shear forces along the vessel. The second one is a safety
program that guarantees normal operation and double-checks the process sequence. An alarm and a trip
interrupt any abnormal operation. At anytime, authorized operation staff can interrupt the cargo sequence and
operate manually. This system is being used in one of our FPSO with very good results for almost three years
and is being considered ready to be used in other FPSOs.
Offloading
Offloading operations through shuttle tankers are a vital issue for Campos Basin production. The experience
acquired with 280 tandem moorings and more than 111 million bbls offloaded until December of 1999 provide
confidence in the feasibility and reliability of this operation. It is expected to offtake 60% of all Brazilian oil
production through FPSOs and FSOs by the year 2004(1).
With the aim of increasing the lifetime of the offloading hose and allow its easy inspection, it has been required
a retrieval system. The choice of all main contractors has been for a chute system, where the hose is stored in
a long cradle, alongside of the deck. The chute system provides a better stern layout, in comparison to the
alternative hydraulic reel system, because of the large diameter (20”) and length (250 m) of the hose, besides
being less expensive.

Unfortunately, some problems had been experienced with this chut e system in the beginning of their
utilization. The chute used to provoke wear of hose and it was difficult to handle the hose in the cradle and to
make the connection of the hose end to the rigid pipeline at the stern of the FPSO. In this situation, the
offloading operations used an alternative offloading system (8 inches floating hose). This alternative was
specified in the design phase to give more flexibility in the case of start-up of the main system or its
unavailability due to maintenance or repair. As the alternative hose has a smaller diameter, this results in
longer offloading periods and, consequently, greater operational costs. Chute suppliers have been doing
adjustments, in order to make this system operational.

The use of offloading arrangement with floating hoses permanently on the water and the connection on the
shuttle at the bow are now under economical evaluation, since that design is considered reliable with no
significant downtime. Ten calm buoys with floating hoses operating in Campos Basin help to relay in this
option.

With the exception of FPSO Seillean, all other offloading operations are done by shuttle tankers moored by a
tensioned hawser to the FPSO, permanently assisted by at least one tug-boat. The hawser (150 m length) is
retrieved onboard by winches at the stern. The hawser winch with vertical axis drum, proved to be very
cumbersome and is not accepted anymore. Horizontal axis drum is now being required.

TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS

The use of FPSOs in offshore Brazil is a reality. Nevertheless, some challenges have to be faced and
overcome, mainly due to the displacement to deeper waters. PROCAP 3000 – Technological Innovation
Program in Ultradeep Water Exploitation Systems, a new step now in progress of a capacitating program that
has began in 1986, has a comprehensive portfolio, in which many projects are direct or have application to
FPSOs. These projects are linked to general programs, and those that have interest for FPSO concept are
presented in sequence.

Deepwater Subsea Pipelines (Gathering, Export and Control)

The objective of this program is to develop and make available new technologies for subsea pipelines,
control umbilicals and diverless connections, considering all phases from design to installation. Flexible risers
with diameters limited to 10 inches have already been developed for application in semi-submersible
platforms up to 1,500 m of water depth. As FPSOs have higher motion amplitudes compared to semi-
submersibles, a check has to be done, focusing on the feasibility for its use in FPSOs.

61
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

A Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) of 10 inches diameter for gas exportation was installed successfully by
Petrobras on P-18, a semi-submersible platform, and a monitoring program conducted by Petrobras R&D
Center is in progress since 1998. Two more SCRs, one for oil and other for gas export, both of 10 inches in
diameter, were installed in February/March 2000 in P-36, a semi-submersible platform moored in 1360 m of
water depth. The extension of this concept to FPSO is not obvious, due to its higher static offset and more
severe dynamic conditions, mainly heave motion. As a consequence, careful analyses are being performed.

Tethered Buoy Riser and Self Standing Riser are concepts that Petrobras is also interested in. The first one
would make feasible the use of SCR for FPSOs .

In the case that some Technical and Economical Feasibility Study , for a new field development, indicate that a
Well Head Dry Completion Platform near a FPSO is the best solution, there will be the necessity of developing
a Midwater Transfer Line. At this moment, critical issues like fatigue life at both end connections, vortex
induced vibration, movements caused by multiphase flow, anchoring devices and interaction between flowline
and anchorline have to be investigated.

Mooring Systems in Deepwaters

The objective of this program is to develop technology to moor drilling, production and offloading systems in
water depths up to 3,000 m. Besides in-house work, there is also collaboration of Universities, Research
Institutes and Private Companies.

Three alternative solutions are considered: spread catenary, taut-leg and differentiated compliance (DICAS)
mooring system. For each system, four main aspects are being inv estigated: materials, design procedure and
criteria, installation and maintenance. Results already obtained show that it is economically feasible to moor
drilling and production units in water depths up to 3,000 m (8).

Taut-leg mooring systems are already in utilization in semi-submersible platforms since October 1997. For
FPSOs a more compliant configuration is adopted, due to the big draft range achieved during operation. FPSO
II has been moored in Marlim Sul Field at 1,215 m of water depth through a taut -leg mooring system, using a
vertical loaded anchor (VLA) as anchoring device, since November 1999.

Regarding polyester ropes, some improvements are still possible, such as efficient non-linear modeling
tools, development of a protection against the ingress of soil and development of more efficient and easier to
handle terminations. Short samples of fiber rope are installed in selected mooring lines, which are removed
regularly to assess retained strength.

As fixed points, several alternatives have been tested, such as suction piles, drilled and grouted piles and
vertical loaded anchors (VLA). Improvements are possible, mainly in installation procedures aiming time
saving with consequent cost reduction.

