Impac v1

Project no.
265863
ACCESS
Arctic Climate Change, Economy and Society
Instrument: Collaborative Project
Thematic Priority: Ocean.2010-1 Quantification of climate change impacts on economic sectors in the Arctic
D4.21 Report on fixed as well as floating offshore structure

concepts
Due date of deliverable: 31/03/2014

Actual submission date: 03/02/2015
Start date of project: March 1st, 2011 Duration: 48 months
Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: HSVA
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013)
Dissemination Level
PU Public X
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Deliverable rreport: D4.21 Report on
n fixed as weell as floating
g offshore
structure conncepts
T
Task 4
4.21 Reeport o
on fixed as well
w as ffloating
g
offsh
hore sttructurre conc
cepts

by
Ka
arl Ulrich-Ev
vers
Hamburrgische Sch
hiffbau-Vers
suchsanstalt (HSVA)
Ham
mburg, Germ
many
g
Sven Hoog
IM
MPaC Offsh
hore Engine
eering Gmb
bH
Ham
mburg, Germ
many
ACCES SS is a 4 year
y Europ
pean progrram (2011-22015) suppported withhin the Oc
ceans of
Tomorrrow call of the Europeean Comm
mission Sev venth Frammework Pro ogramme.
For furtther inform
mation abou
ut ACCESSS please visit our web
bsite at ww
ww.access--eu-org
Date: Sepptember 2014

Version: 1
1.1 Page 2 off 165
Deliverable report: D4.21 Report on fixed as well as floating offshore
structure concepts
Document Control Sheet
Customer : European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme

Project : ACCESS - Arctic Climate Change, Economy and Society
Project No. : EU Project no. 265863
Deliverable. : D4.21
Report Title : D4.21 Report on fixed as well as floating offshore structure concepts
HSVA Order : 62.7061/524
No.
File : EU-ACCESS_Final_D4.21-HSVA-IMPaC_v1.1
Rev. Prepared Checked Approved

No. Date Reason for Issue by by by
Status: Final; Delivery to ACCESS co-
1.1 Jan. 2015 K.-U. Evers
ordinator for approval
K.-U.Evers
Delivery to ACCESS co-ordinator for (HSVA)
1.0 Sept. 2014
review S. Hoog
(IMPaC)
Keywords: Fixed and floating offshore structures, cold regions, Arctic, gravity base structures,
artificial islands, drilling rigs, drill ships, SPAR, semi submersibles, tension leg
platforms, export loading terminals, LNG plants
Date: September 2014

Version: 1.1 Page 3 of 165
structure concepts
Preface
The aim of Work Package 4 - Task 4.2.1 within ACCESS is the assessment of
existing fixed and floating offshore structure concepts, including fixed and floating
structures for exploration, production, storage, off-loading and transport, and land-
based infrastructure.
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this report do not constitute

endorsement or recommendation for use.
Assessments of technology presented in this report are not to be used for design
purposes.
The report is prepared by HSVA (Hamburg) as taskleader and IMPaC (Hamburg) as

partner in ACCESS WP 4 Task 4.2.1.

structure concepts
Executive Summary
In the study, different types of fixed and floating structures for the exploration, production and
transportation of oil and gas in Arctic regions have been described substantially. The choice
of the types of structures depends on various parameters at the planned location. Decisive
factors are the predominant on-site water depth, soil conditions, distance from the coast line
and environmental conditions (e.g. ice conditions, wind, waves and currents).
The first major exploration and production in ice covered seas were conducted in the Beaufort
Sea by American and Canadian oil companies since 1980. Generally, these technical
solutions have proven themselves over the years.
The group of "fixed structures includes the types of structures:
Artificial Islands (gravel / ice islands)

Gravity based structures (steel /concrete)
Jacket & Jack-up structures
Export/Loading terminals
Artificial islands - Gravel islands

Gravel islands do not belong to the category of "high-tech"-technology. Nevertheless, this
type of structure has been used successfully in the Beaufort Sea for decades and can
continue to be used for exploration and production in shallow waters, as the example of
"North Star" shows.
Based on the proven technology and due to relatively short construction time, the gravel
islands are an economical alternative for low water depths to about 20 m. With rising oil
prices at the time, it is also conceivable that this type of structure in the future for something
deeper water can be used despite increased material and manufacturing costs application.
Landfast ice thickness usually up to 2 m, comprises the nearshore Beaufort Sea for about
nine months of the year and has a significant impact on island design and construction
methods.
In deeper water, the occurrence of multi-year ice and increased sea ice drift is taken into
account. A primary requirement is that the island has a sufficient lateral stability to the ice
and wave loads. This is generally provided by the geometry of the island.
Ice ride-up is constrained by the sloped island sides due to friction and ploughing forces
and/or, in some cases, by discontinuity in slope. Waves begin to break as they reach the
sloped island sides, i.e. energy is dissipated before they reach the working surface. Wave
overtopping can be avoided by placing the working surface above the design wave height or
by placing a barrier around the working surface perimeter.
Artificial islands - Ice islands

Grounded ice islands have been used successfully for exploration drilling structures in
nearshore areas (shallow water) of the U.S. and Canadian Beaufort Sea.
The water depth is a fundamental factor that must be considered when assessing the
feasibility of the grounded ice island structures. The technical requirements for the structure
generally increase as the water depth increases associated with an increase of construction
costs and construction time.
An ice island must be thoroughly founded on the seabed to resist ice loads, which may act
through the surrounding ice sheet. This requirement is important because a significant
movement of the island during the drilling process can lead to damage to the drill rods.

structure concepts
Ice loads acting on an ice island depend on the ice failure mode, rather than on the driving
force of the ice sheet. Ice crushing failure of the surrounding ice sheet limits the upper bound
of these loads.
Assuming that the shear capacity of soil beneath the island is less then than the shear
capacity of the ice island core, global ice island resistance will be governed by its sliding
resistance (lateral stability).
In practice ice islands have been used in water depths of up to about 7.5 m in the Beaufort
Sea. Based on a study of C-Core (2005) ice islands could be built up to a water depth of up to
12 m. When planning ice islands, however, the ice dynamics of the surrounding ice cover and
the duration of the winter season has to be considered in any case, which often do not allow
the construction of ice islands.
Gravity Base Structures (GBS)

Exploration drilling for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea started from gravel islands in shallow
Alaskan State waters in the late 1960s and similarly in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the
early 1970s. With time the activities were focusing on deeper waters.
In 1976, ice reinforced drill ships were first utilized in Canadian waters, followed in 1981 by
the first use of a bottom-founded caisson system.
Although referred to as "mobile" structures, the caisson structures were not really mobile
offshore drilling units (MODUs).
The Single Steel Drilling Caisson (SSDC) was the first MODU-type structure in the Beaufort
Sea, coming into service in 1982 and, with the addition of the MAT in 1985, remains the only
active bottom-founded exploration structure in the Arctic offshore.
What global size, structure cost and geometry concerns, there is only little difference between
dedicated exploration platforms and dedicated production platforms. In fact, an arctic mobile
drilling structure is often more expensive than a production platform, because it must cater to
a range of water depths, rather than a known set-down depth like a production platform.
A mobile platform needs to be able to operate in a range of different foundation conditions.
With production platforms, foundation characteristics are known and top weak layer(s) can be
excavated. However this is often not practical in the case of short-term mobilization of an
exploration structure.
In areas where substantial multi-year ice can encounter the structure, the ice impact loads
become the primary design criteria. Where multi-year ice prevails wave loads are small and
do not have a real effect on the design. However in southern areas where only first-year ice
occurs (e.g. Bering Sea) the platform is primarily governed by wave loads, which has to be
taken into account. In these regions it is required to install monolithic type structures, because
ice loads are locally too high to allow the installation of jacket type structures. However the
use of solid structures to mitigate local ice load effects, ice bridging and structure vibration
results in relatively high wave loads.
Other parameters that have a significant effect on the global structure size optimisation are
water depth and foundation conditions. As a matter of fact multi-year ice loads increase with
increasing water depth. However deeper water means higher horizontal ice loads and a
higher structure associated with higher costs. The foundation conditions can range from
totally inadequate to strong enough.
If the foundation conditions are totally inadequate lateral relocation, dredging and /or
replacement will be required. If the foundation is strong enough the structure can set-down
directly on the seabed without any preparations.
In general the foundation requirements for an exploration structure are significantly less than
those for production structures operating permanently with respect to the design ice loads,
i.e. first-year ice vs. multi-year ice loads and ice ridges.

structure concepts
In multi-year ice areas, there are gravity base structures (GBS) solutions that are considered
safe and economical up to around 75 m water depths when foundation properties are good,
and up to around 60 m water depths when foundation properties are relatively weak.
There are no known bottom-founded platform design solutions for water depths greater than
100 m that could be considered as workable or proven for multi-year ice areas. In the more
southern areas, where multi-year ice is not present and only first-year consolidated ridge
loadings are possible, bottom-founded solutions out to 130 to 150 m water depths are
potentially viable (IMVPA, 2008).
Jacket & Jack-up Structures

The jacket structure is the most commonly used fixed offshore platform. It was first used in
the Gulf of Mexico and has since been adapted and modified for use around the world. There
are a number of structure types from the single-legged to multi-legged structure.
The ice-strengthened jacket platform was first used successfully in sea ice in the mid-1960s
for Cook Inlet, Alaska Development. Conventional jacket designs were modified to make
them suitable for sea ice environments.
An important criterion for the design of a jacket structure is the payload that has to be carried
by the structure, the capacity of the foundation and the external environmental loads (e.g. ice,
wind, waves etc.) must resist the structure.
The loads on Arctic offshore structures are temperature loading, static sea ice loads and the
accompanying loads due to ice-induced vibrations. In many cases, the static and vibration
loads are the controlling factor (either globally or locally) in the sizing of the structure
components. Temperature is generally the controlling factor in material selection.
The load acting on a structure by momentum, ice ridge building and pack ice loading relates
to the width of the structure. If the jacket legs are within a certain distance of each other, ice
bridging can occur between the legs and higher ice loads will be experienced by the structure
compared to the case where the legs are loaded independently (e.g. larger leg to leg
distance).
In addition to static sea ice loads, the jacket structure must be able to absorb the vibration.
Ice-reinforced jacket structures are more prone to vibration than conventional jackets,
because they have less damping capacity and tend to amplify vibrations.
In view of the jacket failure in the Gulf of Bohai and the malfunction of another jacket structure
as a result of ice-induced vibrations, jacket platforms do not seem to be particularly practical.
Further development work regarding alternative damping techniques is necessary to reduce
ice-induced vibrations on the jacket.
A variety of exploration and development options have been employed or considered for use
in the Arctic and other cold regions. These options are summarized in the table below:

structure concepts
Summary of Arctic and Cold Regions Exploration and Development Options (IMVPA, 2008)
Floating Structures
There are only a limited number of floating exploration or production structures that have
been used in ice environments.
During exploration in the Canadian Arctic in the 1980s, floating vessels (drill ships) were
used successfully with the support of icebreaking ships for ice management, e.g., CANMAR
Explorer III drill ship and CANMAR Kigoriak icebreaker. In particular, the conical drilling
barge Kulluk, purpose built by Gulf Canada, operated successful in the Canadian Beaufort
Sea. This vessel could operate through the open water season until early December (at the
latest) with intensive ice management support.
On the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, FPSOs (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading)
have been the choice of floating production vessels under potential first-year sea ice and
iceberg conditions.
The hulls of both of the existing Grand Banks FPSOs Terra Nova and White Rose are
designed to operate in light to moderate first-year pack ice and can also maintain their
moorings in heavy first-year pack conditions (IMVPA, 2008).
The ice conditions in Grand Banks are different from those in the Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf, because no significant pressure ice ridges are embedded in the ice cover.
Additionally, the hulls of the FPSOs are designed to withstand the energy from a strike by a
100000 tonnes mass iceberg moving at 1 knot. This is an impact event and not a sustained
load as might be found in the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas.

structure concepts
Modified SPAR, TLP (Tension Leg Platform) and semi-submersible designs have also been
proposed for ice environments. Floating structures have been and will continue to be used
for seasonal exploration. A Semi-rigid floater type structure could be considered for year-
round exploration, if disconnects is permissible under extreme loading events.
Recently FEED-studies have been carried out and ice model testing in various ice tanks were
executed to validate the feasibility of newly developed designs for future operations in high
latitudes in the Arctic.
Floating production platforms proposed for ice/iceberg areas are typically designed to be
readily disconnected from their moorings and operated in managed ice conditions. The ability
of these floating platforms to leave station would allow the vessel to avoid extreme ice loads
and also provide the capability for operations on a seasonal basis. The amount of time that it
might take any particular floating vessel to reconnect back on station will be a significant
consideration in concept selection for any production site (IMVPA, 2008).
Export / Loading Terminals

A marine export terminal is defined as a complex of structures and equipment for loading of
hydrocarbon products, either pumped to a tanker from a storage facility located onshore or
directly from a processing facility.
In most cases, marine transportation of hydrocarbon products starts with large storage
facilities located onshore. The land-based components of these facilities (tank farms, loading
pump stations, treatment plants, etc.) in the Arctic are basically the same as those in
moderate climates (IMVPA, 2008).
The main difference is primarily in providing the conditions and the process equipment to
allow continuous operation under harsh environmental conditions (e.g. low temperatures,
icing and snowfall conditions).
Flow assurance is a critical consideration for arctic and sub-arctic locations. Consequently, to
ensure smooth operations, an important aspect of any terminal concept is the need for proper
insulation and heat-tracing technology on piping and pipelines.
Alternatively, hydrocarbons may be loaded on tankers at sea or in the vicinity of production
platforms, either from the platform storage tanks or from a FSO (Floating Storage and
Offloading) vessel. The FSO may also be used in the near shore for temporary storage or
trans-shipment loading.
Particularly challenging in the Arctic is the offloading of products to tankers. This operation
would need to be conducted in floating ice if year-round operations are going to be carried
out. In this case ice management has to be provided by assisting icebreakers or icebreaking
supply vessels. Support is necessary because otherwise the ice loads on the FSO may be so
large that a safe off-loading operation cannot be guaranteed.
The technical feasibility of export/loading terminals for oil and gas in arctic areas has been
documented in a wide range of port facilities:
Nome (Alaska, Beaufort Sea)

Cook Inlet (Alaska)
Anchorage and Valdez (Alaska)
Godthab and De Long (Greenland)
Nanisivik (North Baffin Island, Canada)
St. David de Levis and Caps Noirs (Quebec, Canada)
Norwegian and Russian ports in the Barents Sea (Murmansk,
Arkhangelsk)
Magadan and Petropavlovsk (Okhotsk Sea, Russia)

structure concepts
The most recent examples are the large oil terminal in DeKastri and the LNG terminal in
Prigorodnoye (Sea of Japan), Russia., LNG terminal Aniva Bay (Sakhalin, Russia), oil loading
terminal Varanday (Russia), oil loading terminal Primorsk (Russia).
The main challenge of the above mentioned ports and terminals is that these marine
structures are to be managed, operated and maintained under adverse conditions (remote
area, undeveloped infrastructure, harsh environment and severe ice conditions).
In particular for fixed offshore and floating terminals there is a high risk that these marine
structures experiences high lateral ice loads. Floating ice does not only affect the marine
structure but also often complicates vessel operations. Additional uplift forces and
compression loads on structures may be generated by tidal change due to adfreeze to the
structure.
The loads generated through ice/structure interaction, in most cases, govern the design of
arctic ports and terminal structures.
A general review of experience in operation of high-latitude oil and gas marine terminals
indicates that existing technology of port structures design and construction is sufficient to
support operations in the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf.
While technically feasible, no tanker traffic has been proposed in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for upcoming Beaufort or Chukchi lease sales. Regulatory requirements
would require the use of pipelines (if economically feasible) rather than barging or tankering
production to shore. An exception may be gas export by LNG or CNG (IMVPA, 2008).
Conclusion
Worldwide, there are currently around 790 offshore drilling rigs (jack-ups, semisubmersibles,
drillships and barges), and 8,000 fixed or floating platforms. Of these, 116 rigs and more than
1,000 fixed or floating platforms are in European waters (Sandrea and Sandrea, 2007). Many
offshore installations are likely to be constructed in the near future as explorations in nearly
all sea areas. Some of the projects under development concern deepwater exploration
activities, particularly in the Northern North Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.
The shelf of the Barents Sea off northern Norway and Russia is also subject to intensive
exploration. A substantial increase in offshore activities related to offshore oil and gas
exploration is expected in this area in the coming years.
Fixed offshore structures are a family of technological solutions which are well established
and proven since tenth of years. A number of realized examples for fixed structures show a
variety of technological solutions for very shallow water, shallow water and water depths up to
300 m. Suitable production facilities are installed on artificial islands and concrete or steel
made Gravity Base Structures (GBS).The most concepts include Offshore Loading Systems
(OLS) or loading facilities on moles or jetties and have to be designed for harsh open water
conditions (waves) but also to withstand loads from drifting ice.
As fixed structures have technically drawbacks when the water depth increases and in the
case when sea ice occurs, alternative techniques and structure types have beeing developed.
Differences can be found in the individual product export means, such as pipelines or shuttle
tankers. The produced volume of oil or gas, the water depths or the distance to shore or the
related receiving plant as well as the chosen strategy to reach the next market access point
together with the expected field life are influencing the decision for the most favorable
offshore structure type solution. For this reason, there is no preferred type of structure that
can be used anywhere.
The first family of alternatives belongs to floating surface offshore structures which can be
developed, built and tested at invulnerably locations or comparably cheap construction sites
before moving to the offshore site and which can be removed with low effort to other places
when the field life has reached its end.

structure concepts
New technology developments are required regarding shipping operations, primarily by

providing the highest level of safety of tanker operations in ice-infested waters and by
maximizing the efficiency of ice management systems.
It is suggested that FPSOs operating in ice covered regions should adapt features of
icebreaker designs, such as icebreaking bow, reamers or inclined sidewalls in the waterline to
resist ice loads, and azipod drives to be able to manoeuvre efficiently in harsh ice conditions.
Active ice management, a tactical procedure to break the ice around the platform or moored
FPSO by icebreakers or icebreaking supply vessels is strongly recommended to enable align
FPSO with prevailing ice drift direction by weathervane due to turret and swivel systems. The
subsurface buoy is designed to fit into a specially configured compartment in the hull of the
FPSO, housing the swivel and bearing around which the FPSO can rotate.
Winterization aspects have to be considered because the FPSO superstructure is also
sensitive to atmospheric and sea spray icing and requires necessary measures with respect
to winterization of the facilities (Evers and Richter, 2014). Significant advantages of moored
ship shaped FPSOs are single point disconnection using turret and the ability to self-
manoeuvre after disconnection from the mooring lines. The type of an appropriate mooring
system varies with water depth and expected response forces respectively mooring line loads
due to ice.
The most modern strategy of hydrocarbon production belongs to the subsea production
facilities. These facilities are installed completely at the seafloor by means of heavy duty
construction vessels. The facilities are permanently connected via export pipelines to a
related onshore receiving plant Remote control takes place via multipurpose umbilicals with
high bandwidth from the onshore plant and even from all over the world via the Internet.
Although fully submerged from time to time these facilities need work over drilling; service
requires free access of remotely operated vehicles (ROV) or autonomous underwater
vehicles (AUV).
The experience of the past few decades with the installation, operation of offshore exploration
and production structures, as well as transportation systems in the Arctic are a solid basis for
future developments of innovative technologies, that enable year-round drilling and
production with a high level of reliability.

structure concepts
Contents
Document Control Sheet
Preface
Executive Summary
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 19
2 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 20
3 History of Oil and Natural Gas Extraction in the Arctic ............................................. 20

3.1 General .................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Future potential ........................................................................................................ 21
4 Areas of Interest ............................................................................................................ 22

4.1 Selected areas ......................................................................................................... 22
5 Structure Types ............................................................................................................. 28

5.1 Fixed offshore structures ......................................................................................... 28
5.1.1 Bottom-founded structures ............................................................................... 29
5.1.2 Artificial islands ................................................................................................. 35
5.1.2.1 Caisson-Retained Island (CRI) .................................................................. 36
5.1.2.2 Gravel Islands............................................................................................ 42
5.1.3 Spray Ice Islands .............................................................................................. 51
5.1.4 Jacket & jack-up structures ............................................................................... 54
5.1.5 Gravity Base Platform (GBP) ............................................................................ 60
5.1.6 Other Proposed Grand Banks Structures ......................................................... 67
5.1.7 Export / Offloading terminals ............................................................................ 90
5.1.7.1 Prigorodnoye production complex and oil export terminal Aniva Bay ...... 90
5.1.7.2 Trans-Sakhalin pipelines ........................................................................... 93
5.1.7.3 Arctic Tower Loading Unit (TLU) for the Sakhalin I, DeKastri Oil Export
Terminal..................................................................................................... 93
5.1.7.4 Snhvit LNG Export Terminal, Melkya Island, Norway ........................... 96
5.1.7.5 Offshore `Mooring Bay' concept developed by IMPaC ............................ 101
5.2 Floating Structures ................................................................................................. 109
5.2.1 Conventional Floating Exploration Structures ................................................. 111
5.2.1.1 Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) ............................. 111
5.2.1.2 Drillships .................................................................................................. 115
5.2.1.3 Semi-submersible floating structures ...................................................... 123

structure concepts
5.2.1.4 Floating Production Storage Offloading Vessel (FPSO) .......................... 126

5.2.1.5 Tension Leg Platform (TLP) .................................................................... 128
5.2.1.6 Single Point Anchor Reservoir (SPAR) ................................................... 133
5.2.2 Assessment of Floating Structures ................................................................. 141
5.2.2.1 Technical Feasibility ................................................................................ 141
5.2.2.2 Design Philosophy ................................................................................... 142
5.2.2.3 Ice loads .................................................................................................. 142
5.2.2.4 Wave Loads............................................................................................. 145
5.2.2.5 Dynamic Positioning Station Keeping ................................................... 147
5.2.2.6 Mooring Systems ..................................................................................... 148
5.2.2.7 Seismic .................................................................................................... 149
6 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 150

6.1 Artificial islands and fixed structures ...................................................................... 150
6.1.1 Artificial islands - Gravel islands ..................................................................... 150
6.1.2 Artificial islands - Ice islands ........................................................................... 150
6.1.3 Gravity Based Structures ................................................................................ 151
6.1.4 Jacket and Jack-up Structures ....................................................................... 152
6.2 Floating Structures ................................................................................................. 154
6.3 Export / Loading Terminals .................................................................................... 154
7 References ................................................................................................................... 158

structure concepts
List of Figures
Figure 1 Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Provinces Map......................................................................... 22

Figure 2 Oil and gas potential of the Barents-Kara region ............................................................... 27
Figure 3 SSDC at the Kogyuk site in the Beaufort Sea..32
Figure 4 Photograph of the SSDC at the Phoenix site. Note the large rubble field surrounding the
structure. 34
Figure 5 Artist's cut-away illustration of the SSDC and the MAT .................................................... 34
Figure 6 Grounded rubble field around the CRI at the Kaubvik site (left) and ice rubble surrounding
the CRI at the Amerk site (right) ........................................................................................ 36
Figure 7 Photograph of the Molikpaq with accumulated crushed ice on upstream side ................. 37
Figure 8 Cross-section view of the Molikpaq at the Amauligak I-65 site in 1985-1986 ................... 38
Figure 9 Caissons floated to the berm of Tarsiut Island .................................................................. 39
Figure 10 Tarsiut Relief Spray Ice Island .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 11 Artificial island Mittelplate in the German Wadden Sea (source RWE Dea AG) ............... 41
Figure 12 Concrete Island Drilling System (CIDS) Glomar Beaufort Sea 1 surrounded by ice ......... 42
Figure 13 Alaskan Beaufort Sea Manmade Islands .......................................................................... 45
Figure 14 Basic Designs for Granular Fill Artificial Islands in the Canadian Beaufort ....................... 46
Figure 15 Imperial Oils Arnak L-30 September 1976 showing wave action on the sacrificial beach
island design ...................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 16 Northstar production facility in shallow water .................................................................... 48
Figure 17 Northstar Production Island .............................................................................................. 49
Figure 18 Artificial gravel island Oooguruk ..................................................................................... 50
Figure 19 Man-made Endicott Island in the Beaufort Sea ................................................................ 51
Figure 20 Mars Spray Ice Island ....................................................................................................... 52
Figure 21 Cost comparison between gravel and ice islands ............................................................ 53
Figure 22 Four plus Four Template Jacket ...................................................................................... 55
Figure 23 Examples of jacket platforms ........................................................................................... 55
Figure 24 Schematic illustration of Gazproms new Arkticheskaya jack-up rig ................................ 57
Figure 25 Gazproms new Arkticheskaya jack-up rig ........................................................................ 57
Figure 26 Illustration of GBS Hebron Project (Canada) ................................................................... 62
Figure 27 Hibernia Drilling and Production Platform with Offshore Loading System (OLS) ............ 64
Figure 28 Hibernia Platform ............................................................................................................. 65
Figure 29 Steel Stepped Gravity Base Structure ............................................................................. 67
Figure 30 Monolithic concrete caisson for Arctic regions ................................................................. 69
Figure 31 Sakhalin II Project ............................................................................................................ 70
Figure 32 The Molikpaq drilling and oil production platform (Piltun-Astokhskoye-A platform) ........ 73
Figure 33 Molikpaq production platform of the Sakhalin 1 project offshore Russia ......................... 74

structure concepts
Figure 34 Piltun-Astokhskoye-B platform (P-B)........................................................................... 75

Figure 35 Concrete fixed 4-leg platform Lunskoye-A) ................................................................... 76
Figure 36 Satellite image from the Caspian Sea ........................................................................... 79
Figure 37 Drilling rig Sunkar surrounded by ice protection structures (grounded steel barges) . 79
Figure 38 Drilling Rig Sunkar in shallow water of the North Caspian Sea .................................. 80
Figure 39 Kashagan Artificial Island A ........................................................................................ 81
Figure 40 Kashagan Artificial Island D surrounded by protection structures (ice barriers) ........ 82
Figure 41 Map of the Prirazlomnoye field ...................................................................................... 83
Figure 42 Artists impression of the GBP Prirazlomnaya in the Pechora Sea ............................... 84
Figure 43 Artists impression of the different platform modules..................................................... 85
Figure 44 Prirazlomnaya platform .................................................................................................. 86
Figure 45 MT Mikhail Ulyanov approaches the Prirazlonaya platform ........................................ 87
Figure 46 Oil transfer from production platform to shuttle tanker MT Mikhail Ulyanov .............. 87
Figure 47 Schematic scheme of offshore installations of the Shtokman project............................ 88
Figure 48 Map of existing and projected pipelines from Shtokman Field ...................................... 89
Figure 49 Location of Prigorodnoye Production Complex (4637'39.0"N 14254'10.1"E) and LNG
export terminal ............................................................................................................... 91
Figure 50 Sakhalin II LNG plant ..................................................................................................... 91
Figure 51 LNG tanker approaching the jetty head during ice-free season .................................... 92
Figure 52 LNG tanker approaching the jetty with tug boat assistance in light ice conditions ........ 92
Figure 53 Oil export terminal DeKastri........................................................................................... 94
Figure 54 Oil export terminal DeKastri surrounded by level ice .................................................... 94
Figure 55 The Snhvit LNG project on Melknya Island............................................................... 96
Figure 56 The Snhvit gas production system .............................................................................. 97
Figure 57 Dragados Offshore began construction of the 33,000-ton processing plant producing
liquefied natural gas in June 2003 On 13 July 2005, the system was put in place in the
dock at Melkya outside Hammerfest. .......................................................................... 99
Figure 58 Snhvit (Statoil LNG Plant) ............................................................................................ 99
Figure 59 The turret mooring concept allows weathervaning as response to changing load
directions) .................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 60 Main components of the MPLS20 concept .................................................................. 104
Figure 61 Safe and reliable handling of the flexible pipes for cargo transfer .............................. 105
Figure 62 Steps of approach and pull-in of the carrier to the Mooring Bay and cargo transfer in
ice conditions ............................................................................................................... 106
Figure 63 The analyzed mooring line configurations ................................................................... 108
Figure 64 Worldwide progression of water depth capabilities for offshore drilling and production in
the period from 1947 to 2013 ...................................................................................... 109
Figure 65 Floating systems for offshore drilling in the Arctic ....................................................... 110
Figure 66 Alternative floating platform designs in deepwater ...................................................... 110
Figure 67 Deepwater system types ............................................................................................. 111

structure concepts
Figure 68 Open Glory Hole .......................................................................................................... 112

