OTC 13994 Brutus Export Pipelines Improvement Opportunities and Challenges in Deepwater Pipeline Installation

Rick Wincheski and Craig Bertrand, SIEP / Brent Dampman, Pegasus International / Danny Eisenhauer, MMI
Copyright 2002, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas U.S.A., 69 May 2002. This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.

Abstract This paper details the design effort and reports on the opportunities for significant improvements that were undertaken to minimize the cost and schedule of the Brutus pipeline installation and commissioning efforts. Export pipeline installation and commissioning often fall on the critical path for floating host installations. Given the existing economic conditions at the time of Brutus first oil, and the rate at which the initial wells were to be produced, accelerating first oil became a significant driver for the project. This paper will describe the methods and techniques utilized to ensure that the export pipelines did not drive the first oil date. Additionally, throughout design and execution of the project, the team was confronted with several challenges. These challenges were often self-imposed while attempting to provide innovative, cost effective solutions that would show continuous process improvements over Shells previously benchmarked deepwater projects. Throughout this paper, significant technical challenges that were overcome in the process delivering overall cost and schedule improvements will be highlighted. Furthermore, this paper would not be complete without mentioning the unexpected challenges that arose throughout the project cycle. In particular, the challenges that were faced when the project was confronted with the identification of a transit fatigue crack in a pipe joint during offshore installation are discussed. The efforts that were required to combat the fatigue crack concerns, notably the identification, on-shore testing, and final offshore pressure testing that was required to prove up the pipe that was potentially affected are also discussed.

Introduction The Brutus Tension Leg Platform (TLP) is located in 2980 FSW in Green Canyon Block 158. Two export pipelines, a 20/18-inch dual diameter crude oil line and a 20/18-inch dual diameter natural gas line, transport the processed hydrocarbons to existing shallow water platforms. These pipelines connect to existing infrastructure at shallow water platforms. The 25.5 mile long crude oil line transports oil from the Brutus TLP in GC 158 to Shell Offshores South Timbalier 301 B platform, in 335 fsw, where the line ties into the existing Amberjack system. The 23.9 mile natural gas pipeline transports sales quality gas from Brutus to Shell Gass Ship Shoal 332 platform, in 435 fsw, where it connects to the Manta Ray Gas Gathering System and to the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline system. Both the oil pipeline and the gas pipeline have a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 2220 psig. Location, Routing and Bathymetry Figure 1 depicts the routing of the lines from the Brutus TLP to the shallow water platforms. The Brutus TLP was designed as a deepwater hub, allowing for multiple future subsea tie-backs. The potential future locations of the subsea developments were considered while routing the export pipelines from the TLP. The oil and gas lines are routed in a north northwesterly direction while departing the TLP to provide access for a potential subsea development to the north of the TLP. Additional catenary riser baskets have been strategically placed along the hull pontoon for use in tie-ing back the future subsea prospects. The two pipelines parallel each other up to approximately 900 fsw. At approximately 900 feet, the gas line takes a due northwest track to the SS332 A structure, while the oil line takes a north track up to the ST301 B structure. The deepwater segments of each line, from approximately 2000 fsw to 900 fsw run through an area of complex geology and abundant seafloor features. The average seafloor gradient through this area is 2.6 degrees. However, numerous local grades are very steep, some in excess of 30 degrees. Extensive pipeline free span analysis was conducted throughout this region to ensure that the pipeline spans that would be created would not exceed any static or dynamic limitations, and that adequate suppression could be applied to mitigate any