Torpedo Pile is the name of a free-fall anchoring system, a new concept developed and patented by
Petrobras , consisting of a tubular structure with a conical end tip, filled with high density ballast. It has
already been used for pipeline anchoring, allowing big savings due to the decrease in flexible line length. In
mooring systems application, it will reduce anchoring and installation costs and improve shot precision.
Tests are being performed, focusing certification as fixed point for mooring systems.

As an alternative for FPSO turret, a spread mooring system known as DICAS (Differentiated Compliance
Anchoring System) has been developed and are in use in small ves sels. The principle of operation is a
substantially higher compliance on the stern lines, giving partial weather vane capability. The installation of
two FPSOs based on converted VLCCs using DICAS, planned for Barracuda and Caratinga Fields, will
bring more operational experience.

An additional project develops an expert system to support mooring installations. This system will
consolidate 20 years of experience in offshore operations and provide real time support to future
installations.

Stationary Production Units with Dry or Wet Completion

The possibility of congregating drilling and/or completion, production and storage facilities in only one vessel
is a tempting solution in terms of cost savings. Nevertheless, several aspects have to be investigated for the
adoption of a FPDSO.

62
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Petrobras is conducting some studies with FPDSO and following researches of other Companies, in order to
select the best options for Brazilian scenarios including dry or wet completion, with the aim of directing some
future Technical and Economical Feasibility Studies.

CONCLUSION

Although the experience acquired by Petrobras in the use of FPSOs cannot be denied, there are still many
challenges to be surpassed. In the technological field, looking for applications in ultra deep waters, risers
systems are the more demanding attention subject. Regarding design and operation, the focus on safety has
to be always kept and the risk possibility has to be always reduced. A systematic utilization of risk assessment
techniques, directed to life, environment and installations is expected.
The concern with safety, health and environment in some way can be measured by the great amount of
certificates according to ISO14001, BS8800 and ISM Code achieved by the operating plants of the Company.
Very recently, in May 22, 2000, auditors from Bureau Veritas Quality International (BVQI) recommended the
Campos Basin’s E&P to be certified, after concluding that all requirements ex pressed in the Safety
Environment and Health Management System were fulfilled. This means that the platforms, ships, laboratories,
offices and all other areas and activities shall comply with requirements of ISO14001, BS8800 and ISM Code.
Next goal is to have 100 % of operational units certified according to ISO 14000 and BS 8800 until the end of
2002.
It’s worth mentioning that the Basic Engineering Design developed by R&D Center has been certified by DNV
according to ISO 9001 since December, 1999.
However, to fulfill legal and ruling requirements is not enough, Petrobras is aiming to be in the forefront of
technology and management. The Company is going to invest US$ 1 billion in the next four years for the
implementation of the Excellency Program in Environmental Manage ment and Operational Safety so as to
ensure operational safety of its installations, minimize environ mental risks and contribute toward sustainable
development. It is a demonstration that Petrobras is giving environmental management the same importance
that it gives to its productivity.

ACKNOWLDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Petrobras for the permission to publish this paper. They also wish to express
their gratitude to the colleagues for the help and advice during compiling of this paper, notably Marcia S.
Araujo, Denise Faertes , Marina B. Fachetti, Arney M. Silva and Carlos Cyranka.

REFERENCES

(1) MASTRANGELO, C. F. One Company ’s Experience on Ship-Based Production System. In : OTC,


Houston, 2000. OTC 12053.
(2) FACHETTI, M. B., MATTOS, D. M., BARDANACHVILI, C. A. Structural Requirements for the
Conversion of an Oil Tanker to a FPSO as a Permanent System. In : ISOPE 97, Hawaii, 1997.
(3) MENDONÇA, C. E., FACHETTI, M. B., MATTOS, D. M. Petrobras Challenges in FPSO Design. In :
FPSO Tech ’96, Oslo, 1996.
(4) MATTOS, D. M., FACHETTI, M. B., SILVA, A. M. Turret Requirement and Design for Petrobras FPSO.
In : OMAE 97, Yokohama, 1997.
(5) ARAUJO, M. S., SALOMÃO, W., MENDES, M. F., MANSUR, W. Designing Gas Detection Systems for
Offshore Installations Using CFD Models. In : ISOPE 99, Brest, 1999.
(6) ARAUJO, M. S., RODRIGUEZ, S. H., MENDES, M. F., MANSUR, W. 10Years of Computational Fire
Simulation at Offshore Installations – Results, Benefits and New Developments. In : ISOPE 99, Brest, 1999.
(7) MACDONALD, A. et al. Collision Risks Associated with FPSOs in Deep Water Gulf of Mexico. In : OTC,
Houston, 1999. OTC 10999.
(8) DEL VECCHIO, C.J.M., COSTA, L.C.S. Recent Advances in Deep Water Mooring Systems off Brazil.
In : IBC, London, 1999.

