Frigg Field Decommissioning

Author: Erik Hjelde, TotalFinaElf Exploration Norge AS, P.O. Box 168, N-4001 Stavanger, Norway
E-mail: erik.hjelde@ep.totalfinaelf.no

Abstract
The Frigg Field is a natural gas reservoir, with associated condensate, which extends across the median line between the Norwegian and the United Kingdom (UK) sectors of the North Sea Continental Shelf. Production from the field is expected to cease during 2004. The field consist of six platforms standing in approximately 100m of water: Two steel jackets and one concrete gravity platform are located in the Norwegian sector One steel jacket and two concrete gravity platforms are located in the UK sector

In addition, a number of infield pipelines and cables run on the seabed between the platforms. Small amounts of drill cuttings are located either within or around the two drilling platforms. The Frigg Field owners submitted in November 2001 a Frigg Field Cessation Plan [1] to both the Norwegian and UK authorities. A public consultation of the Cessation Plan is required in both countries before any decisions are made. This paper describes the assessment process followed in establishing the recommended disposal arrangements for the various Frigg Field facilities. It includes details of the environmental impact assessment studies undertaken, the possible reuse options considered and the evaluation of the risks attached to attempting to remove the huge concrete structures which were not specifically designed for removal. In addition, the implication of the structures being located in the maritime areas of two sovereign states, each having their own regulatory regime, is described. Lastly, a description is provided of the extensive process of consultation and dialogue with both governmental and nongovernmental organisations that took place before finalising the Frigg Field Cessation Plan. One of the main results from the extensive programme of studies has been that there is considerable risk attached to attempting to remove the concrete structures. Particular attention has been given to keeping the various stakeholders informed about the progress of the studies and discussing with them the results, as they become available. Possible reuse options for the concrete structures were actively considered, and discussed with stakeholders, including an assessment of options adopted in previous removal projects.

Introduction
The Frigg Field is a natural gas reservoir, with associated condensate, that extends across the median line between the Norwegian and UK sectors of the North Sea Continental Shelf. Accordingly, the Frigg Field was developed in accordance with the provisions of an agreement between the governments of Norway and the United Kingdom. Production from the Frigg Field, which is operated from Stavanger Norway, started in September 1977. The cease of production is expected to take place some time in 2003/2004, depending upon reservoir performance. It is anticipated that the recoverable reserves will reach 190 GSm3 of gas, which has been exported for domestic consumption in the UK.

Norway

Frigg

UK

In accordance to the Norwegian Petroleum Act a Cessation Plan is required to be submitted at earliest five years, but no later than two years, before the anticipated end of production. Consequently the licensees of the Frigg Field have established a Cessation Plan [1] with a recommendation for disposal of the Frigg Field facilities. The Cessation Plan was issued for public review and comment in both Norway and the United Kingdom (UK) in November 2001 and the consultation period ended at the end of February 2002. TotalFinaElf Exploration Norge AS (referred to TFEE Norge in this paper) started to work on the Cessation Plan for the Frigg Field in 1999. A dedicated project team was established to address the technical, organisational, commercial and legislative aspects arising from the decommissioning of the extensive field facilities. This work was particularly challenging due to the need to satisfy two sets of national regulations, the pioneering nature of the work and the fact that there is limited experience of such activity in the hostile waters of the North Sea. It was agreed with the Norwegian and UK authorities that the Cessation Plan for the Frigg Field should encompass the complete field while respecting each nations legislative requirements [2], [3], [4]. This is in line with the approach adopted for both the development of the field and its operation since start of production in 1977. In addition, the decommissioning arrangements have to comply with the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation Guidelines and the OSPAR Convention/Decision 98/3 [5] valid for the North East Atlantic, which includes the North Sea. The Licensees on the Frigg Field are: TotalFinaElf Exploration Norge AS (Operator) Norsk Hydro Produksjon a.s Statoil ASA Elf Exploration UK PLC * TotalFinaElf Exploration UK PLC
*) Under management of TotalFinaElf Exploration UK PLC

Description of the Facilities to be Decommissioned

The Frigg Field facilities consist of five fixed installations together with infield pipeline and cables. In addition, the DP1 steel substructure, which was damaged during installation in 1974 is still on location in the field and has to be decommissioned. Three of the Frigg Field installations are located in the UK sector and three are in the Norwegian sector as shown in Figure 1. The platforms were installed in the period 1974 to 1977.