Figure 69 Terra Nova FPSO ........................................................................................................ 114
Figure 70 Pathway for oil and fluids that flow to and from the FPSO and reservoir ................... 114
Figure 71 Northern Explorer II (formerly the CANMAR Explorer II and Explorer II).................. 116
Figure 72 Ice management operations around the moored Kulluk in the Beaufort Sea ............. 116
Figure 73 Drilling barge Kulluk ; stacked at Tuktoyuktuk .......................................................... 118
Figure 74 The Kulluk - Operations with Icebreaker Support........................................................ 118
Figure 75 The Expedition 302 fleet during the transit north, the Sovetsky Soyuz leading, the Oden
following, and the drillship Vidar Viking in the rear ...................................................... 119
Figure 76 Drillship Stena Drill MAX ICE ...................................................................................... 120
Figure 77 Ice model tests with Stena DrillMAX ICE model in managed ice ................................ 122
Figure 78 Semi-sumersible rig Ocean Odyssey .......................................................................... 124
Figure 79 Sakhalin III Project - Severnoye Siyaniye (Northern Lights) semi-submersible drilling rig
(SSDR), Yuzhno-Kirinskoye field................................................................................. 125
Figure 80 Semi-submersible floating drilling rig Polyarnaya Zvezda (Polar Star) drilling in
Kirinskoye field (Sakhalin III Project) ........................................................................... 125
Figure 81 Illustration of Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) with flowlines and
risers ............................................................................................................................ 126
Figure 82 Illustration of TLP and FPSO with multiple riser configuration .................................... 127
Figure 83 Schematic diagram of (a) tension-leg platform under tow with seabed anchors held up
by cables on left-hand side; platform with seabed anchors lowered and cables lightly
tensioned on right-hand side . (b) TLP free floating on left-hand side; structure is pulled
by the tensioned cables down towards the seabed anchors) on right-hand side ....... 129
Figure 84 TLP Nanhai Tiao Zhan (previously Stadrill) ................................................................. 130
Figure 85 Njord Plaform, Statoil, Norway .................................................................................... 130
Figure 86 Snorre A Platform ........................................................................................................ 131
Figure 87 Snorre B Platform ........................................................................................................ 131
Figure 88 Towing of the Morpeth SeaStar TLP hull, from Houma to the Morpeth field in the Gulf of
Mexico. ........................................................................................................................ 133
Figure 89 Different SPAR types (Classic SPAR Truss SPAR Cell SPAR)............................ 134
Figure 90 Compilation of SPAR buoys operated by various oil companies in 600m .................. 134
Figure 91 Fixed model set-up and geometry, representing the upper part of the SPAR ............ 136
Figure 92 Vertical plane view of mooring lines (left) and horizontal projection of 20 lines mooring
system in 4 groups with 5 lines in each group (right) .................................................. 137
Figure 93 Schematic diagram of mooring system ....................................................................... 137
Figure 94 Artists cut-away of the Arctic Spar with risers connected and disconnected ............. 138
Figure 95 Schematic diagram of SPAR components .................................................................. 139
Figure 96 SPAR platform Perdido (left) with SSCV Thialf (right) in the Gulf of Mexico............... 140
Figure 97 Icebreaker Smit Sibu providing ice management operations for SALM buoy lay down
operations on Sakhalin ................................................................................................ 143
Figure 98 SALM Offshore Sakhalin Island with Molikpaq , Spring 2002 ..................................... 144

structure concepts
Figure 99 SALM Offshore Sakhalin Island, de-icing measures, December 2004 ....................... 144
Figure 100 Peak loads in managed ice effect of ice concentration on various structure types . 145
Figure 101 Approximate design wave loads FPSO basis .......................................................... 146
Figure 102 100-year return wave conditions in Arctic seas ........................................................... 147
Figure 103 Comparison of selected vessel mooring systems; with selected icebreaker bollard thrust
148

structure concepts
List of Tables
Table 1 Selected analogue areas ........................................................................................................ 23

Table 2 Sakhalin Fact Sheet ............................................................................................................... 26
Table 3 Deployments of bottom-founded structures in the Beaufort Sea ............................................ 31
Table 4 Details of fixed structures used in arctic drilling ..................................................................... 32
Table 5 Details of the Molikpaq deployment in the Beaufort Sea ........................................................ 38
Table 6 Exploratory Drilling Islands used in the Canadian Beaufort Sea ............................................ 44
Table 7 Summary of Grounded Artificial Ice Island Construction......................................................... 54
Table 8 Timelines of Hebron Project .................................................................................................... 61
Table 9 Main geometrical features of the LNG terminal and the LNG carrier .................................... 103
Table 10 Summary of Arctic and Cold Regions Exploration and Development Options ................... 153

structure concepts
1 Introduction
Energy security is a term that has recently entered our common vocabulary. Given the
political instability of some energy producing countries and the diminishing reserves of oil and
gas, energy security is fast becoming one of the leading issues in the world today. It goes
without saying that a nations energy policy is inextricably linked to its access to natural
resources, but most accessible reserves are presently being exploited. Dwindling oil and gas
reserves means new opportunities are needed if we are to meet the increasing demand for
energy within Europe and worldwide (www.access-eu.org).
Recent estimates suggest that 13% of the world's undiscovered oil and 30% of its
undiscovered natural gas can be found in the Arctic, almost all of which lie in the offshore
marine environment.
The combination of the melting of the Arctic sea ice and the economic and political
attractiveness of non-renewable resources, especially sub-sea hydrocarbons, are giving rise
to a new Arctic.
Currently strong effects of climate change are taking place in the Arctic. This evolution is
quite predictable at short (year) and longer scales (several decades), but it is the decadal
intermediate scale that is the most difficult to predict. This is because the natural variability of
the system is large and dominant at this scale, and the system is highly non-linear due to
positive and negative feedback between sea ice, the ocean and atmosphere.
Already today, due to the increase of the greenhouse gas concentration (GHG) in the
atmosphere and the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, the impacts of climate
change in the region are apparent, e.g. in the reduction in sea ice, in changes in weather
patterns and cyclones or in the melting of glaciers and permafrost. It is therefore not
surprising that models clearly predict that Artic sea ice will disappear in summer within 20 or
30 years, resulting in new opportunities and risks associated with the activities in the Arctic.
This climatic evolution is going to have strong impacts on both marine ecosystems and
human activities in the Arctic.
This in turn has large socio-economic implications for Europe. ACCESS will evaluate climatic
impacts in the Arctic on marine transportation (including tourism), fisheries, marine mammals
and the extraction of hydrocarbons for the next 20 years; with particular attention to
environmental sensitivities and sustainability.
In this study, different types of fixed and floating structures for the exploration, production and
transportation of oil and gas in Arctic regions are described and assessed.

structure concepts
2 Objectives
The main objective of ACCESS work package 4.2 is the description and assessment of
existing technologies for a safe extraction of energy resources under Arctic conditions with
minimal impact on the Arctic environment. The assessment includes fixed and floating
structures (Task 4.2.1) as well as subsea production systems (Task 4.2.2). In addition, the
identification of technological gaps that hinder Arctic development as well as technology
providing pathways for future developments including the removal and disassembling of
offshore facilities as well as problems related to winterisation (Task 4.2.3) are discussed.
Specific objectives of this study (Task 4.2.1) are:
Description and assessment of existing technologies, e.g. fixed and floating offshore
structures regarding to their ability to safely extract energy resources and their impact
on the environment. Main objective of this report is to describe technical issues of
fixed and floating (offshore) oil and gas facilities suitable for the current use and future
use considering the environmental scenarios for the Arctic. These scenarios derive
from scientific assumptions made by partners within the ACCESS project analysing
the future development of key environmental data for the Arctic.
Aim of the report is to show information about the most important technological
characteristics to perform the exploration and production of oil and gas with fixed and
floating structures under given environmental conditions in the Arctic
(http://www.access-eu.org).
3 History of Oil and Natural Gas Extraction in the Arctic
3.1 General
Commercial extraction of oil in the Arctic began in the 1920s in Canadas Northwest
Territories. In the late 1960s exploration drilling for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea began
from gravel islands in shallow Alaskan State Waters and similarly in the Canadian Beaufort
Sea in the early 1970s. With time, activities progressed into deeper waters. In 1976, ice
reinforced drill ships were first utilized in Canadian waters, followed in 1981 by the first use of
a bottom-founded caisson system. Exploration activities in Beaufort OCS1 regions have
started in 1982 using gravel islands, ice islands, bottom-founded structures and drill ships
(IMVPA, 2008).
During the 1960s, extensive hydrocarbon fields were also discovered in Russias Yamalo-
Nenets region, the North Slope of the Brooks Range in Alaska, and Canadas Mackenzie
Delta. During the last several decades, the Arctic territories of Russia, Alaska, Norway, and
Canada have produced billions of cubic meters of oil and gas.
About 60 of these fields are very extensive, but roughly one quarter of them are not yet in
production. More than two-thirds of the producing fields are located in Russia, primarily in
1
OCS: Outer Continental Shelf

structure concepts
western Siberia, where oil and gas development has expanded dramatically over the past
several decades. In total, Arctic oil and gas output currently amounts to approximately 240
billion barrels of oil and oil-equivalent natural gas - nearly 10 percent of the world's known
conventional petroleum resources (http://arctic.ru).
Budzig (2009) reported that approximately 61 large oil and natural gas fields have been
discovered within the Arctic Circle in Russia, Alaska, Canadas Northwest Territories, and
Norway. Fifteen of these 61 large Arctic fields have not yet gone into production; 11 are in
Canadas Northwest Territories, 2 in Russia, and 2 in Arctic Alaska. Forty-three of the 61
large Arctic fields are located in Russia.
Thirty-five of these large Russian fields (33 natural gas and 2 oil) are located in the West
Siberian Basin. Of the eight remaining large Russian fields, five are in the Timan-Pechora
Basin, two are in the South Barents Basin, and one is in the Ludlov Saddle.
Of the 18 large Arctic fields outside Russia, 6 are in Alaska, 11 are in Canadas Northwest
Territories, and 1 is in Norway (Budzik, 2009).
3.2 Future potential

The rising world demand for hydrocarbon resources and increasing activities for exploration
and navigation, due to the fact that polar sea ice retreats, leads to an increase in exploration
activities for oil and gas in the Arctic.
The Arctic Councils Monitoring and Assessment Program in 2007 reported that oil and gas
activity is expected to either begin or undergo expansion in several areas: offshore Alaska,
Canadas Mackenzie Delta, the Barents Sea (Norway and Russia), and many areas of
onshore and offshore Russia. (http://arctic.ru)
While most offshore areas have not been surveyed for resources, the extensive continental
shelves in the region are believed to hold huge reserves of oil and gas. In 2008 the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) completed the most comprehensive assessment of potential
hydrocarbon reserves, using computer modeling to evaluate 25 Arctic geological provinces.
The USGS estimates that the undiscovered, technically recoverable stores of petroleum
include 90 billion barrels of oil, 1670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of
natural-gas liquids. These figures suggest the Arctic may hold about 22 percent of the
undiscovered conventional hydrocarbon reserves untapped worldwide. (http://arctic.ru)
Roughly 85 percent of these potential reserves are thought to occur offshore at depths of 450
meters or less. The majority of untapped natural gas probably lies within Russian territory,
while most of the oil is located offshore of Alaska (http://ww.arctic.ru/climate-change).
Since most of the Arctic has yet to be physically explored, many experts are sceptical of the
recent projections on potential oil and gas reserves. Also, the USGS estimates that nearly 80
percent of the total reserves are comprised of natural gas and natural gas liquids. Developing
these resources would involve much steeper costs than for oil, because the transport of
natural gas to distant markets requires specialized tankers and storage facilities.
Anatoly Zolotukhin, a Russian expert on oil and gas development, has noted other challenges
in exploiting offshore hydrocarbon fields in the Arctic. These include severe climate conditions
and the presence of ice, the lack of technology and experience in offshore development, a
shortage of qualified personnel, and an incomplete understanding of the environmental risks.
Furthermore, he points out, the remote locations of the resources would mean prolonged

structure concepts
response times in dealing with emergencies such as oil spills and shipping accidents
(http://arctic.ru).
4 Areas of Interest
4.1 Selected areas

The Arctic holds an estimated 13% (90 billion barrels) of the world's undiscovered
conventional oil resources and 30% of its undiscovered conventional natural gas resources,
according to an assessment conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). It is
estimated that oil and natural gas resources is located in seven Arctic basin provinces:
Amerasia Basin, Arctic Alaska Basin, East Barents Basin, East Greenland Basin, West
Greenland East Canada Basin, East Greenland Rift Basin, West Siberian Basin and the
Yenisey-Khatang Basin as shown in Figure 1.
Oil and gas development is still restricted to certain parts of the Arctic, and in that sense oil
and gas remains a sub-regional issue of concern. However, the increasing interest in Arctic
oil and gas resources, exploration in new Arctic areas; plans for new pipeline routes, the
potential use for shipping oil and gas, and the potential impacts of oil and gas related
pollution on vulnerable Arctic ecosystems all mean that a circumpolar perspective to Arctic oil
and gas development is emerging. (AMAP, 2010). It is expected to either begin or undergo
expansion in areas like: offshore Alaska, Canadas Mackenzie Delta, the Barents Sea
(Norway and Russia), and many areas of onshore and offshore Russia.
Figure 1 Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Provinces Map (Source: U.S. Geological Survey)

structure concepts
Selected analogue areas are presented in Table 1. The table highlights some of the most
significant activities undertaken, or considered, in each analogue area, along with the
associated structure types and technologies. Subject areas of the Alaska OCS are included
for completeness and have been reviewed in the same manner as the analogue areas.
Furthermore, structures and/or technology used in one particular area of the OCS may be
considered for application in another area of the OCS (IMVPA, 2008).
Table 1 Selected analogue areas (source IMVPA, 2008)

structure concepts
Cook Inlet
Cook Inlet is a 290 km long estuary stretching southwest from Anchorage to the Gulf of
Alaska. Oil was first discovered in Cook Inlet in 1963 and development commenced shortly
thereafter.
Infrastructure used to develop Cook Inlets offshore oil resources consist of fixed jacket
offshore platforms connected to land based storage and distribution facilities via subsea
pipelines. These structures are subject to first-year ice conditions ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 m
thickness.
Canadian High North

A limited number of projects were proposed for the Canadian High North including the Drake
PanArctic gas project and the Polar Gas project. A Canadian company, PanArctic Oil Ltd.,
sponsored the Drake Field subsea completion, which was located in the Canadian High Arctic
off of Melville Island. The worlds first arctic subsea flow line began transporting gas in April
1978, from a subsea wellhead to production facilities onshore (Palmer et al., 1979). The
three-year program to design, fabricate and construct was part of a test program to evaluate
the performance of the field development concept and demonstrate the feasibility of such an
offshore arctic development.
Polar Gas was a consortium of American and Canadian companies formed in 1972 that
investigated the possibility of bringing natural gas southward by pipeline from the Canadian
Arctic Islands (Houlding, 1976). Considerable design work and a research program was
undertaken to look at the feasibility of laying pipelines in extreme low temperatures in the
Canadian Arctic.
Canadian East Coast

The East Coast of Canada currently has several producing oil and gas fields. These fields are
located off the coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Furthermore, significant exploration
activity has been undertaken in these areas and on the Labrador Shelf.
The fields located offshore Newfoundland a the Grand Banks developments: Hibernia, Terra
Nova, and White Rose. These developments use structures that are designed to withstand
sea ice and iceberg loads.
Although the Labrador Shelf does not have a production project to date, significant
exploration has been carried out on the shelf and consideration has once again been given to
potential gas production from the area. In terms of sea ice and icebergs, the Labrador shelf is
subject to a much harsher environment than the Grand Banks.
The Sable Energy Project, which lays offshore Nova Scotia (near Sable Island), experiences
very little sea ice, and the occurrence of icebergs is rarely. The likelihood of sea ice from the
Gulf of St. Lawrence encroaching on the Sable development is very low; less than 1 percent
based on 30 years of observations (CEAA, 2005). Furthermore, only one iceberg has been
reported in the Sable development area in the last 60 years, and the probability of future
iceberg occurrences is low (ExxonMobil, 2007).
Offshore Greenland
Offshore petroleum exploration has taken place off the east, north, and west coasts of
Greenland; however, drilling has only been conducted offshore west Greenland. Initial

structure concepts
exploration offshore west Greenland took place between the early to mid 1970s with
extensive seismic surveys. Following this period, five wells were drilled between 1976 and
1977; however, interest in further exploration was curtailed when well results had indicated
that the wells were dry (Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 2005).
Throughout the 1990s, interest in offshore west Greenland began to grow and in 1997
additional processing of well data suggested that the Kangamiut-1 (drilled in 1976) showed
hydrocarbons (Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 2005). In 2000, the sixth
exploration well (Qulleq-1) was drilled. No further exploration drilling has taken place;
however, offshore exploration licenses were awarded for licensing rounds held in 2002, 2004,
and 2006.
In general, a significant portion of the west coast of Greenland experiences sea ice each year
during the winter and early spring and, depending on location, icebergs can be encountered
frequently (Mosbech et al., 2007).
Eastern Russia (Sakhalin Island)

Sakhalin Island is a large elongated island in the North Pacific, north of Japan, which is part
of Russia. Projects currently producing oil offshore Sakhalin Island include Sakhalin 1
(ExxonMobil) and Sakhalin 2 (Shell) directly off the east coast of Sakhalin. These projects
have been developed using retrofitted gravity base platforms from the US Beaufort Sea
(CIDS) and the Canadian Beaufort Sea (Molikpaq). Future proposed projects include
Sakhalin 5, which will be off of the northeast coast of the island.
The east coast of Sakhalin Island is an area characterized by storm winds, fog, freezing
temperatures in winter, intense snowstorms, sea ice and pressure ridges, and ice gouging.
Table 2 presents information on some of the Sakhalin Island projects currently being
considered.

structure concepts
Table 2 Sakhalin Fact Sheet (source EIA, 2007)
Russian Arctic (Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Pechora Sea, and Baltic Sea)
A significant part of the worlds oil and gas reserves are believed to be in the Russian sector
of the Arctic Ocean Shelf. Many of the prospective fields were discovered east of the Ural
Mountains, along the Siberian coast (Ob and Taz Bays, Yamal Offshore); however,
nowadays more activity has been progressing along the European coast (Barents Sea,
Pechora Sea and Kara Sea).
In this context, reference is made to the development of the giant Shtokman gas and gas
condensate field in the Barents Sea.
Shtokman field is located approximately 600 km offshore, in 300 to 350 m waterdepth, with
ice conditions that include second-year ridges and icebergs.
Technology developments in the Russian Arctic are driven by the same challenges that exist
in the American and Canadian Arctic; the hydrocarbons are to be extracted from shelf
reserves, which are located in areas of adverse environmental conditions, and they are to be
safely delivered to markets in lower latitudes. If there is any difference, it probably manifests

structure concepts
in conditions for transportation, and in the available infrastructure which, in the Russian case,
is more challenging.
The routes from the main Russian Arctic fields to European and American consumers are
fairly long and are through remote areas both in the sea and onshore.
A map showing the location of the main fields of the Russian Arctic is presented in Figure 2.
As shown, large offshore and oil and gas reserves are located east of Novaya Zemlya
archipelago, in the Kara Sea and near the Yamal Peninsula coast. While a number of future
offshore exploration projects are planned for this area, information on work carried out to date
is limited (IMVPA, 2008)
A number of pipelines have been considered for the Russian Arctic, including pipelines
across the Baltic Sea, Baydaratskaya Bay, the Pechora region, and the Barents Sea. Most
activity currently being planned for the Barents Sea seems to be for the western part, which is
essentially ice free.
Figure 2 Oil and gas potential of the Barents-Kara region (data of the Federal State
Unitary Enterprise Arktikmorneftegazrazvedka), [Source:
http://russiancouncil.ru]

structure concepts
5 Structure Types
General
This chapter discusses various types of arctic offshore structures (e.g. artificial islands, fixed,
floating and moored structures) that are described and evaluated for their possible
applications in Arctic conditions.
5.1 Fixed offshore structures

General
The following paragraphs describe the production technologies generally suitable for use in
the Arctic sea with ice coverage, drifting ice and open sea conditions, especially near shore
(distance to shore up to 50 km) and in water depths up to ~50 m.
Other technical solutions have been realized in the north part of the North Sea, which is
characterized by temporarily very harsh open water conditions. Structures like the GBS
belonging to the Sleipner developments are located in up to 300 m waterdepth (refer to
Sleipner GBS Offshore Platform). They are considered to be the heaviest structures ever built
and moved by humans. As these structures are on the other hand very expensive when
designed and built for Arctic conditions it seems very unlikely that structures like this will be
considered. Thus, they will be only briefly described in this report.
Production of hydrocarbons in very shallow waters is often realized by means of production
facilities installed on artificial islands (e.g. gravel drill site pads) or with monohull or multihull
GBS. The relevant installation sites are most likely located near shore so that the well stream
can be exported via pipeline to a receiving and treatment plant onshore. After treatment
undesired fractions of the well stream (e.g. water) are pumped back to the production facility
where they are re-injected into the reservoir in order to maintain the pressure or re-injected
into the well stream in order to assure a suitable flow regime. In some more modern
production scenarios separated (sequestrated) fractions like CO2 are re-injected into the
reservoir in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions CCS2 technology, e.g. Sleipner
developments, Norway (refer to Sleipner GBS Offshore Platform).
In many cases transfer of the complete well stream to a shore plant allows minimizing the
functionality and complexity of the offshore installed production facility reducing its CAPEX3
and OPEX4. On the other hand the required related onshore plant must be outlined to handle
the amount and characteristics of the produced well stream throughout lifetime of production.
Costs and effort can be high in case this plant is located in a remote location, like it is the
case in the Arctic; far away from existing infrastructure like the next access point to a local
pipeline network, to skilled personnel and to production related consumables, or equipment
and spare parts. One example: To move materials and supplies, some of todays strategies
employ temporary ice roads connecting near shore facilities with supply bases during the
Arctic winter.
Technical solutions relevant for application in the Arctic comprise product export via pipeline,
which is most relevant for significant production volumes and when a related onshore
treatment plant is available, and otherwise export via shuttle tanker. The latter is combined
with case dependent processing of the well stream and subsequent storage in tanks at the
2
CCS = Carbon Capture and Sorage
3
CAPEX = Capital Expenditure
4
OPEX = Operational Expenditure

structure concepts
production platform, e.g. in form of compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied gas (LNG,
LPG5), condensate or oil (e.g. as result of a GTL process6). These concepts have to make
sure that a permanent, year round, ice free access of the shuttle tankers to the loading
facilities (e.g. jetties, moles) is guaranteed.
In the following paragraphs exemplarily existing production facilities have been compiled to
give an idea of how suitable facilities today look like, how they are outlined in terms of
productivity and resulting costs. Note that these examples are not complete but illustrate the
variation of technology used in the challenging Arctic environment.
More details about available technology modules which can be used under different
environmental scenarios to extract oil and gas from the (offshore) Arctic can be found in
(IMPaC, 2014a)
5.1.1 Bottom-founded structures

General
In multi-year ice areas of the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS7), there are bottom-
founded, e.g., gravity base structures (GBS), solutions that would be considered safe and
economical up to around 75 m water depths when foundation properties are reasonable, and
up to around 60 m water depths when the foundation properties are relatively weak.
100 m that could be deemed workable or proven for multi-year ice areas.
In the more southern areas, where multi year ice is not present and only first-year
consolidated ice ridge loads are possible, bottom-founded solutions out to 150 m water
depths are potentially viable (IMVPA, 2008).
Exploration drilling for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea began from gravel islands in shallow
Alaskan State Waters in the late 1960s and similarly in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the
early 1970s. With time, activities progressed into deeper waters. In 1976, ice reinforced drill
ships were first utilized in Canadian waters, followed in 1981 by the first use of a bottom-
founded caisson system. Exploration activities commenced in Beaufort OCS regions in 1982
using gravel islands, ice islands, bottom-founded structures and drill ships (IMVPA, 2008).
In the early 1980s, five special-built caisson structures were designed and built in the
Beaufort Sea to allow year-round drilling and development of regions further offshore in
harsher ice conditions (Timco and Johnston, 2002).
The five different caisson structures used in Arctic regions are:
Tarsiut Caisson (concrete caissons)
Single-Steel Drilling Caisson (SSDC), steel structure
Caisson-Retained Island (CRI), (steel caissons)
Molikpaq (steel caisson)
Glomar Beaufort Sea I (CIDS8), concrete and steel structure
5
LPG = Liquified Petroleum Gas
6
GTL : Gas-to-Liquids
7
OCS= Outer Continental Shelf
8
CIDS : Concrete Island Drilling System

structure concepts
These structures were conceived primarily to extend the depth capability of granular islands.
Building an underwater berm and then backfilling the caisson systems with a core of dredged
material formed the caisson-retained islands. Compared to conventional island building up to
that time, the amount of fill required to achieve stability was significantly reduced. As well, the
effects of wave and current erosion during the open water season were reduced. However,
these structures still required significant field operations to construct the berms, deploy,
backfill, densify the core (Molikpaq requirement), decommission and move.
The SSDC was the first MODU-type structure in the Beaufort Sea, coming into service in
1982 and with the addition of the MAT remains the only active bottom-founded exploration
structure in the arctic offshore. The steel SSDC and the CIDS, a similar concrete-steel hybrid
concept which is now deployed offshore Sakhalin Island, are ballasted with water.
Table 3 summarizes the chronological drilling history of these five structures in the Beaufort
Sea.

structure concepts
Table 3 Deployments of bottom-founded structures in the Beaufort Sea (source:

IMVPA)

structure concepts
Table 4 provides some details on their characteristics, based on the paper by Masterson et
al. ,1991.
Table 4 Details of fixed structures used in arctic drilling (Timco & Johnston,
2002)
SSDC & SSDC/MAT (now SDC9)

The experience with the Tarsiut Caissons led the company CANMAR to develop a fully
mobile, water ballasted concept for year-round drilling. The Single Steel Drilling Caisson
(SSDC) was fabricated by modifying the forward half of a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC)
and the name Single-Steel Drilling Caisson was adopted to differentiate it from the multiple
concrete caissons used at Tarsiut.
In 1986, the SSDC was modified to prepare it for deployment in the US Beaufort Sea. It was
mated with a steel MAT substructure to eliminate the need for foundation preparation (subsea
berms) and functioned as a single unit called the SSDC/MAT. In recent years, with a change
of ownership, the structure (including MAT) has been renamed the SDC. The structure is a
MODU and all drilling and topsides facilities are permanently affixed to the deck, resulting in
simpler and faster mobilization for drilling operations. Of the 19 deployments of bottom-
founded structures in the US and Canadian Beaufort Sea, 8 were those of the SDC (IMVPA,
2008).
The Single-Steel Drilling Caisson (SSDC) was a converted very large crude carrier that
underwent extensive modifications to enable its use as a support structure for year-round,
9
SDC : Steel Drilling Caisson

structure concepts
exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea. The structure is 162 m long, 53 m wide at the stern
(38 m at the bow), 25 m high and has vertical sides at the waterline (Johnston and Timco,
2003).
From 1982 to 1984, the SSDC was installed in the Canadian Beaufort Sea at the Uviluk and
Kogyuk sites, where it was placed upon a submerged berm.
In August 1986, the SSDC was connected to a semi-submersible steel base (the MAT) in
preparation for deployments in the American Beaufort Sea. The MAT allowed the SSDC to
operate year-round in water depths of 7 to 24 m without requiring a dredged berm. The MAT
was used at the four deployments in the American Beaufort Sea: Phoenix, Aurora, Fireweed
and Cabot (Johnston and Timco, 2003).
Figure 3 shows a photograph from the SSDC at the Kogyuk site in the Beaufort Sea and
Figure 4 shows the SSDC at the Phoenix site. Figure 5 is an Artist's cut-away illustration of
the SSDC and the MAT.
Figure 3 SSDC at the Kogyuk site in the Beaufort Sea. Sprayed ice rubble is
surrounding the structure (Timco & Johnston, 2002)

structure concepts
Figure 4 Photograph of the SSDC at the Phoenix site. Note the large rubble field
surrounding the structure (Timco and Johnston, 2002)
Figure 5 Artist's cut-away illustration of the SSDC and the MAT (Timco and
Johnston, 2002)

structure concepts
5.1.2 Artificial islands

General
Grounded ice islands have been used successfully as exploration drilling structures in near-
shore areas of the US and Canadian Beaufort Sea. In practice, operational ice islands have
been employed in water depths of up to 7.6 m in the Beaufort Sea.
Based on work sponsored by the MMS10, the use of operational ice islands might be achieved
in water depths of up to approximately 9 m. The MMS Ice Island Study 2005 suggests that
incremental improvements in equipment capacity with higher productivity would allow islands
to be constructed into deeper water and it is considered that 12 m water depth should not
present a problem.
The use of ice islands in the near-shore Chukchi Sea would likely be infeasible due to the
unstable and unreliable land-fast ice zone. Ice islands would be generally infeasible for
Norton Sound due to its warmer and shorter winter season. However, definite conclusions
can only be reached when conducting more detailed studies (IMVPA, 2008).
Floating ice drill pads are generally not considered in the Beaufort Sea due to the prevailing
ice movement.
The first grounded flooded ice island was built by Union Oil in Harrison Bay, Alaska in
1976/77. Grounded ice islands have generally been constructed in less than 9 m water depth.
The use of sprinkling and spraying on experimental and relief well pads has allowed these
methods to be developed with lower risk to project schedules. Spray ice was also used to
form protection structures around grounded drilling structures such as the CIDS11 platform
offshore Alaska in the mid 1980s.
Grounded ice islands are constructed in a similar way like floating islands. In this caset
artificial ice is built up on top of the natural ice sheet to increase its thickness until it becomes
grounded on the seabed. However, since the water column is shallow, any movement of the
island in relation to the seabed will damage the drill-string, and so the design requirement is
to eliminate any differential movement. The island is therefore designed to withstand the
horizontal force applied by the surrounding ice sheet by providing resistance through contact
with the seabed. An additional requirement is to maintain the stability of the rig foundation,
which will undergo creep settlement of the ice under loading.
As with floating platforms, start of construction is limited by the formation of stable ice and
access to the drilling location. Generally, to date, platform design has been performed using
the natural ice to support equipment and personnel during construction.
The first grounded ice island to be used for exploration drilling was constructed by Union Oil
in Harrison Bay in 1977/78. It was grounded in 3 m water depth using flooding techniques by
applying thin layers of seawater to the ice surface and allowing it to freeze in place.
Generally, however, the relatively slow build-up rates achievable with flooded ice techniques
limit the usefulness of these structures as grounded ice platforms. It is more suited to the
construction of roads, which require less ice thickness.
Spray ice islands have been used to stabilize rubble fields and for potential use as relief
drilling pads, such as at Tarsiut (Neth et al., 1983), Alerk (Weaver and Poplin, 1997), Kadluk
(Kemp et al., 1988) and Isserk (Poplin and Weaver, 1992).
10
MMS = Minerals Management Service
11
CIDS: Concrete Island Drilling System

structure concepts
5.1.2.1 Caisson-Retained Island (CRI)
Similar to the Tarsiut Caissons, the Caisson-Retained Island or CRI was planned and built by
Esso Resources Canada and first deployed in 1983 (see Figure 6). The island was built with
steel instead of concrete, The CRI was developed to reduce the amount of dredged material
and was comprised of eight individual hinged steel caissons placed in a ring and held
together with steel wire cables. Like the Tarsiut Caissons, the core of the CRI was filled with
dredged material to provide the base for drilling operations and provide resistance to wave
and ice loads. The CRI was deployed three times in the Canadian Beaufort Sea from 1983
1987. The structure has not been active since that time.
Grounded rubble field

Grounded rubble field
Figure 6 Grounded rubble field around the CRI at the Kaubvik site (left) and ice
rubble surrounding the CRI at the Amerk site (right), [after Timco and
Johnston, 2002]
Example: Mobile Arctic Caisson (MAC) Molikpaq

The Molikpaq, developed by Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. and operated by Beaudril, took the
Esso steel caisson-retained island concept one step further. The Molikpaq is a Mobile Arctic
Caisson (MAC) which was deployed in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in 1984 (Figure 7) and
used for exploration drilling for four winter seasons in the Canadian Arctic.
The structure is a monolithic, water-ballasted steel annulus with a self-contained deck for
drilling and topsides facilities, but unlike the fully water ballasted SSDC and CIDS, Molikpaq
relied on a densified sand core to provide the bulk of its resistance to environmental loads.
Like the Tarsiut Caissons and the CRI, Molikpaq is not a true MODU.
The outer face of the Molikpaq was designed for extreme ice features. The structure can
operate without a berm in water depths ranging from 9 to 21 m. In greater water depths, the
structure was designed to sit on a submerged berm that can vary in depth, as required. In
deep waters, the angle of the outer face is 8, whereas in shallower waters, the angle of the
face is 23 (Figure 8). Ballasting of the caissons was entirely by water. To achieve the design

g offshore
structure conncepts
resistan
nce under dynamic lo oad, densifiication of the
t hydraulically-placeed core is required
(Timco and Johnstton, 2002).
Figure 7 Phootograph off the Molikp

paq with ac
ccumulated
d crushed ice on ups
stream
side
e

Version: 1
1.1 Page 37 off 165
structure concepts
Figure 8 Cross-section view of the Molikpaq at the Amauligak I-65 site in 1985-
1986 (Timco and Johnston, 2002)
The unit began operations in 1984 and drilled four locations in the Canadian Beaufort Sea
(Table 5). It was mothballed in 1990 and later modified and redeployed in 1997 as a
permanent production facility in the Sea of Okhotsk off Sakhalin Island, Russia .
The only Beaufort Sea production was from Amauligak with Molikpaq, when during extensive
well testing they loaded a tanker which was offloaded in the south.
Table 5 Details of the Molikpaq deployment in the Beaufort Sea (Timco and Johnston,
2002)

structure concepts
Example: Caisson Retained Island Tarsiut Island (Canadian Beaufort Sea)

The Tarsiut caissons were the first caisson-type structure used in the Arctic. They were
floated to a berm at the drilling site and after being ballasted down with sand the internal core
was filled with dredged material. Figure 9 shows the caissons floated to the berm of Tarsiut
Island. The 7950 m2 structure was used to drill one well in 1981/82 and left on site and during
the winter of 1982/83 a dedicated research program was carried out on the platform.
The caissons have been stored, bottom founded near-shore in Thetis Bay, off the coast of
Herschel Island in the Canadian Beaufort Sea since 1984. The caissons have been
repositioned in 2001, and annual inspections are conducted to document damage or
movement. Figure 10 shows the Tarsiut relief pad built next to the main caisson retained
drilling island.
Figure 9 Caissons floated to the berm of Tarsiut Island

structure concepts
Figure 10 Tarsiut Relief Spray Ice Island (ICETECH, 2008)
Example: Oil Production Island Mittelplate (North Sea, Germany)

The drilling and production island Mittelplate is like a compact, liquid-tight steel and concrete
shell on the sand flats of the Mittelplate region in the German Wadden Sea (Figure 11).
It is secured with high sheet piling against external like waves and ice. From the island,
nothing can penetrate uncontrollably outside, even rain and spray are collected and treated.
A seepage is not possible. In addition, a comprehensive disposal system ensures the
protection of the Wadden Sea and North Sea. The drilling and production operations are
covered multiple times by complex monitoring and control systems.
The special location requires careful work and represents an extreme challenge for people
and technology to take into account all environmental aspects. Many facilities of the only 70
x 95 m large artificial island have been developed with high investments specifically for the
conditions of the sensitive production area. The basic principle is the reliable isolation from
the Wadden Sea.
The island Mittelplateproduced since its completion in 1987 until now about 20 million metric
tonnes of oil.

g offshore
structure conncepts
Figure 11 Artifficial island

d Mittelplatte in the Ge
erman Wad
dden Sea (ssource RW
WE Dea
AG)

Version: 1
1.1 Page 41 off 165
structure concepts
Example: Concrete Island Drilling System (CIDS) Glomar Beaufort Sea 1

This structure was operated by Global Marine in the American Beaufort Sea. It is made of a
steel mud-base, concrete "brick" units through the ice zone and steel deck storage barges
(see Figure 12). The steel units are not exposed to severe ice loading. The brick units are of
a honeycomb construction that provide an optimum strength to weight ratio.
The forces imposed by the ice are distributed evenly throughout the structure. The "silos"
within the honeycomb structure are used only for water ballast, like the tanks in the base.
Ballast and deballast is entirely by water. Under normal conditions, the deballasting and
reflotation process can be completed in three days. This structure was used only in the
American Beaufort Sea (Timco and Johnston, 2002).
Figure 12 Concrete Island Drilling System (CIDS) Glomar Beaufort Sea 1

surrounded by ice (Timco & Johnston, 2002)
5.1.2.2 Gravel Islands
Although not a high tech technology, gravel islands have been successfully used in the
Beaufort Sea for decades and continue to be viewed as a candidate structure for exploration
and/or production in this area of the Alaskan OCS.
Since no gravel island structure has been used in the Chukchi Sea, a more detailed
assessment would be required to determine feasibility for gravel islands in near-shore
Chukchi Sea due to the ice environment, which may be more dynamic than in the Beaufort
Sea. In the near-shore Bering Sea, gravel islands may be subject to higher waves and larger
wave loads, which would need to be taken into consideration during detailed assessment.

structure concepts
Exploratory drilling for oil and gas started in the Mackenzie Delta area of Northern Canada in
the mid-sixties. After several years of extensive on-shore exploration, the first offshore Arctic
well was drilled by Imperial Oil in the winter of 1973 - 1974. This well was drilled from the
artificial island, Immerk B-48, where construction had started using a cuttersuction dredger in
the summer of 1972. This island was constructed at a fairly sheltered location in the offshore
delta in a water depth of 13 m. There was no drilling from the island during the first winter in
order to demonstrate that the island could withstand the winter ice conditions. The island
resisted successfully, and after adding additional fill during the next summer, drilling has
started (Croasdale and Marcellus, 1977).
As shown below in Table 6 , 31 artificial granular islands have been built in water depths
ranging to 19 m in the Canadian Beaufort Sea.

structure concepts
Table 6 Exploratory Drilling Islands used in the Canadian Beaufort Sea (from Timco,
1998)
Date Island Island Type

1972 Roland Bay L-41
1973 Immerk B-48 Sacrificial beach island
Adgo F-28 Sandbag retained island
Pullen E-17 Hauled island
1974 Unark L-24 Hauled island
Adgo P-25 Sandbag retained island
Garry P-94 Hauled island
1975 Nerlerk B-44 Sandbag retained island
Adgo C-15
Ikattok J-17
Nerlerk F-40
1976 Sarpik B-35 Sandbag retained island
Kugmallit H-59
Unark L-24A
Arnak L-30 Sacrificial beach island
1977 Kannerk G-72 Sacrificial beach island
Isserk E-27
1978 Gary G-07 Hauled island
1979 Adgo J-27 Sacrificial beach island
1980 Issungnak 2O-61 Sacrificial beach island
1981 Alerk P-23 Sacrificial beach island
1982 Issungnak O-61 Sacrificial beach island
West Atkinson L-17 Sandbag retained island
Itiyok I-27 Sacrificial beach island
1984 Adgo H-29 Sandbag retained island
Nipterk L-19 Sacrificial beach island
1985 Nipterk L-19 Sacrificial beach island
Adgo G-24 Sandbag retained island
Minuk I-53 Sacrificial beach island
Ellice L-39 Sandbag retained island
1986 Arnak K-06 Sacrificial beach island
1987 Angasak L-03 Spray ice island
1989 Nipterk P-32

structure concepts
Between 1975 and 1990, 17 gravel islands were constructed in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea
(Figure 13).
In 2001, Seal Island (known as Northstar now), initially used for exploration, was rebuilt by BP
Exploration Alaska (BPXA) for the Northstar production project. Both Northstar and Endicott
are production islands.
Figure 13 Alaskan Beaufort Sea Manmade Islands (modified from US Army Corps
of Engineers, 1999)
Land fast ice, ranging up to 2 m thickness, covers the near-shore Beaufort Sea for about nine
months of the year, and has a considerable influence on construction methods and island
design. In the deeper water areas the occurrence of multi-year ice has to be considered.
Gravel islands not only need sufficient sliding stability to withstand the forces generated by
moving ice, but also the possibility of ice ride-up also has to be taken into account.
Artificial islands have been built either during the winter by trucking granular fill over the ice or
in the short Arctic summer using dredges. Islands have been constructed of gravel, sand, silt
and a mixture thereof. Slope protection has been designed to match the measured and
predicted sea-state, which also influences the island freeboard needed to avoid wave over-
topping. Slope protection methods for artificial islands have included anchored poly-filter cloth
and sandbags, concrete units, rock fill, and sacrificial beaches.
Optimum granular artificial island designs have to account for constructional constraints,
working area required, ice action, wave action and geotechnical factors.

structure concepts
For exploratory drilling, a stable platform is required for drilling. Drilling operations can last
from about 30 - 160 days. The actual time will depend on the well depth, drilling factors, and
whether any testing of discovered hydrocarbons is conducted.
In the early 1970s, of the numerous offshore drilling concepts which were considered,
artificial granular fill islands were selected to initiate Arctic offshore drilling. They had the
advantage of short lead-time and the use of proven technology. Also they could be built to
withstand the year-round environment and thus the drilling rig could stay over the well until it
was completed. The main disadvantages of islands are the short construction period
available in the summer, and also the fact that in deeper water, the construction times and
costs increase rapidly.
The design of artificial granular islands for ice-infested waters is normally governed by the
resistance of the structure to ice loads. It is also influenced by materials and techniques
available for construction as a function of location and season. Figure 14 shows the two basic
designs utilized in the Canadian Beaufort Sea for the construction of granular fill artificial
islands. The figure illustrates islands in 5 to 7 m water depth.
Figure 14 Basic Designs for Granular Fill Artificial Islands in the Canadian Beaufort
(source: IMVPA, 2008)
The deepest granular fill island was Issugnak O-61 in 19 m water depth. The island took 3
3
seasons to complete and required about 5 million m of fill.
A photo of the first deepwater sacrificial beach island, Arnak L-30, is shown in Figure 15
under wave action in 1976. This photo shows a large amount of redistribution of the sand
from the sacrificial beach to the lee side of the island. This sediment transport behavior was a
feature of the design.

structure concepts
Wave action
Redistributed sand
Figure 15 Imperial Oils Arnak L-30 September 1976 showing wave action on the
sacrificial beach island design (after Croasdale and Marcellus, 1977)
Referring to Table 6 of the islands constructed in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, 13 were
Sandbag Retained Islands, 13 were Sacrificial Beach Islands, 1 (Sarpik B-35) was protected
by filter-cloth with concrete units attached (which proved to be problematic) and the remaining
5 were classified as hauled islands (shallow water islands not requiring significant erosion
protection). The choice of design to a large extent was based on the availability (and cost) of
construction equipment (IMVPA, 2008).
Example: Artificial Island Northstar (Alaska, USA)

The production island Northstar is located about 19 km northwest of Prudhoe Bay in the
Beaufort Sea in about 12 m of water depth (see Figure 16 and Figure 17). Northstar is the
first Arctic offshore field connected to shore only by pipeline. The produced oil flows via a
subsea pipeline to the Trans- Alaska Pipeline System.
2
BP designed a facility that produces and processes the field's fluids from a 20000 m artificial
island that is protected from sea ice by concrete armor, a steel sheet pile wall and underwater
bench and berm system.
Prudhoe Bay is located about 970 km (by air) north of Anchorage and about 1940 km south
of the North Pole.

structure concepts
Main Characteristics
The following are the key data of the Northstar development:
Licensee/Operator: BP (~98.6% stake) and Murphy Oil (~1.4% stake)
Location: 9.7 km offshore Alaska coast, 19 km northwest of Prudhoe Bay
Expected field life: ~25 years
Discovery 1984 (start of production 2001)
Water depth: 12 m
Reserves geographical area: ~70 sq km
Platform type: artificial Island
Northstar dimensions ~20.000 sq m
Original Oil in Place 310 mboe (barrels of oil equivalent ; conversion base:
1.0E-6 Mboe)
Annual exports 16.4 mboe (average)
Cumulative Oil Production: 148 mboe (to date 31.12.2010)
No. of Wells:
Oil Producers 19
Gas Injection 6
Water Injection 0
WAG Injection 2 (Water Alternating Gas Injector)
Export: via Pipeline (another pipeline re-sends gas for injection)
Personnel: around 200 direct jobs and at least 400 indirect jobs
Training: BP invests in several training, educational and social welfare activities
in Alaska
Services: Onshore support services
Figure 16 Northstar production facility in shallow water (photo left: island under
construction in winter ice conditions) [source: http://www.bp.com]

structure concepts
The Northstar oil field was discovered in the Beaufort Sea in 1983 by Shell (SPG Media
Limited, 2007g).
The "Northstar," is the world's first year-round Arctic offshore oil drilling station and was
developed in 1999 and 2000 on an artificial gravel island, and includes a subsea pipeline.
2
Northstar Island is an about 20000 m manmade production island which was built upon an
abandoned/deteriorated exploration island Seal Island. It was chosen to utilize Seal Island
because significant cost and time savings would be realized through rebuilding (and
subsequent expansion) as opposed to starting from the beginning and building a new island.
Furthermore Seal Island was able to reach 95% of the reservoir (US Army Corps of
Engineers, 1999).
Northstar Island is grounded in approximately 12 m water depth and is located about 9.7 km
offshore. Seasonal access to the island is achieved via ice roads.
Figure 17 Northstar Production Island (courtesy: BP)
Example:Artificial island Oooguruk

The gravel island was completed in 2006 in about 1.4 m water depth and stands 7 m above
the seafloor (see Figure 18). An equivalent of 22000 truckloads of gravel was used to
construct the island (Wright, 2006). In the summer of 2006, side slopes were constructed on
the island to resist ice loads; slope protection is provided by gravel bags (8000 in total). The

structure concepts
settlement of the island has been estimated of about 1 m, which will require maintenance of
the island. Wick drains were installed to speed up consolidation settlement from two and a
half years to nine months (Knott, 2006).
From this island, approximately 40 horizontal wells are drilled. Twenty of the wells are
production wells, and the other half are injection wells.
Also in 2007, a buried three-phase subsea flowline and facilities were installed to transport
production to existing onshore processing facilities at the Kuparuk River Unit.
First oil was achieved at Oooguruk in June 2008 within five years of discovering the field. The
production is processed at the onshore Kuparuk River Unit and then transported to the Trans
Alaska Pipeline System. Drilling on Oooguruk continued until 2010, ramping up production
gradually. It was expected to reach peak production in 2011 at a rate of 15000 to 20000
bopd, Oooguruk has an estimated field life of 25 to 30 years.
Figure 18 Artificial gravel island Oooguruk
Example: Endicott Island

Endicott Island located at 70 21 0 N and 147 57 30 W was the first production island
constructed (see Figure 19). The Endicott oil field is located in the Beaufort Sea, about 13 km

structure concepts
east of Prudhoe Bay. The oil field was discovered in 1978 by the Sohio Alaska Petroleum
Company and later on operated by BP Exploration (Alaska).
This project pool has been developed from two artificial gravel islands that are located
approximately 6.4 km offshore in 0.6 to 4.3 m water depth. These islands are connected
through a 8 km long gravel causeway, which supports the 39 km long pipeline where
processed oil is sent from Endicott Island to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and then to Valdez,
Alaska for further shipment.
The causeway was constructed in 1984-85. Endicott production began in July 1986. During
the peak production years from November 1987 and October 1993, Endicott averaged about
104250 barrels of oil per day (BOPD). Production has declined over the years to the point
where during the last 8 months of 2004, production from Endicott was 17600 BOPD.
Paul Lawrence 2014
Figure 19 Man-made Endicott Island in the Beaufort Sea (photo by P. Lawrence)
5.1.3 Spray Ice Islands
The first use of an island built completely from spray ice for exploratory drilling was carried
out by Amoco at Mars, Harrison Bay, in 1986. This island was built on the landfast first-year
ice in 7.6 m water depth, to provide a completed freeboard of 7.5 m. The 330 m diameter
3
platform required 4 pumps to produce about 1 million m of ice during the 45 day construction
program. Figure 20 shows the Mars ice island during drilling operations (IMVPA, 2008)

structure concepts
Figure 20 Mars Spray Ice Island (C-CORE, 2005)
The technical and financial success of this platform led to spray ice becoming the material of
choice for the construction of grounded platforms in shallow water in the Beaufort Sea.
Construction cost savings on the order of 50% were quoted compared to sand and gravel
islands previously used, as demonstrated in Figure 21. The construction of another 3
exploration spray ice islands in the 1980s at Angasak, Nipterk and Karluk reinforced the
advantages of spray ice construction.

structure concepts
Figure 21 Cost comparison between gravel and ice islands (C-CORE, 2005)
Operational spray ice islands were built at the Thetis Field in 2002/03, where a number of
innovative techniques were successfully used. This allowed the drilling of 2 wells using the
same rig in the same season. A summary of grounded artificial ice island construction is
presented in Table 7.

structure concepts
Table 7 Summary of Grounded Artificial Ice Island Construction
The design criteria used in practice for spray ice islands suggests that the strength of the
island itself is rarely critical in determining resistance to lateral ice loads, but rather the sliding
shear force developed between the island and the seafloor. The general practice has
therefore been to adopt a safe, lower-bound strength profile and undertake a check that it is
adequate.
5.1.4 Jacket & jack-up structures

General
Several jacket type structures have been evaluated for use in the south Bering Sea (PMB
Systems Engineering et al., 1983); these being an eight leg template jacket, a four plus four
template jacket, and a steel mono-tower jacket. The evaluation identified the four plus four
steel template as the most suitable jacket concept for the South Bering. The areas
considered were the St. Georges, Navarin and North Aleutian Basins in water depths ranging
from 91 to 137 m.
The four plus four template jacket as shown in Figure 22 has eight legs complete with skirt
piles. The four end legs terminate beneath the surface giving the structure a clean water
plane, which is expected to prevent ice bridging of the legs. The four double walled legs are
on a spacing of 30 x 43 m and contain the wells and risers (PMB Systems Engineering et al.,
1983). Figure 23 shows examples of other jacket platforms.

structure concepts
Figure 22 Four plus Four Template Jacket (modified from PMB Systems
Engineering et al., 1983)
Figure 23 Examples of jacket platforms
A jack-up rig is a type of mobile offshore oil and gas drilling platform that is able to stand still
on the sea floor, resting on a number of supporting legs. The most popular design uses 3
legs. The supporting columns may be moved up and down by a hydraulic or electrical
system. The whole rig can also be jacked up when the supporting legs touch the seafloor.
During transit, the platform floats on its hull and is typically towed to a new location by
offshore tugs. Jack-up rigs provide platforms that are more stable than semi-submersible
platforms but can only be placed in relatively shallow waters, generally less than 300 m water

structure concepts
depth. The rig acts as a kind of platform. This type of rig is almost used in connection with oil
and/or natural gas drilling (www.oil-rig-photos).
The jack-up drilling rig was first introduced to the offshore industry in the mid 1950s. The
jack-up rig was developed to provide a fixed base drill rig capable of operating in harsh
environments (wave only) with the flexibility to relocate to alternate drilling locations.
A jack-up drilling rig consists of a hull, legs and a lifting system. A wide variety of hull styles,
legs and lifting systems exist. The variation is primarily a result of the trade off the designer
must make between drilling stability and buoyancy stability.
Rig installation involves a wet or dry tow to site. Wet tows usually occur over short distances.
Under wet tows, the rig provides its own buoyancy. Dry tows typically occur over large
distances. During dry tow, the rig is carried on a barge or on the deck of a transporter.
Once on site, the rigs legs are lowered to the seabed and the hull is elevated to provide a
stable work deck. The rig is now ready to begin drilling operations. Removal of the rig is the
reverse of the installation (IMVPA, 2008)
The ice reinforced jacket platform was first successfully used in sea ice in the mid 1960s for
Cook Inlet, Alaska developments. Previous studies have suggested that jacket structures are
suitable for areas of the Bering Sea. However, these studies did not consider the vibration
responses associated with the dynamic ice loading. Jacket type structures could likely be
made to work in light first-year ice and in water depths less than 60 m. However, the jacket
structures potentially poor response to dynamic loading and the need for conductor system
protection are significant design issues for application in the Bering Sea.
Current design practices and understanding of jacket design make their application in general
unsuitable for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
Developments in jack-up technology and the advancement of ice maintenance programs
indicate that the operating range and season of jack-up exploration could potentially be
extended in the Bering Sea (IMVPA, 2008).
A modern drilling jack-up operating in ocean environment is capable of working in wave
heights of 24 m, in winds of 100 knots, in water depths approaching 152 m and to drill depths
of 10700 m (BASS and OTD/KeppelFels, 2005).
A study by CKJ Engineering (CKJ Engineering, 1997), the development and implementation
of a jack-up drilling program on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (Bagnel, 2007) and the
anticipated construction of a new Russian ice-resistant jack-up rig are indicative that the
operating range of jack-up drilling rigs can be marginally expanded to include areas of
seasonal sea ice and of marginal sea ice concentration.
In light of CKJs study, the successful implementation of a jack-up drilling program in
Newfoundland, the anticipated construction of ice-resistant jack-ups and the continued
development of jack-up rig technology, an extension of a traditional seasonal jack-up drilling
program may be considered also for the Bering Sea (IMVPA, 2008).
The ice-resistant jack-up rig Arkticheskaya (Figure 24 and Figure 25) was constructed and
built at the Severodvinsk Shipyard, Russia. It is being constructed to operate in Arctic water
depths of up to 100 m and in 0.5 m thick drifting ice (MNP Global, 2007).
Journalist Atle Staalesen from Barents Observer reported on 5 July 2011: Gazproms new
Arkticheskaya jack-up rig is undergoing testing in the White Sea. The rig, which has been
under construction at the Zvezdochka yard in Severodvinsk for more than 15 years, has set
course for the White Sea where it is to undergo testing. The rig, which is built for Gazprom, is
designed for operations in Arctic waters and will be used primarily in the Pechora Sea. It has

structure concepts
a 88 m long and 66 m wide platform and can house 90 workers. The maximum drilling depth
is 6500 m (Barents Observer, 2011).
Figure 24 Schematic illustration of Gazproms new Arkticheskaya jack-up rig

(source: Barents Observer, 2011)
Figure 25 Gazproms new Arkticheskaya jack-up rig (source: Barents Observer )

structure concepts
Assessment of Jacket & Jack-up Structures

Jacket platforms are used in general as permanent production structures, however they serve
the offshore industry also as an exploration structure. The jack-up combines the mobility of a
floating structure with the jacket platforms properties of wave transparency and fixity. The
jacket structure is the most common fixed offshore platform in the world. It was first used in
the Gulf of Mexico and has since been adapted and modified for use all over the world. It
comes in a variety of styles from the single-legged (monopod) to multi-legged structures
(tripod and quadpod).
Studies of the South Bering, the Norton Basin, and the North Aleutian Basin suggest that
jacket structures could also be installed in the Bering Sea.
Technical Feasibility
Arctic Jacket Structure Design Considerations
For the design of a jacket structure it is important to take into account:
Payload the jacket has to carry

Foundation capacity
Environmental loads (ice, waves and currents) the structure has to resist
If the jacket structure is located in ice covered waters also temperature loading, sea ice static
loads and the accompanying vibration loads have to be considered.
Aside from the vibration problems, jackets used in sea ice have significant challenges with
the protection of the conductor system. Options for protecting the conductors are to locate the
system in the jacket legs or exterior to the legs in a separate ice reinforced enclosure
(IMVPA, 2008).
In many cases, the sea ice static and vibration loads are the controlling factor either globally
or locally in the sizing of the structure components, while temperature is generally the
controlling factor in material selection.
Sea ice has varying geometry (level ice, ice floes, ridges and ice rubble), concentrations and
mechanical properties. The structures have to be designed for the maximum ice load that
results from three specific loading mechanisms.
Momentum load is the load that results from the ice flow impacting the structure.
Ridge building load is the pressure load the structure experiences as a ridge and rubble
field builds.
Pack-ice loading is the tangential frictional loading that results from the ice flow passing
by the ridge and rubble field that has formed in front of the structure (Cammaert and
Muggeridge, 1988).
The load impact to a structure by momentum, ridge building and pack ice loading in general
relates to the width of the structure. In the case of a jacket structure, the load is a function of
the jacket leg diameter (D) to distance between legs (W) ratio (D/W).
If this D/W ratio is maintained above seven, then Sanderson (1988) suggests that the legs of
a jacket structure will behave independently and ice bridging will not occur between the

structure concepts
jackets legs. However he does not indicate the maximum ice thickness for which the D/W-
ratio value of seven is applicable.
When the legs of the jacket act independently, smaller global loads are experienced by the
structure.
It is assumed that this D/W ratio is only applicable for non-rafted sea ice thickness of less
than 1 m. It is strongly recommended to execute additional ice model testing when the ice is
thicker than 1 m to determine what D/W ratio will produce independent behaviour of the
jackets legs.
In addition to the impact caused by static sea ice loads, the jacket structure must handle the
vibration loading resulting from the random ice edge hit, sudden ice load relaxation,
nonsystematic ice load level variations and continuous repeating ice load failures (IMVPA,
2008).
Ice reinforced jacket structures are more prone to vibrations than conventional jackets
because they have less damping ability and tend to amplify vibrations similar to a portal
frame.
The dynamic response of a jacket structure from sea ice is not fully understood. However, it is
known that the vibration responses are proportional to the design static load and the
thickness of the ice. There are a number of possibilities to reduce the vibration response:
the foundation can be made as rigid as possible to minimize the displacement
resulting from the dynamic loading.
the structural mass and stiffness of the jacket can be changed to reduce the
structures resonance.
For the development of future Arctic jacket structures the experiences and lessons learned
from previous projects should be included:
the use of low temperature steels to avoid brittle failures
the use of double walled ice reinforced jackets to avoid local failures and protect
interior members
the location of leg bracing well below the sea ice flow. This prevents the collection of
rubble and ice bridging under and in front of the structure, hence eliminating the
possibility of ice damage to the bracing system and reducing global and local
loading
the use of X-bracing between jackets, rather then K-type bracing. The X-bracing
jacket results in a safer design by increasing the redundancy of its components.
Jacket type structures could likely be installed in areas where first-year sea ice is
predominant and water depths are less than 60 m. However, the jacket structures poor
response to dynamic loading and the conductor system protection issues are a significant
concern for application in the Navarin, St. Georges, North Aleutian and Norton Basins.
Current design practices and understanding of jacket design make their application
unsuitable for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea, because the primary load case in both
areas is ice.
The Beaufort Sea commonly experiences thick multi-year ice floes and the Chukchi Sea has
been observed with enormous multi-year ridges. The thickness of the ice not only significantly
increases the load on the structure, but it also creates problems with the location of the jacket
bracing. The bracing should be located below the underside of any ice features which could

structure concepts
interact with the structure. Thick ice features means that the effective length to radius of
gyration ratio (KL/R) of the jackets would significantly increase. The only way to deal with this
increase in the KL/R ratio is to use larger jacket legs.
However, if the leg diameter is increased to compensate for the greater unsupported column
length, it will result in increased wave loads and drag on the structure. In consideration of the
above, one comes to the conclusion that an alternative type of structure is more suitable to
this scenario.
5.1.5 Gravity Base Platform (GBP)
Production with Gravity Base Structures (GBS) - Export via Shuttle Tankers
Presently, the permanent bottom-founded concrete structures employed in the North Atlantic
Ocean offshore Newfoundland and Labrador are the GBS platforms Hebron and Hibernia
(reference: www.hibernia.ca).
Example: GBS Project Hebron

Hebron is a heavy oil field estimated to produce more than 400 - 700 million barrels of
recoverable resources. The field was first discovered in 1980, and is located offshore
Newfoundland and Labrador in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, in close proximity to the Hibernia,
Terra Nova, and White Rose Developments, 350 km southeast of St. John's, the capital of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is approximately 9 km north of the Terra Nova project, 32 km
southeast of the Hibernia project, and 46 km from the White Rose project. The water depth at
Hebron is approximately 92 m (reference: www.hebronproject.com).
Although several options have been evaluated (e.g. subsea tieback, FPSO with subsea wells,
new generation GBS, and FPSO with wellhead platform (Department of Natural Resources,
2007), the Hebron field development will be based on the use of a GBS similar to that of
Hibernia The Hebron GBS, however, will be smaller then Hibernia, requiring less concrete
and being easier to build (The Telegram, 2007b).
The Hebron co-venturers are:

ExxonMobil Canada Properties (36%)
Chevron Canada Limited (26.7%)
Suncor Energy Inc. (22.7%)
Statoil Canada (9.7%)
Nalcor Energy (4.9%).
ExxonMobil Canada Properties is the operator of the Hebron Project.
The timelines of the Hebron Project are given in Table 8. In Figure 26 the GBS Hebron is
illustrated.

structure concepts
Table 8 Timelines of Hebron Project
Source: Hebron Project
The concept selection and initial basis for design has started in 2008. In October 2012 the
skirt installation began which is considered as officially starting GBS construction. In 2013 the
fabrication of Topsides began. Construction and fabrication activities will proceed in parallel
for several years. When the various Topsides components are complete, they will all come
together at Bull Arm for integration, hook-up and commissioning. The Topsides and the GBS
will then be connected and the complete platform will be towed to the Hebron field in the
2016-2017 time frame.
Key quantities of Gravity Based Structure
Water depth - 93 m (Mean Sea level)

Height of GBS - 120 m
Diameter of GBS Base - 130 m
Shaft diameter - 35 m
3
Concrete volume - 132000 m
Rebar - (density 300 kg/m3) approx. 40000 t
Post tensioning steel - 3400 t
Steel skirts - 400 t
Mechanical Outfitting - 8000 t (piping systems & structural steel)
Well Slots 52
Key metrics of Topsides Key
Length of Topsides - 158 m

Width of Topsides - 64 m

structure concepts
Height of Topsides (excluding derrick and flare) - 40 m

Topsides Operating Weight - 65000 t
Crude oil production - 150-180 1000's of barrels/day (kbd)
Water production - 200-350 kbd
Water injection - 270-470 kbd
Gas handling - 215-300 million standard cubic feet/day
Accommodations - Persons On Board (POB) 220
Source: Hebron Project
Figure 26 Illustration of GBS Hebron Project (Canada)
Overall Hebron Platform Execution
Gravity Based Structure

Gavity Based Structure (GBS) construction in dry dock including civil and mechanical
outfitting (MOF)
Tow out and installation at deep water site (DWS)
GBS construction at DWS - civil and MOF including solid ballast

structure concepts
Topsides
Utilities process module (UPM) transferred to topsides integration pier via heavy lift
vessel
Drilling support module (DSM) & drilling equipment set (DES) installed and integrated
onto UPM
Living quarters (LQ), helideck and west lifeboat station transferred to barge and
installed onto UPM
East lifeboat station and flare boom lifted and installed onto UPM
Complete all module integration connections and commissioning
Integrated topsides floated to the Bull Arm DWS for mating and hook-up with the GBS
Deep Water Site
GBS towed out and topsides floated over; deck mating at deep water site
Hook-up and commissioning topsides-GBS
Offshore
Tow out and installation at offshore location, including grouting

structure concepts
Example: GBS Project Hibernia
The Hibernia platform is designed to resist the impact of sea ice and icebergs. It can
withstand the impact of a one-million tonne iceberg with no damage. It can withstand contact
with a six million tonne iceberg, estimated to be the largest that can drift into that water depth
and only expected once in 10000 years, with repairable damage.
Because the Hibernia platform is located in relatively shallow water (80m water depth) the
probability that a large iceberg ever hits the platform is extremely low. Located offshore east-
southeast of St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, the production platform Hibernia is the
world's largest oil platform.
The platform has three separate components, the Topsides, the GBS and the Offshore
Loading System (Figure 27). The Topside is composed of five super modules: Process
(Module 10), Wellhead (Module 20), Mud (Module 30), Utilities (Module 40) and
Accommodations (Module 50). For details reference is made to www. hibernia.ca .
The Topside is supported by the massive concrete GBS. The GBS, which sits on the ocean
floor, is 111 m high and has storage capacity for 1.3 million barrels of crude oil in its 85 m
high caisson. The GBS is specially designed to withstand the impact of sea ice and icebergs
to allow for year-round production.
Figure 27 Hibernia Drilling and Production Platform with Offshore Loading System
(OLS), (Bott, 2004)
Oil is exported from the Hibernia platform to shuttle tankers via a redundant Offshore Loading
System (OLS). The OLS is comprised of a subsea pipeline, sub-surface buoy, and flexible

structure concepts
loading hoses. As a measure of safety, the tanker loading point is located about 2 km away
from the platform (HMDC, 2007).
Hibernia utilizes 3 custom-built shuttle tankers for oil transport the Kometik, Vinland, and
Mattea. These shuttle tankers have storage capacities of 850000 barrels, are double-hulled
and have double bottoms with additional strengthening (particularly at the waterline). They
are bow-loaded and are capable of quickly disconnecting from the OLS (HMDC, 2007).
The Hibernia platform has a total height of 224 m and weighs 1.32 million tons (1.2 million
tonnes). Platform height is made up from the 85 m caisson, 133 m of topsides facilities, and
26 m from the shafts that protrude through the GBS roof to support the topsides (Figure 28
).The four shafts (a utility, riser, and 2 drilling) each measures 17 m in diameter (HMDC,
2007).
The Hibernia GBS is constructed of high-strength reinforced and pre-stressed concrete,
which is reinforced with steel (rebar steel) and pre-stressed tendons (SPG Media Limited,
2007d). The GBS caisson, which measures 106 m in diameter, consists of an exterior 1.4 m
thick ice-wall with 16 teeth intended to distribute iceberg loads over the entire structure.
Furthermore, the GBS has a 15 m thick ice-belt, which includes the ice-wall (HMDC, 2007).
Figure 28 Hibernia Platform (HMDC, 2007)

structure concepts
Main Characteristics of Hibernia Platform
The following are the key data of the Hibernia development:

Licensee/Operator: ExxonMobil Canada (33.125% stake)
Chevron Canada (26.875% stake)
Suncor Energy (20% stake)
Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation (8.5% stake)
Murphy Oil (6.5% stake)
Statoil Canada (5% stake)
Location : 315 kilometers east-southeast of St. John's, Newfoundland,
Jeanne d'Arc Basin
Expected field life: n/a
To allow year-round production, the Hibernia platform is uniquely designed to withstand
impact from sea ice and icebergs (HMDC, 2007).
Specifically, the platform is capable of withstanding the impact of a 1.1 million ton (1 million
tonnes) iceberg (1-in-500-year event) (SPG Media Limited, 2007d), without sustaining
damage, and a 6.6 million ton iceberg (6-million tonnes iceberg) estimated to be the largest
that can drift into that water depth and only expected once in 10000 years, with repairable
damage. (HMDC, 2007). Due to the fact that the Hibernia platform is located in relatively 80
m deep shallow water, the probability of a large iceberg ever hitting the platform is extremely
low (www.Hibernia.ca).
Although the probability of an iceberg colliding with the platform is low, because Hibernia still
employs an ice management strategy (HMDC, 2007).
Icebergs that require intervention are tackled proactively by platform supply vessels while
they are still 20 km or more away from the platform. The platform support vessels tow the
iceberg into a different trajectory. It is not necessary to tow the iceberg widely, as already a
change of direction can be achieved through pushing by supply vessels over a 20 km drift.
On the other hand, close encounters with icebergs could, however, force the platform to stop
production and actual contact may require repairs afterward. As well, any bottom-scouring
iceberg could potentially cause damage to the platform's Offshore Loading System (OLS), a
network of oil transmission pipelines on the ocean floor. For this reason, the OLS pipeline has
been encased in concrete for additional protection. A redundant OLS system is in place to
serve as an auxiliary, in the unlikely event that the other system is damaged.
The following measures are taken to ensure a highest possible degree of safety:
the International Ice Patrol of the US Coast Guard and the Canadian Ice
Service of Environment Canada both provide airborne surveillance briefings
data is gathered by satellite and radar technology, as well as Hibernia's own
state of-the-art platform radar system, which can identify approaching icebergs
up to 18 nautical miles away
helicopters use radio signals to precisely pinpoint an iceberg's position
platform support vessels are equipped with technology that allows them to
collect ocean current information as they sail toward the iceberg and transmit it
back to St. John's via satellite

structure concepts
using side scan sonar, the vessels will go alongside the iceberg and record a
detailed profile to measure its draught.
5.1.6 Other Proposed Grand Banks Structures

The Steel Stepped Gravity Base (SSGB) shown in Figure 29 was developed for application
on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland in water depths of around 100 m (Fitzpatrick and
Kennedy, 1997). The SSGB concept represents a departure from traditional cylindrical
concrete gravity base production platforms with respect to shape, material and method of
construction.
The principal criteria affecting the design of an offshore platform in the Grand Banks
environment is icebergs, waves and foundation strength parameters. The design iceberg for
the Grand Banks is estimated at a mass of 4.4 million tons (4 million tonnes). An iceberg of
this mass can lead to a shear force of 100000 tons (90000 tonnes) and a moment of 6.3
million tonne-m) into a gravity base structure. This ice load can be applied from any direction
and at any elevation. A structure capable of resisting such an ice load has to be monolithic or
non-wave-transparent.
Ideally the design wave load would be very close to the ice load. The SSGB achieves this by
reducing the diameter of the structure as it progress upwards through the water column.
The stepping process reduces the wave shear force to 110000 tons (100000 tonnes) and a
moment of 5 million tonne-m which is very close to the ice load (IMVPA, 2008).
In specific terms, the base of the SSGB must minimally have an area capable of resisting the
shear and overturning moments created by the ice or wave loads. The foundation parameters
in conjunction with the wave and ice load determine the necessary base area of the structure
2
to be 13000 m . The SSGB has been reviewed for deployment at several locations on the
Grand Banks. Parameters chosen for the foundation design are considered representative of
some of the weaker strength sites. Thus, the structure base area is unlikely to increase no
matter where the structure might be considered for deployment.
Figure 29 Steel Stepped Gravity Base Structure

structure concepts
By optimizing the SSGBs shape the designer has been able to:
Converge the global loads
Minimize material use to 93700 tons (85000 tonnes) of steel and a ballast
weight of 220500 tons (200000 tonnes)
Provide free storage capacity. The structure needs a minimum footprint and
size to resist the applied loads. This minimum size provides free space. This
free space provides a storage capacity of 750000 to 1000000 bbls.
Provide hydrostatic stability. Steel structures have a low vertical center of

gravity (VCG) and the VCG of a steel pyramid shape can be further lowered
by the use of solid ballast. This low VCG offers stability under towing and as a
result the structure can be safely towed to site when loaded with up to 33000
tons (30000 tonnes) of topsides
Minimize setup time. All solid ballast has been installed prior to tow out. Water
ballast is added to hold the structure in place
The SSGB provides an economical solution to the challenges of exploration and hydrocarbon
production in iceberg infested waters. (IMVPA, 2008)
Figure 30 shows another example of a gravity base structure (GBS) for an offshore platform
in arctic regions protected by patent (US Patent No. 5044830 A 3 September 1991)
The invention relates to a gravity base structure for an offshore platform in arctic regions, the
structure comprising a monolithic concrete caisson closed by a top slab and by a bottom slab
resting on the sea bed, the caisson exhibiting at its circumference a configuration of vertical
teeth capable of withstanding icebergs colliding with it and absorbing the impact energy.
The invention resists the external forces by a different device, does not involve the internal
walls in withstanding and transmitting of the forces, and consequently reduces the weight of
the structure and improves its marine stability; it likewise reduces the effects of the high
temperature of the oil to be stored upon the materials forming the walls of the tanks. Thus, an
remarkable reduction in the quantities of the structural materials and the prestressing
reinforcements can be achieved.
The structure incorporates at its circumference a double wall formed by two concentric walls
mutually connected by vertical partition walls forming a lattice structure of triangular prisms,
the outer concentric wall carrying the defensive elements.

g offshore
structure conncepts
Figure 30 Mon
nolithic con
ncrete cais
sson for Arrctic region
ns (US Pateent 5044830
0 A)

Version: 1
1.1 Page 69 off 165
structure concepts
Example: GBS Project Sakhalin II in the Sea of Okhotsk - Export via Pipeline
Production by means of a fixed Gravity Based Structure (GBS) and export via pipeline has
been realized e.g. with the Sakhalin II development in the Sea of Okhotsk (reference:
www.shell.com).
Figure 31 Sakhalin II Project
Located on the far eastern edge of Russia, offshore Sakhalin Island, near Japan, Sakhalin II
is Russia's first offshore gas field brought into production (see Figure 31).
The project includes three large offshore production platforms in the north east of Sakhalin,
an Onshore Processing Facility (OPF), Russias first natural gas liquefaction plant in the

structure concepts
south, an oil export terminal and a large onshore and offshore pipeline system to connect all
these facilities.
The two-phase project incorporates the Lunskoye gas field, which was discovered in 1984,
and the Piltun-Astokhskoye (PA) oil field, which was discovered in 1986. Together, these
3
fields hold more than 1 billion barrels of oil and more than 500 billion m of natural gas. At its
peak it will produce some 395000 boe/day. The LNG plant will have a capacity of 9.6 mtpa
from its first two trains.
The offshore oil platform Molikpaq (PA-A) was the first to be installed on the Russian shelf.
The Lunskoye-A and Piltun-Astokhkoye-B (PA-B) platforms are also the first of their type to
be installed with float-over technique on the shelf.
The first phase of development on Sakhalin II involved the installation of the Vityaz
Production Complex on the PA oil field. Located in 30 m water depth in the Sea of Okhotsk,
16 km off the eastern coast of Sakhalin Island, Vityaz consists of a platform, mooring system
and Floating Storage Offloading (FSO) unit. Produced oil is transported from Molikpaq via
pipeline to the Okha FSO. The modified tanker Okha is a double-hulled vessel capable of
storing up to 1 million barrels of oil. A single anchor leg mooring buoy system (SALM) is used
to moor the FSO for offloading crude oil to tankers. Because of the arctic conditions at the
complex, the FSO is only able to offload petroleum during the ice-free season, a six-month
period year. Each production season, Vityaz produces some 85 million barrels of oil. During
the ice season, the Okha FSO is leased out to work as a super tanker in the region, and the
SALM system12 is lowered into the water.
Main Characteristics
The following are the key data of the Sakhalin II development:

Licensee/Operator Gazprom (50% stake)
Shell (27.5% stake)
Mitsui (12.5% stake)
Mitsubishi (10% stake)
Location Molikpaq 16 km offshore Sakhalin Island
Lunskoye-A 15 km northeast offshore Sakhalin Island
PA-B
Expected field life >25 years
Discovery Lunskoye gas field: 1984
Piltun-Astokhskoye (PA) oil field: 1986
Start of production Lunskoye gas field: 2008

Piltun-Astokhskoye (PA) oil field: 1999
Water depth Molikpaq 30 m

Lunskoye-A 48 m
PA-B 30 m
12
SALM : Single Anchor Loading Mooring system

structure concepts
Platform type Molikpaq Monohull steel platform; FSO Okha

Lunskoye-A GBS
PA-B GBS
FSO storage capacity: 1 billion barrel
Platform dimensions: Molikpaq 120 m wide, weight: 37,523t
Lunskoye-A topside weight: 22.000 t
PA-B topside weight: 28.000 t
No. of Wells: Molikpaq >2
Lunskoye-A 27
PA-B >2
Estimated reserves: natural gas: 500 billion m3
oil: 1-1.2 billion barrels
Production: Molikpaq oil: 90000 bpd (barrels per day)

natural gas: 2 MMcm/d (re-injected)
(MMcm/d =million cubic meters per day)
Lunskoye-A gas: 50 MMcm/d

condensate: 50000 bpd
PA-B oil: 70000 bpd
LNG plant 9.6 mtpa (million tons per annum)
Export concept:
Molikpaq via subsea pipeline to FSO Okha via shuttle
tanker to clients (from 2008 year round export via
the new pipelines)
Lunskoye-A 2 pipelines (1x oil, 1x gas)
PA-B 2 pipelines (1x oil, 1x gas)
pipelines total length: 300 km
pipelines to LNG plant: 1600 km
Personnel: more than 25,000 jobs on the project (during construction) 70% of
them filled by Russian citizens;
Molikpaq 150
Lunskoye-A 126
PA-B
LNG plant: 300
Training: the consortium invests in several training, educational and social

welfare activities in the Sakhalin area
Services: onshore support services spread in the Sakhalin area reducing

unemployment rate from >6% to ~1%

structure concepts
Example: Piltun-Astokhskoye-A platform (Sakhalin I project, Russia)

The Molikpaq drilling and oil production platform (Piltun-Astokhskoye-A platform) is an ice-
resistant structure, originally built to explore for oil in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. It was taken
out of operation in 1990, and was installed eight years later in the Astokh area of the Piltun-
Astokhskoye field, 16 km offshore. The Molikpaq has a production capacity of 90000 barrels
3 3
per day (14000 m /d) of oil and 1.7 million m of associated gas.
Figure 32 The Molikpaq drilling and oil production platform (Piltun-Astokhskoye-A

platform)
Figure 32 and Figure 33 show the Piltun-Astokhskoye-A platform of the Sakhalin 1 project
offshore Russia in winter after the Ice Breaking Supply Vessel Pacific Endeavour has been
turning around clearing the ice away (ice management) to reduce ice loads and gain access
to the platform for cargo discharge. (reference: ww.oilrig-photos.com).

structure concepts
Figure 33 Molikpaq production platform of the Sakhalin 1 project offshore Russia.

(source: www.oilrig-photos.com)

g offshore
structure conncepts
Examplle: Piltun-A
Astokhskoy
ye-B platfo
orm
The PAA-B platformm (see Figurre 34) was installed in July 2007 in the Piltunn area of th
he Piltun-
Astokhsskoye oil fie
eld, 12 km offshore.
o Thhe PA-B hass production
n capacity oof 70000 ba arrels per
3 3
day (11000 m /d) ofo oil and 2.8 million m of associaated gas.
Figure 34 Piltu
un-Astokhs
skoye-B p
platform (P-B), [source: S
Sakhalin Energy]

Version: 1
1.1 Page 75 off 165
structure concepts
Example: Offshore Lun-A platform

The Lunskoye field platform (Figure 35) was installed in June 2006 at the Lunskoye gas field
3
15 km offshore. It has production capacity over 50 million m of natural gas, around 50000
3
barrels per day (7900 m /d) of peak liquids (associated water and condensate), and 16000
3
barrels per day (2500 m /d) of oil.
Figure 35 Concrete fixed 4-leg platform Lunskoye-A (Source: Sakhalin Energy)

structure concepts
Kashagan Project in North Caspian Sea

The Kashagan project is considered to be one of the most important field developments in the
world. It is estimated to hold 38 billion barrels of oil-in-place, of which 16 billion are potentially
recoverable reserves, and is considered to be one of the largest oil finds discovered in the
past three decades.
Since its discovery, the project has faced several problems, including technical difficulties of
extracting oil in a harsh climate, and the presence of sulphide in the associated natural gas.
Because of this drawback, the original production date was planned for 2005, however
postponed to 2012.
Located in the North Caspian Sea approximately 80 km offshore Atyrau, the Kashagan field is
the most important field in the 11 offshore blocks in the North Caspian Sea Production
2
Sharing Agreement. The area is about 5600 km and includes four additional fields:
- Kalamkas
- Kashagan Southwest
- Aktote and
- Kairan.
A Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) was formed between the government of Kazakhstan
and the Offshore Kazakhstan International Operating Company (OKIOC) in 1997.
The partners decided to create a consortium named Agip Kazakhstan North Caspian
Operating Company N.V. (Agip KCO), and consists of:
- ENI (18.52 %)
- ExxonMobil (18.52%)
- Shell (18.52%)
- Total (18.52%)
- ConocoPhillips (9.26%)
- KasMunaiGaz (8.33%), and
- Inpex (8.33%).
Example: Drilling Rig Sunkar

A shallow draft barge rig was contracted to drill five exploration wells south of Atyrau in the
Northern Caspian Sea (see Figure 36) in the first offshore drilling operation attempted in
Kazakhstan. The rig Sunkar, a floating production barge, was completed in 1999 and towed
to its first location to perform the drilling program.
Owned by Parker Drilling, the rig was extensively modified not only to function in the extreme
climate but also to keep up with the strict environmental codes since the field lies in a nature
preserve.
The rig was adapted at the Astrakhan yard, and measures about 50 m by 82 m, weighs 6000
tons (5443 tonnes) and can accommodate a maximum of 100 people.

structure concepts
To protect the rig and in particular the steel tanks from drifting ice, 24 steel piles, each
weighing 70 tons (64 tonnes), are driven into the ground on both sides of the rig (see Figure
38). The piles break up the drifting ice before it reaches the steel tanks.
In shallow water areas purpose designed permanent ice protection structures, so called ice
barriers made from rock or concrete material are built to initiate ice rubble formation at a safe
distance around drilling platforms our artificial islands.
For drilling exploration structures which usually have to change their location ( e.g. drilling rig
Sunkar) ice barriers made from steel (e.g. barges) are the more favourable solution
because they can be installed and de-installed more easily (Berger, 2008).
Figure 37 shows the drilling rig Sunkar with steel barges sat on ground as protection
structures.

structure concepts
Caspian Sea
Figure 36 Satellite image from the Caspian Sea
Ice protection structures
Rig Sunkar
Figure 37 Drilling rig Sunkar surrounded by ice protection structures (grounded

steel barges)

structure concepts
Figure 38 Drilling Rig Sunkar in shallow water of the North Caspian Sea
In 1998, ConocoPhillips acquired an interest in 11 blocks off the coast of Kazakhstan through
the Republic of Kazakhstans NCSPSA. The drilling rig, Sunkar, drilled the first exploration
well, Kashagan East-1. The well was completed as a discovery in 2000, when it was drilled in
3 meters of water and reached a total drilling depth of 5200 m. Subsequent exploration
drillings revealed four more giant fields: the Kalamkas, Kashagan Southwest, Aktote and
Kairan. Kashagan West-1 was the second discovery well.

structure concepts
Discovered in October 2001, the tests showed that the well flowed at a rate of 3400 bopd,
while the oil gravity measured between 42 and 45 API.13 The well was drilled to a total depth
of about 5000 m.
Kashagan East-2 was discovered in late 2001 and was the third well drilled to a total depth of
about 4150 m and with a flow rate of 7400 bopd14.
The oil found is light and has a high gas-oil ratio. The field is heavily overpressured which
presented a significant drilling challenge. The recovery factor is relatively low due to reservoir
complexity, with between 4 and 13 billion barrels being the estimated ultimate reserve
(reference: www.subseaiq.com).
Figure 39 and Figure 40 show artificial islands located in the Kashagan field.
Figure 39 Kashagan Artificial Island A (courtesy: ENI)
13
API gravity is a measure of how heavy or light a petroleum liquid is compared to water. If its API
gravity is greater than 10, it is lighter and floats on water; if less than 10, it is heavier and sinks. The
API scale was designed so that most values would fall between 10 and 70 API gravity degrees.
14
bopd = barrels of oil per day

structure concepts
Figure 40 Kashagan Artificial Island D surrounded by protection structures (ice

barriers) [courtesy: ENI]
A development plan, adopted on February 2004, commenced operations in 2006, which calls
for the field to be developed through three phases. In 2007, a revised Kashagan development
plan and budget were submitted, which further delayed the development and production
dates of the project. Finally, after government officials and the consortium came to an
agreement, field development continued with the production date set for 2012.
The first phase of development, includes the construction of artificial islands for wells,
processing facilities, living quarters and pipelines to carry products onshore to oil, natural gas
and sulfur plants.
Four large rock structures, known as artificial or drilling islands were created for the
Kashagan field, and two additional islands were formed for the Aktote and Kairan fields.
These six islands are linked between themselves and onshore operations by pipelines. The
islands are used to collect and store oil, to ensure the initial separation of oil and gas and to
maximize oil recovery and reduce sulphur production.
Oil and non-reinjected gas will be treated in the hubs and delivered through two separate
pipelines to onshore treatment plants in Bolashak (Atyrau). At the treatment plants, the oil will
be stabilized and purified; natural gas will be treated in order to remove hydrogen sulphide to
be used as fuel for the production plants (reference: www.subseaiq.com).
Example: Gravity Based Platform Prirazlomnaya

Gazprom has started producing oil from the Prirazlomnoye field. It is the first Russian project
for developing the Arctic shelf and the commencement of Gazprom's large-scale activities
aimed at creating a large hydrocarbon production center in the region (see Figure 41).
The Prirazlomnoye oil field is located south of Novaya Zemlya in the Pechora Sea, 60 km
offshore in shallow water of 20 m depth. This area is characterised by extremely low (-50C)
temperatures and strong ice loads. It is ice-free for about 110 days a year and the cold period
lasts 230 days. The sheet ice thickness is up to 1.7 m.

g offshore
structure conncepts
It is rep
ported that the
t platform
m will be abble to safely
y resist the ice pressurre generate
ed by the
ridge w with a 3.5 m thick cons
solidated la
ayer (Centraal Design Bureau
B for M
Marine Enggineering
(Rubin),, n.d.)
The annual avera age temperature is -4
4C and the e temperatture minimuum is -50C. Wind
strength
hs reach up
p to 40 m/s and
a wave hheights up to
o 12 m.
The field was discoovered in 1989. The de
evelopment license wa
as granted to Rossnefft in 1993
and tran
nsferred to Sevmornefttegaz in 200
02.
The reccoverable oil o reserves s amount to 72 millio on tons, prrojected oil production n comes
up to so
ome 6 millio on tons a year,
y which is expecte ed to be reaached afterr 2020. The e first oil
shipmen nt from Prirazlomnoye e was cond ducted in thhe first quaarter of 20144, and it is
s planned
to produuce no less than 300000 tons of o oil througho
out the year. Drilling pllans envisaage up to
40 direcctional wellss (19 produucing, 16 injjection and five reserve). All wellss will be drilled from
the sing
gle rig on the
t platform
m, with simuultaneous drilling
d and productionn. The production is
expecteed to last forr 22 years and
a th platfo orm has a field life of 50
5 years.
The Prirrazlomnaya a offshore ic ce-resistantt stationary platform se
ecures every
ry process operation
o
in the fie g for oil, its production and storag
eld drilling ge, end prodduct processsing and offfloading.
It is for the first time in the world that hydrocarbons in the Arctic sheelf will be produced p
by a sta ationary plattform (Offsh hore Techno ology, 20144).
Figure 41 Map
p of the Prirazlomnoy
ye field (sou
urce: Offsh
hore Techn
nology)
omnaya is a GBP platfo

Prirazlo orm designe ed and cons structed in Russia
R on G
Gazprom's request.
r
This offfshore fixed gravity platform is the
e first construction of its kind in Ruussia. It is designed
d
for operration under extreme environmen
e matic condittions, meetss the most stringent
ntal and clim
safety rrequirementts and can resist high h ice loads. Special allloys resistaant to corros sion, low
tempera atures, highh humidity and an agg gressive marine enviro onment weere used du uring the

Version: 1
1.1 Page 83 off 165
structure concepts
platform construction. The platform is secured on the seabed by its own weight (506000 tons,
including the stone berm artificially created for protection against scouring). A high-strength
deflector secures the platform from wave and ice exposure (see Figure 42).
Deflector
Figure 42 Artists impression of the GBP Prirazlomnaya in the Pechora Sea

(source: Offshore Technology, 2014)
The design features of Prirazlomnaya fully exclude any oil spills during its production and
storage. All the wellheads are situated inside the platform. This way, its foundation serves
as a buffer between the wells and the open sea (Gazprom, 2014).
Produced oil is stored in the caisson with three-meter-high concrete walls covered with two-
layer corrosion- and wear-proof clad steel plate. The safety margin of the Prirazlomnaya
caisson exceeds greatly the actual loads (Gazprom, 2014).
The topsides are based on the former UK North Sea Hutton tension leg platform, bought by
Rosneft in 2002 and upgraded for its new work at the FSUE Sevmash military shipyard in
Severodvinsk. The topsides were dismantled near Murmansk and towed to Severodvinsk.
Meanwhile, the caisson was constructed by Sevmash as a number of caisson superblocks.
The yard was also responsible for the offloading complex, platform towing and the
accommodation module. Nearby, in the Severodvinsk yard of Zvyozdochka, superblocks 1
and 4 were constructed. The technological module was built in the Vyborg shipyard and other

structure concepts
parts of superblocks and piping were built at the Tsentrenergomontazh facilities (Offshore
Technology, 2014).
Figure 43 shows an artists impression of the different Prirazlomnaya platform modules.
Figure 43 Artists impression of the different platform modules (source Offshore

Technology, 2014)
The topsides weight is 39000 tons and has a single derrick and 40 well slots. There are two
oil offloading systems with capacities of up to 10000 m/hr. The topsides sit on a 126 m,
97000 tons caisson. It includes 14 oil storage tanks with a capacity of 113000 m, as well as
two water storage tanks with a total capacity of 28000 m (see Figure 44). The facility has an
oil production capacity of 22000 tons/day, a gas production capacity of one million m/day
and will inject water at 32000 m/day (Offshore Technology, 2014).

g offshore
structure conncepts
The supperblocks were

w welded
d and install ed in 2004 followed by
y the towingg and installation the
topsidess and the concrete work.
w After a certain settlement period
p a saafety berm was laid
around platform.
(Source
e Offshore Tech nology)
Figure 44 Prira
azlomnaya
a platform
A zero discharge system s is employed

e a
at the platfoorm. The sy ystem excluudes the possibility
p
ng and prod
of drillin duction waste getting in
nto the sea. It will be pumped
p intoo special abbsorption
wells orr, if necesssary, collectted into tannks and de elivered to the
t shore ffor further disposal.
d
Reservo oir and oil-ccontaminateed waters w
will be pre-tre
eated and also
a fed intoo the well.
In orderr to pump the end pro oducts into oil vessels
s, special equipment foor direct oil loading
was de eveloped. The
T loading
g block syystem goes s off in sev
ven secondds at most, making
it possib
ble to avoid accidental oil spills.
Year-round product shipmen nt is carrieed out in two stages. The 3660000 tonn nes FSO
Belokammenka is innstalled in an ice-freee part of Kola Bay, up to 1100 km away. Oil from
Prirazlo
omnoye willl be transfeerred to FS SO Belokamenka nea ar Murmanssk by ice breaking
shuttle tankers Mikhail Ulyannov and K Kirill Lavrov
v super ice
e-class oil vvessels withh double
hulls an
nd capacity of 70000 dwwt (Figure 445 and Figu ure 46). The will then be exported
e crude oil w
by up to
o four 1500000 dwt to 170000 dwt supertanke ers. On the platform
p sitee there are also two
16 MW multifunctioonal icebreaakers for asssisting the tankers as well as carrrying out saafety and
environmental taskks (Maritime
e Future, 20013; referen nce:www.ga azprom.com m).

Version: 1
1.1 Page 86 off 165
structure concepts
Figure 45 MT Mikhail Ulyanov approaches the Prirazlonaya platform (source:

Gazprom)
Figure 46 Oil transfer from production platform to icebreaking shuttle tanker MT

Mikhail Ulyanov (source: Gazprom)

structure concepts
Shtokman field
The project development has several sides and challenges economical, technological,
environmental and political. Discussion on a high level resulted in 2007 with signing
agreements and establishment cooperation between Russian Gazprom, French Total, and
Norwegian Statoil at the Phase 1 of the Shtokman field development. In 2008, the Shtokman
Development Company was established with 51% shares of Gazprom, 25% of Total, and
24% of Statoil (Bambulyak and Frantzen, 2011).
The Shtokman field was identified in 1981 from offshore geophysical surveys performed by
Sevmorneftegeofizika specialists on board the research vessel Professor Shtokman, which
gave its name to the field. The geological study of the field was launched at the same time. In
1985 the structure was made ready for evaluation by drilling. In 1988 the first exploration well,
with a design drilling depth of 4500 m, was drilled. Drilling was completed in July, 1988 at
3153 m. Well testing resulted in the discovery of two formations of free gas and gas
3
condensate. Initial geological reserves estimated at 3.8 trillion m of gas and 37 million
tonnes of gas condensate (reference: www.shtokman.ru).
The field is located in the central part of the shelf zone in the Russian sector of the Barents
Sea, about 600 km northeast of the city of Murmansk, where the water depth varies between
320 and 340 m.
The appearance of multi-year ice and icebergs weighing up to 4 million metric tonnes have
been recorded on numerous occasions in the area (reference: www.shtokman.ru).
The Shtokman field development program encompasses the entire cycle of field
development, from research to processing and transportation. A schematic scheme with the
Floating Production Unit (FPU) and offshore installations of the Shtokman project is illustrated
in Figure 47.
FPU
Figure 47 Schematic scheme of offshore installations of the Shtokman project

(Bambulyak and Frantzen, 2011)

g offshore
structure conncepts
Annual gas producction during the phase 1 of the pro oject should
d be on thee level of 23
3.7 billion
3
m of na atural gas that
t will be split for pro
oducing 7.5 million tons of LNG, aand piping 11 billion
3
m soutthwards. Acccording to the new pla ans, agreed
d in 2011, the supply vvia the pipeeline is to
start in 2016, and LNG supply y in 2017. T The pipeline
e from Shtokman field w will go to Teriberka,
and the en to Volkh hov to join n Nord Stre eam Gas pipeline.
p Th
he LNG pl ant will be e built in
Teriberkka, about 100
1 km ea ast of Murm mansk and the first LNGL can bbe shipped in 2017
howeve er Gazprom m decided that pipelin ne gas deliveries from m the Shtookman field d to the
Europea an market would
w take priority
p overr LNG shipmments. (Bam mbulyak andd Frantzen,, 2011).
The Shttokman pro oject will be developed in three ph
hases eacch for produuction of 23
3.7 billion
cubic mmetres of na atural gas per
p year. WWhen the Shtokman prroject runs on a full scale, the
3
yearly pproduction at the field will be on the level over
o 70 billion m of nnatural gas and 0.6
million ttons of gas condensate e.
The gass together with
w gas co ondensate w will arrive frrom the offsshore via doouble trunkline. The
landfall will be loccated on the northern shore of the Kola Pe eninsula in Opasova bayb near
Teriberkka. The onsshore sectioon of the trrunkline bettween the la andfall and the slug-caatcher at
gas treaatment unit (GTU) will be
b buried u nderground d and will be
e about 10 kkm long.
Downsttream the slug-catcherr the flow wwill be separrated into tw
wo portions : half of the
e gas will
go to GT
TU, the other to LNG plant
p for furtther processing and liqquefaction.
The ma ain purpose of the gas s treatment unit (GTU)) is to separate gas froom condensate and
treat it ffor transporttation via main
m pipeline
e (reference
e: www.shtookman.ru).
The Russsian gas will
w be transported via tthe Nord Sttream gas pipeline
p to E
Europe as illustrated
in Figurre 48 (Bambulyak and Frantzen, 22011).
N th St
Figure 48 p of existing and proje

Map ected pipelines from Shtokman
n Field

Version: 1
1.1 Page 89 off 165
structure concepts
5.1.7 Export / Offloading terminals

General
The technical feasibility of marine terminals in arctic areas has been established through
successful experience in a wide range of port facilities. A general review of experience in
operation of high-latitude oil and gas marine terminals indicates that existing technology of
port structures design and construction is sufficient to support operations in the Alaskan OCS.
While technically feasible, no tanker traffic has been proposed in the EIS for upcoming
Beaufort or Chukchi lease sales. Regulatory requirements would require the use of pipelines
(if economically feasible) rather than barging or tankering production to shore. An exception
may be gas export by LNG15 or CNG16.
5.1.7.1 Prigorodnoye production complex and oil export terminal Aniva Bay
The Prigorodnoye Production Complex comprises a liquefied natural gas Sakhalin-2 LNG
plant and an oil export terminal. The complex is located on the southern shore of Sakhalin
island, alongside Aniva Bay, about 15 km to the east from Korsakov (Figure 49 and Figure
50). Aniva Bay remains almost ice-free throughout the year and is a suitable place for oil and
LNG deliveries as part of the Sakhalin-2 project.
2
The area of the complex measures about 4.2 km (~420 ha). The LNG plant has two parallel
process trains and general services facilities. Gas treatment and liquefaction are performed
on the process trains. LNG is produced using double mixed refrigerant technology
developed by Shell.
Shell developed this state-of-the-art technology for the Sakhalin LNG plant, to ensure
maximum LNG production during severe Sakhalin winters. The production capacity of the
plant is 9.6 million tonnes of LNG per year.
The plant has been designed to prevent major loss of containment in the event of an
earthquake and to ensure the structural integrity of critical elements such as emergency shut
down valves and the control room of the plant.
The LNG plant production capacity is 9.6 million tons of LNG per year. A special gas
liquefaction process was developed by Shell for use in cold climates such as Sakhalin, based
on the use of a double mixed refrigerant.
3
The LNG plant has two LNG double-walled, storage tanks with a capacity of 100000 m
each. LNG is exported via an 805 m long jetty in Aniva Bay. The jetty is fitted with four arms
two loading arms, one dual purpose arm and one vapour return arm.
The upper deck is designed for a road bed and electric cables. The lower deck is used for the
LNG pipeline, communication lines and a footpath. LNG is pumped from the storage tanks
into the parallel loading lines which are brought to the LNG jetty.
At the jetty head, the pipelines are connected with the jetty's four loading arms. The water
depth at the tail of the jetty is 14 m. The jetty will serve LNG tankers which have capacities of
3
between 18000 and 145000 m . (see Figure 51 and Figure 52). Loading operations are
estimated to take from six to 16 hours, depending on vessel size. The jetty will be able to
15
LNG = Liquified Natural Gas
16
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas

g offshore
structure conncepts
handle loading of around 160

0 LNG carrriers per ye
ear. Figure 50 shows tthe Sakhalin-2 LNG
liquefacction plant.
Figure 49 Location of Prrigorodnoyye Production Comple ex (4637'3 9.0"N

export term
14254'10.1"E)) and LNG e minal (sourrce: googlee maps)
Figure 50 Sakhalin II LNG

G plant (co
ommissioning date: February
F 20009), [source:
Sak
khalin Energgy]

Version: 1
1.1 Page 91 off 165
structure concepts
www.geosic.com
Figure 51 LNG tanker approaching the jetty head during ice-free season
www.shell.com
Figure 52 LNG tanker approaching the jetty head with tug boat assistance in light
ice conditions
The Oil Export Terminal (OET), including offloading pipeline and Tanker Loading Unit (TLU)
for loading oil to the tankers, is located to the east from the LNG plant. The oil export terminal
operations are managed in the control room, the supporting utilities are located on the
territory of the LNG plant. Oil is transported from the Piltun-Astokhskoye and Lunskoye fields

structure concepts
through the Trans-Sakhalin pipeline system to the oil export terminal. The oil is then mixed
with a small amount of condensate recovered from the natural gas stream, and stored in two
3
floating roof storage tanks each with a capacity of 95000 m .
Afterwards, the oil is transferred through the offshore pipeline to the 74 m high tanker loading
unit, which is situated in a water depth of about 30 m, 4.8 km offshore. Oil tankers with a
3 3
capacity from 40000 m to 150000 m can be loaded at the TLU (www.sakhalinenergy.com).
5.1.7.2 Trans-Sakhalin pipelines
The Trans-Sakhalin pipeline system is designed for transportation of hydrocarbons from the
Piltun-Astokhskoye and Lunskoye fields in the North of Sakhalin Island to the onshore
processing facility in the Nogliki district and to the LNG plant and the oil export terminal in
Aniva Bay.
5.1.7.3 Arctic Tower Loading Unit (TLU) for the Sakhalin I, DeKastri Oil Export
Terminal
De-Kastri oil terminal is an oil export terminal located 6 km away from the village of De-Kastri
in Khabarovsk Krai, Russian Federation. It is one of the biggest oil terminals in the Far East
that serves as a hub for crude oil deliveries to Asian markets.
The oil is transported to the terminal from the Sakhalin-1 onshore production facility northeast
of Sakhalin Island via a 226-kilometer pipeline. One of the largest of its class, the single point
mooring facility is being utilized to safely load the tankers in heavy ice conditions. The
terminal is the first in Russia to successfully accomplish the year-round export of oil during
severe arctic winter conditions using a specially designed fleet of double-hull Aframax class
tankers. To ensure safe navigation through ice fields during severe winters, the tankers are
escorted by ice-breaking vessels.
Since the start of operations in 2006, the terminal has offloaded 550 tankers with 51 million
tons of Sakhalin-1-produced oil, which makes De-Kastri one of Far East Russias largest
ports (www.sakhalin-1.com/Sakhalin/Russia).
The terminal which started operations in 2006 belongs to the Sakhalin-I consortium led by
Exxon Neftegas Ltd which also includes 20% stake held by Russian affiliates of Rosneft:
Sakhalinmorneftegas-Shelf and RN-Astra. The overall capacity of the export terminal is
approximately 88 million barrels per annum (~1.2 107 tonnes/a) of oil. Tanker loading
capacity is suitable for Aframax tankers up to 110000 dwt. The five Aframax tankers servicing
the terminal are purpose-designed double-hull ice class vessels. The area of the terminal
2
covers nearly 256000 m . The construction of the terminal started in 2003 and was
completed by August 2006. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Kastri_terminal)

structure concepts
Figure 53 Oil export terminal DeKastri
Figure 54 Oil export terminal DeKastri surrounded by level ice
The Tower Loading Unit is designed to moor a dedicated 110000 dwt, Aframax class tanker
all year round in ice conditions with temperatures as low as 35 Celsius. The unit is provided

structure concepts
with an off-loading arm to prevent hose contact with water or ice at all times. In addition to a
bow loading system, the unit is capable of offloading via a floating hose system for midship
loading during the summer months.
The terminal consists of a fixed vertical tower structure, piled into the seabed with a rotating
head on top of the substructure. The tanker connects to the rotating head via a hawser
arrangement. A slew bearing allows the rotating head to turn relative to the substructure,
ensuring that the tanker can weathervane freely and take up the position of least resistance
to the prevailing weather at all times.
The rotating head position, control of the winches for the hawser and loading hose, and the
operation of valves etc. can be controlled remotely from the tanker as well as from the shore
base.
Comprehensive ice model tests have been carried out at Krylov Ship Research Institute
(KSRI) and the Hamburg Ship Model Basin (HSVA) in level ice conditions to establish the
design loads. In order to withstand the harsh 100-year ice conditions, the tower is equipped
with an ice breaking cone. The cone and structure are able to resist ice thicknesses of 2.0 m
(consolidated layer thickness in ridged ice) or 1.5 m level ice. During operations, with the
tanker attached, the system can withstand drifting ice floes of approximately 60 m in size with
thicknesses of up to 0.55 m.
The structure has also been designed to resist fatigue during its design life caused by waves
and the alternating ice loads of drifting ice-floes and to withstand earthquakes.
The challenging seabed conditions consisted of very soft soil in the top 5 m, and weathered
rock between 12 and 16 m below the seabed. Therefore a special foundation was designed
for the in-place condition as well for the un-piled condition.
Arctic tower loading details

Designed and built by: Bluewater Energy Services BV
Client: Exxon Neftegas Ltd., Russia
Project Sakhalin I, DeKastri Oil Export Terminal
Completed. 2005
Location: Offshore DeKastri on the Siberian side of the Tatar Strait
Water depth. 21.5 m
3
Off loading capacity. 8,000 m /hr
Tanker size. 110 000 DWT
Design temperature: -35 C
1/100 year ice thickness:. 2.0 m (consolidated layer in ridged ice)
1/100 year ice thickness: 1.5 m (level ice)
1/100 year wave height: 10.9 m
Operational ice thickness: floe size 60 m, level ice thickness 0.55 metres
Peak ground acceleration: 2.0 m/s
Number of piles: 2 x 8 (pile in pile system)
Pile diameter: 72 inch sleeve pile, 56 inch insert pile

structure concepts
Overall length rotating head: 74 m

Elevation off-loading arm: 61 m above waterline
Riser diameter: 48 inch
5.1.7.4 Snhvit LNG Export Terminal, Melkya Island, Norway
The Snhvit LNG project was constructed to exploit the resources of three gas fields in the
Barents Sea: Snhvit, Albatross and Askeladd in water depth between 250 m to 345 m,
which lie about 140km northwest of Hammerfest in Norway (see Figure 55).
Snhvit
Melkya
Hammerfest
Figure 55 The Snhvit LNG project on Melknya Island has estimated recoverable
reserves of 193 billion m3 of LNG, 17.9 million m3 of condensate and 5.1
million tonnes of natural gas liquids (NGL).

structure concepts
These fields, which were first discovered in the 1980s, have estimated reserves of 193 billion
3 3
m of LNG and 17.9 million m of condensate and 5.1 million tonnes of natural gas liquids
(NGL). The Snhvit and Albatross fields came onstream in 2007, while the Askeladd is due to
come onstream in 2014-15.
The gas production system is one of the first in Europe to use a subsea production platform,
which feeds gas via 143 km of pipeline with multiphase flow to a 4.2 million tonnes a year
LNG processing plant on Melka Island near Hammerfest. The project also has a carbon
dioxide capture and storage facility located 2.6 km beneath the seabed of the Snhvit field
and a 153 km pipeline for reinjection. The facility can store 700000 t of carbon dioxide
annually (www.hydrocarbons-technology.com).
The project was led by Statoil as part of a consortium of eight companies.
The consortium consists of:
Statoil (33.53%),
Petoro (30%),
TotalFinalElf (18.4%),
Gaz de France (12%),
Amerada Hess (3.26%)
RWE-DEA (2.81%).
Construction on the project began in late 2003. The facility started production in September
2007 and will be used until 2035 (see Figure 56).
www.hydrocarbons-technology.com
Photo: Statoil
Figure 56 The Snhvit gas production system was one of the first in Europe to use
a subsea production platform

structure concepts
Snhvit production capacity

The production capacity of the new single train facility is 4.3 million tonnes per year
3
(equivalent to approximately 5.6 billion m of LNG). Supply contracts were agreed with
customers in the US east coast (El Paso) and Spain (Iberdrola), accounting for four million
tonnes per year (the remaining capacity and any future expansion will go to Gaz de France).
The production capacity of Snhvit is 4.3 million tonnes per year.
The unprocessed gas arriving at the LNG processing facility contains between 5% and 8%
carbon dioxide. This is separated out at the processing and liquefaction facility and returned
via a separate 160 km pipeline for storage / sequestration beneath the seabed (2600 m below
the sea bed on the edge of the reservoir in the 45 m to 75 m thick Tubasen sandstone
formation), thus preventing undue pollution and allowing Norway to adhere to the Kyoto
treaty.
The energy efficiency of the liquefaction facility is 70%, which is the best yet achieved in any
plant of this kind across the world (the compressor operates with an efficiency of 230 kWh per
ton of LNG).
Liquefication / process barge

The heart of the Snhvit LNG facility, the liquefaction plant, was borne and operated on a gas
liquefaction barge, which was constructed at the Spanish shipyard group Izar Construcciones
Naval (Dragados yard) in Cadiz.
The process barge measures 9 m 154 m 54 m. This process barge approach was chosen
because it greatly reduces the need for steelwork on Melkya Island, necessitates a compact
efficient design, allowed prefabrication of modular components off-site in a convenient dry-
dock situation and, most importantly, gives cost savings as well as higher productivity
compared with constructing the plant on site. Following completion of the barge in May 2005,
it was towed to an outfitting yard where 24000 t of process equipment for the gas liquefaction
plant was installed on the deck.
The barge was then transported to Melkya Island in July 2005 on a heavy-lift vessel and
installed in a custom-built dock. The completion work for the barge on the island was
completed by the end of August 2006 (Figure 57 and Figure 58).

structure concepts
Figure 57 Dragados Offshore began construction of the 33,000-ton processing

plant producing liquefied natural gas in June 2003 On 13 July 2005, the
system was put in place in the dock at Melkya outside Hammerfest
(source: Statoil).
Figure 58 Snhvit (Statoil LNG Plant 24.000 t (2005), (source: Dragados Offshore)

structure concepts
Instrumentation components and sub-systems

Parker Instrumentation supplied all of the instrumentation components and sub-systems for
the Snhvit LNG project. They provided over 1000 H-series manifolds, 20 km of conventional
and heat race tubing and many thousand twin-ferrule A-LOK compression tube fittings.
The components were supplied fabricated in 316 grade stainless steel and, for areas where
corrosion is a major problem (sea water cooling systems), in 6% Molybdenum steel. Parker
also used its Supracase process to harden the ferrules of the fittings and avoid the affects of
corrosion. The instrument enclosures provided by Parker are weather proof and equipped
with antifreeze systems to allow them to operate at temperatures below -25C.
LNG, condensate and LNG exports

3
The consortium needs four 145000 m capacity carriers to deliver the LNG to receiving
terminals in the US and southern ports of Europe.
Snhvit annual exports are estimated to be 5.75 billion m3 of LNG, 747000 t of condensate
and 247000 t of LPG.
3
Arctic Princess (launched in April 2007) delivered the first 145000 m LNG cargo from
Snhvit to southern Europe in October 2007.
Arctic Discoverer docked at the Cove Point gas import terminal in the state of Maryland,
south of Washington DC, after a 12-day voyage across the Atlantic in July 2008.
It is estimated that 70 cargoes of LNG per year will be shipped out from the Melkya facility.
3
The annual exports are estimated to be 5.75 billion m of LNG, 747000 t of condensate and
247000 t of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG).
Construction of the LNG tanks

The Snhvit project required the construction of two LNG tanks, one condensate tank and
one LPG tank at the gas processing complex on Melkya Island. The respective tanks have
the following capacities and dimensions:
3
two LNG tanks 125000 m , diameter 74 m, height 48.70 m
3
one condensate tank 75000 m , diameter 60 m, height 42.30 m
3
one LPG tank 45000 m , diameter 50 m, height 37.90 m
DYWIDAG Systems International (DSI) was responsible for the supply and installation with
stressing and grouting of a total of 1650 t horizontal and vertical DSI post-tensioning tendons
with accessories in the construction of the tanks to allow them to withstand the extreme
conditions.
The weather conditions during the construction were of an extreme Arctic nature. The tank
walls were constructed by means of a slip formwork with a performance of two metres per 24
hours within a few weeks.
A particular challenge was the installation of the vertical tendons with 12 strands. The vertical
tendons of the tanks are typical U-shaped or loop tendons. A loop tendon consists of two
vertical tendons, which are connected at their bottom ends in the foundation by a 180 arc.
Despite a maximum tank wall height of 40 m and an arc radius of only one metre the

structure concepts
installation of the loop tendons by pushing single strands was carried out without any
problems (www.hydrocarbons-technology.com).
Problems at Snhvit
The Snhvit LNG plant at Melkya had a troubled start-up period that saw it shut down four
times after it came onstream in September 2007. StatoilHydro shut down the production from
the field from June 2009 to November 2009 for repair and upgrades of the onshore plant
cooling system.
A closure on 7 November 2007 was caused by a sea-water leak in a heat exchanger in the
cooling system of the Melkya liquefaction plant. The plant then resumed production in mid-
January but was closed again in March 2008 for cooling system difficulties and then
reopened in July 2008 (www.hydrocarbons-technology.com).
5.1.7.5 Offshore `Mooring Bay' concept developed by IMPaC
General
Gas transport by LNG tankers (Liquefied Natural Gas) can be an alternative to the use of
pipelines. Each decision for a solution depends on several technical and economic factors
with the distance to the client receiving facility being very relevant. In order to achieve
economically reasonable transportation, the natural gas (mostly methane) is cooled down to -
162 degrees C, whereby it is liquefied and reduced to 1/600th of its original volume.
Recently a Mooring Bay`concept was developed by IMPaC Offshore Engineering GmbH,
Germany, allowing mooring of the vessels in tandem configuration and simultaneous handling
and operation of up to six flexible transfer pipes in full aerial mode.
The new offshore LNG transfer system is outlined to operate with flexible transfer lines with
16-inch inner diameter like the newly designed and certified corrugated pipes. The mooring
concept and its major subsystems have proven their operability by means of extensive
numerical analysis, model tests and a professional ship handling simulator resulting in an
overall transfer solution suitable to be used safely and reliable especially in harsh Arctic
conditions.
State-of-the-art technology allows loading/offloading in moderate seas by means of
articulated arm technology adapted from onshore technique. Nevertheless, the increasing
loading capacity of LNG carriers (up to 266000 m) creates a new market for fast and safe
loading/unloading concepts for operations in rough seas and even in Arctic conditions.
Studies show that none of the conventional vessel mooring configurations and transfer
techniques can easily be adapted to meet the requirements of offshore LNG transfer,
especially when dedicated for use in environmental conditions with significant wave heights
up to e.g. 5.5 m at zero-up-crossing periods between 8 and 12 seconds or in ice conditions
combined with significant wind and current loads and overall operation durations (incl.
mooring, transfer and departure) of 18-24 hours (Hoog et al., 2012).
An innovative offshore-loading system MPLS20 (Maritime Pipe Loading System 20) was
developed by Brugg and Nexans for LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) consisting of a flexible
corrugated pipe made of stainless steel, an approaching- and handling system and the

structure concepts
connection- and coupling technique considering the prevailing standards and safety
regulations.
The unique selling point is the flexible corrugated pipe, which will compensate the dynamic
caused by the offshore application and the innovative mooring system, which allows a close
tandem mooring of the two ships. The system is certified by Det Norske Veritas (DNV);
(reference : www.mpls20.de).
The overall system is based on IMPaCs patented offshore Mooring Bay concept -certified
by Germanischer Lloyd (GL) allowing safe and reliable mooring of the shuttle carriers to the
FLNG and simultaneous handling and operation of up to six transfer pipes in aerial mode
System set-up
The mooring concept utilizes a unique tandem configuration for the LNG terminal (the FLNG)
and the shuttle carrier (LNGC, see Figure 59). To meet the needs for Arctic application the
initial design and the vessels have been adapted, resulting in icebreaking abilities, a new
mooring concept for the barge and a modified concept for approach of the new I(ce)-LNGC to
the mooring bay at the aft end of the new I(ce)-FLNG.
Figure 59 The turret mooring concept allows weathervaning as response to

changing load directions (Hoog et al., 2012)
Mooring of the I(ce)-FLNG is realized by an internal turret mooring system using a

submerged production buoy allowing coping with drifting ice. Up to sixteen segmented
mooring lines are employed (depending on site specific environmental loads) to fix the buoy
at location allowing weathervaning of the moored vessels in 360.

structure concepts
Although the main focus of the development lies on the Mooring Bay and the cargo loading
concept the hull design of both vessel types I(ce)-FLNG and I(ce)-LNGC is important for the
concept, in particular in view of operation in ice conditions.
To reduce the response forces of the mooring lines to ice loads the terminal barge bow has
been modified to improve the icebreaking capability. As result the bow shape of the I(ce)-
FLNG can roughly be characterized as a flat spoon with about 30 stem angle and flared
frames in the icebreaking zone allowing combining the required buoyancy and loading
capacity with sufficient icebreaking capability (compare Lundamo et al., 2008).
A wedge-shaped plough at the bow of the barge serves as an ice clearing system reducing
the amount of ice reaching the turret mooring system below the hull bottom.
The I(ce)-LNGC is a double acting vessel with azipod drives allowing the ship to pass level
ice with thickness up to 1.5 m in backward direction (comparable hull designs are approved
and operating) and with optimised behaviour in open water and reduced ice thickness in
forward direction.
Relevant geometric parameters of the generic terminal barge and the carrier are given in
Table 9.
Table 9 Main geometrical features of the LNG terminal and the LNG carrier (Hoog et
al., 2012)
Item Terminal Carrier

(I-FLNG) (I-LNGC)
Length (LOA) [m] 360 (+ 40 Mooring 282
Bay)
Length (LPP) [m] 347.7 257.4
Width [m] 65 42
Draught [m] 12 12
Height [m] 33 26
3
Displacement [m ] ~253 000 ~104 000
3
LNG Loading capacity [m ] 250 000 138 000
Offshore LNG Transfer Concept

The concept features the generic I(ce)-FLNG design with the so called `Mooring Bay, double
acting shuttle carriers and the handling system for a set of up to six flexible LNG/LPG transfer
pipes (see Figure 60). The I(ce)-FLNG is of barge type providing a cargo loading capacity for
LNG up to 250000 m in five independent SPB tanks (Self-supporting, Prismatic, IMO Type
B) which are sloshing-proof and provide a flat deck (reference: www.mpls20.de). By-products
like LPG and condensate are stored in dedicated tanks with capacity up to 25000 m each.
The employed I(ce)-LNGCs are ice going vessels with quasi standard dimensions and
functionality but equipped with an additional receiving manifold at the bow deck space. This
manifold completely enters the `Mooring Baywhen the carrier is pulled and moored to the
cargo transfer position. The resulting distance between the loading flanges at the terminal

structure concepts
and the receiving manifold at the carrier is thus minimized achieving a total length of less than
40 m for the transfer pipes.
The `Mooring Bay is built of two so called mooring wings, which are structurally part of the
terminals aft end at starboard and port side, respectively, reducing the risk of ice inflow
between both vessels (see Figure 60). For safety reasons any remaining ice in the `Mooring
Baycan be pushed out of way by means of dedicated thrusters at the aft end of the barge
prior to the approach of carriers.
The mooring arrangement for the I(ce)-LNGC to the `Mooring Bay results in a symmetrical
arrangement of six moorings each operated by load adequate winches and heave
compensation systems at the I(ce)-FLNG. This arrangement provides a unique solution to
actively pull in and stop the incoming vessel in a controlled manner at the required position
right below the loading bridge. The moorings are temporarily fixed to quick release hooks
(QRH) which can be remotely activated for safety reasons.
The cargo transfer flanges are located in a sheltered position within the loading bridge
structure high above the wings weather decks so that handling, draining and purging of the
flexible pipes can be carried out in a safe, efficient and reliable way as shown in Figure 61
(Hoog et al., 2012).
Figure 60 Main components of the MPLS20 concept (Hoog et al., 2012)

structure concepts
Figure 61 Safe and reliable handling of the flexible pipes for cargo transfer and in
ESD17 situations (Hoog et al., 2012)
Flexible LNG Transfer Pipes

Vacuum insulated pipes are common in all kinds of cryogenic application. Nevertheless, the
developments of Nexans and Brugg are based on their flexible vacuum insulated pipe system
CRYOFLEX for offshore LNG loading applications considering the code EN1474-2, (for
details refer to Frohne et al.,2008).
These pipes provide a double containment system - the Pipe in Pipe technology - having
advantages in terms of leak detection and risk assessment of the installations with best
thermal insulation properties.
A corrugated double wall pipe of stainless steel 316L is insulated by a super insulation and a
vacuum space between these two pipes. A stainless steel braiding on the inner pipe bears
the end cap load of the pipe. For mechanical protection an outer sheath of Polyethylene (PE)
or Polyamide (PA) can be applied.
The vacuum does not need active pumping during operation for more than 15 years. The pipe
structure offers leak detection in the vacuum space, giving a signal to the system if the
vacuum degrades due to a leak in either the inner or the outer pipe. Nevertheless, in case of
a problem the gas cannot escape to the environment because of the double containment
system (Hoog et al., 2012).
17
ESD = Emergency Shut Down

structure concepts
Maneuvering in Ice
The approach of the I(ce)-LNGC follows several clearly defined steps (see Figure 62):
The first step is the far field approach of the carrier with ice breaking in backward drive. This
step is characterized by the entering of the carrier into the terminals ice free wake (Phase I).
One of the waiting tugs moors to the aft end of the carrier allowing controlling of the alignment
of both vessels. The carrier proceeds driving with very slow speed in forward direction to the
Mooring Bay until mooring lines are deployed from the terminal to the QRH18 at the carrier
taking over speed control (Phase II). The final approach starts by the gentle and controlled
pull-in of the carrier into the Mooring Bay until the receiving manifold has reached the exact
position right under the loading bridge which is standby and ready for coupling of the header
to the manifold as shown in Figure 61 and Figure 62 (Phase III).
Figure 62 Steps of approach and pull-in of the carrier to the Mooring Bay and
cargo transfer in ice conditions (Hoog et al., 2012)
Connection of Transfer Lines

When the carrier/manifold is located in the right position two lines are released from the
header and hooked-in in dedicated docking cones at the manifold. Active winches allow safe
pull-in of these lines for the final approach of the header to the manifold (see Figure 51). The
header carries the complete set of up to six transfer pipes (max. 4 for LNG, max. 2 for vapor
return) each equipped with its QCDC19 and ERC20 couplings. After touchdown of the header
the QCDC couplings are closed and the cargo transfer, which alone can last up to 18 hours,
18
QRH = Quick Release Hook
19
QCDC = Quick Connect/Disconnect Couplers
20
ERC = Emergency Release Couplings

structure concepts
can be started. According to international requirements the transfer capacity is outlined to

reach at least 10000 m per hour (Hoog et al., 2012).
It is important to note that this concept provides a fully aerial solution which means that no
cargo carrying component touches the sea surface (or sea ice) in any regular phase of
operation or even in ESD situation.
After completion of the cargo transfer this sequence is followed vice-versa so that the header
remains permanently under control until it has been fully retrieved from the carrier
deck/manifold.
Emergency Shut Down (ESD) situation

The handling of LNG transfer lines in emergency situations is a very critical part of related risk
assessments. Here, the MPLS20 system has proven especially good performance as the
developed aerial solution provides full control of every single step of operation. If for example
a critical situation (e.g. loss of a mooring) results in excessive vessel relative motions and the
reaching or exceeding of the pre-defined working envelope within the `Mooring Bay, the
cargo pumps are stopped (phase ESD 1) or even all ERCs are opened followed by the
departure of the carrier from the `Mooring Bay (phase ESD 2), respectively. This situation
can be carried out in a safe and reliable way and without disturbances due to environmental
constraints, which has been approved in principle by Germanischer Lloyd (GL).
Motion Analysis
To study the motion behaviour of the system numerical calculations are conducted by means
of the two software systems WAMIT and ANSYS AQWA, both Potential Theory approaches.
While the specially adopted radiation-diffraction panel code WAMIT21 (Wave Analysis at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology) is able to take inner free liquid surfaces into account
(sloshing), ANSYS AQWA considers wind and current, providing results in frequency domain
as well as time series for ship motions and mooring forces of the multi-body system.
During the cargo transfer period free fluid surfaces occur in the cargo tanks of the LNGC.
This leads to a significant decrease of the initial intact stability and altered motion behavior
(for details refer to Frohne et al., 2008). While the FLNG unit is equipped with sloshing-proof
SPB22 tanks, the LNGC selected for the investigations features standard prismatic tanks
without internal partitions. This type of tank is prone to resonant free surface motions that are
induced by the ship moving in waves.
The sloshing analysis has been carried out in frequency domain with WAMIT. Calculations
with water in the tanks have been carried out and compared with model tests in order to
validate the numerical setup (for details refer to Frohne et al., 2008). Subsequent calculations
with LNG tank filling provide the real motion behaviour of the system with partially filled tanks
(Hoog et al., 2012).
Ice Load Analysis

Numerical calculations have been carried out to determine specific loads from drifting ice to
the moored multi-body system. For this purpose the above described generic I-FLNG hull
with ice breaking capabilities has been analyzed with the software ANSYS AQWA. Two
21
WAMIT = Wave Analysis Code developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
22
SPB = Self-supporting, Prismatic-shaped IMO Type B

structure concepts
different mooring configurations (see Figure 63) with a) equidistant attachment of the lines
around the circumference of the mooring buoy and b) a 4 times 3 lines configuration
(centered each 90) have been considered and the resulting equilibrium positions and load in
the lines are calculated. It should be noted that the mooring line assemblies are the same for
both configuration very basic designs in order to achieve suitable solutions. They have to be
subject of detailed investigations for each discrete development and location (Hoog et al.,
2012).
Figure 63 The analyzed mooring line configurations: 12x1 (left), and 4x3, with angle
of attack 180 at each (Hoog et al., 2012)
Waves with significant height Hs = 5.5 m, wind with max. velocity 15 m/s, current with velocity
1.0 m/s and two different ice coverages at the I-FLNG bottom (A=70% coverage and B=30%
coverage due the wedge-shaped plough) have been considered.
The ship shape modification like the wedge-shaped plough significantly contributes to reduce
the ice induced effects on the coupled multi-body system (Hoog et al., 2012).
As reported by Hoog et al. (2012) the project with respect to the development of a completely
new mooring concept for large vessels and a handling and approach system for a bundle of
flexible transfer pipes in aerial mode was successful. However there are still general
investigations required with respect to
Verification of application in (specific) ice conditions

Verification of appropriate barge hull form (ice tank tests)
Concept for winterization e.g. of the transfer system
Application of the transfer system in harsh conditions (snow and ice)

structure concepts
5.2 Floating Structures

General
There is only a limited number of floating exploration or production structures that have been
used in ice environments. Seasonal exploration can be carried out in the Alaskan OCS using
drillships and drilling barges and, in areas without multi-year ice, semisubmersibles or a
TLP23. However, for exploration, the only location that a floating structure might be capable of
staying on station year-round might be the Bering Sea under light ice conditions. A Semi-rigid
Floater structure might work year-round under first-year ice conditions but would need to
have the ability to disconnect and leave station in the event of potentially higher loads.
Floating production systems for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea and North Bering Sea are not
considered to be technically feasible, even with continuous ice management. No floating
production structures could be economically designed to stay on station with multi year ice
loads found in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and possibly northern Bering Sea depending
on local ice conditions. However, floating systems may have some merit in southern Alaskan
OCS areas (IMVPA, 2008).
The development of oil and gas fields offshore in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions has received
increased attention because of the huge potential of the hydrocarbon resources. The change
of climate conditions, i.e. melting of ice in the Arctic, has increased the open water area and
opened shipping and transportation routes, which provides an opportunity for development of
these fields. These developments are in deeper water depths of 300 to 3000 m, which
exceeds the limits for the installation of fixed base or bottom founded platforms. Therefore
floating systems are being considered as practical solutions, which have been used as
installations during the past 20 years in deepwater worldwide (Aggarval and DSouza, 2011).
The worldwide progression of water depth capabilities for offshore drilling and production is
shown in Figure 64.
Source: Mustang Engineering
Figure 64 Worldwide progression of water depth capabilities for offshore drilling

and production in the period from 1947 to 2013
23
TLP = Tension Leg Platform

structure concepts
In general the designs of alternative floating systems are available for their application in
deep Arctic waters, but there technical feasibility, operability and cost-effectiveness depend
on specific conditions in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic. These areas are subjected to harsh
metocean conditions, extreme temperatures and severe ice conditions.
Figure 65 shows as an example floating drilling system for offshore drilling in the Arctic.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 65 Floating systems for offshore drilling in the Arctic: (a) drilling rig Kulluk,
(b) drillship Stena DrillMax ICE and (c) semi-sub rig designed by Moss
Maritime
These drilling units are designed specifically to operate in ice conditions and can be
disconnected as protection against large drifting ice features like pressure ice ridges, multi-
year ice floes and icebergs.
Different floating production platform categories that have been proven in service and are
considered as appropriate technologies for development of deepwater and ultra-deepwater
hydrocarbon fields in water depth up to 3000 m. However only few of these design categories
(FPSO, TLP, SPAR, Semi-sub and Buoy shaped) have been used due to specific demands
and constraints associated with field development in each region (Aggarval and DSouza,
2011) Figure 66 and Figure 67 show different platform designs for deepwater drilling and
production.
Figure 66 Alternative floating platform designs in deepwater

structure concepts
Figure 67 Deepwater system types (source: Mustang Engineering)
5.2.1 Conventional Floating Exploration Structures

Conventional floating exploration structures, drillships and semi-submersibles, have been
used in areas subject to seasonal/marginal ice cover including the east coast of Canada,
offshore Greenland, the Russian Arctic, and offshore Sakhalin Island. Drilling with these
structures is generally carried out during summer months when seas are ice free. However,
there are drilling units which are ice strengthened/classed for operation in light/managed ice
cover. Furthermore, there are other drilling units, such as the Vidar Viking, which have shown
that drilling in ice well beyond light/managed ice is possible (IMVPA, 2008).
.
5.2.1.1 Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO)
General
Floating Production Storage Offloading (FPSO) vessels are ideally suited for development of
remote-region projects, because tankers and onsite storage are needed to transport crude oil
to markets. Even for the basins where pipelines are eventually built, an FPSO can still serve
as an early production system to reduce project risk and improve project cash flow.
Therefore, an FPSO offers an attractive solution to deepwater fields in the Arctic where fixed
platforms are not feasible from either technical or commercial perspectives (Li, 2012).
The technical feasibility of an arctic FPSO depends on ice and iceberg conditions. In iceberg
infested waters, the FPSO for the Arctic needs to be disconnectable to avoid collisions with
incoming icebergs. Even without the presence of icebergs, an Arctic FPSO may need to be
disconnectable due to the limits of stationkeeping capacity of its mooring system. Design of a
disconnectable mooring system becomes significantly more challenging than a permanent
one, because of the additional requirement of load transfer, disconnected subsea system,
disconnections and reconnections. These requirements often conflict with the ones of flow
assurance, topside layout, ventilation and fire protection (Li, 2012)

structure concepts
Terra Nova Field

The Terra Nova field, discovered in 1984 by Petro-Canada, is currently the 2nd largest
producing field off the east coast of Canada. Furthermore, the Terra Nova was the first harsh
environment development in North America to utilize a FPSO vessel (Petro-Canada, 2007a).
The field is located approximately 350 km eastsoutheast of St. Johns. The Field water depths
range from 90 to 100 m (SPG Media Limited, 2007e).
The production from Terra Nova project began in January, 2002 (Bott, 2004). Field
recoverable oil reserves have been estimated at 440 million barrels and life of field is
estimated to be about 20 years (Petro-Canada, 2007a).
Through an integrated subsea and topside production system, oil is produced, stored, and
subsequently offloaded to shuttle tankers. The production from subsea wells/trees is gathered
by subsea manifolds and conveyed topside (to the FPSO) via flexible flowlines and risers.
More then 40 km of flexible flowlines, control umbilicals, and dynamic risers were required for
the project (Furlow, 1998). Flowline and riser inner diameters ranged between 125 and 250
mm, while the umbilicals used were the largest ever manufactured at the time, with an
outside diameter of 265 mm (Cottrill, 2000).
To protect against potential iceberg gouging, subsea equipment is located in excavated
seafloor pits, called open glory holes as shown in Figure 68. Glory holes used for the project
are approximately 11.5 m deep and base dimensions range from 16 m x 16 m to 56 m x 16 m
(Furlow, 1998). Excavation of the glory holes was carried out by a giant trailer suction
dredger, the Queen of The Netherlands (Cottrill, 2000).
Although considered sacrificial and equipped with weak links to protect wellhead equipment,
flowlines were trenched and buried in the seabed to provide stability, insulation, and afford
some measure of protection from iceberg gouging. The initial plan was to provide 1.5 m of
cover, however, due to trenching difficulties some flowlines were rock-dumped instead
(Cottrill, 2000).
Figure 68 Open Glory Hole (Petro-Canada, 2007a)

structure concepts
Example: Terra Nova FPSO

The core of the development and production system is the Terra Nova FPSO one of the
largest FPSO vessels ever built, shown in Figure 69. The Terra Nova measures 292 m long
by 45.5 m wide. The height from the keel to the helideck is about 55 m. During operation, it
has a draft of approximately 13 to 19 m and a maximum displacement of 194000 tonnes
(Fletcher and Clark, 2001). The Terra Nova has a production rate of 180000 bpd24 (Howell,
2007) and an integrated storage capacity of 960000 barrels of oil.
The hull is designed for multi-year ice pressures and impacts of 100000 metric tonnes
iceberg at 0.5 m/s (1 knot) drifting speed and for 3000 metric tonnes bergy bits at 5 m/s (10
knots). In comparison to the non-arctic hull design, this means an additional demand of about
12% steel (Aggarval and DSouza, 2011).
Stationkeeping is made possible by means of thruster assisted mooring with 9 chain mooring
lines. The disconnectable turret/spider buoy with supporting mooring lines and risers and
umbilicals adds 4000 metric tonnes to the FPSO, and the buoy is desined to drop 35 m. The
planned disconnection time for normal operation is about 4 hours and in emergency case the
buoy can be disconnected in 15 minutes.
The Terra Nova FPSO was designed for the environment in which it operates. A double-
hulled, ice-reinforced vessel, it has five thrusters (two forward and three aft) and a global
dynamic positioning system (DP), an automated system that allows the vessel to maintain its
headings. The same system reduces the impact of waves by allowing the FPSO to change to
more favourable headings in high winds and storms.
An ice management program allows Terra Nova personnel to monitor and deflect icebergs
when required. Support vessels can encircle an iceberg with a cable or net and change its
direction. Water cannons or the wash from a vessels propellers can be used to nudge the
iceberg along a different course (reference: www.suncor.com).
To avoid collision with icebergs and severe sea ice conditions, the Terra Nova FPSO is
equipped with an internal disconnectable turret system. During a disconnection, the spider
buoy, along with its attached risers and moorings, is released allowing the FPSO to move off
station and sail out of harms way. Once released, the spider buoy sinks to a mid-water
equilibrium depth of 35 m (Cottrill, 2000).
A planned disconnection, which entails well shut-in, depressurization, flowline flushing, etc.,
can be executed in less than 4 hours, while in an emergency situation, disconnection can be
achieved in approximately 15 minutes (Sofec, 2007). Up until the final moment of disconnect
(i.e. prior to mechanical connector release), the sequence is reversible. The turret system is
designed to reconnect in a matter of hours with normal operations support (Furlow, 1998).
Reconnection can be accomplished in up to 2.1 m significant wave heights (Cottrill, 2000).
In June 2007, the Terra Nova FPSO underwent its first planned disconnect when it left the
field to undergo several months of maintenance work in the Keppel Verolme shipyard in
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The Terra Nova arrived back in the field on September 25th and
was reconnected to its moorings on October 1st (Petro-Canada, 2006).
There were a number of design challenges for the Terra Nova disconnectable turret system;
severe weather and storm conditions, relatively shallow water, a large vessel, a significant
number of risers, a heavy mooring system and the ability to disconnect/reconnect. At time of
design, the Terra Nova turret was quoted as the most sophisticated and complicated turret
ever to be constructed (Furlow, 1998).
24
bpd = barrels per day

structure concepts
Figure 69 Terra Nova FPSO (source Petro-Canada)
The connection between the FPSO and the subsea flowlines is the spider buoy (the lower
portion of the turret). The spider buoy is the mooring point for the FPSO, and the pathway for
oil and fluids that flow to and from the FPSO and reservoir (Figure 70). The spider buoy has a
quick-disconnect feature, allowing the FPSO to safely disconnect and leave the area in an
emergency situation.
Figure 70 Illustration of pathway for oil and fluids that flow to and from the FPSO
and reservoir (source: Suncor)

structure concepts
5.2.1.2 Drillships
A drillship is a maritime vessel that has been fitted with drilling apparatus. It is most often
used for exploratory drilling of new oil or gas wells in deep water or for scientific drilling. The
drillship can also be used as a platform to carry out well maintenance or completion work
such as casing and tubing installation or subsea tree installations. It is often built for oil
production companies and/or investors design and specifaction but it can also be a modified
tanker hull and outfitted with a dynamic positioning system to maintain its position over the
well. The greatest advantages of these modern drillships is their ability to drill in water depths
of more than 2500 m and the valuable time saved sailing between oilfields worldwide and
they are completely independant compared with Semi-submersibles and jack-up barges
(reference: www.oil-rig-photos.com)
Starting in the mid 1970s, Dome Petroleum (Canmar) deployed floating drillships during the
summer months. These were moored on site during the summer (open water) months. They
encountered relatively light ice conditions, and there are no recorded ice loading events for
these floating structures (Timco and Johnston, 2002).
In 1983, Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. designed and built an inverted-cone shaped floating
structure (the Kulluk) that allowed drilling later into the winter season. This structure was
exposed to moving pack ice. Active ice management around the Kulluk ensured that the ice
conditions were not severe. This structure was instrumented to measure mooring line forces.
Wright (2000, 2001) summarized the measured forces on the Kulluk. Measured loads were
up to 4 MN depending upon the ice thickness, floe size and ice concentration.
The ice class drillship Explorer II and Kulluk (see Figure 71 and Figure 72) were used in
the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas for water depths of more than 30 m in the 1980s and 1990s.
To the south, in Navarin Bay and St. George Basin, semi-submersibles were used
extensively due to the relatively ice-free environment for most of the year. The first drilling
operations undertaken by drillships in ice-infested waters were primarily intended for open
water use, and normally drilled during the Beaufort or Chukchis summer and early fall
seasons. However, with icebreaker support, they soon developed the capability to maintain
position in a variety of pack-ice conditions. This extended their operating season beyond the
open water period, although they did not work extensively in heavy ice. The Northern
Explorer II is a Donheiser Marine, Super Class 1AA design. Its mooring system is an eight
point wire design and had a variable load capability of about 5800 metric tonnes).

g offshore
structure conncepts
(Timco andd Johnston, 2002)
Figure 71 Northern Exp

plorer II (fo
ormerly the
e CANMAR
R Explorer II and Explorer II) ,
(IMV
VPA 2008)
Figure 72 Ice manageme ent operatiions aroun

nd the moo
ored Kullu
uk structurre in the
Beaufort Sea (Timco
( and
d Johnston n, 2002)
The Kulluk was de esigned as a second generation drilling sys stem that wwas purpose e built to
antly extend
significa d the open n water sea ason, by be eginning drrilling operaations in th
he spring
break-up period an nd continuin
ng until earlyy winter. As
s a result, th
he Kulluk o perated in a greater
and more difficult range
r of pack-ice cond ditions than drillships. In addition, in-ice perfformance

Version: 1
1.1 Page 116 off 165
structure concepts
information was systematically obtained during its operations. Because of this, the Kulluks
experience base provides the best source of data for most considerations related to moored
vessel station-keeping operations in various pack-ice conditions (IMVPA, 2008).
In the early 1980 extensive model tests in ice tanks were performed among others at the
Hamburg Ship Model Basin (HSVA) to develop an appropriate hull form, which resists the
corresponding ice loads and allows a safe operation in the Arctic.
The Kulluk (shown in
Figure 73 and Figure 74) was designed with a variety of features to enhance its performance
capabilities in ice. Some of the primary technical challenges that were considered and
accommodated in the Kulluks design are highlighted as follows:
Minimizing the icebreaking and clearance forces that the vessel would
experience from any direction, by providing it with an omni-directional
capability to resist ice action
Developing a hull form that would minimize icebreaking forces, enhance ice
clearance, and reduce the possibility of ice moving down the hull and under
the vessel, where it could interfere with the mooring and riser systems, and
enter the moonpool area
Providing a strong mooring system that could resist the high load levels
associated with heavy pack-ice conditions during extended season
operations, with acceptable mooring line tensions and vessel offsets
Developing a submerged mooring system that would eliminate the problem

of ice interaction with mooring lines at (or near) the waterline
Configuring an ice management system that would be capable of protecting

the Kulluk in the more difficult ice conditions expected in the Beauforts
extended drilling season.
Typically, the Kulluk was supported by two to four CAC 2 icebreakers25 during its operations
in heavy pack-ice conditions. Although the vessel occasionally operated in unbroken ice, it
normally worked in managed ice conditions, where the oncoming pack-ice cover had been
pre-broken into relatively small fragments by the support icebreakers as shown in Figure 72.
25
CAC : Canadian Arctic Category

structure concepts
Figure 73 Drilling barge Kulluk ; stacked at Tuktoyuktuk (courtesy of Beaudril)
Figure 74 The Kulluk - Operations with Icebreaker Support (courtesy of DC Marine)

g offshore
structure conncepts
Examplle: Drillship
p Vidar Vik
king
The Swwedish Vidar Viking is an diesel-e
electric ice breaking
b an
nchor handlling, tug an
nd supply
vessel ((Class DNV
V IBICE10, 1.3
1 m ice) ccomplete with a full dynnamic positi oning syste
em.
The vesssel was outfitted
o with
h a moonp pool and a compact drill rig for ddeep sea drilling
d in
summer of 2004. This upgra ade was pe erformed too allow the Vidar Viki ng to serve e as the
drilling vessel for the scientiffic Arctic CCoring Expeedition (ACEEX) projectt. In the summer of
2004 ass part of th he ACEX, the Vidar V Viking succ athered corres from under the
cessfully ga
central polar ice paack. Ocean floor core ssampling was carried down
d to thee full target depth, to
bedrockk on the Lo omonosov ridge (Lapte ev Sea), at about 450 m of core llength (Kein nonen et
al., 2006). Prior to this date no
o core drillin
ng had take
en place undder the centtral polar icee pack.
Moran e et al. 2006 report thatt at the drilll site, temperatures we
ere near 0C and occasionally
dropped d to 12C. Ice floes 13 m thicck covered 90% (i.e., >9/10 ice ccover) of th he ocean
surface, and ice riddges, severral meters h high, were encountere ed where flooes converg
ged. The
ice driftted at speeeds of up to 0.3 kno ots and cha ction over short time periods,
anged direc
sometimmes within 1 hour.
Two oth her icebreaakers, a Russian nucclear vesse el, the Sove etskiy Soyuuz, and a Swedish
diesel-eelectric vessel, the Odden proteccted the Vid dar Viking by circlingg upstream m in the
drifting sea ice, brreaking the
e floes into smaller pieces that would
w not ddislodge the drilling
vessel m more than 75 m from a fixed po ce cover, thhe ice management
osition. Despite thick ic
teams ssuccessfullyy enabled thhe drilling te
eam to recoover cores from
f three ssites. Ice co
onditions
became e unmanage eable only twice,
t forcin
ng the crew
w to retrieve
e the pipe aand move aw way until
conditioons improveed. Figure 75
7 shows the e convoy off involved vessels.
So
ovetsky So
oyuz
Od
den
Vidar Viking
Ph t S St ll
Figure 75 The Expeditionn 302 fleet during the
e transit no
orth, the So
ovetsky Soy yuz
lead
ding, the Od
den follow ing, and th
he drillship Vidar Vikin
ing in the re
ear
(Pho
oto:Sven Stenvall)
S

Version: 1
1.1 Page 119 off 165
g offshore
structure conncepts
Examplle: Drillship
p Stena DrrillMAX ICE
E
The Steena DrillMA AX ICE (Figu ure 76) is th he most expensive drillship ever bbuilt. The extremely
e
high cosst of similar drillships and their a ccompanyin kers, makess it unlikely that two
ng icebreak
compan nies would concurrently
c y decide to acquire su uch vessels for use in tthe Beauforrt Sea. A
more likkely scenariio is that the first drillin
ng system would
w be ac
cquired andd a successfful deep-
water wwell drilled, before a second drillsship and its s icebreakeers are commmissioned (Callow,
2012).
Figure 76 Drilllship Stena

a Drill MAX
X ICE (courrtesy Stena
a)
As the w
worlds firstt dynamicallly positione ast drillship with ice-claass certifica
ed, dual-ma ation, the
Stena D
DrillMAX IC CE represen nts a large and imporrtant investm ment for Sttena Drilling Ltd., a

Version: 1
1.1 Page 120 off 165
structure concepts
wholly owned subsidiary of Stena. The Stena DrillMAX ICE is an extremely specialized and
expensive vessel, which makes every hour of operation crucial.
Stena decided to install a ballast water treatment system before regulations are in place, as
this would mean taking the drillship out of service and placing it back in the dry dock. In such
an event, the cost of the retrofit would be not only the cost of the equipment, but also the cost
of the downtime.
The ice-strengthened hull unit has been optimised for Arctic conditions. Six ice-classed 5.5
MW azimuth thrusters provide maximum manoeuvrability. Below the deck escape ways on
port and starboard side connect the aft engine rooms with accommodation. Moon pools on
port and starboard allow for installation of two separate ROV26 systems.
Anti-icing equipment protects the units anchors, deck piping, lifeboat escape exits, scuppers
and drains while enhanced de-icing machines keeps decks, gangways, and handrails clear.
Steam heating coils warm the ballast tanks and drill water tanks and windwalls and cladding
offer enhanced protection to the drill floor and dual mast derrick (reference: www.dnv.com).
Operating in ice-infested seas and at low temperatures, which can drop to more than 20C
degrees in the Arctic in summer, is challenging. Icebergs and extreme cold represent a risk in
the Arctic, but there is less of a threat from storms and heavy seas.
The drillship is able to break the ice, although it is not a typical icebreaker. When operating in
the Arctic the drillship will be escorted by icebreakers and/or icebreaking Offshore Supply
Vessels (OSV) for ice management purpose.
When the drillship is operating in other areas like North Sea or Gulf of Mexico there might be
a threat due to frequent storms and heavy seas with large waves, however the DrillMAX ICE
can survive waves up to 30 m height.
The drillships hull form is based on Stenas proven DrillMAX design, some topside
modifications were included. Because the drillship is likely to operate in the environmentally
sensitive Arctic region, space was created on deck for an extra six-RAM blowout preventer
(BOP), providing critical redundancy.
The drillship is also equipped with DP3 station-keeping and related automation systems
provided by Kongsberg for operating in ice conditions, Knuckleboom deck cranes are
designed for temperature conditions of -30C.
In early 2011 Stena Rederi AB performed a series of model tests in the ice tank at the
Hamburg Ship Model Basin (HSVA). For the first time a model test in ice conditions was
performed with a DP-system specifically configured for operations in ice in order to cope with
the expected large variations in ice drift forces (see
Figure 77), (Haase and Jochmann, 2013).
The major purpose of the tests was to assess the operational limits of Stena DrillMAX ICE for
operation in ice drift conditions. A secondary goal was to evaluate the performance of the
specially tuned DP-system in order to be prepared for full scale operations (Hals and
Efraimson, 2011). Stena Rederi AB worked closely with DNV to achieve ICE 10 Certification,
among other notations.
26
ROV: Remotely Operated Vehicle

structure concepts
Figure 77 Ice model tests with Stena DrillMAX ICE model in managed ice

structure concepts
5.2.1.3 Semi-submersible floating structures
A semi-submersible floating structures is a conventional floating exploration structure which

consists of a top side deck that comes in several designs. It is typically stabilized by columns
with submerged lower hulls which are semi-submerged to a predetermined draft during
operations. Compared to a FPSO the semi-submersible has a small water plane area. In
general, harsh environment winterized semi-submersibles have been used considerably in
the south Bering Sea (IMVPA, 2008).
Example: Semi-submersible Ocean Odyssey

An example of a previously used semi-submersible; the Ocean Odyssey (Figure 78) was an
advanced super-class unit designed to operate in Arctic environments (OSTI, 2007).
The Odyssey was capable of operating in winds greater than 100 knots (51.4 m/s) with its
4100 tonne deck-load without de-ballasting from its 24.4 m operating draft (OSTI, 2007).
Further, the Odyssey was constructed with reinforced columns and was equipped with a
caged riser (Oil Rig Disasters, 2007).
The semi-submersible rig was completed in March 1983 by Sumitomo Heavy Industries in
Japan for ODECO, the Ocean Odyssey was one of the most advanced semi-submersibles of
its day and was designed to work on high pressure wells in harsh environments, such as
offshore Alaska and the North Sea. The rig was in operation from April 1983 to September
1985 off the coasts of Alaska and California before being stacked for two years in Seattle,
WA. The rig was then contracted to ARCO and shipped to the North Sea by February 1988.
By September 1988 the rig was drilling in the Central Graben of the North Sea when a
blowout occurred. After this accident the Odyssey was berthed at Dundee docks in the UK for
some time before being redeveloped as an ocean-going satellite launch pad by a joint four-
company consortium which included Boeing and Kvaerner.
The Ocean Odyssey is now used as a mobile spacecraft launch platform. The company Sea
Launch has successfully launched the Intelsat 21 satellite aboard a Zenit 3SL launch vehicle
from the Odyssey mobile platform, in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. (reference:
www.aerospace-technology.com).

structure concepts
Figure 78 Semi-sumersible rig Ocean Odyssey (NationMaster, 2005)
Example: Sakhalin III Semi-submersible
The Sakhalin shelf is one of the main sources of gas supplies to consumers of the Russian
Far East. Gazprom operates in three blocks within the Sakhalin III project:
Kirinsky
Ayashsky and
Vostochno-Odoptinsky.
The Kirinsky block includes the Kirinskoye field and Gazprom also discovered there the
Yuzhno-Kirinskoye and Mynginskoye gas and condensate fields.
The Kirinskoye gas and condensate field is located 28 km off the coast at a water depth
of 90 m. Geological exploration operations were completed at the field in 2011. All reserves
3
are within the C1 category and total 163 billion m of gas and 19 million tons of gas
condensate.
3
The Yuzhno-Kirinskoye gas and condensate field's C1+C2 reserves amount to 564 billion m
of gas and 72 million tons of gas condensate.

structure concepts
The Severnoye Siyaniye (Northern Lights) semi-submersible drilling rig (SSDR) as shown in
Figure 79 has been delivered to the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye field in the Sakhalin shelf. The
Polyarnaya Zvezda (Polar Star) SSDR (see Figure 80) was the first to arrive in the Kirinskoye
field. Polyarnaya Zvezda will continue the construction of production wells. It is projected
to finalize the second well with a depth of over 3600 m in a three-and-a-half month's period
during the 2013 season. This drilling rig will also build the third well (reference:
www.gazprom.com).
Figure 79 Sakhalin III Project - Severnoye Siyaniye (Northern Lights) semi-

submersible drilling rig (SSDR), Yuzhno-Kirinskoye field (source:
Gazprom)
Figure 80 Semi-submersible floating drilling rig Polyarnaya Zvezda (Polar Star)

drilling in Kirinskoye field (Sakhalin III Project), [source: Gazprom]

structure concepts
5.2.1.4 Floating Production Storage Offloading Vessel (FPSO)
The FPSO is a floating, production, storage and offloading ship-shaped vessel. FPSO
concepts have frequently been based on converted tankers. Production facilities are mounted
on raised supports above the vessel deck. Reservoir fluids pass from subsea production
wells, via flowlines and risers, up into the turret and then to the production facilities (see
Figure 81 and Figure 82). The produced oil is stored in the vessel cargo tanks and
periodically offloaded onto a shuttle tanker via a loading hose in areas where a pipeline to
transport oil to shore is not available.
FPSO design has shown a fast evolution in recent years. The concept is more and more
frequently used for deepwater solutions and in addition new design concepts are being
considered with respect to operate FPSOs in ice covered waters at higher latitudes.
Figure 81 Illustration of Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) with

flowlines and risers (source: corrosion-doctors.org)

g offshore
structure conncepts
Figure 82 Illus
stration of TLP
T and FP
PSO with multiple
m ser 27config
ris guration
Other acronyms re
elated to FPSO are:
FSU : Floating S
Storage Unit
FPU : Floating P
Production Unit
FPSU : Floating P
Production & Storage Unit
U
FSO : Floating S
Storage & Offloading
O
FPSO: Floating P
Production, Storage an
nd Offloadinng
FDPSO : Floating D
Drilling Prod
duction Storrage & Offlooading
FSG : Floating S
Storage of Gas
G
FGSO : Floating G
Gas Storage
e Offloading
g
FPSG : Floating P
Production Storage
S of Gas
G
27
Riserss: Similar to pipelines
p or flowlines,
f rise
ers transportt produced hydrocarbonss, as well as
productio
on materials, such as inje ection fluids, control fluid
ds and gas lifft. Usually inssulated to withstand
seafloor temperature es, risers can
n be either riggid or flexible
e

Version: 1
1.1 Page 127 off 165
structure concepts
5.2.1.5 Tension Leg Platform (TLP)
General
A tension-leg platform (TLP) or extended tension leg platform (ETLP) is a vertically moored
floating structure normally used for the offshore production of oil and/or gas, and is
particularly suited for water depths between 300 m and 1500 m.
The platform is permanently moored by means of tethers or tendons grouped at each of the
structure's corners. A group of tethers is called a tension leg. A feature of the design of the
tethers is that they have relatively high axial stiffness causing low elasticity, such that virtually
all vertical motion (heave) of the platform is eliminated. This allows the platform to have the
production wellheads on deck (connected directly to the subsea wells by rigid risers), instead
of on the seafloor. This makes a simpler well completion possible and gives better control
over the production from the oil and gas reservoir, and easier access for downhole
intervention operations (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension-leg_platform).
TLPs have been in use since the early 1980s. The first tension leg platform was built for
Conoco's Hutton field in the North Sea in the early 1980s. The hull was built in the dry-dock at
Highland Fabricator's Nigg yard in the north of Scotland, with the deck section built nearby at
McDermott's yard at Ardersier. The two parts were mated in the Moray Firth in 1984.
The Hutton TLP was originally designed for a service life of 25 years and had 16 tension legs.
Its weight varied between 46500 and 55000 tons when moored to the seabed, but up to
2
61580 tons when floating freely.The total area of its living quarters was about 3500 m and
accommodated over a 100 cabins though only 40 people were necessary to maintain the
structure in place.
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension-leg_platform)
Larger TLPs will normally have a full drilling rig on the platform with which to drill and
intervene on the wells. The smaller TLPs may have a workover rig, or in a few cases no
production wellheads located on the platform at all.
The deepest (E)TLPs measured from the sea floor to the surface are:
Magnolia ETLP (depth 1425 m)

Marco Polo TLP (depth 1300 m)
Neptune TLP (depth 1300 m)
Kizomba A TLP (depth 1177 m)
Ursa TLP (depth 1200 m)
Allegheny TLP (depth 1020 m)
W. Seno A TLP (depth 1000 m)
Figure 83 shows a schematic diagram of tension-leg platform (gray) under tow with seabed
anchors (light gray) held up by cables (red) on left-hand side; the platform with seabed
anchors lowered and cables lightly tensioned on right-hand side and (b) the TLP (gray) free
floating on left-hand side; the structure is pulled by the tensioned cables (red) down towards
the seabed anchors (light-gray) on right-hand side (very simplified, details of temporary
ballast transfers are omitted).

structure concepts
Figure 83 Schematic diagram of (a) tension-leg platform under tow with seabed
anchors held up by cables on left-hand side; platform with seabed
anchors lowered and cables lightly tensioned on right-hand side. (b) TLP
free floating on left-hand side; structure is pulled by the tensioned cables
down towards the seabed anchors) on right-hand side
Examples of various TLPs are shown in Figure 84 through Figure 87.

structure concepts
Figure 84 TLP Nanhai Tiao Zhan (previously Stadrill), (Photo: Nick Cregan, 2013)
Figure 85 Njord Plaform, Statoil, Norway (Photo: Jon King, 2011)

structure concepts
Figure 86 Snorre A Platform (courtesy Statoil)
Figure 87 Snorre B Platform (courtesy Statoil)

structure concepts
Snorre is an oil and gas field in the Tampen area in the southern part of the Norwegian Sea
and in operation since August 1992. It was the first field developed by Saga petroleum. The
sea depth in the area is 300 to 350 m.
Snorre A platform in the south is a floating steel facility for accommodation, drilling and
processing. Snorre A has also a separate process module for production from the Vigdis field.
A subsea template with ten well slots, Snorre UPA, is located centrally in the field and
connected to Snorre A. Oil and gas from Snorre A is piped to the nearby Statfjord A platform
for final processing.
Snorre B platform is located in the northern part of the field and is a semi-submersible
integrated drilling, processing and accommodation steel facility. Oil from Snorre B is piped
45 km to Statfjord B platform for storage and export.
The Snorre field is operated by Statoil. In 2009, Statoil started a project to upgrade the
offshore production complex. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate requested Statoil to build
a new platform at the field. (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorre_oil_field).
Example: Morpeth TLP

The Morpeth field is located in about 520 m water depth, in the Gulf of Mexico Ewing Bank
(EW) blocks 921, 964 and 965, offshore of Louisiana.
Since the tension-leg mooring suppresses heave motions and reduces excursions, the
performance requirements of the risers are reduced, in comparison with a catenary-moored
platform. In the case of the Morpeth, the platform supports four satellite subsea oil and gas
wells, each approximately 1000 m from the platform. The oil and gas flow through individual
flexible flowlines, to the platform.
Processed crude oil and natural gas is exported from the Morpeth platform via a 30.5 cm oil-
export line and a 20 cm gas-export line to the Grand Isle 115 platform. The Grand Isle 115
platform lies in 112 m of water near the continental shelf margin, about 35 km from Morpeth
(reference: www.offshore -technology.com).
Figure 88 shows the towing of the Morpeth SeaStar TLP hull, from Houma to the Morpeth
field in the Gulf of Mexico (a) and the installation of topsides (b).

structure concepts
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 88 (a) Towing of the Morpeth SeaStar TLP hull, from Houma to the Morpeth
field in the Gulf of Mexico.
(b) Installation of the topsides. The topsides have a full processing
capability.
(c) Artist's impression of the Morpeth tension leg platform (TLP). Tendon
separation is a result of the base pontoons, with a platform displacement
of 10000 tons, (source: www.offshore-technology.com)
5.2.1.6 Single Point Anchor Reservoir (SPAR)
General
A Single Point Anchor Reservoir (SPAR) is a type of floating oil platform typically used in very
deep waters, and is moored in place vertically. The SPAR production platforms have been
developed as an alternative to conventional platforms that can support drilling, production and
storage operations, the SPAR consists of a large vertical cylinder bearing topsides with
equipment. Similar to an iceberg, the majority of a SPAR facility is located beneath the
water's surface, providing the facility increased stability (reference: www.rigzone.com).
SPARs are anchored to the seabed by means of a spread mooring system with either a
chain-wire-chain or chain-polyester-chain composition.
There are three primary types of SPARs:
the classic SPAR
the truss SPAR
and the cell SPAR
The classic SPAR consists of the cylindrical hull noted above, with the heavy ballast at the
bottom of the cylinder.
A truss SPAR has a shorter cylindrical "hard tank" than a classic SPAR and has a truss
structure connected to the bottom of the hard tank. At the bottom of the truss structure, there
is a relatively small, square shaped "soft tank" that houses the heavy ballasting material. The
majority of SPARs are of this type. In Figure 89 and Figure 90 different SPAR buoy types are
shown.

structure concepts
Classic Truss Cell Truss
(source : http://subseaworldnews.com)
Figure 89 Different SPAR types (Classic SPAR Truss SPAR Cell SPAR)
(source: http://www.hortonwison.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/spars.jpg)
Figure 90 Compilation of SPAR buoys operated by various oil companies in 600m

to 1700 m water depth

structure concepts
Example: Arctic SPAR Concept (developed by Aker Solutions, Norway)