63
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Stephen A. Ovens
New Zealand
Occupational Safety & Health Service

64
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO’S - THE NEW ZEALAND


EXPERIENCE
FPSO’S - PRESENT AND FUTURE WORKSHOP
HOUSTON, TEXAS
JUNE 07-
07-08 2000

PRESENTED BY: OSH


STEPHEN A OVENS DEPT OF LABOUR
CHIEF PETROLEUM INSPECTOR NEW ZEALAND

JUNE 2000

65
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

MAUI FIELD

66
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

MAUI-B PLATFORM

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI

67
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
DESCRIPTION

§ Converted Suez Class tanker


§ 20 year old vessel
§ Modec - Keppell Shipyards,
Singapore
§ 135,000 tonnes dead weight
§ 290 metres in length
§ 44 metres width
§ Permanently fixed

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
MOORING TURRETT

68
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
MOORING DESIGN LIMITS

§ Permanently fixed to seabed on a 10


anchor mooring spread
§ Designed to withstand 1 in 100 year
storm with one anchor disconnected
§ max. wave height 20 metres
§ wind 78 knots
§ current speed 1.15m p/s
§ Calc. risk of breakaway 1 in 40,000 years
§ Weather vanes 360 on HP swivel

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
VIEW OF MOORING SYSTEM

69
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL HISTORY

§ First oil - September 1996 (approx. 4


years)
§ 30,000 bbls oil/day design
§ Capacity for 1 million barrels oil
§ Engine “mothballed”
§ Propellor shaft disconnected
§ No standby vessel after first year
§ Manning - 13 persons
§ No accidents

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
§ No spills during operation to date
§ MARPOL compliant voluntarily
§ Strict environmental conditions imposed
§ Outside 12 mile limit - Maritime Safety
Authority (MSA) enforcement
§ HSE Safety Case
§ Dry break on loading hose
§ Automatic shutdown on offloading at pre-
pre -
set conditions

70
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
DECK VIEW FORWARD

FPSO -WHAKAAROPAI
OFFLOADING OPERATIONS

71
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

NZ LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

HEALTH AND SAFETY


IN EMPLOYMENT ACT
1992

HSE HSE HSE


REGULATIONS (PETROLEUM EXPLORATION (PIPELINES)
1995 AND EXTRACTION) REGULATIONS
REGULATIONS 1999 1999

PETROLEUM REGULATIONS
OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS

HSE (Petroleum Exploration


and Extraction) Regulations
1999

Safety Case Class Rules Verification Scheme


(HSE) Certificate of Fitness

72
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
§ Safety Case review by Regulator
§ no approval or acceptance
§ Regulator inspections and audits
§ Operator audits - SMS
§ Parent Company audits - extensive
§ Classification body rules - kept in
Class
§ Certificate of Fitness - 5 year term
with annual inspections.

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES

§ JURISDICTION ISSUES
§ MANNING ISSUES
§ CONVERSION ISSUES
§ MOTION AND FATIGUE ISSUES
§ EVACUATION ISSUES
§ EQUIPMENT ISSUES

73
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES

§ JURISDICTION
§ arrived under own power - MSA jurisdiction
§ once all anchors set - Chief Petroleum
Inspector
§ lot of discussion and concern from MSA -
particularly for a potential breakaway
§ established a tripartite Protocol document
between MSA, Operator and Chief Petroleum
Inspector

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES
§ MANNING
§ was a very controversial issue
§ extensive debate with MSA, maritime unions,
operator and regulators
§ agreed that once tethered was no longer a ship
§ 13 crew - work 12 hour shifts - 2 weeks
on/2weeks off
§ multi
multi--skilled (with marine and process
experience)
§ planned maintenance staff on when required
§ reduction in risk and opex

74
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
MANNING STRUCTURE

FPSO
SUPERINTENDANT
(OIM)

PRODUCTION ENGINEERING SUPPORT


AND PROCESS AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL
(5) (5) (3)

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES
§ CONVERSION
§ marine systems vs process systems
§ diesel shutoff valves
§ old piping (deck and internal)
§ remove redundant piping in refit - not later
§ smoke resistant doors
§ ensure doors seal against smoke ingress in
accommodation area
§ extended life
§ operational life to exceed original design life -
reassessment required
§ pump room location

75
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES

§ Asbestos
§ widespread
throughout vessel
§ remove or manage
§ regular monitoring
§ encapsulate in PVC
§ identify and label
§ strict procedures and
work permit for cutting
into piping and walls

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES

§ Tank Integrity
§ hydrocarbons detected in ballast tank
§ quality assurance essential in all tank
inspections during conversion
§ also in application of coatings in ballast tanks
§ ensure Company involvement in Project early
§ repairs during operations result in lost
production and long, costly repairs
§ empty, clean tanks and identify areas
§ cut out corrosion areas - weld patches

76
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
TANK CORROSION

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
TANK CORROSION

77
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES

§ MOTION AND FATIGUE


§ weather vane at angle to ground swell and
oblique to wind (stern thruster would help)
§ hull twisting and sleep problems
§ operating outside design criteria +/-
+/- 7 degrees
maximum roll. Actual roll up to 20 degrees
§ reassessed at 22 degrees roll in Fatigue Study
§ strengthened piping supports, vessels. Some
structural stiffening required
§ study shows 23 year life if kept within limits

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES
§ EVACUATION
§ no dedicated Standby Vessel
§ supply vessel in field approx. 50% of time
§ no Fast Rescue Craft (seas too rough)
§ escape by helicopter or lifeboats
§ with weather vane potential for smoke
impairment of a lifeboat station
§ smoke hoods and survival suits provided
§ manage risks to ALARP through Safety Case

78
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES

§ EQUIPMENT
§ gas export pipeline
§ plastic lined
§ some cracking of lining suspected
§ export gas temperature too high -
hydrolysing lining
§ installed additional gas cooler to reduce
temperature to 53 degrees
§ monitor pipeline annulus for gas leakage