R. WINCHESKI , C. BERTRAND, B. DAMPMAN AND D. EISENHAUER

OTC 13994

potential vortex induced vibrations (VIV). Additionally, the route selection and span analysis was conducted prior to having a pipelay contractor and pipelay method selected. Therefore a range of horizontal pipe tensions were modeled allowing the team to determine the optimum lay tension that would minimize the free spans. Although the selected route did traverse this area of difficult seafloor features, the alternative of routing the lines around the area would have added approximately six miles to the length each pipeline. Economic analysis proved that the rectification of the number of predicted spans would be much more cost effective than adding the additional pipe length. After completing the lines, the gas line was observed to have six spans that required suppression of VIV, ranging from 70 feet to 160 feet, with one span of 400 feet; while the oil line had only three spans, ranging from 110 feet to 150 feet, that required VIV suppression. The 400-foot span in the gas pipeline has 300 feet of VIV suppression fairings installed, while the remaining free spans have had concrete mats installed at the center of each span to suppress the VIV. Details of the spans and a sketch of a typical fairing are shown in Figure 2. From 900-foot water depth to the shallow water platforms the lines come upslope gently with little or no undulations along the remaining route. Pipeline Design Data Pipe design properties that were selected for the various segments of the pipeline and associated facilities are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The key factors that played a role in the pipe selection for the different segments of the pipelines are described herein. For the TLP topside & hull piping, 18 O.D. x 0.750 W.T. API 5L X-60 SMLS pipe was selected for both the oil & gas lines. This piping more than satisfies the requirements of B31.4 and B31.8 for the oil and gas piping for the respective MAOPs. The specification break from B31.3 to B31.4 & B31.8 occurs at the bypass and kicker valves on the respective launchers. The steel catenary risers utilize 18 O.D. x 0.750 W.T. API 5L X-60 SMLS pipe. The decision to use an 18 riser instead of a 20 was based on an evaluation of potential installation vessel capabilities at the time of project funding, and on the load limits of Shells existing SCR pull-in equipment. The largest diameter SCR installed by Shell to date has been 18. Additional wall thickness over the minimum required for pressure design was utilized in order to tune dynamic performance. The deepwater segment, from 1500 fsw to 2980 fsw is 20.000 O.D. x 0.750 W.T. API 5L X-60 DSAW pipe. Wall thickness requirement were determined by both stability and collapse criteria. The Bauschinger effect, and relative reversal of the Bauschinger effect during the coating process were considered for collapse design of the DSAW pipe. Buckle arrestor collars were required in this section to resist a propagating collapse situation. The oil line has 1.5 miles of 18 O.D. x 0.750 W.T. API 5L X-60 & X-52 DSAW pipe

installed prior to the SCR pipe; this was done to allow for the operator to install a future tie-in to the pipeline if desired. The transition from 18 to 20 was made with a forged fitting. The actual internal diameter transition of the forged fitting occurs over a length of 42 inches, which allowed for acceptable strains during pipelay over a relatively short radius stinger, while also allowing a gradual internal bore transition to maximize the pigging effectiveness. For the critical span areas in waterdepths from 900 fsw to 1500 fsw, 20.000 O.D. 0.812 W.T. API 5L X-60 DSAW pipe was chosen. Wall thickness was increased in this area for weight stability to reduce or eliminate spans in this area. Buckle arrestor collars were required in this section to resist a propagating collapse situation. The shallow water segment of the pipelines, from 300 fsw to 900 fsw) is 20.000 O.D. 0.562 W.T. API 5L X-65 HFIW (high frequency induction welded) pipe. Grade X-65 was required due to the hydrotest requirements for the gas pipelines SCR. The SCR must be tested to 1.5 times MAOP, so the pipeline was designed to withstand this test pressure and not exceed 90% SMYS. The X-65 pipe was also used for the oil line to avoid confusion during construction and to minimize the required weld procedures. Concrete weight coating was required on the 0.562 wt pipe to meet stability criteria. Concrete was applied only to the shallow water segments of the pipelines. This ensures that future diverless tie-ins or repairs that are not accessible by divers would not have to contend with concrete removal. As noted above, heavier wall pipe was utilized in the deeper water in lieu of the concrete to ensure adequate on-bottom stability. The shallow water risers at SS 332A (gas) and ST 301B (oil) consisted of 20.000 O.D. 0.750 W.T. API 5L X-60 SMLS line pipe. The oil and gas pipelines both have a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 2220 psig, limited by the ANSI 900# flanges. The launchers at GC 158, the hull piping, the steel catenary risers, the line pipe, the shallow water risers, and the receiver on ST 301 B and SS 332 are all designed to meet or exceed the 2220 psig rating. Pipeline Installation At the onset of the Brutus project, minimizing project cost was the significant driver, leading to an emphasis on cutting costs. The project team was encouraged to look at new and innovative ways to install deepwater export pipelines at costs below previous benchmarks and while improving HS&E results. As oil prices began to peak, the emphasis slowly shifted to accelerating first oil. Again, the project team was tasked with looking at innovative solutions to minimize the critical path for first oil. This section describes in some detail the methods and techniques devised in order to meet the aforementioned goals. Pipelay the Limit The Brutus pipeline installation contract was awarded to J. Ray McDermott as a day-rate contract with incentives and penalties for meeting predetermined cost