DP2 TCP2 DP1

TP1

Norw ay
QP CDP1

UK

Figure 1 Frigg Field with the median line between Norway and UK indicated.

The export gas pipelines from Frigg to St Fergus in Scotland (known as the Frigg Transportation System) will remain in operation and as such were not included in the Frigg Field Cessation Plan. Three of the platforms, TCP2, CDP1 and TP1 have concrete gravity base type substructures. DP2, DP1 and QP have tubular steel jacket type substructures. The topsides of the platforms consist of steel decks, of various types, supporting a number of modules and pieces of equipment. None of the platform substructures have been used for the storage of oil. With the exception of one module, on the Norwegian platform TCP2, there is no low specific activity radioactive scale (LSA) on the Frigg Field facilities. The infield pipelines and cables to be decommissioned are routed between the Frigg Field platforms and are partly covered with gravel. There are small amounts of drill cuttings on the seabed around DP2 with a maximum thickness of only 20cm. The vast majority of the deposited cuttings on the seabed are from wells drilled using waterbased mud, although a small volume of cuttings, contaminated with oil-based mud were discharged after cleaning. All the wells on CDP1 were drilled with water-based mud and the cuttings were deposited within the walls of the concrete substructure and subsequently covered with gravel. The water depth in the area is approximately 100m. All the structures were designed to withstand a 100-year wave condition of 29m. The weight of the topsides and substructures for each of the platforms is shown in Table 1. The design features of each installation is shown in Figure 2.
Platform DP2 DP1 QP TCP2 CDP1 TP1 Table 1 Type Steel jacket Steel jacket Steel Jacket Concrete gravity based Concrete gravity based Concrete gravity based Weight of Topside 5 480 3 640 22 880 4 840 7 840 Weight of Substructure 9 800 7 300 4 760 231 180 418 610 163 180

Weights of the installations on Frigg Field (in tonnes)

DP2

TCP2 DP1

TP1

QP

CDP1

Figure 2 Installations on the Frigg Field

Overall Approach
The signatories to the 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic (known as the OSPAR Convention) decided in 1998 that there should be a presumption for removal of all redundant and decommissioned platforms in the North East Atlantic area, which includes the North Sea. [5] This presumption led to the requirement that structures should be removed irrespective of any comparison of the environmental impact profile for removal with the environmental impact profiles of other alternatives. For each of the components to be decommissioned the following sequential process has therefore been followed to determine the recommended arrangements according to the waste hierarchy which values reuse above recycling and disposal onshore above disposal at sea. Assessment of the possibility of reusing all or parts of the offshore facilities either in their current location or at another site Assessment of the possibility of recycling all, or parts, of the offshore facilities Assessment of the possibility of disposal onshore Assessment of the possibility of disposal at sea

For certain categories of facilities where total removal appears not to be realistic, OSPAR Decision 98/3 states that a derogation may be granted by a national competent authority, subject to a formal procedure to ensure that all other disposal alternatives have been fully assessed.

Assessment Principles and Acceptance Criteria

In evaluating the disposal alternatives it has been important to address many different aspects in order to allow an overall assessment to be made before deciding which alternative to recommend. The assessments have considered the following four main areas : Risk to Personnel Technical Feasibility Environmental Impact (including impact on society) Cost

Due to the pioneering nature of decommissioning work on the scale of Frigg Field, there are no wellaccepted procedures for the assessment of technical feasibility and the risk to personnel. In addition although the general principles regarding safety management are as applicable to decommissioning work as for operations, the application of these principles to decommissioning has not been fully developed. There are therefore no generally accepted risk acceptance criteria for the planned decommissioning work and it was thus necessary for TFEE Norge to develop appropriate risk acceptance criteria within the principles and objectives defined within the TotalFinaElf Group. The Environmental Impact Assessment was undertaken by the independent organisation Det Norske Veritas and was based upon an approach used for previous assessments. The methodology was based upon the principles set out in the document Methodology Study for Decommissioning Environmental Impact Assessments issued by the Norwegian Oil Industry Association [6].