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES

§ Rudder
§ superfluous now but
used on voyage from
Singapore
§ prefer to remove
§ high maintenance of
steering mechanism
§ tried unsuccessfully to
lock rudder (broke
pins)
§ maintain

79
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO -WHAKAAROPAI
OPERATIONAL ISSUES

§ Crane operations
§ limited due to pitch
and high roll
conditions
§ high pedestal
increases pitch
and roll - limits use
§ height to clear
process
§ process area - no
lift zone

FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI
SUMMARY

§ Operators happy with FPSO - suits small


scale production
§ Regulators satisfied with operation - recent
benchmarking - best in Class/Shell Group
§ Co
Co--regulatory approach - win/win
§ Learning experience for operators/regulators
§ Operators want to use Verification Scheme
§ verify safety-
safety-critical elements from Safety Case
§ this approach supported by Regulators

80
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Daniel Salas
Mexico
PEMEX

81
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Región Marina Noreste

Sistema Flotante de
Almacenamiento
y Descarga (FSO)

Historia FSO’s en México

Messiniaki Floga 151,000 DWT 22/May/80 al


30/Jun/82
Venture Europe 260,000 DWT 22/Mar/82 al
03/Sep/87
Seawise Giant 560,000 DWT 11/May/83 al
15/Jul/86
Texaco Veraguas 260,000 DWT 22/Ago/87 al
03/Ago/90

82
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Antecedentes

En 1996, Pemex inicio un proyecto de


explotación del Campo Cantarell
Cantarell,, con la
finalidad de incrementar la producción de
petróleo y exportaciones e incrementar la
seguridad de las instalaciones existentes
mediante la modernización de las mismas.
mismas .
Este programa de expansión incluye la
perforación de 120 pozos
pozos,, así como la
construcción de la infraestructura requerida
para el manejo de los hidrocarburos,
hidrocarburos , que
incluye la implementación de un sistema
flotante de almacenamiento y descarga (FSO)

83
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Sistema de Transporte y Distribución de la Región Marina Noreste

84
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Variables a considerar en el diseño


§ Sobrevivir a una tormenta con período de retorno de 100
años
§ Capacidad de almacenamiento (Mínimo 1.75 millones de
Bls.)
Bls .)
§ Localización (Profundidad
Profundidad,, condiciones metoceanicas)
metoceanicas)
§ Utilización de un buque tanque nuevo Vs usado
§ Edad del buque tanque
§ No tiempo fuera de operación
§ Operaciones simultáneas (carga
carga,, descarga
descarga,, inspección
de tanques y lavado de tanques de almacenamiento
almacenamiento))
§ Tipo del sistema de amarre seleccionado
§ Tipo de ductos ascendentes flexibles

85
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

World Statistics of External & Internal Turret

Estadísticas mundiales
de torretas internas y
externas

Fuente :
Asociación Marítima Internacional

Consideraciones de

Diseño

86
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Selección de la edad del buque tanque

260,000 - 360,000 DWT


50

45
No. de buque tanques

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988

Año de construcción Fuente : Tanker Register

EXP. EXP.
PLATAFORMA
1 2
DE
PRODUCCION
(SEPARACION Y BOMBEO)

TRANSPORTE

OLEODUCTO ALMACENAMIENTO
CONTROL DE CALIDAD
Y MEDICION

Concepto FSO
Proyecto Cantarell

87
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Torreta Interna

Torreta
Externa

88
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Ductos ascendentes flexibles de gran diámetro16” o mayor)

(IN) (FT) (PSI)


Año Cliente País Campo Diámetro Long. Pres Fluido Application

1995 Chevron Angola NEMBA 16 280 1500 N/A N/A

1994 Statoil North Sea GULLFAK 16 3510 1319 OIL Flowline

1993 Conoco North Sea HEIDRUN 16 515 928 OIL Dynamic Riser

1993 Conoco North Sea HEIDRUN 16 515 928 OIL Dynamic Riser

1993 Conoco North Sea HEIDRUN 16 515 928 OIL Dynamic Riser

1991 Agip Nigeria AGBARA 17 256 735 GAS Flowline

1989 Amoco Congo YOMBO 16 210 740 OIL Dynamic Riser

1989 Amoco Congo YOMBO 16 210 740 OIL Dynamic Riser

Sistemas de amarre tipo torreta

Los sistemas de amarre tipo torreta


Externa y/o Interna se encuentran
instalados en:

- Mar del Norte (Inglaterra y


Noruega)
- Atlántico Norte
- Mar del Sur de China
- Pacífico Sur (Nueva Zelandia y
Australia)
- Europa
- Brasil
- Oeste de Africa

89
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Sistemas de amarre tipo torreta

Los sistemas de amarre tipo torreta


externa/

interna estan instalados en


profundidades

de agua que fluctúan en los rangos de:

20 m a 1,000 m

C o m p a r a c i ó n : T o r m e n t a de 100 años Vs Super T i f o n “Sally”


Condiciones Super Tifon
P r o y e c t o “ Lihua” M o d e c / C h i n a de Diseño ‘Sally’

Perìodo de r e t o r n o (años) 100 100

Viento (nudos) - 30 Min. @ 10 m elev. * 87 111

Espectro de ola - JONSWAP N/A


gamma = 3.0 P = 4.8
sigma = 0.1

Altura de ola significante (mts.) * 13.2 N/A

período del espectro pico (seg.) 14.7 N/A

Altura máxima de cresta (mts.) 14.5 29

Período cruzando “Cero” (seg.) 11.5 N/A

Perfil de corriente: D V D V

D = Profundidad (metros) 0 226 0 100


V = Velocidad corriente (cm/seg.)