OTC 13994

BRUTUS EXPORT PIPELINES IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN DEEPWATER PIPELINE INSTALLATION

targets. Therefore reducing the duration of offshore execution and thus total project costs became a large driver for both Shell and J. Ray Mcdermott. We were aligned in our efforts to find innovative, cost effective solutions to meet and improve on our targets. Given this alignment between the two companies, and given the fact that J. Ray McDermott was premiering the DB16 as a deepwater pipelay vessel, the project team developed a detailed Pipelay the Limit effort. The Pipelay the Limit effort was created out of Shells success with their Realize the Limit program, initially applied to drilling wells. Realize the Limit is an engineering methodology to make a stepchange improvement in performance. The defining element of the methodology is the rigorous identification of the technical limit, and the key enabler is creating the right environment through our behaviors. The Realize the Limit methodology has the following characteristics: HS&E remains the highest priority and is never compromised Is a performance ethic, everything is up for challenge Is a multi-disciplined approach to process optimization Maximizes contributions from all parties Is a strategy that can be applied to any area of business Develops a clear, shared objective for the project Approaches a lowest-cost solution from perfection rather than from the normal The mission of the Pipelay the Limit exercise was to achieve step-change total cost reduction while maintaining/improving HS&E performance, keeping key project schedule milestone dates, and maintaining/enabling the DB16 to be a capable subsea installation vessel. The key parameters in achieving a step-change total cost reduction meant improving the cycle time. Additionally, the effort keyed in on ensuring that pipe haul, handling, and storage never made it to critical path, and that the time required to secure pipelay and abandon and recover the pipeline was minimized. For this project, the timing of the Limit workshops was crucial, since the DB-16 was undergoing modifications during that time to allow deepwater S-lay. Feedback from these workshops was fed directly into the design of the vessels pipelay system. The Pipelay the Limit process consisted of three major phases. The first introduced the Technical Limit concept at the supervisor level and established the Technical Limit times. The Technical Limit times were the very best times that each individual activity could be completed. The second meeting, also at the supervisor level, established the Pipelay on Paper (PLOP) times. The third meeting was held at the field level and communicated the Technical Limit concept, Technical Limit times, and PLOP times.

The PLOP times were again emphasized as targets during the pre-job meetings held on the vessel. Tracking of current progress vs. the targets was continuously displayed on the vessel so that individuals would become more involved and feel a sense of ownership. The Pipelay the Limit process realized numerous successes for the project. First and foremost, was the fact that the project was installed safely, at very near target costs. This was achieved on a maiden pipelay voyage for J. Ray McDermotts DB-16. Since this was the maiden voyage, it was difficult to quantify actual improvement for that vessel. However, the final results showed that the vessel and pipelay system that had been established with the assistance of this Realize the Limit process was capable of competing with the current market of deepwater world-class installation vessels. Another success that is hard to quantify but is very recognizable is the team building that evolved out of working the Technical Limit times with no restrictions. It allowed the participants to express and develop creative solutions as a group. The process garnered trusting and respecting relationships among the project leadership, and throughout the ranks of the crew. Additional step change successes were realized in the area of data acquisition. A system was developed to track the times per lay vessel stall with much detail. The information provided was analyzed real time and allowed for shifting of functions and concentrating on the bottle necks to continuously attempt to improve the overall cycle. Automatic Welding / Automatic Ultrasonic Examination The use of automatic welding and automatic ultrasonic examination is not new to the world of deepwater pipeline installations. However, it merits mention in this paper since its impact on pipelay cycle time can mean a significant reduction in the duration of the offshore installation. Early in the Pipelay the Limit process, it was identified that, especially since this was a new welding system to the DB-16, a significant onshore welder-training program would be incorporated into the project to familiarize the welders with the system and to look for improvement opportunities. It was not difficult to rationalize the increased upfront costs of an intensive onshore program when compared to the actual vessel costs that are incurred on a day rate contract with every weld repair that is required. In order to fulfill the requirements of the program, the NDE contractor, Shaw Pipeline Services, was also included in the onshore program to ensure rapid feedback on the success of the welding efforts. The results of this program are reflected in the overall weld repair rate of less than 2%. This was considered to be a huge success for the project, especially since this was a new Slay and welding system for the installation contractor, and the pipe layout included several changes in pipe, i.e., different manufacturer, wall thickness, grade, and/or manufacturing process. Each time a different type of pipe was introduced into the line minor changes in weld parameters resulted in a

