FPSOs Present and Future Workshop. Presentations. Session I Panel of Invited Speakers June 7, 2000

Transcription

1 FPSOs Present and Future Workshop Presentations Session I Panel of Invited Speakers June 7,

2 Speaker Table of Contents page James Regg, U.S. Minerals Management Service 3 LCDR Russell Proctor, U.S. Coast Guard 13 Paul Finnigan, Dept. of Minerals & Energy, W. Australia 25 Deborah M. Mattos, Petrobras, Brazil 53 Stephen Ovens, Occupational Safety & Health Service, New Zealand 64 Daniel Salas, PEMEX, Mexico 81 Oyvind Tuntland, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Norway 105 Peter Mills, Health & Safety Executive, United Kingdom 111 2

3 James Regg United States Minerals Management Service 3

4 Regulating an FPSO-based Development in the U.S. GOM Jim Regg, MMS FPSO s Present and Future June 7, 2000 Why None to Date? FPSO s around the world 70 in current fleet Offshore Magazine survey - August 1999 Water depth: 85% in WD<1000 ft Areas with minimal existing infrastructure Why not the U.S. GOM? Need; infrastructure; preference; technology Risk perception 4

5 FPSO Decision Model Guidelines Standards/RP s Policies/Regs Review Strategies MMS; USCG; Industry Iterative Process Programmatic Environmental and Technical Studies Strategy for FPSO s in the U.S. GOM Level of certainty increases as move to the right Likely Configuration Analyzed in EIS 1MM bbl oil storage Processing Up to 300,000 BOPD Up to 300MM CFGPD Multi-well subsea cluster(s) Transport 500,000 bbl shuttle tankers Gas pipeline 5

6 Comparative Risk Assessment Relative risk of FPSO compared to existing deepwater GOM production facilities OTRC, EQE, DeepStar, MMS, USCG Project Update Phase I: System definitions completed Phase II: Events and Outcomes completed Phase III: Consequence and Frequency Refinements and Mitigation Alternatives Project Completion by January 2001 What Happens After the EIS? Application Filed Within the Bounds Investigated in EIS Prepare a Site- Specific EA Engineering and Safety Review Application Filed Outside the Bounds Investigated in EIS Prepare another EIS? 6

7 Current MMS Regulatory Authority Development Operations Coordination Document Development intentions Existing Reviews Public input; environmental Conservation Review Other existing plans, permits, submittals Deepwater Operations Plan Graphic courtesy of APL Inc. Capability exists for review of FPSO-based development 7

8 DWOP DWOP Strategy Conceptual, Preliminary, Final Parts Guideline - Industry/MMS effort Early dialogue; focus on total system Sand face to transportation MMS approval prior to major $$ commitments Alternative compliance and departures Avoid unnecessary regulatory rewrites Best Available and Safest Technology DWOP Timing Discovery Conceptual System Selected Preliminary Engineering ID Alternative Compliance Conceptual Part 30 days Preliminary Part 90 days First Production + 90 days Final Part 60 days 8

9 Planned Enhancement to MMS Regulations Subpart B Enhancements Subpart B - Plan submittal requirements Incorporate DWOP Curtailment of operations planning Hazards analysis Conservation review full development premature abandonment Photo courtesy of Bluewater Offshore 9

10 Subpart I Enhancements Platforms and Structures - design, fabrication, installation, use, inspection, and maintenance Application process; verification program; certified verification agents; fixed platforms only Technical modification Reference existing industry standards Eliminate prescriptive details Rewrite All types of Floating Production Systems Industry Standards API RP 2FPS - Planning, Design, and Construction of Floating Production Systems API RP 2RD - Design of Marine Risers for Floating Production Systems and TLP s API RP 2SK - Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems API RP 14J - Hazard Analysis for Offshore Production Facilities Others? Offloading guidelines 10

11 Interface with USCG Memorandum of Understanding Effective 12/16/98 Implementation Identifying standards and regulations Determine where changes or enhancements needed to table of responsibilities Clear jurisdictions; component level Active and ongoing dialogue with USCG FPSO s in the U.S. GOM? No decision has been made Moving forward with Regulatory Model regulations; policy; MMS/USCG jurisdictions Must be assured FPSO does not increase general risk over other development options 11

12 Thank You! 12

13 LCDR Russell Proctor United States Coast Guard 13

14 OTRC: June 7-8, 2000 Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Systems Regulatory Scheme Lieutenant Commander Russ Proctor USCG Headquarters Offshore Compliance Program Assumptions for this Presentation 1. United States Regulatory Scheme as it applies to FPSOs 2. Focus of discussion is U.S. Coast Guard Requirements 3. The position presented represents the current policies of the United States Coast Guard 14

15 FPSO POLICY CLARIFICATION Are FPSOs considered vessels for regulatory purposes? Answer: Yes (Title 1 U.S. Code, Section 3) Is produced oil stored on board an FPSO considered cargo? Answer: Yes. Tank vessel requirements & manning apply, including Tankerman-PIC Tank vessel pollution prevention requirements and OPA 90 requirements apply FPSO POLICY CLARIFICATION Do FPSOs have to meet OPA-90 double hull standards? Answer: Yes, if oil is stored in hull tanks adjacent to the sea Some existing single hull FPSOs may be able to operate on the U.S. OCS but are subject to the OPA- 90 phase out schedule. In general FPSOs constructed or converted after June 30, 1990 must comply with the double hull requirements in 33 CFR d Each vessel undergoing a conversion will be considered on a case-by-case basis for the application of OPA-90 double hull requirements 15

16 USCG FPSO INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS The Coast Guard s inspection policy stems from USCGHQ Office of Compliance (G-MOC) Policy letter No Established use of applicable Tank Vessel regulations for FPSOs Identifies standards for foreign flagged FPSOs to operate upon US OCS USCG FPSO REQUIREMENTS U.S. flag FPSOs Must undergo USCG plan review & approval Must be issued a Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection and comply with: 46 CFR Subchapter D (Tank Vessels) 46 CFR Subchapter F (Marine Engineering) 46 CFR Subchapter J (Electrical Engineering) 46 CFR Subchapter I-A (Mobile Offshore Drilling Units) 46 CFR Subchapter W (Lifesaving Appliances and Arrangements) 16

17 USCG FPSO REQUIREMENTS U.S. flag FPSOs (continued) 33 CFR Subchapter N (Outer Continental Shelf Activities) 33 CFR Part 96 (Rules For The Safe Operation of Vessels and Safety Management System) 33 CFR Part 155 (Oil or Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention Regulations for Vessels) 33 CFR Part (Lightering Regulations) 33 CFR Part 157 (Pollution Prevention) 33 CFR Part 159 (Marine Sanitation Devices) USCG FPSO REQUIREMENTS Foreign flag FPSOs Must receive a USCG Letter of Compliance (LOC) Expected to comply with International treaties SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) MARPOL 73/78 (Pollution prevention) Non-signatory countries or failure to comply with international treaties will result in: Treatment as a U.S. flag vessel, including: Plan review for full compliance to U.S. regulations Issue a Certificate of Inspection upon compliance 17

18 USCG FPSO REQUIREMENTS Pollution Response Plans for U.S. and Foreign flag FPSOs FPSOs must have the following approved plans while operating on the U.S. OCS: SOPEP (Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan) VRP (Vessel Response Plan) These plans must be approved by the USCGHQ Office of Response (G-MOR) prior to operation ISM CODE and STCW FOR Foreign Flag FPSOs FPSOs are vessels with a myriad of integrated complex systems, marrying the characteristics of a tank ship with a production platform. These vessels will have a unique blend of maritime crew and industrial personnel The Coast Guard considers foreign flag FPSOs to be engaged in a foreign voyage when they are producing crude oil on the U.S. OCS. STCW does apply to the maritime crew and tankerman/pic for lightering operations ISM Code does apply. 18