90
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Esquema del contrato

1. Construir, mantener en propiedad y operar

2. Recuperación de la inversión de capital a


10 años

3. Operación del FSO por 15 años

4. Pemex proveerá transportación y


combustible

5. El propietario es responsable de todo el


sistema

91
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Un estricto requerimiento técnico fue:

“NO TIEMPO FUERA DE OPERACIÓN”

Acciones para lograrlo:

- Redundancia en todos los equipos


- Extra-espesor en las líneas de carga
- Adecuado programa de mantenimiento
- Suficientes refacciones de respeto

92
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

PEMEX FSO OVERALL SCHEDULE

Estructura soporte
de la torreta

93
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Pre-fabricación
de la
Torreta

Reemplazo de
placa del fondo
del casco

94
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Túneles de los
propulsores transversales

Propulsores
transversales

95
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Instalación de la
Torreta

Instalación de los
sistemas de medición

Medidores de desplazamiento
positivo

Un medidor de recibo cap.


Max. 800,000 BPD

Dos medidores de descarga


certificados

Un probador comùn

96
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Brazos marinos de
descarga al costado

97
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Ruta de Navegación FSO Ta`kuntah

F
C B

FSO “Ta`kuntah”

CONJUNTO

98
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

200 Millas
Mar territorial Mexicano

Punto de remolque De barco a


artefacto naval

Desactivación
sistema de
propulsión
FSO 1

Remolque al sitio

99
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Tópicos de protección del medio ambiente

• EQUIPO ANTIDERRAME DE PRIMER ATAQUE DE HASTA 72,000 BLS

• SISTEMA DE DESCARGA POR TANDEM INTEGRADO POR MANGUERAS FLOTANTES DE 20” Ø


BRIDGESTONE, JAPAN DE DOBLE CARCASA

• MIEMBRO N. - 5724 DE LA FEDERACION INTERNACIONAL DE PROPIETARIA DE BUQUE TAN Q U E S


PARA PREVENIR LA CONTAMINACION (ITOPF) THE INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS POLLUTION
FEDERATION LIMITED

• ADHERIDO AL CONVENIO INTERNACIONAL DE CUMPLIMIENTO DE RESPONSABILIDAD CIVIL DE


DAÑOS POR CONTAMINACION DE HIDROCARBUROS

• LA COMPAÑÍA CANTARELL FSO INC. GESTIONA SU ADHESION A LA COOPERATIVA DEL CARIBE


LIMPIO (CLEAN CARIBBEAN COOPERATIVE, CCC) UBICADA EN FORT LAUDER DALE, FLORIDA (E.U.),
C O N E L O B J E T I V O D E A U M E N T A R L A C A P A C I D A D O P O R T U N A Y E F I C I E N T E M E NT E R E S P O N D E R A
DERRAMES MARINOS EN EL CAMPO CANTARELL.

Sistema para el control de derrames

PEMEX SE ESFORZARÁ EN QUE SUS ACTIVIDADES DE EXPLORACIÓN, PRODUC CIÓN,


TRANSPORTE, ALMACENAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN RESULTEN EN OBTENER L OS M Á S
A L T O S N I V E L E S D E S E G U R I D A D I N D U S T R I A L Y R E D U Z C A N A L M Í N I M O A C E P TA B L E L O S
I M P A C T O S A L M E D I O A M B I E N T E , E N S U C A R Á C T E R D E C U S T O D I O D E L O S R EC U R S O S
PETROLEROS.

PARA COADYUVAR A ESTE PRINCIPIO EL FSO “TA’KUNTAH” CUENTA CON:

1. - U N A B A R R E R A C O N T E N E D O R A D E P E T R Ó L E O D E 2 5 0 M T S . D E L O N G . , P A R A H A S T A 7 2 , 0 0 0
BLS.

2. - B O M B A A U T O M Á T I C A D E I N D U C C I Ó N P R I M A R I A D E 3 0 0 0 R P M .

3. - U N A P R E S A D E D E C A N T A C I O N .

4. - B R A Z O S D E 2 0 P I E S C / U P A R A D I S P E R S A R P E T R Ó L E O .

5. - D I S P E R S A N T E S B I O D E G R A D A B L E S .

100
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Figure 7: Side-by-side Marine Loading Arms

101
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Descargando simultáneamente a dos


buque tanques

Datos de Operación

Régimen máximo de recibo de aceite 800,000 BPD

Régimen normal de recibo de aceite 350,000 BPD

Presión del crudo en PLEM (diseño) 7 5 . 0 K g / c m2

Presión del crudo en PLEM (max. operación) 5 7 . 8 K g / c m2

Presión del crudo en PLEM (min. operación) 1 7 .0 K g / c m2

Descarga en Tandem Descarga al costado


5 0 , 0 0 0- 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 D W T 55,000 BPH 5 0 , 0 0 0- 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 D W T 80,000 BPH

Descarga simultánea

* Tandem 40,000 BPH

* Al costado 80,000 BPH

102
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Operación Portuaria

VOLUMEN BUQUE
AÑO TRB
EXPORTADO TANQUES
1998
12'330,450 21 1'305,998
AGO-DIC
1999
39'488,078 73 3'532,325
ENE-DIC
2000
17'812,336 41 2'329,175
ENE-ABR

TOTAL 69'630,864 135 7'167,498

FSO “TA’KUNTAH”