R. WINCHESKI , C. BERTRAND, B. DAMPMAN AND D. EISENHAUER

OTC 13994

slight increase in weld repair rates until settings could be tweaked to ensure an error free process. S-Lay of SCR Prior to Host Arrival Another key activity that was realized early in the project design was enabling the S-Lay of the entire pipeline, including the SCR, prior to arrival of the TLP in the field. The benefits of complete S-lay prior to TLP arrival had a tremendous impact on the project economics. For costs, it meant that a second lay vessel, in particular a J-Lay vessel would not need to be mobilized after the TLP was installed in the field. The work of recovering the SCR, welding on the flexhead, and handing off the SCR to the TLP was shown to be capable of a numerous available vessels, and not limited to a fully mobilized J-lay system. In actuality, the J. Ray McDermotts DB-50 did recover the Brutus SCRs and perform the final hand-off. The DB-50 was selected to perform this scope since it was already mobilized for another Shell J-Lay project and could easily and economically be available for Brutus during the timeframe required. For schedule, the pre-lay of the SCRs had an even larger impact on project economics. By pre-laying the SCR, the time required from TLP installation to commencement of pipeline commissioning activities was reduced by at least several days. As it was, once the TLP installation vessel had departed the field, each SCR was transferred to the TLP in as little as 28 hours. See Figure 3 for a layout of how the SCR was pre-laid to allow for future installation of the TLP and subsequent recovery of the SCR and hand-off to the TLP. Historically Shell deepwater pipelines to TLPs were not able to realize the ability to S-Lay the complete pipeline and SCR. Reasons for this are threefold; Tension capacities involved with S-lay of larger diameter pipelines in deepwater, Mooring systems would interfere with recovery of the pipeline SCR after host installation, and Uncertainties on the residual overbend strain and its impact on fatigue life in the dynamic SCR service. For Brutus, the project team was able to work through the above issues. Deepwater S-lay was not a concern for the Brutus pipe in the required waterdepths since the installation vessel market was adapting to allow the deeper water S-lay. Multiple contractors now had vessels capable of the complete Brutus pipelay utilizing the S-lay technique. The project team was able to capitalize on the fact that the Brutus TLP did not have an active mooring system that would/could interfere with SCR recovery, thus enabling the design. And, last but certainly not least, adequate research and testing had been accomplished within Shell to fully understand the dynamics of the S-lay and its impact on future fatigue life. Transit Fatigue Crack A huge potential setback for the project came while offshore in the midst of pipelay. Ten days into pipelay, a through wall

crack was discovered on one of the pipe joints at the end prep station. This joint was removed; the end was cut off and sent to Metallurgical Counsultants, a Houston based metallurgical laboratory to be analyzed for the cause of the crack. It was concluded that the crack was created by transit fatigue, which most likely happened during the transatlantic shipment of the pipe from Germany to the U.S. The fatigue crack was discovered in one of the final joints of 0.562 w.t. HFIW pipe that was to be installed on the gas pipeline. While laying of the gas pipeline continued with the next pipe segment, a test program was initiated to attempt to prove the remaining 20 x 0.562 pipe, which was destined for the oil pipeline. All of the 0.562 HFIW pipe had been shipped in the same vessel so there was significant concern that a fatigue problem during transit could have affected any pipe within the lot. The test program was limited however, because the concrete coating that was already installed on the pipe eliminated any full body UT or other non-destructive method of full body examination. It was decided that ALL of the pipe ends (no concrete) would be ultrasonically inspected. No additional cracks were found during this process. Additionally, starting at the 0.562 wt pipe that was destined for the deepest water, we hydrostatically pressure tested as much of the remaining pipe that we could without interrupting the pipelay vessel or accruing standby time with the installation spread. The pipe was double jointed together and tested to 95% of yield (3470 psi). Sixteen days into laying pipe on the gas pipeline, the line had to be layed down so that pipelay could commence on the oil pipeline. This was required because a drilling rig was planning to set up close to the oil lines route a week later and would have anchors across the route. If the drilling rig would have set up before the pipeline was laid through the area, there could have been at least a three month interruption in the pipelay schedule. The onshore program was able to hydrostatically test 430 pipe joints. The 430 joints covered the length of pipe that would be installed from 950 fsw to just under the 600 fsw. 600 fsw was our minimum goal in order to minimize saturation dive requirements in the event that an in-situ repair was necessary. Of the 430 joints that were tested, one joint failed to hold hydrostatic pressure. The joint that failed was one of the last few joints that were tested. The joint failed to hold hydrostatic pressure, because of a crack that developed located about 15 feet from one end of the joint. This crack was cut out of the joint and sent to the metallurgical laboratory as well. It was determined that this crack was also caused by transit fatigue. A tremendous effort evolved in establishing a go-forward plan to prove the remaining pipe and to be prepared to repair any fatigue cracks that had not been identified prior to installation. It was determined that a rigorous hydrostatic pressure test had to be accomplished as soon as possible in order to not have the potential of affecting the first oil date.