19 ISM CODE & STCW for U.S. Flag FPSOs U.S. flagged FPSOs operating on foreign OCS will have to comply with both ISM Code and STCW U.S. flagged FPSOs are engaged in domestic voyages STCW and ISM does not apply to the maritime crew. The Coast Guard does encourage voluntary compliance with the ISM Code or MMS SEMP. 33 CFR - Subchapter N OCS Activities Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published December 7, CFR Part 144 (Floating Facilities) New regulations address floating OCS facility (FPSO) design & equipment requirements API RP2 FPS Expected to be published in 2000 Expected to become part of the ISO standard NPRM Comment period extended until 5 July

20 33 CFR - Subchapter N OCS Activities U.S. floating facilities (33 CFR ) MODU design & equipment reqmts in 46 CFR 108 Design & equipment reqmts in API RP 2FPS Marine engineering reqmts of 46 CFR, Subchapters F & J (Marine engineering & electrical) 33 CFR 159 (Marine Sanitation Devices) For floating facilities that store oil in bulk 46 CFR, Parts (Tank Vessels) 33 CFR, Part 157 (OPA-90 HULL REQUIREMENTS) 33 CFR - Subchapter N OCS Activities U.S. flag tanker conversions (33 CFR ) Must comply with 33 CFR Mr. Jim Magill (USCG HQ Offshore Standards) Session IV presentation Thursday Plan Approval Requirements (33 CFR ) General requirements (All floating facilities) Design Basis (Novel or unconventional facilities) 20

21 33 CFR - Subchapter N OCS Activities Foreign flag floating OCS facility requirements Meet U.S. Floating facility (33 CFR 144) and MODU inspection & equipment requirements in 46 CFR 107 OR Design & equipment requirements of the flag state if found EQUIVALENT to U.S. by Commandant IMO MODU Code OR OR SOLAS Safety Construction & Equipment Certificates 33 CFR - Subchapter N OCS Activities Foreign flag floating OCS facilities used to store oil in bulk must ALSO meet the following Non self propelled facilities 33 CFR 157 (incl. OPA-90 HULL REQUIREMENTS) 46 CFR, Subchapter D Requirements for Tank Barges (COI) Self Propelled facilities Same requirements as Non-self propelled OR Have valid SOLAS and IOPP (MARPOL) Certificates Foreign facility converted from a tank vessel Requires a major conversion determination from CG MSC Determine OPA-90 applicability (DOUBLE HULL) on a case by case basis 21

22 OCS U.S. Citizenship Employment Issues FPSOs operating on US OCS are subject to U.S. citizenship employment regs found in Subchapter N. 33 CFR 141 contains these regulations 3 Options are spelled out in regulations U.S. flagged FPSOs must employ U.S. citizens - No Waiver or exemptions are granted Foreign Flagged - U.S. controlled. U.S. citizens must fill all positions, However, a waiver may be granted for a limited period of time. Foreign Flagged - Foreign Controlled is eligible for an exemption All requests for exemptions or waivers must be processed by G-MOC NVIC No provides additional guidance to the regulations. Lightering Activities FPSOs will engage in lightering activities Lightering operations are governed by the regulations in 33 CFR Tankerman/Persons-In-Charge are required for all lightering operations Work-Rest periods apply Designated Lightering Zones may be established by the District Commander - The District Commander sets operating restrictions - Gulf of Mexico operating regulations found in 33 CFR Shuttle tankers or tank barges must be U.S. flagged if they are delivering the produced crude oil to facilities on U.S. shores. 22

23 Coast Guard & MMS Coordination CG involved in MMS s Environmental Impact Statement on FPSOs CG has formed NOSAC Subcommittee to review any added risk of deepwater activities CG participating in MMS s study on the Comparative Risks of FPSOs & other production options MMS and CG will continue to work together at all levels to define the FPSO regulatory environment MMS/CG Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) MOU Purpose: : clarify agency responsibilities New MOU signed December 16, 1998 Replaces old CG/MMS MOU from 1989 Developed with considerable industry input Clarifies agency responsibilities especially for floating OCS units including FPSOs 23

24 CONCLUSION FPSOs considered tanks vessels by USCG Coast Guard COI or LOC is required OPA-90 hull requirements...case by case basis NPRM on 33 CFR Subchapter N is a Roadmap for determining CG position & philosophy on FPSOs MMS & USCG have joint jurisdiction of FPSOs CG/MMS MOU clarifies agency responsibilities MMS & CG working together to develop an integrated regulatory approach LCDR Russ Proctor USCG Headquarters (G-MOC) Offshore Compliance Program 2100 Second Street SW Washington, DC (202) / Fax: (202) RProctor@comdt.uscg.mil m/gmhome.htmhtm 24

25 Paul Finnigan Australia Department of Minerals & Energy Western Australia 25

26 FPSO s - Australian experiences Paul Finnigan Western Australian Dept of Minerals & Energy e mail - p.finnigan@dme.wa.gov.au Workshop objectives Discussion on experiences and concerns from worldwide FPSO operations Identify operational and regulatory issues, and successful practices Identify needs for new technologies to address these concerns 26

27 Workshop focus Permanent vs disconnectable Conversion vs new build vessels Oil storage and offloading Manning and evacuation Vessel motion and stability Gas handling / transport 27

28 28

29 FPSO overview As at Oct 98, some 47 FPSO s in use worldwide, plus 24 under construction (Bluewater figures) 23 in use in UK / Norway, 7 in Australia Relatively few owned by oil companies, (Cossack Pioneer, Griffin Venture, (Aus), Schiehallion, Anasuria, (UK), Petrobras, (Brazil)) Main players - PGS, Bluewater, Modec BP Schiehallion 29

30 Australian FPSO s BHPP Griffin Venture - newbuild, (94) Woodside Cossack Pioneer - conversion, (97) BHPP Buffalo Venture - conversion, (99) Woodside Northern Endeavour - newbuild, (99) BHPP Skua Venture, (now removed), (91) ** Newfield Challis Venture (ex BHPP), (89) Newfield Jabiru Venture (ex BHPP), (86) Phillips Elang-Kakatua Modec Venture 1 ** FPSO advantages Large deck area, and potential topsides weight Inherent safety via separation, by distance, of process, from accommodation. Deep water capability Economics of leasing Re-useable - low decommissioning costs 30

31 Permanent vs disconnectable Australia has a mix of FPSO s, dependent upon environmental conditions at location. BHPP Griffin Venture and Woodside Cossack Pioneer both have disconnectable turrets, to allow to move to shelter in face of impending cyclones. BHPP Buffalo Venture and Woodside Northern Endeavour permanently stationed in field. BHP Griffin Venture 31

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

33 Environmental conditions (cont d) Timor Sea - cyclones immature Water depths Buffalo 270 m, (810 ft) Challis 105 m, (315 ft) Jabiru 120 m, (360 ft) Laminaria 380 m, (1140 ft) Newbuild vs Conversion - issues Newbuild typically outfitted with hydraulically driven deepwell pumps in cargo tanks. Conversion almost always retains traditional tanker central pumproom - a recognised hazard. Additionally, the hazard is immediately in front of, and below, the Temporary Refuge, (TR). Conversion may not be double hull / bottom. Ship collision scenarios?, and inspection of double bottoms. 33

34 Newbuild vs Conversion, (cont d) Newbuild allows better integration of design process with the goal setting philosophy of Safety Case style legislation. (eg H class bulkheads rather than A60). Age of vessel (for conversion) - quality of hull, tanks etc may be an issue. Extended period on station without drydocking. Woodside Northern Endeavour Largest FPSO in the world. 170,000 bpd production, 1.4 m bbls storage 220,000 dwt, 380 m (1140 ft) water depth Newbuild, with internal turret, and 7.8 m (23 ft) diameter roller bearing 9 point mooring system 21 riser slots in turret 34

35 Woodside Northern Endeavour 35

36 Laminaria turret Mac Cullough swivel 36

37 Brown Bros swivel Oil storage & offloading - issues Pool or spot chartered offtake vessels? Use of wing tanks to store oil, instead of ballast - may have implications for ship collision scenarios Tank pressurisation / vacuum issues - UK Uisge Gorm FPSO incident Large inventory (bulk oil storage in tanks) close to process equipment. Fire / explosion incident on main deck can have severe consequences. 37

38 Oil storage and offloading (cont d) Various offloading systems now available UKOLS, (Ugland Kongsberg offshore loading) Submerged Turret Loading, (STL) Buoys Dynamic Positioning, (DP), or non DP, for shuttle tankers Separation distances between FPSO and tanker Environmental states for offtakes. MST Berge Hugin (UK Pierce) 38

39 MST with STL 39

40 Oil storage & offloading, (cont d) Fishtailing in non co-linear seas. Thrusters? Cargo hose connection to shuttle tanker - midships manifold, or for d bowhouse? Emergency shutdown systems - interfaces between FPSO and shuttle tanker. Telemetry? Cargo hose rupture - use of weak link / dry break coupling? 40

41 Shell Anasuria Texaco Captain 41

42 Manning & evacuation - issues Extent of marine competencies onboard. FPSO also registered as a ship?, or solely as a petroleum facility? (SOLAS / Flag state requirements, and maritime union issues) FPSO s in deepwater - may be remote for helicopter evacuation. Also, helideck may be out of limits in bad weather or an emergency. TEMPSC - freefall or davit launched? Vessel motion & stability - issues Motion envelope may have implications for process design, (eg level control in separators). Orientation of process vessels along axis with least motions. Vessel motions may limit certain operations, eg maintenance, crane operations, helicopters Human response to vessel motions, (seasickness) 42

43 Vessel motion & stability, (cont d) Stresses and bending moments upon hull. (Hogging / sagging conditions). Difference between trading tanker, and FPSO. Deckloads - topsides weight limitations, and effect on centre of gravityetc. Gas handling & transport - issues Excessive heat radiation from flare, leading to no go areas on deck. Angled or vertical flare tower and size of knockout drum - to reduce frequency and consequence of liquids carry over. Rotary vs reciprocating compressors. Gas reinjection swivels - integrity of seals? LNG FPSO s and gas-to-liquids (GTL) systems 43

44 FPSO incidents Gas turbine rotor disintegrated, leading to large scale fire in FPSO engine room. No fatalities, but field shut in for 4 months, whilst refit / repairs undertaken. FPSO taken to shipyard. Omissions in hazard identification process. Some protective systems failed to operate - inadequate design and procurement of equipment. Shuttle tanker near misses A tsunami wave (generated by earthquake off Indonesia), caused an offloading tanker to slide down the face of the wave, resulting in relative movement towards the FPSO. Some vessel damage to fairleads etc, but high potential for more serious consequences. Shuttle tanker lost power whilst manouevering in proximity to FPSO. 44

45 Other issues Fitment of VOC (volatile organic compound) gas / vapour return systems to FPSO and shuttle tanker, (environmental issue). (BP Schiehallion) Green water on decks, (damage to process equipment, (eg Chevron Alba FSU) or hull, (BP Petrojarl Foinaven ) Integrity of swivel seals, (loss of containment) Type of mooring - drag chain vs turret. Green water on deck 45

46 Bluewater Uisge Gorm Texaco Captain 46

47 Other issues, (cont d) Type of turret - internal / external Accommodation up or down wind? (High) pressure fuel gas into engine / boiler rooms - explosion hazard Cultural differences between marine (shipyards), and oil industries. (Several FPSO projects have over ran in costs and time). PGS Ramform Banff 47

48 PGS Ramform Banff Maersk Curlew 48

49 PGS Petrojarl Foinavon (BP) PGS Petrojarl Foinavon (BP) 49

50 Loading reel on Petrojarl UK FPSO s Conoco Ramform Banff Pierce Berge Hugin MST Bluewater Bleo Holm on Ross Bluewater Glas Dowr on Amerada Durward / Dauntless BP Schiehallion (West of Shetlands) Shell Anasuria 50

51 UK FPSO s (cont d) Bluewater Uisge Gorm on Amerada Fife PGS Petrojarl Foinaven (West of Shetlands) PGS Petrojarl 1 (1986) Reading & Bates, (ex BP) Seillian SWOPS Maersk Curlew Maersk North Sea Producer on Conoco Mc Cullough Kerr McGee Gryphon A UK FPSO s (cont d) Texaco Captain 51

52 52

53 Deborah M. Mattos Brazil Petrobras 53

54 WORKSHOP: FPSOs PRESENT AND FUTURE June 7-8, 2000 Houston, USA PORTRAIT OF FPSO USE OFFSHORE BRAZIL Deborah Martinez de Mattos PETROBRAS R&D Center Carlos Ferraz Mastrangelo PETROBRAS E&P Department ABSTRACT Petrobras has presently six FPSOs operating in Campos Basin and the forecast is to complete fourteen units until 2003, including recently installed FSOs and other units in conversion, installation or contract phase. Some aspects of the design, conversion and operational experience are discussed in this paper. The Brazilian ruling scenario in terms of petroleum, environment and maritime political and technical aspects is briefly mentioned. Environmental impact studies, safety requirements, risk assessment and studies developed in this area are highlighted, including: gas dispersion in open areas, fire propagation and passive protection, explosion and fire prevention in cargo tanks, and risk of collision. Some technical aspects as as new x all new conversion philosophy and plate replacement are examples of typical subjects to be faced during conversion phase. Vessel motion and offloading represent important feedback from the operation, to the designers of new FPSOs. Finally, technological needs are shown, concerning mooring and risers systems and development of new concepts such as FPDSO. INTRODUCTION The experience acquired by Petrobras in Floating Production Storage and Offloading Systems (FPSOs) becomes evident when it is noticed that six units with this concept are already in operation in Campos Basin. Adding three FSOs in operation and five more units under construction, installation or contract stage, the figures grow to fourteen systems in the beginning of Although some initiatives in the use of FPSO/FSO concept in Brazil started in 1979 and several mooring systems, such as spread mooring, tower-yoke, calm system and calm-yoke were adopted ( 1 ), the decision of their intensive use began in At that time Petrobras decided to convert the P.P. Moraes FPSO, renamed P-34, into an Early Production System (EPS) for Barracuda and Caratinga Field, installing a new process plant and a turret system to moor the unit in 840 m of water depth. First oil of P-34 came in mid- 1997, through 11 production wells. 54

55 The increasing production in the Campos Basin, assured by the oil from Albacora and Marlim Fields, lead to a re-evaluation of the Basin export system, since the existing pipelines were already at maximum capacity. The appointed solution was the use of FPSOs, converted from available Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) of Petrobras fleet. These vessels, being of the single hull type, were restricted on some international sealanes. In spite of the average service age of 22 years, they were always maintained up to the standards required by the Classification Society. In this scenario began almost at the same time, the conversion of four former tankers, namely Vidal de Negreiros (P-31), Cairu (P-32), Henrique Dias (P-33) and Jose Bonifacio (P-35). A few months later, another unit (P-37) was contracted, but this time, the main contractor supplied the tanker (also a VLCC). Two FSOs, P-47 and P-38, were added to the initial conversion list, incorporating turret mooring systems. A small tanker (28,000 dwt), named Avare, was the first unit in Campos Basin installed through a Differentiated Compliance Anchoring System (DICAS), a spread mooring system. The experience with leased FPSOs started with Early Production Systems: FPSO II installed in Marlim Sul through a calm-yoke mooring system and Seillean, a full Dynamic Positioned (DP) vessel, for Roncador. Former FPSO VI, renamed Espadarte FPSO, is the only example of a leased Permanent System. Table I shows some data about the mentioned FPSOs/FSOs, not including FSOs moored to monobuoys. All FPSOs used as Permanent Systems have a large number of risers connected (up to 47), implying in large diameter internal turrets. They also have large process plants installed and present a large number of swivel paths. A 20 years design life was specified. Experience gained from operating ship shape production units has been useful for improving technical specifications and determining the life expectancy design for future conversions, and keeps us confident that safe operational procedures are the main way to prevent oil spills. Table I Characteristics of FPSOs/FSOs located in Campos Basin Unit Field Production Capacity (bopd) First Oil Water Depth (m) Status FPSO P-34 Barracuda 45,000 Sep/ Operating FSO P-32 Marlim *** Jun/ Operating FPSO P-31 Albacora 100,000 Aug/ Operating FPSO P-33 Marlim 50,000 Dec/ Operating FSO Avaré Marimbá Leste *** Dec/ Operating FPSO Seillean (*) Roncador 20,000 Jan/ Operating FPSO P-35 Marlim 100,000 Aug/ Operating Marlim Sul 20,000 May/ Relocated FPSO II (*) Marlim Sul 20,000 Nov/ Operating FSO P-47 Roncador *** May/ Operating ESPADARTE FPSO (*) Espadarte 100,000 Jun/ Installation FPSO P-37 Marlim 150,000 Jul/ Installed FSO P-38 Marlim Sul *** Jan/ Conversion FPSO P-43 Barracuda 150,000 Dec/ Contract FPSO P-48 Caratinga 150,000 Jan/ Contract (*) FPSOs contracted on daily rate bases. 55

56 RULING SCENARIO: POLITICAL & TECHNICAL ASPECTS RULING SCENARIO: POLITICAL & TECHNICAL ASPECTS Petroleum Politics The first official step in the history of petroleum in Brazil was the creation of the National Petroleum Council (CNP) in 1938, to assess the requests for research and mining of oil reservoirs, which was enforced by law to be performed by Brazilians. Petrobras Petroleo Brasileiro S. A. - was created in 1953 to run the oil business in Brazil, according to the law which instituted the state monopoly for research and mining, refining and transportation of petroleum and its byproducts. In 1963, the monopoly was extended to include imports and exports of petroleum and its byproducts. However, since November 1995, as a result of a Constitutional Amendment, Brazil has now permitted the presence of other companies which can compete with Petrobras in all branches of the oil industry. With the purpose of regulating, contracting and controlling economical activities linked to the petroleum industry, for the benefit of the country, in August 1997 the National Petroleum Agency (ANP) was created, being subordinate to the Ministry of Mines and Energy. ANP is in the organization process to fully assume its attributions. Environmental Politics and Regulations The responsibility for the protection and improvement of the environmental quality is attributed to several organizations, among which it is worth mentioning: the Ministry of Environment, Hydric Resources and Legal Amazon MMA (Central Body); the Environment National Council CONAMA (consulting and deliberating organ) and the Brazilian Institute for Environment and Renewable Natural Resources IBAMA (executing organ). The warranty of the environmental equilibrium is the main target of the IBAMA, which was created in 1989 to attend public and private action that could interfere in the environmental resources quality, aiming at the ecologically sustainable economical development. One of the instruments to control potentially polluting and/or natural resources demanding activities is the requirement of an Environmental License. In the case of offshore installations, this license is issued by IBAMA, following regulation by CONAMA. For the issuing of the Operation License for FPSOs, IBAMA has been demanding Environmental Impact Studies, which considers the impacts of continuous activity, and some studies related to Risk Assessment techniques, in order to identify and evaluate the consequences of accidental scenarios. It is foreseen a trend of governmental organizations to formalize requirements, and even though to create federal laws. Maritime Politics and Regulations The Rules of the Maritime Authority for traffic and permanence of vessels in Brazilian Waters are the attribution of the DPC (Harbor and Coast Directory), an organization of the Brazilian Navy. The Brazilian administration follows the International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements stated in the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and in the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU Code) and in the amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention). Only formally recognized Classification Societies by DPC are qualified to perform audits, inspections, surveys and to issue certificates related to conventions and regulations in the name of the Brazilian Government. Classification Society Rules Petrobras owned FPSOs are classified by American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Lloyd s Register of Shipping (LRS) and Bureau Veritas (BV). Guides and Rules for FPSOs are normally directed to new building units, and conversion cases receive an individual treatment. In order to guarantee a suitable performance of the FPSO during its life span, special requirements were established by Petrobras for structural verification, taking into account peculiar conversion aspects, such as previous fatigue damage as an oil tanker, thickness corrosion rates, Brazilian environmental and new cargo loading conditions ( 2 ). 56

57 DESIGN EXPERIENCE FPSOs owned by Petrobras have been converted from oil tankers adopting the lump sum type contract. In the integrated bidding process, the Main Contractor, that means the Conversion Yard, associated with a Detailed Engineering Design Company, has been the responsible for all items supply. Petrobras technicians, with the aim of achieving a good operational performance, have generated a large amount of technical specifications called Basic Design. The mentioned documentation was based on previous experience with other concepts of production units and has being improved during the last five years as the result of conversion and operational experience with FPSOs. The relevant technical requirements have been addressed in other opportunities ( 3 ), including a more detailed discussion on structural ( 2 ) and turret ( 4 ) requirements, and here only safety and risk assessment aspects will be mentioned. Environmental Protection and Design Boundary Conditions Since the field appraisal analyzes, basic design, detailed engineering design, and construction phase, all boundary conditions are considered to fulfill all safety and environmental requirements. Environmental Impact Studies are developed considering that the unit will comply with the CONAMA regulation. It can be depicted some restrictions to be considered during design as: maximum twenty part per million oil content in the discharge water; maximum temperature of 40 degrees Celsius of any discharge fluid overboard; not using CFCs and HCFCs refrigeration gas according to the Montreal Protocol. Safety Philosophy The safety philosophy for offshore installations has been consolidated in a document that comprehends the following points: Life-saving appliances and equipment; Active and passive fire protection systems; Safety requirements for electrical, drainage, ventilation and air conditioning systems; Fire and gas detection systems; Pressure relief and depressurization systems; Lay-out facilities; Noise protection; Emergency shutdown system; Safety Interlocking system; Inert gas system for cargo tanks. Quantitative Risk Assessment The objective of this analysis is to identify hazards and events that could initiate accidents and their consequences, with the respective mitigating measures. The use of this analysis has emphasized the importance of the inertization and depressurization system to the FPSOs safety. Gas Dispersion in Open Areas Gas detection is an essential step in all safety procedures, allowing starting safety measures like flow interruption, elimination of ignition sources and personal evacuation. Using a methodology based on computational simulation of the airflow around and inside the open areas of the process plant, an optimized gas detection system can be reached ( 5 ). This methodology has been used by Petrobras since Until now, several offshore units, including FPSOs have been analyzed and the studies were approved by Classification Societies. Fire Propagation & Passive Protection In order to rationalize the criteria for structural passive protection design against fire accidents, in 1988 Petrobras created a work group which opted for the development of specific procedures aiming to analyze the severity and consequences of fire accidents ( 6 ). 57

58 These procedures allow quantitative analysis by computational simulation of the various steps present in a fire accident, considering: leakage process, flame development, heating of structure and nearest equipment, propagation risk, and changes in the structural strength and behavior as a function of thermal and mechanical loads. The first successful results of the application of these procedures in the conversion of semi-submersible platforms, like increase in installation safety and reduction in the initially designed passive protection, and also in evaluation of old passive protection elements replacement in existing fixed platforms, encouraged further applications. Considering FPSOs, besides the process plant fire risks similar to a semi-submersible platform, a significant inventory is added from cargo tanks. Safety devices as inert gas system and water cannons to comply with SOLAS requirements were provided, but Petrobras technicians have been still concerned and intensive studies have been performed. To avoid that fires at process plant could ignite fire in cargo tanks, two basic philosophies can be applied: using grated floors at process plant deck (avoiding gas accumulation between the deck and the tank top) or using plated floors (avoiding that a fire at the process plant deck reaches and propagates to cargo tanks). Through computational simulation, the choice was for adopting plated floor, surrounding possible fire focus, avoiding the strong heating of the cargo tanks. Other important point found is the necessity of keeping the integrity of pipe racks, since normally this is the route of control cables, deluge lines and large hydrocarbon piping. Explosion and Fire Prevention in Cargo Tanks In order to define preventive actions against explosion and fire in cargo tanks, a work group was created at Petrobras in December The task included: bibliographic research, data gathering, preliminary hazard analysis, reliability analysis of the inertization system of a FPSO already installed, computer simulation of the effects of a fire in the process plant, etc. As a result of this study, several recommendations were addressed, which are going to be issued as operational directives and procedures. Recommendations of the International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers & Terminals (ISGOTT), a publication by the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) are usually followed, mainly in hot work execution, in Petrobras FPSOs as reference for operational procedures. 58

59 Risk of Collision Petrobras is one of the participants in the JIP Risk and Reliability of a FPSO in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Regarding the collision scenarios identified in the JIP ( 7 ), that is, passing vessel collisions, visiting supply vessels and offloading shuttle tankers, some comments can be made regarding Campos Basin reality. The area of oil exploitation in Campos Basin is not permitted to commercial shipping routes, so the passing vessel collision scenario is not so relevant. During offloading operations, the boundary conditions help for decreasing collision risk in the offloading shuttle tanker scenario : a tug-boat is permanently connected to the shuttle tanker; the distance between FPSO and shuttle tanker is required to be about 150 m; as the storage capacity of the FPSOs is very big, most of them in the magnitude of 2 millions barrels, the offloading frequency is once a week per unit or less; quick release connector of the hose and the hawser both sides (FPSO and shuttle tanker) are provided. Nevertheless, some additional care is being taken, including: improvement of knowledge and experience of the mooring master on board the shuttle tanker; following strict procedures for shuttle tanker approach; hawser tension and meteocean data monitoring, to guarantee that both are within safety values; periodical replacement and tests of floating hoses and mooring hawsers; personnel training on maintenance programs; performance data record of main components of the system; systematic failure analysis. Visiting supply vessels scenario although identified in the JIP as not so relevant, because of the unexpected significant oil spill, represent the main concern of Petrobras technicians. The use of fenders, supply boats with bow thrusters capabilities, and increase in its bollard pull capacity are some examples of mitigating measures that have been adopted. Its worth mentioning that weather conditions in Brazil are mild, mainly related to significant wave heights (7.8 m for 100-years return period and 5.7 m for 1-year) and the absence of hurricanes. CONVERSION EXPERIENCE The conversion work in the shipyards has brought some unexpected problems that were evaluated and some modification had to be done in relation to the original specifications. Although contract strategy affects the conversion final result, and, consequently, the performance of the FPSOs on site, this subject will not be addressed here. Technical experience resulted from tasks developed in different parts of the world, like China/Korea, Singapore, Spain and Brazil is briefly shown in sequence. Conversion philosophy: as new x all new The as new philosophy considers that there is no need to substitute all the existing equipment of the tanker, as pumps and piping, by new ones. However, this equipment should be repaired to become like new. This criterion was adopted in the first converted units. It was soon noticed that this concept was too abstract, and lead to a lot of discussion between the operator and the shipyard ( 1 ). In addition, many equipment that seemed suitable from the outside proved to be in bad condition when disassembled and had to be replaced. It has caused a problem to the shipyard that suffered from some delays in its procurement process. Finally, some equipment were very old and it would be very difficult to get spare parts during the 20 years lifetime of the FPSO. 59

60 Therefore, after P-35, it was decided to change the conversion philosophy to all new what meant that all equipment and piping should be necessarily changed. Only the hull of the tanker would be kept. Petrobras ships x 3 rd party ships As already mentioned, first FPSOs were converted tankers from Petrobras own fleet. Later, as there were no more VLCCs available, it was required to the conversion contractor to supply the ship to be converted. It was quickly noticed, that in the second phase the tankers were in much worse situation than in the previous, as can be confirmed by Table II that shows the amount of steel replaced in each FPSO. The case of P-35 is an exception, where the large amount of steel renewal may be explained by the fact that the ship was an ore-oil. It must be highlighted that our specification requires that all plates shall not reach substantial corrosion range during the unit operating life of 20 years without dry-docking. Therefore, it is requested an additional corrosion margin, based on Petrobras experience. Table II - Steel renewal in Petrobras FPSOs (converted VLCCs) Unit Supplier of Ship Steel (t) P-31 Petrobras 540 P-32 Petrobras 300 P-33 Petrobras 900 P-35 Petrobras 2,560 (*) P-37 EPC Contractor 2,000 P-38 EPC Contractor 1,200 (*) Ore-oil tanker (VLOO). OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE Vessel motion The environmental condition in the Campos Basin is multi-directional. Sometimes, occurrences of wind and current misaligned with long period wave (swell) induces a beam sea condition and consequently high roll motion response. Another reason of high vessel motion is due to Cargo Loading and Offloading Procedure. Several tanks with certain oil amount cause the FPSO to have a very low KG (vertical position of center of gravity) when the ship finishes the offloading. The low KG results in a high metacentric height, causing the natural period of the ship to be very low (around 13 s), in that situation. The two facts above (multi-directional environmental and low KG), when taken together, causes the FPSO to have resonant roll motions. In P-31, for instance, there were four shutdowns in one year caused by excessive motions (angles greater than 12 degrees). Moreover, excessive amplitude of roll motions has many consequences: affects the oil-water process; fixed davits for lifeboats have to be replaced by retractable davit or free-fall lifeboat shall be used; cargo handling is not adequate and some accidents during cargo handling were reported. For the design of new FPSOs, a more realistic cargo loading and offloading plan will be considered. In addition, the enlargement of the bilge keel, that in a VLCC usually has only 45 cm and covers only 40% of the vessel length, will be specified. A model test investigation, performed in the Institute for Technological Research of the State of Sao Paulo - IPT Brazil, indicated that the enlargement and extension of the existing bilge keels can reduce vessel motions to a compatible level for a proper process plant design with no downtime expected. 60

61 For the existing units, however, the only possible solution is to define some limits on the cargo loading and offloading plan in order to try to reduce or to avoid having the ship in a resonant situation. One of our units has an automation of the sequence cargo loading, according to a pre-defined loading plan. This system comprises two main software. The first one is to proceed a pre-defined cargo sequence that will minimize the roll motion, bending moment and shear forces along the vessel. The second one is a safety program that guarantees normal operation and double-checks the process sequence. An alarm and a trip interrupt any abnormal operation. At anytime, authorized operation staff can interrupt the cargo sequence and operate manually. This system is being used in one of our FPSO with very good results for almost three years and is being considered ready to be used in other FPSOs. Offloading Offloading operations through shuttle tankers are a vital issue for Campos Basin production. The experience acquired with 280 tandem moorings and more than 111 million bbls offloaded until December of 1999 provide confidence in the feasibility and reliability of this operation. It is expected to offtake60% of all Brazilian oil production through FPSOs and FSOs by the year 2004( 1 ). With the aim of increasing the lifetime of the offloading hose and allow its easy inspection, it has been required a retrieval system. The choice of all main contractors has been for a chute system, where the hose is stored in a long cradle, alongside of the deck. The chute system provides a better stern layout, in comparison to the alternative hydraulic reel system, because of the large diameter (20 ) and length (250 m) of the hose, besides being less expensive. Unfortunately, some problems had been experienced with this chute system in the beginning of their utilization. The chute used to provoke wear of hose and it was difficult to handle the hose in the cradle and to make the connection of the hose end to the rigid pipeline at the stern of the FPSO. In this situation, the offloading operations used an alternative offloading system (8 inches floating hose). This alternative was specified in the design phase to give more flexibility in the case of start-up of the main system or its unavailability due to maintenance or repair. As the alternative hose has a smaller diameter, this results in longer offloading periods and, consequently, greater operational costs. Chute suppliers have been doing adjustments, in order to make this system operational. The use of offloading arrangement with floating hoses permanently on the water and the connection on the shuttle at the bow are now under economical evaluation, since that design is considered reliable with no significant downtime. Ten calm buoys with floating hoses operating in Campos Basin help to relay in this option. With the exception of FPSO Seillean, all other offloading operations are done by shuttle tankers moored by a tensioned hawser to the FPSO, permanently assisted by at least one tug-boat. The hawser (150 m length) is retrieved onboard by winches at the stern. The hawser winch with vertical axis drum, proved to be very cumbersome and is not accepted anymore. Horizontal axis drum is now being required. TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS The use of FPSOs in offshore Brazil is a reality. Nevertheless, some challenges have to be faced and overcome, mainly due to the displacement to deeper waters. PROCAP 3000 Technological Innovation Program in Ultradeep Water Exploitation Systems, a new step now in progress of a capacitating program that has began in 1986, has a comprehensive portfolio, in which many projects are direct or have application to FPSOs. These projects are linked to general programs, and those that have interest for FPSO concept are presented in sequence. Deepwater Subsea Pipelines (Gathering, Export and Control) The objective of this program is to develop and make available new technologies for subsea pipelines, control umbilicals and diverless connections, considering all phases from design to installation. Flexible risers with diameters limited to 10 inches have already been developed for application in semi-submersible platforms up to 1,500 m of water depth. As FPSOs have higher motion amplitudes compared to semisubmersibles, a check has to be done, focusing on the feasibility for its use in FPSOs. 61

62 A Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) of 10 inches diameter for gas exportation was installed successfully by Petrobras on P-18, a semi-submersible platform, and a monitoring program conducted by Petrobras R&D Center is in progress since Two more SCRs, one for oil and other for gas export, both of 10 inches in diameter, were installed in February/March 2000 in P-36, a semi-submersible platform moored in 1360 m of water depth. The extension of this concept to FPSO is not obvious, due to its higher static offset and more severe dynamic conditions, mainly heave motion. As a consequence, careful analyses are being performed. Tethered Buoy Riser and Self Standing Riser are concepts that Petrobras is also interested in. The first one would make feasible the use of SCR for FPSOs. In the case that some Technical and Economical Feasibility Study, for a new field development, indicate that a Well Head Dry Completion Platform near a FPSO is the best solution, there will be the necessity of developing a Midwater Transfer Line. At this moment, critical issues like fatigue life at both end connections, vortex induced vibration, movements caused by multiphase flow, anchoring devices and interaction between flowline and anchorline have to be investigated. Mooring Systems in Deepwaters The objective of this program is to develop technology to moor drilling, production and offloading systems in water depths up to 3,000 m. Besides in-house work, there is also collaboration of Universities, Research Institutes and Private Companies. Three alternative solutions are considered: spread catenary, taut-leg and differentiated compliance (DICAS) mooring system. For each system, four main aspects are being investigated: materials, design procedure and criteria, installation and maintenance. Results already obtained show that it is economically feasible to moor drilling and production units in water depths up to 3,000 m ( 8 ). Taut-leg mooring systems are already in utilization in semi-submersible platforms since October For FPSOs a more compliant configuration is adopted, due to the big draft range achieved during operation. FPSO II has been moored in Marlim Sul Field at 1,215 m of water depth through a taut-leg mooring system, using a vertical loaded anchor (VLA) as anchoring device, since November Regarding polyester ropes, some improvements are still possible, such as efficient non-linear modeling tools, development of a protection against the ingress of soil and development of more efficient and easier to handle terminations. Short samples of fiber rope are installed in selected mooring lines, which are removed regularly to assess retained strength. As fixed points, several alternatives have been tested, such as suction piles, drilled and grouted piles and vertical loaded anchors (VLA). Improvements are possible, mainly in installation procedures aiming time saving with consequent cost reduction. Torpedo Pile is the name of a free-fall anchoring system, a new concept developed and patented by Petrobras, consisting of a tubular structure with a conical end tip, filled with high density ballast. It has already been used for pipeline anchoring, allowing big savings due to the decrease in flexible line length. In mooring systems application, it will reduce anchoring and installation costs and improve shot precision. Tests are being performed, focusing certification as fixed point for mooring systems. As an alternative for FPSO turret, a spread mooring system known as DICAS (Differentiated Compliance Anchoring System) has been developed and are in use in small vessels. The principle of operation is a substantially higher compliance on the stern lines, giving partial weather vane capability. The installation of two FPSOs based on converted VLCCs using DICAS, planned for Barracuda and Caratinga Fields, will bring more operational experience. An additional project develops an expert system to support mooring installations. This system will consolidate 20 years of experience in offshore operations and provide real time support to future installations. Stationary Production Units with Dry or Wet Completion The possibility of congregating drilling and/or completion, production and storage facilities in only one vessel is a tempting solution in terms of cost savings. Nevertheless, several aspects have to be investigated for the adoption of a FPDSO. 62

63 Petrobras is conducting some studies with FPDSO and following researches of other Companies, in order to select the best options for Brazilian scenarios including dry or wet completion, with the aim of directing some future Technical and Economical Feasibility Studies. CONCLUSION Although the experience acquired by Petrobras in the use of FPSOs cannot be denied, there are still many challenges to be surpassed. In the technological field, looking for applications in ultra deep waters, risers systems are the more demanding attention subject. Regarding design and operation, the focus on safety has to be always kept and the risk possibility has to be always reduced. A systematic utilization of risk assessment techniques, directed to life, environment and installations is expected. The concern with safety, health and environment in some way can be measured by the great amount of certificates according to ISO14001, BS8800 and ISM Code achieved by the operating plants of the Company. Very recently, in May 22, 2000, auditors from Bureau Veritas Quality International (BVQI) recommended the Campos Basin s E&P to be certified, after concluding that all requirements expressed in the Safety Environment and Health Management System were fulfilled. This means that the platforms, ships, laboratories, offices and all other areas and activities shall comply with requirements of ISO14001, BS8800 and ISM Code. Next goal is to have 100 % of operational units certified according to ISO and BS 8800 until the end of It s worth mentioning that the Basic Engineering Design developed by R&D Center has been certified by DNV according to ISO 9001 since December, However, to fulfill legal and ruling requirements is not enough, Petrobras is aiming to be in the forefront of technology and management. The Company is going to invest US$ 1 billion in the next four years for the implementation of the Excellency Program in Environmental Management and Operational Safety so as to ensure operational safety of its installations, minimize environmental risks and contribute toward sustainable development. It is a demonstration that Petrobras is giving environmental management the same importance that it gives to its productivity. ACKNOWLDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Petrobras for the permission to publish this paper. They also wish to express their gratitude to the colleagues for the help and advice during compiling of this paper, notably Marcia S. Araujo, Denise Faertes, Marina B. Fachetti, Arney M. Silva and Carlos Cyranka. REFERENCES (1) MASTRANGELO, C. F. One Company s Experience on Ship-Based Production System. In : OTC, Houston, OTC (2) FACHETTI, M. B., MATTOS, D. M., BARDANACHVILI, C. A. Structural Requirements for the Conversion of an Oil Tanker to a FPSO as a Permanent System. In: ISOPE 97, Hawaii, (3) MENDONÇA, C. E., FACHETTI, M. B., MATTOS, D. M. Petrobras Challenges in FPSO Design. In : FPSO Tech 96, Oslo, (4) MATTOS, D. M., FACHETTI, M. B., SILVA, A. M. Turret Requirement and Design for Petrobras FPSO. In : OMAE 97, Yokohama, (5) ARAUJO, M. S., SALOMÃO, W., MENDES, M. F., MANSUR, W. Designing Gas Detection Systems for Offshore Installations Using CFD Models. In: ISOPE 99, Brest, (6) ARAUJO, M. S., RODRIGUEZ, S. H., MENDES, M. F., MANSUR, W. 10Years of Computational Fire Simulation at Offshore Installations Results, Benefits and New Developments. In : ISOPE 99, Brest, (7) MACDONALD, A. et al. Collision Risks Associated with FPSOs in Deep Water Gulf of Mexico. In: OTC, Houston, OTC (8) DEL VECCHIO, C.J.M., COSTA, L.C.S. Recent Advances in Deep Water Mooring Systems off Brazil. In : IBC, London,

64 Stephen A. Ovens New Zealand Occupational Safety & Health Service 64

65 FPSO S - THE NEW ZEALAND EXPERIENCE FPSO S - PRESENT AND FUTURE WORKSHOP HOUSTON, TEXAS JUNE PRESENTED BY: STEPHEN A OVENS CHIEF PETROLEUM INSPECTOR OSH DEPT OF LABOUR NEW ZEALAND JUNE

66 MAUI FIELD 66

67 MAUI-B B PLATFORM FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI 67

68 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI DESCRIPTION Converted Suez Class tanker 20 year old vessel Modec - Keppell Shipyards, Singapore 135,000 tonnes dead weight 290 metres in length 44 metres width Permanently fixed FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI MOORING TURRETT 68

69 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI MOORING DESIGN LIMITS Permanently fixed to seabed on a 10 anchor mooring spread Designed to withstand 1 in 100 year storm with one anchor disconnected max. wave height 20 metres wind 78 knots current speed 1.15m p/s Calc. risk of breakaway 1 in 40,000 years Weather vanes 360 on HP swivel FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI VIEW OF MOORING SYSTEM 69

70 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL HISTORY First oil - September 1996 (approx. 4 years) 30,000 bbls oil/day design Capacity for 1 million barrels oil Engine mothballed Propellor shaft disconnected No standby vessel after first year Manning - 13 persons No accidents FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION No spills during operation to date MARPOL compliant voluntarily Strict environmental conditions imposed Outside 12 mile limit - Maritime Safety Authority (MSA) enforcement HSE Safety Case Dry break on loading hose Automatic shutdown on offloading at pre- set conditions 70

71 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI DECK VIEW FORWARD FPSO -WHAKAAROPAI OFFLOADING OPERATIONS 71

72 NZ LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK HEALTH AND SAFETY IN EMPLOYMENT ACT 1992 HSE REGULATIONS 1995 HSE (PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION) REGULATIONS 1999 HSE (PIPELINES) REGULATIONS 1999 PETROLEUM REGULATIONS OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS HSE (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 1999 Safety Case (HSE) Class Rules Certificate of Fitness Verification Scheme 72

73 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Safety Case review by Regulator no approval or acceptance Regulator inspections and audits Operator audits - SMS Parent Company audits - extensive Classification body rules - kept in Class Certificate of Fitness - 5 year term with annual inspections. FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL ISSUES JURISDICTION ISSUES MANNING ISSUES CONVERSION ISSUES MOTION AND FATIGUE ISSUES EVACUATION ISSUES EQUIPMENT ISSUES 73

74 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL ISSUES JURISDICTION arrived under own power - MSA jurisdiction once all anchors set - Chief Petroleum Inspector lot of discussion and concern from MSA - particularly for a potential breakaway established a tripartite Protocol document between MSA, Operator and Chief Petroleum Inspector FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL ISSUES MANNING was a very controversial issue extensive debate with MSA, maritime unions, operator and regulators agreed that once tethered was no longer a ship 13 crew - work 12 hour shifts - 2 weeks on/2weeks off multi-skilled (with marine and process experience) planned maintenance staff on when required reduction in risk and opex 74

75 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI MANNING STRUCTURE FPSO SUPERINTENDANT (OIM) PRODUCTION AND PROCESS PERSONNEL (5) ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL (5) SUPPORT SERVICES PERSONNEL (3) FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI CONVERSION OPERATIONAL ISSUES marine systems vs process systems diesel shutoff valves old piping (deck and internal) remove redundant piping in refit - not later smoke resistant doors ensure doors seal against smoke ingress in accommodation area extended life operational life to exceed original design life - reassessment required pump room location 75

76 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI Asbestos OPERATIONAL ISSUES widespread throughout vessel remove or manage regular monitoring encapsulate in PVC identify and label strict procedures and work permit for cutting into piping and walls FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI Tank Integrity OPERATIONAL ISSUES hydrocarbons detected in ballast tank quality assurance essential in all tank inspections during conversion also in application of coatings in ballast tanks ensure Company involvement in Project early repairs during operations result in lost production and long, costly repairs empty, clean tanks and identify areas cut out corrosion areas - weld patches 76

77 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI TANK CORROSION FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI TANK CORROSION 77

78 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL ISSUES MOTION AND FATIGUE weather vane at angle to ground swell and oblique to wind (stern thruster would help) hull twisting and sleep problems operating outside design criteria +/- 7 degrees maximum roll. Actual roll up to 20 degrees reassessed at 22 degrees roll in Fatigue Study strengthened piping supports, vessels. Some structural stiffening required study shows 23 year life if kept within limits FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL ISSUES EVACUATION no dedicated Standby Vessel supply vessel in field approx. 50% of time no Fast Rescue Craft (seas too rough) escape by helicopter or lifeboats with weather vane potential for smoke impairment of a lifeboat station smoke hoods and survival suits provided manage risks to ALARP through Safety Case 78

79 FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL ISSUES EQUIPMENT gas export pipeline plastic lined some cracking of lining suspected export gas temperature too high - hydrolysing lining installed additional gas cooler to reduce temperature to 53 degrees monitor pipeline annulus for gas leakage FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL ISSUES Rudder superfluous now but used on voyage from Singapore prefer to remove high maintenance of steering mechanism tried unsuccessfully to lock rudder (broke pins) maintain 79

80 FPSO -WHAKAAROPAI OPERATIONAL ISSUES Crane operations limited due to pitch and high roll conditions high pedestal increases pitch and roll - limits use height to clear process process area - no lift zone FPSO - WHAKAAROPAI SUMMARY Operators happy with FPSO - suits small scale production Regulators satisfied with operation - recent benchmarking - best in Class/Shell Group Co-regulatory approach - win/win Learning experience for operators/regulators Operators want to use Verification Scheme verify safety-critical elements from Safety Case this approach supported by Regulators 80

81 Daniel Salas Mexico PEMEX 81

82 Región Marina Noreste Sistema Flotante de Almacenamiento y Descarga (FSO) Historia FSO s en México Messiniaki Floga 151,000 DWT 22/May/80 al 30/Jun/82 Venture Europe 260,000 DWT 22/Mar/82 al 03/Sep/87 Seawise Giant 560,000 DWT 11/May/83 al 15/Jul/86 Texaco Veraguas 260,000 DWT 22/Ago/87 al 03/Ago/90 82

83 Antecedentes En 1996, Pemex inicio un proyecto de explotación del Campo Cantarell, con la finalidad de incrementar la producción de petróleo y exportaciones e incrementar la seguridad de las instalaciones existentes mediante la modernización de las mismas. Este programa de expansión incluye la perforación de 120 pozos, así como la construcción de la infraestructura requerida para el manejo de los hidrocarburos, que incluye la implementación de un sistema flotante de almacenamiento y descarga (FSO) 83

84 Sistema de Transporte y Distribución de la Región Marina Noreste 84

85 Variables a considerar en el diseño Sobrevivir a una tormenta con período de retorno de 100 años Capacidad de almacenamiento (Mínimo 1.75 millones de Bls.) Localización (Profundidad, condiciones metoceanicas) Utilización de un buque tanque nuevo Vs usado Edad del buque tanque No tiempo fuera de operación Operaciones simultáneas (carga, descarga, inspección de tanques y lavado de tanques de almacenamiento) Tipo del sistema de amarre seleccionado Tipo de ductos ascendentes flexibles 85

86 World Statistics of External & Internal Turret Estadísticas mundiales de torretas internas y externas Fuente: Asociación Marítima Internacional Consideraciones de Diseño 86

87 Selección de la edad del buque tanque , ,000 DWT 45 No. de buque tanques Año de construcción Fuente : Tanker Register PLATAFORMA DE PRODUCCION (SEPARACION Y BOMBEO) EXP. 1 EXP. 2 TRANSPORTE OLEODUCTO ALMACENAMIENTO CONTROL DE CALIDAD Y MEDICION Concepto FSO Proyecto Cantarell 87

88 Torreta Interna Torreta Externa 88

89 Ductos ascendentes flexibles de gran diámetro16 o mayor) (IN) (FT) (PSI) Año Cliente País Campo Diámetro Long. Pres Fluido Application 1995 Chevron Angola NEMBA N/A N/A 1994 Statoil North Sea GULLFAK OIL Flowline 1993 Conoco North Sea HEIDRUN OIL Dynamic Riser 1993 Conoco North Sea HEIDRUN OIL Dynamic Riser 1993 Conoco North Sea HEIDRUN OIL Dynamic Riser 1991 Agip Nigeria AGBARA GAS Flowline 1989 Amoco Congo YOMBO OIL Dynamic Riser 1989 Amoco Congo YOMBO OIL Dynamic Riser Sistemas de amarre tipo torreta Los sistemas de amarre tipo torreta Externa y/o Interna se encuentran instalados en: - Mar del Norte (Inglaterra y Noruega) - Atlántico Norte - Mar del Sur de China - Pacífico Sur (Nueva Zelandia y Australia) - Europa - Brasil - Oeste de Africa 89

90 Sistemas de amarre tipo torreta Los sistemas de amarre tipo torreta externa/ interna estan instalados en profundidades de agua que fluctúan en los rangos de: 20 m a 1,000 m Comparación: Tormenta de 100 años Vs Super Tifon Sally Proyecto Lihua Modec/China Condiciones de Diseño Super Tifon Sally Perìodo de r e t o r n o (años) Viento (nudos) m elev. * Espectro de ola - JONSWAP N/A gamma = 3.0 P = 4.8 sigma = 0.1 Altura de ola significante (mts.) * 13.2 N/A período del espectro pico (seg.) 14.7 N/A Altura máxima de cresta (mts.) Período cruzando Cero (seg.) 11.5 N/A Perfil de corriente: D V D V D = Profundidad (metros) V = Velocidad corriente (cm/seg.) 90

91 Esquema del contrato 1. Construir, mantener en propiedad y operar 2. Recuperación de la inversión de capital a 10 años 3. Operación del FSO por 15 años 4. Pemex proveerá transportación y combustible 5. El propietario es responsable de todo el sistema 91

92 Un estricto requerimiento técnico fue: NO TIEMPO FUERA DE OPERACIÓN Acciones para lograrlo: - Redundancia en todos los equipos - Extra-espesor en las líneas de carga - Adecuado programa de mantenimiento - Suficientes refacciones de respeto 92

93 PEMEX FSO OVERALL SCHEDULE Estructura soporte de la torreta 93

94 Pre-fabricación de la Torreta Reemplazo de placa del fondo del casco 94

95 Túneles de los propulsores transversales Propulsores transversales 95

96 Instalación de la Torreta Instalación de los sistemas de medición Medidores de desplazamiento positivo Un medidor de recibo cap. Max. 800,000 BPD Dos medidores de descarga certificados Un probador comùn 96

97 Brazos marinos de descarga al costado 97

98 Ruta de Navegación FSO Ta`kuntah E F C B A D FSO Ta`kuntah CONJUNTO 98

99 Punto de remolque 200 Millas Mar territorial Mexicano De barco a artefacto naval FSO 1 Desactivación sistema de propulsión Remolque al sitio 99

100 Tópicos de protección del medio ambiente EQUIPO ANTIDERRAME DE PRIMER ATAQUE DE HASTA 72,000 BLS SISTEMA DE DESCARGA POR TANDEM INTEGRADO POR MANGUERAS FLOTANTES DE 20 Ø BRIDGESTONE, JAPAN DE DOBLE CARCASA MIEMBRO N DE LA FEDERACION INTERNACIONAL DE PROPIETARIA DE BUQUE TAN QUES PARA PREVENIR LA CONTAMINACION (ITOPF) THE INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS POLLUTION FEDERATION LIMITED ADHERIDO AL CONVENIO INTERNACIONAL DE CUMPLIMIENTO DE RESPONSABILIDAD CIVIL DE DAÑOS POR CONTAMINACION DE HIDROCARBUROS LA COMPAÑÍA CANTARELL FSO INC. GESTIONA SU ADHESION A LA COOPERATIVA DEL CARIBE LIMPIO (CLEAN CARIBBEAN COOPERATIVE, CCC) UBICADA EN FORT LAUDER DALE, FLORIDA (E.U.), CON EL OBJETIVO DE AUMENTAR LA CAPACIDAD OPORTUNA Y EFICIENTEMENTE RESPONDER A DERRAMES MARINOS EN EL CAMPO CANTARELL. Sistema para el control de derrames PEMEX SE ESFORZARÁ EN QUE SUS ACTIVIDADES DE EXPLORACIÓN, PRODUC CIÓN, TRANSPORTE, ALMACENAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN RESULTEN EN OBTENER LOS MÁS ALTOS NIVELES DE SEGURIDAD INDUSTRIAL Y REDUZCAN AL MÍNIMO ACEPTABLE LOS IMPACTOS AL MEDIO AMBIENTE, EN SU CARÁCTER DE CUSTODIO DE LOS RECURSOS PETROLEROS. PARA COADYUVAR A ESTE PRINCIPIO EL FSO TA KUNTAH CUENTA CON: 1. - UNA BARRERA CONTENEDORA DE PETRÓLEO DE 250 MTS. DE LONG., PARA HASTA 72,000 BLS BOMBA AUTOMÁTICA DE INDUCCIÓN PRIMARIA DE 3000 RPM UNA PRESA DE DECANTACION BRAZOS DE 20 PIES C/U PARA DISPERSAR PETRÓLEO DISPERSANTES BIODEGRADABLES. 100

101 Figure 7: Side-by-side Marine Loading Arms 101

102 Descargando simultáneamente a dos buque tanques Datos de Operación Régimen máximo de recibo de aceite Régimen normal de recibo de aceite 800,000 BPD 350,000 BPD Presión del crudo en PLEM (diseño) 75.0 Kg/cm 2 Presión del crudo en PLEM (max. operación) 57.8 Kg/cm 2 Presión del crudo en PLEM (min. operación) 17.0 Kg/cm 2 Descarga en Tandem 50, ,000 DWT 55,000 BPH Descarga al costado 50, ,000 DWT 80,000 BPH Descarga simultánea * Tandem 40,000 BPH * Al costado 80,000 BPH 102

103 Operación Portuaria AÑO 1998 AGO-DIC 1999 ENE-DIC 2000 ENE-ABR VOLUMEN EXPORTADO BUQUE TANQUES TRB 12'330, '305,998 39'488, '532,325 17'812, '329,175 TOTAL 69'630, '167,498 FSO TA KUNTAH Es el primer FSO de amarre permanente en el Golfo de México Tiene capacidad para realizar operaciones de descarga con mar de pies Ta kuntah (352,000 DWT) es el tercer FSO más grande del mundo que se ha construido, después del instalado en Yemen (408,000 DWT) y el instalado en Colombia (400,000 DWT) Es el segundo FSO más grande del mundo en servicio, después de la salida de operación del FSO de Colombia en 1996 Cuenta con la más avanzada tecnología del mundo en la industria de los FSO s Cuenta con los más grandes sistemas de medición en el mundo instalados en un FSO (120,000 BPH) El FSO con el más alto régimen de recibo (800,000 BPD) Su torreta externa es la más grande que jamás se haya construido en el mundo 103

104 104