Es el primer FSO de amarre permanente en el Golfo de México

Tiene capacidad para realizar operaciones de descarga con mar de 15-17 pies

Ta’kuntah (352,000 DWT) es el tercer FSO más grande del mundo qu e se ha construido, después del
instalado en Yemen (408,000 DWT) y el instalado en Colombia (400 ,000 DWT)

Es el segundo FSO más grande del mundo en servicio, después de la salida de operación del FSO de
Colombia en 1996

Cuenta con la más avanzada tecnología del mundo en la industria de los FSO’s

Cuenta con los más grandes sistemas de medición en el mundo instalados en un FSO (120,000 BPH)

El FSO con el más alto régimen de recibo (800,000 BPD)

Su torreta externa es la más grande que jamás se haya construido en el mundo

103
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

104
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Oyvind Tuntland
Norway
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

105
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSOs

Present and Future

FPSOs, - OPERATIONAL, REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL ISSUES

THE NORWEGIAN CONTINENTAL SHELF

Houston June 7-8, 2000

Oyvind Tuntland
Director of Technical and Working Environment department
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
e-mail: Oyvind.Tuntland@ npd.no

FPSO’s, OPERATIONAL, REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL ISSUE


THE NORWEGIAN CONTINENTAL SHELF

I will first say a few word about the petroleum recourses offshore Norway, the climate as well as the
Norwegian petroleum legislation. Then I will move on to the application of FPSOs on the Norwegian
Continental Shelf. At the end I will share some experience we have had with our FPSOs .

I expect to use the time I have been given, so if you have any questions please wait until the end of my
presentation.

In the early nineties the oil exploration on the Norwegian Continental Shelf moved into deeper waters further
away from existing infrastructure like pipeline systems. This fact together with cost competitiveness called
for floating production and storage concepts. A natural choice was the FPSO with its flexibility with respect
to water depth and advantageous storage capacity.

Petroleum resources

The Norwegian petroleum production in 1999 totalled 1 062 millio n barrels of oil, 45,5 billion Sm3 gas and 10
billion tonnes NGL/condensate. Average daily oil production was 2.91 million barrels, which ranks Norway
as number seven among the world’s leading oil producers and as number three among the world’s leading
net crude exporters. The estimated value of the Norwegian petroleum export in 1999 was equivalent to $19
billion.

Cumulative output since petroleum production began in 1971 comes to 2.7 billion Sm3 oil equivalents, which
represent approximately 21 per cent of the total expected recoverable resources. Discovered petroleum
resources are 9.6 billion Sm3 oil equivalents, while in addition comes undiscovered petroleum resources
estimated to 3.7 billion Sm3 oil equivalents. This sums up the total petroleum resources on the Norwegian
continental shelf to roughly 13.2 billion Sm3 oil equivalents.

106
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Norway ’s gas export totalled 45.5 billion Sm3 in 1999, which represented approximately 2 per cent of the
world’s consumption. Norway ranks among the world’s top 10 gas exporters, and Norwegian deliveries
account for 10 per cent of the gas consumption in Western Europe.

At the end of 1999 46 fields are in production on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. In association with these
fields are 106 installations, divided into 5 floating production, storage and offloading ships (FPSO), 6 floating
production semisubmersibles (FPU) of which one is made of concrete, 3 floating storage and offloading ships
(FSO), 2 tension leg platforms (TLP) of which one is made of concrete, 1 production jack-up, 75 jackets and
12 concrete gravity based installations. In addition there are 108 subsea installations. 8 – 12 drilling rigs and
vessels are engaged on an annual basis. 9300 kilometres of pipeline have been installed to transport crude
oil, condensate and gas to onshore facilities in Norway, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium and France.

During 1999, 28 exploration wells (18 wildcats and 10 appraisals) were completed or temporary abandoned.

The forecast predicts a decline in oil production during the nex t decade. To minimize this effect, we have in
the recent years aimed at encouraging discovery of petroleum res ources. The effort has been concentrated
on finding resources near existing infrastructure and on testing new exploration models. Substantial
undiscovered resources are thought to remain on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.

The North Sea is the most explored part of the Norwegian Continental Shelf. The geological understanding is
good for most of the area. Even small discoveries may have a good profitability if these facilities are used in a
rational way. The North Sea will probably be a core region for future exploration, which could also be
extended to less known parts of the area. Great interest is focused on exploring new areas of the shelf. Some
of this acreage, the Møre and Vøring Basins in the Norwegian Sea involves water depths down to 1500
metres. During 1999, a dry exploration well was drilled on ‘Gjallarryggen’ in 1352 metres water depth, which
represents a new record on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. But some major parts of the shelf have not
been opened for exploration drilling yet, such as Skagerak , Lofoten, Vesterålen and the waters surrounding
Spitsbergen and Jan Mayen as well as in the Barents Sea etc.

The size of Norway


Since Norway is a small country far away, it may be appropriate to look at the size of my little country. The
distance between the northernmost and southernmost points in Norway is 1752 kilometres. Norway's
coastal line, with its fjords and islands, represents approximat ely 57000 kilometres. And the acreage is
387000 square kilometres, including Spitsbergen and Jan Mayen, in other words slightly less than
California's 405000 square kilometres. The size of the continent al shelf is by comparison 2 million km2.
The environmental climate offshore Norway
The environmental climate in the Norwegian sector is rather harsh. This means that structures are more
exposed to fatigue than i.e. in the Gulf of Mexico. Wave heights having a 100 year return period, are
typically between 25 and 30 metres . The ocean currents, however, are small for most of the shelf.
The Norwegian petroleum legislation
We are at present in the process of rewriting our regulations. We plan to issue them early next year.
At present we have 13 regulations, in addition to the state pollution authorities and the health authorities
having their own regulations. All the regulations from the three authorities are to be merged into four new
regulations. The new regulations will then supersede all the existing regulations.
In content the new regulations will be functional. By functional we mean that requirements will be specified
by features, characteristics, process conditions, boundaries and exclusions defining the performance of the
product, process or service. This also implies that the vast majority of detail requirements are removed from
the regulations, i.e. we are performing a major deregulation.