OTC 13994

BRUTUS EXPORT PIPELINES IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN DEEPWATER PIPELINE INSTALLATION

There was significant concern however on how effective leak identifications methods would be in discovering the location of a fatigue crack, which would likely slowly seep water, which would be further complicated by the concrete coating. Considerations were given to testing with air or nitrogen, while water leak detection methods were further investigated. After significant effort and review, the project team became comfortable with the capabilities of acoustic leak detection, as provided by Rocket Science International. Rocket Science had performed a full-scale test program for Shell in support of Shells premier venture into deep water, the Auger TLP. Rocket Science was able to fit acoustic transducers to an ROV that would be able to fly the line over any suspect areas. Although they had not previously had the opportunity to prove their equipment in finding cracks in subsea pipelines (other than the previous Auger tests), they were able to convince the project team that their hardware capabilities and software processing of the acoustic signal would be capable of detecting a leak from a fatigue type crack. As a contingency, however, the project did develop plans to inject slugs of nitrogen into the pipeline and walk them through the areas of concern should a leak develop and the acoustics be unable to pinpoint the location. Concurrent with the development of the test program, a large effort was underway to develop repair plans should a leak develop. To develop these plans, the dive contractor (Cal-Dive International), ROV contractors (Canyon Offshore, Oceaneering International and Stolt Offshore), Rocket Science International, and Shells in-house project team developed repair plans and procedures utilizing Shells inventory of deepwater repair tools. The close coordination between each of the contractors enabled Shell to have vessels already in the field prepared to do any required repair while performing other work for the project. For example, the dive vessel was installing the shallow water risers and installing pipeline crossings during the hydrostatic pressure tests. By enabling this coordination of work, standby time of each of the vessels was minimized, or virtually eliminated. Good fortune fell on the project in March of 2001 when after very strenuous hydrostatic pressure tests at pressures approaching 95% of yield on the fatigue questioned portion of the pipelines, both pipelines tested satisfactory and free from fatigue cracks. Commissioning This section addresses in particular the commissioning of the gas export pipeline. Gas pipelines often fall on critical path for new installations for the simple fact that it takes time to dewater and dry the line. Oil pipelines in comparison typically require a satisfactory hydrostatic pressure test, and then typically inserting an aggressive pig train with high separation capabilities, and then displacing the water either with produced oil from the new facility, or by backfilling the line with oil from existing infrastructure. The Brutus oil pipeline was commissioned using the later method. Adequate existing infrastructure was

available to provide a constant source of oil that was utilized to displace the hydrostatic test water. Before describing the methods that were employed to commission the Brutus gas export pipelines, a brief history of the evolution of Shells experiences in the GOM with deepwater gas export pipeline commissioning is warranted. Shells first experiences with commissioning deepwater gas pipelines used a philosophy similar to that employed on the oil pipelines. Namely, produced gas was utilized to push out the hydrostatic test water. In this case, the separation pig train was required to be very substantial such that the produced gas under high pressures and cold temperatures would not contact free water and have the potential to form hydrates. Different inhibitors and/or dehydrating agents were utilized in batches within the pig train. As water depths increased, the combination of hydrostatic head of the water that was being pushed out and the differential pressure created by the substantial pig train that was required began to push the limits of the on board gas compression capabilities, and further increased the risks of hydrate formation. With the URSA TLP, the gas pipeline was commissioned by dewatering the pipeline using air compressors. In this case, the pig train differential pressure could be minimized, since the water to air interface was not as crucial to maintain, as the water to gas would have been. After the line was adequately dewatered, numerous soft foam swab pigs were run through the pipeline with air and then eventually with dry nitrogen until the desired dew point was reached. This method of commissioning eliminated the risk of hydrate formations from residual hydrostatic test water, but extended the duration of commissioning, thereby potentially increasing critical path. On Brutus, the project team was tasked with minimizing the critical path to first oil. Additionally, there was some concern with being able to easily dewater a dual-diameter pipeline, especially since the most economic method was to dewater from deep to shallow, thereby meaning small internal diameter to larger internal diameter. A hybrid commissioning method was thus developed, based on a combination of the two previous methods. With the assistance of BJ Process and Pipeline Services, the project team was able to develop a set of moderately aggressive pig runs that would displace the hydrostatic test water through the pipeline by compressed air at the Brutus TLP. Sketches of the approximate pig train make-ups are included as Figure 4. The first pig train consisted of two batches of a viscous water based separator gel surrounded by Ultraseal foam pigs. The first pig train minimized the differential pressure losses while maintaining an adequate seal to remove the majority of the hydrostatic head. The second pig train consisted of just two Ultraseal pigs. This train was pushed through the line with compressed air fed through a nitrogen generator. The goal of this pig run was to remove any significant remaining water and to remove the air in preparation for gas.

R. WINCHESKI , C. BERTRAND, B. DAMPMAN AND D. EISENHAUER

OTC 13994

During this pig run, pressures were accurately monitored to attempt to understand if any large amounts of water remained in the line. When the pigs arrived on schedule, with no notable pressure increases, the line was shut in at the receiving platform and the TLP continued to add nitrogen until the pressure in the line reached 150 psig. Finally, a pig train consisting of an ultraseal pig, 128 barrels of MEG, and a second ultraseal pig were loaded in the gas line, at this point the gas line was ready for Brutus gas. The entire commissioning effort, from commencement of offshore hydrostatic pressure tests to having both pipelines ready for first oil was completed in the span of thirteen days. This was adequate for having kept the pipelines from ever taking over the unwelcome position of critical path for first oil. Conclusions The Brutus export pipelines represent the 5th set of deepwater export pipelines installed to new Gulf of Mexico TLPs by Shell: Auger 1994 Mars 1996 Ram-Powell 1997 Ursa 1999 Brutus 2001 However, the struggle for lower costs and quicker turnarounds requires that project teams challenge the past with innovative commercial and technical solutions. Project teams must not merely rely on past successes, but be capable of rooting out the lessons learned on previous projects and deliver solutions that are safer, sooner, and more economical. Within the Brutus Project, the aggressiveness of the project team in developing such solutions was apparent. The evidence of this is in the ability to remain off of critical path, while providing a pipeline system that benchmarks more favorably than its previous comparison projects. Even more inspiring is that this success was reached even with the significant potential setback of a transit fatigue crack discovered in the pipeline during pipelay. Acknowledgements The Brutus Export Pipelines Project Team would like to specifically recognize the following individuals and or groups for their work in support of this project: The Brutus Leadership Team is acknowledged for their support in allowing the Export Pipeline Team the ideal range of latitude and direction with the continued support that was required to maintain the project on a path to success. The work of Don Allen, Mike Dupre, Frans Kopp, Joan Korpal, Richard McDaniel, Gary Perkins, Vidish Rao, Gouri Venkataraman, Mike Wilson, and Steve Wolfson of Shell are recognized for their work on the issues described within this paper. The J. Ray McDermott Project Team led by Barry Gay, Mark Manfre, and Fuad Adra for their energy, dedication and support throughout the project.

The multitude of companys that provided invaluable assistance for their specific roles, and especially those that responded fervently through the transit fatigue issues namely; Cal-Dive International, Oceaneering International, Stolt Offshore, Canyon Offshore, Rocket Science International, Metallurgical Consultants, Mannesmann Pipe and Tubulars, Bayou Pipe Coating, John E. Chance & Associates, Greg Guidry Welding, and BJ Process and Pipeline Services. Nomenclature API American Petroleum Institute DB Derrick Barge DSAW Double Submerged Arc Welded fsw Feet of Seawater HFIW High Frequency Induction Welded HS&E Health, Safety and Environmental GOM Gulf Of Mexico ID Internal Diameter MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure MEG Mono-Ethylene Glycol NDE Non-Destructive Examination OD Outside Diameter PLOP Pipelay on Paper SCR Steel Catenary Riser SMLS Seamless SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength TLP Tension Leg Platform UT Ultrasonic Testing VIV Vortex Induced Vibrations wt Wall Thickness

OTC 13994

BRUTUS EXPORT PIPELINES IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN DEEPWATER PIPELINE INSTALLATION

TABLE 1
OIL EXPORT PIPELINE
Topside, Hull, SCR, Approach - TLP Additional 18" O.D. Pipe Additional 18" O.D. Pipe Deepwater Pipeline Deepwater Pipeline Shallow water Pipeline Riser, Approach, Topside at ST 301B

PIPELINE DESIGN SUMMARY

Segment Length
5700 ft 4000 ft 3600 ft 35400 ft 16000 ft 71500 ft 700 ft

Pipe Properties
18" O.D. x 0.750" w.t. API 5L X-60 SMLS 18" O.D. x 0.750" w.t. API 5L X-52 DSAW 18" O.D. x 0.750" w.t. API 5L X-60 DSAW 20" O.D. x 0.750" w.t. API 5L X-60 DSAW 20" O.D. x 0.812" w.t. API 5L X-60 DSAW 20" O.D. x 0.562" w.t. API 5L X-65 HFIW 20" O.D. x 0.750" w.t. API 5L X-60 SMLS

Water depth
2900 fsw 2900 - 2850 fsw 2850 - 2800 fsw 2800 - 1500 fsw 1500 - 900 fsw 900 - 335 fsw 335 fsw

Design Basis
lightest wall meeting design requirements for SCR - fatigue life Additional pipe to allow for a possible future tie-in Additional pipe to allow for a possible future tie-in lightest wall meeting design requirements lightest wall meeting design requirements, due to stability requires 2.0"-1.75" of 140 pcf concrete most cost effective meets shallow water riser design requirements

GAS EXPORT PIPELINE

Topside, Hull, SCR, Approach - TLP Deepwater Pipeline Deepwater Pipeline Shallow water Pipeline Riser, Approach, Topside at SS 332 18" O.D. x 0.750" w.t. API 5L X-60 SMLS 20" O.D. x 0.750" w.t. API 5L X-60 DSAW 20" O.D. x 0.812" w.t. API 5L X-60 DSAW 20" O.D. x 0.562" w.t. API 5L X-65 HFIW 20" O.D. x 0.750" w.t. API 5L X-60 SMLS 2900 fsw 2900 - 1500 fsw 1500 - 900 fsw 900 - 435 fsw 435 fsw 5700 ft 43000 ft 16000 ft 63300 ft 800 ft lightest wall meeting design requirements for SCR - fatigue life lightest wall meeting design requirements lightest wall meeting design requirements, due to stability requires 2.0"-1.75" of 140 pcf concrete most cost effective meets shallow water riser design requirements

R. WINCHESKI , C. BERTRAND, B. DAMPMAN AND D. EISENHAUER

OTC 13994

TABLE 2

18 18

DETAILS OF PIPE WALL THICKNESS AND GRADE ANALYSIS

18 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.562 X-52

PIPE RESULTS

18

0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.562 0.562 0.562 X-65 X-60 Internal Pressure Design MAOP at 0.72% MAOP at 0.60% MAOP at 0.50% MAOP based on 1.5 hydro & 90% SMYS limit Pipe Properties Pipe Weight (lb/ft) Pipe SG (Empty) Pipe SG (Gas) Pipe SG (Oil) Pipe SG (Water) Pipe SG (w/ 1.0" Concrete) Pipe SG (w/ 1.5" Concrete) Pipe SG (w/ 2.0" Concrete) Oil Pipeline Stability Stability SF 10yr empty Stability SF 100yr w/oil Stab SF post hurricane w/oil Concrete Required Oil P/L Gas Pipeline Stability Stability SF 100yr empty Stab SF post hurricane empty Concrete Required Gas P/L External Pressure Buckle Propagation Depth Min. Arrestor Depth w/ 1.25 SF Design WD for Collapse WD for 2.0 Collapse SF 1,759 1,624 1,407 1,137 1,456 1,352 1,248 1,081 1,776 1,649 1,522 1,319 1,407 1,299 1,126 909 1,165 1,081 998 865 1,420 1,319 1,217 1,055 708 566 657 526 606 485 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 >>1 >>1 >>1 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 >>1 >>1 >>1 0.00 1.00 >>1 >>1 1.00 >>1 >>1 1.00 >>1 >>1 1.75/ 2.00 138.3 138.3 138.3 138.3 154.3 154.3 154.3 154.3 166.6 166.6 166.6 166.6 116.8 116.8 116.8 1.22 1.28 1.94 2.06 1.73 2.01 2.30 1.22 1.28 1.94 2.06 1.73 2.01 2.30 1.22 1.28 1.94 2.06 1.73 2.01 2.30 1.22 1.28 1.94 2.06 1.73 2.01 2.30 1.10 1.17 1.83 1.96 1.56 1.81 2.06 1.10 1.17 1.83 1.96 1.56 1.81 2.06 1.10 1.17 1.83 1.96 1.56 1.81 2.06 1.10 1.17 1.83 1.96 1.56 1.81 2.06 1.19 1.25 1.91 2.03 1.65 1.89 2.15 1.19 1.25 1.91 2.03 1.65 1.89 2.15 1.19 1.25 1.91 2.03 1.65 1.89 2.15 1.19 1.25 1.91 2.03 1.65 1.89 2.15 0.83 0.90 1.60 1.72 1.29 1.54 1.79 0.83 0.90 1.60 1.72 1.29 1.54 1.79 0.83 0.90 1.60 1.72 1.29 1.54 1.79 3,900 3,600 3,120 2,520 3,900 3,510 3,240 2,808 3,900 3,800 3,508 3,040 3,900 2,630 2,428 3,250 3,000 2,600 2,100 3,250 2,925 2,700 2,340 3,250 3,167 2,923 2,533 3,250 2,192 2,023 2,708 2,500 2,167 1,750 2,708 2,438 2,250 1,950 2,708 2,639 2,436 2,111 2,708 1,827 1,686 3,250 3,250 3,250 X-52 X-42 X-70 X-65 X-60 X-52 X-70 X-65 X-60 X-52 X-70 X-65 X-60

2,104 1,753 1,461 3,250

116.8 0.83 0.90 1.60 1.72 1.29 1.54 1.79

1.00 >>1 >>1 1.75/ 2.00

1.75/ 1.75/ 2.00 2.00

>>1 >>1 1.75/ 2.00

1.75/ 1.75/ 1.75/ 2.00 2.00 2.00

526 421 1,479 740

3,644 3,888 3,215 3,064 2,963 2,894 2,811 2,641 3,561 3,453 3,325 3,073 1,546 1,532 1,515 1822 1944 1608 1532 1482 1447 1406 1321 1781 1727 1663 1537 773 766 758

OTC 13994

BRUTUS EXPORT PIPELINES IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN DEEPWATER PIPELINE INSTALLATION

10

R. WINCHESKI , C. BERTRAND, B. DAMPMAN AND D. EISENHAUER

OTC 13994

FIGURE 2 BRUTUS EXPORT PIPELINES SPAN ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Installed Empty Pipe Flooded Pipe

Span No.

Min Water Length of Height off Cumulative Depth Span Bottom Fatigue Life

Min Extreme Event Fatigue Life

Min Min Extreme Length of Height off Cumulative Event Fatigue Span Bottom Fatigue Life Life

VIV Suppression Installed

Length of Span

Height off Bottom

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

(years)

(days)

(ft)

(ft)

(years)

(days)

(ft)

(ft)

Oil Line

820

60

6.60

155

7.2

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

960

202

4.00

29

9.6

153

<1

25

50

three concrete mats

n/a

n/a

990

360

5.00

55

4.9

111

1.0

48

50

three concrete mats

n/a

n/a

1260

122

2.00

40

17.5

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

1420

205

6.00

37

50.0

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

1540

307

6.00

82

50.0

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

1580

217

3.00

41

50.0

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

10

1920

489

13.57

47

4.9

128

4.0

17

50

three concrete mats

107

1.5

11

1950

500

7.14

47

4.9

76

<1

1000

50

12

2320

658

16.91

33

9.5

63

<1

1000

50

Gas Line

960

212

5.06

34

9.2

74

<1

1000

50

three concrete mats

n/a

n/a

1630

173

4.60

42

50.0

139

<1

51

50

four concrete mats

117

0.75

1980

359

10.00

31

50.0

158

2.5

21

50

four concrete mats

132

2.5

2000

234

6.50

46

50.0

127

2.0

249

50

three concrete mats

126

1.5

2020

264

4.70

33

50.0

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

2070

89

6.54

42

50.0

90

5.0

1000

50

three concrete mats

80

4.5

2120

362

7.93

62

50.0

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

10

2220

128

2.83

41

50.0

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

11

2270

629

23.18

41

50.0

413

10.0

233

50

300 feet of fairings

12

2340

594

1.00

595

50.0

no span

n/a

n/a

n/a

OTC 13994

BRUTUS EXPORT PIPELINES IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN DEEPWATER PIPELINE INSTALLATION

11

FIGURE 3

12

R. WINCHESKI , C. BERTRAND, B. DAMPMAN AND D. EISENHAUER

OTC 13994

FIGURE 4