Risk to Personnel
The TFEE Norge criteria for acceptability of risk to personnel is that the risk of fatality for an individual shall be as low as reasonably practicable and shall not be greater than 1 x 10-3 per year (1 in 1000). This criterion is in accordance with generally accepted principles applied throughout industry and supported by the UK Health and Safety Executive. Decommissioning operations are very different to normal production operations in that the work is undertaken by many different groups of personnel working on different activities for varying periods of time. Accordingly at this early stage in the decommissioning project it is only possible to use the overall risk acceptance criterion in respect to average risk levels. During the later stages when the work is planned in detail it will be possible to make a much more detailed assessment of the hazards and to estimate in greater detail the risks to groups of personnel. It will also be possible to identify and include additional risk reducing measures. Such analyses will be the basis of the necessary submissions to the relevant authorities in both Norway and UK.

Technical Risk
Specific acceptance criteria to be used when assessing the technical feasibility of the anticipated decommissioning operations were developed based upon the principles adopted within the TotalFinaElf Group in respect to asset damage and the subsequent financial loss during platform operations. The principle adopted was that the yearly risk of financial loss due to accidents or unplanned incidents occurring during the decommissioning works shall not be greater than that accepted during the operational life of the Frigg Field platforms. Different levels of loss or damage were considered, but the main emphasis was given to determining the maximum tolerable probability of accidents or incidents with very large financial loss (broadly equivalent to total loss of a platform during the operational phase). Based upon the risk accepted during the production phase, the maximum acceptable probability of a major accident during the decommissioning operations (with the associated large financial loss) has been set as 1 x 10-3 (1 in 1000) for each platform. This figure is in-line with the guidance contained in Part 1 of the Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operations published by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) in January 1996. In these rules DNV state that it was not possible to set a definitive acceptable risk level for marine operations at that time, due to the scarcity of data. DNV further state that they will seek further data and that A probability of total loss equal to or better than 1 in 1000 per operation will then be aimed at. These same rules indicate that during marine operations a probability of structural failure ten times less than this (that is 1 in 10,000) should be aimed at.

Environmental Impact
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment was to: Clarify the consequences of the relevant disposal alternatives for the Frigg Field facilities that may have a significant impact on the environment, natural resources and society. Present information about possible impacts in a manner that can form a basis for a decision on the disposal alternatives. Present proposals for mitigating any damage and nuisance caused by the chosen disposal alternatives.

The impact of the operations for each of the disposal alternatives was considered under the following headings:Environmental Impacts Energy Releases (emissions) to atmosphere Releases (discharges) to sea, water, or ground Physical impact on the environment Aesthetic impact including noise, smell and visual effects Waste/resources management Littering Social / Community Impacts Fisheries Free passage at sea Costs and national supply Employment effects Other social impacts

Where appropriate, (e.g. energy usage, emissions etc) a quantitative estimate of the impact is provided. Where the environment impact is non-quantifiable, a qualitative assessment is provided based on the magnitude of the effect itself and the sensitivity or value of the area in which the effect occurs. This approach was initially developed and used by the Norwegian Road Authority and its use has subsequently been extended by Det Norske Veritas and Asplan.

Costs
The cost for each of the disposal alternatives has been in estimated in year 2001 money terms. Uncertainties associated with the implementation of the project have been considered and the predicted costs have been expressed as a 50/50 class estimate (that is; there is a 50% chance that the cost would be more and a 50% chance that the cost would be less). In addition, cost estimates for best-case and worst-case situations have also been prepared.

Assessment of the Possibility of Reusing All or Parts of the Frigg Facilities

A significant investment has been made in exploration in the Frigg area seeking hydrocarbon reservoirs that could be developed using the Frigg Field facilities. At present there are no other known reservoirs in the area that can be economically developed from Frigg. Studies have been undertaken concluding that it is not economically attractive to use one or more of the Frigg Field platforms purely as an export centre to connect into the Frigg Field Transportation System pipelines. Technology today allows the direct subsea tie-in of pipelines to the Frigg export pipelines without the need for a platform. The use of the Frigg facilities as a processing centre is also found not to be viable. A number of possible non-oil and gas uses for the platforms have been evaluated including; artificial reefs; wind-generators; or emission free gas fired power plants. The feasibility of many of the options is technically uncertain and none of the arrangements are judged to be economically viable. The age of the installations is an important consideration when assessing their reuse potential. There may be possibilities for the reuse of some of the topside equipment although much of it is rather old. However, a general assessment of the potential reuse opportunities has been carried out and possible scenarios established. One option, that could provide added value to society, is to use the concrete substructures as bridge foundations for fjord crossings. Such a use has the potential to provide cost savings on the bridge construction cost. The concrete substructures could also be incorporated into some form of quay foundation or be used as landfill for industrial purposes. The feasibility of such schemes does, however, depend entirely upon the ability to safely re-float the substructures, which were not specifically designed with the objective of allowing their removal at a future date.

Assessment of Disposal Alternatives

In the absence of any viable reuse potential for the Frigg Field facilities, evaluations and comparative assessments have been carried out to determine how the facilities can be decommissioned. In accordance with Norwegian and UK regulations, and OSPAR Decision 98/3, full removal and onshore disposal has been the only disposal option considered for the topsides of all platforms and the steel substructures. For these elements an evaluation of feasible methods for removal and onshore disposal has been undertaken. The cost and risks associated with this work has also been estimated. Full removal and onshore disposal was also the first option considered for the three concrete substructures. However, due to the complexity and uncertainties associated with the removal of these substructures, which were not specifically designed for such an operation, other disposal alternatives have also been considered, as provided for in OSPAR Decision 98/3 [5]. In the case of the concrete substructures, the infield pipelines/cables and the drill cuttings, a comparative assessment of different disposal alternatives was therefore undertaken.

Assessment of the Disposal of the Concrete Substructures

The three large concrete substructures, TCP2, CDP1, and TP1, shown in Figure 3, are each different in design. Different procedures would therefore be required for their possible removal and disposal, each of which presents a different set of challenges and uncertainties. These substructures have all currently been in-place for approximately 25 years and it is likely that some deterioration in their condition has occurred. At the time these platforms were designed and constructed, consideration of the loading during a future removal operation was not included in the design process. In addition, the mechanical systems

used in controlling and positioning the concrete substructures during installation were only designed for use during that phase, and were thus abandoned when the platforms were in place. The main alternative disposal arrangements considered for each of the concrete substructures TCP2, TP1 and CDP1 are summarised in Table 2

TCP2

TP1

CDP1

Figure 3

Frigg Field Concrete Gravity Based Platforms

Alternative A Refloat, tow to shore, demolish and dispose onshore.

Alternative B Remove external and internal steelwork, refloat and dispose at a deep water location

Alternative C Remove internal and external steelwork and cut down sub-structure to provide a clear draft of 55m.

Alternative D Leave in place, removing as much external steelwork as reasonably practicable.

Note:The requirement for the a clear water column of 55m above any parts of an installation left in place is taken from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) document Guidelines and Standards for the Removal of Offshore Installations and Structures on the Continental Shelf and in the Exclusive Economic Zone adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1989.

Table 2

Alternative Disposal Arrangements Considered for the Frigg Field Concrete Substructures

Considerable effort has been given to the assessment process for the concrete substructures. Input has been sought from the engineering companies who were responsible for the original design of the platforms; partner companies; independent consultants; academics from universities in a number of European countries; Det Norske Veritas and TotalFinaElf Group experts. The companies involved in the original design and construction of the three concrete substructures in the 1970s were engaged in 1999 to conduct the initial engineering and feasibility studies for the decommissioning of the platforms. These companies have unique knowledge of the Frigg Field structures and have been responsible for considering how they might be removed, or disposed. The main object of the studies was to assess the feasibility of refloating the substructures. Different methods were considered, and the design companies based upon many engineering evaluations proposed a recommended method. The recommended method was described in the form of a general procedure or method statement, which was then reviewed to identify risks to personnel engaged in the disposal activities. The method statement was then modified as necessary, to reduce or eliminate unacceptable risks. Qualitative safety assessments using SAFOP (Safe Operation) techniques were used. Whilst developing the method statements, new or innovative activities or operations that were beyond current experience were identified. The feasibility of these activities was assessed and the need for programmes to develop the necessary technology was highlighted. In parallel, the engineering contractors assessed the feasibility of other disposal options (Alternatives B, C and D as defined earlier in Table 2) and prepared method statements, which described the proposed method of undertaking the work.

The method statements and engineering studies were reviewed and validated by a group of independent experts in concrete structural and material technology. Additional engineering studies were undertaken to investigate specific aspects. Figure 4 gives an overview of the various studies and reviews that form part of the overall assessment for the concrete substructures. The principles used in the technical risk assessment are described in reference [7].

Establish method

Recommend technical approach with cost, schedule and risk, after risk reducing measures

Environmental Impact Assessment

Further risk assessment

Personnel

Technical

Cost

Environment

Verification

Verification of major studies by experts from : Norway, UK, Germany, Denmark, France, Netherlands

Figure 4

Assessment Process for Refloat and Onshore Disposal Alternative (Alternative A).

Assessment of Disposal of Infield Pipelines and Cables

The following disposal alternatives were considered in respect to the Frigg Field infield pipelines and cables. Note that neither pipelines/cables nor drill cuttings are addressed in the OSPAR Decision 98/3.
Alternative A Remove, transport to shore and onshore disposal Alternative B Leave in place but trenched Alternative C Leave in place but bury ends

Table 3

Alternative Disposal Arrangements Considered for the Infield Pipelines and Cables

Technical aspects associated with the operations were carefully studied and the impacts on the environment, arising from the alternative solutions, were estimated. Safety aspects were also considered and quantitative estimates of the injury and fatality risk were made. In addition the cost of each alternative arrangement was estimated.

Assessment of Disposal of Drill Cuttings

For the drill cuttings on the seabed around DP2 two disposal alternatives were considered.
Alternative A Remove and onshore disposal Alternative B Leave in place

Table 4

Alternative Disposal Arrangements Considered for the Frigg Field Drill Cuttings

The assessment of the disposal arrangements for the drill cuttings particularly focussed on the technical feasibility of possible removal methods and the impact that these might have on the environment. This work was undertaken at the same time as a major joint industry initiative on drill

cuttings was in progress, but was completed before the final results from this work were available. The conclusions reached in the assessment have subsequently been compared with the results of the joint industry study and have been shown to be robust.

Public Consultation
TFEE Norge began planning for the decommissioning of the Frigg Field in 1998. It was considered important to ensure that stakeholders became involved at the earliest possible stage and thus the process of public consultation began in April 1999. When developing the Frigg Field Cessation Plan efforts have been made to ensure an open and transparent dialogue with interested non-governmental stakeholders in Norway and UK and in other European countries. At an early stage advertisements were placed in key national and international publications inviting stakeholders to express their interest in the project. All identified stakeholders were thereafter kept informed about the development of the project and invited to participate in appropriate events organised by TFEE Norge. Among the stakeholder groups involved in the consultation and dialogue process have been representatives of both the Norwegian and UK fishing industries, Green organisations, research establishments involved in environmental matters, local authority representatives and oil industry bodies. In addition some private individuals expressed an interest in the decommissioning process for Frigg and have subsequently been kept informed as the preparation work for the Cessation Plan has progressed. The consultation with stakeholders has focused on a number of aspects, including: the dialogue process itself, ensuring that stakeholders view the process as fair and open, the technical uncertainties surrounding the decommissioning of the concrete substructures, the Frigg Field Cessation Plan, other issues of concern. Face-to-face meetings have been held since 1999 with a number of the representative stakeholder groups. Specific input from stakeholders was sought regarding the Proposal for the Environmental Impact Assessment Programme. Comments from stakeholders were fed back into the EIA development process. One of the key issues surrounding the decommissioning of the Frigg Field facilities was the presence of the three concrete substructures. These substructures present particular challenges and TFEE Norge shared the preliminary findings from their studies with stakeholders, to seek their views. Following a year of on-going dialogue with stakeholders, TFEE Norge identified a need to bring stakeholders from both Norway and the UK together in an interactive workshop to discuss views and concerns. An independent consultant was used to ensure an unbiased forum for discussion and an independent record of the days activity. The outcome of the workshop was very helpful in finalising the Environmental Impact Assessment and in preparing the Frigg Field Cessation Plan. A group of stakeholders was also taken to the Frigg Field in September 2001 in order for them to gain a better understanding of the work involved in decommissioning the field. Two video animations have also been made illustrating the issues related to refloating, or cutting down the three concrete substructures. These videos have been used during discussions with stakeholders, who have expressed the opinion that they were very useful in gaining a better understanding of the problems involved. It is planned to continue this open dialogue with the interested stakeholders throughout the planning and implementation phases of the Frigg Field decommissioning process.