Pertaining to the regulations we will issue a guideline listing standards which we recommend. These
recommendations will mainly be based on the NORSOK-standards. The NORSOK-standards are industrial
standards developed by the petroleum industry in Norway, in a similar way as the API -standards have been
developed in USA. But we will also give options to use other rec ognized rules, codes or standards. The
functional requirements in the regulations are fulfilled by following the listed standards.

107
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

The Norwegian regulatory requirements to manning of the maritime functions onboard FPSOs are based on
the Norwegian Maritime Directorate’s requirements for personnel onboard mobile offshore units. This means
that control room operators taking care of maritime functions and operations are to have a similar knowledge
within the relevant maritime areas as is required for control room operators onboard Norwegian registered
mobile offshore units. Personnel with higher maritime competence is also required onboard.

Why FPSOs
FPSOs can operate in wide ranges of water depths compare to fixed ins tallations. In Norway we have FPSOs
working in water depths from 126 metres to 338 metres. An other advantage of FPSOs is the storage capacity.
FPSOs do not need to be connected to already existing infrastructure such as pipelines, as they have their own
storage facilities and offloading facilities. As a third advantage; FPSOs can be built and equipped word wide
and towed to location. This means that FPSOs can more or less be built where price and quality are best at the
time of contract award.

Of course also the rapid development in subsea and well technology areas as well as the flexible riser
technology, have worked in the direction of FPSOs.

FPSOs on the Norwegian Continental Shelf


The first purpose built FPSO on the Norwegian Continental Shelf was the Petrojarl I, which entered into
operation in 1986. Petrojarl I had a production capacity of up to 30 000 bbl, and produced from one well. The
storage capacity was 180 000 bbl. At the moment Petrojarl I is not working in Norway.

Today Norway has five – 5 – FPSOs in operation. As storage units, Norway have three – 3 - FSUs and one
more FSU is due to come this year.

The Norne FPSO entered into operation in November 1997, followed by Varg 1998 and Jotun, Balder and
Åsgard in 1999.

The FPSOs on the Norwegian Continental Shelf are all turret moored. All of them are weathervaning, which
means that the turret is locater in the forward half of the ship, and waves and wind will keep the FPSO with its
bow towards the weather. To help it to stay on a steady controlled course, the FPSOs are equipped with
thruster assistance systems.

Normally the master on the FPSO finds the best heading with respect to waves and wind. I.e the heading
giving the smallest movements and the best working conditions for the processing of the crude oil. Often
waves and wind come from different directions. Due to required natural ventilation in the processes area, it
is normal to keep the wind in a slight angle to the bow and the waves more on the side of the bow. Because
of the good motion characteristics of the FPSO, shut down of the production due to motion of the process
with respect to equipment is not regarded as a problem.

Offshore loading
In Norway offshore loading started from articulated columns at t he Statfjord field in 1979. The shuttle tanker
was moored to the column with hawser, but also had some thrusters assistance. The crude oil was
transferred to the shuttle tanker with a loading hose.

More or less the same technology is used for tandem loading from FPSOs or FSUs.
The shuttle tanker is moored to the aft end of the FPSO and in addition the tanker have a dynamic
positioning (DP) system.

Typical distance between the two ships in operation is 75 – 80 meters. Of course the hawser and the loading
hose are some metres longer.

Fore use in an emergency, the shuttle tankers are equipped with an emergency release, so the captain on
the shuttle tanker can disconnect from the FPSO and leave without oil spill.

Offshore loading gives the freedom to the owner of the field to deliver the oil where ever he wish. This can
be a good solution for a licence with more than one owner. The different owners may then use their own
refineries.

Only a few days in the winter season the weather is so severe that offshore loading is not possible. But
because of the storage capacity the production has to be reduced or stopped only a few times for waiting on
weather.

108
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO’s experience
I will now briefly mention some challenges experienced related to FPSOs.

a) Tail towards the wind


An FPSO experienced a very sudden 180° change in wind direction last year. The change occurred so quickly
that the FPSO was unable to turn fast enough. Thus the ship ended up with its tail towards the wind. There was
some uncertainty as to whether the thrusters would keep the speed of rotation low enough to enable the turret
to follow the rotation in order to avoid twisting the anchor chain, when turning the FPSO against the wind. Other
uncertainties which had to be considered, was whether the thruster power was sufficient to turn the FPSO 180°
under the existing weather conditions, as well as whether the maximum tension in the mooring chain would
exceed the allowed tension when the ship turned its broadside towards the wind. The turning of the FPSO was
delayed for a few hours until the weather had calmed somewhat. Keeping the tail towards the wind, however,
did not represent a problem.
b) Green sea incidents and actions taken
There are as previously mentioned five FPSOs on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Four of these vessels have
experienced green water or heavy sea spray causing damage to equipment. Different actions have been
suggested and implemented to prevent green water damages. These actions can be divided into two main
groups:

•Physical protection like raised forecastle, wave breaking walls or local reinforcement of equipment and
structures,
•operational restrictions like reduced draft, change in static trim and restrictions with respect to personnel in
green water zones.

