1 OTC 18681
OTC 18681
From P-34 to P-50: FPSO Evolution
C.C.D. Henriques, PETROBRAS; F.N. Brandão, PETROBRAS
Copyright 2007, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 30 April–3 May 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
PETROBRAS started to use ship-shaped processing and
storage vessels (FPSOs) for offshore production in 1979,
through the installation of a process plant over the deck of the
P.P.Moraes oil tanker (later renamed to P-34). In April 2006,
the P-50, PETROBRAS´ latest and most complex FPSO, ever,
started production in Albacora Leste Field.
In these last 25 years, the concept and design of our FPSOs
suffered a large transformation, from the simplified production
plants for up to 50,000 bpd used in the late 70s, through the
large FPSOs converted in the mid-90s, up to the concept
adopted in P-50 project.
In this project, the concepts of modularization and self-
contained equipment packages allied to the life enhancement
strategies adopted to guarantee an operational life in excess of
25 years, lead to a design that can be considered “top-of-class”
for converted FPSOs.
In this paper it will described how the design of
PETROBRAS´ FPSOs evolved highlighting the modifications
made in the design of P-50 main systems.
Introduction
PETROBRAS has a long history of using ship-shaped
production units in its offshore projects starting in the end of
the 80’s. Table 1 shows the list of our FPSOs in design,
construction or operation and the FPSOs that were
demobilized. At present, we have 11 FPSO/FSOs in operation,
and we can divide the history of those Units into 3 phases, as
can be graphically seen in figure 1 that shows the number of
FPSO/FSOs that entered production in each year, since 1987:
ƒ Phase I: In this period, from 1979 up to the beginning of
the 90s, FPSOs were used mainly as Early Production
Systems;
ƒ Phase II: This period, up to the end of 90s, comprises the
boom of FPSO construction and installation in the
Campos Basin;
ƒ Phase III: In this phase, the use of FPSOs was
consolidated and a second generation of units was built,
taking into account all the experience gathered in the first
wave of FPSOs from the second phase.
Nowadays we can see that a new FPSO Phase is
beginning, with the development of P-57 project, our first
newbuilt designed FPSO.
Evolution of FPSO Concept in Brazil
Phase I:
In the Campos Basin, the first CALM buoy was installed in
the Enchova Field, in 1978 in order to allow the mooring of an
oil tanker to receive the production from a drilling rig in a
pilot production system.
The first mono-hull floating production unit to operate in
the Campos Basin (and one of the first FPSOs in the world)
was the former tanker P.P.Moraes. This 33,000 dwt tanker was
built in 1959, and, in 1975 it was jumboized to 54,000 dwt.
Then, in 1979, a 60,000 bpd process plant was installed in
P.P.Moraes to allow it to operate in the Garoupa field, moored
by a tower-yoke system as can be seen in figure 2. In 1980, the
tower failed from fatigue at the ballast tank, and a CALM
buoy was then installed in the field, to moor the P.P.Moraes
FPSO through a soft yoke (figure 3).
In 1987, P.P. Moraes received a rigid yoke to connect to
the buoy and was relocated to the recently discovered
Albacora deep water field. The unit operated as a Pilot System
for the Albacora Field up to March of 1993, with no
significant downtime and relatively low OPEX (Ref. 2, 3, 4).
During this period, floating productions systems based on
semi-submersible platforms were the typical solution adopted
in the Campos Basin deep water fields. These FPUs exported
the oil to Tankers from our fleet, permanently connected to
loading buoys. The first main project of this kind was the Pilot
System for the Marlim Field, in 1992, where the Aframax
Tanker Horta Barbosa was moored in 625 m of water depth,
breaking the world record of deepest moored CALM buoy, at
that time. The first tandem offloading operation ever done in
the Campos Basin was performed in the FSO Horta Barbosa,
proving that this kind of operation could be done safely, with
conventional shuttle tankers, under Campos Basin
environmental conditions. In 1993, P.P.Moraes left the
Albacora Field in order to begin its modification process for
the future installation in the Barracuda Field. P.P.Moraes was
replaced by a Semi-Submersible, the FPU P-24, which
exported the Albacora oil to the Aframax Tanker Jurupema,
moored in a CALM buoy.
2 OTC 18681
The modification of these oil tankers that worked as FSOs
almost continuously for more than 5 years was minimal. The
FSOs/FPSOs of this phase were typically fast-track and
limited scope conversions of mid-size tankers (Panamax or
Aframax size), for temporary production or storage, without
any gas exportation or water injection facilities, moored by
CALM buoys. Other important characteristics of those units
are shown in Table 2.
We can consider this first phase, the beginning of our
learning curve - P.P.Moraes was a floating lab to test the
design and the operation of an FPSO. The most important
lessons learned from this phase were related to the best way to
moor ship-shaped floating units in the Campos Basin, the
behavior of those units under beam seas conditions and the
effect of the movements over the process plant.
Long 15 years after the first use of P.P. Moraes as a
production unit, we decided, in 1994, to use this ship in a large
Pilot System for the giant Barracuda Field renaming the old
lady to FPSO “PETROBRAS-34”. Due to the large number of
risers (34), it was decided to use a turret system to moor the
FPSO. This was the first turret moored FPSO in the Campos
Basin (Fig.4). A new process plant, including Gas
Compression facilities was installed at the FPSO that began
operation in 1997 and operated continuously for more than 6
years until its demobilization in 2003 (Ref.1 and 9).
We can consider P-34 conversion as the transition design
from Phase I to Phase II. In this project, the unit was still mid-
sized, for an Early Production Project, without Water Injection
facilities. On the other hand, the unit already showed points
that would characterize the large FPSOs of Phase II, such as
the extensive refurbishment scope, the large turret mooring
and the unit conversion done in one big Lump-sum,
Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract.
Phase II
In the beginning of the 90s, the continuous increase in
production output from the Campos Basin led to a re-
evaluation of the Basin export system, since the existing
pipelines were already operating at maximum capacity. For
the transport of oil from the new Marlim and Albacora giant
deep water fields, it was concluded that using FPSOs would be
more attractive than the standard solution of FPUs (based on
semi-submersible platforms) which would require duplication
of the existing onshore pipeline network (Ref. 6, 7).
So, we began, almost at the same time, the conversion of 4
FPSOs, namely Vidal de Negreiros (P-31) for the Albacora
Field, and Cairu (P-32), Henrique Dias (P-33) and Jose
Bonifacio (P-35) for the Marlim field. All of them were based
on conversion of VLCC tankers (Very Large Crude Carriers)
from our own fleet. A few months later, a fourth FPSO for the
Marlim Field (P-37) was also contracted.
For the first time in Brazil, FPSOs were to be used as
permanent production facilities for the full life of the oilfields
(20 years). In order to comply with this task, the Units were all
converted from large sized tankers (VLCCs) that received
large process plants (100,000 bpd) installed in a production
deck (“pancake”) over the ship’s deck, with full Gas
Compression, Water Treatment and Water Injection facilities.
All Units comprised large diameter internal turrets with a big
swivel stack to receive the large number of risers that would
bring the oil from subsea manifolds.
Instead of leaving a floating hose in the water to export the
oil, submerged hoses stored between offloading operations in
a cradle alongside the ship were used to connect the FPSOs to
dedicated Shuttle Tankers that were equipped with Bow
Loading Systems (BLS).
In the first units, the ship Main Steam Boiler was used to
generate energy for the FPSO, as it was a common practice in
the marine industry. However, after experiencing severe
problems in the operation of P-31 boilers, we concluded that
this equipment was too cumbersome to be used in an offshore
permanent facility. So, beginning with the FPSO P-35, it was
decided to fully remove the existing Steam System of the ship
and install new Turbine Generators to supply the energy
demand required by the FPSO.
In order to comply with the expected field life where the
FPSO would be designed to operate, all existing systems of
the vessel were refurbished (“As-New” philosophy). Another
life-extension strategy was to use some special materials,
especially in marine systems, such as Copper-Nickel in the
Firewater System, Centrifuged Cast Steel (CCS) in the Oil
Cargo System and FRP in the Sea-Water Lift System.
After this first series, when 5 FPSOs were contracted even
before the first one had entered into operation, we contracted
the conversion of two FSOs for the new Roncador (P-47) and
the Marlim South (P-38) fields. Those Units had similar
characteristics of the 5 FPSOs, such as turret moorings and
full scope of marine conversion to comply with the long term
design life.
All those Units are still in operation today and the first one
installed, the FPSO P-31, is in continuous operation for more
than eight years, now. Despite the limitations that those Units
present in the Oil and Water Treatment plants, some minor
structural problems that were found in the hull (fatigue cracks
inside tanks) and the operational problems in the oil export
systems, those FPSOs have so far been presenting a very high
operational efficiency, above the average of the Campos Basin
Units (that include also fixed and semi-submersible production
platforms). These results demonstrated that the use of FPSOs
in the Campos Basin was a correct strategy, but also that there
was some room for improvement in the design.
Transition Phase II-Phase III:
In the beginning of 2000, we began the project for two new
FPSOs for the Barracuda and Caratinga Fields (P-43 and P-
48), in the Campos Basin. These projects can be seen as a
transition from Phase II to Phase III, since we can already see
points that would characterize the FPSOs of Phase III, such as
the Spread Mooring System, the process plant modularization
philosophy and the use of Moto-Compressors instead of
Turbine Compressors. The reasons for adopting these
solutions may be summarized as follows:
1) Elimination of subsea manifolds: aiming to reduce the
subsea production losses and to take the subsea equipment
supply out of the critical path of the project;
2) Spread Mooring: without the restrictions in the number
of risers presented by the turret, the SMS allowed the
connection of all risers and umbilicals (almost 100) directly to
the Unit, aiming to eliminate the subsea manifolds;
OTC 18681
3) Plant Modularization: allowed the division of the plant
construction work scope by several different yards, working in
parallel, aiming to expedite the construction time;
4) Use of Moto-Compressors: aiming to increase the
reliability of the Compression System and to reduce its
commissioning time;
5) All-new conversion philosophy (adopted since P-37
project): aiming to guarantee the equipment and piping design
life;
6) Metallization: Thermal Spray Aluminum was
extensively used in pressure vessels and piping operating at
high temperatures as well as in critical areas for maintenance,
such as the flare boom and the crane pedestals, aiming to
reduce the operational maintenance cost;
7) Cargo Handling System: a monorail was installed along
the ship, from the quarters´ area up to the turret, passing
through all the process plant, aiming to facilitate the
movement of equipment and parts inside the FPSO.
Phase III
The main characteristics of the FPSOs of this phase that begun
with the FPSO P-50, are shown in Table 2. It is important to
stress that the development strategy for the P-50 project
presented two basic differences from our previous offshore
projects:
i) The EPC Contract was divided into 5 separate packages
(Compression, Generation, Process, Utilities and
Conversion/Integration) as described in Ref. 13;
ii) A longer FEED was developed, giving the opportunity
to improve the FPSO design, taking into account all the
experience we had gathered from the design and operation of
previous FPSOs.
Ahead you will find the main characteristics of the P-50
project, which were replicated in our next two FPSO projects
(P-54 for the Roncador Field and P-53 for the Marlim Leste
Field).
P-50 Project
The Challenge
We can understand the challenge that was presented in the P-
50 project analyzing the graphic shown in figure 5 that
summarizes the increase in the capacity and complexity of the
FPSOs from Phase I up to Phase III. With a topsides weight of
almost 20,000 mtons, P-50 presents the largest and heaviest
plant ever installed in an FPSO in Brazil. Figure 6 shows the
evolution of the plant size from P-34 up to P-50 (figure 7).
Due to the characteristics of the Albacora Leste reservoir
(Ref. 8), P-50 plant also required some specific treatment
modules that had never been used in our previous FPSOs:
1) CO2 Removal System:
Due to the high CO2 content in the Albacora Leste oil, a
CO2 Removal Unit was installed between the second and third
stages of the gas compression system. The unit reduces the
CO2 content from 5% to less than 2%, by means of an Amine
(MEA) absorption process.
2) SRU – Sulphate Removal Unit:
The Albacora Leste reservoir water analyses showed the
presence of barium (70 mg/l) and strontium (500 mg/l) in the
reservoir. Since those salts can be combined with the sulphate
3
present in the injected water, there was a high risk of scale
formation that would clog the production wells. In the FPSO
P-50, the installation of a Sulphate Removal plant allows the
reduction of sulphate content in seawater from the original
2,800 mg/l concentration to 100 mg/l or less, with
approximately 75% of efficiency.
Another benefit of the SRU is that it reduces the
probability of souring (generation of H2S inside the reservoir
by sulphate reduction bacteria).
P-50 Design Concept
In order to face the challenges presented with the
increasing size and complexity of the plant some objectives
were pursued in the P-50 design. It was of paramount
importance to improve the Unit’s constructability, operability
and reliability (Ref. 10). The main strategies used to achieve
these objectives were the modularization philosophy, the use
of self-contained equipment packages and the life-
enhancement measures adopted, as explained below:
Modularization
In the first wave of FPSOs, the equipment skids were directly
installed over a pancake structure over the ship-deck.
Beginning with the P-37 project, the design was changed in
order to divide the plant in large modules that would be built
separately and would be later integrated over the ship.
Modules Arrangement
The modules arrangement typically presents the Gas
Compression and Treatment in the bow. The Separation
Modules are installed amid-ships followed by the Gas
Generators. The Utilities (Electrical, non-electrical) and Water
Injection Modules are installed more to the stern, closer to the
FPSO quarters, as shown in figure 8.
It is important to remark that the modularized design
allowed the strategy of contracting the Generation and
Compression Modules separately from the rest of the FPSO.
This strategy was used first in P-50 and repeated in all our
subsequent projects, because it allows a direct contact between
our PETROBRAS and the equipment supplier, facilitating the
design improvement and the commercial relationship.
Module Support and Installation
Instead of a truss structure supporting the plant “pancake”
(figure 9), pyramidal stools (figure 10) were used to support
the FPSO modules. All the necessary structural reinforcements
to support the modules were done inside the tanks, in order to
reduce the obstruction over the ship-deck. With this target in
mind, only 4 supporting stools per module were used in P-50
instead of the 6 that were used in previous FPSOs (P-
37/43/48). On the negative side, this structural concept with
large span module beams and huge stools resulted in a heavier
structure – because of that, this concept is now under
reevaluation and the use of truss structures is under analysis
for new projects.
The operation of lifting P-50 modules and their installation
over P-50 was made by the crane barge Kasei in 2004. The lift
of the Utilities Module (1,473 mtons) broke the record of the
heaviest lift ever made in Brazil (this record was broken again
in January, 2007, when the same crane-barge lifted a 1,644
mtons module from P-54).
4 OTC 18681
After the installation of P-50 modules over the ship stools,
it was verified that the modules supports did not perfectly
match the stools positions, due to the differences in the as-
built dimensions of the modules, fabricated in many different
sites, and the stools. It was necessary to install a large amount
of reinforcements in the modules supports and in the stools
which severely impacted the FPSO modules integration
schedule. Three different kinds of problems were detected
after the modules installation:
ƒ Lack of support: In four modules, only 3 of the 4
supports made contact with the stool, due to vertical
misalignment of the supports. In the worst case, one of
the module’s support was found “floating” 26 mm
above the stool top plate;
ƒ Insufficient contact between the module support
bottom plate and the stool top plate: this was a
generalized problem that happened due to the lack of
flatness of the plates, as it can be seen in the picture in
figure 11. The “bending” of the plates´ edges was
found to be much above the tolerance limits defined
for the structural fabrication;
ƒ Horizontal misalignment: in one third of the stools, the
centerline of the module support was so displaced in
relation to the center line of the stool, that there was
not enough space for welding.
These problems generated a lot of concern, because in our
next FPSO project (P-54) the same exact design was being
adopted, and the stools were already under fabrication. In P-
54, however, a more rigid dimensioning control was adopted,
as well as some preventive measures, such as the grinding of
the stools´ top plates. Fortunately, those measures proved to be
effective, and we did not find the misalignment problems that
were faced in P-50.
Aiming to give more flexibility to construction and
assembly, an improvement was adopted in our following
FPSO project (P-53): a transition box (that was already used in
previous projects such as P-37 and P-43) was installed over
the top of the stool (figure 12), giving space for adjustments
during the modules installation.
Finally, in P-57 a more radical modification was conceived
- a shorter stool was designed to support the leg of the module
that was extended (figure 13). This is the same stool concept
adopted in big FPSO projects in Africa, and, with this concept
we are confident that the modules support adjustment will be
much easier.
Equipment Packages
The intention of P-50 design was always to minimize the work
inside the FPSO hull and to maximize the new buildings in the
conversion in order to make the works easier and faster. The
design of those systems, fully discussed in Ref. 10 and 11, is
summarized below.
1) Marine Systems:
P-50 was our first FPSO project that adopted hydraulic
submerged cargo and ballast pumps. The benefits in terms of
constructability for the project are evident, as there is no need
to assemble neither a new cargo pump room, nor new cargo
lines inside the tanks since all cargo lines will run over the
deck. All cargo and ballast valves inside the tanks are also
eliminated with this kind of pumps.
Besides that, all the marine systems with connections to
the cargo and ballast tanks, such as the cargo, auxiliary,
loading and inert gas systems had their main headers built in a
ring shape form instead of the traditional fishbone
configuration seen in most FPSOs. The main target of this
concept was to reduce the amount of transversal lines over the
main deck, improving the arrangement of the Unit and the
ventilation and access to this area.
2) Sea Water Lift System for Water Injection:
The Sea Water Lift system for water injection uses flexible
risers that go down to 30 m below the deck for water intake,
aiming to obtain a better seawater quality for the injection
system. However, such injection system represents only 20%
of the total lift flow rate (the remaining is taken for cooling,
industrial use, fire fighting, etc). So, we decided to use a
dedicated system for this function, with submerged electrical
lift pumps.
Compared to the option of installing the pumps inside the
pump room, this solution is much better in terms of
constructability and operationability, and contributed for a
more efficient arrangement since the pumps are closer to the
water injection module.
3) Fire Fighting System:
In our previous FPSOs, dry-mounted diesel hydraulic
firewater pumps were used. In P-50, it was used a new concept
of diesel hydraulic pumps where a submerged hydraulic
booster pump was connected through a pipe-stack to the diesel
driven lift pump that was installed in a dedicated compartment
over the main deck. In this concept, the booster pumps and the
pipe-stacks were installed inside internal steel caissons, fitted
inside the ship’s original bunker tanks.
The main objective of this concept was to avoid the
installation of new pipelines (hydraulic and firewater lines)
inside the Engine Room and to avoid the construction or
conversion of compartments inside the Engine Room or the
ship’s Original Steering Gear Flat for the installation of
booster and lift pumps.
4) Offloading System:
In our previous FPSOs, cradles were installed along the
ship, from bow to stern, to store the offloading hoses, a system
that has the disadvantage of increasing the congestion of the
FPSO deck.
The first FPSO to use an Offloading Hose Reel in the
Campos Basin was the FPSO Seillean, a chartered
Dynamically Positioned FPSO (Ref. 5) that was equipped with
a Hydraulic Reel designed to store a 350m-long, 12-inch hose.
As P-50 was moored in a fixed azimuth by the spread
mooring system, two Offloading Stations were required, one at
the FPSO Bow and the other at the Stern. Each Hose Reel is
completely independent, with individual HPUs, what avoids
the need of hydraulic lines along the Unit.
The first Offloading operation in P-50 was successfully
performed in 19 may, 2006, with the Ataulfo Alves Shuttle
Tanker from our own fleet (Transpetro).
5) Chemical Products Injection System:
P-50 Chemical Products Injection System was designed
considering a centralized filling and distribution system for the
chemical products, in order to increase the safety of the
activities of receiving and handling these products.
OTC 18681
Fixed tanks that are supplied with products stored in large
containers were installed in P-50. Flexible hoses link the
containers or gallons of chemical product and the rigid supply
line to the fixed tank to be fed. A connector that may be
quickly actuated and the opening of two valves allow the
transference of the product by gravity, preventing the operator
to come in direct contact with the dangerous chemical
products, making this operation safer than the conventional
system of handling small chemical products containers.
6) Mooring System:
The use of a spread mooring system in P-50 lead to an
adequate and optimized subsea lay-out since all the wells
could be directly connected to the side of the FPSO, thus,
eliminating the need of subsea manifolds.
The mooring system designed for P-50 is an 18-line,
partially compliant spread mooring system, with 10 lines in
the bow and 8 lines in the stern. Polyester ropes and steel
chain in a semi-taut configuration compose all mooring lines.
The concept and installation of P-50´s mooring system is fully
described in Ref. 12.
The mooring system comprises one winch for the bow
lines and another winch for the stern lines. The mooring chain
comes from vertical chain-pipes, passes through a horizontal
sheave, the horizontal winch turn-down sheaves and then,
down to the fair-leads.
During the hook-up of the mooring lines, a big problem
occurred with the turn-down sheaves: the sheaves plates begun
to distort (Fig. 14), reaching very high deformations with risk
of structural collapse, even before the pre-tension load was
achieved. A detailed structural analysis showed that the sheave
was not strong enough to resist the load imposed by the chain
when it rotated around the sheave (Fig. 15). The sheaves had
to be disembarked and reinforced to allow the conclusion of
the pre-tension of the mooring lines.
7) Pull-In System:
The Pull-in System comprises a lower riser structure,
where I-tubes guide the flexible lines and an upper riser
structure where the risers are supported. A pull-in structure
over the upper riser structure supports the pull-in winches and
pulleys. All those structures were installed at the port side of
the Unit.
The benefit of having the Mooring and Pull-in Systems
located at the ends and sides of the FPSO is clear when we
compare P-50 lay-out with P-53 layout. In P-53, a turret was
used to moor the unit instead of a Spread Mooring System due
to subsea layout optimization reasons. The large diameter
turret for 75 risers/umbilicals weighting almost 10,000 tons
was installed in the bow, between tanks 2 and 3. This position
of the turret, chosen in order to reduce the movements
imposed to the riser resulted in a negative impact in the Unit’s
general arrangement: the gas treatment module had to be
installed ahead of the turret and all the piping from the process
plant had to go around the turret, to reach the module. A
comparison between the piping weight of P-50 and P-53
demonstrates the advantage of P-50’s layout.
Life Enhancement Strategies:
1) Material Selection Process:
The Albacora Leste Field’s characteristics motivated the
review of the material selection philosophy for the P-50 FPSO
5
based on the feedback obtained from similar projects in the
Campos Basin. Albacora Leste oil samples showed the
presence of CO2 (from 2.5% to 5.6% mol) in the crude
composition, as well as a high level of chloride. Besides, the
required separation temperature of 110ºC resulted in a
limitation of the material and coatings that could be used in
the plant.
During the Front-End Engineering Design stage of the
project, a decision tree analysis for each stream of the process
plant was performed, in order to decide the most suitable
material for all piping and equipment of the plant.
For a better assessment of CO2 corrosion and other effects,
the plant was subdivided into 13 branches, from the inlet lines
at the platform manifold up to the gas dehydration system. The
equipment data was collected and filled in a worksheet with
some key process parameters, such as pressure, temperature,
CO2 percent mol, oil and water flow of all fluid in & outlet.
The worksheet allowed the calculation of partial CO2 pressure
and BSW%, and suggested the best material to be used,
including special materials such as Duplex Stainless Steel.
2) Metallization and Coating:
In our first FPSOs, it was necessary to repair large areas of
the hull after a few years in operation in the site. We
concluded that the problems were caused by the conditions in
which the paints were applied at the shipyard, specially the
high humidity that impaired the quality of the coating and
provoked early paint warn out.
So, we started to test new kinds of paints in our
laboratories, looking for paints with resistance to humidity and
salt presence in the substrate. After some years of tests, we
finally found a kind of paint that fulfilled our needs, because it
works with a different curing process, absorbing all the water
present in the surface in this process. This paint was also more
suitable to be used after hydro-blasting, which is a better
surface preparation process (compared to dry-blasting) in
terms of elimination of the salinity present in the surface. This
kind of paint begun to be used in P-43 and was extensively
used for the coating of P-50 hull as well as in all tanks, voids
and in the structures of the modules.
Since P-43 also, we adopted the philosophy of increasing
the use of metallization (TSA) in order to enhance the life of
piping and vessels that presented high rate of corrosion in
former units. It was required that large structures such as crane
boom and frame and flare boom as well as equipment with
operation temperature above 90ºC, should be metallized with
aluminum.
3) Structural Life:
Since the Phase II FPSOs, we were improving our criteria
for Plate Renewal in order to guarantee that the ship’s
structure could withstand the corrosion and fatigue
requirements for an excess of 20 years in the field, without
dry-docking.
In was required that no plates with thickness lower than the
Substantial Corrosion thickness (as defined by the
Classification Society) at the end of the design life should be
allowed – non complying plates should be replaced. To
comply with this requirement, the actual thickness measured
were compared to the limits defined by a formula that took
into account the predicted corrosion in 25 years and the
minimum thickness required by the structural analyses. This
6 OTC 18681
criterion resulted in the replacement of 1,750 tons of steel in Nomenclature
P-50’s hull and 3,200 mtons in P-54. BLS
The life-enhancement strategy used in P-50 had the great BSW
benefit that, after conversion, the FPSO was considered by the C&A
Classification Society as “As New” (zero cycle of life) CALM
regarding inspection requirements. So, even tough the vessel CCS
was 25 years old, it was like its clock was reset to zero, which DICAS Differential Compliance Anchoring System
means a reduction in the inspection frequency with consequent FEED
benefits in terms of inspection costs and impact in the FPSO
production. FRP
FSO
FPU
The Future of FPSO Concept HSE
Phase IV HPU
P-57 is a purpose-built FPSO for the Jubarte Field, currently in SMS
bidding phase. P-57 presents a design concept very similar to SRU
P-50’s, including, for instance, submerged pumps, ring-shape VLCC
marine headers, offloading reels, etc. OPEX
The main difference is that P-57 is a specifically designed, MEA
new-built hull, with an optimized tank arrangement. Because
of this characteristic, caused mainly by the lack of existing References
tankers suitable for conversion, we may consider that we are 1.
now moving to a new phase in FPSO concept development.
2.
Conclusion
FPSOs have been used by PETROBRAS for more than 25 3.
years. After a long initial learning phase, a group of large
FPSOs was built in the mid-90s. The operation of these FPSOs
proved the concept to be a success, in terms of overall 4.
performance. However, some problems were detected,
indicating that there were many opportunities for design
improvement. 5.
In P-50, we had the opportunity to conceive a design with
some important changes in the concept that was repeated in 6.
the two next FPSOs that we built, resulting in a benefit in
terms of project standardization, significantly reducing P-54
conversion time, for example. Only small corrections in the 7.
design were required, which were quickly adopted in the new
projects, avoiding the main problems found in P-50
construction and installation phases. 8.
PETROBRAS is by far the most experienced company in
9.
the operation of FPSOs. The history of the use of FPSOs in
our company is one of continuous improvement that resulted
in the successful concept adopted in P-50.
10.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks PETROBRAS for permitting the 11.
publication of this paper. In addition, he acknowledges
numerous colleges from our company who helped to
12.
continually improve our expertise on the development of deep-
water fields.
13.
Bow Loading System
Basic Sediments and Water
Construction and Assembly
Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring
Centrifuged Cast Steel
Front End Engineering Design
Floating Production Storage and Offloading
Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Floating Storage and Offloading
Floating Production Unit
Health, Safety and Environment
Hydraulic Power Unit
Spread Mooring System
Sulphate Removal Unit
Very Large Crude Carrier
Operational Expenditure
Mono-Ethan Amine
Carneiro, P.R.B., “Barracuda Field: New Records for Turret
Moored FPSOs”, Deep Offshore Technology Conference DOT-
1995.
Formigli, J. and Porciuncula, S. (1997) “Campos Basin: 20
Years of Subsea and Marine Hardware Evolution”, Offshore
Technology Conference – OTC ’97
Mastrangelo, C.F. and Castro A.N.M. (1999). “Field Experience
and Concepts to be Taken into Account in an FPSO Design”,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition – SPE ’97
Mastrangelo, C.F. and Assayag, S. (1999) “The Operational
Experience of PETROBRAS in Offloading Operations with
FPSO Units”, Deep Offshore Technology – DOT ’99
Henriques, C.C.D. “Roncador Field Early Production System –
a 2000 m Water Depth Challenge”, Offshore Technology
Conference – OTC 1999
Mastrangelo, C.F. “One Company's Experience on Ship-Based
Production System”, Offshore Technology Conference – OTC
2000
Mastrangelo, C.F. and Henriques, C.C.D. “PETROBRAS
Experience on the Operation of FPSOs”, International Society
of Offshore and Polar Engineering – ISOPE 2000
Saliés, J.B. et al “Albacora Leste Field: Challenges of a Ultra-
Deepwater Development”, World Petroleum Congress 2002
Mastrangelo, C.F. et al, “From Early Production Systems to the
Development of Ultra Deepwater Fields – Experience and
Critical Issues of Floating Production Units”, Offshore
Technology Conference OTC-2003.
Henriques, C.C.D., Santos, A.B. and Pimenta, J.M.H.A.,
“Improvements Achieved in the Project of FPSO P-50”,
Offshore Technology Conference OTC-2004.
Brandão, F.E.N. et al, “Albacora Leste Deep Water field: FPSO
P-50 systems and facilities”, Offshore Technology Conference
OTC-2006
Henriques, C.C.D., et al, “Albacora Leste Field Development –
FPSO P-50 Mooring System Concept and Installation”,
Offshore Technology Conference OTC-2006.
da Silva, R.A.R., Galarza, J.A.V.C., Loureiro, J.E. and Martins,
J.V., “Integrated Approach for Big Offshore Production Facility
Construction Projects”, Offshore Technology Conference OTC-
2006
OTC 18681 7

Table 2 – FPSO Phases - Main Characteristics:

Table 1 – FPSOs in design and operation:
Characteristic Phase
Prod.
Moor. WD
Units Field Capac. Start Status I – 1979-1993 II – 1995-2001 III – 2002-2006
System (m)
(bbl/d) Units P.P.Moraes, P-31 / P-33 / P-50 / P-54 /
NT Garoupa 60,000 1979 Tower 120 Demob. Jurupema, P-35 / P-37 P53
PP.Moraes Albacora 60,000 1987 Yoke 220 Demob. Horta Barbosa
Jul
Barracuda 45,000 Turret 840 Demob. Size and Capacities
FPSO P-34 97
Dec Processing < 60,000 ~100,000 180,000
Jubarte 60,000 Turret 1350 Oper. Capacity (bpd)
06
FSO P-32 Aug Ship size Panamax, VLCC VLCC
Marlim *** Turret 160 Oper. Aframax
97
FPSO P-31 May Gas Small Moto- Large Turbine Large Moto-
Albacora 100,000 Turret 330 Oper. Compressors Compressors Compressors Compressors
98
FPSO P-33 Oct (<600,000m3/d) (1~2 MMm3/d) (2 MMm3/d)
Marlim 50,000 Turret 780 Oper. Main Steam Boilers + Steam Boilers Large Turbine
98
FPSO P-35 Jul Generation MotoGenerators or Turbine Generators
Marlim 100.000 Turret 850 Oper. (<1 MW) Generators (23 MW)
99
(5~10 MW)
May Water Very limited Full, with Full
Roncador *** Turret 815 Demob.
00 Treatment some
FSO P-47
Jul bottlenecks
Marlim *** Turret 189 Oper.
05 Water Injection None Full Full + SRU
Aug Capacity
FPSO P-37 Marlim 150.000 Turret 905 Oper.
00 Cargo 2 Cranes 3 Cranes 3 cranes +
Marlim Dec Handling Monorail
FSO P-38 *** Turret 1020 Oper.
South 01
Contract Requirements
Dec
FPSO P-43 Barracuda 150.000 DICAS 790 Oper. Contracting Internal 1 EPC, Lump- 3~5 EPCs
04
Strategy Procurement + sum Contract
Feb C&A Contract
FPSO P-48 Caratinga 150.000 DICAS 1040 Oper. Design Life 5~10 years 20 years 25+ years
05
Conversion Limited As New (Full All New (Full
Albacora Apr Refurbishment refurbishment of refurbishment replacement
FPSO P-50 180.000 DICAS 1240 Oper.
Leste 06 Philosophy existing of existing existing
equipment equipment) equipment)
Jul
FPSO P-54 Roncador 180.000 DICAS 1400 Constr.
07 Design Concept
Mooring Single Point Turret Moored Spread Moored
Marlim Mai Moored on (except P-53)
FPSO P-53 180.000 Turret 1080 Constr.
Leste 08 Tower or Buoys
Subsea Satellite wells or Large Subsea Satellite wells
Aug Arrangement small subsea Production Directly
FPSO P-57 Jubarte 180.000 DICAS 1280 Design
10 manifolds and Injection Connected to
Manifolds the FPSO
Plant Support Skids supported Skids mounted Modules over
over ship deck over Stools
Notes: “pancake”
(*) P-47 was demobilized after P-36 sinking. The FSO Materials Mainly Carbon FRP, Cu-Ni + Duplex
received a new oil treatment plant and was relocated to (piping and Steel and CCS Stainless Steel
Marlim Field. vessels)
Control of Ship Existing bilge Existing bilge bilge keel
Motions keel keel enlarged and
extended
Offloading Floating Hoses Submerged Floating Hoses
System in water Hoses stored stores in Hose
in cradles Reels
along the deck
Offload to Conventional to dedicated to dedicated,
Operations Tankers shuttle with BLS, full
tankers, with DP shuttle
BLS tankers
8 OTC 18681

180

160
Phase II Phase III
2
140

120

100
Phase I Phase IV
80
1
Oil Processing (1000 bpd)
60
Separation Temperature (0C)
40
Gas Processing (100000 m3/d)
Units

20
Electrical Demand (MW)
0 0
Water Injection (1000 m3/d)
1987 1990 1993 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Phase I
Phase II
Year Phase III

Figure 1 - FPSOs per year Figure 5 – FPSO Capacities Comparison

Figure 2 - P.P.Moraes (P-34) / Tower-yoke mooring

Figure 3 – P.P.Moraes (P-34) / CALM-yoke mooring

Figure 6 – Plant Size Comparison

Figure 4 – P-34 / Turret Mooring

OTC 18681 9

Figure 9 – “Pancake” support

Figure 7 – P-50 / Spread Mooring

Figura 10 – P-50 Stool

Figure 11 – Lack of contact in P-50 Stool

Figure 8 – P-50 Modularization

10 OTC 18681

Figure 14 – P-50 –Damaged TurnDown Sheave

Figure 12 - Evolution of Stool Design: P-53 – Transition Box

Figure 15 – P-50 Turn Down Sheaves Design

Figure 13 - Evolution of Stool Design: P-57 - Column + Short Stool