Recommended Frigg Field Disposal Arrangements

Based upon the studies and assessments described above it has been recommended that the following disposal arrangements should be adopted for the various production facilities at the Frigg Field.
Facilities Steel platform topsides Steel platform substructures Concrete platform topsides Concrete platform substructures Infield pipelines and cables Drill cuttings Recommended Disposal Arrangement Remove and dispose onshore Remove and dispose onshore Remove and dispose onshore Leave in place after removing as much of the external steelwork as is reasonably practicable Remove and dispose onshore Leave in place

Table 5

Recommended Disposal Arrangements for the Frigg Field Facilities

Further details of the recommended arrangements may be found in the Frigg Field Cessation Plan that is available on the TFEE Norge Internet website at www.totalfinaelf.no/cessation

Conclusions
In the light of the experienced gained to date, it is possible to draw some general conclusions relating to the decommissioning of redundant offshore installations. The first, and perhaps the most important aspect is that planning of the decommissioning work should begin at a very early date. Exactly when to start will depend upon many factors, including the size and complexity of the facilities to be decommissioned, local site conditions and the relevant regulatory framework. As the Frigg Field is located in both Norwegian and UK waters, it meant that extensive discussions needed to take place with the relevant authorities before the regulatory regime for the field as a whole could be established. By starting to plan for decommissioning at an early date it is possible to conduct the necessary studies and assessments in a well ordered, sequential manner. This will be a major factor in ensuring the technical validity and completeness of the studies undertaken. This, in turn, will allow informed decision making based upon relevant information and in so doing will contribute to the robustness of the decision process. Due to the nature of decommissioning, many of the risk acceptance criteria used during the operational stage of a platforms life may not be readily applicable, although they provide high level guidance on acceptable risk levels. It is therefore important to establish relevant risk acceptance criteria at an early stage to allow meaningful assessment of the various risks involved in the work. Another important conclusion that can be drawn is the need to consider decommissioning as an important part of the field life and to manage it with the same thoroughness as a new development project. A suitable project structure should be established at an early stage and adequate resources made available. Although many of the studies and assessments may be undertaken by contractors or consultants, it is vitally important that these resources are managed efficiently and effectively to ensure a common goal. During the preparation of the Frigg Field Cessation Plan the importance of a comprehensive and transparent consultation and dialogue process with stakeholders became clear. By identifying and involving stakeholders from a very early stage it has been possible to address many of their concerns in the various studies and assessments. Their views, on specific aspects, have also been extremely useful in directing the study work and have been very helpful in the assessment phase, when oftenconflicting criteria have to be considered. In fact, the experience of Frigg clearly demonstrates that consultation and dialogue with stakeholders can be an asset rather than a constrain.

10

References
[1] Second Draft of Frigg Field Cessation Plan, dated November 2001. (Can be found on the following Internet website; www.totalfinaelf.no/cessation) [2] Norwegian Act of 29 November 1996 No. 72 relating to Petroleum Activities. [3] United Kingdom Petroleum Act 1998. [4] Guidance Notes for Industry: Decommissioning of Offshore Installations and Pipelines under the Petroleum Act 1998, Produced by Offshore Decommissioning Unit, Department of Trade and Industry, Aberdeen, UK. [5] OSPAR Decision 98/3 on the Disposal of Disused Offshore Installations, OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic 1992, Sintra 22-23 July 1998. [6] The Norwegian oil Industry Association (OLF): Guidelines for Environmental Impact of decommissioning offshore facilities, March 2001. (only in Norwegian and can be found on the following Internet website: www.olf.no) [7] Micheal H. Faber, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland; Inger B. Kroon and Eva Kragh, COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners AS, Lyngby, Denmark; David Bayly and Patrick Decosemaeker, TotalFinaElf Exploration Norge AS, Stavanger, Norway; Risk Assessment of th Decommissioning Options using Bayesian Network, Proceedings of OMAE 2001, 20 Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering Conference, June 3-8, 2001, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

11