Green water is regarded by NPD as a safety risk for the following reasons:

•it may be a threat to people staying in the green water zones,


•living quarters can be damaged in such a manner that people inside may get injured ,
•damage to equipment which is critical with respect to safety, may occur.

Statements from the operators of the production vessels also indicate that green water may lead to shut
down of production as often as on an annual basis.

Last week, during the ISOPE conference in Seattle, a paper summing up our incidents, experience and views
on green sea was presented.

c) Flexible risers
One of the major challenges with regards to the flexible rises on a FPSO is how to perform a proper
inspection and condition evaluation.

The Norwegian regulations require annual inspection of all pipeline systems by the most suitable method
available at any time. The inspection of flexible risers on FPSO’s is made very complicated by the turret, the
risers guide tube and the end fittings. In addition flexible risers have a complicated composition with different
layers and materials making methods for inspections a challenge. There are at present no proven methods
for inspection, but a few methods are close to be accepted.

d) DP/collision
An FPSO was hit by a shuttle tanker this year. Damages to the FPSO were limited to local dents at the aft
end and the flare tower. The collision was caused by a combination of three factors onboard the shuttle
tanker; a small error in the DP logic and/or erroneous operation of the DP system together with lack of
awareness.

e) Coating
Shortly after arrival at the field in the North Sea, extensive c racking of topside coating was revealed on an
FPSO. Cracking, as much as 60 per cent in extent, was observed on piping, structures and auxiliary
equipment in three modules.

The phenomenon has been discovered at several installations, bot h off- and onshore, coated with similar
coating and thereby representing a major challenge in respect of maintenance. The main reason for the
cracking has not been identified yet.

109
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

f) Fatigue
A joint industry research project regarding fatigue capacity int ernally in FPSO hulls is being headed by The
Norske Veritas in Norway. Since FPSOs in general are supposed to remain offshore without interruption as
compared to ordinary ships which can be docked every 5 th year, it is important to prevent occurrence of
fatigue cracks in the internal details of FPSO hulls. The projec t started in 1998, and the objective is to
calculate fatigue lives for various connections and verify the c alculations by tests. Thus unfortunate shapes
of connections can be avoided.

To summarize we have a large continental shelf.


We have found and still expect to find major petroleum discoveries in the future. We therefore see a future
for FPSOs in Norway
We are in the process of revising our regulations
Our present use of FPSOs have revealed new challenges with respect to safety.

And as the next speaker is from the Health and Safety Executive in UK, there is to say that we have a close
cooperation with HSE.

Thank you very much.

110
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Peter J. Mills
United Kingdom
Health and Safety Executive

111
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSOs PRESENT AND FUTURE


7-8 June 2000, Houston

“SUCCESSFUL REGULATORY
PRACTICES AND
EXPERIENCES”

UK Health and Safety Executive

Peter J Mills

HSE Offshore
Division’s Mission Statement

“To ensure that risks to people from


work activities in the upstream
petroleum and diving industries are
properly controlled”

112
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

Successful Regulatory
Practices and Experiences

§ Background to current legislation


§ The UK Offshore Regulatory Regime
§ How the Health and Safety Executive
works
§ Some topical issues and actions

HSE Key Processes 1

Case specific
§ Safety Case Assessment
§ Inspection
§ Investigation of Accidents and
Incidents
§ Enforcement

113
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

HSE Key Processes 2

§ Representational Influence
§ Codes and standards (API, ISO)
§ Industry Associations (UKOOA, MCA,
NPD)
§ Stake holders
§ Papers and open reports
§ Research

Features of the Safety Case

§ Produced by the Duty Holder for the


installation
§ Assessed by HSE
§ Includes safety management system
and demonstration that risks are As Low
As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)
§ Life cycle approach from design to
abandonment

114
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

UK FPSOs 204
61ºN

Schiehallion
Petrojarl Foinaven

Gryphon

13 15 16

Petrojarl 1
Captain North Sea Producer
Bleo Holm Alba
21 22

Glas Dowr
Anasuria
Triton Banff

Curlew
Berge Hugin

29 30
Uisge Gorm

39

110
Liverpool Bay

50ºN
C08380R\01\067U 0º 4ºE

UK FPSO Sizes (Displacement)


Schiehallion

Anasuria

Liverpool Bay

Alba FSU

Gryphon A

Triton

Bleo Holm

Glas Dowr

Berge Hugin

North Sea Producer

Curlew

Captain

Uisge Gorm

Petrojarl Foinaven

Petrojarl 1

Ramform Banff

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000


Displacement tonnes

115
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

FPSO Incidents since 1996


Fatalities (0)

Major
(12)
Major = Hospitalisation accidents
O3D
O3D = Over 3 days off work
(66)
DO = Dangerous occurrences
DO
(182)

Generic FPSO Safety Issues


§ Process system § Marine systems
§ Fire and blast § Shuttle tanker collision
§ Mooring and station risk
keeping § Metocean / forecasting
§ Environmental loading § Helicopter operations
§ Green water and wave § Motion responses /
slam habitability
§ Structural integrity § Competency
§ Stability and § Evacuation and escape
seaworthiness § Human factors

116
FPSO Workshop Proceedings: Presentations June 7, 2000 - Session I: Invited Speakers
Houston, TX

UK FPSO Experience

§ FPSOs are not ships !


§ Explicit assessment of risks required
§ Specific to each application
§ Long-term deployment considerations
§ Continuous learning process

117

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen