Technology For Developing Marginal Offshore Oilfields PDF

TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING
MARGINAL OFFSHORE OILFIELDS

TECHNOLOGY FOR
DEVELOPING MARGINAL
OFFSHORE OILFIELDS
D.A.FEE
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels,
Belgium
and
J.O’DEA
Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, Dublin,
Eire
ELSEVIER APPLIED SCIENCE PUBLISHERS

LONDON and NEW YORK
ELSEVIER APPLIED SCIENCE PUBLISHERS LTD Crown House, Linton Road, Barking,
Essex IG11 8JU, England
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“ To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of
thousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.”
Sole Distributor in the USA and Canada ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO., INC. 52
Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
WITH 42 TABLES AND 94 ILLUSTRATIONS
© ELSEVIER APPLIED SCIENCE PUBLISHERS LTD 1986
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Fee, D.A. Technology for developing marginal offshore oilfields. 1. Drilling platforms—Design
and construction 2. Offshore structure—Design and construction I. Title II. O’Dea, J. 627′.98
TN871.3
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Fee, D.A. Technology for developing marginal offshore oilfields. Bibliography: p. Includes
index. 1. Oil well drilling, Submarine. 2. Petroleum in submerged lands. I. O’Dea, J. II. Title.
TN871.3.F44 1986 622′.3382 86–439
ISBN 0-203-97390-9 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-85334-435-3 (Print Edition)

The selection and presentation of material and the opinions expressed in this publication are the
sole responsibility of the authors concerned.
Special regulations for readers in the USA
This publication has been registered with the Copyright Clearance Center Inc. (CCC), Salem,
Massachusetts. Information can be obtained from the CCC about conditions under which
photocopies of parts of this publication may be made in the USA. All other copyright questions,
including photocopying outside of the USA, should be referred to the publisher.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Photoset in Malta by Interprint Ltd.

To our respective wives, Áine and Marita
Preface
The idea for this review of the technology for developing marginal offshore oilfields
arose out of a report which we were commissioned to undertake for the Irish Department
of Energy in October 1984. The Department were looking for information on the
different options for developing small oil accumulations in the exposed Irish offshore
area, what systems were currently available, what new developments were likely in the
next decade and the approximate cost of developing various sizes of reservoir using these
systems.
While compiling the report we discovered that, while all the literature and industry
spokesmen agreed on the importance of marginal field technology, there was no
publication which addressed the topic in any comprehensive fashion, with the possible
exception of studies costing several thousands of dollars or confidential oil company in-
house reports. This review aims to cover this very broad topic in a way which is
intelligible to a general technical reader. It is not possible to cover detailed design aspects
of the various systems described here in a book of this size. References and a
bibliography covering the topics discussed in each chapter are provided for those
interested in pursuing the various subjects in more detail.
We have sought the views of oil companies, design engineers, offshore consultants,
contractors and researchers. We have obtained invaluable assistance from innumerable
individuals and firms, far too many to list here. However, we would like to express our
appreciation for all the time and assistance given, queries answered, literature searches
undertaken, articles provided, etc.
We would especially like to express our appreciation to a number of individuals who
reviewed and edited the draft versions of this book:
—A.R.(Bert) Schultz, Vice-President of Intec Engineering Inc. who provided advice on
technology and cost parameters.
—Dr Pat Shannon, Department of Petroleum Geology, University College Dublin.
—F.B.(Fergus) Cahill, Exploration & Production Manager, Irish National Petroleum
Corporation.
We also thank our respective organisations, the Petroleum Affairs Division, Department
of Energy and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, Dublin for their interest
in this area and their permission to incorporate certain material from their report.
However, we wish to emphasise that the opinions expressed herein are the authors’ own
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Petroleum Affairs Division of the
Department of Energy nor the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. Last, but
certainly not least, we wish to thank Anna Kennedy, who patiently typed, and retyped,
the document and Heather Gibson, who executed the line drawings.
DEREK FEE
JOHN O’DEA
Contents
Preface vii
Chapter 1 The Challenge of Marginal Fields 1

Chapter 2 Elements of a Marginal Field Development Scheme 23
Chapter 3 Existing Marginal Field Technology 86
Chapter 4 Current and Future Marginal Field Development Concepts 149
Chapter 5 Construction and Operating History of North Sea Floating 189
Production Systems
Chapter 6 Marginal Field Economics and Costs 209
Bibliography 223
Appendix Conversion Factors 229
1:
Appendix Glossary of Terms 230
2:
Index 235
Chapter 1
The Challenge of Marginal Fields
Nearly half of the world’s proven reserves of oil lie offshore and it is estimated that over
two-thirds of all future oil discoveries will also be located offshore. But in any oil
exploration area it is the larger fields which tend to be found first and even when small
discoveries are made the oil tends to be left in the ground as the oil companies rush to
develop the larger and more commercial fields.
Classification of a discovery as ‘commercial’, ‘uncommerciar’ or ‘marginal’ depends
on a combination of many factors, economic, technical and political, and is not
necessarily indicative of the size of the field. A useful definition of the three terms would
be:
Commercial — The prospect yields an economically attractive rate of return to the oil
company when conventional technology is applied to its exploitation.
Uncommercial — The prospect is unlikely to yield an economic return to the oil company under
any foreseeable technical or fiscal scenarios.
Marginal — The prospect may be capable of yielding an economic return to the oil
company but only by using some innovative, technical and/or financial
options.
While there is no general rule constituting what is an acceptable return, it appears that
most companies regard a 7% to 15% real rate of return as being ‘marginal’. If the
projected return is less than this level the development is usually postponed, while at
higher rates the project could be expected to proceed.
Oil companies share a characteristic which is common to most economic entities—
they are not charities. It is quite natural that they should develop their more commercial
discoveries first. However, offshore exploration and oil production has now been
underway in the harsh northern latitudes for more than a decade. During that period a
considerable number of marginal fields have been discovered. Indeed many fields which
were quite uncommercial when they were found are now considered marginal as a result
of the dramatic oil price increases since 1973 and recent technological advances.
The purpose of this book is to provide a fairly comprehensive look at the technology
for developing these offshore oilfields which are now considered marginal but which
must be developed in order to ensure the western world’s continued production of
petroleum.
The layout of this book and the order in which the topics are discussed are as follows:
Remainder of this chapter. We consider what is a marginal field, look at

some figures for fields yet to be developed and attempt to put the subject
in brief historical perspective.
Technology for developing marginal offshore oilfields 2
Chapter 2. We look at the various elements that could be incorporated

into an offshore development. The actual design of any offshore
production system is defined by the characteristics of the particular
reservoir and the specific site. Each component of the system has
advantages and limitations.
Chapter 3. Many of the ideas proposed for developing marginal fields
are not new. They tend to include elements which have been proven in
other locations or in different combinations. Indeed several of the
elements are incorporated in fields which have been operating in various
areas for many years. A complete listing of these fields and details of the
developments are provided. Even though some of these fields were never
in the marginal category, even at project inception, they incorporate the
reduced investment and accelerated production aspects usually associated
with marginal field economics.
Chapter 4. We review the various development concepts which are
being proposed for marginal offshore developments. Some of these are
available ‘off the shelf’ now, while some are more futuristic. Considerable
work has been done on systems which have yet to be installed while many
of the concepts which have been proposed will never be used. The
parameters and constraints of the different concepts are tabulated to
facilitate comparison between them.
Chapter 5. It is one thing knowing that a system is in place—but does
it work? Has it performed as well as expected? This chapter looks at two
existing developments.
Chapter 6. No review would be complete without some consideration
of the construction and operating costs associated with the various
elements and systems described in the earlier chapters. Unit costs are
presented for the various elements of a development to enable the reader
to estimate the cost of a particular development scheme.
1.1 WHAT IS A MARGINAL FIELD?
As noted above, the ‘marginal’ field as generally understood is primarily an economic

concept rather than a technical one. An offshore field is considered marginal if it cannot
be developed at a reasonable profit using tried and tested, or conventional technology.
The conventional technology for developing offshore oilfields in harsh environments is
typically that of the steel template jacket supporting a combined drilling and production
facility. The fixed platform solution works well for prolific offshore fields. However,
when considering methods to develop smaller and smaller fields, in ever deeper water,
the fixed steel or concrete platform has a number of major drawbacks:
—They require an extended construction period. The time between the decision to
develop and first oil production is, typically, four years. Thus they involve major
capital outlays for an extended period before any cash flow is generated.
The challenge of marginal fields 3
—They are extremely capital intensive because of their massive size. Unfortunately,
decreasing the topside loads, for smaller fields, will not decrease the size, and hence
cost, of the structure to any appreciable extent. This is because up to 80% of the mass
of the structure is acting to resist the environmental forces of waves, current and wind.
—They are site specific—when a field is depleted a fixed structure becomes a major
liability. Again, this is not a problem if the field is in production for the 15 or 20 years
typical of large offshore developments.
However, when one considers a marginal field which may only produce for three
to seven years, the non-revisability of a fixed platform which cannot be
redeployed has to be amortised over the brief life of the field.
The alternative approach to the use of fixed platforms is to consider the use of what we
call ‘Marginal field technology’, i.e. technology which aims to have the following
characteristics:
—Low capital cost—this generally involves a trade-off with higher operating costs and
decreased reliability.
—Rapid development period—thus reducing the time from start of expenditure to first
oil.
—Suitability for short-term use—thus promoting mobility and reuse of the system on
other fields.
—Amenable to innovative financing.
The different marginal field technology options are discussed in the following chapters,
but first let us consider how many of the offshore developments of the next two decades
will be of the marginal field type.
So far most of the development in the North Sea has been concentrated on the larger,
easier to find deposits. The discovery of many further fields of the size of Brent or Forties
is considered unlikely. The cushion of steeply rising oil prices is most unlikely to offset
TABLE 1.1
Likely Number of Future Offshore Developments
in UK Continental Shelf
Size of field (millions of bbls) Number of future developments
Under 50 50
50–100 20
100–150 10
200–500 5
500–1000 1
Over 1000 —
Source: Offshore Business, Vol. I, 1983, Hoare Govett.
TABLE 1.2
Some W.European Offshore Discoveries and
Development Prospect
UK: Fields with development possibilities
Name/block Operator Notes
number(s)
West Heather Union Oil discovery separate from main Heather structure. May contain
2/5 around 15 mn barrels recoverable
Emerald 2/10a, Chevron/ Oil discovered ’74, declared commercial under new tax regime.
2/15 & 3/11b Sovereign Plans for an extended production test and for possible floating
production facility. Recoverable reserves 40–50 mn barrels
Lyell 3/2 Conoco Oil discovered ’75. Requires further appraisal
Columba 3/7 & Chevron/ BP Marginal oil discovery south of Ninian. Talk of single steel
3/8 platform tied back to Ninian, but no decision expected until
results of extended production test planned for 1985 are known.
Recoverable reserves 100 mn barrels
Bressay 3/28a & Chevron/ Heavy oil discovery. Feasibility study underway
3/27 Lasmo
Bruce 9/8a & Hamilton/ Gas/condensate field plus small oil reservoir. Development,
9/9b BP hindered by lack of pipeline in area, unlikely before late ’80 s.
Estimated 100–150 mn barrels of condensate plus 2.4 Tcf of gas
Southwest Beryl Mobil Feasibility study by John Brown Offshore is said to be
9/12a & 9/13 concentrating on a floating production facility. Recoverable
reserves 60–100 mn barrels
Crawford 9/28a Hamilton Oil discovery. Further appraisal expected
& 9/29a
Scapa 14/19 Occidental Engineering studies undertaken by John Brown Offshore and
McDermott. Hope to get annex B approval for a subsea
development tied back to Claymore in late 1985. Recoverable
reserves 35 mn barrels
—14/20 Texaco Small oil field close to Tartan. Subsea development planned

number(s)
South Piper 15/17 Occidental Possible subsea development tied back to Piper which is now in
decline. Recoverable reserves 30 mn barrels
Ivanhoe and Rob Monsanto Oil discovery to south of Tartan. Recoverable reserves 80–120
Roy 15/21a mn barrels. Feasibility study by John Brown—possible floater
Galley 15/23 Occidental ’74 oil discovery. Complex geology and further appraisal
drilling required. Possible single steel platform. Recoverable
reserves 50–70 mn barrels
Central, East & West Marathon Several structures undergoing appraisal. Steel platform similar
Brae 16/3 & 16/7a to North Brae likely for 16/3 if reserves are proved
Miller 16/8b Conoco Oil and gas discovery. Approximately 110 mn barrels
recoverable. Might extend into BP block 16/7b
‘T’block 16/17 Phillips Comprises Tiffany, Toni, Thelma and Southeast Thelma.
Tiffany likely to be developed first from single steel platform.
80–100 mn barrels of oil recoverable. May extend into 16/12a
Glamis & Sterling Sun Oil Two small discoveries close to Balmoral currently under
16/21 development. 10–30 mn barrels recoverable, likely to be
developed through Balmoral facilities
Andrew 16/27 & BP Marginal 80–90 mn barrel oil and gas prospect. Annex B
16/28 application for single steel platform could be forthcoming ’85
Ettrick 20/2 Britoil Regarded as high priority by operator, but requires further
appraisal. Talk of single steel platform or floater depending on
final reserves estimate (currently 50–75 mn barrels) into 20/3
Glenn 21/2 Zapex Estimated recoverable reserves 60 mn barrels

number(s)
Gannet & Kittiwake Shell Five separate structures containing an estimated 220 mn bbls oil
21/25 & 21/30 and 17 mn m3 gas. Plans call for four steel platforms plus
possible umc on Gannet North, feeding gas to Fulmar and oil
via a pipeline to shore. Further steel platform on sixth structure,
Gannet South, possible. Annex B expected 1986
Drake 22/5b Superior Oil and gas/condensate field. Recent appraisal wells have been
disappointing. Conceptual design by Bechtel
Arbroath 22/17 & Amoco Department of Energy has ruled that this is an extension of
22/18 Montrose. Any development will probably involve a simple
platform installed over template already installed for appraisal
drilling
Lomond 23/21 & Amoco Gas condensate field, recoverable reserves estimated at 34 bn
23/22 m3. Interest in this field has been revived with building of
Fulmar gas line.
Joanne 30/7a Phillips Oil and gas discovery still under appraisal, but could contain
100–200 mn barrels. Amoco’s 30/12b find is close by.
Development decision expected soon
Cleeton, Hyde, BP Four gas accumulations. Plans call for eight to ten platforms
Ravenspurn Hoton (three process and the remainder wellhead). Possibly on stream
42/29, 42/30, 48/6 & by 1989 building up to a peak production of 11.5 mn m3/d
48/7
Amethyst 47/14a Britoil Small gas find with reserves of around 8 bn m3. Nine slot
template awaiting installation for early production pending
development study
Sole Pit 48/13 & Shell Several tight gas accumulations. Could contain 28 bn m3 of
48/14 recoverable gas
—48/21a Lasmo Gas and condensates discovery in 15 m of water. Development
studies underway

number(s)
Audrey 49/11a Phillips Gas field, recoverable reserves around 28 bn m3. Gas already sold to
BGC. Annex B for single platform development expected later this
year. On stream by ’87?
‘V’ block 49/16 Conoco Comprises North and South Valient, Vulcan and Vanguard. Possible
& 49/21 two stage development requiring up to nine platforms. Design
contract to Brown & Root. Reserves put at 212 bn m3
Welland 49/29 Arco 1984 discovery close to Thames field. Unitization talks underway
& 53/4 with Mobil (49/29)
Eider 211/16 Shell Likely to follow Tern development. Estimated 75 mn barrels
recoverable. Conventional steel platform likely. Design contracts to
JBOs and Matthew Hall
Don 211/18 Britoil Oil discovery, extends in to 211/13. Still under appraisal
North West Shell Possible subsea development from simplified umc producing to
Dunlin 211/3 Dunlin—start up 1987. Recoverable reserves 35 mn barrels
UK: Other discoveries and prospects
Block number Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, date discovered, name, etc.
3/4 Texaco Oil, 1975—close to Brent reservoir
3/14a Total Oil and condensates, 1973, Alwyn
3/25 Total Gas, 1977
3/29 BP Oil, 1977
9/9a Total Oil and gas, 1984—Bruce extension?
9/18a Conoco Oil, 1979
9/19 Conoco Oil and condensates, 1976
9/24b BP Condensates, 1983
Block number Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, datediscovered, name, etc.

12/27 Burmah Gas, 1983—may be developed to provide power for Beatrice nearby
13/29 Ultramar Oil, 1981—30–50 mn barrels recoverable
14/18 Occidental Oil, 1978—later wells dry
15/13a BP Oil, 1975—SWOPS candidate?
15/22 Amoco Oil, 1984
15/26a BP Oil, SWOPS candidate?

15/27 Phillips Oil, 1976, Renee
15/30 Conoco Gas condensate, 1975, Bosun
16/7b BP Oil, 1983
16/8a Shell Oil, 1984
16/12a Occidental Oil, 1984—Tiffany extension?
16/13a Britoil Gas and condensates, 1984
16/18 Mobil Condensates, 1983
16/22 Total Oil, 1977
16/26 Gulf Gas condensates, 1977
16/29 Phillips Oil, 1975, Mable
21/15a Britoil Oil, 1981
21/19 Shell Oil, 81
21/24 Texaco Oil, 1978—close to Gannet
21/29a Texaco Oil, 1984
21/29b Britoil Oil, 1985
22/2 Burmah Oil, 1984
22/5a Amoco Gas and condensates, 1980
22/19 Occidental Gas condensate, 1984—close to Montrose
22/24a BP Gas and condensates, 1984
23/26a BP Oil, 1976
23/27 Ranger Oil, 1976
29/2a Conoco Gas and condensates, 1984
29/5a, 29/10 Arco Oil and gas condensates, 1981
29/8b Premier Oil, 1983—Acorn
30/2 Britoil Gas condensate, 1971
30/6 Shell Oil, 1984

30/13 Phillips Oil, 1972
30/17b Britoil Oil, 1979—Clyde satellites
31/26 Amerada Oil, 1983
41/24a Total Gas, 1969
41/25a Total Gas, 1969

42/1 5b Zapex Gas, 1984
43/26 Hamilton Gas, 1984—tight reservoir
44/21 BP Gas, 1984
44/22 Conoco Gas, 1985
44/23 Texas Gas, 1968
47/9b BGC Gas, 1983
47/13 Conoco Gas
47/15 Amoco Gas, 1973
48/6 BP Gas, 1984—West Sole extension
48/11a Arco Gas, 1984
48/11b Conoco Gas and condensates, 1985
48/12a Gulf Gas, 1975
48/15a Conoco Gas, 1983
48/18b Ranger Gas, 1985—close to Sole Pit
48/22 Britoil Oil, 1966
49/4 BP Gas, 1984
49/5 Ultramar Gas, 1984
49/6 Phillips Gas, 1966, Ann
49/16 Conoco Gas, 1971
49/25a Shell Gas, 1983
53/4 Arco Gas, 1967, Scram
98/11 BGC Gas, 1984—offshore Wytch Farm
113/26 HGB Gas, 1982—near to Morecambe Bay field
205/10 Britoil Oil—460 m of water
206/8 BP Oil, Clair—heavy oil
210/15 Phillips Oil, 1977, Wendy
211/13 Shell Condensate, 1974
211/19 Conoco Oil, 1977

211/22a Tricentrol Oil, 1984
211/26 Shell Oil, 1975
211/27 Amoco Oil, 1976, Southwest Hutton

214/30 BGC Gas 1984—557 m of water
Norway: Future fields and prospects
Name/ block Operator Notes
number
Flyndre 1/5a Phillips Oil discovered 1973
Tommeliten 1/9 Statoil Development delayed by haggling over fee for processing oil and gas
on Ekofisk. Single wellhead platform planned. 24 bn m3 gas plus 37
mn barrels oil recoverable
—2/1 BP Oil and gas discovery close to Ekofisk. Undergoing appraisal
—2/2 Saga Oil find also close to Ekofisk
Gudrun 15/3 Elf 34 bn m3 gas prospect close to Sleipner and Brae in the UK sector.
Also separate 70 mn barrel oil prospect close by
Sleipner 15/6 & Statoil Gas sales agreement with BGC vetoed by UK Government.
15/9 Development plans call for two platforms to deplete the estimated
180 bn m3 gas at a peak of 26 mn m3/day by ’97
Gamma 15/9 Statoil Gas find close to Sleipner. 55 bn m3 gas recoverable
Bream & Phillips Oil discovery still under appraisal
Brisling 17/12a
Southeast & Elf Declared commercial July ’84. Development will probably be
East Frigg 25/2 through two ‘Skuld’ subsea templates remotely controlled from the
main Frigg platform. Combined recoverable reserves are put at 9 mn
m3

number
Huldra 30/2, Statoil 40–50 bn m3 gas recoverable
30/3
Veselfrikk Norsk Hydro 250 mn barrel Oseberg satellite
30/3
Balder 25/10 Esso Development licence granted but deferred after poor drilling
& 25/11 results. Could be revived in future. Recoverable reserves 220 mn
barrels
Hild 29/9 & Norsk Hydro Condensate discovery. Reserves put at 51 bn m3 recoverable
30/7
—30/11 Shell Oil and gas discovery close to Frigg
Brage 31/4 Norsk Hydro Oil discovery close to Oseberg. Recoverable reserves estimated
at 200 mn barrels plus 6 bn m3 gas
Troll 31/2, Shell, Saga Largest oil or gas field yet discovered in North Sea. Recoverable
31/3 31/5 & Statoil & Norsk reserves estimated at 1 2 trillion m3 of gas Development options
31/6 Hydro for this deepwater field are still being considered, but firm plans
are unlikely before ’86. Gas sales talks begun
Munin & Mobil Statfjord satellites likely to be developed using a subsea system
Hugin 33/9 tied back to the main platforms or Murchison. Recoverable
reserves 250 mn barrels oil and 5 bn m3 gas
Snorre 34/4 & Saga Large oil discovery still undergoing appraisal—recoverable
34/7 reserves estimated at 725 mn barrels. Onstream 1993?
Agat 35/3 Saga Oil discovery close to coast, but in deepwater
Tyrihans Statoil Oil discovery on Halten Bank
6407/1
Midgard Saga Halten Bank discovery with recoverable reserves put at 104 bn
6407/2 & m3 of gas, 21 bn m3 of condensates and 876 mn barrels of oil
6507/11

number
Draugen 6407/9 Shell Substantial light oil discovery
Smoerbukk Statoil Gas/condensate find
6506/12
—6507/7 Conoco 1985 oil discovery
—7119/12 Statoil 1983 gas discovery
—7120/7 Statoil 1982 gas discovery
Askeladden Statoil Recoverable reserves estimated at 170 bn m3, but at present is only
7120/8 commercially viable if sold as Ing. Feasibility study in hand
Albatross Statoil Recoverable reserves estimated at 57 bn m3, but faced with the
7120/9 same disposal problems as Askeladden
Alke 7120/12 Norsk Shallow gas discovery
Hydro
Snow White Statoil Gas discovery with thin oil column. Reserves put at 130 bn m3 but
7121/4 geology is complex
Netherlands: Future fields and prospects
Block number Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, status
B18 NAM Oil, production application submitted
E13 Pennzoil Gas
F18 BP Oil
K4 BP Gas
K6 Petroland Gas
K9 Placid Gas, plans for single platform
K10a Pennzoil Gas, production application submitted

K17 NAM Gas, production application submitted
L8a Pennzoil Gas
Block Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, status

number
L11b Union Gas, design work by Heerema and Global Engineering
L12a NAM Gas, production application submitted
L13 NAM Gas
L15 NAM Gas, production application submitted
L2 & F17a NAM Oil and gas
L14 Placid Gas, one platform planned
L16a Conoco Oil, production application submitted
P1 NAM Gas, production application submitted
P2a BP Gas, production application submitted, plans for unmanned
wellhead tied in to P6
P2b Mobil Gas, production application submitted
P8a Mobil Oil
P9 Amoco Oil, under review
Q8 BP Gas, plans for unmanned wellhead controlled from shore, water
depth 16 m
Denmark: Future fields and prospects
There are a number of fields currently undergoing appraisal all operated by DUC. They include:
East Rosa, West Lulu, Boje-1, Otto-1, Lulu, Nils, Adda, Nord-Arne, Anne Qwenn, Lola, Arne
Olaf, Nora, Gert, Elly, Igor Bo, Liva and number of fields Jens.
Germany: Future fields and prospects
Block Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, status
number
A6 Gew, Gas, still under appraisal
Elwerath
Mittleplate Texaco Oil, two concrete platforms being considered. DM 100 mn pilot
scheme under consideration by government. 75 mn barrels
recoverable
Ireland: Future fields and prospects
Block number Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, status
26/28 Porcupine BP Oil
49/9 Gulf Oil, appraisal continuing

48/18 BP Gas, 1985
Reproduced by permission of Offshore Engineer.
the higher costs of developing the smaller fields that remain. The trend towards smaller
developments in the future is clearly shown in the estimate in Table 1.1 of future
developments in the UK continental shelf. A similar distribution of field sizes would be
typical of other offshore regions. According to a study by analysts Smith Rea/Hoare
Govett, marginal field projects in the North Sea through 1990 are expected to cost $18
billion, with 75–80% of this expenditure in the UK sector.
Table 1.2 shows some Western European Fields which are future prospects. Most of
these fields are in the marginal category.
Thus the outlook is extremely promising for the development of increasing numbers of
marginal offshore fields. However, according to the controller at Esso Exploration and
Production a 25% reduction in the current cost of developing North Sea fields of 50
million barrels recoverable reserves is necessary in order to make them economic.
It must also be borne in mind that every offshore development involves the State as a
partner, either indirectly through the various combinations of taxes and royalties, or
directly by reason of state participation agreements. Any change in the fiscal environment
can affect the economics of an offshore prospect much more rapidly and effectively than
developments in technology. This is clearly evidenced by the boost given to marginal
field developments by recent favourable changes in the tax code. Similarly, a drop in
interest rates or increase in oil prices can dramatically improve marginal field economics.
Finally, it is worth remembering that changes in technology, capital costs, the oil
price, tax rates, interest rates etc. will not eliminate marginal offshore oilfields. These
changes will merely shift the margin to put even less attractive accumulations into the
‘marginal’ category.
1.2 OFFSHORE OIL TECHNOLOGY—A HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE
It is sometimes difficult to appreciate just how recent a phenomenon is the petroleum

industry. The world’s first oil well was only drilled in 1859, in Titusville, Pennsylvania
by a certain Colonel E.L.Drake. Drilling and production of offshore oil began in the
shallow waters of the US Gulf of Mexico in 1946 and production of offshore oil from
deep exposed offshore fields commenced only a little more than a decade ago. The story
of the development of the offshore industry, from its initial beginnings on a timber
platform standing in 18 ft of water off the coast of Louisiana to today’s awe-inspiring
structures and space age technology, is a fascinating story in itself. However, this brief
overview of the history of offshore oil is principally concerned with charting the offshore
developments which have led to the current demand for, and availability of, technology
which is applicable to developing marginal fields in harsh offshore environments.
Offshore petroleum activities can be usefully divided into:
—Exploration drilling: discovering where the oilfield is and what the characteristics of
the oil reservoir are;
—Oil and gas production: recovering the petroleum from the reservoir and getting it to
market.
Let us consider the technology involved in each:
Exploration Drilling
Since that first offshore well in 1946, exploration drilling has advanced rapidly. Today
drilling is conducted all around the world in all types of environment and in very deep
waters. Wells have been drilled in areas which experience 35 m waves, 6 knot currents,
120 knot winds, in water depths of 1000 m, 400 km offshore and in areas of icebergs and
icefloes. Figure 1.1 shows current and future active exploration areas.
The first offshore exploration well was drilled from a fixed wooden structure.
Operators soon realised that drilling wells from a structure which could be moved from
one location to the next would be much more efficient than installing a permanent
structure for a well which could easily be a dry hole.
The mobile offshore drilling unit was the result. This consisted initially of a barge
which could be deballasted to rest on the sea floor and piled in position. The dry upper
deck supported a drill rig arrangement almost identical to that used on land. These
submersible units were obviously very limited as to the depths of water in which they
could operate.
Later the jack-up drilling unit was developed. This consisted, essentially, of a barge-
shaped structure with legs which could be lowered to the sea bed; it was equipped with a
jacking mechanism which enabled the barge, with drill rig and wellhead on top, to be
raised above the sea surface and so provide a stable drilling table. Early jack-ups were
confined to shallow water depths and the sheltered environments of the Gulf of Mexico
and Venezuela. Continued development of these units has produced a current generation
which can drill in harsh North Sea environments in water depths up to 100 m.
Nevertheless, since jack-ups are founded on the sea bottom they are inherently limited in
the water depths in which they can operate. By moving the wellhead to the sea floor and
by drilling from a floating vessel operators realised that the depth limitations of the jack-
up could be overcome. However, when drilling from a vessel floating on the surface it is
apparent that the heave, pitch and roll motions (i.e. vertical and lateral) must be
compensated for to enable the drill bit to stay on the bottom of the hole with the proper
weight and rotation. This was accomplished by developing vessels which had reduced
motions in waves and by mechanisms to compensate for the vessel’s heave and so allow
drilling to take place in open waters. The two basic floating drilling vessels which have
evolved are the ship shaped drilling unit and the semi-submersible.
The ship shaped drilling unit: these are self-propelled and have the
appearance of conventional sea-going ships with a drill rig on top. The
advantage of these units relates to their deep water capability, their
capacity to transport huge supplies of drilling equipment and their
comparatively low cost. However, the current generation of drill ships
have difficulty in operating in rough seas.
The semi-submersible: these are typically flat platform decks on which

the drilling equipment is mounted. The deck is supported by flotation
pontoons. The rig is usually self-propelled and can be moored over the
drilling position with the pontoons flooded so that the lower portion of the
rig is partly submerged to a depth of 50–80 ft for improved stability. The
platform is supported clear of the sea. The semi-submersible’s major
advantage when compared to a ship shaped unit is in reduced motions
when subjected to waves. Roll, pitch and heave are greatly reduced and
the natural period of a semi-submersible is normally about 20 seconds,
which is far above the everyday wave period experienced during drilling.
Reduced motions allow the operator to keep the operation going
efficiently in severe wave conditions. Over the years much has been done
to optimise size, shape etc. to further enhance the inherent stability of the
semi-submersible.
The different kinds of offshore drilling unit are illustrated in Fig. 1.2. A comparison of
the typical motion characteristics of semi-submersibles and ship shaped units is shown in
Fig. 1.3. Water depth records for offshore drilling operations since 1960 are illustrated in
Fig. 1.4.
FIG. 1.1. Areas of major offshore

activity. Shaded areas represent
continental shelf to 200 m. shaded
well drilling areas, Jan. 1979–April
1980. Source: Offshore Magazine and
Industry Reports.
Oil and Gas Production

When oil production moved offshore some kind of platform had to be provided to support
the wellheads and the process systems that separated and disposed of the water and
associated gas from the oil. As water
FIG. 1.2. The different types of

offshore drilling unit.
FIG. 1.3. Comparison of typical

motion characteristics of semi-
submersible (SSM) and ship shaped
units.
FIG. 1.4. Water depth records for

offshore drilling operations 1960–Sept.
1985.
depths increased these structures became ever larger and it became increasingly
expensive to fabricate a platform for each individual well. The logical solution was to put
all the wells on a single platform and to drill deviated wells. (Sea extensions of the
Huntingdon Beach field in Southern California were tapped by directional wells drilled
from beach locations as early as the 1920 s.)
With modern techniques it is possible to reach deviations up to 60° so that the
reservoir is drilled in the optimum way (see Fig. 1.5). Plotting the water depths in which
platforms have been installed on a log scale against the year that the offshore installation
started the result obtained is that of a linear trend (see Fig. 1.6). A similar line can be
drawn for exploration wells drilled with mobile drilling units. The lines are found to
deviate. The explanation is that with floating drilling techniques the capacity to drill in
deeper waters advanced faster than the capacity to install fixed offshore structures. Two
factors cause the gap to widen, namely cost and lead time. The cost of drilling in 100 or
300 m of water is not strongly dependent on water depth whereas for fixed platforms it is.
FIG. 1.5. Deviated drilling for fixed

production platform.
For the big structures in increasing water depths one faces an increasing lead time.
One of the most familiar types of fixed offshore platform is the piled steel structure. It
has certainly been one of the most successful types. From initial beginnings in the
shallow Gulf of Mexico steel platforms have been developed to the stage where they now
include the giant structures for the oilfields of the North Sea and deep waters of the Gulf
of Mexico and offshore California.
Concrete (and steel) gravity structures of the type shown in Fig. 1.7 have been
developed, mainly for the North Sea. They offer the attraction of integrated oil storage, a
short installation time since no piling is required, and the possibility of installing most of
the topside facilities at sheltered inshore locations. These gravity platforms are huge
structures and are only suited to large field developments.
FIG. 1.6. Deviation between

exploration and production depth.——
, exploration: exploration wells, water
depth record;—·—, production:
production wells, water depth record.
The progress of fixed structures is shown graphically in Fig. 1.8. It appears that the limits
may soon be reached for these fixed structures. They are costly and difficult to fabricate
and install and lead times become excessively long.
In view of the increasingly massive size of fixed structures as water depths increased it
is not surprising that companies have looked for alternatives. One possible solution
consisted of utilising the experience with drilling units—semi-submersibles and ship
shapes—to arrive at a floating production solution. The first floating production unit was
installed in 1975 on the Argyll field in the North Sea. Since then many more such
systems have been developed and refined. The various floating production systems will
be examined closely in later chapters.
Another school of thought believes that the solution lies somewhere between the
completely fixed structure and the floating production unit. Accordingly various hybrid
type structures have been proposed. Three such hybrid types have already been
developed and installed. These are the Guyed Tower (installed on the LENA field, 1983),
FIG. 1.7. Concrete gravity platform.

the Tension Leg Platform (installed on the Hutton field, 1984) and the Articulated
Column (installed on the N.E.Frigg field in 1983 and also used for various flare structures
and offshore loading points). These various hybrid options will also be examined later. A
plot of platform water depth records since 1960 for fixed and compliant structures is
shown in Fig. 1.8.
The third alternative is to eliminate the need for any topside facility and to transfer all
operations to the sea bed. Subsea wellheads were installed in the early 1960 s and since
then there have been considerable developments in subsea technology, underwater
control systems etc. and rapid development of the depth capabilities of underwater
completions. See Fig. 1.9 for an illustration of water depth records for subsea production
since 1960.
FIG. 1.8. Platform water depth records

since 1960 for fixed and compliant
structures.——, fixed structures; – – –
–, compliant structures.
FIG. 1.9. Water depth records for

subsea completions.
With the development of compliant, or moving, structures the connections between the
wellheads and the production facilities—the flowlines—assume a new importance. In
onshore oilfields the flowlines are simple flanged steel pipes. When the wellheads are
now transferred to the sea bed the problems of underwater flowlines and the flowlines
between the sea bed and the surface facilities (the flowline risers) assume major
importance. The development of flexible flowlines and the various developments in riser
design and technology had a major part to play in the history of offshore production; the
major milestones in their development are discussed in Chapter 2.
Once oil is produced there is still the problem of bringing it ashore. Two methods are
commonly used—pipelines to shore and offshore loading into tankers. The technology of
offshore pipelines has kept pace with other offshore developments. Pipelines have now
been successful in over 500 m of water in the Mediterranean.
While pipelines have low operating costs they can involve a large capital investment,
especially for remote offshore fields. Offshore loading systems have also developed over
the years. Originally confined to sheltered coastal waters and estuaries, they are now
operating in some of the harshest offshore environments. The major milestones in the
developments of offshore loading systems are discussed in Chapter 2.
Chapter 2
Elements of a Marginal Field Development
Scheme
In this chapter we shall examine the various components which, connected together, go to
make up a marginal field development system. The development system may be broadly
divided into the following items:
—production support,
—riser,
—subsea equipment,
—crude oil storage,
—export system.
It must be emphasised at this point that the division made above is only to facilitate
analysis of the various components and that production systems for individual fields are
integrated performing an overall function rather than a series of separate operations.
2.1 PRODUCTION SUPPORTS
Production supports can be classified as follows:

(1) jack-ups (e.g. Ekofisk, Saltpond, Badejo, etc.)
(2) semi-submersibles (Argyll, Enchova, Dorado, etc.)
(3) tankers (Castellon, Nilde, Cadlao, Tazerka, etc.)
(4) barges (Bekapi, Handil)
(5) articulated columns (North East Frigg)
(6) tension leg platforms* (Hutton)
(7) guyed towers* (Lena)
*(6) and (7) may be applicable to deep water marginal finds.
2.1.1 Jack-ups
Jack-ups are normally used in drilling operations but may be used as a production support
where topside weight and water depth are not limitations. The jack-up consists of a deck
section, somewhat like a barge, and several truss or tubular telescopic legs. It is normally
towed to the location with the legs raised. On site, the legs are lowered to the sea bed and
the platform is then jacked up to safe level above the sea. One prerequisite for the use of
this type of support is the suitability of the sea bed soil conditions and the likely
penetrations of the legs (Fig. 2.1).
The normal water depth operational range of the jack-up is from the seashore to 75 m;
however, the latest generation of jack-ups, the Gorilla class, are able to operate in water
depths of up to 110 m and sea states of up to 30 m wave heights.
A jack-up has been used in only one North Sea development scheme, Ekofisk, where
the Gulf Tide was used as a production support in an early production system for three
years in a water depth of 70 m.
The advantages of using a jack-up as a production support are as follows:
—Jack-ups are leaseable and with a worldwide utilisation rate of 76% day rates are very
competitive.
FIG. 2.1. Typical jack-up system.

—They have all the advantages of a fixed platform in shallow water—no moorings
required.
—They have a low abandonment cost and can be returned to drilling.
—Wells and riser can be of conventional type.
The disadvantages of the jack-up are:
—Limitations on topside weight and water depth operating range. Existing jack-ups
could only operate as production supports in the southern North Sea. However, new
jack-up designs could be used in the central North Sea.
—Limited to areas where soil conditions permit satisfactory support of the legs.
Elements of a marginal field development scheme 25
—Fatigue problems could limit the utilisation to several years unless costly alterations
are made to the structure.
—No storage capability.
A typical example of a field development using a jack-up as a production support is the
Espoir field offshore Ivory Coast. The development was carried out by Phillips Petroleum
and utilised a converted jack-up drilling rig, the Dan Duke, which was leased in Japan
after a 600 ton production module was installed in 1982. The development system
incorporates the following features:
—the use of the Dan Duke as production support,
—a special driven caisson riser housing,
—deepwater, widely spaced subsea wellheads for production in 120–150 m of water,
—deepwater pipelines laid by the reel method from a dynamically positioned reel ship,
—saturation diving for subsea wellhead hook-up from a dynamically positioned diving
support vessel,
—CALRAM field storage tanker,
—shuttle tanker off-loading.
The Dan Duke stands in 130 m of water and is designed to receive through a 1.8 m
diameter riser caisson, twelve 8 in. diameter flowlines and one 12 in. export line to a
Catenary Anchor Leg Rigid Arm Mooring (CALRAM), essentially a tethered buoy to
which is pin connected the Phillips Enterprise, a 230000 dwt. VLCC. An estimated
300000 bbls of processed crude can be stored aboard the Phillips Enterprise. A detailed
field development sketch can be found in Chapter 3.
The project was begun in 1980 with the conversion of the Dan Duke; the addition of
the production module was commenced in 1981 and was completed in early 1982.
2.1.2 Semi-submersibles
Until now this has been the most popular form of floating production support, with 19
fields (see Chapter 3) having been developed using semi-submersibles.
The semi-submersible type of production support is a buoyant structure which is
catenary (conventionally) moored to the sea bed. These moorings allow large heave
motions in extreme environments and impose severe problems on the riser configuration
often resulting in poor production efficiency. In high sea states the riser is disconnected
from the subsea system and recovered on the platform or ‘hung-off’, i.e. suspended from
the platform.
There are many configurations of semi-submersible but they all consist of a vessel
with a majority of its displacement some distance under water and with small cross-
sectional area members piercing the water surface.
The advantages of the semi-submersible are as follows:
—The motions of the semi-submersible are small, and therefore it can be used in severe
environments.
—There are many semi-submersibles available for conversion.
—Low abandonment cost, and can be returned to drilling.
—Mooring is normally of the conventional catenary type.
—Can easily accommodate conventional rigid or flexible risers.

—Can provide simultaneous drilling and/or workover capability.
Disadvantages associated with semi-submersibles as production supports are:
—Operational water depth limited to 70–1000 m.
—Payload limited due to displacement and stability sensitivity.
—Number of wells 4–40.
—Some difficulty with respect to conversion.
—Limited storage, if any.
—Requires long distance pipeline or SPM tanker loading system for produced crude.
British Petroleum’s Buchan Field is the latest development in the North Sea incorporating
a semi-submersible as a production support. The Buchan Field was discovered in August
1974, in a deep reservoir 154 km east-north-east of Aberdeen. Because of its complex
geology, Buchan was considered as a marginal field with estimated recoverable reserves
of 58 million barrels. The development system chosen incorporates the following
elements:
—A floating oil production platform converted from the Pentagone design semi-
submersible exploration rig, Drillmaster, renamed Buchan Alpha.
—A production/export riser system consisting of one 12 in. export riser surrounded by
eight 4 in. production risers, eight 2 in. gas lift lines and two 4 in. service lines. The
whole bundle is supported from the platform by an adjustable tensioning system to
prevent buckling.
—Eight producing subsea wells, five drilled through a steel 9 slot template measuring
8×15 m, and two satellite wells 1.5 km from the template, an eight-well 2.5 km to the
west was completed in 1980.
—Two 4 in. flowlines and associated hydraulic control umbilicals connecting each
satellite well to the template. One of the flowlines carries oil and associated gas and
the second carries ‘lift gas’.
—A subsea manifold on the template linking the flowlines to the riser system.
—A 15 m diameter CALM (catenary anchor leg mooring) buoy anchored by six 4
in.×400 m chains and associated anchors in 110 m of water.
—A 12 in. submarine pipeline 1.7 km long from the manifold on the template to the
pipeline end manifold (PLEM) under the CALM buoy. The PLEM is connected to the
buoy by a flexible hose.
—Two 100000 ton tankers, especially modified for bow loading and dedicated solely to
offloading from the field. Tankers are moored to the CALM buoy by a 21 in. diameter
hawser. Oil is loaded through a 12 in. floating hose.
This development highlighted one of the problems associated with semi-submersible-
based production systems, i.e. difficulty with conversion. Changes in regulatory
requirements, some caused through the accident with the Alexander Keilland, led to more
extensive rebuilding than anticipated. These changes led to increased cost and a delay of
approximately one year. The project took four years (1977–1981) from submission of the
development plan to completion. Conversion work began on the Drillmaster in October
1978 and tow out began in September 1980. The drilling of the template wells was
completed in November 1978 and the CALM buoy was placed on site in July 1979. Oil
production from Buchan began in May 1981 with design production being achieved in
July, 1981.
2.1.3 Tankers
This type of production support consists of a tanker converted for production operations
with a permanent yoke attachment to a single point mooring (SPM). There are various
types of SPM that have evolved from the basic catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM) and
single anchor leg mooring (SALM); the two types used to date are the single buoy
storage (SBS) and the single anchor leg storage (SALS). These systems will be examined
in detail in the section on export systems.
The tanker is allowed to weathervane around the SPM by means of a fluid swivel
arrangement at the yoke/SPM interface. The production riser extends from the sea floor
to the fluid swivel. A converted tanker is used because it provides the cheapest form of
floating platform and already has existing oil storage capacity. This storage capacity is a
major factor in the operation of this type of system as it increases production efficiency
by providing buffer storage when the weather prohibits offloading by shuttle tanker.
The advantages of a tanker based system can be summarised as follows:
—Large capacity in terms of weight carrying.
—Large area for process equipment installation.
—Large capacity for storage of products.
—Oversupply on the market, therefore cheap to buy.
—Easily converted to a production support.
—Includes adequate accommodation.
—Easy loading of shuttle tanker from production tanker.
—Ability to withstand 100yr storm conditions while continuing production.
The disadvantages of a tanker based production system are:
—No possibility of work-over operations (exception: Castellon).
—Moored tankers are subject to large motions, therefore the mooring system must
incorporate the concept of weathervaning.
—The mooring must be combined with the riser system.
—Maximum number of wells is currently 8.
—Operational water depth is 50–150 m.
The Tazerka field development incorporates the latest in technology relating to tanker
based production systems. The field was discovered in July 1979 by Shell Tunirex
operating for a joint venture with Agip (40%) and Entreprise Tunisienne d’Activites
Petrolieres (ETAP 20%). It is situated some 56 km offshore Tunisia in water depths of
140–300 m in the Hammemet Grand Fonds permit.
The production system includes the following elements:
—A converted 210000 dwt. tanker Murex as a production support.
—A production riser system consisting of eight 4 in. production risers and eight 4 in.
service lines.
—A single anchor leg storage (SALS) system including a 25 m across, 7 m high gravity
base through which the flowlines from the wells pass into rigid steel piping.
—A series of subsea wells (4) connected to the base by flexible flowlines.
—A 250 ton manifold chamber installed above the yoke used for tanker mooring.
—A 6×4 in. multi-path high pressure swivel specifically designed to accommodate
facilities for production, testing, gas-lift and water injection while permitting the
production tanker to weathervane.
The Tazerka field was the first to utilise a multi-well concept necessitating a high
pressure multiple path swivel. The SALS consists of a structural member 140 m long, 5
m in outer diameter with an inner well of 2.2 m diameter which contains all the conduits
and control lines for the wells. The fluid-path coupling across the unijoint at the base is
by a jumper hose arrangement from steel pipe on a frame on the base to steel pipe
extending from the bottom of the riser.
Tazerka, having recoverable reserves of 10 m barrels, began producing in 1982 and
reached its designed production capacity of 10000 bbls/day in 1983.
2.1.4 Barge Based Systems

A barge is the simplest form of monohull structure, being usually box-shaped or semi-
ship shaped. Barges do not generally incorporate a means of propulsion and must be
towed to the final location.
Barges have not been utilised as production supports in the North Sea although several
concepts, including a concrete barge, have been proposed.
The advantages of a barge as a production support are as follows:
—Large deck area and weight capacity for installation of process equipment.
—Capacity for storage of products.
—Cheap and available for quick conversion.
—Cheap to build in any shipyard.
The disadvantages of a barge are:
—Physical characteristics similar to a tanker, therefore requires a mooring system which
permits the barge to weathervane.
—Mooring may combine riser system.
—Maximum number of wells is 8.
—Operational water depth is 30–150 m.
—Requires relatively benign environmental conditions.
—No drilling or work-over capability.
—If an existing barge is being used it will not normally incorporate accommodation.
Barge mounted production systems are relatively rare and although some concepts have
been proposed for the North Sea (particularly with reference to offshore LNG) the only
systems so far installed have been in the Far East.
The Bekapi field in Indonesia developed by Total is typical of this type of production
system. A barge mounted system was utilised for twelve months from July 1974 to July
1975 as an early production system.
The system consisted of the following elements:

—A single wellhead platform.
—A barge mounted production system connected to the wellhead by a 4 in. flexible riser.
—A storage system consisting of two 1500 ton barges capable of holding two days
production each.
—A shuttle tanker capable of round tripping to Balikpapan in 48 hours.
2.1.5 Tension Leg Platforms

A tension leg platform (TLP) is a semi-submersible shaped steel structure which is
connected to the sea bed by tubular steel mooring lines or ‘legs’. The natural buoyancy of
the platform creates an upward force keeping the legs under constant tension. This
maintains vertical stability while allowing some horizontal movement (Fig. 2.2).
The advantages of the TLP are as follows:
—Minimal horizontal motions and no vertical motions.
—The tethers offer a more efficient length-to-cost ratio than conventional platforms, i.e.
such a system would be substantially cheaper than a conventional platform in deeper
water.
—Most of the assembly can be carried out in sheltered, near shore waters before tow out
to the production site.
—Good payload capacity, but weight control is critical.
—The super-structure can be built in a shipyard.
—Can provide workover capability.
The disadvantages:
—Limited to water depths over 150 m.
—It is not possible to convert a semi-submersible to a TLP.
The first oilfield to be developed using a TLP is the Hutton field which is located about
150 km north east of the Shetland Islands in about 160 m of water. The recoverable
reserves are estimated at 200 m barrels.
The TLP consists of four basic elements—the deck, the hull, the mooring system and
the well template.
FIG. 2.2. Typical tension leg platform.

The deck measures 78 m by 74 m. It consists of three integrated deck levels containing
the main process and support systems: the main deck, the mezzanine level and the
weather deck on top. External modules for the drilling rig, power generation,
accommodation, helideck and flare tower were contracted to yards in a number of

locations in the UK and elsewhere.
The hull, which weighs some 20000 tons, is a semi-submersible structure of six
columns interconnected by pontoons, all of which are compartmented, providing
buoyancy and containing a ballasting system. The four corner columns are 17.4 m in
diameter and the two inner columns 14.5 m in diameter. Each column is 65 m high. In
normal operating conditions only half of the hull is above sea level. Deballasting holds
the legs in tension, keeping the platform stable in the most severe weather conditions.
The mooring system consists of tethers connecting the four corners of the hull to a
piled foundation on the sea bed. The tethers consist of 260 mm steel tubes with a 75 mm
hollow core; they are manufactured in stands of 9.5 m. The tension leg system is so
designed that individual tethers can be removed for maintenance or inspection without
affecting the integrity of the platform.
The well template is a tubular steel structure which is piled to the sea bed and through
which production wells are drilled and the sales line delivers crude oil to the export
system. The template is designed to permit pre-drilling of 10 wells which allowed Hutton
to come on stream quickly.
Although the Hutton field was discovered in 1973 a detailed development plan was
not submitted to the Department of Energy until January 1980 and was approved in
August of that year. The main structural contracts were awarded in mid-1981 and
development drilling began in that year after installation of the well template. The deck
was loaded out in February 1984 and mated with the hull in May 1984; the total structure
was installed on the Hutton field in August and the TLP came on stream in October 1984.
2.1.6 Articulated Column

An articulated column is a structure which is connected to a base (gravity or piled) on the
sea bed by means of an articulated joint, normally a cardan type joint. The structure is
maintained in a floating condition by means of a flotation collar located just below the
surface of the water. The column may be fabricated from steel (in tubular or trellis
fashion), or concrete, or a combination of steel and concrete. Because of its articulated
connection, the column follows the movement of the waves and is capable of inclining
itself in any particular direction.
Starting at the sea bed the various elements of the column are as follows: base,
articulated joint, floating column, buoyancy or flotation tank just below the surface,
splash zone element transparent to wave action and the head of the column. The
advantages of articulated columns for producing marginal fields are:
—Because the columns are light in steel they are inexpensive relative to fixed structures.
—Depth insensitive, articulated columns have been designed for 1000 m water depth.
—Wells can be pre-drilled.
—Mooring uses proved components, i.e. cardan joint.
—Satisfactory motion response.
—Storage possibilities in the base structure.
—Can incorporate offloading boom for SPM operations.
The disadvantages are:
—Low payload capability, it is unlikely that an articulated column could be used alone as
a production support.
—No work-over capability.
—No gas lift or water injection capability.
The only development utilising an articulated column as a production support is the
North East Frigg field developed by Elf. North East Frigg is a marginal field 18 km from
the Frigg field, the reserves of which were not sufficient to justify a traditional
development.
The development incorporates the following elements:
(1) A subsea station which includes the wellheads for six clustered gas producing wells, a
manifold, the control umbilicals and the 16 in. export line to the Frigg field. The
equipment is protected by a heavy subsea template (20 m×30 m×8 m, 350 tonnes)
piled to the sea bed.
(2) The field control station (FCS) consists of an 8 m diameter articulated steel tubular
column installed in 100 m of water and located 150 m from the subsea station. The
function of the FCS is to house the equipment required to
—convert electrical signals from the Frigg field into hydraulic pressures for operating
the subsea gas production valves;
—control closely the wells through individual 2 in. kill lines;
—periodically leak test the production tubing safety valves in each well;
—inject continuously hydrate inhibitor into wells during gas flow.
(3) Six specially designed umbilicals, each consisting of one 2 in. tube and twenty
tubes, link each christmas tree to the deck of the FCS.
(4) The North East Frigg facilities are linked to TCP2 Frigg field platform via a 16 in. gas
line.
The field development was begun in 1981 with the construction and installation of the
subsea template and manifold. The wells were drilled in 1982 and completed in 1985;
assembly and installation of the FCS took place in 1983. The total system was
commissioned in 1984 and production began in that year.
The North East Frigg production support is designed for unattended operation.
Routine maintenance is carried out by personnel from the Frigg platform as required.
2.1.7 The Guyed Tower

The guyed tower is another form of compliant structure which has been installed by
Exxon. This structure is designed particularly for deep water fields in the Gulf of Mexico.
The tower is supported by a piled foundation and its stability is maintained by a series of
guy wires radiating from the steel tower and termination on piled or gravity anchors on
the sea bed. Weights located three-fifths of the way down the guy
FIG. 2.3. Guyed tower.
wires will allow the structure to tilt without seriously affecting the tension of the wires
(Fig. 2.3).
The guyed tower has the following advantages:
—In similar water depths it is much cheaper than conventional platforms.
—It is easy to build because of repetition of design joints.
The disadvantages are:
—Unproven technology.
—Limited payload.
—No storage.
—Installation and maintenance costs of guy wires unknown.
—Guy wires may snarl fishing trawls.
There has been only one development incorporating a guyed tower as a production
support; that is Mississippi Canyon Block 280in the Gulf of Mexico which has been
developed by Exxon. The site is in 300 m of water and lies approximately 183 km south-
east of New Orleans.
Twenty guy lines secure the tower to the sea bed and allow it to comply with wind and
wave forces. Each of the guys is 520 m long and is terminated on the sea bed by 200 ton
weights. The weights are joined together on the sea bed somewhat like bicycle chain
links. Anchor lines 400 m long extend from each clump to an anchor pile. The production
equipment provides separation, oil treatment, gas dehydration and compression for
50MMcfd of natural gas, 30000 b/d of oil and condensate and 10000 b/d of water. Eight
main piles have been driven through the centre of the tower into the sea bed to support
the weight of the structure and an additional six 1828 mm diameter piles were driven
around the outside of the tower to keep it from twisting.
The tower was loaded out and installed in July 1983 and production began in early
1984.
2.1.8 Design Criteria for Marginal Field Production Supports

Each oilfield development presents its own unique mix of problems to those entrusted
with the task of selecting an appropriate production scheme. Also, while each system
may consist of individually suitable components, the highly interactive nature of these
elements—be they production support, riser system, subsea system or offloading—can
lead to some incompatability if the system as a whole is not well designed.
The design criteria for a floating production support are briefly listed in order of
importance (Patel, M.H., Technical Assessments of Floating Production Systems):
—A sufficiently high payload to allow all necessary processing and to encompass the
required marine systems and possible oil storage.
—Sufficiently low wave-produced support motions to permit process plant, marine
equipment and the crew to function with an economically viable minimum down time.
—Acceptable mooring system loads in extreme sea states but with sufficiently low
mooring offsets to allow a riser system to function with low down time.
—Acceptable system behaviour in very extreme sea states with or without remedial
actions such as pulling risers or slackening moorings.
—Acceptable product transport or sales system (pipe line or SPM) to ensure continuous
production with minimal weather down time.
—Certification, inspection and maintenance considerations.
—Capital and operating costs.
—Construction or conversion time scales; also installation time.
TABLE 2.1
Summary of Characteristics of Production Supports
Production Motions Mooring Conversion Payload No. Water Work- Storage
support possible of depth over
wells (m)
1. Jack-up None None Yes Limited 2–10 110 Yes None
2. Semi-sub Small Conventional Yes Limited 4–40 70– Yes Small
1000
3. Tanker Small SPM/conventional Yes Large 2–10 50– No Large
750
4. Barge Small Conventional Yes Limited 2–10 50– No Large
150
5. TLP Minimal Tension leg No Good 20– 150– Yes None
40 1000
6. Articulated Minimal Articulated joint No Limited 6–10 100– No Minimal

column 600
7. Guyed Minimal Pile plus guy wire No Limited 40– 100– Yes Minimal
tower system 60 400
TABLE 2.2
Comparison of Four Tanker Based Marginal
Production Systems
Installation Vessel Mooring Water Wave Production Number Excess gas
site size type depth ht. capacity of wells disposal
(dwt.) (m) (max., (b/d) (max)
m)
Castellon 60000 SALS 117 15 20000 1 Incinerators
field (Spain)
Nilde field 80000 SALS 90 18 20000 1 Vent Stack
(Italy)
Cadlao field 127 000 SBS 90 17 30 000 2 Ground
(Philippines) Flare
Tazerka field 210000 SALS 140 18 20000 8 Vent System
(Tunisia)
Source: Carter, H.T. and Foolen, J., Evolutionary developments advancing the floating production,
storage and offloading concept. OTC 4273, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
1982.
TABLE 2.3
Factors Affecting Choice of a Marginal Field
Production Support
Drilling/ No. of Environmental Water depth Type of support
workover wells conditions (m)
Mild/moderate 300 DP tanker with workover
rig
One Severe 700 Conventionally anchored
semi-sub
Yes
Mild/moderate 100–500 Jack-up/semi-sub

Several Severe 100–500 Jack-up/semi-sub
No One Mild/moderate 50 Barge

700 Conventionally anchored

tanker
Severe 300/500 SWOPS/semi-sub
Mild/moderate 750 Tanker weather vane

150–1000 Semi-sub
Several
Severe −250 Semi-sub
−1 000 TLP
There are a large range of design tools available for the selection and testing of the
various elements of a marginal production system. Computer programs have been
developed which can accurately predict the motion characteristics of various production
supports under the influence of forces generated by specific environmental conditions.
These programs can examine several mooring configurations and check riser
configurations.
Table 2.1 and 2.3 summarise the characteristics of the various production supports and
give an indication of the conditions under which each support can be used.
Table 2.2 compares four tanker based production systems.
2.2 RISERS
The riser is one of the most important and complex items in any offshore development,
floating or fixed. Before proceeding to an examination of the various riser systems
currently being used it is perhaps useful to examine some of the terms used in connection
with risers.
Definition—‘riser’ is a generic term describing a single tubular or a series of tubulars
connecting a sea bed termination to a facility at, or above, the sea surface. The term
applies whether fluids are moving upwards or downwards.
In general there are five possible riser systems:
(a) production riser system,
(b) drilling riser,
(c) workover riser,
(d) wireline riser,
(e) product sales/export riser.
Production Riser System

This embraces all those elements associated with fluid movement from the sea bed to the
production facility, including:
(a) at the lower end a riser connection package (RCP);
(b) at the upper end, the fluid off-takes and the tensioners including compressors and
controls.
Also included in the production riser system are such items as the RCP test stump, riser
test equipment and all riser handling, running and pulling equipment which supplements
the derrick, draw-works and outfitted cranage.
Riser Bundle
This includes all the tubulars, any structural members, buoyancy collars, guide funnels,
individual line tensioners, articulated joints, telescopic joints etc. which make up the
completed production riser system in its operational form, but excluding the main
tensioning system and the fluid off-take flexibles.
Integral Riser Bundle

This is an arrangement whereby the pulling (retrieval) of a single riser line requires the
pulling of the bundle.
Non-Integral Riser Bundle

This is an arrangement whereby a single riser line may be pulled without disturbing other
riser lines within the bundle and without interruption of the function of the other lines.
Composite Riser Systems

This is a system which incorporates both integral and non-integral features. It is usually
the type of riser system used in offshore floating production systems.
Lines within the Production Riser System:

These may include the following:
(a) Production riser—the tubular which conducts upwards the ‘produced fluids’ from the
well (or wells if comingled flows are achieved subsea) to the process plant.
(b) Gas lift riser—the line which conducts downwards the gas which is to be introduced
into the production string down-hole for well ‘kick-off’ (inert or associated
hydrocarbon gases) or for production flow enhancement (associated hydrocarbon
gases). This line may serve a single well or a series of injection wells.
(c) Annulus monitoring line—this line permits periodic monitoring of the well annulus.
(d) Export riser—usually a large single bore tubular carrying the processed crude
downwards to the sea bed for onward transmission to a pipeline or tanker loading
facility (sometimes called a sales riser).
(e) Gas export riser—a single or multiple line carrying produced gas to the sea bed for
onward transmission.
(f) Service riser—one or more lines which have several duties, the more important of
which are the hydraulic testing of the connected riser lines and flushing out of riser
lines prior to pulling.
(g) Hydraulic control lines to control well functions, riser hydraulic connectors, air can
monitoring and control.
Riser Joint
This is one finite length of fluid conductor between connections; these connections may
be screwed, bolted or may have ‘dogs’ or latches.
Stand
This consists of two or three joints made up to 100 ft in length, the stand being stowed in
the derrick rack. The handling of stands obviously reduces riser running/pulling times.
This operation is similar to drill pipe handling during drilling.
Riser Test Stump

This is a replica of the sea bed riser connection array used for pressure testing of the riser
connection package (RCP) and the checking of dimensional compatability before running
the riser.
2.2.1 Riser Design Criteria

In general the riser system should be designed to be simple, operationally flexible, use
well proven components and be capable of being handled in 100 year storm conditions.
The design of the riser is very much dependent on the field characteristics and the
other elements of the production system. Among the factors to be considered in riser
design are the following:
—volume and number of production streams;
—level of subsea manifolding;
—field secondary recovery requirements, e.g. water injection and gas lift;
—drilling/workover capacity of the production support;
—riser 100 year storm capability;
—export and sales requirements;
—the extent to which novel components may be incorporated;
FIG. 2.4. Risers.
FIG. 2.5. Flexible risers.

—installation, maintenance and repair requirements.

Only when all these elements have been considered in detail can the riser be designed and
evaluated. Figure 2.4 shows various arrangements of tensioned rigid risers while Fig. 2.5
shows the options available when flexible risers are used.
2.2.2 Operational Riser Systems

Since riser systems are highly individual and are designed for specific operational
requirements it is difficult to establish general operational systems. In order to bring out
the various elements of riser design and operation, six riser systems will be examined in
detail:
—Argyll/North Sea
—Dorado/Spain
—Buchan/North Sea
—Campos Basin/Brazil
—Casablanca/Spain
—Balmoral/North Sea
The first three installations listed above are permanent tensioned rigid riser systems of
various types. The second three installations have flexible riser systems.
Argyll Riser System

The main function of the Argyll riser is to transport crude oil production from a subsea
manifold to the semi-submersible production support and then to transport processed
crude from the support back to the subsea manifold for offloading by tanker at an SBM.
The initial production system, installed in 1975, comprised four satellite oil wells
produced to a subsea manifold and individually routed up the riser. The subsea manifold
was designed to accommodate up to six production lines, four water injection lines, one
export line, one service line and one purge line. In 1979 a crack appeared in the export
line of the manifold and a replacement manifold was designed and fabricated. The second
manifold did not include the four water injection lines. Two further production wells
were brought on stream in 1979 and these were accommodated on the new manifold.
The Argyll riser is a rigid non-integral riser consisting of the central export oil line of
10 in. nominal diameter acting as a structural strength member with ten non-integral
production, service and purge lines (4 in. nom. dia.) and one hydraulic line spaced around
the periphery in guide funnels. The riser is composed of sections joined by a standard
threaded connection and is retrievable to the semi-sub on disconnection from the subsea
manifold by a remotely actuated, hydraulic connector. A flexible universal joint sits
above the hydraulic connector in order to permit relative angular motions between the
riser and the subsea manifold.
The top of each riser is connected to an individual tensioner and motion compensator
similar in configuration to a normal drilling riser.
The non-integral concept was chosen for the Argyll field because this allowed the
operator to retrieve single lines for maintenance without halting production.
Since the Argyll production system utilises a tanker offloading system and because
there is no storage capacity in the production support, the limiting factor for riser
disconnection is the sea state at which the tanker would have to disconnect from the
mooring buoy. However, operational experience has shown that tanker disconnection is
not the limiting factor but the heave of the semi-submersible is in fact the over-riding
design parameter. A maximum semi-sub heave of 2.0 m leads to riser disconnection; this
heave occurs at wave heights well below the design case for tanker disconnection.
Dorado Riser System

The Dorado field consists of three closely positioned subsea production wells. The field
was developed in two phases. Phase 1 began in 1978 and comprised a long-term
production test from a single well; production was via a subsea test tree and tubing
string to a surface tree. Crude oil was exported by a tanker loaded directly from the semi-
sub by a floating hose. The second phase comprised the drilling of two additional subsea
wells and their connection to the semi-sub via a rigid riser system.
The Dorado riser system for the three wells was individual rigid tensioned lines
transporting produced fluids to the semi-sub production support. A flex joint is used at
the bottom of each riser string to accommodate riser deflections caused by vessel
movements. The initial concept for the individual risers was to run the production
line inside a 7 in. casing with the dual purpose of riser protection and the provision of an
annulus. The production lines were run to surface trees. However, the high bending
movements at the subsea tree connection anticipated for the 100 year storm design
condition rendered the initial concept unacceptable. Eventually after a detailed study the
7 in. casing was dispensed with.
Because of the individual nature of the risers the Dorado field was the first to use its
riser system for both production and wireline workover operations from a semi-sub
without affecting production from the other wells.
Buchan Riser System

The function of the Buchan riser system is similar to that of the Argyll system, i.e. the
transport of produced fluids from a subsea manifold to the semi-submersible production
support and from there to transport the crude oil back to the manifold for eventual export
via a tanker based export system.
The riser system chosen is a rigid non-integral system similar to Argyll with the
addition of a considerable number of lines to accommodate future gas lift for the seven
subsea wells (five template and two satellite).
The Buchan riser is shown in Fig. 2.6. Since its installation in 1982 the Buchan riser
has been made up of one central export oil line (12 in. nom. dia.) with eight production
oil lines (4 in. nom. dia.), eight gas lift lines (2 in. nom. dia.) and two service lines (4 in.
nom. dia.), each integral with its associated production line.
The export line is made up of 50 ft lengths. At the top end, the export
FIG. 2.6. Buchan riser system.
line is supported by a tension collar to which eight riser tensioners are connected. A
gooseneck mounted on top of the riser carries the 12 in. hose which connects to the semi-
sub. At the bottom, the export line is flanged to a universal joint which is fixed to the
subsea manifold by a connector. The peripheral lines are also built in 50 ft lengths. Four
tensioners provide the tension for the peripheral risers by distribution through a system of
bridles.
The Buchan riser is designed to permit production in sea states of up to 5 m significant
wave height and to remain connected in sea states of up to 6.5 m significant wave. The
design wave height for riser disconnection is 7 m whereas the design wave for
disconnection of the loading tanker is 5 m (see Chapter 5).
FIG. 2.7. Enchova flexible riser

systems.
2.2.3 Flexible Risers

The various elements of the flexible riser system can be seen by reference to Fig. 2.7;
they include the following main items:
—flexible riser,
—quick connect/disconnect coupling,
—bend restrictor,
—anchoring device,
—riser stainless steel outerwrap.
A flexible line is basically composed of steel and plastic. Steel components ensure the
mechanical performance and plastic components render the flexible pipe leakproof. This
combination constitutes the patented pipe structure.
The typical riser structure includes five principal layers:
—An interlocking spiralled steel carcass (layer 1) provides resistance to crushing and
prevents deformation of the pipe.
—An inner thermoplastic sheath (layer 2) and an outside thermoplastic sheath (layer 5)
composed of polyamide II render the riser leakproof.
—An interlocking zeta spiral (layer 3), called the pressure armour, ensures the inner
Rilsan sheath’s binding and the integrity of the structure’s internal pressure.
—Two cross-armoured steel wire layers (layer 4) provides resistance to pulling and
longitudinal stresses induced by internal pressure.
The quick connect/disconnect coupling is used to disconnect the riser quite rapidly (less
than 10 seconds) in the event of an emergency, such as fire, anchoring chain rupture etc.
without risks of pollution.
FIG. 2.8. Balmoral riser layout.

The plastic bending restrictor is fitted behind the end fitting in order to limit the cyclical
bending movements of the riser caused by the relative motions of the semi-sub.
The riser is anchored so that its position will not be disturbed by the movements of the
semi-submersible platform during its operational life.
The advantages of flexible risers over rigid risers for some applications may be
summarised as follows:
—less investment cost;
—no requirement for riser retrieval in difficult weather conditions, which means less
down time and higher production;
—no sea bottom connection or re-entry which means less maintenance cost;
—more easily and rapidly installed;
—easy extension to system capacity;
—marginal impact on floating vessel design;
—excellent corrosion resistance.
Campos Basin Riser System

The geographical area which has seen the greatest use of flexible risers has been the
Campos Basin, offshore Brazil. The risers have been installed on different fields and in a
variety of water depths. All of the installations have used ‘Coflexip’ flexible pipes as
risers and have generally utilised the free hanging configuration. The Enchova field
production riser is typical of the risers used by Petrobras in other field areas. The
Enchova field began producing in 1979 from a single well via a tubing string inside a
drilling riser and blow out preventer (BOP). The Penrod 72 was used as production
support. Subsequently a subsea satellite well was completed and a flexible riser bundle
installed.
The flexible riser bundle consisted of 4 in. and lines, a 1 in. hydraulic umbilical,
and electrical cable connected between a subsea satellite well and the semi-sub. A
schematic of the riser system is shown in Fig. 2.7.
Preliminary studies were carried out to investigate the feasibility of three separate riser
system designs. Each design consisted of a bundle of four flexible lines to enable the
connection of the subsea wellhead to the semi-submersible platform. The three different
riser systems studied were:
—the double catenary riser,
—the tensioned riser,
—the free hanging riser.
Installation of the flexible lines was carried out by the laying vessel Flexservice I.
Computer calculations and model basin tests led to the selection of the free hanging
riser configuration primarily because of its ease of installation and retrieval.
Casablanca Riser System

Casablanca is a small field in the Mediterranean consisting of two wells. Development of
the field took place in four phases with the first three phases utilising the semi-sub
Alfortunada as a production support.
Phase 1 involved one well producing via the drilling riser and BOP while the second
well produced via a free hanging flexible riser composed of 4 in. and 1 in. lines.
Phase 2 involved the replacement of the initial export system, i.e. direct floating hose
link between the semi-sub and export tanker, with a 12 in. flexible export pipe from the
semi-sub to a subsea export pipeline.
Phase 3 involved the replacement of the drilling riser production method with a subsea
tree and the installation of flexible riser bundles composed of four 6 in. and two 4 in.
lines.
Phase 4 involved the removal of the semi-sub and its replacement by a fixed platform.
Balmoral Riser System

The Balmoral riser system will be the first flexible riser system to be used under North
Sea conditions. The system chosen has been developed from earlier experience with
flexible risers.
Figure 2.8 shows the riser system chosen. The general arrangement consists of four
independent bundles, simple catenary type linking the bow of the vessel through an
intermediate buoy to four riser bases. The intermediate buoys are situated some 50 m
above the sea bed with 15 m spacing between them. The distance between the riser bases
and the template is 100 m.
The lines consist of:
Bundle No. 1 4 in. gas lift
4 in. kill line
3 in. annulus control
Bundle No. 2 2×8 in. production
Bundle No. 3 10 in. export line
Bundle No. 4 2×6 in. water injection
In each bundle all lines are independent and free to move relative to each other.
2.2.4 Alternative Riser Designs

There are several alternative riser designs being proposed for various applications; among
these are:
—ribbon riser,
—articulated column riser,
—catenary flexible riser with subsea tower.
Ribbon Riser
This type of riser system has been developed by Shell for deep water applications and
consists of a flat array of risers in the form of a subsea
FIG. 2.9. Ribbon riser system.

articulated boom (see Fig. 2.9). The risers are rigidly fixed to the production support
vessel with relative motions being accommodated in the articulated boom by elastomeric
joints.
Articulated Column Riser

Articulated columns have generally been used as mooring devices for tanker based
floating production systems. However, the mooring device may also be considered as a
rigid self-standing riser linked to subsea wells (see Chapter 4).
Systems have been designed which have emphasised the compatability of the fluid
transferring equipment with the column and head rotations. This system is particularly
useful in extreme environments and in water depths up to 400 m.
FIG. 2.10. Foster wheeler risers

concept.
Catenary Flexible Riser with Subsea Tower

This concept utilises a submerged articulated tower connected to the surface support by
flexible pipes. The choke manifold may be located on top of the tower within easy diver
access and the use of flexibles eliminates any need for tensioning equipment on the
support. The tower extends to within 45–50 m of the water surface from which flexible
lines can easily be extended to a floating production vessel. Figure 2.10 shows a typical
layout.
2.2.5 Comparative Assessment of Risers

Table 2.4 shows a comparative assessment of ten riser systems under seventeen different
headings. The ten systems assessed were as follows:
A. A riser associated with a single anchor leg mooring (SALM).
B. A rigid integral riser.
C. A rigid non-integral riser.
TABLE 2.4
Comparative Assessment of Risers
Riser system
SALM Rigid risers Flexible risers
Technical and financial A B C D E F G H I J
aspects
1. Weather sensitivity
2. Water depth sensitivity
3. Number of flowlines in the riser
4. Number and spacing of wells in

the well cluster
5. Operational versatility of the
support vessel
6. Rig/riser interface tensioning
7. Riser handling in the moonpool

area
8. Emergency connect/ disconnect
9. Location op. and serv. of choke

manifold
10. Wireline and major workover
11. Technical downtime
12. Repair and maintenance
13. Risk of damage from dropped

objects
14. Removal at end of field life
15. Capital investment
16. Installation and removal costs
17. Operation and maintenance

costs
Note: The larger the circle, the more attractive the feature
D. A single string rigid riser.

E. A rigid ribbon riser.
F. Catenary flexible single well risers.
G. Catenary flexible riser with comingled flow.
H. Balmoral field design riser.
I. Mobil flexible design riser.
J. Catenary flexible riser with subsea tower.
The headings 1–17 have been chosen to represent the attributes normally associated with
riser systems. Headings 1 and 2 relate to the sensitivity to the environment, 3–5 technical
suitability, 6–14 technical aspects and 15–17 economic aspects. Rigid riser systems have
been used exclusively in the North Sea because of their cost and the fact that the location
of all the chokes on the surface vessels gives easy access for all operational requirements.
The Balmoral field will be the first deviation from the use of rigid risers in the North Sea
and should yield significant operational data about flexible risers in severe environments.
The assessment shows that, taken overall, flexible risers would seem to be preferable
to rigid solutions. Certainly in relation to marginal fields, where satellite wells will be a
feature of the production system, the use of flexible risers may become standard.
However, the disadvantages of having control equipment located subsea have so far
restricted the use of flexibles.
2.3 SUBSEA EQUIPMENT
Introduction
The oil industry has always believed in the use of tried and true technology when
designing field developments. One of the cornerstones of oilfield production system
design philosophy has been the requirement to put as much production equipment as
possible ‘in the dry’. This philosophy is well founded in good design practice with such
factors as access, safety, environmental protection and easy operational maintenance
being cited as reasons for this dry equipment requirement. The giant North Sea platforms,
whose function is to house all the equipment associated with production operations, are a
testament to the enduring nature of the ‘all in the dry’ design philosophy.
The industry took its first step into subsea production equipment in the 1950 s when
an ordinary land production tree was installed a few feet underwater. Since then major
advances have taken place in subsea equipment development and several subsea
production systems are in existence or under test which will greatly extend the range of
application of this technology.
As with offshore loading systems, which are examined in detail in Section 2.5, subsea
production equipment has become a feature of marginal field development schemes.
There are four basic elements in a subsea production system, i.e. template, wells,
manifold and control system. The specific configurations of these elements are defined
by the reservoir characteristics and the other components of the development scheme,
particularly the riser.
2.3.1 Subsea Template

A subsea template is simply a large tubular steel structure designed to accommodate a
number of wellhead assemblies and christmas trees for wells which may be either
production wells or injection wells. The purpose of the template is to provide a base
through which the subsea wells are drilled; it also spaces and aligns wellhead equipment
(Fig. 2.11).
Templates may be either of unitised or modular construction. A unitised template is
generally used when six or more wells have to be drilled; the template is fabricated from
large tubular members and incorporates a receptacle for each well and a three or four
point levelling system. Drilling equipment guidance is achieved through the use of
integral guide posts or retrievable guide structures.
The unitised template is normally used where the number of wells
FIG. 2.11. 21 Well subsea template.
required has been fixed and/or several slots can be left empty for future use. Templates
are usually fabricated at a dockside facility and are normally of ‘passive’ or non-buoyant
construction (Fig. 2.11).
The modular template system consists of a template structure made up of several

interlocking modules, and is used where greater flexibility in the drilling programme is
required. The template is normally piled to the sea bed. Before piling begins the template
must be levelled. Once the template has been levelled and piled the well drilling
programme may proceed.
Wells which are drilled through a template are called cluster wells.
2.3.2 The Wells

The first general classification of wells, wellhead equipment and christmas trees is
whether they are subsea or surface. For the purpose of this section we will consider only
subsea configurations.
The second general classification is more or less self explanatory: subsea wells can be
clustered or satellite. Clustered wells are generally drilled through a template while
satellite wells can be offset by anything up to 8 km from the point at which the crude is
processed.
The third general classification is between wet and dry subsea wells. Wet wells are
those in which the christmas tree and associated equipment is open to the marine
environment while dry subsea wells are normally encased in a habitat which is at
atmospheric pressure.
The fourth and final classification refers to the method of intervention in the well in
order to carry out various maintenance operations. Wells may be worked over (or
maintained) by wireline, i.e. direct intervention from the production support or a service
vessel, or by through-flow-line (TFL) methods, i.e. various tools are pumped into the
well via the production support and the riser system to carry out maintenance operations.
(TFL methods will be examined in detail in a later section.)
The wellhead assembly and christmas tree consist of a structure housing the valves
and controls necessary to monitor and control well fluid flow.
The choice between cluster or satellite wells or indeed a combination of the two is
usually dictated by the reservoir characteristics. The first requirement of any development
plan is that it ensures the most efficient depletion of the reservoir. Cluster wells are
normally deviated wells drilled through a subsea template which may, or may not, be
located directly below the production support. If the field cannot be drained by a cluster
system then a wholly satellite or cluster/satellite combination must be used. A limitation
with satellite wells is the requirement that the reservoir should be sufficiently pressured
in order to ensure flow between the tree and the production support. This requirement
limits the distance a satellite well may be situated from the production support. It is
unlikely that a cluster system would be capable of efficiently draining a shallow
reservoir.
FIG. 2.12. Subsea wellheads.

Four different types of subsea completion trees are shown in Fig. 2.12. The wet/non-
TFL tree which was used on the Castellon field is suitable for use in shallow water and
requires diver assistance for installation and maintenance. Both the dry and wet/TFL trees
are suitable for use in an environment where weather vulnerability makes wireline
operations uncertain.
The latest development in subsea wellheads is the ‘insert tree’ concept developed by
Shell International Petroleum in cooperation with Cameron Iron Works. The normal
subsea tree can stand as much as 10 m above the sea bed which makes it vulnerable to
external damage from trawler boards etc. The insert tree concept is an attempt to lower
substantially the profile of the tree by putting as much of the tree equipment as is possible
downhole. The tree currently stands at 4.3 m above the sea bed and is covered by a
hemispherical cap which further reduces the likelihood of damage. The tree incorporates
TFL as its maintenance system. A test tree has already been installed in Brunei and is
operating satisfactorily.
2.3.3 The Subsea Manifold

The subsea manifold is the interface between the subsea production equipment and the
production riser system. The manifold acts as the subsea point at which
production/injection flowlines and transport/export pipelines are gathered. The manifold
or riser base may be a part of the well template. The manifold is a tubular steel structure
which is rigidly fixed by piles to the sea bed; it is designed for a specific application and
cannot easily be adapted to other development configurations.
Because they are integrally linked there is a trade-off between riser and manifold
design. If the riser is required to be simple the manifold must be designed to comingle the
flows of the various production wells or disperse the flow of the various production wells
and/or disperse the flow to a series of injection wells. The more complex the manifold
design the more controls will be required. Conversely if the riser system is designed to
incorporate individual well risers this substantially reduces the complexity of the
manifold. The design of the riser system and the manifold are thus inextricably linked.
Other factors which influence manifold design are the nature of the product
(oil/gas/condensate), the number and location of the wells, the maximum allowable
pressure drop, the maximum flowrate required, the maintenance system employed (TFL
or non-TFL) and the need for pipeline pigging/scraping from the floating unit.
Manifolds, like christmas trees, can be either wet or dry. In the wet configuration the
manifold is open to the marine environment while in the dry configuration the manifold is
located in a chamber, the interior of which is maintained at atmospheric pressure.
The manifold incorporates a further function which is of great importance. The riser
base is usually located on the manifold and is surmounted by an assembly which permits
the remote disconnection or connection of a number of lines. This element of the
manifold is extremely important for marginal field systems employing floating
production supports and has been the subject of considerable study in the past five years.
2.3.4 The Garoupa Subsea Production System
Garoupa, which is located 260 km east north-east of Rio de Janeiro, is the world’s largest
subsea production system using equipment installed in dry, atmospheric chambers
located on the sea bed at water depths ranging from 118 to 165 m. The system is
currently producing some 23200 b/d of oil (Fig. 2.13).
The system consists of two major components, the wellhead cellar (WHC), a dry 1-
atmosphere pressure chamber which houses the production tree and control equipment,
and a dry 1-atmosphere manifold centre.
The Garoupa wells were drilled and completed by a conventional semi-submersible.
The wells were completed in such a way as to leave them live. After setting the down-
hole safety valve and locking the tubing plugs the BOP stack was removed and the
wellhead cellar was keelhauled to place it in position beneath the drilling slot of the semi-
sub. The WHC was then picked up by the drillpipe and lowered to the ocean floor where
it was mated with the conductor pipe, using the same profile as the BOP stack. The WHC
was made fast by actuating the hydraulic connector.
FIG. 2.13. Garoupa.

The various disassembled parts of the production tree, valves, crossovers etc. are
stowed within the WHC awaiting installation and commissioning. The upper part of the
WHC is fitted with a vertical cylinder, called a teacup, which contains a recall buoy and
cable spool to permit later access through the service capsule. The upper rim of the
teacup serves as a mating flange.
The WHC is also fitted with two bullnose ports for flowline pull in and connection.
Once the WHC installation is complete the semi-submersible may move to another
location and continue its drilling programme. Commissioning of the WHCs was
completed by crews who accessed the WHC by means of the service capsule.
The manifold centre is cylindrical in cross-section: 5 m diameter and 24 m long. It
contains a 12 in. header for comingling flows from all wells, chokes for individual well
control, a 4 in. header for testing individual wells, and a pigging system. Provision has
been made for future gas lift operations. The manifold centre sits on a 400 ton base which
is equipped with a variable ballasting system to control buoyancy during tow out and
installation. Access to the manifold centre is by means of the same teacup arrangement as
used in the WHCs.
The Garoupa field subsea production system has been in operation since 1979 and has
helped establish the concept of subsea production. The technological step taken in this
project, i.e. removing production equipment from a dry surface environment to a dry
subsea environment, was logical and correct. The operation of the system has been
carefully monitored by Petrobras and figures presented show that the manifold centre has
been available for production 98% of the time. Down time for the WHCs has varied from
unit to unit with an average time on production of 96%. These figures would seem to
indicate that the subsea production system was not a limiting factor in field down time.
2.3.5 The Grondin Experimental Station

The Grondin subsea experimental station was installed by Elf Aquitaine during 1976/77
in 61 m of water 1500 m north-east of the fixed platform complex on the Grondin field
operated by Elf Gabon.
The station was designed and installed in order to test techniques which would be
required in a deep water subsea production system. Although designed to be diverless and
operated and maintained remotely the station was located well within diving range and its
operation could be carefully monitored.
The subsea station included three subsea wells situated on a template with the
necessary manifolding and flowlines. Operations were conducted from the barge
Anguille.
The most interesting aspect of this development was the robot manipulator which was
developed by the Matra Company specifically for this project. The manipulator is
mounted on rails which surround the template structure and can be located to carry out
maintenance tasks on any well.
The subsea station was used to test the overall diverless subsea production concept as
well as carrying out an extensive test programme on individual components such as the
manipulator system, the hydraulic power unit, umbilicals, electrical and hydraulic
connectors, guidelines and safety valves. Although some problems were encountered in
the test programme, particularly with the initial remote manipulator system, the Grondin
subsea production project marked an important technological step in establishing the
subsea production concept and in demonstrating the suitability of the various elements for
subsea operation.
2.3.6 The Exxon Submerged Production System (SPS)

The Exxon submerged production system (SPS) was, along with the Grondin test station
described above, an important technological step in proving subsea technology. In
common with the Grondin system the SPS was designed to operate in deep water but is
just as applicable to marginal field situations.
The SPS was constructed by Exxon and installed in 52 m of water in the West Delta
Block 73 field off the Louisana coast. The Exxon concept consists of a large buoyant
template which is used to accommodate a preassembled and tested production manifold
and a pump/separator unit. After installation of the structure directional wells were drilled
through slots in the template and the christmas trees were connected to the preinstalled
manifold. The remotely controlled manifold is designed to gather production, to
distribute pumpdown tools, to control secondary recovery operations by distributing gas,
lift gas and injected fluids, and to permit maintenance and pigging of the manifold
equipment. The pump/separator maintains a low pressure in the production header by

separating the produced liquids from the gas and by pumping the liquids to the surface.
The well fluids are transmitted to a production support vessel via an articulated
production riser which was initially located some distance from the manifold.
Maintenance of the Exxon SPS is carried out by a remotely controlled manipulator
which is lowered from a surface service vessel when required.
A series of tests were carried out to establish the operating qualities of the various
components and the system as a whole. The tests succeeded in establishing subsea
production technology and led to many design improvements in various items of
equipment.
2.3.7 The Frigg North East Subsea Development

The Frigg North East subsea development is a natural extension and utilisation of the
technology developed by Elf Aquitaine on their Grondin test station.
The heart of the Frigg N.E.development is a subsea template which weighs 350 tons,
is 30 m long, 17 m wide and 8 m high. The template has provisions for six deviated wells
and a manifold.
Since Frigg is a gas field the subsea system is extremely sensitive to leakages, and
therefore novel gas detection devices, using underwater sonar to detect changes in water
density, have been installed.
The subsea production system was diver installed but has been designed to operate
without diver intervention throughout its five year design life. Divers will be used to
make periodic inspections. However, since every element of the system is removable,
repair and maintenance will be carried out by removing the faulty module and repairing it
on the surface.
The template was installed and has been in position on the sea bed since June 1981.
The six production wells were drilled in 1982 and production began in November 1983.
2.3.8 The Central Cormorant Underwater Manifold Centre

The Central Cormorant underwater manifold centre (UMC) is an extension of the
technology developed by Exxon on its SPS programme. The UMC is similar in
appearance to the SPS but offers additional features such as being able to serve either
wells drilled directly through the template, or remote satellite wells tied-in to the
manifold using flowlines and spool-pieces.
The UMC can accommodate up to nine wells and provides four functions:
—a template through which wells are drilled and satellite wells tied in,
—a fluid collection and delivery system,
—a sea water distribution centre for injection into the reservoir,
—a subsea equipment maintenance system.
The UMC is installed in 152 m of water, weighs 2200 tonnes, is 52 m long by 42 m wide
and 15 m high. The UMC utilises a remote maintenance vehicle (RMV) to carry out
maintenance without the need for divers.
This development constitutes the current state of the art in subsea production systems
since it includes all the elements, e.g. production, delivery, control, maintenance and
reservoir pressure maintenance, associated with offshore operations. The structure was
installed in May 1982, drilling began in October 1982, and production started in mid-
1983. The operational experience with the UMC should establish the viability of subsea
manifold systems.
2.3.9 The Skuld Concept

The Skuld project is an extension of the Elf technology tested in Grondin and utilised in
Frigg N.E. The objectives of the Skuld project are:
—to demonstrate the feasibility of installing and maintaining a subsea production station
from the surface without using divers;
—to investigate the possibility of controlling the station from an installation 30 km away;
—to demonstrate the subsea system’s reliability over a long period.
The subsea station consists of a template with wells drilled through slots and con0nected
to a manifold; it will be installed at a depth of 10 m near the Norwegian Underwater
Technology Centre (NUTEC) at Gravdal. The test period is one year, which will be used
to simulate a 20 year life.
The main technological advance to be tested will be in the area of control. The subsea
station is controlled by an operator, who by means of a computer sends coded messages
to the station through an under-water cable. These messages activate the hydraulic
pressure system, to open and close valves. Operations are monitored on a computer
screen and there is two-way communication between operator and station.
The project began in mid-1984 and terminated in mid-1985.
2.3.10 The Poseidon Concept

All the subsea production systems considered to date involve the need for a production
support nearby or, in the case of Skuld, 30 km distant. The Poseidon concept takes subsea
production further by considering the possibility of operating subsea production stations
at distances of up to 200 km from the point where the crude is processed.
The Poseidon concept is presently under study by Total and IFP, and involves the use
of booster stations along the export pipeline in order to flow the wellhead products to the
nearest landfall. The desirability of such a system, eliminating as it does the costly
production support, is evident.
One of the major problems associated with this concept is that of dealing with two-
phase flow operations. However, IFP have been researching into two-phase flow for
seven vears and have built a sophisticated test facility at Boussins in the South of France.
One of the results of this programme has been the development of two-phase flow
pumping equipment which will be incorporated in the Poseidon booster station design.
The Poseidon research programme is currently underway and, if successful, would
constitute a substantial advancement in subsea production technology.
The proposed system consists of the following elements:
—Satellite or cluster wells, fitted with subsea wellheads. If down-hole pumping is

required the new two-phase pump will be used.
—Flowlines linking the wells to a central station; in the case of satellite wells flowlines
will be doubled to permit pigging.
—A central subsea station performing the following functions:
*connection of flowlines and isolation of wells with cut-off valves;
*gathering of the production;
*expedition to shore of the two-phase flow by means of the newly developed pumps;
*control of pipeline pigging and inhibitor injection at the wellhead;
*connection of the pipeline to the station.
—A multiphasic pipeline.
—A remote control system, comprising a coast/station link-up.
—Electricity supply system for the subsea station.
The entire system is of modular design and maintenance will be carried out by a surface
service vessel capable of retrieving modules.
The advantages of the system are:
—lower investment,
—greater versatility, because of modular design,
—greater safety,
—lower processing costs.
2.3.11 Subsea Control System

Subsea production systems present unique problems in the area of wellhead and manifold
control system design. There are two basic methods for controlling wellhead
equipment—hydraulic and electrical control.
Hydraulic control systems, including direct, piloted and sequenced hydraulic, have the
advantage that they are the simplest, most reliable and lowest cost type of control system
depending, as they do, on the flow of hydraulic fluid to actuate the command. However, a
significant disadvantage of hydraulic control systems for oil and gas operations is the
slow response time, i.e. the time between the command being given and the action being
carried out. The response time is a function of the distance to be travelled by the fluid.
Therefore, in the case of subsea wells being controlled from a production support up to 8
km away these response times tend to be unacceptable for what may be emergency
operations. Also, hydraulic control bundles tend to be bulky items and should be avoided
if possible.
Electrical control has the advantage of very short response times but has proven
unreliable in practice. Because of the inherent weakness in each control method a hybrid
system has been devised which utilises the strengths of each individual method. The
electro-hydraulic multiplexed controls normally used for subsea operations involve the
signal from the support to the subsea equipment being transmitted electrically, a control
pod situated on the subsea equipment converts the incoming electrical signal into a
hydraulic signal, and the hydraulic signal actions the command. In this way response time
over a totally hydraulic system is substantially improved and the reliability of the
hydraulic system is utilised where it is needed most, i.e. subsea. Control pods are
normally designed and installed for easy removal if repairs are required. Disadvantages
include high cost, complexity, increased maintenance and limited experience.
2.3.12 Subsea Equipment Repair and Maintenance

Each subsea production system must be designed with repair and maintenance
considerations very much to the fore. The ‘all in the dry’ design mentality of the oil
industry can be undoubtedly attributed to repair and maintenance considerations.
It is only logical, therefore, that the first steps in subsea technology were taken in
water depths where manned intervention was possible. As water depths increased
designers began to look at ways of making manned intervention possible or unnecessary.
This leads to the first categorisation of maintenance systems: those in a dry habitat such
as in the Garoupa field development; tasks performed by divers (under saturation or in
atmospheric diving suits); and those systems maintained by remote manipulators where
subsea units are constructed modularly, and modules can be retrieved for maintenance
without affecting the continuing operation of the subsea unit.
The dry habitat system is the equivalent of surface repair and maintenance. Personnel
are usually transferred to the 1 atmosphere habitat from a special submersible service
unit. This is the system employed for the Garoupa field described earlier. Consequently
the service vessel must always be available and represents a significant operational cost.
The most developed method of effecting repair and maintenance of subsea equipment
is the use of divers, either under saturation or in atmospheric diving suits. This type of
system is depth limited and requires divers on standby. There is a considerable problem
associated with this limitation, i.e. the evacuation of divers enclosed in pressure chambers
from a production support.
Anticipating a move to very deep water where manned intervention will be
impossible, the oil industry has expended no little effort in developing remotely
controlled repair and maintenance methods. The two most advanced subsea production
systems, the Central Cormorant UMC and Skuld, both use the remote control method.
The UMC is maintained by a remote maintenance vehicle (RMV) designed to change out
the electric/hydraulic control units and critical manifold valves; the RMV also carries out
visual inspections. The RMV is carried to location by a special service vessel, is winched
down to the UMC and latches itself onto the railway track which runs through the centre
of the manifold. The RMV then propels itself along the track until it is opposite the
module which needs to be replaced. Control of and power supply to the RMV are through
electrical umbilicals running back to the surface vessel. All operations are monitored by
TV camera, using underwater lighting.
Remote maintenance systems and remote operated vehicles (ROV) seem to be the
future requirement for subsea production systems, and experience gained from the
operation of the UMC RMV and the Skuld project should lead to the establishment of
this technology.
2.3.13 Intervention in the Wells

There are two basic methods of intervention in wells—wireline and through flowline
(TFL). The operations to be carried out include, but are not limited to: the servicing of
safety systems, setting and retrieving of plugs, running down-hole pressure and
temperature surveys, wax cutting and caliper surveys to monitor corrosion.
Operation by wireline requires the production support for wells drilled directly
beneath it and a service vessel for satellite wells or cluster wells remote from the support.
The method of intervention involves the necessary tools being lowered on the end of a
wireline through a workover riser from a surface vessel. This is the normal method of
intervention from fixed structures. Where satellite developments form part of the field
production scheme, a service vessel is required to carry out wireline operations.
In order to eliminate the need for a service vessel the through flowline (TFL) system
of down-hole intervention has been developed. In the TFL system the service tool, i.e. the
tool which will carry out the specific down-hole operation, is latched to a carrier tool.
The carrier is then pumped down the hole to the desired location. The service tool carries
out the operation which is required, the pneumatic flow path is reversed and the service
tool with its associated carrier string is pumped back to the surface. The TFL system was
designed and developed as a consequence of the proliferation of underwater completed
wells.
Use of TFL requires some design changes in the production wellhead. The tool string
starts at the platform in a vertical position, but since satellite wells are some distance
from the production support the tool changes little by little from the vertical to the
horizontal by means of a gradual bend in the riser service line. At the wellhead the
requirement is for the tool string to enter the well vertically, and therefore the string must
go from the horizontal to the vertical. The 90° shift is accomplished by putting a long
loop in the flowline at the wellhead. The loop must be large enough to accommodate the
tool string as it passes through and gives the characteristic shape to the TFL tree.
TFL technology has become generally accepted and has reached a high level of
sophistication. For example, satellite wells tied-in to a manifold can be serviced
selectively by means of a diverter tool located at the manifold. The diverter allows the
service personnel to select the well they wish to service and diverts the tool string at the
manifold into the flowline of that particular well.
2.3.14 Technical Progress in Subsea Equipment
The use of subsea components in offshore field developments can now be considered as
established technology. Many fields worldwide incorporate satellite wells (whether wet
or dry) and a greater level of confidence is available for systems employing subsea
templates and manifolds. TFL techniques, although not widely used to date, have been
accepted as a viable method for down-hole intervention.
One of the major problems associated with the viability of subsea production systems
is the lack of understanding of the two-phase flow mechanism. This lack of
understanding has thus far limited the distance of satellite wells to approximately 18 km
from the point at which the crude is processed.
TABLE 2.5
List of Fields Employing Subsea Production
Technology
Satellite Completions Satellite to subsea Completions Template and long life
or riser manifold systems
Beryl (4) Argyll (8) Cormorant (9+)
Central
Casablanca (2) Buchan (7) Grondin (2)
Claymore (3) Castellon (1) Frigg N.E. (6)
Cormorant Dorado (2)
Emilio (1) Espoir (5) Total 17
trees
Lavinia (1) Nilde (1)
Magnus (7) Tazerka (6/8)
Murchison (3)
N.Hewitt (2) Total 30 trees
Ninian (1)
Tartan (6)
Total 30 trees
Source: The Oilman, March 1983.
Two major research programmes, one in France and one in Norway, are underway
with a view to gaining a better picture of the two-phase flow mechanism. The empirical
information obtained by these programmes has led to the development of computer
programs which can predict two-phase flow patterns. This type of information is
necessary for two-phase flow pipeline design.
The French research programme has led to the development of a pump capable of
handling two-phase flows. The use of a two-phase flow pump would permit the
possibility of production from satellite wells or fields far distant from the point of crude
oil processing.
A major problem area for subsea production systems is undoubtedly associated with
the control and repair and maintenance functions.
Research programmes are currently underway to improve wellhead control systems,
particularly by employing more accurate transducers. Skuld and other subsea test stations
can be used to establish repair and maintenance procedures, and will inevitably lead to
improvements in equipment design.
Marginal field developments, especially those small fields associated with larger finds,
will make substantial use of subsea production technology. The development plans
accepted for the Texaco Highlander field and Hamilton’s Duncan field shows industry
and government acceptance of subsea technological advances. The research and field
testing stage of this technology is coming to a close and the experience with the existing
producing systems should form the cornerstone of the future designs.
The Poseidon concept opens up new and exciting horizons for subsea production and
will lead to a further refinement of technology.
2.4 STORAGE
Introduction
Crude oil storage in relation to marginal field developments invariably means offshore
storage. In other sections, particularly those on production supports and loading systems,
most of the components used for offshore storage are examined.
Offshore storage is normally required because there is inevitably a question of down
time (time during which a system is not operational) associated with offshore loading
concepts. The normal method of crude evacuation is by shuttle tankers which may be
loaded directly from a loading system or via a storage vessel. If no storage is provided
and adverse weather prevents shuttle tanker loading, the platform supervisory personnel
have no option but to shut down field production. The field reservoir characteristics are
not always consistent with this stop-start type of production so some element of buffer
storage must be considered. The exception to this rule has been Argyll field which has
been subject to this stop-start production rhythm but has suffered no damage as a result.
Several aspects of crude oil evacuation must be examined before a suitable buffer
storage system is selected. Among the factors to be considered are:
—storm occurrence interval and persistancy,
—throughput of oil,
—distance of the field from port of discharge,
—speed of the shuttle tanker,
—number and capacity of the shuttle tanker(s),
—efficiency of discharge port equipment,
—loading system maintenance down time (hoses, hawser, etc.).
The environmental factors will, of course, have a bearing on the type of storage structure
selected but the factors listed above govern the quantity of storage required.
Four basic structures suitable for offshore storage include:
—tanker,
—barge,
—articulated column,
—spar.
2.4.1 Tanker Based Storage Systems

Tanker based storage systems are the most popular method of providing buffer storage
for marginal fields. The reason for this popularity has been the easy availability of all
sizes of tankers since the mid-1970 s overbuild situation. However, while the tanker,
because of its geometry, is eminently suitable as a means of buffer storage, there is a

considerable amount of conversion work required to turn an ocean going tanker into a
stationary storage vessel.
For instance the Fako, a 90 000 dwt. storage tanker on the Kole field, off Cameroon,
required the following conversion jobs:
—mooring system design and installation on site,
—hull reinforcement for anchorlines,
—chain tensioning machine installation,
—installation of mooring fenders and mooring bollards,
—transformation of boilers for gas burning direct from the field,
—cargo crude oil transfer control and safety systems including dewatering by wash
tanks,
—electric power generation including the fitting of an extra turbo alternator and diesel
alternator,
—electrical supply by submerged cable to the platform,
— the provision of hydraulic hose handling cranes and utility winches,
—store and spare parts handling system on deck,
—inert gas system,
—PLEM (pipeline end manifold),
—hoses between PLEM and storage tanker,
—crude oil metering system,
—provision of a helideck,
— modification to crew accommodation,
—cathodic protection,
—the provision of additional fire protection.
The technology of tanker storage has advanced considerably during the past fifteen years
and experience has shown that loading down time has been exclusively associated with
tanker loading equipment and weather rather than the vessels themselves.
Tanker storage is suitable for most environmental conditions with systems installed in
the North Sea, South East Asia, West Africa, the Mediterranean, South America and
offshore California.
2.4.2 Barge Based Storage Systems

The barge is perhaps the simplest floating geometric shape consisting, in its most basic
configuration, of a hollow steel box. Barges as production supports were already
examined in Section 2.1.
Barge storage has not been used extensively, principally because of the availability of
tankers of all sizes. The systems employed to date have incorporated a small amount of
storage, approximately 10000 bbls. This has been a function of the factors mentioned
above rather than a limitation of barge technology itself. The Arco Ardjana IIAPCO
Cinta, a specially built barge with 1000000 bbls storage, has been in service since 1972
offshore Indonesia.
2.4.3 Articulated Column Storage Systems

Articulated columns have already been considered as production supports and will later
be extensively examined as loading systems.
The storage capacity of the articulated column is a byproduct of the column’s
geometry. The articulated column can have a very substantial (depending on the design)
underwater tubular structure which has both buoyancy and stability functions. This
structure, which can be considered as hollow, can be arranged into a series of storage
compartments which can be used for buffer storage if tanker loading is interrupted.
The Maureen Articulated Loading Column, which is examined in detail later, is a steel
concrete hybrid structure 148 m high with a column outside diameter of 10 m. The
column has been designed to incorporate a buffer store of 650000bbis.
2.4.4 SPAR Storage Systems

The SPAR concept is based on the use of a large buoy structure, with a substantial
underwater element, for offshore loading. The SPAR concept in general and the Brent
SPAR in particular are examined in detail in the section on loading systems.
The Brent SPAR is designed to store 300000 bbls of oil in six segmented tanks.
2.4.5 Conclusions
Offshore storage capacity is generally sought in those circumstances where loading
system down time can lead to production shut-in. The various concepts on offer are based
on well proven technology and can easily be adapted to whatever loading system has
been selected. Several loading system designs, particularly SPAR type structures, have
the inherent capability to act as buffer storage.
When used simply as buffer storage, all the systems examined above have proven
operationally successful and have in no way been a limiting factor in the overall
production system’s performance.
2.5 OFFSHORE LOADING SYSTEMS
Introduction
A notable feature of all marginal field and early production systems is the use of an
offshore loading facility for crude oil export. Unless the marginal field is close to shore or
in the vicinity of an existing pipeline system with spare capacity, offshore loading
constitutes the optimum solution, both in terms of technology and cost.
Offshore loading technology has been developed from the use in the 1960 s of buoys
for crude oil transfer from tankers to refinery tank storage. The development of this
technology was necessitated by the inability of very large crude carriers (VLCCs) to dock
at existing port facilities due to draft limitations.
The extension of the technology to encompass the offshore loading of crude oil was
developed in order to eliminate the requirement for sea-bed pipelines and booster stations
and thereby reduce investment costs.
One of the major drawbacks of a mooring buoy loading system is its sensitivity to
environmental conditions. During storms or high sea state conditions, tankers are unable
to moor safely and therefore production must be suspended, sometimes for extended
periods, until the weather improves sufficiently to resume operations.
A solution to this problem is to provide crude oil storage capacity, generally in the
form of a permanently moored tanker, so that production stoppages are eliminated. The
technology has, therefore, evolved on two fronts. First, the development of ‘mooring’
buoy technology and, second, the adaptation of the buoy technology to the provision of
some level of buffer storage.
There are four basic configurations of offshore loading systems with variations
applicable to specific development criteria. The following is a list of the systems
including, where possible, a specific field application.
(a) Catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM)—Buchan field, derivatives include:
—exposed location single buoy mooring (ELSBM)—Auk field,
—SPA—Brent field,
—single buoy storage (SBS)—Ashtart, Tunisia,
—turret moored tanker.
(b) Single anchor leg mooring (SALM)—Thistle field, derivatives include:
—single anchor leg storage (SALS)—Castellon and Tazerka.
(c) Articulated loading column (ALC)—Maureen and Beryl.
(d) Fixed tower—Cayo Arcas.
2.5.1 Offshore Loading System Design Considerations

There are five major factors to be taken into account in the design of an offshore loading
system:
(a) environmental conditions,
(b) reservoir and crude characteristics,
(c) maintenance/operational continuity,
(d) forces exerted by the selected transport,
(e) storage requirements.
Environmental conditions fall into two general categories, water depth and weather
conditions.
Water depth can act as a limiting factor in the choice of feasible loading systems; for
example the SBS is usually limited to a water depth of 150 m because of inherent
problems posed by the catenary chain anchoring subsystem. The loading system must be
capable of surviving the 100 year storm conditions as well as meeting minimum wave
height operational criteria.
Reservoir and crude characteristics translate themselves into three design parameters,
i.e. throughput, type of products and operational pressures.
The rate of production has an obvious effect on system design, particularly the sizing
of the export lines. Because offshore loading systems are usually used in the case of
marginal field or early production, product lines are normally in the range of 8 in. to 12
in. The swivel associated with the loading system must be designed to accommodate the
fluids and withstand their pressures. The transferred fluids may consist of processed
crude, live crude oil and gas directly from the well, natural gas for fuel, hydraulic fluids
for valve control, treated associated water and liquid petroleum gas (LPG). The swivel
must also be designed to handle the various pressures associated with the fluids being
transported. These pressures may vary from 225–275 psi for processed crudes to much
higher pressures for live crude and hydraulic lines (1200–2000 psi).
Most of the offshore loading systems are designed for 100% occupancy, that is they
must be available continuously for fluid transfer. The overall design of the system must
reflect this criterion. In addition, routine and preventative maintenance procedures,
excluding hoses and hawsers, must be designed for execution with the tanker on the
mooring.
Once the export or storage tanker has been selected the forces it will exert on the
loading system can be calculated and the system designed to accommodate those loads.
2.5.2 Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM)

A CALM loading system consists of a circular mooring buoy secured by a series of
catenary anchor chain legs terminating at fixed anchor points on the sea bed. Flexible
floating hoses connect the underside of the buoy to a pipeline end manifold (PLEM) on
the sea bed and the buoy to the tanker manifold respectively. Tankers are moored to the
buoy via a hawser arrangement which attaches to the buoy mooring arm (Figs. 2.14 and
2.15).
This concept has been in existence for over 25 years and some 260 installations have
been made worldwide, although not all the installations are located in an offshore
environment. Table 2.6 indicates the main characteristics of some CALM systems.
The advantages of the CALM system are:
—Multiple fluid streams can be transferred while the moored vessel rotates
around the buoy in response to sea and weather conditions (‘weathervane’).
—Mooring forces are minimised as the tanker assumes a position of least resistance to
the environmental forces (wind, wave and currents).
FIG. 2.14. CALM.
FIG. 2.15. Rigid yoke CALM.

TABLE 2.6
Main Characteristics of some CALM Terminals
Terminal Location Water Tanker Flow rate Oil piping Buoy
depth size (dwt.) (m3/hour) size (in.) diameter
(m) (m)
Rospo Mare Adriatic Sea 22 35000 50 1×12 9
(Italy)
Abu al Persian Gulf 28 230000 530 2×10 12
Bukhoosh (Abu Dhabi)
Panama (2 Chiriqui 23 Up to 9500 2×20 11
buoys) Lagoon 150000
(Panama)
Victoria Gulf of Guinea 57 50 to 5000 2×20 12
280000
Pampo Campos Basin 125 50000 250 1×8 13
(Brazil)
Source: EMH.
—The system is flexible.

—Tankers can be moored and released rapidly.
—The buoy is reusable after the field has been depleted.
—Swivel is located on the buoy for easy dry access.
Some disadvantages are:
—Mooring can only take place in relatively benign conditions making the export system
the limiting factor for production.
—Accidents have occurred during mild weather when the tanker has drifted onto the
buoy and led to damage of the floating hoses.
The Buchan CALM Buoy

Because of the marginal nature of the field, the Buchan development discounted the use
of a dedicated pipeline as an export system for the field. Several offshore loading systems
were considered before a decision was taken to install a CALM system in 112 m of
water.
Based on the environmental data and the requirement that the terminal should survive
a 50 year storm, model tests showed that the buoy would have to be 15 m in diameter by
4.6 m deep moored by six anchor chains, each about 407 m in length. The novelties
associated with this particular CALM include:
—The entire crude flow system is designed to handle efficiently the passage of a 12 in.
pig. This capability is necessary because of the high wax content of Buchan crude
which posed the threat of wax build up should the flow be curtailed and the crude
allowed to cool.
—Two tankers are dedicated to the field minimising the risk of production shut-down.
—The hook-up and departure procedure is designed so that no assistance from small craft
is required.
—A self aligning quick hose connector is being used to attach and detach the floating
hose from the buoy’s pipearm. This system greatly simplifies installation and
maintenance by limiting the need for divers and calm sea conditions.
—The buoy’s deck equipment includes a chain jack for retensioning any of the buoy’s six
anchor chains. With this equipment, the anchor chains can be retensioned to the
appropriate catenary shape while avoiding the need for crane barges and other costly
installation equipment (see Chapter 5).
2.5.3 Exposed Location Single Buoy Mooring (ELSBM)

An ELSBM is a direct extension of CALM technology to more environmentally severe
locations. The mooring systems of the two configurations is the same with the ELSBM
being conventionally moored by a series of chains. However, because larger motions are
experienced at the exposed location, the submerged section of the buoy is substantially
increased. The buoy is normally unmanned but is large enough to include some level of
emergency accommodation.
The Auk ELSBM

The Auk ELSBM is located in 84 m of water 2 km from the Auk platform. It is moored to
the sea bed by 8 anchors each weighing 15 tons and which are set around the buoy in a
circle with a 460 m radius. The system is very much like that described for the CALM
with the exception of the buoy structure which can be divided into a sub- and
superstructure. The substructure consists of three separate sections tapering from a
diameter of 22 m at the top, through a mid-section of 12 m diameter to a bottom section
of 8.6 m diameter. The total draught of the structure is 52 m. The water plane area is of
fender type construction in order to protect the structure from impact damage. The central
shaft of the substructure is 130 cm in diameter and is normally filled with water. The
annular space around this shaft permits access through the various decks to the base of
the structure by means of ladders and hatches. The buoyancy, ballast and trim tanks are
arranged around this annular space. The total underwater weight of the substructure
varies from 9.5 to 13.5 tons depending on the level of water ballast. The total
displacement of the structure is 3950 tonnes. The superstructure is connected to the
substructure via the turntable section. Apart from the space structure which carries the
helicopter deck (suitable for Sikorski S-61), the superstructure also includes the mooring
trunk hose reels and cable drum for the loading hoses, the reel for the mooring hawser,
the emergency and control cabin, the generator room, air compressor and diesel storage.
The maximum operational criteria for a tanker moored to the Auk ELSBM are:
Wind speed: 25 m/s

Significant wave height: 4.5 m
Main wave period: 9.0 s
The Auk ELSBM was installed in 1975.
FIG. 2.16. SPAR concept.
2.5.4 SPAR
The SPAR concept has been developed and utilised exclusively by Shell. SPAR is
another adaptation of CALM technology incorporating some of the features of the
ELSBM with the ability to store crude oil. However, the structure as a whole is
considerably larger than any loading buoy. The storage concept requires that the main
storage tanks are kept full of either crude oil or sea water or a combination of both (Fig.
2.16).
The Brent SPAR

The SPAR concept was originally designed to handle crude from the Brent ‘A’ Platform
with a maximum throughput design capacity of 100000 BOPD using the SPAR storage or
250000 BOPD direct through-put from the platform. The SPAR sits in 140 m of water
and is located 2.9 km from Brent ‘A’. The structure can be divided into two sections, the
substructure and the superstructure.
The substructure is 29.1 m in diameter and 93 m high and is divided into 18 tanks, six
storage tanks and twelve buoyancy tanks. It floats below the water surface at a design
draught of 109 m. The draught of the structure is controlled during all loading operations
so that structural stability is maintained.
The substructure is surmounted by a column which connects the underwater storage
vessel with the superstructure. The column is 17 m in diameter and 32 m high and
protrudes above the surface. A free floating central shaft of 3.4 m diameter extends from
the superstructure to the base of the substructure.
The superstructure is 26 m in diameter and 12 m high. It contains four decks and
supports a turntable with cargo crane, loading swivel, helicopter platform and mooring
arrangements. The superstructure also includes accommodation for 30 people, 12 normal
crew with additional space for personnel required for diving operations or major
overhauls.
Processed crude is received continuously from the nearby platforms and is transferred
to the SPAR unit from a pipeline end manifold located directly below the structure. The
structure is held in. position by six anchor chains and wires terminating at six 1000 tonne
concrete gravity anchor blocks. The SPAR is kept at constant draught by keeping the
storage tanks filled. If crude is not available for filling the tanks sea water is used.
Loading from the Brent SPAR is usually suspended when sea states exceed 8 m and
wind speed 40 knots. The Brent SPAR was installed in June 1976.
2.5.5 Single Buoy Storage (SBS)

The SBS concept is similar to the CALM except that the tanker is moored permanently to
the buoy by means of a yoke or rigid arm (Fig. 2.17).
There are several advantages of using this system instead of a conventional CALM
system:
—The use of a yoke or rigid arm permits the replacement of floating hoses by hard
piping.
—The hawsers, which are major maintenance items, are eliminated.
—Routine maintenance of system components such as the swivel and bearing is made
easier by provision of a walkway along the yoke.
—Because there is a rigid connection between the buoy and the tanker, out-of-phase
motions due to environmental loading are reduced.
—The yoke decreases the degree of freedom of the tanker which improves its behaviour.
SBS installations made to date have been in the Mediterranean, the Philippines, South
East Asia, West Africa, the Middle East and Brazil.
FIG. 2.17. Single buoy storage (SBS).
2.5.6 Turret Moored Tanker

The turret moored tanker concept is relatively recent and no systems have yet been built.
The concept is an extension of the SBS concept and involves the connection of the
mooring system directly to the bow of the tanker (Fig. 2.18).
The mooring structure consists of a riser tower and a yoke collar which is below the
surface and is directly connected to the bow extension, protrudes above the surface and is
connected to the bow of the tanker.
The production manifold, subsea production control system and the manifold control
system are located at the top of the riser tower safely out of the splash zone.
The mooring chains are supported by a chain table which is anchored conventionally
to the sea bed by a spread chain system. The structure itself requires no buoyancy since it
is an integral part of the tanker. A contract has been awarded for the world’s first turret
moored tanker. It
FIG. 2.18. Turret moored tanker.

will be used in conjunction with the 140000 dwt. tanker based floating production system
on the Jabiru field in 120 m water depth in the South Timor Sea.
2.5.7 Single Anchor Leg Mooring (SALM)

The single anchor leg mooring, or SALM, was developed initially to extend the
operational depth of CALMs. There are two SALM configurations. The first uses a single
chain anchor leg and fluid transfer is accomplished from a subsea product distribution
unit. The second configuration uses a single tubular riser and fluid transfer is
accomplished from a production distribution unit at the top of the tubular riser.
Combinations of the basic configurations are possible.
There are seven basic elements in the SALM unit—a mooring hawser, a floating buoy,
a swivel and U-joint which connects the buoy to the chain or riser element, a riser chain
or single tubular riser, product hoses, a product distribution unit and a mooring base.
The dynamic behaviour of the SALM differs markedly from that of the CALM. The
SALM behaves as an inverted pendulum and the required restoring force is provided by
the buoyancy of the buoy body as the mooring forces displace the terminal laterally from
the vertical. In
FIG. 2.19. SALM concept.
contrast, the restoring forces in a conventional CALM are functions of the weight and
spacing of the catenary draped anchor chains supported above the sea bed by the
displaced buoy body. As with all mooring buoy designs the buoy in the SALM
incorporates a 360° swivel in the horizontal plane which allows the loading vessel to
weathervane so as to take up the position of least resistance to the combined forces of
wind, waves and current (Fig. 2.19).
The advantages of the SALM system are:
—It is applicable to a wide range of water depths.
—Because a gravity or piled base is used to locate the riser/mooring system a wide range
of soil conditions are acceptable.
—The major elements of the system can be reused.
—Mooring forces are minimised as the tanker weathervanes about the buoy.
The main disadvantage is that the product swivel is generally located underwater, and
hence divers are required for maintenance and repair.
The Fulmar SALM

Three alternative export options were evaluated for the Fulmar field in the North Sea.
They were: direct field loading of tanker; construction of new pipeline to shore; and tie
into an existing line. The latter two options were rejected due to cost and lack of spare
capacity respectively.
A loading feasibility study showed that a SALM was the ideal solution for holding the
required 210000 dwt. tanker on station in the 14.4 m significant wave height. The
environmental design criteria were the following:
Significant wave height 14.4 m
Maximum wave height 26.8 m

Dominant wave period 16.4 s
1-minute mean wind 43.9 m/s
1-hour mean wind 37.5 m/s
Surface current velocity 2.6 knots
The primary components of the Fulmar SALM are the buoy, rigid arm, product swivel,
base and the mechanical articulations which connect them.
The anchor leg of the Fulmar SALM is a rigid buoy connected to the base by an
articulated joint and connected at the top directly to the rigid arm through a triaxial
universal joint and mooring swivel. The buoy weighs 1829 tonnes and the outside
diameter ranges from 8 m at the lower end to 15.9 m at the maximum diameter down to
5.5 m at the top. The buoy is sub-divided into 18 compartments to provide damage
stability and a 3 m diameter central column provides access to the various compartments
for inspection and maintenance.
The rigid arm is a box truss triangular structure. The arm weighs 800 tonnes and
measures 61 m in length and is 30.5 m at the hinged connection to the tanker. The arm
carries all the rigid fluid lines necessary to carry out fluid transfer.
The base is of gravity/piled design and consists of a steel hexagonal structure with a
pile located at each corner. The piles were driven to a depth of 29 m and were then
grouted to the pile sleeves in order to resist the environmentally imposed loads.
The universal joint which weighs 360 tonnes connects lugs on the bottom of the buoy
to those on the base structure via two 1560 mm diameter by 7.9 m long tubular pins and a
coupler sleeve assembly.
The Fulmar SALM stands in 82 m of water and is capable of handling approximately
180000 b/d of crude oil and loading tankers at a rate of 40000 b/h. The structure was
installed in May 1981.
2.5.8 Single Anchor Leg Storage (SALS)
The single anchor leg storage system or SALS is a variation of the SALM described
above. The system is based upon a single vertical riser between the sea bed anchor point
and the storage/production vessel mooring yoke. The yoke incorporates a submerged
buoyancy tank or tanks for maintaining a permanent tension force to the riser regardless
of sea state or loading conditions. As in the case of the SALM the articulated single chain
riser (or single tubular riser) is connected by means of universal joints at both the top and
the bottom ends (Fig. 2.20).
FIG. 2.20. SALS concept.

A swivel at the top of the upper universal joint allows 360° rotation for weathervaning
of the production/storage vessel.
The main difference between the SALM and SALS systems is the use of a mooring
yoke in the former and a mooring hawser in the latter. The length of the mooring yoke is
determined from the behavioural characteristics of the storage vessel in various loading
conditions during the most severe sea states anticipated. The geometry of the yoke, in
turn, determines the forces acting upon the structure and its points of attachment.
The Castellon SALS

One of the first applications of the SALS concept was the development of the Castellon
field offshore Spain. The development utilised a tanker as a production support and the
process system included water separation, degassing and gas disposal.
The design criteria were the following:
Location: Western Mediterranean off the coast of Spain
Water depth: 117 m
Well data: 20000 b/d of sour crude oil with a gas/oil ratio of 100 scf/bbl and a pressure of
1000 psi
Storage capacity: 350000 bbls
Survival Significant wave height 8.5 m
conditions:
(100 year storm) Current 25 knots
Wind (1 hour mean) 66 knots
The system consists of the following elements:

(a) Anchor base—the anchor base is a welded box structure with a steel weight of about
80 tons and dimensions of 10×8×2.5 m. Four 60 m long, 75 cm diameter piles pin the
structure at its corners with the lower universal joint being located at the centre.
Ballast material was added to the base in order that the combined weight of the base,
piles and lower universal joint counterbalanced the 400 ton pretension in the riser
induced by the buoyancy tank incorporated in the mooring yoke.
(b) Universal joints—the universal joints were of conventional design and weighed
approximately 35 tons.
(c) Anchor leg—the anchor leg is made up of forged steel links, 6 m long and 22 cm in
diameter. End links are aligned alternately at 90° and joined by 30 cm diameter steel
pins. The weight of the anchor leg is about 1 ton/m. The anchor leg has a dual role: it
transmits the mooring force to the piled base and acts as a tensioned support for the
riser and hydraulic control lines.
(d) Mooring yoke—the yoke is a rigid box truss triangular structure composed of welded
tubular steel members. The yoke also has a dual function, first to provide a stable
mooring platform for the loading vessel and, second, to provide a support structure for
the submerged buoyancy tank. This 18 m long by 8 m diameter buoyancy tank is
divided by watertight bulkheads into three chambers each of which is equipped with
bilge, sounding and purging pipework. The overall length of the mooring yoke from
hinges to turntable centre is about 50 m. Load out weight of the mooring yoke
including the buoyancy tank was about 500 tons.
(e) Crude flow path—flexible 4 in. dia. jumper hose spans the lower universal joint and is
attached by standoffs up the length of the anchor leg to the upper universal joint. The
fluid then passes through the internal passages of the universal joint pin joints, and
then through the main fluid swivel to hardline pipework along the rigid mooring yoke.
The Castellon SALS system was designed for a 20 year service life and preventative
maintenance activities are restricted to cleaning, inspection for damage and corrosion and
lubrication of the mooring and fluid product swivel assemblies.
The system has been operational since 1977.
2.5.9 Articulated Loading Column (ALC)

An articulated column is a single vertical structure which is connected to its anchoring
base by means of an articulated joint. Free rotation around the bottom universal joint
horizontal axes ensures the compliance of the structure with environmental forces while
buoyancy in the upper portion of the column provides the necessary restoring force (Fig.
2.21). Table 2.7 shows the characteristics of some North Sea ALCs.
The concept consists of the following elements:
—The base, which is located on the sea bed and acts as an anchor for the column; the
base design is a function of the size of column and the sea bed soil conditions.
—The cardan joint, which is situated on top of the base and permits the column to
oscillate, i.e. to follow the movements of wind, wave and currents instead of resisting
them.
—The principal buoyancy section, which is submerged and stabilises the structure.
FIG. 2.21. Articulated loading column.

TABLE 2.7
North Sea Articulated Loading Columns
Name and Owner Delivery Water depth (total Design Tanker
site year height) (m) conditions size
Beryl ‘A’ Mobil 1975 117 30.5 MWH 80 000
147 15 s dwt.
Wind
65 m/s
Statfjord ‘A’ Mobil 1978 145 30 MWH 100 000
182 15 s dwt.
Beryl ‘B’ Mobil 1982 118 30.2 MWH 90 000
170 15 s dwt.
Maureen Phillips 1982 105 30 MWH
140
Gullfaks ‘1’ Statoil 1985 140 31 MWH 150 000
dwt.
Gullfaks ‘2’ 1986
Source: EMH.
—The marine compartment which is a tubular section connecting the buoyancy chamber
with the superstructure. This section is in communication with the surface of the water
and is designed to reduce the wave action forces on the structure and in consequence
the articulation.
—The superstructure, containing the various pieces of equipment necessary to assure the
various functions of the column, particularly a helipad to allow column maintenance.
The columns may be fabricated in steel or concrete or a combination of the two.
The Maureen Articulated Loading Column

The Maureen ALC, which is made principally from concrete, is the first permanently
buoyant concrete structure in the North Sea. The column is designed to operate in all but
the most severe weather conditions; the design is based on a 20 year operational life and
the ALC is capable of loading 85000 dwt. tankers at a rate of 20000 b/h. Tankers may
remain moored and loading in wind speeds of up to 50 knots with significant wave
heights of 6 m and maximum wave heights of 11 m. The Maureen ALC is unmanned
with all mooring and loading operations being controlled from the tanker.
The gravity base is H shaped in plan, measuring 29 m by 36 m, with two buoyancy
tanks, necessary to provide neutral buoyancy during installation, each 9.2 m in diameter
and 27.7 m long. The base weighs 4168 tonnes.
The universal joint weighs 65 tonnes and incorporates duplicate 24 in. flow paths
which provide continuity between the base crude oil circuits and the risers fixed to the
exterior of the column.
The column weighs a total of 3232 tonnes (3078 tonnes of concrete and 154 tonnes of
steel) and measures 91.25 m long, 9.2 m in diameter with a wall thickness of 31 cm. At
8.2 m above sea level the column is topped by a 12.3 m steel chimney 5.6 m in diameter
which supports the rotating head.
The rotating head weighs some 242 tonnes. Sufficient stand-off distance between the
column and the tanker is achieved by cantilevering the loading hose on a fixed boom
projecting 36 m from the centre of the column. The mooring hawser is 112.5 m long with
a 200 tonnes breaking load capacity. The Maureen ALC was installed in 100 m of water
in August 1982, after a 600 mile tow from the construction site at Loch Kishorn.
2.5.10 Yoked Tower

The yoked tower is a direct derivation of the ALC. There is little change in the column
architecture except for a rigid yoke articulated at both ends which replaces the flexible
hawser, thus eliminating the need for an oil loading boom.
2.5.11 Catenary Anchored Tower (CAT)

The catenary anchored tower (CAT) is a further adaptation of the ALC technology. When
water depth conditions are such that the concept of an articulated column stabilised by a
buoyancy tank is not applicable (water depths below 80 m), the column may be stabilised
by chain legs anchored to the sea bed.
The tanker is moored to the articulated column through a rigid yoke or a hawser
depending on the environmental conditions at the site.
The CAT concept is applicable to water depths ranging from 40 to 80 m in severe
environmental conditions.
2.5.12 Fixed Tower

The fixed tower is a permanently located structure with a gravity or piled base on which
is located the transfer equipment already described, i.e. the rotating head, the boom with
loading hoses and the mooring hawser.
FIG. 2.22. Fixed tower.
While the concept is not based directly on articulated column technology, the structure
itself may be architecturally similar to a column but is firmly fixed to the site. The fixed
tower requires some form of fendering to absorb tanker contact (Fig. 2.22).
The system substantially reduces the relative motion between the loading terminal and
the tanker; however, there are limitations in terms of abandonment, initial cost, and site
conditions, i.e. water depth and wave height.
The Cayo Arcas Fixed Tower

The Cayo Arcas fixed tower was installed in 1982 in 41 m water depth in the Gulf of
Campeche by Pemex. The tower is designed to load 285000 dwt. tankers which are
moored by hawser.
The structure consists of a central column supported by a piled base structure. The
rotating head sits on the central shaft and supports a boom and loading hoses.
One of the features of the fixed tower is the use of a large ‘bicycle
TABLE 2.8
Factors Affecting Choice of Offshore Loading
System
Storage Environmental conditions Water depth (m) Loading system
−50 Fixed system
Benign 50–150 CALM
100+ ALC
−50 Fixed tower
No
50–150 ELSBM
Severe 70–175 SALM

100–200 ALC
−25 Fixed tower

50–150 SBS
Benign 40–80 CAT
80–200 SALS/SPAR
Yes
−50 Fixed tower
40–80 CAT
Severe 50–200 SPAR/SALS
80–200 ALC
wheel’ fender. This type of fender is necessary because of the possibility of collision
between the fixed tower and the tanker. Since the tower is a permanently located
structure, it is much more vulnerable to collision than moored or articulated structures.
2.6 PROCESSING FACILITIES
The processing facilities for an offshore development can vary from a simple separation
and disposal system to a highly complex processing plant utilising miles of inter-
connecting pipework and dozens of processing vessels.
FIG. 2.23. Block diagram of possible

systems on an offshore production
platform.
Figure 2.23 shows some possible combinations of process plant which may be required
offshore. The following list of systems is not exhaustive and by no means would every
development use them all. The possibilities include, but are not limited to:
—gathering system,
—separation system,
—oil treatment and disposal system,
—gas treatment and disposal system,
—water treatment and disposal system,
—safety systems,
—utility systems.
2.6.1 Gathering System (Manifolding)

The total production of reservoir fluids from the various wells must be combined prior to
passing through the treatment facilities. The various flowlines from the individual wells
are manifolded into one or more large diameter pipes, called production headers. Each
production header then carries all or part of the total production to one of the separation
trains, which are the first of the separation systems. Each well must be tested periodically
which involves diverting the flow to a testing system. Therefore each well is also
connected to a test header. If the field involves wells which flow at different pressures, a
few wells may have insufficient pressure to flow into the first stage of separation. In this
case a low pressure header is provided for these wells, which bypasses the first or high
pressure separator and flows directly to a separator operating at a lower pressure.
As explained in Section 2.3, manifolding may take place at the sea bed or at the
surface, on the production support. Manifolding on the sea bed has the advantage of
simplifying the riser configuration and the associated high pressure swivel arrangements.
Manifolding on the surface, on the other hand, has the advantage of having all the
associated valves and pipework easily accessible and eliminating the considerable
expense associated with diver and ROV systems normally required for subsea systems.
The topside weight associated with manifolding on the surface is a significant item for
submersible based production systems.
The current trend is towards subsea manifolding. This is being facilitated by the
continuing development of ROVs which can undertake all the routine maintenance and
inspection work.
2.6.2 Separation System

Each well produces oil, gas and water in varying proportions and one of the primary
functions of a production system is to separate the well fluids into their individual phases.
The principal of separation lies in the fact that oil, water and gas have differing densities;
gas is lightest, and water is heaviest.
Process separators must be modified to minimise the effects of vessel roll and pitch on
their operation. This is achieved by the installation of baffles at the oil/gas interface in
horizontal separators to reduce the effect of sloshing and by the use of curved weirs
which have a profile that ensures their flow characteristics are unchanged for all expected
angles of roll.
In the case of the Cadlao process facilities, the separators were designed to operate
satisfactorily with a roll of 15° (half amplitude). In practice roll motions of 10° have been
experienced without shutdown.
In harsh environments roll motions tend to be less significant than in milder
environments—thus roll motions should not pose any insurmountable problems for
floating separators.
Research has also been carried out on the effect of vessel motions on the operation of
vertical distillation columns. It appears that, while permanent inclination does adversely
affect vessel efficiency, the random motions due to the sea should have only a minor
effect if suitable modifications are made to the internal trays.
2.6.3 Gas Treatment and Disposal

Associated gas is normally flared in floating production systems. However, gas on a
floating production system may also have one or more of the following uses:
—fuel gas for power generators,
—re-injection gas for reservoir pressure maintenance,
—sales gas if it can be piped to shore.
Even if associated gas is re-injected or used to some other purpose, a gas disposal system
must be installed to handle the full volume in the event of a production upset.
Flare booms, which are normally used on fixed platforms, are being used successfully
on production semi-submersibles. The flare on the production platform on the Argyll
field is mounted on top of the derrick.
On the Castellon FPSO, water cooled incinerators are used to burn 2 mmscf/d gas. A
ground flare installation is employed on the Cadlao FPSO to burn 6.5 mmscf/d gas. The
designers claim that designs have been completed for similar ground flares having
capacities up to 50 mmscf/d. For this quantity of throughput the stack would be 11 m
diameter and 22 m high.
Chapter 3
Existing Marginal Field Technology
INTRODUCTION
In this section we will examine those systems which have already been used to exploit
hydrocarbon deposits and which could have widespread applications to marginal field
development.
The list of developments includes fields which have permanent marginal field systems
installed as well as those which have utilised some form of marginal field technology as
an early production system. For example field developments in Brazil have incorporated
some elements of early production but since the systems used have marginal field
applications they have been reviewed for this section.
Thirty-nine field developments worldwide have been reviewed: 7 utilise or utilised a
jack-up as a production support, 19 a semi-submersible, 6 a monohull (barge or tanker)
and a further 7 utilised technologies which are relevant to marginal fields.
A data sheet and field development layout for each of the 39 fields reviewed appears
later in this section.
Before proceeding with a global examination of the fields already developed it is
perhaps opportune to review criteria for marginal field development systems. In general
such systems should incorporate all of the following features:
—early production,
—reduced capital investment,
—maximum return on investment,
—maximum flexibility for offshore development,
—proven technology,
—minimum abandonment costs,
—method to test the reservoir,
—method to produce marginally economic field.
We now proceed to an examination of the fields reviewed using the above criteria.
3.1.1 Early Production

The standard time required to develop a field conventionally is somewhere between three
and seven years depending on the location and the type of production system chosen.
The majority of the 39 fields reviewed show a significant improvement on these
figures. However, some large discrepancies do occur, for example Badejo and Bicudo in
the Campos Basin of Brazil began producing in the year in which they were discovered
TABLE 3.1
Existing marginal field technology 87
Existing Fields Utilising Marginal Field

Technology
Date Field Location Operator Production support
1971 Ekofisk North Sea Phillips Jack-up
1974 Bekapi Borneo Total Barge
1975 Handil Borneo Total Barge
1975 Argyll North Sea Hamilton Semi-sub
1977 Castellon Spain Shell Espana Tanker
1977 Enchova E. Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1978 Dorado Spain Eniepsa Semi-sub
1978 Saltpond Ghana Agri-Petco Jack-up
1979 Enchova E. Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1979 Garoupa N. Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1979 Casablanca Spain Chevron Semi-sub
1980 Nilde Italy Agip Tanker
1980 Sul del Pampo Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1980 Pampo Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1981 Pampo Linguado Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1981 Cadlao Philippines Amoco Tanker
1981 Badejo Brazil Pétrobras Jack-up
1981 Lavinia Italy Agip —
1982 Bicudo Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1982 Buchan North Sea BP Semi-sub
1982 Garoupinha Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1982 Bonito Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1982 Tazerka Tunisia Shell Tanker
1982 Parati Brazil Petrobras Jack-up
1982 Espoir Ivory Coast Phillips Jack-up
1982 Emilio Italy Agip —
1983 Corvina Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1983 Pirauna Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1983 Central Cormorant North Sea Shell UMC
1984 Saleh UAE Gulf Jack-up

1984 Hutton North Sea Conoco TLP
1984 NE Frigg North Sea Elf Norge Articulating
1984 RJS-236 Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1984 RJS-150 Brazil Petrobras Jack-up
1984 Parati Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1985 RJS-90 Brazil Petrobras Semi-sub
1985 Scapa North Sea Occidental UMC
1985 Highlander North Sea Texaco UMC
1986 Balmoral North Sea Sun Oil Semi-sub
while the Hutton field, which incorporated novel tension leg platform technology, was
discovered as early as 1973 but only began producing in 1984.
Generally it is true to say that where no novel technology is involved and where the
operator has gained some experience of early production systems the time to first oil can
be greatly reduced. The Brazilian experience is worth examining. The first field in Brazil
produced using early production technology was Garoupa North which, although
discovered in 1974, was not produced until 1979. Some improvement with respect to
time was experienced with the Pampo field which took three years from discovery to first
oil. This experience has led to the remarkable situation where fields discovered in Brazil
after 1980 have been brought on-stream in the year of their discovery.
There are two factors which greatly influence the ability of systems based on
conventional supports, e.g. jack-up, semi-sub and monohull, to produce early oil. They
are (a) the ability to pre-drill development wells, and (b) the availability, at short notice,
of production supports. In most of the cases examined several, if not all, of the production
wells were drilled prior to the arrival of the production support. Where drilling had not
been completed, satellite wells were added to the system as necessary. The very short
times to first oil being achieved in Brazil can in large measure be attributed to the
practice of Petrobras of completing exploration wells as producers.
The importance of the availability of a suitable production support to early production
cannot be overstated. This is a major factor in the performance of Petrobras. An
examination of the data for each field shows that as supports are decommissioned from
one field they are swiftly employed in the production system of another field. Since few
companies find themselves having a series of fields coming on-stream sequentially, as
does Petrobras, they must address two problems. First, the procurement or lease of a
support which has generally up to then been involved only in drilling, and second, the
conversion of that support for production operations. At best this operation can take up
one to two years and at worst considerably longer.
The experience of BP on Buchan shows the perils involved with converting a drilling
support to a production support. The semi-submersible Pentagone design drilling rig,
Drillmaster, was selected for conversion to the production platform. Work began on the
conversion at the Olsen Group’s Lewis offshore yard in Stornoway, Lewis in October
1978. For various reasons the conversion proved to be more complex and involved more
extensive rebuilding than had been anticipated. Statutory regulations had changed since
Drillmaster had been built and extensive modifications were required. The Pentagone
design made such changes difficult and in some cases involved cutting through decks and
bulkheads. All these factors increased costs and caused delays. Although the
modifications had been scheduled to take 11 months, Buchan Alpha was not towed out to
the field until September 1980, a year later than anticipated.
Therefore, while on average the 32 fields using conventional supports improved time
to first oil, the availability of suitable supports and a degree of experience are
prerequisites to successful operations.
3.1.2 Reduced Capital Investment

Some 32 of the 39 field developments reviewed utilised an existing drilling support or
tanker converted for production operations. Savings were thus made on front end
engineering as well as the purchase or lease of the second hand production support.
Another area of significant saving is marine operations, i.e. installation and hook-up
which are substantially shorter for a marginal field production system than for a
development involving a fixed platform.
However, the most significant impact on capital investment occurs when the support
and/or the production equipment is leased. While leasing is not an option for fixed
platform developments, jack-ups, semi-subs and tankers are freely available for long-term
leasing. This considerably reduces the amount of capital investment made by the
operator.
3.1.3 Maximum Return on Investment

There are two factors associated with the systems reviewed which would seem to
conform to this criterion. First, the time to first oil is reduced and, second, there is a lease
option for supports and production facilities.
An economic analysis of marginal field developments carried out showed that time to
first oil is one of the most significant parameters in offshore marginal field developments.
A one year improvement in time to first oil in the North Sea can improve the rate of
return by up to 8% for a 60000 b/d field and 5% for a 30000 b/d field.
The option to lease short-term both production support and facilities provides the
operator with the opportunity to pay a significant proportion of his costs of field
development from his oil revenues as they accrue. This factor greatly improves the
profitability of the venture and leads to a maximisation of return on investment.
3.1.4 Maximum Flexibility for Offshore Operations

The field developments reviewed demonstrate the flexibility of the various components
for marginal field operations. There are of course constraints on jack-ups in terms of
water depth and payload, although payload should not be a limiting factor in the case of
small fields.
In general the production supports are floating and are therefore substantially more
flexible than fixed installations. Most types of vessel have been utilised:
—barges (Handil, Bekapi),

—jack-ups (Ekofisk, Saltpond, Badego etc.),
—semi-subs (Hamilton, Enchova, Dorado etc.),
—tankers (Castellon, Nilde, Cadlao etc.).
The riser systems have included
—tubular (Argyll, Buchan, Nilde etc.),
—flexible (Castellon),
—arced flexibles (Cadlao),
—articulated column (Garoupa).
Export is rarely by pipeline but normally via a storage tanker and a shuttle system. The
loading systems utilise tankers (a) catenary moored, (b) associated with a single anchor
leg mooring, (c) associated with a catenary anchor leg mooring, (d) associated with an
articulated column, (e) loading in tandem, and (f) loading side-by-side.
Wellheads can be dry or wet, drilled through templates or satellites. In fact the systems
reviewed run the complete spectrum of the technologies envisaged for marginal field
development.
The flexibility of the technologies is demonstrated again via the Brazilian experience
where totally different systems have been utilised to develop fields in the same basin.
3.1.5 Proven Technology

Because of the inherent problems associated with the profitability of marginal fields, all
areas of uncertainty must be clarified before the development begins. This is particularly
true of technology selection.
Each individual marginal field development is unique and may have some particular
aspect of technology which is quite unique or novel, but an effort is usually made to
utilise or adapt technologies already proven in larger field developments.
With respect to the 39 fields reviewed, 32 may be said to have used proven technology
in that each individual component of the system had been proven technology before the
start of the development. However, the engineering maxim that the sum of the parts is
sometimes less than the whole generally holds.
Field development schemes must be viewed as integrated systems and not just as a
series of components put together. Therefore, although one tries to maximise the level of
proven technology in any development there is always the possibility of encountering
probems of technological fit. Having said this, it is, however, apparent that the field
operators do in fact opt for tried and true technology when developing marginal schemes.
Marginal and early production systems have been in operation since 1971 and since then
a large amount of experience has been gained. That experience is evident in the number
of fields presently under consideration for development, and in the speed with which
recently discovered fields have been brought on stream.
3.1.6 Minimum Abandonment Costs

Since there are few if any fixed installations associated with marginal field developments
the abandonment costs tend to be minimised. In general production supports are floating
and anchored, crude export is via tanker and not pipeline. Therefore the only fixed
installations are the subsea wellheads which can be abandoned.
Many oil company economists tend to ignore abandonment costs since in most cases
they appear only after 20 years of field life and have therefore a negligible effect on the
discounted cash flow of the project. However, abandonment costs are real and substantial
and any development system which reduces them reflects positively on project
profitability.
3.1.7 Method to Test the Reservoir

We have already discussed one of the areas of uncertainty in marginal field development
under point 3.1.5 on Proven Technology. A second area of uncertainty in marginal fields
is reservoir performance.
The economics of marginal fields are usually so finely balanced that changes in basic
economic conditions such as capital expenditure, operating costs, production levels and
recoverable reserves can have a major effect on the profitability of the venture. Capital
expenditure and operating costs are defined by technological selection whereas
production levels and recoverable reserve estimates are sometimes derived on the
scantiest of information.
If a field is marginal because of the uncertainty over the level of reserves, a period of
production will give additional reservoir information and will reduce uncertainty thereby
leading to improved decision making.
For example the Enchova field in Brazil was developed in three phases. Two phases
were early production schemes which not only produced a revenue stream, but also
provided additional reservoir data which led to an improved development plan for the
field.
To date, 50 m barrels has been considered as the minimum recoverable reserve to
justify a field development. If the distribution in the Table 1.1 is accurate, the cumulative
effect of the production of the fields with reserves of less than 50 m barrels could in
theory equal that of the production of all the fields in the 200–500 m barrel range.
The possibility of a significant resource has been established and many would argue
that 32 successful developments and 7 developments of real technological innovation
should be sufficient to establish the validity of the technology.
The Buchan field with an ultimate recoverable reserve of 50 m barrels is set to
produce an internal rate of return of 15.7% which is higher than Maureen, Alwyn North,
Clyde, Hutton, Magnus and Brae among recent developments. When one considers the
problems encountered by BP, particularly the one year delay, the economics of a semi-
submersible based production system should be apparent.
However, technological selection is not the only ingredient in making marginal fields
economic. The fiscal system in operation in any specific country can have a significantly
greater impact on the profitability of marginal fields than technology alone.
3.1.8 Conclusion
The 39 developments reviewed for this section show that marginal field technology has
been in existence since 1971 and has been steadily evolving since that time. The 32
developments utilising some form of conventional production support have established
the technological viability of producing marginal fields while the remaining 7
developments have taken a first step in demonstrating the technologies which may be
used to develop marginal fields in the future.
Marginal fields will form an important segment of the petroleum resources of the
future whether they are located in existing oil provinces or in new areas. The technology
has now evolved to the stage where proven systems do exist which may be adapted for
use in most circumstances.
The field data sheets show the wide range of reservoirs which have to be produced
while the environments have varied from the relatively benign regions of Brazil and
Ghana to the harsh environment of the North Sea.
3.2. JACK-UP SYSTEMS

Date: 1971–1974
Field: Ekofisk
Location: North Sea Norwegian sector, block 2/4, 300 km SW of Stavanger
Operator: Phillips Petroleum
Environmental Water depth—70 m
conditions:
Reservoir Crude gravity—36° API, sulphur 0.21 wt%, gas/oil ratio 1 547 sef/bbl,
characteristics: reservoir pressure 7135 psi @ 10 489 ft, res. temperature 131°C.
No. of wells: 4
Well completion: Wet, satellite, subsea
Well recovery:
Production rate: 42 000 b/d
Production support: Jack-up
Support data: Gulf Tide
Riser type: 1.6 m dia. caisson containing in. flowlines and 2×10 in. export lines
Riser data:
Export details: Crude was exported via two CALM buoys
Remarks: This system has been replaced since 1974 by a permanent production system
comprising five steel platforms and one concrete storage tank
FIG. 3.1. Ekofisk early production.

Date: 1978
Field: Saltpond
Location: Offshore Ghana, 50 km west of Accra
Operator: Agri-Petco
Environmental Water depth—30 m, prevailing winds are south-westerly between force 4 and
conditions: 12
Reservoir Crude gravity—39° API, sulphur 0.99 wt%
characteristics:
No. of wells: 6 wells drilled, only 4 producers Dry, surface
Well completion
Well recovery:
Production rate: 1 200 b/d (1983)
Production Jack-up
support:
Support data: Mister Louis
Riser type:
Riser data:
Export details: The crude is loaded via an export line to a conventionally moored storage
tanker (capacity 420 000 bbls)
Remarks: The production level of this field is very low; however, the quality of the crude
and the government policy towards exploitation has made production possible;
Agri-Petco have been searching for sometime for a joint venture partner in
order to implement phase II of the development which incorporates some gas
injection
FIG. 3.2. Saltpond.

Date: 1981
Field: Badejo
Location: Campos basin, 60 km from the coast
Operator: Petrobras

conditions:
Reservoir Crude gravity—32 API (Avg.), porosity 10–15%
characteristics:
No. of wells: 4
Well completion: 2 dry, 2 wet satellites
Well recovery:
Production Jack-up
support:
Support data: Penrod 62
Riser type: 4 rigid, 2 flexible
Riser data:
Export details: Crude offloading is via a CALM buoy and shuttle tanker, tanker size is
approximately 53000 dwt
FIG. 3.3. Badejo early production

system.
Date: 1982–1984
Field: Parati
Location: Offshore Brazil
Operator: Petrobras
Environmental Water depth 94 m
conditions:
Reservoir Crude oil gravity—25–28° API, Gas/oil ratio 436 scf/bbl
characteristics:
No. of wells: 4
Well completion: 2 dry, 2 wet satellite
Well recovery:
Production Jack-up
support:
Support data: Petrobras III
Riser data:
Export details: Crude offtake is via a floating hose from the production jack-up directly to a
conventionally moored 30 000 dwt shuttle tanker
Remarks: This was an early production system
FIG. 3.4. Parati early production

system.
Date: 1982
Field: Espoir
Location: Offshore Ivory Coast
Operator: Phillips Petroleum
conditions:
Reservoir Net thickness of reservoir interval—90 m, crude oil gravity—29–33° API,
characteristics: gas/oil ratio varies from 350 to 1 800 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 4
Well completion: Wet, satellites
Well recovery:
Production Jack-up
support:
Support data: Dan duke
Riser type: Rigid, integral
Riser data: 12×3 in. flowlines 1×12 in. export line
Export details: Crude is offloaded from a 12 in. export line into a 230 000 dwt. VLCC Phillips
Enterprise via a catenary anchor leg rigid arm mooring (CALRAM); the buoy
is pin-connected to the tanker during loading
Remarks:
FIG. 3.5 Espoir.

Date: 1984
Field: Saleh
Location: Offshore UAE, 26 miles from the coast
Operator: Gulf Oil
conditions:
Reservoir Gross thickness of reservoir interval—145.9 m, porosity—10.9–24.9%, 17.9%
characteristics: (Avg.), crude oil gravity 45.5° API, gas/liq. ratio 4 701 scf/bbl.
No. of wells: 3
Well completion: Dry, wellhead platforms
Well recovery:
Production rate: 5 000 b/d (early 1984)
Production Jack-up
support:
Support data: Zapata Offshore’s Heron
Riser type:
Riser data:
Export details: Crude oil from the field moves through a 12 in., 21 mile pipeline to a
permanently moored storage tanker, the 230 000 dwt. Afran Zodiac
Remarks: This development constitutes an early production system for the field where
the rhythm of production should increase from 5 000 b/d (Jan. 1984) to an
anticipated 23 000–26 000 b/d (late 1984)
FIG. 3.6. Saleh field early production

system.
Date: August, 1984
Field: RJS—150
Location: Offshore Brazil, Campos Basin
Operator: Petrobras
conditions:
Reservoir Crude oil gravity—37° API, gas/oil ratio—400 scf/bbl
characteristics:
No. of wells: 1
Well completion: Dry
Well recovery: 1 800 b/d
Production support: Jack-up
Support data: Petrobras III
Riser type: 1 Rigid
Riser data:
Export details: Oil via floating hose to permanently moored 30 000 dwt tanker.
Remarks: Two wet satellite wells are planned. These wells will be connected to the
support by means of flexible risers.
FIG. 3.7. RJS—150.

3.3 SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE SYSTEMS

Date: 1975
Field: Argyll
Location: North Sea, block 30/24, longitude 3 E, latitude 56 N
Operator: Hamilton
conditions:
Reservoir Gas/oil ratio—160 scf/bbl, crude gravity—38° API, 0.2% sulphur, 6.0% wax
characteristics:
No. of wells: 4 plus 2 later
Well completion: Wet, subsea
Well recovery:
Production rate: 19000 b/d
Production Semi-sub
support:
Support data: Transworld 58
Riser type: Rigid non-integral
Riser data: 1×10 in. central, 4×4 in. production, 2×4 in. service
Export details: Loading is by means of shuttle tanker moored to a catenary anchor leg mooring
system (CALM)
Remarks: Argyll was the first oil field to be produced by a floating production system; the
initial system was intended to be temporary in order to gain reservoir
information; however, the marginal nature of the field forced the operator to
decide on a retention of the floating system.
FIG. 3.8. Argyll field layout.

Date: 1979–1980
Field: Enchova East, phase I
Location: Brazil
Operator: Petrobras
Environmental Water depth—100 m, current 3.5 knots
conditions:
Reservoir Crude gravity—23° API, sulphur—0.75 wt%, gas/oil ratio 477 scf/bbl, gross
characteristics: thickness of reservoir interval 42 m and 77 m
No. of wells: 1
Well completion: One surface tree plus a subsea test tree and tubing string run inside a drilling
riser and BOP to a deck tree
Well recovery: —

Production support: Semi-sub
Riser type: Flexible and tubing string inside drilling riser and BOP
Riser data:
Export details: Offloading was accomplished by means of a 53 000 dwt. shuttle tanker
conventionally anchored and fed by a floating hose
Remarks: This phase of the development constituted an early production system on a
marginal field in order to improve the field economics
FIG. 3.9. Enchova and Enchova Leste

I.
Date: 1979–1983
Field: Enchova East phase 2
Location: Brazil
Operator: Petrobras
Environmental Current 3.5 knots
conditions:
Reservoir 0.75 wt%, gas/oil ratio 477 scf/bbl, gross thickness of reservoir interval 42 m
characteristics: and 77 m
No. of wells: 4
Well completion: Test plus 3 wet subsea satellites
Well recovery: —
Production Semi-sub
support:
Riser type: 1 tubing string inside the drilling riser plus 3 flexible bundles
Riser data: 2×4 in. flexible production lines, 3×2.5 in. flexible gas lift/kill lines, 1×8 in.
flexible export line, 1×8 in. flexible production line
Export details: Offloading of crude was accomplished through 53 000 dwt. shuttle tankers
utilising a CALM buoy
Remarks: The second phase of the development included the use of a second production
support Penrod 72 connected to Sedco 135D by a flexible line; eventually Sedco
135D and its storage tanker were removed and the field was produced using
Penrod 72 alone, production level in 1983 was 7 000 b/d
FIG. 3.10. Enchova Leste II.

Date: 1977
Field: Dorado
Location: Offshore Spain, 20 km from Tarragona
Operator: Eniepsa
Environmental Water depth—93 m, Hmax=16 m, T=12.5 s
conditions:
Reservoir Crude oil gravity 21° API, sulphur 0.6 wt%, gas/oil ratio—315 scf/bbl, gross
characteristics: thickness of reservoir interval—100 m
No. of wells: 3
Well completion: Wet, subsea with deck tree
Well recovery:
Production Semi-sub
support:
Support data: Sedco 1
Riser type: Rigid individual
Riser data: 3×4 in. production

Export details: Evacuation was by a 4-point conventionally moored 33 000 dwt. tanker,
connected to the semi-sub by a 4 in. dia. floating hose; a 6 in. pipeline has been
installed
Remarks: The development of this field took place in two phases—in phase 1 production
was from one well only via a subsea test tree and tubing string run inside the
drilling riser and BOP to the deck tree; in phase 2 two additional wells were
drilled equipped with Regan subsea wellheads; only two wells are currently
producing
FIG. 3.11. Dorado.

Date: 1979
Field: Garoupa North
Operator: Petrobras

conditions:
Reservoir Net thickness of reservoir—110 m (Avg.), crude oil gravity 31°API,
characteristics: sulphur 0.14 wt%
No. of wells: Initially 1 with 2 wells added later
Well recovery:
Production rate:
Support data: Sedco 135D
Riser type: Tubing string inside drilling riser plus 2 flexible bundles
Riser data:
Export details: Offloading via a shuttle tanker conventionally anchored and connected by
flexible hoses to the production support
Remarks: (See Fig. 2.13; now replaced by fixed platform)
FIG. 3.12. Garoupa North.

Date: 1979–1981
Field: Casablanca
Operator: Chevron
Environmental Water depth—120–130 m
conditions:
Reservoir Crude oil gravity—34° API, sulphur 0.2 wt%, gas/ oil ratio 65 scf/bbl, gross
characteristics: thickness of reservoir interval—200 m
No. of wells: 2
Well recovery:
Support data: Alfortunada
Riser type: 2 flexible bundles
Riser data: 1×6 in. flexible production line, 1×4 in. flexible production line, 4×1 in.
flexible lines. 1×12 in. flexible export line
Export details: The crude is delivered via an export pipeline
Remarks: The field was developed in three phases—phase 1: early production using an
Aker H3 as support; phase 2: described above; phase 3: a fixed production
system
FIG. 3.13. Casablanca.

Date: 1980
Field: Sul del Pampo
Operator: Petrobras
conditions:
Reservoir Net thickness of reservoir interval—28 m, crude oil gravity 31–31.5° API,
characteristics: high sulphur (2000 ppm), 6% CO2
No. of wells: 5
Well completion: 1 dry, 4 wet satellites
Well recovery:
Support data: Sedco Staflo
Riser data:
Export details: Crude offtake via a CALM buoy to 53 000 dwt. shuttle tankers
Remarks: Although this system was for early production it encompassed many
facilities associated with a full system, particularly the processing facilities
FIG. 3.14. Sul de Pampo early

production system.
Date: 1980
Field: Pampo
Operator: Petrobras’
conditions:
Reservoir Gross thickness of reservoir interval—38 m and 210 m, porosity 21–27%,
characteristics: water saturation 21%, crude oil gravity—21° API
No. of wells: 1
Well completion: Production via a subsea test tree and tubing string run inside a drilling riser
and BOP to a deck tree
Well recovery:
Riser type: Tubing string inside drilling riser and BOP
Riser data:
Remarks: This system was temporary and Sedco 135D was transferred to Bicudo when
the Pampo well was incorporated into the Linguado system; replaced by fixed
platform
Date: 1981
Field: Pampo Linguado
Operator: Petrobras
conditions:
Reservoir Crude oil gravity—20–30° API
characteristics:
No. of wells: 4
Well recovery:
Riser type: 1 tubing string inside the drilling riser and 3 flexible bundles
Riser data:
Export details: Crude export was via a floating hose to a conventionally moored 12 000 dwt.
shuttle tanker
Remarks:
FIG. 3.15. Linguado early production

system.
FIG. 3.16. Linguado early production

system phase II.
Date: 1982
Field: Bicudo
Operator: Petrobras
conditions:
Reservoir Gross thickness of reservoir interval—30 m (Avg.), porosity 25% (Avg.),
characteristics: crude oil gravity 23.5° API
No. of wells: 6
Well completion: 1 test plus 5 wet subsea satellites
Well recovery:

Riser type: 1 tubing inside drilling riser plus 4 flexible bundles
Riser data: 4×4 in. flexible production lines, 4×2 in. flexible gas lift/kill lines, 1×3 in.
flexible export line
Export details: The field development utilises two CALM buoys to load shuttle tankers
Remarks: Bicudo has been developed using the same philosophy as Enchova—in fact
the same production support, Sedco 135D, was used in each case
FIG. 3.17. Bicudo early production

system.
Date: 1982
Field: Buchan
Location: North Sea, 154 km ENE of Aberdeen
Operator: British Petroleum

conditions:
Reservoir Extent 29 km, 411 m thickness, 7% porosity, 34.8° API gravity oil, gas/oil ratio
characteristics: 280 scf/bbl recoverable oil 50 m barrels, 56–60 m with gas lift
No. of wells: 8 consisting of 5 template wells and four satellite wells
Well Wet subsea provided by Sedco Hamilton Production Systems
completion:
Well recovery: Gas lift installed
Production Semi-sub
support:
Support data: Pentagone type (Drillmaster)
Riser type: Rigid non-integral
Riser data: 1×12 in. central, 8×4 in. production, 2×4 in. service, 8×2 in. gas lift
Export details: Loading is via a CALM buoy which was designed by Press-Imodco Terminals
Limited; the buoy measures 15 m in diameter with a draught of 2.7 m; it is
anchored by six 105 mm chains, 400 m long; a hawser and a flexible floating
hose from the buoy permits mooring and loading of the 60 000 dwt tankers, both
of which are designed to swivel through 360° which allows the tanker to
weathervane round the buoy
Remarks: The gas lift risers will be installed integrally with the associated production riser.
FIG. 3.18. Buchan field layout.

Date: 1982
Field: Garoupinha
Operator: Petrobras
conditions:
Reservoir Net thickness of reservoir interval—8 m, crude oil gravity—25–33° API,
characteristics: gas/oil ratio 4 739 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 3
Well recovery:
Support data: Sedco 135F
Riser type: 1 tubing string inside drilling riser plus 2 flexible bundles
Riser data:
Export details: Crude is offloaded via a floating hose to conventionally moored 12 000
dwt. shuttle tankers
Remarks:
FIG. 3.19. Garoupinha early

production system.
Date: 1982
Field: Bonito
Operator: Petrobras
conditions:
Reservoir Crude gravity 27° API, gas/oil ratio 1 212 scf/bbl. net thickness of
characteristics: reservoir interval—28 m
No. of wells: 12
Well completion: Wet, subsea, 7 template, 5 satellite
Well recovery:

Riser type: Flexible bundles
Riser data:
Export details: Crude offtake via a CALM buoy to 53 000 dwt. shuttle tankers
Remarks: The associated gas is compressed to shore through the Enchova field
fixed platform
FIG. 3.20. Bonito early production

system.
Date: 1983
Field: Corvina
Location: Petrobras

conditions:
Reservoir Gross thickness of reservoir interval—30 m, net thickness of reservoir
characteristics: interval—21 m, crude oil gravity—27.8° API
No. of wells: 5
Well completion: Wet, 4 satellites
Well recovery:
Support data: SS Petrobras IX
Riser data:
Export details: Crude is offloaded via a CALM buoy to 53 000 dwt. shuttle tankers
Remarks: This is a classic early production system for a field which has been on
production since August 1983.
FIG. 3.21. Corvina early production

system.
Date: 1983
Field: Pirauna
Operator: Petrobras
conditions:
Reservoir Gross thickness of reservoir interval—35 m, net thickness of reservoir
characteristics: interval—20 m, porosity—30%, crude oil gravity—28° API, gas/oil ratio 315
scf/bbl
No. of wells: 5
Well completion: Wet, satellites
Well recovery:
Support data: SS Petrobras XV
Riser type: 5 flexible
Riser data:
Export details: Oil via CALM buoy, gas via pipeline
Remarks: Early production system in operation since December 1983.
FIG. 3.22. Pirauna early production

system.
Date: June, 1984

Field: RJS—236
Operator: Petrobras
Environmental conditions: Water depth 99–111 m
Reservoir characteristics: Crude oil gravity 28/32° API, Gas oil ratio 737 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 3
Well completion: 2 wet
Well recovery:
Riser data:
Export details: Oil export via CALM’s on Badejo and Linguado fields
Remarks:
FIG. 3.23. RJS-236 field layout.

Date: December, 1984
Field: Parati RJS—194
Operator: Petrobras
Reservoir characteristics: Crude oil gravity—28° API, gas/oil ratio—438 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 6
Well completion: Wet
Well recovery:
Production rate: 19400 b/d (estimated)
Production support: Semi-submersible
Support data: Neptune 7

Riser data:
Export details: Oil via floating hose to permanently moored 30000 dwt tanker
Remarks: This is the second phase of the Parati field development
FIG. 3.24. Parati RJS-194 field layout.

Date: December, 1984
Field: RJS—90, Viola
Operator: Petrobras
Reservoir characteristics: Crude oil gravity 24–27° API, gas/oil ratio, 227–300 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 5
Well recovery:
Production rate: 12000 b/d (estimated)
Production support: Semi-submersible
Support data: Zephyr I
Riser type: 5 flexible
Riser data:
Export details: Oil via floating hose to permanently moored 30000 dwt tanker
Remarks:
FIG. 3.25 RJS-90 Viola field layout.

Date: 1986
Field: Balmoral
Location: North Sea UK sector block 16/21A, 233 km north east of Scotland
Operator: Sun Oil

conditions:
Reservoir Net thickness of reservoir interval—144.7 m, porosity—18–29%,
characteristics: permeability 800 md (Avg.), crude oil gravity—39.3° API, sulphur 0.2 wt%,
gas/oil ratio 230 scf/bbl (Avg.)
No. of wells: 13 producers, 6 injectors
Well recovery: Six water injection wells to be drilled
Production Semi-sub
support:
Support data: Gotaverken Arendal GVA 5000
Riser type: Flexible
Riser data: 1×10 in. export, 2×6 in. water injection, 2×8 in. flowlines, 3×4 in. service
lines
Export details: Balmoral crude will be exported by pipeline, a 14 in. diameter export line into
the main Brae/Forties line to shore
Remarks: The Balmoral subsea template measures 100 ft square, is 33 ft high and
weighs 840 tons; it has 14 well slots, and provision for 5 manifolds, 3 of
which are being installed initially
FIG. 3.26. Balmoral field layout.

This page intentionally left blank.
3.4 MONOHULL BASED SYSTEMS

Date: 1974
Field: Bekapi
Location: Offshore Borneo, 100 km to the north east of Balikpapan
Operator: Total
conditions:
Reservoir Net thickness of reservoir bearing interval—105 m, porosity—25–35%,
characteristics: permeability—1000 md (Avg.), water saturation—35%, crude oil gravity—
40.3° API, sulphur 0.08 wt%
No. of wells: 1
Well completion: Dry, located on wellhead platform
Well recovery:
Production rate:
Production Barge
support:
Support data: L39
Riser type: Rigid integral
Riser data: 1×6 in.
Remarks: The field was produced using a wellhead platform connected to the production
barge L39 by a 4 in. flexible line; the crude was offloaded using two 1500
tonne shuttle barges, round trip loading, unloading and return was
approximately 48 hours
FIG. 3.27. Bekapi early production

system.
Date: 1975
Field: Handil
Location: In the Mahakam delta, 70 km north east of Balikpapan
Operator: Total
conditions:
Reservoir Porosity—38%, permeability—high, crude oil gravity 30.8° API, sulphur
characteristics: 0.09 wt%
No. of wells: 4
Well completion: Dry, clustered
Well recovery:
Production support: Barge
Support data: L50
Riser type:
Riser data:
Export details: Crude offtake via three 1500 tonne barges
Remarks: In 1976 two supplementary wells were drilled and barge L39 (demobilised
from Bekapi) was added as a second production support
Date: 1977
Field: Castellon
Operator: Shell Espana
Environmental Water depth—117 m, wind—100yr 1 min mean 40.2 m/s, 1yr, 1 min mean 24.7
conditions: m/s, waves—100yr Hmax 15.9 m. Tass 13 s, Hs 8.5 m, Tz 10.6 s.
Reservoir Crude oil gravity—35–35.5° API, sulphur 0.35 wt% viscosity 5.99cst at 38°C,
characteristics: gas/oil ratio 75 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 1
Well Wet, subsea Cameron type
completion:
Well recovery: None
Production Tanker
support:
Support data: 60 000 dwt.
Export details: The storage production loading tanker is moored to a single anchor leg system
(SALS) with crude transfer being effected to a second 15000 dwt. tanker moored
alongside
Remarks: The development consists of a remote subsea wellhead connected by flowline to
a manifold and thence by means of a flexible riser to a
production/storage/loading tanker; this simple type of system has demonstrated
that even a very small field located in benign environmental areas can be
economically produced
FIG. 3.28. Castellon.

Date: 1980
Field: Nilde
Location: The Sicily Channel 57 km south west of the island of Sicily
Operator: Agip
Environmental Water depth—96 m, maximum wave height—18.3 m, sign. wave height 10.0
conditons: m, wave period—13 s, wind velocity—175 km/h, tidal current at 10 m depth—
1.2 m/s
Reservoir Wellhead flowing pressure 700 psi, crude gravity—38.9° API
characteristics:
No. of wells: 1
Well recovery: None
Production Tanker
support:
Support data: 84000 dwt.
Riser type: SALS rigid riser

Export details: Offtake of the crude is accomplished by shuttle tanker loading side-on to the
production/storage/ loading tanker
Remarks: The Nilde field has been developed with the aid of a single anchor leg storage
system (SALS); this system gave some trouble initially leading to the yoke
being fractured; production had to be stopped but was resumed in 1982
FIG. 3.29. Nilde.

Date: 1981
Field: Cadlao
Location: Offshore Philippines
Operator: Terminal Installations for Amoco
conditions:
Reservoir Crude gravity—48° API, reservoir depth—5 800 ft, net thickness of reservoir
characteristics: bearing interval—18.2 m, porosity 16% (Avg.), permeability low, sulphur 0.66
wt%, gas/oil ratio 160 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 2
Well Wet, subsea
completion:
Well recovery:
Production Tanker
support:
Support data: 127000 dwt.
Riser data: 2×6 in. production 2×6 in. service
Export details: Offtake is by tandem (bow to bow) tanker berthing
Remarks: The production/storage/loading tanker on this field is held on station by a rigid
yoke attached to a single buoy storage system (SBS) which is itself anchored by
6 in. chains connected to pilings driven into the sea bed; after field depletion this
system can be relocated to another similar field
FIG. 3.30 Cadlao.

Date: 1982
Field: Tazerka
Location: Offshore Tunisia 56 km from the north east coast
Operator: Shell Tunirex
Environmental Water depth—140–175 m, wind: 100yr 1 min mean 46.4 m/s, 1yr 1 min mean
conditions: 27.3 m/s, waves: 100yr Hmax 12.2 m, Tass 11.0 s, Hs 6.7 m, Tz 9.0 s
Reservoir Crude gravity 30° API, gross thickness of reservoir interval 100 m, gas/oil ratio
characteristics: 300 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 4
Well Wet, subsea

completion:
Well recovery: Water injection, gas lift
Production Tanker
support:
Support data: 210 000 dwt.
Riser type: Rigid with flexible jumper hoses at the base of the SALS
Riser data: 4×3 in. production, 2×2 in. gas lift
Export details: Offloading takes place with the aid of shuttle tanker berthing side-by-side
Remarks: Tazerka is the first field to use a high pressure multipath fluid swivel in
conjunction with a manifold chamber; the system was designed by SBM for
Shell and permits the versatility of oil production, water injection and gas lift for
up to eight wells; the development utilises six swivels located at the top of the
SALS and permits operations in any combination of wells; Vetco supplied
innovative wireline services (non-TFL), diver assisted satellite trees which are
remotely controlled hydraulically from the tanker
FIG. 3.31. Tazerka.

3.5 OTHER RELEVANT SYSTEMS

Date: 1981
Field: Lavinia
Location: East of Sicily
Operator: Agip
conditions:
Reservoir Gross thickness of the reservoir interval—300 m
characteristics:
No. of wells: 1
Well completion: Wet, subsea Vetco type with hydraulic remote control
Well recovery:
Production rate: 5000 m3/day
Production support: Production support is located ashore
Support data:
Riser type:
Riser data:
Export details: Gas is exported to the onshore production unit by pipeline
Remarks: Because this field is located so close to shore the single well is treated much
in the same way as a satellite well in an offshore development
FIG. 3.32. Lavinia.

Date: 1982
Field: Emilio
Location: Offshore Italy in the Adriatic, 30 km from the coast
Operator: Agip
conditions:
Reservoir Gross thickness of reservoir bearing interval—600 m, net thickness of
characteristics: reservoir bearing interval—360 m, porosity—4–28%, permeability—low,
crude oil gravity—3.5–11.6° API
No. of wells: 1
Well completion: Wet, subsea, Cameron type, the glycol system is fail safe
Well recovery:
Production rate: 500000 m3/day of gas and condensates

Production Production equipment is located ashore
support:
Support data:
Riser type:
Riser data:
Export details: Gas is exported to the onshore production unit by pipeline
Remarks: Similar development to Lavinia
FIG. 3.33. Emilio.

Date: 1983
Field: Central Cormorant
Operator: Shell UK Exploration
conditions:
Reservoir Crude gravity—35° API, sulphur content—0.6–1.1%, wax 7.2%, gas/oil ratio—
characteristics: 500–600 scf/bbl
No. of wells: 9–5 production, 4 injection
Well completion: Wet TFL subsea, satellites, McEvoy on the manifold, Vetco for the satellites
Well recovery: Water injection planned
Production rate: 50 000 b/d (planned)
Production Underwater manifold centre (UMC)
support:
Support data: Weight 2200 tonnes, dimensions 52×42×15 m
Riser type:
Riser data:
Export details: Two 8 in. production lines carry crude from the underwater manifold centre
(UMC) to the Cormorant A platform; because the UMC and the platform are so
far apart a special insulated pipe has had to be developed to prevent the oil in
the pipeline from cooling too much, causing wax and hydrate formation
Remarks: Central Cormorant is the first practical demonstration of subsea manifold
technology developed by Exxon in the SPS (subsea production system)
programme of the late 1970 s; another important aspect of this development is
the incorporation of TFL (through flowline) servicing of the wells
FIG. 3.34. Central Cormorant UMC.

Date: 1984
Field: Hutton
Location: North Sea, blocks 211/27 and 211/28
Operator: Conoco
conditions:
Reservoir Crude gravity—33° API, sulphur—0.7%, no wax, gas/oil ratio—130 scf/bbl
characteristics:
No. of wells: 32 of which 13 are producers
Well Deck, dry
completion:
Well recovery: Water injection and gas lift
Production Tension leg platform
support:
Support data: Purpose built by Highland Fabricators

Riser type: Rigid individual
Riser data: 32×9 in.
Export details: Oil will be transferred by pipeline to Brent while the gas will be flared
Remarks: The Hutton field is the first application of a tension leg platform to an oil field
development; the platform weighs 22 400 tonnes and is anchored in tension to
four bases on the sea bed by 16 tubulars (4 at each corner); although not a
marginal field, Hutton will act as a full scale test of tension leg technology and
may have marginal field applications in the future
FIG. 3.35. Hutton tension leg platform.

Date: 1984
Field: North East Frigg
Location: 2 20 E, latitude 60 N, 18 km NE of Frigg
Operator: Elf Norge
conditions:
Reservoir Gross thickness of reservoir interval—200 m, porosity—28%, permeability—
characteristics: 1250 md, con-densate/gas ratio—1 bbl/mmcfg (single welldata)
No. of wells: 6
Well completion: Wet, cluster; each well is connected to a subsea gas manifold
Well recovery:
Production rate: 5MMm3/day of gas
Production Articulated column
support:
Support data: Designed by EMH, normally uninhabited
Riser type:
Riser data:
Export details: Gas is exported to the TCP 2 Frigg field platform via a 16 in. gas line
Remarks: North East Frigg is a marginal field whose recoverable reserves are not
sufficient to justify the costs involved in a traditional development scheme; the
scheme adopted leans heavily on technology already developed by Elf at their
Grandin test station in Gabon; field life is estimated to be 5 years
FIG. 3.36. North East Frigg.

Date: September, 1984
Field: Scapa
Location: UK North Sea, block 14/19, 112 miles NE of Aberdeen
Operator: Occidental
Environmental Water depth 130 m
conditions:
Reservoir Gravity 32.5° API, 42 m barrels recoverable reserves. Gas oil ratio—2
characteristics: scf/bbl, Gas gravity—78.
No. of wells: 6
Well completion: Wet, template
Well recovery:
Production rate: 10 000 b/d (peak 24 000 b/d in 1988)
Production support:
Support data:
Riser type:
Riser data:
Export details: Oil is piped via two flowline bundles to the Claymore platform for
processing
Remarks: Total cost of this development is £150 m
FIG. 3.37. Scapa.

Date: 1985
Field: Highlander
Location: North Sea UK sector block 14/20
Operator: Texaco
conditions:
Reservoir Crude oil gravity—34–35° API porosity—15% net thickness of reservoir
characteristics: interval—131.3 m and 47.2 m, sulphur 0.3 wt%, gas/oil ratio—140 scf/bbl
No. of wells: Initially 3
Well completion: Wet, cluster, subsea
Well recovery: Water injection and gas lift planned
Production rate: Initially 13 500 b/d
Production Subsea manifold
support:
Support data: Weight 100 tonnes, 140×45×30 ft
Riser type: N/A
Riser data: N/A
Export details: 5 lines are planned between the field and the near-by (14 km) Tartan platform,
one 12 in. for bulk crude, three 3 in. for test crude, gas lift and water injection
and a 4 in. utilities line
Remarks: Highlander is due for installation in early 1985 with limited production
beginning late in the second quarter of the year; production should eventually
rise to 20 000 b/d and the recoverable reserves have been estimated at 30
million barrels
FIG. 3.38. Highlander field layout.

Chapter 4
Current and Future Marginal Field
Development Concepts
In Chapter 2 we discussed the various separate elements that may be incorporated into a
marginal field development system. To a large extent, within the design parameters of the
particular field, these are interchangeable (e.g. the various types of production supports
may be used in conjunction with different types of riser systems etc.). However, in order
to appreciate the interaction of the various elements it is useful to consider the technology
in terms of the overall systems which may be employed in an offshore development.
In this chapter we will consider the various production concepts which are currently
being employed in marginal field type applications in moderate water depths (150 m) and
harsh environments (North Sea or equivalent). We will also review several promising
concepts/designs which are currently being proposed for marginal field applications in
deepwater environments.
Systems which may operate quite satisfactorily in the tropics may be quite unsuitable
when considered for duty in a North Sea type environment. North Sea type installations
must be designed to withstand higher maximum waves. They must also be capable of
operating in an environment which experiences waves of significant height for most of
their design life without suffering from fatigue problems. Different design wave heights
for various offshore areas are shown in Table 4.1. A comparison between North Sea and
Gulf of Mexico wave environment is shown in Fig. 4.1.
If one ignores the field developments which employ ‘conventional’ technology (i.e.
steel template jackets or gravity concrete or steel platforms with pipelines to shore etc.)
the most common production concept used in the North Sea type environment is based on
the semi-
TABLE 4.1
Comparison of 50 Year Design Wave at Different
Offshore Locations
Celtic Sea North Sea Campos Spain Tunisia Philippines
Kinsale Hd. Buchan Bicudo Castellon Tazerka Cadlao
Hmax (m) 26 26 12 15 18 17
Water 100 112 140 117 140 90
depth
(m)
sub production support. Other concepts in current use employ subsea production, the
articulating column and the tension leg platform. A system employing a converted jack-
up rig was used successfully for a period on the Ekofisk development. Production tanker
based concepts have not as yet been used in North Sea environments. However, the use
of tankers for crude oil storage and for transportation to shore is now commonplace.
When one reviews the concepts which are currently being proposed there is a plethora
of ideas, varying from minor modifications of existing systems to quite futuristic
proposals. The concepts which are reviewed
FIG. 4.1. Comparison of North Sea

environment and a mild environment.
Illustration: waves of 4 m are exceeded
22% of the time at NS latitude 61° N
but only 2% of the time in the Gulf of
Mexico. This has implications for
weather down time of loading systems
and floating production installations.
here include a number of promising ideas which could be adopted within the next 5–10
years. They include the following systems, among others:
—SWOPS (single well oil production system),
—IMFP 300 (integrated and modular floating production system),
—MACC (manifold and control column),
—Seaplex,
—Floating oil patch,
—KbE subload,
Current and future marginal field development concepts 151
—TAPS (turret anchored production system),

—CONPROD.
Each of these systems can be seen as a development of one or more basic production
supports—semi-submersibles, tankers, jack-up units, towers and subsea units. They are
considered in that order; thus the concepts which are based on the semi-submersible, for
instance, are considered together, generally progressing from the conventional to the
more futuristic, and similarly for the other types of support. Tables showing the typical
characteristics and criteria of the various systems enable general comparisons to be made
between them.
It should be emphasised that the various specific systems discussed here are merely
several among many hundreds of designs and concept proposals which have been
produced by oil company in-house engineering teams, offshore design consultants and
offshore contractors. However, we feel that most of the ideas which are currently being
considered for marginal field applications are covered by the representative sample
discussed below.
4.1 CONCEPTS BASED ON THE USE OF A SEMI-SUB

PRODUCTION SUPPORT
The basic production system consists of a conventionally moored semi-submersible

housing the production facilities, which is linked to a subsea system by a riser. The
subsea system consists typically of a template with a number of satellite wells feeding to
a riser base which may incorporate a subsea manifold. Oil flows to the processing
facilities on the semi-sub and returns to the sea bed whence it is pumped to an offshore
storage or loading system (see Chapter 2).
The concept has several inherent advantages:
—Accelerated production from the reservoir, since the well can be pre-drilled in advance
of the production installation being taken offshore.
—Onshore and inshore construction of the semi-submersible production installation is
less costly than offshore construction and hook-up of conventional structures.
—The production semi-sub can be taken inshore for inspection and repairs.
—The production semi-sub can be re-used once the reservoir has been depleted. Thus the
production semi-sub can be leased for the production period.
However, the concept also has a number of significant drawbacks. These principally
relate to the deck load capacity of semi-subs, the disposal of associate gas, the reliability
of the riser system and the operational down time attributable to the offloading system.
There are a number of offshore developments which employ a converted semi-
submersible as the production support. With the exception of the Argyll and Buchan
developments in the North Sea, these are all situated in moderate environments.
The Argyll field commenced production in 1975. It was the first oil field to be
developed using a floating production system. The Buchan field commenced production
in 1982. See Chapter 5 for technical details of these installations and information on their
operating history.
When the Argyll production facility was installed on the field it was not intended as a
permanent production facility—rather it was considered a production test facility. Its
design was the result of drilling experience with semi-submersibles and the production
support consisted of a converted drilling unit. The Buchan field development can be seen
as the natural successor to Argyll. While similar in concept, it represents the extension of
the floating production principle to a field with more subsea completions, but no radical
departures in new technology. In terms of field size, however, it comes close to the limit
of what can be achieved by the conversion of a standard drilling rig.
The Balmoral field, which is currently being developed by Sun Oil in block 16/2/A in
the North Sea, is scheduled to commence production in 1986. This represents a further
development of the semi-submersible production concept. A purpose built production
platform based on Gotaverken Arendal GVA 5000 semi-submersible has been designed
with process facilities of 65000 b/d capacity. The Balmoral production platform is
intended to provide processing facilities for the satellite Glamis structure and possibly
other oil reservoirs in the area also. The Balmoral development is significant in that it
demonstrates the significant topside weight capacity that is now possible with current
semi-submersible designs (up to 5000 tons on the GVA 5000 series). The GVA 5000 has
two twin decks which will house process facilities and water injection equipment as well
as providing for future gas lift compressors.
The Balmoral field development is significant in that it will be the first time that
flexible production risers will be used in a severe North Sea type environment. The
flexible riser offers significant attractions over the rigid riser to operators using a semi-
submersible production support. There are advantages at the vessel/riser interface where
the necessity for heave compensation equipment is eliminated and almost instantaneous
disconnection is possible without difficulty. The flexible risers do not need to use the
moonpool, leaving it free from workovers which can be accomplished without
interrupting production. In addition the flexible riser places less demands on deck space
and loading. Unlike the rigid system it needs no tensioning, thereby increasing available
topside weight capacity. A flexible riser should never need to be stored on board which
further increases available deck space and weight capacity. (See Chapter 2 for details of
the Balmoral riser and see Chapter 3 for a description of the Balmoral field
development.)
Thus the Balmoral development should provide a significant advance to the semi-
submersible production concept and useful operational experience of the behaviour of
flexible risers in harsh environments.
New proposals for further development of the basic production semi-sub concept are
tending to concentrate on increasing deck load capacity, simplifying the riser system and
improving the mooring and offloading systems.
4.1.1 The ‘Highlander 6000’ Floating Production Vessel

The Highlander 6000 is fairly typical of the new designs for large, conventional
production semi-submersibles. It has been produced by Scottish FPV Builders, a joint
venture between Brown & Root/Wimpey Highlands Fabricators Ltd and Mitsui
Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. The Highlander floating production vessel (FPV) has
been specifically designed for low cost development of North Sea fields in the 100–200
m water depth range. The unit has been designed to maximise ease of fabrication and
minimise construction time while meeting all North Sea safety regulations and
maintaining motion characteristics which are comparable with other semi-submersibles.
The unit incorporates an integrated truss type deck of the ‘Hideck’ type which is
designed for wet mating of the hull and deck in a similar manner to that of the Hutton
field TLP in 1984. The large deck area is a significant advantage since it reduces the
height of the topsides and so optimises the location of the centre of gravity which in turn
maximises the deck loading capacity. Table 4.2 shows the main characteristics and
criteria which have been established for a vessel, with production payload of 6000
tonnes, operating in 150 m water depth in the North Sea.
The topsides of the vessel contain all the production facilities, services and
accommodation. The deck sides are cladded with lightweight panels for weather
protection. Accommodation is designed for 80 persons in single or two berth cabins and
hotel facilities. Outside the Norwegian sector, this can be upgraded to 120 persons
without change to the major structure, as a result of the less onerous accommodation
requirements outside Norway.
A moonpool is located in the centre of the deck. It is designed for handling workover
and side track drilling and control umbilical
TABLE 4.2 Highlander 6000 Main Characteristics
and Criteria
Number Dimensions Height
Columns 8 10 m dia. 24.6 m
Pontoons 2 12.8 m width×75 m long 6.4 m
Deck Main+cellar 75 m×55 m 10.0 m
Dry Operating
Deck weight (tonnes) 7500 10000
Hull weight (tonnes) 7800 21000 (inc. ballast etc.)
Transit Operating Survival
Displacement (tonnes) 20300 31000 27100
Draught (metres) 6.1 20.0 15.0
Design operating conditions 100 year storm survival conditions
Waves (Hs×period) 9.4 m×12.4 s 16.6 m×16.6 s
Surface Current (knots) 1.6 2.6
Hour Mean Speed (knots) 51.0 73.0
tensioning equipment. The main deck of the structure contains the following items:
—workover derrick,
—wellhead workshop,
—helideck (suitable for a Boeing 234—Chinook helicopter),

—flare boom,
—some process plant,
—deck cranes for all onloading and offloading and for material handling on board,
including maintenance operations,
—riser headers and dry break couplings for the flexible risers,
—material stowage,
—totally enclosed motor propelled survival craft (escape capsules) with launch and
recovery davit systems and other life saving appliances.
The Highlander 6000 production capacity obviously depends on the characteristics of any
particular field as illustrated by the following weight constant options:
Option I Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Oil production rate (b/d) 35000 100000 50000 100000
Gas compression (mmscfd) 30 30 150 0
Produced water treatment (b/d) 35000 0 20000 35000
Water injection (b/d) 40000 60000 0 100000
A conventional 12 line 95 mm chain catenary mooring with high holding anchor piles is
designed to keep the unit on location within the allowable offsets even in storm
conditions. Hydraulically operated mooring chain tensioning systems are located on the
columns. Riser disconnections should not be required in any intact condition.
The Highlander concept of a large conventional semi-submersible production platform
is not unique. Several other similar designs have been proposed by designers and
contractors. These include:
—the Gotaverken Arendal 5000 series and 12000 series (with 12500 tonnes topside
capacity);
—the EPM—T2000 ‘Cybele’ design;
—the CFEM five legged ‘Penta 7000’ floating production platform;
—the Santa Fe ‘Sea hawk’ design.
TABLE 4.3
Some Production Semi-Submersible Designs
System name Seahawk Penta 7000 Cybele
Designer Santa Fe CFEM EPM
Assumed field data
Water depth 100–500 m 200–550 m 150 m plus
Oil production 40000 b/d 120000 b/d 10000 b/d
Gas production 90 mmscfd 140 mmscfd
3
GOR 1200 ft /bbl
Gravity (API) 25–40

Gas lift At up to 2400 psi Possible
Water injection 60000 b/d Possible 150000 b/d
Reservoir pressure 32000 psi
No.of wells 16
Dimensions
Length 84 m 88 m 92 m
Width 64 m 116 m 92 m
Height to main deck 42 m 41 m
Depth 7m 4m 8m
No.of columns 6 5 8
Draft (operating) 9.8 m 22.5 m 25 m
Displacement (operating) 23580 tonnes 28000 tonnes 35200 tonnes
Variable deck load 2900 tonnes
Fixed and variable deck load 7000 tonnes 9300 tonnes
Mooring Chain, 8 point wire cables, 10pt
Accommodation 108 personnel 120 personnel
Weight of structure 10600 tonnes 11300 tonnes
Crude storage capacity None None 45000 bbl
Environment
Normal operation
Wind 70 knot
Waves (Hs) 30 ft
Surface current 2 knot
Survival
Wind (1 min.) 100 knots 100 knots
Waves (height and period) 30 m×14 s 31 m×15 s
Surface current 2.5 knots 2.5 knots
See Table 4.3 for details of these current production semi-submersible designs. Indeed, it
is worth noting that semi-submersible designs exist which are proposed as being suitable
for quite large fields in very deep water—the Santa Fe drilling DP-120 vessel concept
would have a deck load capacity of 7000 tonnes and a production capacity of 100000-
240000 b/d in water depths of 300–1600 ft.
4.1.2 The IMFP 300 Semi-submersible

The IMFP 300 is a design which takes the semi-submersible production concept a stage
further in that it incorporates oil storage and offloading of product as well as production
in a single modular structure. It is a design concept which has been developed by
Integrated & Modular, a joint venture between CFEM (Compagnie Francais
d’Enterprises Metalliques) and PPT (Progressive Production Technology), a joint
subsidiary of Technip Geoproduction and IFP.
The IMFP 300 is aimed at early production and production of marginal fields in water
depths of 100 m to 500 m. The main components of the system consist of:
—A modular semi-submersible structure which integrates in a single unit production
facilities, oil storage and an offloading system.
—A conventional catenary mooring system.
—A flexible riser system which facilitates redeployment in a wide range of water depths.
—A circular monohull design which obviates the necessity for the unit to weathervane.
Thus the unit only needs to employ a low pressure swivel for crude offloading and gas
flaring.
The IMFP 300 concept attempts to overcome the principal limitations of the current
generation of production semi-submersibles and production/storage tankers. In water
depths over 120 m current production/storage tankers need to be permanently moored by
a sophisticated system such as an articulated riser. These units cannot, therefore, be
redeployed in a wide range of water depths, thus limiting their versatility and reusability
in marginal field applications. The weathervaning facilities needed for production tanker
systems have to incorporate multiple path, high pressure swivels, which can be a source
of maintenance problems. A sketch of the IMFP 300 is shown in Fig. 4.2. The production
facilities remove gas and water from the crude oil and the oil is stabilised. The stabilised
oil is pumped from the production deck to the peripheral storage tanks. Oil entering these
storage tanks displaces a corresponding volume of oily sea water which is ejected into the
sea through an oily water treatment unit.
The IMFP 300 requires a constant draught to be maintained in all storage conditions,
and thus the total weight of oil in the storage tanks plus the sea water in the ballast tanks
must be the same for all storage conditions.
The IMFP 300 vessel can be anchored by its own conventional mooring system in a
variety of water depths from 100 m to 500 m, thus facilitating redeployment. Mooring
lines are composed of short sections of chains with wire ropes. Mooring winches are not
provided for. Lines are pulled with jacks and stoppers are used. Table 4.4 shows the main
characteristics and criteria for one version of the unit.
The top sides of the vessel and central shaft contain all the production facilities,
services and accommodation for 40 personnel. The available production capacity depends
on the reservoir characteristics but is illustrated by the following options:
—oil production (b/d)—25000;
FIG. 4.2. IMFP 300.

—Gas separation (mmscfd)—20;
—Produced water treatment (b/d)—12500,
water cut 0% to 50%,
max. gas/oil ratio 840 scf/bbl,
no sand,
crude oil/water emulsions and foaming problems to limit of
treatment by chemical injection;
—Number of subsea wells—6;
—Oil offloading rate (b/h)—12000.
4.2 CONCEPTS BASED ON THE USE OF A TANKER PRODUCTION

SUPPORT
The basic production system consists of a conventionally moored tanker which houses
the production facilities and which is linked to a subsea system by a single point mooring
(see Chapter 2). The subsea equip-ment consists, typically, of a number of satellite wells
feeding to a manifold and riser.
TABLE 4.4
IMFP 300 Main Characteristics and Criteria
Number Dimensions Height Storage
Central shaft 1 13.0 m dia. 65.0 m
Peripheral cylinders 8 7.8 m dia. 62.0 m 105000 bbl
Deck 30 m×30 m
Total height (without flare) 107 m
Flare height above deck 34 m
Weights and draught Number Dimensions Height Storage
Deck weight (tonnes) 1500
Total dry weight of structure and 12500
equipment (tonnes)
Displacement (tonnes) 40000
Draught (m) 77.0
Environment Annual return period 100 year storm survival
conditions
Waves (Hs×period) 5.0 m×9.5 s 7.6 m×11.1 s
Surface current (knots) 2.3 3.3
Bottom currents (knots) 0.2 0.2
Oil flows to the processing facilities on the tanker, where the oil is degassed, and
buffer storage is provided on the tanker. Offloading of the oil is by shuttle tanker which
takes oil from storage to shore.
The concept has several inherent advantages:
—Accelerated production from the reservoir, since the wells can be predrilled in advance
of the production installation being taken offshore.
—The tanker conversion can be completed in shipyards or inshore thus avoiding
expensive offshore construction and hook-up.
—The production unit may also house very large storage capacity and afford a stable
terminal for offloading the produced oil into shuttle tankers.
—Offshore loading from tanker storage is less prone to the weather and mechanically
induced down time which has plagued some loading systems in harsh offshore
environments.
—The large deck areas and virtually unlimited deck load capacity of tanker based
production units eliminates the problem of topside weight control, which remains one
of the main problems in the design of semi-submersible type units.
—The unit can be taken inshore for inspection and repairs.
—The tanker and its topside facilities can be redeployed once the reservoir is depleted.
Thus the tanker has all the advantages of the semi-sub concept with the addition of
providing oil storage and being an integral offloading terminal. The related production
equipment considerations are about the same as for those of a semi-submersible.
However, the concept also has a number of significant drawbacks when considered in the
context of North Sea type environments. These principally relate to the mooring and the
riser systems.
The tanker itself may be moored in a spread mooring of multiple fixed anchor points
on the sea bed. This type of arrangement fixes the orientation of the tanker and can be
used only in shallow, protected waters where mild winds, waves and currents prevail.
The alternative method of mooring a tanker is by its bow or stern with a single point
mooring. The single point mooring system (SPM) (see Chapter 2) minimises the
environmental load on the tanker by allowing it to weathervane to the orientation of least
resistance to the combined forces of wind, wave and current. This, of course, results in
the possibility of the ship rotating freely about its mooring. Consequently any continuous
delivery of fluids through a pipeline or hoses to, or from, the ship must pass through the
buoy and, in fact, be concentric with respect to the axis of rotation of the whole system to
avoid interferences or entanglements.
The piping conduit itself must also be equipped with a swivel to permit the tanker to
weathervane. If multiple conduits are required, they must have multiple concentric
swivels. Swivels to accommodate multiple concentric passages have been developed.
Similar systems have been used for many years for loading and unloading crude oil
tankers at terminals. However, these several hundred existing SPM systems were
designed for handling tanker-ready crude at terminals. The use of a SPM moored tanker
as the production support facility for early or marginal field production systems presents
an entirely different set of circumstances. In this situation the live well bore fluids of gas,
oil, water and sand is being handled. The gas and oil may both be sour (i.e. contain H2S).
The pressure may be the well flowing pressure of several thousand pounds per square
inch. This is all in contrast to the stabilised and treated crude oil at a maximum pumping
pressure of 200 psi normally seen in tanker loading service.
There are a considerable number of offshore developments which employ a converted
tanker as production support (see Chapter 3 for the technical details and information on
their operating history). However, without exception, these are all currently operating in
moderate offshore environments. Nevertheless, tanker based systems for a North Sea type
environment are being proposed and built as we shall see below.
4.2.1 Offshore Oil Production and Test Ship (PTS)

Petrojarl/Golarnor
The PTS is a ship shaped vessel designed for early production of crude oil and well
testing. The design was undertaken by Tentech International, a Norwegian firm. The
Norwegian owners of the vessel, K/S Petrojarl 1, a consortium of five Norwegian
shipping companies, are currently having the vessel constructed at Nippon Kokan KK
(NKK) in Japan and the vessel is scheduled for completion early in 1986 (Fig. 4.3). The
operation of the vessel will be undertaken by a subsidiary of Det Nordenfjeldske D/S,
Golarnor Production. See Table 4.5 for details of the main characteristics and criteria of
the PTS.
The vessel is turret moored in order to permit a heading into the prevailing seas at all
times. The production equipment installed is
FIG. 4.3. Golarnor/Petrojarl PTS.
capable of processing a wide range of reservoir fluid characteristics, up to 20000 b/d of

liquids. Produced water is treated and discharged while gas produced will be burnt in a
ground flare fitted aboard the vessel.
The vessel will be kept on station over a subsea template by means of the turret
mounted catenary mooring system. However, the vessel is also fitted with dynamic
positioning thrusters to assist in position keeping. It is anticipated that dynamic
positioning will be used exclusively in deep waters. Periodic discharge of produced crude
oil will be via a loading arrangement to a shuttle tanker moored at the stern of the PTS by
a hawser. The production riser, which can be installed by the ship and crew, is designed
to remain connected in survival conditions. Two riser options are available: vertically
tensioned or flexible in catenary with subsea buoy. The PTS will be initially equipped
with a single well riser. However, a multiple well riser may be accommodated if required.
TABLE 4.5
PTS Production Test Ship
Assumed field data
Water depth 100 m to 600 m
Oil production 2850 tonnes/day
Water cut Up to high % (if required)
Export system Offloading to shuttle tanker, over stern
PTS characteristics and
criteria
Dimensions 209 m long×32 m width
Draught 10 m
Displacement 50910 tonnes
Oil storage capacity 188700 STB of crude oil
Ground flare 30.5 mmscfd
capacity
Mooring 8×1600 m long K-4 class anchor chains with 13.6 tonne anchors
Dynamic positioning DP systems with hydroacoustic reference to transponders at seafloor.
DP to provide heading control and reduce peak mooring line loads on
turret system. 2×5600kw controllable pitch main thrusters.
4×1500kw fixed transverse thrusters, two forward and two aft.
The PTS has been designed to survive and remain on station in a North Sea storm of
100 year return period. The owners of the PTS intend to lease the vessel out to operators
of offshore fields. It has been reported (August 1985) that Norske Hydro intend to charter
the Petrojarl to carry out extended production trials on two wells on the Oseberg field
offshore Norway. The PTS is a logical development of the production tanker concept
from the mild offshore environments of the Mediterranean and Far East. Items of special
interest, when extending the concept to North Sea type environments, involved fatigue
loading, the mooring and riser systems and the topside arrangements.
4.2.2 The ‘SWOPS’ Oil Production System

The SWOPS system is a design which takes the tanker floating production and storage
concept a stage further in that it is a purpose built monohull which is designed for the
development of small fields and extended well testing in a North Sea environment. It is a
design concept which has been developed by BP Petroleum Ltd. The construction of the
first SWOPS vessel is due to commence at the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast. This
vessel is scheduled to commence operation in the central North Sea during mid-1987. It
is understood that it is initially intended to be deployed on a 30 mmbbl accumulation in

UK sector in Block 16/28in almost 110 m of water, 200 km offshore.
The main components of the SWOPS system consist of:
—A dynamically positioned vessel fitted with integral process equipment and oil storage.
FIG. 4.4. SWOPS.

—A conventional subsea well completed to accept the SWOPS riser.
—A rigid riser system operated through a moonpool in the centre of the vessel’s hull.
—An offshore loading system is not provided for. The SWOPS vessel shuttles back to an
inshore terminal to offload the stored crude oil.
See Table 4.6 for details of the main characteristics and criteria for SWOPS.
The vessel is designed to maintain station and heading into the prevailing seas at all
times by means of dynamic positioning (DP). The dynamic positioning also obviates the
necessity for a conventional mooring system. Power for the DP system is provided by
produced gas, thereby minimising the operating costs of the DP system and reducing the
quantity of produced gas to be flared.
The vessel does not have a drilling capability. The exploration or appraisal wells are
completed in a conventional manner by a drilling vessel and the wellheads are capped
with a SWOPS re-entry hub. The
TABLE 4.6
SWOPS System
Assumed field data
Water depth 75–200 m
Oil production (b/d) 3 000–15 000
Gas production (mmscfd) 6
Water production (b/d) 4000
Max. shut-in pressure 5 000 psi
Water/gas injection None
Max. no. producing wells 2
Wellhead fluids Negligible H2S, 10% weight max. wax content. 0°C
pour point
SWOPS main characteristics and criteria 251.5 m× 37.0 m width× 19.8 m depth
Dimensions
Displacement (at 11.0 m design draft) 76 440 tonnes
Tanks’ capacity crude oil storage 51 000 m3
ballast 39 000 m3
slops 6 500 m3
heavy fuel oil 2 600 tonnes
Transit speed 12–14 knots
Riser pipe
OD ×24.7 lb/ft Grade E SMLS API 5A drill
pipe
Riser operating tension 90 000 lb/ft
Number of tensioners 4
Max. travel of tensioners 50 ft
Max. riser angle ±15°
Max environmental criteria for production
Significant wave height, Hs 4.5 m
Winds 36.5 knots
rigid riser, which incorporates a wellhead re-entry connector, is lowered to mate with the
wellhead when the SWOPS vessel is on station.
The design permits re-entry and connection of the production bore with the riser
whatever the rotational orientation of the riser connector. The wellhead hydraulic controls
are simultaneously connected with the production bore and riser. Oil produced from up to
two wells can be comingled at the base of the riser.
The rigid, tensioned riser consists of a series of conventional jointed tubulars with a
universal joint at the lower end and a high pressure swivel at the upper end. Riser stresses
are minimised by the universal joint which permits the vessel to oscillate under DP
control. The riser is designed to permit production to continue in severe weather
conditions, limited only by heave and the station keeping capability of the ship. The rigid
riser is a less expensive option than a flexible riser. However, it requires much tighter DP
control plus extra deck storage, space and a derrick and moonpool arrangement.
Nevertheless, the rigid riser does permit wireline entry to the wellhead.
The depth limitation of the current SWOPS design is more a function of the specific
applications which BP have in mind for this vessel than an inherent limitation of the
concept. A SWOPS vessel, designed for 500 m water depth, has been proposed by the
designers.
The installed production equipment has a design capacity of 15000 barrels a day. It is
housed below the main deck and adjacent to the moonpool. The two-stage production
process is straightforward. Incoming crude oil is cooled and its pressure reduced to
separator conditions. At the first stage separator up to 80% of its gas content is removed
and conditioned to fuel gas quality to feed the ship’s power generation system. After the
second stage separator the crude is cooled to storage specifications and led directly to the
ship’s cargo tanks. Produced water is fed to the oily water separation system where
natural separation takes place. Any remaining gas is flared.
The SWOPS vessel has a storage capacity of some 42000 tonnes of crude oil. The
vessel will have a displacement of about 76000 tonnes. BP did consider converting an
existing tanker (of about 50000 dwt.) as an alternative to a purpose built vessel but
rejected the conversion option as they considered it to be unsatisfactory, both technically
and commercially. The purpose built vessel also permitted BP to optimise their design.
However, the economics of other small fields may dictate the use of a converted tanker
deploying a flexible riser over the side or bow of the vessel.
The SWOPS vessel which has now been commissioned will incorporate the rigid riser
configuration described above. However, an alternative flexible riser design has also been
proposed by BP for future applications of the concept.
4.2.3 The Floating Oil Patch

The floating oil patch is a design concept which takes the production tanker a stage
further in that it abandons the tanker shape in favour of that of a barge shaped hull, and
the tandem hull design aims to reduce the wave induced motions of the unit. The concept
has been developed by Worley Engineering.
The floating oil patch is aimed at early production of marginal fields in all types of
environments where rapid construction time and low capital costs are important criteria.
The main components of the system are:
—Two conventional barge shaped hulls, one supported beneath the other, leaving an
interhull gap.
—A turret mooring system with six catenary mooring lines which permits the unit to
weathervane.
—Multiproduct high pressure swivels in the turret to permit transfer of all well fluids to
the process system.
—A tensioned leg riser tower with subsea manifold which can be maintained by divers in
the air diving range.
The floating oil patch concept attempts to overcome the limitation of the current
generation of floating production and storage vessels while still capitalising on the best
features of the systems currently available. Converted tankers have the advantage of high
payload capacity and large deck area. However, the mooring and riser systems pose
problems in severe wave environments and, despite the availability of surplus tankers,
few are suitable for conversion. Semi-submersibles have the advantage of satisfactory
motion characteristics but they are expensive to build or convert and they tend to be
weight sensitive. Jack-up units have the advantage of providing a stable platform but they
are limited in regard to water depth and deck load capability. A sketch of the floating oil
patch is shown in Fig. 4.5.
A notable feature of the concept is the tandem hull design. The supporting members in
the interhull gap are designed to promote conflicting currents and vortices in the water
entrained between the hulls. The large power sink, thus created, consumes the wave
energy thereby reducing the pitch, heave and roll motions of the vessel. Vessel motions
are further dampened by a passive motion suppression system developed by the London
Centre for Marine Technology and licensed by BPP Ocean Technology Ltd. This system
consists of a series of open bottomed tanks along the sides of the upper hull which are
valved to ensure that the natural frequency of the vessel is altered so that it never operates
in the range of its two roll resonant states. The tandem hull design also reduces the water
plane ratio of the vessel and so further reduces the motions, just as the same principle
forms the basis of the steadiness characteristics of semi-submersible vessels. Periodic
maintenance and inspection of the upper hull and interhull structures is facilitated by
deballasting the lower hull for dry access to these areas.
Process, utility and power generation equipment and systems are located on the main
and lower deck levels and a ground flare is located at the aft end of the platform. Deck
loading should not be a problem as the unit could accommodate up to 15000 tonnes
payload.
The subsea flowlines and control lines from production and injection wells are laid to
anchor blocks below the tension leg riser tower and flexible transitions connect them to
the rigid risers in the tower. The tower is tensioned by a buoyancy tank which is
surmounted by a subsea manifold which can be maintained by divers in the air diving
range. The flowlines are then routed down to sea-bed level where they are connected to a
flexible riser system.
FIG. 4.5. Oil patch.

Crude oil storage is available in the lower hull of the unit and direct offloading is
possible using shuttle tankers. Alternatively, of course, the stabilised crude may be
transferred to an export pipeline. Accommodation facilities are provided for up to 100
persons in an accommodation block which also houses the control room and marine
facilities. The dimensions and capacities of the oil patch concept are quite flexible and
the designers have proposed a number of options with different production and load
capacities. Table 4.7 shows the main characteristics and criteria for one version of the
unit.
4.2.4 The TAPS System

The barge based turret anchor production system (TAPS) is a design concept which aims
to incorporate production facilities, storage and offloading capabilities in one barge type
facility. The concept has been developed by Flotech Ltd, a joint venture between Taylor
Woodrow and Seaforth Maritime Ltd.
The TAPS system is aimed at production from marginal fields in all types of
environment. Based on their studies the designers suggest that, with proper selection of
the barge dimensions, minimum wave induced motions can be achieved. Indeed, they
claim that a barge can be optimised to give less severe motions than those of current
semi-submersibles. Additionally, the relatively simple hull shape permits rapid and
economical construction.
TABLE 4.7
The Floating Oil Patch
Assumed field data
Water depth 150 m
Oil production (b/d) 20000 (36° API)
Gas production (mmscfd) 60
Water cut 33%
Gas/oil ratio 300 scf/bbl
Max. shut in pressure 2000 psi
Number of subsea wells 6
Export system 6 in. transfer to existing pipeline
Dimensions
Upper hull 124.0 m×33.0 m×9.0 m deep
Lower hull 131.0 m×28.0 m×8.0 m deep
Interhull gap 3.5 m
Depth of subsea manifold 45.0 m below LAT
No.of mooring chains 6
Deck payload capacity 15000 tonnes
Environmental criteria
The unit is designed to maintain normal operations in Beaufort force 8/9 weather conditions in
Block 30 of the UK Sector North Sea and to survive the 100 year storm.
TABLE 4.8
TAPS System
Assumed field data
Water depth 300 m 100 m
Oil production (b/d) 70 000 45 000
Gas products (mmscfd) 22.4 22.5
Produced water (b/d) 60 000 48 000
Gas oil ratio (scf/bbl) 320 500
Max. shut in pressure (psig) 5 000 5 000
Water injection rate (b/d) 90 000 65 000
Gas injection rate (mmscfd) 20 20
No. producing wells 12 8

No. gas injection wells 8 7
No. water injection wells 2 0
TAPS main characteristics and criteria
Dimensions 250 m×41 m×25 m depth
Displacement (15 m 142773 tonnes
draft)
Tank capacities Crude oil storage 70 000 for 100 m depth unit
(tonnes)
Water ballast 108 000 for 100 m depth unit
Produced water 11 000 for 100 m depth unit
Slops 3600 for 100 m depth unit
Fuel 1000 for 100 m depth unit
Crude oil discharge 3 500 m3/h
rate:
Turret structure Mass: 1 100 tonnes
Diameter: 18 m (300 m unit) 24 m (100 m
unit)
Mooring: 9×127 m wire cable (300 m unit)
9×4 in. grade 4 chain (100 m unit)
Riser: Tensioned (300 m unit) Flexible (100 m unit)
Max. variable 10000 tonnes (in addition to fixed loads such as power
deckload: generation and accommodation)
Accommodation: 130 persons
Power Gas turbines 4×3.3 MW
generation:
Environmental criteria
300 m unit 100 m unit
Waves (Hs×period) 18 m×16 s 14 m×15 s
Wind (3 s @ 10 m elevation) 55 m/s 52 m/s
Surface current 1.45 m/s 1.45 m/s
The main components of the TAPS system consist of:
—A barge shaped production, storage and offloading vessel which is turret moored just
forward of midship.
—Risers from a seabed template pass through the turret where they are checked and
manifolded on the turret before passing through a medium pressure swivel to the
process plant.
— Export is by shuttle tanker using a tandem loading system (although pipeline export is,
of course, also feasible).
—The riser is designed to remain connected to the unit even through the survival storm.
A sketch of the TAPS system is shown in Fig. 4.6. The system has been
FIG. 4.6. Turret anchor production

system.
designed for a range of water depths. The first design was for a field west of Shetland in
300 m but the latest design is for a unit for a field SE of Shetland in 100 m water depth.
4.2.5 Future Development of the Production Tanker Concept

The main areas for research and development on tanker based floating production
systems are as follows:
—High pressure, multiple passage process and control swivels. The swivel is the heart of
a weathervaning production system. Swivels are only as good as their high pressure
seals. Thus much of the development work is concerned with testing sealing surfaces
and assessing the effect of different fluid types, pressure and temperatures on the life
of seals, etc. As the number of passages increases, with additional wells and with gas
and water injection facilities, the size and complexity of the unit increases and
consequently there is a dramatic increase in the size and length of individual sealing
surfaces.
—New connect and disconnect systems are being developed to permit operations in
iceberg prone areas and to permit tankers to stay on station and to re-connect at much
higher sea states.
—Improved mooring systems and DP systems are being developed to enable tankers to
weather the most extreme offshore environments.
4.3 CONCEPTS BASED ON THE USE OF A JACK-UP PRODUCTION

SUPPORT
The basic production system consists, typically, of a converted drilling jack-up unit
which houses the production facilities with wellheads situated on the jack-up unit. Oil
flows to the processing system and thence to a storage facility aboard an adjacent tanker.
The jack-up has several inherent advantages:
—The stable platform provided by the jack-up eliminates all the difficulties associated
with the heave and lateral motions of floating units.
—The units may be deployed at short notice and are ideal for early production systems.
—The conversion to a production facility can be completed inshore, thus avoiding
expensive offshore construction and hook-up.
However, jack-up production units have several limitations which may become critical
when considering them for duty in severe wave environments:
—Jack-up units must, by their nature, be able to jack their deck into position above the
prevailing waves. Thus the jacking capacity has a critical influence on the topside
facilities which can be accommodated on the unit.
—Most drilling jack-up designs are based on a combination of maximum wave, wind and
gravity loads and, as such, are not entirely governed by fatigue considerations due to
the variations in water depth, environmental conditions and operating loads
experienced during the life of the unit. While the cyclic stresses may be high, the
number of cycles at any given location on the leg will be low. Thus, a jack-up
designed essentially for exploratory drilling will have a shorter fatigue life if it is
operated at a single location for a long period of time. This is especially true in severe
wave environments.
—Jack-up units, being bottom founded, have quite strict depth limitations, especially in
severe wave environments.
—Jack-up units do not have any oil storage capability and so require an associated
storage/transportation vessel or a pipeline to shore.
Several fields worldwide currently employ converted jack-up units for production duties
(see Chapter 3). However, only one such unit has been used in the North Sea. This was
the Gulf Tide jack-up unit which was deployed on the Ekofisk field between 1971 and
1974. The unit is understood to have suffered fatigue damage during this—comparatively
brief—period.
A new class of harsh environment jack-up units have recently entered the North Sea
drilling market. These units, which are designed for drilling, not production, give an
indication of the largest type of jack-up which is currently available. A sketch of the unit
is shown in Fig. 4.7 and the main characteristics of these units are shown in Table 4.9.
FIG. 4.7. Harsh environment jack-up

by Hitachi Zosen.
TABLE 4.9
Harsh Environment Jack-up Drilling Units
Unit Maersk harsh CFEM Rowan
environmental unit T2600C ‘Gorilla’
Max water depth 105 m 91 mm 100 m
Dimensions
Length 84.6 m 81.3 m 90.5 m
Breadth 90.0 m 93.9 m 89 m

Depth at side 9.5 m 8m 9.1 m
Design draft 4.8 m 5.15 m
Number of legs 3 3
Length of leg 156.8 m 130 m 503 ft
2 2
Spud tank area (each) 262 m 153.9 m 352.99 m2
Hull weights (tonnes)
Lightweight (excl. legs) 13 300
Normal lifting with full variable 15 800
load
Variable load on board 2820 2 500
Max. load of hook, rotary setback 680
Accommodation (persons) 90 90 80
Environmental conditions (in
elevated conditions)
Wave height (max.×period) 29.56 m× (for 300 ft) 92
17.5 s ft
60 s wind velocity 84 knots 82 knots
Surface current 1.66 m/s 1.5 knots
0.4 m/s
4.3.1 Seaplex Class 500–4

The Seaplex is a design concept which attempts to address the depth and storage
limitations of jack-ups. The design was developed by Seaplex Corporation which is a
subsidiary of Combustion Engineering Inc., C.G. Doris and Marathon le Tourneau.
The Seaplex platform is a hybrid design especially aimed at development of small
offshore reservoirs. It is a gravity type structure consisting of a very large steel jack-up
attached to a concrete caisson. The main components of the system consist of:
—A large jack-up with rectangular hull and four open truss legs.
—A concrete caisson with a 500000 barrel capacity, which permits the structure to serve
as a storage facility.
—All necessary equipment, ancillary hardware and systems for drilling, production,
processing and offloading.
The steel jack-up is a modified mobile drilling unit with the production processing
equipment on and within the hull. It is designed to accommodate the necessary
drilling/production loads and to meet the fatigue requirements dictated by the application
and design.
FIG. 4.8. Seaplex.
The reinforced and prestressed concrete caisson is the foundation base for the overall
structure. When ballasted, it helps provide the necessary stability for operations in severe
environments. During production operations the caisson, through the application of the
oil/water displacement principle, is used for storing the produced crude oil, while during
tow, installation and retrieval operations, it provides the controlled buoyancy to
accommodate the total topside load, including the jack-up.
For the North Sea type environment, the Seaplex concept incorporates two additional
and separate elements for assisting in developing marginal fields. One is the unitised
subsea drilling/production template for predrilling wells during the construction stage of
the Seaplex; and the other, a truss type steel tower structure that provides both lateral and
vertical support for the risers and well conductors.
Jack-up payloads tend to be limited to something less than that usually desired by
production personnel. However, by attaching the jack-up legs to the concrete caisson and
by welding off the legs to the hull structure, the Seaplex is able to accommodate a 50–
150% greater payload than the free standing jack-up. The elevating units may be removed
from the structure to provide additional payload capacity or left in place as a possible
back-up to the welded connections. Typical specifications for the Seaplex class 500–4 are
shown in Table 4.10.
TABLE 4.10
Seaplex Class 500–4 Typical Specifications
Water depth (m) 122 152
Max. wave height×period 28 m×17.5 s 31 m×17.5 s
Current (surface) 2.72 knots 2.72 knots
(bottom) 0.0 knots 0.0 knots
Oil production (b/d) 50000 50000
Maximum oil storage (bbl) 500000 500000
2
Available deck space 4088 m 4088 m2
Deek load (all fixed and variable) 27215 tonnes 18144 tonnes
4.4 CONCEPTS BASED ON ARTICULATED TOWERS
4.4.1 Subsea Riser Tower

The subsea riser tower is a compliant riser system which can be utilised with any type of
floating production vessel: ship, barge or semi-submersible based. It is designed for
severe environment applications. The design has been developed by Foster Wheeler
Petroleum Development. A typical application of the concept is shown in Fig. 2.10. The
system consists of the following elements:
—A riser top module. This supports all the equipment required for comingling of the well
fluids (chokes, valves, pigging diverters, hydraulic accumulator banks and control
instruments) from up to 16 wells, including water and gas injection wells.
—Approximate weight of this module is 250 tonnes.
—Four 40-m long buoyancy tanks and two ballast tanks.
—A four-legged tubular latticed structure, of varied length to suit the water depth.
—Conventional universal joint with self lubricated bushings and a base connection
arrangement designed for diverters actuation.
—The piled or gravity base section, which may include a wellhead template depending
on the type of floating production unit. An integral base/template arrangement is
proposed for tanker based systems and a separate arrangement is proposed for a semi-
submersible system.
See Chapter 2 for further details of this proposal.
The manifold on the riser top module is situated 50 m below the water surface. This
depth has been selected to ensure low dynamic excursion of the riser due to current
induced vortex shedding. The vortex shedding forces are also reduced by the selection of
four long slender buoyancy chambers and a lattice type structure. The subsea manifold
can be accessed by air divers to accomplish simple and rapid operations (e.g. replace any
piece if necessary, connect flexible to rigid lines, etc.).
4.4.2 MACC—nifold and Control Columns

The MACC concept consists of a range of offshore systems based on articulated columns
aimed specifically at marginal fields. It is a concept which has been developed by
Taywood Engineering Ltd. Typical applications of the concept are shown in Fig. 4.9.
These systems aim to offer the potential for uninterrupted offshore production
including injection, for marginal fields in water depths to 200 m. The designers claim that
the system is 14 months faster to peak oil production than fixed platform schemes. The
availability of the system is equivalent to that of a fixed platform with a capital cost of at
least 20% less.
The system consists of an articulated column which is used to provide a high integrity
fluid path from the well bore to deck level. By rating all the equipment on this fluid path
at full reservoir pressure it is possible to locate all well control valves and chokes on the
deck of the column. Safety on/off valves remain subsea, to be controlled by discrete
hydraulics. The topsides production facilities and utilities require some form of support
structure, i.e. either a semi-submersible, a purpose-built barge, or a converted tanker. The
most appropriate structure to use for any particular development would depend largely on
physical field parameters, and also on economic criteria.
Taywood Engineering suggest that the following factors have the greatest influence on
the decision to adopt a particular development system:
—peak production,
—gas/oil ratio,
—number of wells required,
—requirements for gas injection,
—number of drilling centres required for correct well distribution.
4.4.3 MACC Moored Semi-submersible Scheme

An enhancement scheme based upon the use of a semi-submersible yoked to an
articulated column is considered suitable for the following field conditions:
—fields requiring a large number of wells;
—reservoirs requiring high pressure gas injection;
—reservoirs requiring frequent workover;
—crude export by pipeline.
The details of a typical development would be as follows:
—A semi-submersible production facility conventionally catenary-moored using piled

anchors, and yoked to an articulated column. The vessel can thus maintain its position
over the wells whilst working over or redrilling. In the event of failure of the catenary
moorings, the semi-submersible will still remain safely moored to the column. The
FIG. 4.9. Articulated riser columns

with topsides manifold linked to
floating production platform and
tanker FPSO.
TABLE 4.11
MACC—Manifold and Control Column
Assumed field data MACC with MACC with Semi-sub
tanker
Oilfield Gas condensate field
Water depth 119 m 158 m 105 m
Oil production (b/d) 58000 50000 50000
GOR (scf/bbl) 310 500 6000
CO2 — — 25%
No.wells production 10 15 15
Gas injection — — 270 mm scfd
No.wells injection 8 10 13
Water injection (b/d) 45000 50000
Total effective down time claimed by designers compared with other systems
Down time Column moored Fixed platform Semi-sub with
semi-sub tensioned riser
Weather 0.5% 0.0% 25%
Repair/maintenance 0.5% 0.5% 1%
Total 1.0% 0.5% 26%
Average daily production 49500 49750 37250
(b/d)
Down time Column moored Fixed platform (no Semi-sub with
tanker storage) tensioned riser
Weather 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Repair maintenance 0.4% 0.6% 1.2%
Export 1.5% 25.0% 25.0%
Total 3.4% 25.6% 26.2%
Average daily production 48300 37200 36900
choice of purpose built or converted semi-submersible would depend on field conditions,

such as gas/oil ratio, and future drilling requirements.
—The wells are assumed to be drilled through a template located close enough to the
column to allow wireline workover from the semi-submersible. Subsea valving is
restricted to on/off safety valves with control by discrete hydraulics. All other
wellhead controls (control valves and chokes) are mounted on the deck of the column
for easy access.
—The articulated column is a conventional single articulation tower (similar to the

Fulmar tower described in Chapter 2) acting as a riser support and mooring for the
floating vessel. The column can be constructed in either structural steel or prestressed
concrete depending on comparative costs.
—The production platform would be a conventional large semi-submersible (e.g. GVA
5000) for low gas/oil ratio fields. For high GOR fields a heavy weight semi would
need to be developed to carry the extra equipment required.
4.4.4 MACC Moored Tanker Scheme

An enhancement system based upon the use of a tanker yoked to an articulated column is
considered suitable for the following conditions:
—fields requiring a small number of wells in the location of the production facilities;
—fields requiring heavy production equipment;
—fields requiring in-line product storage.
The details of a typical development would be as follows:
—Tanker production facility yoked to an articulated column, but free to weathervane
about the column. The vessel can either be a converted VLCC, or a purpose built
dumb barge. The choice between the two will depend on balancing the initial cost
savings in purchasing and converting an existing VLCC against the improved fatigue
life and motion response characteristics of a purpose built barge.
—The wells are assumed to be drilled through templates set far enough from the radius of
the tanker to allow heavy workover by a semi-submersible. Similar hydraulic well
controls are adopted in this application to that of the semi-submersible system. They
are, however, adapted to allow partial TFL work. The articulated column provides
essentially the same function as that used in the semi-submersible development, by
supporting manifolding and control facilities. The choice of structure material can
again be made on performance and economic grounds.
4.4.5 MACC in Satellite Field Development Scheme

The designers claim that a satellite field using an articulated column has lower capital
cost and higher system availability than a UMC in water depths less than 200 m. The
MACC also has the advantage of having above-water maintenance of most equipment. A
typical development would have the following:
—An articulated column (steel or concrete) with the control trees, TFL manifolds,
hydraulic well control package, accommodation, flare etc. on board.
—Individual well monitoring prior to manifolding.
—Remote control from the control platform.
4.4.6 CONAT
Bilfunder & Berger, in cooperation with MAN and Tyssen, developed the CONAT
(Concrete Articulated Tower) production system for water depths of 300–400 m. It is
built of reinforced concrete, also sharing the skirt pile principle which is said to simplify
installation, ensure protection against sea bed erosion and provide a heavy duty base for
the ball joint.
The heart of the articulated tower unit is an assembly which consists of a central
universal tie joint inside a 1-atmosphere chamber formed by a twin hemispherical shell,
with one half sliding within the other and
FIG. 4.10. CONAT.
allowing a movement of up to 20°. The weight of the column is taken by the outer shell
bearing against the inner, supported by PTFE bearings and lubricated by a closed-circuit
100 bar oil flow system with ‘dry run’ capability.
Access for maintenance personnel is provided inside the ball and a pneumatic sealing
system with multiple inflatable seals provides security. The joint maintains the correct
hemisphere clearance and prevents rotation. The joint has been tested in the North Sea
and offers maintenance free operation with the opportunity for access should any
attention be required.
CONAT designs come in several different forms, including the multi-column offshore
production platform (OPP) which exploits the parallel linkage in order to keep the
platform level as it moves sideways under the influence of waves, wind or current.
CONAT is applicable to various offshore requirements including single point
moorings and loading terminals, production towers, yoke towers for production tankers,
and control towers. The permanent negative buoyancy maintains a downward force on
the ball joint and this ensures that, even should the joint break, the tower cannot float
away.
4.5 CONCEPTS FOR DEEPWATER
As oil discoveries are made in ever deeper waters new systems to produce these fields are
constantly being proposed. Obviously fields in very deep waters and in iceberg and
icefloe infested areas may be very large by the standards of more hospitable areas and
still be in the marginal category because of the technological developments required to
produce them or because of the huge cost involved. There are currently many concepts in
various stages of refinement for developing these fields. The following is a selection of
some of them.
4.5.1 Floating Concrete Caisson Vessel

The floating concrete caisson vessel incorporating drilling, producing, storage and
offloading systems is one of the concepts for development of hydrocarbons in deep water.
The concept has been developed by Exxon Production Research who claim to have
established the feasability of the concept for application in water depths ranging between
300 and 1000 m. The vessel concept depicted in Fig. 4.11 is sized to process 13500
tonnes (100000 barrels) per day of oil with its associated gas and water. The vessel is
designed to accommodate the drilling equipment employed on a modern deepwater drill
ship, store 81000 tonnes (600000 barrels) of crude oil, and offload to a shuttle tanker. The
caisson vessel has the very large load carrying capability required to accommodate all the
drilling and production facilities. It also has a hull form that experiences minimal drilling
or production down time caused by severe weather. Other advantages include (1) the
ability to maintain subsurface equipment with vertical access tools launched from the
caisson, (2) the presence of permanent workover rig capability on the caisson, and (3)
independence of pipelines.
This concept of a caisson vessel has a central shaft with a diameter of 39 m, a
secondary shaft 62 m in diameter, and a base with a diameter of 98 m. The present design
draft is 120.5 m with a freeboard of 37.5 m.
Exxon propose to use a clustered well system with the caisson which
FIG. 4.11. Caisson vessel system.

can be maintained using their SPS technology. Guidelines can be used in shallower
waters but will not be used in 1000 m depths. Two risers provide the capability for
simultaneous drilling and production. Sufficient clearance must be provided to prevent
the risers from contacting each other. Design of the production riser and swivels is
similar to current designs for a 1000 m SALM and production risers.
4.5.2 Floating Concrete Monotower

This concept, which was developed by Gulf/Norwegian Contractors, is somewhat similar
in concept to the Exxon caisson above.
4.5.3 Deepwater Gravity Tower/Deepwater Gamma Tower

These towers are design concepts which have been developed by C.G. Doris. The gravity
tower features a concrete floater with a tubular steel truss column supported by a
laminated rubber ball joint on a piled base foundation.
FIG. 4.12. Doris deepwater gravity

tower.
In the gamma tower concept the concrete floater is replaced by steel buoyancy tanks, thus
eliminating the need for a deepwater sheltered site for mating of the concrete to the steel
jacket. The gamma tower is designed for areas like the Gulf of Mexico. Flexible piles
have been incorporated in the gamma tower design as an alternative to the articulation on
the fixed piled base which is specified for the deepwater gravity tower.
The main characteristics from the preliminary design of a steel tower for 490 m water
depth are summarised below:
FIG. 4.13. Doris gamma tower.

Water depth 1600 ft (490 m)
Deck weight 15000 tonnes
Quantities
Weight of buoyancy tanks 13800 tonnes
Weight of tower 27000 tonnes
Total steel weight 48800 tonnes
Solid ballast 28500 m3
Flexible piles No.6
Dia. 42in
Weight 3500 tonnes
Shear piles No.18
Dia.92 in.
Weight 3500 tonnes
Extreme Environmental Conditions
Wave 65 ft (19.8 m) 13.5 s
Wind (1 min.) 80 knots (41.2 m/s)
Current (surface) 2.6 knots (1.34 m/s)
The design includes six steel floatation tanks 110 m long and 12.5 m diameter. They are
located inside the tower with the top end 20 m below the still water level. The steel tower
is a hexagonal tubular truss frame with six main vertical legs on a 28 m radius.
4.5.4 T 300 Concrete Tripod Platform

This is a platform concept which has been developed by Norwegian Contractors. It is
considerably different from previous concrete platforms. The T 300 has a base tripod
topped by a single monotower, The platform is being proposed for developing the Troll
field in 340 m water depth in the Norwegian Trench. The Troll T 300 design would
contain close to 750 000 tonnes of concrete and would float out with a displacement of
900000 tonnes and a draught of 225 m (see Fig. 4.14).
4.5.5 Tripod Tower Platform (TTP)

This is a steel tripod concept which has been developed by Heerema/Aker. The structure
is commendably simple, using a very large number of very large diameter structural
members constructed using mild steel with low yield stress. A 15 m diameter central
column is supported by three 8 m diameter inclined legs. There is little else to the
structure. In the design which was proposed for the Troll field a horizontal bracing frame
is added to aid inshore assembly. At location the structure is lowered onto a pre-installed
driven pile foundation formed by four separate base pods interconnected by a frame.
Each of the unstiffened tubular legs, which are 8 m diameter and 300 m long, would
weigh 9500 tonnes. Altogether 85000 tonnes of steel would be used in a TTP for the
Troll field, with another 20000 tonnes of piles. During tow out displacement would be
about 150000 tonnes (see Fig. 4.14).
FIG. 4.14. T 300 and tripod tower

platform Troll field versions.
4.6 EXTENDED WELL PRODUCTION TESTING
Extended well test systems (EWT), for the extended flow testing of individual wells,
have been used extensively in Brazil and Spain. The systems have produced up to 20000
b/d for up to one year without shutdown, albeit in calmer waters than North Sea
conditions. The systems utilise proven and readily available equipment. The major
advantage from the operator’s point of view is the additional reservoir and well
productivity information which can only be obtained from extended testing of the
reservoir. As discussed above the viability of marginal reservoirs is critically dependent
on adequate knowledge of the reservoir and its production mechanism. However, in areas
such as the North Sea, national authorities—who exercise a major degree of control
through the licensing process—have traditionally considered that extended well testing
should be limited to a period of less than 90 days, or about half a million barrels, in order
to ensure that the overall recovery of a reservoir would not be affected by precipitate
production. As a result extended well tests in the North Sea have been limited to satellite
structures to fields which were already in production. There have been no stand alone
extended well tests in the North Sea to date. This is likely to change in the near future as
the fields under consideration get smaller, and less able to support a programme of
delineation drilling.
An extended well production test can be rapidly deployed: 25 to 30 weeks from
commitment to proceed to start if production is feasible. A typical project schedule is
shown in Table 4.12.
TABLE 4.12
Typical Extended Well Test Project Schedule
Weeks
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Commit EWT system ×
Install process ×
Deliver subsea tree ×
Deliver mooring ×
Set SPM mooring ×
Well completion ×
Install loading hose ×
Moor tanker ×
Test system ×
Start production ×
TABLE 4.13
A List of Typical Equipment for an Extended Well
Test
Equipment Availability (days)
1. Semi-sub drill rig 30
2. Subsea test tree with safety shut-in controls 45
3. Tubing to surface 30
4. Surface test tree 30
5. Manifold 45
6. Separator (15000 b/d) 45
7. Surge vessel 45
8. Pipeline 30
9. Gas burner 30
10. Safety shut-in control 30
11. Layout on drill rig 30
12. Tanker loading connection 30
13. Loading hose 45

14. Tanker SPM system 60
15. Tanker 40
FIG. 4.15. Extended well testing

scheme. Source: Floatech.
A list of typical equipment for an extended well test is shown in Table 4.13. A
schematic of an extended well test system is shown in Figure 4.15. This information is
based on an outline proposal by Sedco Inc. for an extended well production test for a
North Sea location (September 1984), using the drill rig Sedco 704. The proposed period
for operation of the system was from a minimum of one year to a maximum of five years.
Additional wells could possibly be connected to the extended well test system to make it
into an early production system.
Extended Well Test Scenario

1. Prepare the semi-submersible for floating production.
2. Order flexible hose, tanker SPM mooring, packer, tubing and miscellaneous
piping/valves.
3. Modify the rented production process equipment and subsea test tree.
4. Contract for tanker.
5. Install the rented process equipment and production safety equipment on the semi-
submersible.
6. Fabricate tanker mooring system.
7. Install tanker mooring using work boats.
8. Anchor semi-submersible in position over existing producible wells.
9. Run BOP, connect and test.
10. Re-enter and complete the existing producible well.

11. Run/set/test subsea test tree and tubing to surface.
12. Perforate and test well.
13. During steps 5 through 12, complete the modification installation and testing of
production equipment, and train the production crew.
14. During steps 8 through 12, complete the installation and testing of loading hose, and
train the tanker crew.
15. After system check out, start production.
16. Flow well on a continuous basis and flare gas. Dispose of produced water into ocean
after cleaning.
17. Flow directly to tanker moored 1.2 km from rig.
18. Use shuttle tankers from tanker mooring system to move oil to the market.
19. When sea states are projected to be 20 ft, tighten system and prepare for shutting in
production wells.
20. When sea states reach 35 ft shut in production wells. Place on storm heading, release
tanker and take tanker away from storm. When storm reaches 40 ft and is projected to
60 ft disconnect and pull riser and ride out storm.
22. Loading hose connected to tanker mooring buoy will ride out storm.
23. Tanker is reconnected when sea state drops to 15 ft
24. If waves reach 40 ft production riser is disconnected and pulled. Riser can be
reconnected in 15 ft waves.
25. Reservoir information (bottom-hole pressure) etc. can be collected since vertical entry
to the well is provided.
26. Additional wells can be added to the EWT system for reservoir testing or to increase
field production during EWT system operations.
27. When the EWT system reaches economic limit, the entire facility can be removed.
All the equipment can be reused.
28. If the economics of the field justify it, the EWT system can be converted to extend to
fixed platform facilities.
Chapter 5
Construction and Operating History of North
Sea Floating Production Systems
INTRODUCTION
Despite the fact that marginal field technology has been used extensively for many years
(see Chapter 3) it is only comparatively recently that these systems have been used in
North Sea type environments. As yet there is little operational experience of tension leg
platforms (Hutton) or underwater manifold and control centres (Central Cormorant, NE
Frigg). However, there are currently two floating production systems in the North Sea
(Argyll and Buchan) which have been in production now for several years. It is
worthwhile taking a fairly close look at the development and operating history of these
two fields. Both fields illustrate the flexibility and adaptability of floating production
systems and give a good insight into the phased development which is possible when
using this type of technology. It is also instructive to look at how these systems have
behaved in practice and the down time and reliability which has been experienced with
these systems operating in North Sea conditions.
5.1 THE ARGYLL EXPERIENCE
The Argyll field was discovered in 1971 in Blocks 30/24 and 30/25A, 190 miles south
east of Aberdeen. The field has recoverable reserves of approximately 60 million bbl
including the Duncan and East Duncan structures to the west of the main Argyll field.
The field is situated in water depths of 76 m. Statistics relating to the Argyll field are
shown in Table 5.1.
TABLE 5.1
Argyll Field Statistics
Block: 30/24 UK North Sea
Operator: Hamilton Oil Great Britain PLC
Partners: 28.8% Hamilton Oil Great Britain PLC
7.2% Hamilton Brothers Petroleum (UK) Ltd
25.0% RTZ Oil and Gas Ltd
12.5% Blackfriars Oil Co. Ltd
2.5% Trans European Co. Ltd

24.0% Texaco North Sea UK Ltd
Discovery date: August 1971 (Argyll)
1980 (Duncan)
Water depth: 76 m (250 ft)
Sea bed nature: Clean sand
Reservoir depth: 2 743 m (9 052 ft) Zechstein and Rotliegendes
Recoverable reserves: (original) 55 mbbl (Argyll)
20 mbbl (Duncan)
Recovery factor: 20%
API gravity: 37°–38°
Gas/oil ratio: 300 scf/bbl
Sulphur content: 0.2%
Platform installations: March 1975
Production start: June 1975
Peak production: 43 000 (b/d) (1983)
Oil production in millions of tonnes: 2.4—from 1975 to end of 1977
0.7—1978
0.8—1979
0.8—1980
0.5—1981
1.0—1982
0.7—1983
Average gas flaring in 1983: 5 million cubic ft/day
The Argyll complex is interesting in that it has undergone a progression of significant

modifications since its initial development.
5.1.1 First Stage of Development, 1975–1980

Because of the relative complexity of the Argyll geology, it was impossible to predict
how the field would produce. Nor, in fact, were the full reserve potentials of the area
established. These considerations led Hamilton Brothers to choose a test production
facility for the initial
Construction and operating history of north sea floating production systems 191
FIG. 5.1. Argyll 1975–1980.——,

flexible pipe; , rigid pipe.
phase of development of the Argyll field. The programme was designed to place the field
in production with minimum investment and to yield reservoir information required to
determine future development policy. At the same time, this production test would yield
sufficient revenue to assure profitable initial operation of the field. When Argyll came on
stream estimated recoverable reserves were put at ‘between 10 million and 25 million
barrels’ and its planned life was just five years. The system for the Argyll field stage I is
shown in Fig. 5.1.
Three subsea completions were initially connected by submarine flow-lines into a riser
base system. Well fluids flowed by way of a subsea manifold through individual 4 in.
nominal diameter lines in a production riser assembly, up to a gas-oil separation plant
mounted on the deck of a semi-submersible rig. Separated gas was flared and the
degassed crude pumped back to the sea bed through the 10 in. nominal diameter central
riser member, then through a 7500 ft long, 10 in. submarine sales line. The 10 in. line was
connected by a pipeline end manifold and 12 in. submarine hose which interfaced to a
standard deepwater design CALM type SPM. Floating hose, tapering from 20 in. to 6 in.
nominal bore, conveyed the crude from the SPM into export tankers for offloading at
United Kingdom ports. The floating production facility was converted from the drilling
rig (Transworld 58) into a production facility in a period of only six weeks. Some of the
drilling equipment remained but drilling capability no longer existed after conversion. All
available deck space was used for production equipment, separators, pumps, meters, etc.
Plant layout was checked for weight and centre of gravity, so the vessel’s trim would not
be adversely affected.
The gas/oil separation plant on the Transworld 58 was quite conventional. However,
certain features were peculiar to this installation; vessels were insulated and heat traced to
maintain a minimum operating temperature of 55°F at a designed maximum throughput
of 70000 b/d. An inert gas generator provided the ability to purge the process vessels and
pipework with an inert gas blanket whenever production was shut in.
A special dual burner flare system with water spray cooling was developed to flare gas
in normal service and burn off crude pumped out of the process plant in an emergency to
achieve extreme storm survival status.
The subsea trees incorporate a manual master valve that can be closed by a diver. The
purpose of this valve is to give secondary closure of the tubing string in case of cutting in
valve seats of automatic valves or to close the tubing for adjustments in the automatic
system. The valves of the tree are designed to be diver replaceable. Above the manual
valve is a hydraulically operated master valve and a similar wing valve. All hydraulically
operated valves are opened and closed from the semi-submersible. These valves, like the
downhole safety valve, are failsafe; they close if control pressure is released. Other
valves in the system provide access to the annulus between the tubing and the casing.
Three subsea wells (2, 3, 5) produced through the system from June 1975. Well number 6
was completed in 1976 giving four producers. Argyll was able to support an almost
continuous programme of drilling and maintenance. The semi-submersible drill rig
Ocean Kokuei conducted a long-term drilling programme of a few wells each year.
As the early wells started to produce water, and oil production dwindled, a programme
of recompleting wells in the less prolific reservoirs was undertaken. As further producing
wells were discovered these were completed and tied into the Argyll manifold. Up to 7
satellite wells were producing at Argyll in the period prior to 1980. Of the seven wells
currently producing only one of them was among the original four wells.
All submarine flowlines laid in the Argyll field were initially heavy wall steel pipe
with a coal tar/fibreglass coating incorporating a heavy duty woven outer wrap. Lines
were laid directly on the sea bed without trenching or burial, since it was considered that
self burial would occur because of the nature of the sea bed. However, in two separate
incidents in 1981 two 3 km flowline bundles due to tie in a new satellite well sank during
tow to the field from Scotland. The cause has never. been made public although it was
widely rumoured to have been connected with the use of spiral welded carrier pipe. Since
then, Hamilton has made extensive use of flexible pipe.
The field shuttle tankers have been modified for self mooring and bow loading using a
constant tension traction winch and 21 in. circumference nylon mooring line. Hoses are
made fast for loading (after grappling the line) using Cam-Lock connectors. Mooring line
and hose remain connected to the buoy when no tanker is on the SPM. The maintenance
boat is not required to assist the tanker in mooring to the tanker loading buoy.
There is a 4–5 day turn-around of the tanker leaving and returning to the buoy
depending on the UK port of discharge. In January 1979, a crack developed in the subsea
manifold in the 10 in. sales flowline pipe. The crack was located just below the upper
frame in an area that prevented repair or replacement of the damaged pipe by divers.
Apparently, the crack was caused by cyclical loads acting on the 10 in. flowline. Rig
motions were transferred through the tensioning system and export riser to the riser
connector on the manifold. The riser connector was supported on the manifold frame by a
short 10 in. spool assembly which was bolted to the upper frame structure. These bolts
had loosened causing the 10 in. flowline below the upper frame to flex resulting in
fatigue and ultimately a stress crack. A new manifold was designed by Sedco-Hamilton
which was lighter and less complex than the original design. It was installed during the
latter part of 1979.
5.1.2 The Duncan Development

In 1980 the Duncan field was discovered 6 km to the west of Argyll, which necessitated
the extension of the system to incorporate Duncan production. Initially the field was
subjected to an extended production test from two satellite wells on Duncan. Production
was via flexible flowlines to the Argyll manifold (see Fig. 5.2). Duncan reserves are
currently estimated as being 18 million barrels.
Phase I of the Duncan field development occurred in late 1983. It involved the
installation of a large subsea base frame and manifold between the Duncan and Argyll
fields, connecting four Duncan field producing wells to this manifold by subsea flowlines
and transporting the
FIG. 5.2. 1980–1982 Argyll and

Duncan production test.——, flexible
pipe; , rigid pipe
FIG. 5.3. Autumn 1983: Duncan field

development.——, flexible pipe;
, rigid pipe.
combined production stream by a subsea bulk line to the TW 58 production facility which
was already processing Argyll crude (see Fig. 5.3).
The Duncan manifold does not include a drilling template. Connection modules
containing the valving systems, which control the flow of oil and water to and from the
wells, are positioned around the manifold. They are designed as a single unit which can
be installed or, if necessary, replaced by divers. Up to 23 modules can eventually be
accommodated on the manifold. All maintenance on the manifold and wellheads will be
undertaken by divers.
All flowlines are flexible pipe. This was partly due to the thermal
TABLE 5.2
Statistics for the Drill Rig Deepsea Saga (prior to
its Conversion to Production Platform Deepsea
Pioneer)
Construction Built by Aker Group Bergen, Norway, 1974
Performance Water depth: 1250 ft
Drilling depth: 25000 ft
Accommodation 90 persons
Helideck 84 ft diameter
Dimensions Length: 355 ft
Breadth: 221 ft
Depth: 130 ft
Total variable load 2869 tonnes
Storage Bulk mud and cement 8500cu. ft
Liquid mud 1280 bbl
Fuel 16326 bbl
Water for drilling 10200 bbl
Potable water 2300 bbl
Drilling equipment National 1625 DE 3000 HP
Pumps: 12-P-lbs Triplex
Prime Movers: 4 Berger 8 800 hp
Rotary Table: National C495
Derrick: EMSCO 160 ft
Cranes 2 No. National 52.5 tonnes @ 30 ft
Mooring 4 National E-500 Double Windlass
26000 lb Stevin Anchors
Positioning Honeywell RS 505
Remarks Self propelled
Source: Ocean Industry Directory of Marine Drill Rigs, September 1981.
insulation which can be incorporated into these lines, avoiding the necessity of burial and
preventing oil becoming viscous during the numerous shutdowns which will be
experienced. All operations are controlled hydraulically from the Argyll production
platform. The flow-line and test line were added to the existing Argyll riser system.
Duncan is currently (November 1984) producing from four wells; two further production
wells and one water injection well are planned for 1985.
5.1.3 Third Stage of Development, 1985

Early in 1985 a new production support was installed on the field (see Tables 5.2 and
5.3). The newly converted semi-submersible Deepsea Pioneer is able to handle a peak
output of 70000 b/d. In addition, the new facility has plant for injection of up to 60000
b/d of water at Duncan. As well as exchanging platforms at Argyll, the second and final
phase of work for Duncan called for installation of a new manifold (built by Merpro)
beneath Deepsea Pioneer, and a flexible riser and flowlines for water injection.
The modification of the Deepsea Pioneer for duties as a production installation
included the following:
—removal of mud pumps and tanks,
—retention of derrick (needed for riser handling),
—upgrading of safety systems,
—upgrading of firewater systems,
—installation of single separation train and oil water handling facilities,
TABLE 5.3
Argyll, Duncan (& Innes) Major Contractors
Project Engineering: Bechtel
services
Platform Design: Kerr McGee Corporation
Contractors: Dover Oil & Gas, Aberdeen (TW 58)
Conversion: Wilson Walton, Teesside (TW 58) Peterhead Engineering at
Invergordon Service Base (Deepsea Pioneer)
Loading CALM Buoy by SBM Inc. Modified, SBM Rotterdam, installed at Argyll October
buoy 1982.
Source: Scottish Petroleum Annual, 1975.
FIG. 5.4. Summer 1984; installation of

new manifold.——, flexible pipe;
, rigid pipe.
—installation of two gas turbines for power generation,
—installation of gas lift package,
—installation of flare on top of derrick,
—installation of side flare booms for oil disposal.
Heating and ventilation requirements were kept to a minimum by keeping equipment out
on deck in the open. Over 600 tonnes of redundant material was removed prior to the
installation of the process equipment. The Deepsea Pioneer, with additional generating
equipment, gas lift and water injection equipment will have 85–90 people permanently on
board. (See Fig. 5.6 for an isometric view of the Deepsea Pioneer production facilities.)
Facilities on Deepsea Pioneer were arranged so that gas lift equipment could be installed
at a later date to enhance flow from Argyll. The gas lift package was installed on the
Deepsea Pioneer at the end of May 1985. The finished gas lift module was 6.7 m×12
m×3.6 m high and weighed less than 150 tonnes.
FIG. 5.5. Autumn 1984; water

injection added.——, flexible pipe;
, rigid pipe.
The total shut-down time associated with the installation of the gas lift facility was
days to make the main process tie-ins and 19 hours when the process trains were shut
down during installation of the compression unit.
5.1.4 Fourth Stage of Development—Innes

The Innes field is located 11 km north-west of Argyll in Block 30/24. The field was
discovered in 1983 when well 30/24–24 tested 9600 b/d oil from the reservoir. A step-out
well east of the discovery was water productive, thus establishing that the oil
accumulation is very small. Based on results of a second production test on well 30/24–
24 conducted in the spring of 1984, oil reserves were determined to be considerably
lower than Duncan. Due to the availability of the Transworld 58, which was replaced by
the Deepsea Pioneer at Argyll and Duncan, development of this small reservoir was
deemed feasible.
In the summer of 1984 a one well development proposal was submitted to the
Department of Energy for their approval. The development plan proposed the use of the
Transworld 58 after a rapid refit as a floating production facility for the field. The
Transworld 58 refit included new flare booms, new product crude pumps and upgrading
of the fire and gas detection/protection systems. The single discovery well will be used
for production, with TW58 anchored directly over it and connected by a new riser system.
A special riser arrangement, attaching it directly to the subsea tree, was adopted at Innes.
This involves a frame-to-transfer
FIG. 5.6. Layout of floating

productions platform Deepsea Pioneer.
1, flare tip; 2, turbine control units
(inside box girder); 3, instrument air
package; 4, deaeration tower; 5, VAC
skid; 6, LPKO drum; 7, HPKO drum;
8, control room; 9, AFFF package; 10,
chemical injection skid; 11, fuel pods;
12, access and laydown area; 13,
diving equipment and laydown area;
14, oily water separator; 15, combined
metering unit and prover unit; 16, test
separator 1 st stage separator; 17, 2nd
stage separator and surge tank; 18, fuel
gas skid KO drum, heater and filter

separator; 19, power generator; 20,
lubrication oil cooler; 21, seawater
injection pumps; 22, seawater lift
pumps A and S; 23, firewater pumps;
24, firewater pumps day tank and air
compressor; 25, existing emergency
generator; 26, laydown area; 27,
batteries and chargers; 28, existing
diesel tank; 29, diesel oil filter
coalescer unit; 30, pilot house; 31,
coarse and fine filter units; 32, (future)
gas lift compressors; 33, riser laydown
area; 34, pipe rack; 35, export pumps;
36, helideck with accommodation
under; 37, hypochlorite injection
package; 38, crude dosing package.
FIG. 5.7. 1985-Argyll, Duncan,

Innes.——, flexible pipe;. ,
rigid pipe.
riser stressed from the top of the tree to the wellhead below, avoiding the need for a
separate base to handle the riser. Further wells may be possible at Innes although no
decision has yet been made. The oil will be processed by TW 58, and then piped via a 6
in. coflexip line, to the Argyll manifold where it will go straight on to the loading buoy
(see Fig. 5.7).
5.1.5 The Argyll Continuity of Production

Table 5.4 summarises TW 58’s operating history at Argyll. The major influence on output
is the ability of tankers to moor and load at the SBM. A high number of shut-downs does
not necessarily mean poor productivity since the shut-downs may be very short. Waiting
on weather typically accounts for around one-quarter of annual down time (see Fig. 5.8).
Significant major one-off events have included repairs to the platform in 1978 and
1980/1981 and to the SBM in 1978/1979, and SBM faults generally which have caused at
least a third of all down time in several years. Early in 1978 the platform came into
Highland Fabricators dry dock at Nigg for repairs following discovery of a propagating
crack in a hull weld. Production was broken for seven weeks. In November 1981 another
seven week break in production was started when a weak link in one of the rig’s twelve
anchor chains failed
TABLE 5.4
Argyll Production History
Year 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Total down time (days) 39 33 33 49 34 25 (22)
Occasions riser pulled 6 3 5 4 6 4 (1)
Occasions loading shut-down 19 16 22 21 17 38 (14)
Source: Offshore Engineer.
FIG. 5.8. Monthly output as a

percentage of maximum monthly
output for North Sea offshore loading
systems (1983). Source: H.Pass. Foster
Wheeler.
during a storm close to design conditions, triggering progressive failure of the rest of the
mooring pattern and a two day drift ending 40 km to the south-east.
5.2 THE BUCHAN EXPERIENCE
The Buchan field was discovered in 1974 in a deep reservoir 154 km east-north-east of
Aberdeen. The reservoir is a very dense fractured sandstone with recoverable reserves of
over 50 million barrels, by conventional
TABLE 5.5
Buchan Field Statistics
Block 21/1A UK North Sea. Also extending into Block No. 20/5A which is
100% licenced by Texaco North Sea UK Ltd.
Operator BP Petroleum Development Ltd
Partners 24.58% BP Petroleum Development Ltd
12.71% Transworld Petroleum (UK) Ltd
5.76% Tricentrol Oil Corp. PLC
4.54% Goal Petroleum PLC
12.71% Clyde Petroleum PLC
12.71% Sulpetro (UK) Ltd
4.14% Charterhall Oil Ltd
0.90% Lochiel Exploration Ltd
12.71% Charterhouse
9.23% Texaco
Discovery date August 1974. BP became operator on the Block in May 1977.
Water depth 118 m (390 ft)
Sea bed Thin varying sand
Reservoir depths 2 900 m (9 600 ft) 3 200 m (10 500 ft)
Recoverable reserves 58 million barrels (original) 29 million barrels (remaining) (31/12/83)
(original)
Recovery factor 10–30%
API gravity 33.5°
Gas/oil ratio 300 scf/bbl
Sulphur content 0.8%
Platform installation September 1980
Production start May 1981
Peak production 47 000 b/d
Oil production, in 0.9—1981, 1.4—1982, 1.6—1983
millions of tonnes
Average gas flaring in 9 million cubic feet/day
1983
Source: BP
TABLE 5.6
The Buchan Installations
Platform
(Light) displacement 13000 tonnes
Overall height 94.3 m
Drill deck to base of pontoons 45.5 m
Lower deck to base of pontoons 34.8 m
Normal draught 20.22 m
Survival draught 18 m
Operational displacement 19.404 tonnes
Deck area 2 326 m
Pontoon size 22 m dia.×7.5 m deep
Anchors
Number of anchors 10
Length of mooring wires 3400 m
Diameter of wires 70 mm
Min. breaking load (new) 340 tonnes
Subsea
Height of wellhead 10.3 m
Dimension of template 17.8×14.8 m
Distance of template to wells 1.6 km
B7 and B8
B4 2.5 km
CALM buoy
Distance from platform 1.67 km
Length of underbuoy hose 128 m
Height of buoy 4.57 m
Diameter 15 m
Displacement 506 tonnes
Number of anchors 6
Length of anchor chains 400 m
Length of mooring hawser 69 m
Tankers
Length 271 m
Dead weight 100700 tons
Capacity 76000 tonnes
Source: BP
methods, plus an additional 8–10 million barrels by gas lift. The field is situated in water
depths of 112–118 m (see Tables 5.5–5.7).
The key factors which influenced the development for Buchan were the complexity of
the field’s geology, the relatively small amount of recoverable oil, the high probability
that the field would have a relatively short life-span, and the requirement to commence
production as quickly as
TABLE 5.7
Buchan Major Contractors
Project services Matthew Hall
D&S Petroleum Consultants
Worley Engineers Ltd
Platform Design—semi-sub Drillmaster, Pentagone design Conversion—Lewis
Offshore, Stornaway Modification for gas lift—Howard Doris, Loch
Kishorn
Template Design and fabrication—William Press Production Systems
CALM Design and fabrication and installation—Press IMODCO/Comex Houlder
Topsides Design—Matthew Hall
Fabrication—Aker etc.
Steel BSC
Installation Template—Wharton Williams
Flowlines—Santa Fe Marine Operations
Hook- Aker Offshore Contracting, BP
up/commissioning
Production services Sedco Hamilton Production Services
Source: Scottish Petroleum Annual, 1985.
possible. There were only two realistic options to be considered. First, the conventional
method of a fixed production platform with wells drilled after installation. Second, a
floating production platform with subsea wells drilled before the arrival of the platform.
The second method had the advantage of low construction costs, of being able to go into
production as soon as the platform was on station and, at the end of the field’s life, low
abandonment costs.
The other major choice was in the method of transporting the oil from the field. Again
there were only two real options: first, a pipeline connection from Buchan to the Forties
pipeline system 46 km away or, second, an offshore tanker loading system. Cost was the
determining factor in this choice and the tanker system was selected. The development
comprises the following installations:
—A floating oil production platform converted from Pentagone design semi-submersible
exploration rig.
—A production/export riser system to carry the oil to and from the platform consisting of
one 12 in. export riser surrounded by eight
FIG. 5.9. Buchan field.

4 in. production risers and two 4 in. service risers, the whole bundle to be
supported from the platform by an adjustable tensioning system to prevent
buckling. (See Chapter 2 for details of the riser system.)
—Seven producing subsea wells, six drilled through a steel template measuring 8×15 m,
and one satellite well 1.6 km from the template. An eighth well completed in 1980, 2.5
km to the west in block 20/5A.
—Two 4 in. flowlines and associated hydraulic control umbilicals connecting each
satellite well to the template. One of the flowlines to carry oil and associated gas, the
second to carry lift gas at a later date. The umbilicals to operate the wellhead valves.
—A subsea manifold on the template linking the flowlines to the riser system.
—A 15 m diameter catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM) buoy.
—A 12 in. submarine pipeline, 1.9 km long from the manifold on the template to the
pipeline end manifold (PLEM) under the CALM buoy. The PLEM is connected to the
buoy by a flexible hose.
—Two 100000 ton tankers, especially modified for bow loading and dedicated solely to
off-loading from the field. Tankers moored to the CALM buoy by a 21 in. diameter
hawser. Oil loaded through a 12 in. floating hose.
5.2.1 Buchan Alpha

A semi-submersible Pentagone design drilling rig, Drillmaster, was selected for
conversion to the production platform on the criteria of stability, load capacity and
available space. The conversion was scheduled to take eleven months and involved
installing a gas/oil separation plant, two flare booms, an oil/water treatment plant,
handling and tensioning systems for the production riser and a wireline riser, a metering
skid for crude oil measurement, full saturation diving facilities and provision for the
eventual installation of gas lift facilities.
For various reasons, the conversion proved to be more complex and involved more
extensive rebuilding than had been anticipated. The condition of the existing utility
systems aboard Drillmaster, such as fire mains, cooling water, compressed air and the
ballasting system, was found to be unsatisfactory which meant unplanned upgrading was
required. Statutory regulations had changed since Drillmaster had been built and
extensive modifications were required. The semi-submersible turned out to be 100 tonnes
heavier than had been originally calculated, which meant equipment had to be moved or
removed. The integrated Pentagone design made such changes difficult and in some cases
involved cutting through decks and bulkheads. All of these factors caused delays and
increased costs.
To add to these complications, an extra two months delay and additional expenditure
of £8 million were incurred as a direct result of the disaster which struck a rig of identical
design, the Alexander Keilland. An extensive independent structural review led to a large
amount of non-destructive testing of the structure and a number of minor modifications to
the sub-structure.
5.2.2 The CALM Buoy and Subsea Installations

The buoy was designed, fabricated and installed by Press-Imodco Offshore Terminals
Ltd. It was the largest of its type ever produced, measuring 15 m diameter with chains
400 m long. The buoy is connected to the export line manifold by means of a flexible
hose, of the ‘Lazy S’ design, with a buoyancy tank 21 m above the sea bed.
5.2.3 Process and Export Systems

Oil and gas from the wells pass through a three-stage separation process. Water and gas
are separated from the crude oil, the separated water passing through an effluent control
system before being discharged overboard. All the gas produced is either flared or (from
1985) used for gas lift. Power generation is by diesel generators.
Cooled, processed oil from Buchan Alpha is delivered to a tanker via the export riser
to the export pipeline, through the pipeline end manifold (PLEM) and underbuoy hose to
the CALM buoy, and via a floating hose to the moored tanker. The specially modified
tankers are fitted with SPM mooring equipment and bow loading units.
Loading at the maximum rate of 70 000 b/d, it would take a week to fill each of the
100 700 ton tankers (their capacity is reduced to 76 000 tonnes by their having segregated
ballast tanks to eliminate the risk of pollution from discharge of oily ballast water). A
converted anchor handling tug/supply vessel is on station to provide marine support,
CALM buoy access for maintenance and the statutory safety/standby role.
5.2.4 Production History

In general the system has operated well. There were fears that the riser system would
pose problems due to its complex nature but this has not proved to be so. In practice BP
shut down production and recover the production risers on a deteriorating forecast of
wind and sea conditions of worse than 35–40 knots and of seas up to 12 m maximum.
The export riser is not unlatched, in practice, until the platform heave reaches 5 m.
However, reconnection may not start until heave is less than 0.5 m.
During the first years of operation BP pulled the production riser five times due to
adverse weather and the export riser only once.
The platform itself has proved to be even more stable than was predicted. The anchor
pattern and winching system has been able to keep the platform in position even in severe
weather. In November 1981, in a storm with seas at and winds gusting to 111
knots, the maximum tension on the windward winches was 66 tonnes.
The buoy has contributed rather more to lost time, especially in the early life of the
system. Routine maintenance or replacement of worn parts can only be carried out in seas
of 2 m or less, which are relatively rare in winter.
Therefore, considerable care and judgement has to be used in deciding the timing of
maintenance work, and the need to improve the reliability of critical components is
emphasised.
During the first year (May 1981–May 1982) the field was in production for 52% of the
time as against the 67% which had been predicted. In the second year the field was in
production 51% of the time. These figures are to some extent distorted by shutdowns for
buoy repairs during January/February 1982 and for weather effects on wireline works in
December 1982 and January 1983. If these periods are discounted the efficiency
improves to the high fifties for the two years.
BP say that the best they can expect to achieve from the existing system is about 62%–
63% operational efficiency, i.e. a maximum of up to 90% during June, July and August
and 45% during December, January and February. Figure 5.8 clearly shows the
susceptability of loading buoys to weather down time in North Sea environments and
supports BP’s opinion that if they were designing the Buchan field again they would
probably opt for a pipeline export system.
Chapter 6
Marginal Field Economics and Costs
No review of marginal field technology would be complete without some discussion of

the costs of the various development options. In this chapter we intend to review the
question of capital and operating expenditures for small oil accumulations (i.e. 50–100
million barrels recoverable reserves) in a North Sea type environment, in water depths
between 70 m and 150 m and with a production potential of up to 60000 b/d. The options
for offshore development, as discussed in the earlier chapters, are well known to the
industry; in terms of cost they fall broadly into the following order of decreasing cost.
—Multi-platform development using fixed platforms with export via pipeline to shore.
—Single fixed platform with export via pipeline to shore.
—Single fixed platform with offshore loading.
—A mobile platform with offshore loading or pipeline to shore.
—A satellite to an existing production complex, developed by one of the following
options:
a. satellite developed with fixed platform,
b. satellite developed with mobile platform,
c. satellite developed with subsea system.
The satellite option is currently the most common method of development of North Sea
marginals.
Once the field development option has been fixed the operators must look for the
potential in cutting costs wherever possible within that option.
Clearly no operator wishes to go to a level of expense greater than required. The need
for more expensive equipment results from environmental limitations, the recovery of
more oil, or the recovery of reserves at a faster rate. Fortunately for operators, the
decision to follow a particular development option is not difficult. The value of a pipeline
to shore versus offshore loading or the development of a field with one or two platforms
is normally fairly clear. Only when new technology is considered as a possible solution to
the problem are the decisions not quite so easy.
While the figures presented in this chapter have relevance to all the options presented
above we intend to concentrate on the mobile platform with offshore loading or a pipeline
to shore.
Such a system, using a mobile semi-submersible production platform or tanker and
subsea completions, defines relatively clearly the smallest economic field that can be
developed in isolation from existing installations (i.e. not as a satellite).
Before looking at costs in detail it is worth emphasising that the figures here are all in
mid-1985 US dollars unless otherwise indicated. They have been compiled from a variety
of industry sources—contractors, designers and oil companies.
6.1 COST PARAMETERS: THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND

THEIR SENSITIVITY
6.1.1 Uncertainties
Uncertainty is the great enemy of marginal field developments. Uncertainties occur in the
area of costs and in the type and level of reserves and productivity. Despite industry’s
determination to use proven technology where possible, the operator of a marginal
offshore field will expect to break some new technological ground. Such pioneer work
can be expected to be associated with some cost over-run. It is reflected in the statistics of
the early North Sea developments where dramatic capital cost over-runs were
commonplace (see Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Such levels of over-expenditure cannot be
tolerated in a marginal field development, nor indeed should they be expected on quite
that scale. Likewise the degree of confidence in recoverable reserves and productivity
levels is more critical in a marginal field than in larger and more profitable fields. This
can create a problem since it is difficult to justify costly delineation drilling and data
collection on a reservoir which is clearly in the marginal category.
TABLE 6.1
Cost Increases (excluding Drilling) for Some Early
North Sea Developments
Projects Date Start estimate Costs £000000 Cost increase
£000000
Forties May 1972 296 715 142%
Brent July 1973 148 1140 670%
Sept. 1974 (393) (190%)
Beryl Early 1973 70 161 130%
Ninian Sept. 1975 585 1048 82%
Buchan June 1977 129.7 73%
March 1978 (135) 225 (66%)
Sum (incl. first est. for 1228 3289 168%
Brent)
Source: SINTEF. Note: numbers in parentheses refer to revised cost eStimates. These major cost
increases were due in large measure to the innovative developments which were required by the
harsh North Sea environment. Project cost increases of this magnitude are not unexpected when
innovative technology is being developed. Such cost increases would be currently quite exceptional
in the North Sea. Indeed several of the largest recent projects have been completed on schedule and
within budget. Innovative technological developments for marginal field applications would be
expected to experience some cost over-runs initially.
Marginal field economics and costs 211
TABLE 6.2
Major Causes of Cost Increases Based on Cost
Analysis of North Sea Oil and Gas Developments
in the Early 1970 s Carried Out by SINTEF for
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
6. Weakness in project execution
5. Increased operator requirements
4. New government requirements
3. Unforeseen inflation
2. Under estimation
1. Start estimate
6.1.2 Recoverable Reserves

One of the most striking features of marginal field economics is the necessity for a very
high production-to-reserves ratio to enable rapid depletion of the field. If the volume of
reserves and the levels of production can be relied on, then this characteristic is not
necessarily a problem. The difficulty, however, is that, at a low level of reserves, the
definition of reserve size must be expected to be poor.
In any reservoir the major uncertainties lie at the periphery of the reserve. In a
marginal reserve this peripheral area is almost always a relatively large fraction of the
total. The limited number of delineation wells also prevents an understanding of
lithological and stratigraphic trends in the vicinity of the reserve. This general uncertainty
increases the down-side risk (the danger of less reserves or low rates of extraction) with a
consequent reduction in expected rate of return.
Thus it is vital for an operator to have an accurate prediction of the productivity of the
wells and, in particular, the ability of the field to attain the required level of production in
the early years of its life. In order to achieve this the operator requires a good
understanding of the reservoir drive mechanisms and the need for artificial lift and
secondary recovery.
Well productivity should properly be established by means of a well testing and
logging programme, not by drilling a multitude of wells. Only if severe changes in well
productivity are expected over the relatively small area of a marginal field can drilling to
establish well productivity
TABLE 6.3
Budget Estimate of Rental While Operating
Item $/day
Rig w/people 38000a
Process equipment 2700
Subsea tree 500
Tanker and mooring 9300
System maintenance 3000
Miscellaneous 1500
Total $55000
Note: Operator to provide boats/helicopter/fuel/well maintenance etc. during producing stage.
Excludes rig time for well completion costs and based on rental, test tree and production process
equipment.
a
Based on North Sea labour costs.
Source: Sedco Inc.
be justified. The costs of logging, coring and production testing is always minimal when
field development decisions are to be made. Thus thorough programmes for well data
acquisition are normally undertaken as a matter of policy by operators.
There are, however, particular cases where not only is productivity a problem but
where recovery factors are in doubt or where reservoir limits are best established by an
extended well test. Operation costs for an extended production test facility are considered
in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. On the basis of the figures projected for such a scheme a sustained
production of as little as 3000 b/d could be self financing on a day-to-day basis. Thus
many uncertainties associated with recovery factors and productivity could be resolved at
little cost beyond the delineation well. A disadvantage could be a delay in field
development due to the extended test itself.
The most promising route for reducing capital costs significantly would probably involve
the use of floating production/storage/export facilities instead of separate semi-
submersible production and floating storage units. As discussed in Chapter 3 this method
of production is not currently operational in North Sea type environmental conditions.
However, the technology is available and floating production/storage facilities will be
available shortly for North Sea duties.
6.2 COST ELEMENTS FOR MARGINAL FIELD PRODUCTION

SYSTEMS
In attempting to indicate orders of costs for different offshore developments, naturally it

is necessary to specify the exact development type proposed. As indicated earlier each
development is field specific and is dependent on such physical parameters as:
TABLE 6.4
Budget Estimate of Capital Investment
Item $
A. Prepare rig for process equipment and subsea test tree
Equipment mobilisation 500 000
Rental services 100 000
Pipe/valves 40 000
Miscellaneous equipment 100 000
Labour 100 000
Safety gear 80 000
Miscellaneous contingency 80 000
Subtotal $1 000 000
B. Tanker loading equipment
Loading hose $1 000 000
Tanker mooring 600 000
Tanker modifications 100 000
$1 700 000
C. System abandonment $1 000 000
Total capital $3 700 000
Note: Excluding rig time and well completion costs and based on rental, test tree and production
process equipment.
Source: Sedco Inc.
—the exact geological formation, size, structure, composition and depth,

—total recoverable reserves,
—reservoir drive mechanism,
—oil/gas ratio and hydrocarbon composition,
—ater depth and environmental criteria,
—istance from shore,
as well as the various economic uncertainties such as changes in the real price of oil, the
inflation rate to be assumed, interest rates etc.
Therefore it is futile to project general costs for development of a particular size or
type of reservoir. In order to indicate orders of costs for various development schemes,
the costs of each separate element is provided. By selecting the required options for a
field scenario and summing this, a total cost can be derived.
In any offshore development the main capital expenditure elements are:
—drilling and completion of production and injection wells,
—flowlines, subsea template, manifold and riser,
—offshore production facility with associated equipment,
—export system,
—dismantling costs at end of field life.
The other main cost element for any offshore development is the annual operating
expenditure.
Let us now consider each of these costs in turn.
TABLE 6.5
Drilling and Completion Unit Costs
Item Unit costs ($)
Template tree 0.7–1.0 m
Satellite tree 0.9–1.2 m
6 well template 7.0–11 m
10 well template 9.0–13 m
20 well template 16–20 m
8 bore rigid riser 3.0 m
20 bore rigid riser 5.0 m
8 bore flexible riser 2.0 m
20 bore flexible riser 4.0 m
Wellhead (18 3/4 in.×10 000 psi) 0.3–0.5 m
Control system 4.0–6.0 m
Workover system 2.0–4.0 m
Drilling cost (45–60 days per well) 60 000–75 000 per day
6.2.1 Drilling and Associated Costs

Costs for drilling and completion of deviated wells from floating production units vary in
proportion to the number of days required to drill each well. This in turn is dependent on
the depth of reservoir and the amount of deviation required. If a number of wells are
required the drilling and associated costs could be a significant percentage of the total
cost of an offshore development. See Table 6.5 for drilling and completion unit costs.
6.2.2 Cost of Production Support and Associated Equipment

There are two options open to a developer when faced with a decision on the type of
production support to be employed.
Option Go for a purpose-built, latest generation of production supports of the type described in
1 Chapter 4.
Option Purchase outright or lease an existing drilling unit and convert it for production?
2 Alternatively it may be possible to acquire an existing unit which has already been
converted for production.
Let us now consider the cost implications of each option.
Option 1: Build a New Generation Production Unit

The following are costs and construction periods for some possible production supports.
See Chapter 4 for typical performance details of these units.
—SWOPS: The fabrication contract for this vessel was awarded to the Harland & Wolff
shipyard in August 1984. The reported construction cost is £70–75 m with a further
£40 m expected for subcontracted subsea equipment.
—Petrojarl Production Test Ship: The reported construction cost of this vessel was £52 m
(sterling, 1985). It is interesting that it was built as a speculative venture. The vessel
did not have a definite work programme when the construction contract was placed.
The reported day rate is approximately $85 000/day.
—Highlander 6000: The cost of construction is estimated at £100 m (1985) excluding
risers, subsea manifold and some mooring. Construction period from order to
completion—21 months.
—IMFP 300: The cost of construction is estimated at £80 m (1985) excluding the flexible
risers and subsea equipment.
—Floating Oilpatch: The cost of construction is estimated at £92 million (1984)
including flexible risers and subsea tower and manifold. Construction period from
order to completion—17 months.
—TAPS System: The cost of construction is estimated at £220 million. Construction
period from order to completion—26 months.
—GVA 5000: The cost of construction is $80 m, approximately.
Option 2: Convert an Existing Drill Unit

A newly built harsh environment jack-up drilling unit (e.g. Rowan ‘Gorilla’ class) costs
approximately $65 million to build. Current (mid-1985) day rates for these units are
about $40 000. Older jack-up units have restricted available deck load capacity and water
depth capability. Jack-up units, generally, have low fatigue endurance when considered
for a semi-permanent production function.
A newly built third generation semi-submersible (e.g. GVA 5000) costs approximately
$80 m to build. Current (mid-1985) day rates for these units is about $50 000. Older
semi-submersible drilling units, with their more restricted deck load capacity and less
stable motion characteristics, are obviously considerably cheaper to purchase or lease.
The drill rig Deepsea Saga, an Aker H3 design built in 1976, was purchased in 1983 by
Hamilton Bros Oil & Gas Ltd for production duty on the Argyll field (See Chapter 5) for
a reported £19 million.
Order of magnitude costs for the production and process equipment and for power
generating equipment for installation on the drill unit are shown below. Clearly these
costs are closely related to the amount of processing required, the reservoir parameters,
power requirements for water injection and the suitability of the associated gas for power
generation. Whether new equipment for power generation, life saving, safety, flare,
utilities, etc. is required will depend on the age and condition of the equipment which is
already installed on the unit. The Transworld 58 (Innes field) and Buchan Alpha (Buchan
field) production units still use their original diesel generating equipment.
A typical SPM arrangement for harsh environments would consist of (1) an export line
from the production unit to the SPM; (2) one of the following SPM options: a CALM
buoy, a SALM, an ELSBM, a SPAR or an ALP; (3) a shuttle tanker arrangement to
transport the stabilised crude to shore. Unit costs for each of these items are given in
Table 6.7.
The Deepsea Pioneer (Argyll field) production unit had new gas turbines installed.
The gas lift package installed on Argyll in June 1985 cost a reported £5 m. See Table 6.6
for process and power equipment estimating costs.
Modification costs are notoriously difficult to predict despite the considerable
numbers of units which have already undergone conversion. Cost over-runs are generally
not due to the new process or generating equipment; they relate principally to the
difficulties which are encountered if the rig is not exactly as shown on drawings etc. or if
the condition of part of the structure or equipment requires unforeseen alterations to be
undertaken. Modification costs and durations can be
TABLE 6.6
Process and Power Equipment Costs
Throughput Production equipment ($ Generating equipment if required ($
(b/d) million) million)
20000 18.0 5.0
30 000 25.0 9.0
60000 39.0 14.0
optimised by careful selection of the rig in terms of rig power, variable deck load and
deck arrangement.
—Sedco Hamilton, who designed the conversion of the drill rig Transworld 58 for use on
the Argyll field, claimed that the installation of the modularised process equipment on
the units’ deck, in 1975, took only six weeks.
—The conversion of the drill rig Drillmaster for the Buchan field took 22 months (see
Chapter 5). However, that conversion included several major delays that would not be
typical or expected.
—The conversion of the drill rig Deepsea Saga for use on the Argyll field took six
months during 1984. This timescale would be considered to be a realistic estimate for
most conversions.
—The cost of installation of gas lift on Buchan Alpha, plus inspection and maintenance
of that Pentagone semi-submersible, cost a reported £11.8 m in April 1985.
Costs of towage to site and installation costs depend on distance and duration of tow as
well as any special installation operations which may be required. Transworld 58,
Buchan Alpha and Deepsea Pioneer employ a conventional and unmodified anchorage
system. Many of the newer
TABLE 6.7
Unit Costs for Typical SPM Options in Harsh
Environments
10 in. Export line to SPM
Item Cost ($000)
Cost of line 66/km
Lay cost 154/km
Survey 45
Umbilical 300
CALM buoy
Item Cost ($million)
Buoy 6
Install 5
Piled anchorage (if required) 4
Note: Piled anchorages are not employed in the Argyll or Buchan fields.
designs (see Chapter 4) provide for piled anchorages which would be considerably more
expensive to install.
6.2.3 The Export System

The options for offshore export systems are either a separate pipeline to shore, or to
connect into an existing pipeline, or to use a single point mooring system (SPM) as
described in Chapter 2.
SALM
SALM for operation in a North Sea type environment would be dependent on the size of
tanker and water depth. See the description of the Fulmar SALM in Chapter 2.
Costs would be of the order of $60–$80 m/unit for a Fulmar type SALM/yoke
installed. A Thistle type SALM would cost $20–$25 m installed.
ELSBM and SPAR

These units are large, complex and site specific (see Chapter 2). Their costs would be in
the order of $35–$50 m for an ELSBM and $85–$115 m for a SPAR installed, depending
on storage capacity.
ALP
Articulated loading platforms are large steel or concrete units (see Chapter 2) which are
site specific. Cost estimates for these units would be of the order of $60–$80 m.
Shuttle Tankers
The size and type of tanker employed would depend on
—daily production rate,
—time to shuttle to and from offloading points,
—environmental conditions at the SPM.
The number of tankers employed will depend on the type of SPM used. Two dedicated
shuttle tankers are normally used for CALM, SALM, ELSBM and ALP type offloading
systems. A single tanker can be used for SPAR and SALM/yoke type systems.
The options are to refurbish existing tankers or build new vessels. Cost of
refurbishment, survey and adapt for shuttle duties would depend on the conditions of
vessels purchased. Assume a five-year-old vessel costing $6–$7.5 m plus $2.2 m
conversion costs.
FIG. 6.1. Pipeline diameter versus oil

throughput.
6.2.4 Pipeline Size and Unit Costs

The variation of pipeline diameters with crude oil throughput is graphed on Fig. 6.1.
Typical pipeline requirements for various oilfield developments in North Sea type
environments are shown in Table 6.8 with associated procurement and installation costs.
6.2.5 Decommissioning and Abandonment Costs

Platform abandonment costs are still relatively unknown and any estimate of costs
involved is necessarily very tentative at this stage as national and international
regulations, governing the requirements for field abandonment, still remain to be drafted
in many instances. The projected costs associated with the complete removal of fixed
platforms have been projected by the Oil Industry International Exploration and
TABLE 6.8
Pipeline Size and Unit Cost Estimation
Field reserves Peak oil Pipeline Pipeline costs, Pipeline costs,
(millions of bbl flows internal dia. procurement, procurement,
of oil) (b/d) (in.) installation ($/inch installation ($/mile)
mile)
25 15 000 8.0 140 000 1 120 000
50 20 000 12.0 140 000 1 680 000
150 50 000 18.0 140 000 2 520 000
300 120 000 26.0 140 000 3 640 000
600 170 000 30.0 140 000 4 200 000
TABLE 6.9
Projected Cost of Complete Removal of Fixed
Platforms
Water depth (m) Average cost ($m, 1983)
Mild environment Severe environment
0–40 1–4 8
40–75 1–4 20
75–150 180
150–250 N/A 200
250 75 N/A
Source: E&P Forum—Paper OTC 5076, 1985.
Production (E & P) Forum, as shown in Table 6.9. The cost of decommissioning

marginal field developments will clearly be considerably less than that of removing fixed
platforms—a considerable advantage when considering marginal field economics.
A marginal field abandonment operation would involve the following activities:
—abandon and decommission each well,
—abandon the riser system,
—abandon the mooring system,
—abandon the flowlines, umbilicals, templates etc.
The unit costs for these operations are suggested in Table 6.10.
6.2.6 Field Operating Costs

Operating costs for a marginal offshore oilfield include the following items, in their
approximate order of importance:
—maintenance of the production platform,
—maintenance of the SPM and riser,
—personnel costs,
—diving costs,
—insurance,
—helicopters,
—supply vessels, standby vessels/anchor handling vessel,
—fuel and chemicals,
—well maintenance and workovers,
—shore base costs.
As a rule of thumb, annual offshore field operating costs are generally
TABLE 6.10
Well Abandonment Costs, Per Well
Item Cost
Semi-submersible, 20 days, $60 000/day $1.20 m
Semi-submersible, 6 days weather down time, $60 000/day $0.36 m
Semi-submersible, 3 days transit time, $60 000/day $0.18 m
Materials (mud, cement, chemicals, etc.) $0.15 m
Contingencies $0.11 m
Total per well $2.00 m
Other Field Abandonment Costs
Item Cost
Abandon flexible riser system $0.6 m
Abandon moorings and tendons $3.0 m

Abandon flowlines, umbilicals and template $3.0 m
Abandon SPM and pipework $3.0 m
Contingency and bargework $3.0 m
10%–12% of the field development costs, excluding the export system. However, this
may not be the most appropriate approach for a floating production system. An
alternative, showing suggested operating costs excluding the export system versus oil
throughput, is shown in Table 6.11.
Current operating costs for the Buchan field are reported to be £24 m (1984). This
includes the cost of leasing and operating shuttle tankers,
TABLE 6.11
Operating Costs for Floating Production Systems
Oil production (’000 b/d) Annual operating costs ($m)
10 25.0
20 27.0
40 33.0
60 36.0
80 38.0
Operating costs excluding the export system (i.e. costs of shuttle tankers).
£6.5 m. Ongoing capital costs have averaged £6.5 m/year excluding the major
modifications which were undertaken in 1984/1985 which were associated with the
installation of gas lift equipment on the installation.
6.2.7 Order of Magnitude Cost of an Extended Well Test in Severe

Environments
An extended well test as described in Chapter 4 could be an ideal method of delineating
marginal reservoirs in severe environments. An extended well test system can be installed
with minimum capital investment by using rented equipment. The following cost estimate
is based on information supplied by Sedco Inc. for an extended well test in the North Sea
based on using the semi-sub Sedco 704 (September 1984). It excludes rig time and well
completion costs and is based on rental, test tree and production process equipment.
Sedco claim that the cost estimate reflects the cost of previous similar installations. The
proposal was for a minimum period of operation of one year.
6.2.8 Equipment to be Leased on a Day Rate Basis

—semi-submersible drilling unit (complete with people, insurance, catering, etc.);
—production process equipment (complete with people, insurance, safety shut-in etc.);
—subsea test tree (complete with safety shut-in controls);
—storage tanker (complete with crew/mooring and loading hose connection).
See Table 6.3 for a budget estimate for these items.
6.2.9 Equipment to be Purchased—Capital Investment

—mobilisation costs of semi-submersible etc.;
—installation/testing of production process equipment;
—installation/testing of tanker mooring/loading hose;
—tanker mooring/loading hose.
See Table 6.4 for a budget estimate for these items.
Bibliography
Chapter 1
Carneiro, F.L.L.B., Ferrante, A.J. and Brebbia, C.A. Offshore Structures Engineering, Pentech
Press, 1977.
‘Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom 1984’, UK Department of
Energy, HMSO.
‘Early Marginal Field Production Systems’, Fluor Corporation Report, July 1984.
‘Esso Offshore Technology’, Exxon Production Research Co., 1984.
‘Floaters Stage a Comeback in Cost Conscious Climate’, Offshore Engineer, May 1984, pp. 50–55.
Floating Production, Veritas Offshore Publication, DnV 1985.
Harris L.M. An Introduction to Deepwater Floating Drilling Operations, Petroleum Publishing Co.,
1972.
History of Petroleum Engineering, A Publication of the API, 1961.
‘Marginal Field Development—A Discussion Paper’, John Brown Engineering and Construction,
July 1984.
Parkinson, S.T. and Saren, M.A., ‘Offshore Technology: A Forecast and Review’, Financial Times
Business Information.
Ratzer, J.P.L., ‘The North Sea—The Future Outlook’, RINA Conference on Developments in
Floating Production Systems, London, 1984.
Shell Briefing Service, ‘The Offshore Challenge’.
Snowden, D.P., ‘Floating Production Systems for North Sea Marginal Fields’, Offshore
Technology Conference, May 1984.
‘The North Sea and British Industry: The New Opportunities’, The Economist Intelligence Unit,
April 1984.
Chapter 2
Production Supports
Biess Haar, A., ‘The Design Aspects of Production Facilities on Floating Production and Storage
Units’, Proceedings of Marginal Field Conference, London, 1983.
Booth, D., ‘Extending the Margins’, The Oilman, March 1983.
Booth, D., ‘The Gorilla is Born’, The Oilman, November 1983.
Carter, J.H.T. and Foolen J.A., ‘Tanker Based Floating Production Systems for Deep Water’, Deep
Offshore Technology Conference, 19–22 October 1981, Palma de Mallorca.
Carter, J.H.T. and Foolen, J.A. ‘Evolutionary Developments in Advancing the Floating Production
Storage and Offloading Concept’, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 35(4), 695–700, April
(1983).
Eykhout, F. and Foolen, J.A., ‘An Integrated Floating Production Storage and Offloading—
SALS—in 380 Feet Water Depth’, SPE 3142, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, 1978.
Bibliography 224
‘Floaters Stage a Quick Comeback in the Cost Conscious Climate’, Offshore Engineer, May
(1984).
Klein, P.J., ‘The Development of the SALS Floating Storage Cum Production Facility Offshore
South East Asia’, Conference, 21–24 February 1978.
McCloud, W.R. and Smulders, L.H., ‘An Analysis of Tanker-Based Floating Production Systems
for Small Offshore Fields,’ Journal of Petroleum Tech., 34 (8), 1871–9 (1982).
Magni, M. and Poldervaart, L., ‘SALS Unit for NILDE field’, Offshore, December 1979.
Montoya, L.S. and Lopex-Fanjul, G.M., ‘Dorado Field Production System—A solution to
individual permanent vertical access to several wells from a semi-submersible’, October 1981,
4041.
Morrison, D.G., ‘Guyed Tower with Dynamic Mooring Properties’, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 109 (11), November (1983).
‘Multi-well Tazerka Raises Marginal Development Hopes’, Offshore Engineer, March 1983.
Perrett, G.R., ‘Floating Production Systems’, The Oilman, January 1983.
Patel, M.H., ‘Technical Assessments of Floating Production Systems,’ Marginal and Deepwater
Oilfield Development Conference, London 1984.
Quintela, C. and Smulders, L.H., ‘Single Anchor Leg Storage/Production Terminal Offers
Attractive Alternative to Production Platforms Offshore. Brazil’, 1978.
Remery, G. and Beare, A., ‘Tanker Based Production’, The Oilman, January 1975.
Smulders L. and Klein, P.J., ‘Castellon Sea bed Wells Flow to Process and Storage Tanker’, Oil
and Gas Journal, 1 January 1978.
Smulder, C.H. and Remery, G.F., ‘The Mooring of a Tanker to a Single Point Mooring by a Rigid
Yoke’, OTC 3567 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1979.
Van Dam, J., ‘Alternative Production Facilities for Offshore Development’, Offshore North Sea
Technology, Stavanger, 6 September 1978.
Vosper, K.W. and Stevens, B.G., ‘Development Options for Small Gas Fields’, EUR 344 European
Petroleum Conference, London, 25–28 October 1982.
Williams, L.H. and Smulder, C.H., ‘The Cadlao Floating Production Storage and Offloading
System (FPSO): A New Concept in Offshore Production’, Offshore South East Asia—
Conference, 9–12 February 1982.
Williams, L.H. and Pierce, D.M., ‘FPSO 11—A Second Generation Floating Production System for
Offshore Philippines’, October 4274 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1982.
Risers
Cornelson, D.J. and Lawson, J.E., ‘New Approach to Riser Couplings Could Turn Weakness into
Strength’, Offshore Engineer, March 1981.
Dareing, D.W. and Huang, T., ‘Marine Riser Vibration Response Determined by Model Analysis’,
Petroleum Engineer International, May 1980.
Dumay, J.M. and Bouvard, M., ‘Introduction to the Concept of Flexible Risers’, Coflexip
publication.
Dumazy, C., ‘Articulated Column as a Production Riser in 300–400 m Water Depth’, The Oilman,
September 1984.
‘Flexible Risers’, The Oilman, September 1984.
‘Flexible Steel Pipe for the Oil and Gas Industry’, Coflexip publication.
Muller, D., Castela, A. and Schawann, J.C., ‘Production Riser is Key to Deep Sea Operations’, Oil
and Gas Journal, 5 May 1980.
Pettanati, C. and Dumay, J.M., ‘Flexible Dynamic Riser for Floating Production Facility in the
North Sea’, Offshore Europe, 6–9 September 1983.
Wybro, P.G. and Davies, K.B., Journal of Petroleum Technology ‘The Dorada Field Production
Risers’, 34 (12) (1982).
Bibliography 225
Subsea Equipment
Arendt, H. and Brands, K., ‘Subsea TFL Systems—A Technological Update’, Offshore
Technology Conference, 1979, OTC 3449.
Booth, D., ‘Extending the Margins’, The Oilman, March 1983.
Brands, K.W. et al., ‘The Insert Tree Completion System’, Offshore Technology Conference, 1981,
OTC 4043.
Burkhardt, J.A. and Anderson, R.E., ‘Submerged Production System—Progress Report of Offshore
Pilot Test’, Offshore Technology Conference, 1977, OTC 2823.
Calder, I.D., ‘Subsea Equipment Design to Enable Completion to a Floating Production Platform’,
OE 1981, SPE 10398.1.
Coltharp, E.D. and Coffelt, D.E., ‘Experience with Subsea Well Control Systems’, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, 1981, OTC 4038.
Ladedcy, V.H. et al., ‘Grondin Experimental Station—Diverless Experiments’, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, 1981.
‘Le Champ Frigg Nord-Est’, Elf publication.
Morton, A.W., ‘New Concepts Used in the Murchison Field Submerged Production System’,
Offshore Technology Conference, 1981, OTC 4040.
‘N.E.Frigg—Subsea Production Nears as Column Floats Out’, Offshore Engineer, July 1983.
Reimert, L.E., Gray, D.J. and Machado, Z.L., ‘A Ten Well Subsea Production System for the
Enchova Field’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1979, OTC 3448.
‘Shell Looks to 600 m’, The Oilman, September 1984.
‘Subsea Completion’, Vetco publication.
‘Subsea Production Systems’, Vetco publication
‘The N.E.Frigg Project’, Elf publication.
‘The Skuld Project’, Elf publication.
Wilson, R., ‘Subsea Satellite Wells Development and Practical Operational Experience in the North
Sea’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1980, OTC 3731.
Loading Systems
Buyzen, J.P.M., ‘Operational Experience with the Offshore Loading Units AUK—ELSBM and
BRENT—SPAR’, Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, 1979, OE-79 SPE 8175.1.
Chauvin, J.M., ‘Single Point Mooring Systems’, China Oil, 1983.
Chauvin, J.M., ‘EMH Single Point Mooring Systems’, Offshore Australia, October 1984.
Dallas, M., ‘Offshore Loading Systems Shuttle Tanker Installation’, European Offshore Petroleum
Conference, London, 1980, EUR 209.
Dupont, B. and Simon, J.M., ‘Packaged SPM and FPSO Units’, EMH 165.
Eylshourt, F. and Foolen, J.A., ‘An Integrated Floating Production Storage and Offloading
System—SALS in 380 ft Water Depth’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1978, SPE
3142.
Gahtani, B.M. et al., ‘Five Years Optimising and Problem Solving at Saudi Arabia’s Tu’aymah
SPM Terminal’, Offshore Technology Conference, 1979, OTC 3563.
Gruy, R.H. and Kidg, W.L., ‘Marginal Field (Early Production): Options for Offshore Loading’.
Gruy, R.H. et al. ‘The Loop Deepwater Port: Design and Construction of the Single Anchor Leg
Mooring (SALM) Tanker Terminals’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1979, OTC
3562.
Hays, D.L. et al., ‘Operation of an Articulated Oil Loading Column at the Beryl Field in the North
Sea’, Offshore Technology Conference, 1979, OTC 3563.
Klein, P.J., ‘The Development of the SALS Floating Storage Cum Production Facility’, Offshore
South East Asia, Singapore, 1978.
Bibliography 226
McNamara, J.F., ‘Offshore Export Systems’, New Technology and Offshore Oil, Dublin, April
1981.
Maari, R., ‘Offshore Mooring Terminals’, SBM Inc.
Mack, R.C. et al., ‘Fulmar, The First North Sea SALM/VLCC Storage System’, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, 1981, OTC 4014.
Magni, M. and Poldervaart, L., ‘SALS Unit Tapped for NILDE Field’, Offshore, December 1979.
Marcello, J.T., Schneider, R. and Flory, J.F., ‘Tenth Anniversary Report—Single Anchor Leg
Mooring Technology’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1980, OTC 3802.
Miller, J.L., Hughes, H. and Dyer, R.C., ‘First Year’s Operation Experience of the Deepest SPM in
the World’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1979, OTC 3561.
Poranski, P.F., Gillespie, A.M. and Smulders, L.H., ‘The First Yoke Mooring for a VLCC in Open
Ocean’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1979, OTC 3564.
Quintela, C. and Smulders, L.H., ‘Single Anchor Leg Storage/Production Terminal Offers
Attractive Alternative to Production Platforms’, Offshore South East Asia, 21–24 February
1978.
Rees, T.E., Reber, M.A. and Seery, J.R., ‘Design, Installation and Field Operations of Offshore
Tandem Loading System—Nido Field, Offshore Philippines’, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 1981, OTC 4012.
Schultz, A.R. and Brown, R.J., ‘SPM and Floating Production System Technology Aids Marginal
and Deepwater Developments’, R.J.Brown Associates publication, October 1980.
Smulders, L.H., ‘The First Single Anchor Leg Storage/Production Terminal System’, Moscow
Symposium, October 1978.
Smulders, L.H. and Klein, P.J., ‘Castellon Seabed Wells Flow to Process and Storage Tanker’, Oil
and Gas Journal, January 1978.
Smulders, L.H. and Remery, G.F., ‘The Mooring of a Tanker to a Single Point Mooring by a Rigid
Yoke’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1981, OTC 3567.
Vilain, R.H., Pinto, J.L. and Guillaume, D.M.J., ‘A New Type of Single Point Mooring Developed
and in One Year’, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1980, OTC 3806.
Chapter 4
Abbot, P.A., Tulurea, D. and Hashins, J., ‘The Highlander 6000 Floating Production Vessel’,
Conference on Marginal and Deepwater Oilfield Development, London, April 1983.
‘Advanced Concepts are Tailored to the Task’, The Oilman, August 1985.
Behan, I., ‘IMFP 300—A Second Generation of FPSO’, Conference on Marginal and Deepwater
Oilfield Development, London, April 1983.
Carter, J.H.T. and Foolen, J.A., ‘Evolutionary Developments Advancing the Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading Concept’, Journal of Petroleum Technology, April 1983.
‘Cybele Semi-Submersible Production Platform’, EPM/Technique 2000.
Denise, J.P., ‘A Compliant Riser System for Floating Production Platforms’, Conference on
Marginal and Deepwater Development, London, 1985.
‘Dorada Hosts Unique Subsea Unit’, Offshore, August 1980.
‘Floating Production Services’, Det norske Veritas, April 1985.
‘Floating Production System for Deep Hostile Environment’, Ocean Industry, June 1983.
Hammet, D.S. and Johnson, J.S., ‘First Floating Production Facility—Argyll’, OTC Paper No. 282,
Offshore Technology Conference, 1977.
Hart, V.A., Montgomery, J.I. and Worley, M.S., ‘The Economic Evaluation of Hull Forms for
Floating Production’, Paper SPE 13154 1984, SPE Technical Conference, Houston, 1984.
Bibliography 227
Haynes, A.P., Jones, B. and Foster, K., ‘A Tanker Based Development Scheme for the Central
North Sea’, Seminar on Design and Operational Aspects of Floating Production Systems,
London, 1984.
Homer, A., ‘Floating Units Cut Production Costs’, Offshore, May 1983.
‘IMFP 300—A New Concept of Proven Technology’, Integrated & Modular, 1984.
Machado, E., ‘Petrobras Experience in Offshore Early Production Systems’, International Meeting
on Early Production Systems, Rio de Janeiro, 1982.
‘Nippon Kokan Wins Contract for Offshore Oil Production Tanker’, Veritas, November/December
1984.
Pass, H., ‘The Development of a Mobile Production System Incorporating a Compliant Production
Riser’, Oyez Seminar, London, 1984.
‘Penta 7000, Designed with IFP, Floating Production Platform’, CFEM.
‘Santa Fe’s Deepwater Floating Production Systems’, Ocean Industry, June 1984.
‘Sea Plex Class 500–4 For Hostile Environments’, Sea Plex Corporation; ‘Sea Plex Retrievable
Production Platform’; Sea Plex UK Ltd.
‘Sedco—Marginal Field Development Contractor’, Sedco Inc.
‘Semi Platform Planned for Balmoral Field’, Offshore, September 1983.
‘Severe Weather Jack-up’, The Oilman, May 1984.
Smith, J.R. and Jordan, P.A., ‘Barge Mounted Production Systems for Floating Production Units’,
Conference on Marginal and Deepwater Oilfield Development, London, 1985.
‘SWOPS Considered for Norwegian Sector’, Offshore Engineer, September 1984.
‘T 2005-C Mobile Jack-up Drilling Platform’, CFEM.
‘The Gorilla is Born’, The Oilman, November 1983.
Worley, M.S. and Montgomery, J.I., ‘A New Concept in Floating Production Systems’, Seminar on
Design and Operational Aspects of Floating Production Systems, London, September 1984.
Also SPE 12986 European Petroleum Conference, London, October 1984.
Chapter 5
Argyll Field
‘Argyll, Hamilton Adapts to Exploit UK’s First Oil Field’, Offshore Engineer, January 1975.
‘Argyll’s Innovative Production Riser System’, Petroleum Engineer, October 1975.
Bifani, R. and Smith, C.A., ‘The Argyll Field after a Decade of Production’, Offshore Europe,
1985.
Elwes, P.J.G., ‘Argyll Field Development’, Petroleum Review, pp. 323–7.
Haggard, M.E., ‘Argyll SBM Production’, Offshore Services, November 1975, pp. 84–6.
Kirkland, K. and Johnson, J., ‘The Production Riser for the Argyll Field’, OTC Paper No. 2327,
May 1975.
Offshore Engineer, January 1984.
Petroleum Times, 20 February 1976, pp. 8/22/23.
‘Producing Oil from a Semi-Submersible’, Ocean Industry, May 1975, pp. 59–64.
Scottish Petroleum Annual, 1975, p. 39.
The Oilman, March 1984.
World Oil, September 1983.
Buchan Field
‘Buchan “Experiment” Termed Worthwhile’, Drilling Contractor, July 1984.
Bibliography 228
Darnborough, E., ‘The Buchan Field Development’, Paper EUR 230, European Offshore Petroleum
Conference, 1980.
Logan, B.L. and Rothwell, E.G., ‘Buchan Development Project—Conversion of a Drilling Rig into
a Floating Production Platform’, Paper OTC 3958, Offshore Technology Conference, 1981.
Mieras, A.A., ‘Operational Experience of the Buchan Field Floating Production and Offshore
Loading System’, Paper SPE 12433, 5th Offshore South East Asia Conference 1983.
Scottish Petroleum Review Annual, 1985, p. 51.
‘The Buchan Oil Field’, BP Petroleum Development Ltd.
Williams, P.W., ‘Buchan—The First Nine Months’, Paper EUR 277, European Petroleum
Conference, 1982.
Chapter 6
Bayly, C.H. and Cox T.F., ‘Conditions for Development of Smaller Discoveries in the North Sea’,
European Petroleum Conference 1982.
Hall, J.D., Conversion Techniques—Enhancing Recovery and Profitability of Marginal Offshore
Fields, Marginal Oilfield Development Conference 1983.
Kemp, A.G. and Rose, D., North Sea Economics Revised—Petroleum Economist April 1982.
Moe, J., Technological Development and Cost Uncertainties, Offshore Gotenburg Marine
Technology Conference 1981.
Montague Smith, D.A., Finance for Marginal Oilfield Development—Enhancing Recovery and
Profitability of Marginal Offshore Fields, Marginal Oilfield Development Conference 1983.
Morrison, D.D. and Jolliffe, V., ‘North Sea Tax and Economics’, European Petroleum Conference
1982.
Noroil July 1982 p. 21 North Sea Field Development.
Noroil August 1982 p. 67 UK Field Development.
Offshore, 1979, The Economics of Wet and Dry Subsea Completions.
Offshore, March 1980 p. 61, Economical Marginal Fields.
Parkinson, S.T. and Saren, M.A., Offshore Technology, A Forecast and Review, Financial Times
Business Information.
Smith, J.R., Carruthers R., Enhancing Recovery and Profitability of Marginal Offshore Fields,
Marginal Oilfield Development Conference 1983.
Appendix 1
Conversion Factors
The units of measurement used in the text reflect the amalgam of oilfield and engineering
units which constitutes the accepted usage in the offshore industry.
Length: 1 mm=3.937×10−2 in.
1 m=3.281 ft
1 km=6.214×10−1 miles (statute)
=5.306×10−1 miles (nautical)
Area: 1 mm2=1.55×10–3 in.2
1 m2=10.76 ft2
Volume: 1 cm3=6.102×10−2 in.3
1 m3=35.31 ft3
Barrels (oil)=42.0 gallons (oil)
Mass: 1 kg=2.205 lb
1 tonne=1000 kg=0.984 imperial ton
Approximate equivalents: 1 tonne oil=425 therms
1 tonne= barrels crude oil

5 million tonnes of crude oil per year=100000 barrels a day
100 million ft3 a day natural gas (mmcfd)=375 million therms per year
100 million m3 a day natural gas (mmcmd)=130 million therms per year
Appendix 2
Glossary of Terms
Anchor buoy A floating marker used in positioning each anchor of a spread mooring
pattern for a semi-submersible or drill ship.
API gravity The universally accepted scale adopted by the American Petroleum Institute
for expressing the specific gravity of oils:
API gravity=(141.5/specific gravity at 60°F)−131.5.
Blowout An uncontrolled flow of well fluids from the wellbore either at the wellhead or
into the formation. Blowout preventers enable the driller to prevent damage at the
surface while restoring the balance between the pressure exerted by the column of
drilling fluid and formation pressure.
Bottom hole assembly (BHA) The lower end of the drill string comprising the drill bit,
drill collars, heavyweight drill pipe and ancillary equipment.
Bumper sub A unit placed in the drill string of a floating rig to compensate for heave or
vertical motion.
Bundle A group of several parallel cables, hoses, lines, or tubing leading from platform
controls to remote actuating units.
Choke A gauged restriction inserted into a fluid flowline in order to restrict the flow rate.
Compensators Hydraulically operated equipment that compensates for the upward and
downward motion (heave) of a floating installation.
Connectors Hydraulically controlled clamps to mate and secure marine riser segments,
and choke and kill lines. One connector joins the lower ball joint of the marine riser to
the BOP stack, and another secures the BOP stack to the wellhead. The use of
connectors reduces the need for diver assistance.
Christmas tree The assembly of valves, pipes and fittings—usually high pressure—used
to control flow of oil and gas from the casing head.
Directional drilling Although wellbores are normally planned to be drilled vertically,
many occasions arise when it is necessary or advantageous to drill at an angle from the
vertical. Controlled directional drilling makes it possible to reach subsurface points
laterally remote from the point where the bit enters the earth.
Downhole safety valve A valve fitted to the production tube of a well some distance
below the sea bed in order to permit flow to be stopped in an emergency.
Down time Time during which no production is possible due to adverse weather
conditions, while downhole equipment is being changed, during well logging etc.
Dry tree A subsea wellhead where the equipment is enclosed in a watertight chamber.
Dynamic positioning The method of maintaining a floating offshore structure on
location over the well by means of computer-controlled thruster motors, thus obviating
the need for anchors and allowing production in water depths too great for anchoring.
The motors respond constantly to any changes in the wind, currents, waves etc. to
maintain the unit in a constant position.
Appendix 2 231
Flare An open flame used to burn off unwanted gas; see Flaring.
Flare stack The steel structure on a rig or platform from which gas is flared; see Flaring.
Flaring Burning off of gas produced in association with oil which, for technical or
economic reasons, cannot be re-injected or shipped ashore.
Gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) The volume of gas at atmospheric pressure produced in
association with a unit volume of oil.
Heave compensation Counteraction of vertical movement of the riser string. Heave
compensators have a typical stroke of 5.5 m.
Hundred year storm A combination of storm conditions (wave height and sustained
wind speed) that should, on average, only occur once every hundred years in a
particular area. Offshore structures are designed to withstand such storms.
Manifold centre An arrangement whereby production from several wells may be
combined in any way desired for forwarding through one or more pipelines. They are
commonly used offshore in order to minimise the length of individual well flowlines
while permitting the selection of individual wells for testing, segregation of different
types of oil, or other purposes.
Marine riser The pipe which connects an exploration rig, drilling platform or production
platform to a subsea wellhead or subsea pipeline during drilling or production
operations.
Module The box or ‘package’ containing equipment for installation on a production
platform. These modules, which may weigh up to 2000 tons each, are constructed
ashore and installed as self-contained units on the structure, each one serving a
specific purpose, e.g. crew module, control module, generator module etc.
Multiphase flow Simultaneous flow of two or more fluid phases (e.g. gas, oil, water) in
the same flow channel, whether pipeline, well tubing or reservoir rock. Because of the
pseudo-elastic interfaces between phases, multiphase flow is relatively inefficient, e.g.
with a given pipe and pressure difference, the flow rate of a mixture of oil and water is
less than it would be with either alone (assuming similar viscosities).
Pig A piece of equipment that is inserted into a pipeline and is carried along by the flow
of oil or gas; used to clean or monitor the internal condition of the pipelines or to mark
an interface between two different products.
Pressure maintenance Injection of gas or water into a reservoir in order to maintain
pressure. The aim is to maintain production rates, although the fluids injected often
sweep additional oil to the wells, thus increasing recovery from an oil reservoir.
Processing plant Special plant installed on a production platform or at a pipeline
terminal to separate gas, oil and water from a mixture containing some or all of these
components; also called treatment or separation plant.
Proven reserves The estimated quantities of hydrocarbons which geological and
engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future
years from known oil and gas reservoirs under existing economic and operating
conditions.
Pumps Mechanical devices to transport liquids or gases from one vessel to another along
pipelines. There are a wide variety of pumps of three general types: reciprocating, gear
and centrifugal. The choice depends on the height to which the liquid is to be pumped
(delivery head), quantity and nature of the liquid (viscosity, corrosive nature, etc.) and
availability of prime movers (electric motors, turbines, etc.).
Appendix 2 232
Refractory Materials which can stand high temperatures and resist corrosion and
abrasion. Particularly used for furnace linings.
Reservoir A stratum in which oil or gas is present.
Reservoir pressure The fluid pressure in an oil or gas reservoir.
Saturation diving Diving for a length of time which results in a diver’s body absorbing a
maximum of inert gases used in breathing at a given pressure level. Decompressing
time and equipment are required.
SBM Single buoy mooring, used for loading oil into tankers in the open sea. Also
sometimes called single point mooring (SPM). The principle is that the tanker can
moor to load oil whatever the direction of wind or current and swing at its mooring to
present the least resistance to the prevailing conditions. ELSBM stands for exposed
location single buoy mooring: a large SBM specially designed for exposed locations.
Semi-submersible rig A floating drilling platform that is supported by underwater
pontoons; generally used for exploration purposes but may be used for production.
Shuttle tanker An oil tanker which makes regular round trips between a producing field
and an onshore terminal or refinery.
Significant waves Wave heights observed and recorded by experienced seafarers. A
significant wave is equal in height to the average of the one-third highest waves under
the same sea conditions.
SPAR A type of single buoy mooring developed by Shell, incorporating storage
facilities, so that in the event of weather conditions temporarily preventing tanker
loading, production need not be shut off.
Spread mooring A system of multiple anchors and lines distributing the loads imposed
by currents, waves and winds. Pretensioning of anchor lines determines the initial line
loadings. A continuous monitoring of individual line loads and automatic adjustments
in tension increase the effectiveness of this station-keeping system.
Subsea completion (sea bed completion) A method of completing a well or wells
whereby equipment controlling oil-flow, normally mounted in a surface platform, is
housed in a special construction on the sea floor.
Subsea wellhead A wellhead installed on the sea floor and controlled remotely from a
platform or floating production facility or from land.
Template A design pattern with built-in guides for specific equipment and structure to
assure their usefulness. Examples: template for installing well-conductor pipe;
platform jacket with well slots, guides, sleeves for installation of piles; subsea
production system with spacing to accommodate the wells it will produce.
Tensioners Equipment used to maintain tautness or constant pulling stress on marine
risers, guide lines, drill string, and applications of wire and control lines on floating
vessels. Heave compensation is accomplished through air pressure vessels, control
panel, air compressor, air dryer units, and idler sheaves.
Thruster propeller A small propeller mounted underneath a floating structure or vessel
to enable it to change or maintain its position.
Turret A roller-mounted structure beneath the derrick of a floating drilling vessel to
which anchor lines are attached. The vessel can be revolved 360° around the mooring
plug by the bow and stern thrusters.
VLCC Very large crude carrier: i.e. tanker between 160000 and 319 999 dwt.
Appendix 2 233
Water drive A recovery process in which oil or gas is driven out of a reservoir by the
pressure of underlying water.
Water injection A process whereby treated water is pumped into the reservoir rock in
order to maintain the reservoir pressure.
Wax Solid hydrocarbon which is present in some crude oils, especially in paraffinic
crudes. Wax deposits in pipelines and equipment can cause mechanical problems.
Weather window The part of the year when the weather can normally be expected to be
suitable for carrying out offshore operations such as pipeline laying or platform
installation.
Wellhead The control equipment fitted to the top of a well casing, incorporating outlets,
valves, blowout preventers, etc.
Wellhead cellar In sea bed completions, a dry, steel structure enclosing the wellhead.
The inside of the structure is at atmospheric pressure. To service the equipment,
engineers are lowered in a capsule from a support vessel (the capsule also at
atmospheric pressure), which docks with the cellar. The engineers can work in the
cellar in shirt-sleeve conditions with fresh air and electrical power supplied by
umbilical cord from the support vessel.
Well logging A comprehensive record of all data collected during the drilling of a well,
enabling a highly detailed picture of the strata to be built up.
Wet tree A subsea wellhead where the equipment is exposed to the sea.
Wireline Any line of wire or cable used for downhole operations. Two types are usually
distinguished: piano and electric wireline. The former is a thin single-strand line of
high tensile steel used to lower instruments or tools into a well, and/or to install,
retrieve or operate ‘wireline equipment’, e.g. failsafe safety valves installed in tubing.
Electric wirelines are normally used for surface recording instruments, e.g. those used
for making electric logs.
Workover The process whereby a completed production well is subsequently re-entered,
and any necessary cleaning, repair and maintenance work done.
Index
Abandonment costs, 262

Alexander Keilland, 30
Alfortunada, 51
Argyll field, 24, 122, 191, 231–44, 259, 260
production continuity, 242–4
stages of development
1 st (1975–80), 232–5
3rd (1985), 238–40
4th, 240–2
statistics, 232
Argyll riser system, 46
Articulated
column, 24, 36–7
risers, 53
storage systems, 73
loading column (ALC), 75, 89–91
loading platform (ALP), 261
towers, 215–22
Auk ELSBM, 80
Badejo field, 110

Balmoral
field, 158, 192
riser system, 50, 52
Barge based
production support, 32–3
storage systems, 73
turret anchor production systems (TAPS), 208–10
Bekapi field, 33, 162
Bicudo field, 140
Bonito field, 146
Brent SPAR, 74, 81–2
Buchan Alpha, 30, 100, 248, 259, 260
CALM buoy, 79
field, 29, 100, 103, 142, 191, 244–50, 260, 264
installations, 245, 246–8
major contractors, 246
process and export systems, 249
production history, 249–50
statistics, 244
riser system, 47–9
Budget estimate, 254, 255
Index 236
Cadlao
field, 168
process, 95
Caisson vessel, 222–3
CALM (catenary anchor leg mooring) buoy, 30, 31, 75–9, 248, 249
Campos Basin riser system, 51
Capital
costs, 255
investment, 255, 265
Casablanca
field, 132
riser system, 51–2
Castellon
field, 59, 164
FPSO, 96
SALS, 87–9
Catenary anchored tower (CAT), 91
Catenary Anchor Leg Rigid Arm Mooring (CALRAM), 28
Cayo Arcas fixed tower, 92–3
Central Cormorant
field, 178
underwater manifold centre (UMC), 64–5
Christmas trees, 58
Commercial fields, 1
CONAT (concrete articulated tower) production systems, 220–2
Concrete gravity platforms, 23
Control systems, subsea, 67
Conversion factors, 275
Corvina field, 148
Cost(s), 251–65
drilling and completion, 257
elements, 256–65
field operating, 255, 263–5
increases, 253
parameters, 252–6
process and power equipment, 259
production support, 257
Dan Duke, 28
Decommissioning costs, 262
Deepsea Pioneer, 238, 240, 241, 259, 260
Deepsea Saga, 237, 258, 260
Deepwater
gamma tower, 223–4
gravity tower, 223–4
production concepts, 222–5
Denmark, future fields and prospects, 14
Development options, 251
Deviated drilling, 22
Dorado
field, 128
Index 237
riser system, 47
Drilling costs, 257
Drillmaster, 30, 100, 248, 260
Duncan field, 71, 235–8
Dynamic positioning (DP), 203
Economics, 251–65
Ekofisk field, 27, 106, 212
Electrical control systems, 67
Emilio field, 176
Enchova
field, 103
Leste I, 124
Leste II, 126
riser system, 48
Equipment leasing, 265
Espoir field, 28, 114
Exploration drilling, 16–17
Export system, 261
Exposed location single buoy mooring (ELSBM) system, 75, 80, 261
Extended
production test facility, 255
well test systems (EWT), 227–30
general scenario, 229–30
severe environments, in, 265
Exxon submerged production system (SPS), 63–4
Fixed
production platforms, 3, 22–4
tower, 91–3
Floating
concrete caisson vessel, 222–3
concrete monotower, 223
drilling techniques, 21
oil patch, 205–7, 258
Flowlines, 25, 94
Frigg North East field, 24, 36, 37, 64, 182
Fulmar SALM, 85–6
Garoupa
field, 68
North field, 130
subsea production system, 60–2
Garoupinha field, 144
Gas
production, 19–25
treatment and disposal, 96
Gathering system (manifolding), 94–5
Gotaverken Arendal GVA 5000 semi-submersible, 191–2, 258
Grondin subsea experimental station, 62–3
Gulf Tide, 27, 212
Index 238
Guyed tower, 24, 37–9
Handil field, 164

Harsh environment jack-up units, 212
Highlander 6000 floating production vessel, 192–5, 258
Highlander field, 71, 186
Historical perspective, 15–25
Hutton field, 24, 36, 180, 193
Hydraulic control systems, 67
IMFP 300 semi-submersible production concept, 196–8, 258

Innes field, 240–2
Ireland, future fields and prospects, 15
Jack-up production support, 27–9, 211–15
Lavinia field, 174

LENA field, 24
Lewis offshore yard, 100
Loading systems, 74–93
design considerations, 75–6
MACC (manifold and control columns)

concept, 216–18
moored
semi-submersible scheme, 218–19
tanker scheme, 219–20
satellite field development scheme, 220
Manifolding. See Gathering system
Marginal field(s)
acceptable returns, 1
challenge of, 1–25
current and future development concepts, 188–230
data sheets, 104
definition, 1
development criteria, 97
early production, 99–100
elements of development scheme, 26–96
maximum flexibility for offshore operations, 101
maximum return on investment, 100–1
minimum abandonment costs, 102
reduced capital investment, 100
reservoir performance test, 103
technology
characteristics of, 4
existing, 97–187
fields utilising, 98
proven, 102
what is meant by, 3–15
Maureen articulated column, 73, 90–1
Index 239
Modification costs, 259

Monohull based systems, 161
Netherlands, future fields and prospects, 13–14

Nilde field, 166
North East Frigg field. See Frigg North East field
North Sea floating production systems, 231–50
Norway, future fields and prospects, 11–13
Ocean Kokuei, 234

Oil production, 19–25
Operating costs, 255, 263–5
Pampo
field, 136
Linguado field, 137
Parati
field, 112
RJS-194, 154
Phillips Enterprise, 28
Piled steel structures, 23
Pipeline(s), 25
diameter versus throughput, 262
end manifold (PLEM), 30, 249
size and unit costs, 262
Pirauna field, 150
PLEM (pipeline end manifold), 30, 249
Poseidon concept, 65–6
Processing facilities, 93–6
Production
test ship (PTS) Petrojarl/Golarnor, and, 200–2
headers, 94
support, 26–41
barge based, 32–3, 208–10
characteristics of, 40
costs, 257
design criteria for, 39–41
factors affecting choice of, 41
jack-up, 27–9, 211–15
semi-submersible concepts, 190–8
tanker based, 31–2, 198–210
future development of, 210
Productivity, 254, 255
Recoverable reserves, 252–6

Remote
maintenance vehicles (RMV), 65, 68
operated vehicles (ROV), 68, 95
Rental, 254
Repair and maintenance, subsea equipment, 67–8
Index 240
Riser(s), 41–56
alternative designs, 52–4
articulated column, 53
bundle, 42
catenary flexible with subsea tower, 54
comparative assessment of, 54–6
composite systems, 43
connection package (RCP), 44
definition, 42
design criteria, 44–5
flexible, 45, 48, 49–52
joint, 43
lines within system, 43
operational requirements and systems, 45–9
ribbon, 52–3
stand, 43
test stump, 44
tower, subsea, 215–16
RJS-90 Viola field, 156
RJS-150 field, 118
RJS-236 field, 152
Saleh field, 116

SALM (single anchor leg mooring), 31, 75, 84–9, 261
Saltpond field, 108
Scapa field, 184
Seaplex class 500–4 design concept, 213–15
Sedco-704, 265
Semi-submersibles (SSM), 20, 29–31, 121
current production designs, 195
production support concepts based on, 190–8
Separation system, 95
Severe environments, 265
Ship shaped units, 20
Shuttle tankers, 261
Single
anchor leg storage (SALS), 31, 32
buoy storage (SBS), 31, 82
point mooring (SPM), 31, 249
Skuld concept, 65
SPAR storage systems, 74, 81–2, 261
Storage systems, 71–4
articulated column, 73
barge based, 73
SPAR, 74, 81–2, 261
tanker based, 72–3
Subsea
control systems, 67
equipment, 56–71
repair and maintenance, 67–8
technical progress in, 69–71
Index 241
manifold, 60
production technology, 70
riser tower, 215–16
template, 57–8
Sul del Pampo field, 134
SWOPS oil production system, 202–4, 258
T 300 concrete tripod platform, 225

Tanker based
loading systems, 83–4
production support, 31–2, 198–210
future development of, 210
storage systems, 72–3
TAPS system, 258
Tazerka field, 32, 170
Tension leg platforms (TLP), 24, 33–6
Through flowline (TFL) method, 58, 69
Transworld 58, 234, 240, 259, 260
Tripod tower platform (TTP), 225
Turret
anchor production system (TAPS), 208–10
moored tanker concept, 83–4
UK Continental Shelf, 4
UK offshore discoveries and development prospects, 5
Uncertainties, 252
Uncommercial fields, 1
Water depth records, 21, 24, 25

Wave design criteria, 188
Well intervention methods, 68–9
Wells and wellheads, 24, 58
West European offshore discoveries and development prospects, 5
West Germany, future fields and prospects, 14
Wireline operation, 69
Yoked tower, 91

Technology For Developing Marginal Offshore Oilfields PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Technology For Developing Marginal Offshore Oilfields PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING

MARGINAL OFFSHORE OILFIELDS

ELSEVIER APPLIED SCIENCE PUBLISHERS

ISBN 0-203-97390-9 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-85334-435-3 (Print Edition)

Photoset in Malta by Interprint Ltd.

Chapter 1 The Challenge of Marginal Fields 1

Remainder of this chapter. We consider what is a marginal field, look at

Chapter 2. We look at the various elements that could be incorporated

1.1 WHAT IS A MARGINAL FIELD?

As noted above, the ‘marginal’ field as generally understood is primarily an economic

Name/block Operator Notes

Name/block Operator Notes

Name/block Operator Notes

Block number Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, datediscovered, name, etc.

15/26a BP Oil, SWOPS candidate?

Block number Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, date discovered, name, etc.

41/25a Total Gas, 1969

Block number Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, date discovered, name, etc.

211/27 Amoco Oil, 1976, Southwest Hutton

Name/ block Operator Notes

Name/ block Operator Notes

K10a Pennzoil Gas, production application submitted

Block Operator Notes: hydrocarbons, status

49/9 Gulf Oil, appraisal continuing

1.2 OFFSHORE OIL TECHNOLOGY—A HISTORICAL

It is sometimes difficult to appreciate just how recent a phenomenon is the petroleum

The semi-submersible: these are typically flat platform decks on which

FIG. 1.1. Areas of major offshore

Oil and Gas Production

FIG. 1.2. The different types of

FIG. 1.3. Comparison of typical

FIG. 1.4. Water depth records for

FIG. 1.5. Deviated drilling for fixed

FIG. 1.6. Deviation between

FIG. 1.7. Concrete gravity platform.

FIG. 1.8. Platform water depth records

FIG. 1.9. Water depth records for

2.1 PRODUCTION SUPPORTS

Production supports can be classified as follows:

*(6) and (7) may be applicable to deep water marginal finds.

FIG. 2.1. Typical jack-up system.

—Can easily accommodate conventional rigid or flexible risers.

2.1.4 Barge Based Systems

The system consisted of the following elements:

2.1.5 Tension Leg Platforms

FIG. 2.2. Typical tension leg platform.

accommodation, helideck and flare tower were contracted to yards in a number of

2.1.6 Articulated Column

2.1.7 The Guyed Tower

FIG. 2.3. Guyed tower.

2.1.8 Design Criteria for Marginal Field Production Supports

6. Articulated Minimal Articulated joint No Limited 6–10 100– No Minimal

Mild/moderate 100–500 Jack-up/semi-sub

No One Mild/moderate 50 Barge

700 Conventionally anchored

Mild/moderate 750 Tanker weather vane

Production Riser System

Integral Riser Bundle

Non-Integral Riser Bundle

Composite Riser Systems

Lines within the Production Riser System:

Riser Test Stump