The SPAR is considered a technically viable solution for deployment in arctic regions where it
has to contend with loads from level ice, ice ridges and icebergs in addition to other
environmental loads of wind, waves and currents. The Arctic SPAR design is characterized
by a conical section at the waterline to reduce omni directional ice loads which are ultimately
transferred to the passive mooring system.
The shape of the cone is optimized to suit the design ice load conditions by altering the slope
of the cone surface, the height of the necked section and its diameter. Structures can be
strengthened locally to withstand loads up to a limit. Above these limiting cases, it is not
practical to design the Spar to withstand the loads from the ice and therefore it is released
from its moorings and riser systems and moved away from the threat. Subsequent to
disconnect, the moorings and riser systems must be recovered and reconnected after the
threat has passed (Murray et al. 2009).
Aker Solutions has designed a SPAR platform for the Eastern Barents Sea to operate in
first-year ice conditions. In case of multi-year ice or iceberg occurrence the design allows
that the riser and mooring system can be disconnected and the platform can move off
location (Bruun et al. 2009).
Comprehensive ice model tests of the concept were performed to verify its ice and
mooring load capabilities, and the hull capability of ice transport around the hull avoiding
rubble accumulation. In the first campaign ice model tests with a conical shaped structure
were carried out investigating the conical shaped structure in level ice and ridges in fixed
mode, i.e. the model was rigidly fixed to the towing carriage (Bruun et al. 2009).
In this context the concerns are:
1. The ice load could be affected by:
The platform pitch motion increasing the angle of interaction with the cone and
therefore reducing the efficiency in breaking the ice in bending.
The platform set down (due to vertical mooring tension increase under large
offset) increasing the water plane area diameter and therefore potentially the ice
load.
2. The mooring load could be significantly different from the ice load due to inertia load
resulting from the platform acceleration induced by the ice action.
The Arctic Concrete SPAR hull sizing is based on provision of the total operating topside
weight with corresponding centre of gravity and layout for wind area considerations. The
governing parameter for the hull sizing was the required metacenter height (major
contribution from vertical distance between overall centre of gravity and centre of
buoyancy) for the open water draught of the platform which in turn determines the overall
hydrostatic stability and natural periods in pitch and heave. It was important to increase
the metacenter height to a level which reduces the natural pitch period below the region
with dynamic wind excitation and well below the double value of the heave motion natural
period where the Mathieu instabilities may occur.
Other key parameters for the hull sizing are:
hull storage/ballast requirements

structure concepts
hull optimization for ice loads

heel angles due to ice loads
motion characteristics in storm conditions
hydrostatic stability criteria
The hull is designed with a 45 degree downward ice breaking cone (upper cone) in the ice
waterline (see Figure 91) allowing the level ice to fail in a flexural mode, and to further
transport the broken ice pieces around the hull downstream. For an ice ridge interaction the
hull is designed to break the consolidated layer downwards in a flexural mode. The hull
diameter below the waterline (vertical neck and lower cone) is reduced as much as possible
to generate a load as low as possible from the failing of the keel rubble, and allow for
transportation of both failed consolidated layer pieces and keel rubble fragments around the
hull. This will avoid ice accumulation which would cause a larger effective diameter.
The mooring system is designed to resist the 100-year return period of a first year ice ridge
without the need for ice management; however, multi-year ridges and icebergs will have to be
handled by active ice management or by disconnection of the hull from the mooring and
risers. The mooring system consists of 20 lines (see Figure 92) and is designed for operation
loads up to 60 MN in first-year ice ridge. The configuration of each line is given by a chain-
wire-chain system with a given pretension. Spring buoys with buoyancy are attached to each
line.
Figure 91 Fixed model set-up and geometry, representing the upper part of the
SPAR (Bruun et al., 2009)

structure concepts
Figure 92 Vertical plane view of mooring lines (left) and horizontal projection of 20
lines mooring system in 4 groups with 5 lines in each group (right),
[Bruun et al. 2009]
In a second testing campaign the SPAR model was free floating and moored to the
bottom of the ice tank to investigate the ice-hull interaction significantly influenced by the
dynamic behaviour of the floater (Bruun et al. 2009).
Due to ice basin limitations an equivalent truncated mooring system set-up was
designed. Each of the four mooring line groups consisting of 5 lines was simulated in the
test by a single mooring line (see Figure 93).
Figure 93 Schematic diagram of mooring system (Bruun et al., 2009)

A basic design of the Arctic SPAR design is illustrated in Figure 94.

structure concepts
Risers connected Risers disconnected
Figure 94 Artists cut-away of the Arctic Spar with risers connected (left) and
disconnected (right), (after Ghoneim, 2011)
The hull is composed of three main components; the hard tank, the midsection and the soft
tank. The hard tank, located in the upper sections of the hull, provides most of the required
buoyancy to support the intended payload and hull weight. The midsection is flooded with
seawater. On a Truss Spar this section is an open truss possibly exposing the risers to ice.
However, on the Arctic design the enclosed midsection is better suited to follow the Classic
Spar design. The soft tank, located at the keel of the hull, holds the fixed ballast to lower the
center of gravity. The Spar also has a conical section at the waterline to reduce ice loads
resisted by the hull and mooring. When the Spar is disconnected from its moorings, riser
systems must also be detached and reconnected after the threat has passed (Murray et al.
2009).
Figure 95 shows a schematic diagram of SPAR components.

structure concepts
Figure 95 Schematic diagram of SPAR components (Ghoneim 2011)
The world's deepest production platform is Perdido, a truss SPAR in the Gulf of Mexico,
operated by Royal Dutch Shell.
The Perdido (see Figure 96) is located in the Perdido fold belt which is a rich discovery of
crude oil and natural gas that lies in water that is about 2450 m deep. The platform's peak
production will be 100000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. With 267 m, the Perdido is nearly
as tall as the Eiffel Tower in Paris. (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/Perdido_(Oil_platform)).

structure concepts
Figure 96 SPAR platform Perdido (left) with SSCV28 Thialf (right) in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2450 m waterdepth (source Wikipedia)
28
SSCV : Semi-Submersible Crane Vessel

structure concepts
5.2.2 Assessment of Floating Structures

There is only a limited number of floating exploration or production structures that have been
used in ice environments.
During exploration in the Canadian Arctic in the 1980s, floating vessels (drillships) were used
successfully with the support of icebreaking ships for ice management. In particular, the
Kulluk, a round conical drilling unit purpose built by Gulf Oil, Canada to the Arctic Class IV
specification, roughly equivalent to the modern IACS Polar Class PC429, operated in the
Canadian Beaufort Sea. This vessel could operate through the open water season until early
December (at the latest) with intensive ice management support (IMVPA, 2008).
have been the choice of floating production vessels under potential sea ice (first-year) and
iceberg conditions. The hulls of both of the Grand Banks FPSOs (Terra Nova and White
Rose) are designed to continue operations with light to moderate first-year pack ice (5 to 8
tenths ice coverage) and can maintain their moorings in heavy first-year pack conditions (8 to
9 tenths ice coverage). It is assumed that this ice cover would not have significant pressure
ridges, nor would multiyear ice be present. The FPSO hulls are designed to withstand the
energy from a strike by a 100000 tonnes iceberg moving at 1 knot. This is an impact event
and not a sustained load as might be found in the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas. In heavy pack
ice conditions, or in the event of the approach of an unmanageable iceberg, the FPSOs are
designed to disconnect from their moorings and an emergency disconnect can be effected in
approximately 15 minutes.
Modified SPAR, TLP and semi-submersible designs have also been proposed for ice
environments, although none have been built for applications in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Sea (IMVPA, 2008).
FPSOs proposed for ice/iceberg areas are typically designed to be disconnected from their
moorings in case of emergency and are operated in managed ice conditions. The ability of
floating platforms to leave station allows the vessels to avoid extreme ice loads and also
provides the capability for operations on a seasonal basis.
In ice-covered waters or regions with icebergs, the geometry and hull form of the vessel must
be chosen to handle ice loads. Any vessel will also need a mooring foundation design
capable of handling environmental loads. Moored floating structures are typically used in
water depths greater than 30 m. However, yoke-moored FPSOs have been used also in
shallow water of about 20 m in light first-year ice conditions in Bohai Bay, China.
5.2.2.1 Technical Feasibility
Seasonal exploration can be carried out using drillships and drilling barges and, in areas
without multi-year ice, semi-submersibles or a TLP. However, for exploration, the only
location that a floating structure might be capable of staying on station year-round might be
for example the Bering Sea under light ice conditions. A semi-rigid floating structure like the
Eirik Raude that is a 5th generation harsh environment, dynamically positioned semi-
submersible could work year-round under first-year ice conditions (loads ~ 180 MN), but
29
IACS = International Association of Classification Societies; Polar Class PC 4: Year-round operation
in thick first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions

structure concepts
would need to have the ability to disconnect and leave station in the event of potentially
higher loads (IMVPA, 2008).
Economically considered no floating production structure can be designed to stay on station
and resist approximately 750 MN to 1000 MN multi-year ice loads found in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas, and depending on the ice conditions possibly in the northern Bering Sea.
Due to the fact that in any design, an adequate factor of safety must be applied to the design
load yielding an ultimate design load for the structure and moorings in the order of magnitude
of 1000 MN to 1500 MN.
In the southern Bering Sea, under light or moderate ice conditions, a floating structure might
be feasible.
Ice conditions in the Grand Banks are similar to operating conditions that predominate in the
Bering Sea, particularly south of approximately 57 north latitude. North of 57 latidude, pack
ice concentrations tend to be greater than on the Grand Banks. In addition, the Bering Sea,
due to the higher general ice concentration, has pressure ice ridges, which are not present on
the Grand Banks, which would need to be considered.
5.2.2.2 Design Philosophy
According to ISO 19906 the design philosophy and operational approaches for floating
structures include the following:
potential to suspend operations and move off location, to avoid any interactions
with extreme or abnormal ice features;
ice management support techniques to actively modify ambient ice conditions and
thereby mitigate potential adverse ice actions.
The design and operational components of a floating installation and its subsea components
shall be treated jointly as a system, including ice management support.
5.2.2.3 Ice loads
Floating offshore structures that are deployed in ice covered waters are often supported by
ice management vessels. These vessels have the task to modify the local ice environment,
reducing ice load levels on the structure and enhancing ice clearance around it.
The type of ice management system used can have a significant influence on the design
approach taken for a floating structure. This influence depends upon the expected ability to
consistently detect potentially adverse ice conditions (icebergs or fragments of thick sea ice
features) and successfully manage them before they interact with the structure.
According to ISO 19906 the following design and operating approaches may be used for
floating petroleum installations in ice-covered waters:
passive: no move-off capability, withstand interaction with all anticipated ice

conditions, no ice management capability

structure concepts
semi-active: withstand most environmental conditions , move-off capability, no ice

management capability
active: move-off capability, ice management capability, use of ice capable ships to
break-up ambient ice conditions into small floes or rubble, or by means of towing,
divert large ice features from the operating area
For active and semi-active operating approaches, design values of ice actions on a floating
installation can be considerably less than for a fixed installation.
Any mitigation measures (i.e. ice management and move-off strategies) that are intended to
ensure appropriate levels of safety should be properly identified, considered and quantified,
along with expected levels of reliability.
When unmanageable ice features are approaching the structure, the production platform or
vessel would need to disconnect from its moorings and leave station to avoid contact with
these large features. If disconnection is required, the production platform will need to remain
off station until ice conditions improve sufficiently for reconnection.
As an example, this approach is used in Sakhalin for offloading, where the SALM30 offloading
buoy remains in operation in the early winter with active ice management. When ice
management is no longer possible, the buoy is laid into a trench on the sea-floor and
operations are suspended until the spring. Figure 97 through Figure 99 shows photos of the
SALM buoy on Sakhalin 2.
Figure 97 Icebreaker Smit Sibu providing ice management operations for SALM
buoy lay down operations on Sakhalin (courtesy of Don Conelly)
30
SALM = Single-Anchor Leg Mooring

structure concepts
Figure 98 SALM Offshore Sakhalin Island with Molikpaq , Spring 2002 (courtesy of
Canatec)
Figure 99 SALM Offshore Sakhalin Island, de-icing measures, December 2004

(courtesy of Canatec)

structure concepts
There is no known precedent for a moored structure operating in unmanaged continuous

heavy ice conditions, but a wide range of model test experiments have been conducted to
evaluate this scenario (Comfort et al., 2001, Bruun et al., 2009, Evers and Jochmann, 2011).
Figure 100 shows for various structure types (FPSO, Semi-submersible, Kulluk and CANMAR
drillship) the peak loads in managed ice depending on ice concentration. In particular for
semi-submersibles there is a clear trend that peak loads increase with increasing ice
concentration.
Figure 100 Peak loads in managed ice effect of ice concentration on various
structure types (reproduced from Comfort et al., 2001)
In general, ice loading will be greater in unmanaged ice than in managed ice. The ice
thickness and drift speed become important factors in the ice loading in unmanaged ice,
primarily due the need of the structure to break, as well as clear the ice sheet. In particular,
multi-legged semi-submersibles can experience loads disproportionate to the size of the
individual column sizes if ice jams in between the legs of the structure occur (IMVPA, 2008).
Another significant potential issue with respect to the use of a floating structure in severe ice
conditions (coverage greater than 8/10) is the behavior of the ice as it interacts with the
structure. If ice floes are submerged and forced under the vessel, interaction with the mooring
and riser systems might be problematic. This situation has been investigated in a wide range
of ice model test experiments.
5.2.2.4 Wave Loads
The 100 year return wave conditions for various geographical locations in the Arctic are
shown in Figure 101. It can be generalized that the intensity of the design wave condition
decreases from south to north.

structure concepts
Wave loading on SPAR, semi-submersible or TLP designs tend to be lower than those acting
on an FPSO design, due to reduced waterplane area causing greater wave transparency and
by the nature that the natural response frequencies of these designs tend to be outside
(faster or slower) the wave frequencies.
Figure 101 illustrates the approximate design wave loads for a FPSO with 194000 tonnes
displacement based on the environmental conditions given in Figure 102.
An FPSO in the southern parts of the Bering Sea would be subject to lower wave loads than
those encountered on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.
Figure 101 Approximate design wave loads FPSO basis (note: wave loads for the
Beaufort and Chukchi Sea are for summer conditions and are not meant
to imply year round FPSO operations), (IMVPA, 2008)

structure concepts
Figure 102 100-year return wave conditions in Arctic seas (IMVPA, 2008)
5.2.2.5 Dynamic Positioning Station Keeping
Dynamic positioning is typically used by vessels acting for exploration, e.g. drillships and
semi-submersibles, but dynamic positioning thrusters have also been used to supplement
passive moorings on production platforms in marginal ice areas, e.g., Terra Nova on the
Grand Banks.
The dynamic positioning systems installed in deepwater exploration vessels require
significant thrust availability for sea-keeping in waves. These systems may also provide
sufficient thrust for station keeping in broken first-year light ice conditions. There is the
additional requirement that the vessel hull must be sufficiently reinforced for operation in ice
covered waters (IMVPA, 2008).
As a example of the technical feasibility of exploration at high latitudes, an Arctic Coring
Expedition was conducted in 2004 in the high-arctic where, with the ice management support
of two icebreakers (Swedish icebreaker Oden and Russian nuclear icebreaker Sovetskiy
Souyuz, the dynamically positioned drillship Vidar Viking successfully maintained station for
up to 8 days while drilling at 88 latitude in 2.5 to 3.5 m thick old ice at coring site. Up to 10 m
thick ridges were observed and ice concentration of old ice was 7 to 8/10. The drillship Vidar
Viking operated in floes of about 300 to 500 m in diameter before they were managed by the
assisting icebreakers (Keinonen et al., 2000).

structure concepts
5.2.2.6 Mooring Systems
Modern mooring systems can provide extremely robust anchoring systems for floating
structures. In most areas of application, mooring systems for floating structures are governed
by wave loading.
In the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea, unfactored loads from first-year ice acting on a fixed
structure will be on the order of 200 MN while unfactored loads from multi-year ice acting on a
fixed structure can approach 1000 MN.
One can generally consider that the maximum ice loads in these areas are in the range from
20 to 100 times the wave loads.
In light first-year ice, e.g. in the southern Bering Sea, it is possible that the dominant design
criteria of the vessel mooring system could be wave loading, depending on the mooring
stiffness. However, this would need to be confirmed in a site specific detailed evaluation
process. For comparison purpose the amount of restoring force provided to a moored vessel,
the approximate design mooring force for a selection of FPSOs and drillships with two
icebreaking ships is plotted in Figure 103.
The thrust or mooring system resistance available from such vessels is considerably less
than forces from design ice conditions for both year-round exploration (20000 tonnes) and
production (100000 tonnes) conditions (IMVPA, 2008).
Figure 103 Comparison of selected vessel mooring systems; with selected

icebreaker bollard thrust (Comfort et al., 2001)

structure concepts
If ice and environmental conditions become worse, alert and ice management procedures
can cause a production shutdown. Under planned conditions, this includes a complete
flushing of all necessary systems. If the ice conditions continue to worsen, the mooring
system and product lines shall be released in a controlled manner.
If the design and operating scenarios involve cases of rapidly worsening or emergency
conditions, the mooring system and product lines shall be designed for quick disconnection
according to ISO 19906.
5.2.2.7 Seismic
Moored floating structures are not generally critically affected by seismic activity. The vessels
will respond to pressure waves from nearby seismic events, but the frequency of seismic-
induced pressure waves are such that the ship will not respond with large motions, and so
these pressure waves will not constitute a design condition. There may be some foundation
considerations with respect to seismic events.
Tsunami induced waves offshore are of low amplitude and long wavelength, and again will
not induce significant motions or loads of a moored structure in deep water (IMVPA, 2008).

structure concepts
6 Summary and Conclusions

In the study, different types of fixed and floating structures for the exploration, production and
transportation of oil and gas in Arctic regions have been described substantially.
The choice of the types of structures depends on various parameters at the planned location.
Decisive factors are the predominant on-site water depth, soil conditions, distance from the
coast line and environmental conditions (e.g. ice conditions, wind, waves and currents).
The first major exploration and production ice covered seas were conducted in the Beaufort
Sea by American and Canadian oil companies since 1980. Generally, these are technical
solutions that have proven themselves over the years.
The group of "Fixed Structures include the types of structures:

- Artificial Islands (gravel / ice islands)
- Gravity based structures (steel /concrete)
- Jacket & Jack-up structures
- Export/loading terminals
6.1 Artificial islands and fixed structures
6.1.1 Artificial islands - Gravel islands

Gravel islands do not belong to the category of "high-tech"-technology. Nevertheless, this
type of structure has been used successfully in the Beaufort Sea for decades and can
continue to be used for exploration and production, as the example of "North Star" shows.
Based on the proven technology and due to relatively short construction time, the gravel
islands are an economical alternative for low water depths to about 20 m. With rising oil
prices at the time, it is also conceivable that this type of structure in the future for something
deeper water can be used despite increased material and manufacturing costs application.
Landfast ice thickness usually up to 2 m comprises the nearshore Beaufort Sea for about
nine months of the year and has a significant impact on island design and construction
methods.
In deeper water, the occurrence of multi-year ice and increased sea ice drift is taken into
account. A primary requirement is that the island has a sufficient lateral stability to the ice
and wave loads. This is generally provided by the geometry of the island.
Ice ride-up is constrained by the sloped island sides due to friction and plowing forces and/or,
in some cases, by discontinuity in slope.
Waves begin to break as they reach the sloped island sides, i.e. energy is dissipated before
they reach the working surface. Wave overtopping can be avoided by placing the working
surface above the design wave height or by placing a barrier around the working surface
perimeter.
6.1.2 Artificial islands - Ice islands

Grounded ice islands have been used successfully for exploration drilling structures in
nearshore areas (shallow water) of the U.S. and Canadian Beaufort Sea.

structure concepts
The water depth is a fundamental factor that must be considered when assessing the
feasibility of the grounded ice island structures. The technical requirements for the structure
generally increase as the water depth increases associated with an increase of construction
costs and construction time.
An ice island must be thoroughly founded on the seabed to resist ice loads, which may act
through the surrounding ice sheet. This requirement is important because a significant
movement of the island during the drilling process can lead to damage to the drill rods.
Ice loads acting on an ice island depend on the ice failure mode, rather than on the driving
force of the ice sheet. Ice crushing failure of the surrounding ice sheet limits the upper bound
of these loads.
Assuming that the shear capacity of soil beneath the island is less then than the shear
capacity of the ice island core, global ice island resistance will be governed by its sliding
resistance (lateral stability).
In practice ice islands have been used in water depths of up to about 7.5 m in the Beaufort
Sea. Based on a study of C-Core (2005) and ice islands could be built up to a water depth of
up to 12 m.
When planning ice islands, however, the ice dynamics of the surrounding ice cover and the
duration of the winter season has to be considered in any case, which often do not allow the
construction of ice islands.
6.1.3 Gravity Based Structures

Exploration drilling for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea started from gravel islands in shallow
Alaskan State waters in the late 1960s and similarly in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the
early 1970s. With time the activities were focusing on deeper waters.
In 1976, ice reinforced drillships were first utilized in Canadian waters, followed in 1981 by the
first use of a bottom-founded caisson system.
Although referred to as "mobile" structures, the caisson structures were not really mobile
offshore drilling units (MODUs).
The Single Steel Drilling Caisson (SSDC) was the first MODU-type structure in the Beaufort
Sea, coming into service in 1982 and, with the addition of the MAT in 1985, remains the only
active bottom-founded exploration structure in the Arctic offshore.
What global size, structure cost and geometry concerns, there is only little difference between
dedicated exploration platforms and dedicated production platforms. In fact, an arctic mobile
drilling structure is often more expensive than a production platform, because it must cater to
a range of water depths, rather than a known set-down depth like a production platform.
A mobile platform needs to be able to operate in a range of different foundation conditions.
With production platforms, foundation characteristics are known and top weak layer(s) can be
excavated. However this is often not practical in the case of short-term mobilization of an
exploration structure.
In areas where substantial multi-year ice can encounter the structure, the ice impact loads
become the primary design criteria. Where multi-year ice prevails wave loads are small and
do not have a real effect on the design. However in southern areas where only first-year ice
occurs (e.g. Bering Sea) the platform is primarily governed by wave load that has to be taken
into account. In these regions it is required to install monolithic type structures, because ice
loads are locally too high to allow the installation of jacket type structures. However the use of

structure concepts
solid structures to mitigate local ice load effects, ice bridging and structure vibration results in
relatively high wave loads.
Other parameters that have a significant effect on the global structure size optimisation are
water depth and foundation conditions. As a matter of fact multi-year ice loads increase with
increasing water depth. However deeper water means higher horizontal ice loads and a
higher structure associated with higher costs. The foundation conditions can range from
totally inadequate to strong enough.
If the foundation conditions are totally inadequate lateral relocation, dredging and /or
replacement will be required. If the foundation is strong enough the structure can set-down
directly on the seabed without any preparations.
In general the foundation requirements for an exploration structure are significantly less than
those for production structures operating permanently with respect to the design ice loads,
i.e. first-year ice vs. multi-year ice loads.
In multi-year ice areas, there are gravity base structures (GBS), solutions that are considered
safe and economical up to around 75 m water depths when foundation properties are good,
and up to around 60 m water depths when foundation properties are relatively weak.
100 m that could be considered as workable or proven for multi-year ice areas. In the more
southern areas, where multi-year ice is not present and only first-year consolidated ridge
loadings are possible, bottom-founded solutions out to 130 to 150 m water depths are
potentially viable (IMVPA, 2008).
6.1.4 Jacket and Jack-up Structures

The jacket structure is the most commonly used fixed offshore platform. It was first used in
the Gulf of Mexico and has since been adapted and modified for use around the world.
There are a number of structure types from the single-legged to multi-legged structure.
The ice-strengthened jacket platform was first used successfully in sea ice in the mid-1960s
for Cook Inlet, Alaska Development. Conventional jacket designs were modified to make
them suitable for sea ice environments.
An important criterion for the design of a jacket structure is the payload that has to be carried
by the structure, the capacity of the foundation and the external environmental loads (e.g. ice,
wind, waves etc.) must resist the structure.
The loads Arctic offshore structures are temperature loading, static sea ice loads and the
accompanying loads due to ice-induced vibrations. In many cases, the static and vibration
loads are the controlling factor (either globally or locally) in the sizing of the structure
components. Temperature is generally the controlling factor in material selection.
The load acting on a structure by momentum, ice ridge building and pack ice loading relates
to the width of the structure. If the jacket legs are within a certain distance of each other, ice
bridging can occur between the legs and higher ice loads will be experienced by the structure
compared to the case where the legs are loaded independently (e.g. larger leg to leg
distance).
In addition to static sea ice loads, the jacket structure must be able to absorb the vibration.
Ice-reinforced jacket structures are more prone to vibration than conventional jackets,
because they have less damping capacity and tend to amplify vibrations.
In view of the jacket failure in the Gulf of Bohai and the malfunction of another jacket structure
as a result of ice-induced vibrations, jacket platforms do not seem to be particularly practical.

structure concepts
Further development work regarding alternative damping techniques is necessary to reduce

ice-induced vibrations on the jacket
A variety of exploration and development options have been employed or considered for use
in the Arctic and other cold regions. These options are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10 Summary of Arctic and Cold Regions Exploration and Development Options

structure concepts
6.2 Floating Structures

There are only a limited number of floating exploration or production structures that have
been used in ice environments.
During exploration in the Canadian Arctic in the 1980s, floating vessels (drillships) were used
successfully with the support of icebreaking ships for ice management, e.g., CANMAR
Explorer III drillship and CANMAR Kigoriak icebreaker. In particular, the conical drilling
barge Kulluk, purpose built by Gulf Canada, operated successful in the Canadian Beaufort
Sea. This vessel could operate through the open water season until early December (at the
latest) with intensive ice management support.
have been the choice of floating production vessels under potential first-year sea ice and
iceberg conditions.
The hulls of both of the existing Grand Banks FPSOs Terra Nova and White Rose are
designed to operate in light to moderate first-year pack ice and can also maintain their
moorings in heavy first-year pack conditions (IMVPA, 2008).
The ice conditions in Grand Banks are different from those in the Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf , because no significant pressure ice ridges are embedded in the ice cover.
Additionally, the hulls of the FPSOs are designed to withstand the energy from a strike by a
100000 tonnes mass iceberg moving at 1 knot. This is an impact event and not a sustained
load as might be found in the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas.
Modified SPAR, TLP (Tension Leg Platform) and semi-submersible designs have also been
proposed for ice environments. Floating structures have been and will continue to be used
for seasonal exploration. A Semi-rigid floater type structure could be considered for year-
round exploration, if disconnects is permissible under extreme loading events.
Recently FEED31-studies have been carried out and ice model testing in various ice tanks
were executed to validate the feasibility of newly developed designs for future operations in
high latititudes in the Arctic.
Floating production platforms proposed for ice/iceberg areas are typically designed to be
readily disconnected from their moorings and operated in managed ice conditions. The ability
of these floating platforms to leave station would allow the vessel to avoid extreme ice loads
and also provide the capability for operations on a seasonal basis. The amount of time that it
might take any particular floating vessel to reconnect back on station will be a significant
consideration in concept selection for any production site (IMVPA, 2008).
6.3 Export / Loading Terminals

A marine export terminal is defined as a complex of structures and equipment for loading of
hydrocarbon products, either pumped to a tanker from a storage facility located onshore or
directly from a processing facility.
In most cases, marine transportation of hydrocarbon products starts with large storage
facilities located onshore. The land-based components of these facilities (tank farms, loading
pump stations, treatment plants, etc.) in the Arctic are basically the same as those in
moderate climates (IMVPA, 2008).
31
FEED = Front End Engineering Design

structure concepts
The main difference is primarily in providing the conditions and the process equipment to
allow continuous operation under harsh environmental conditions (e.g. low temperatures,
icing and snowfall conditions).
Flow assurance is a critical consideration for arctic and sub-arctic locations. Consequently, to
ensure smooth operations, an important aspect of any terminal concept is the need for proper
insulation and heat-tracing technology on piping and pipelines.
Alternatively, hydrocarbons may be loaded on tankers at sea or in the vicinity of production
platforms, either from the platform storage tanks or from a FSO (Floating Storage and
Offloading) vessel. The FSO may also be used in the nearshore for temporary storage or
trans-shipment loading.
Particularly challenging in the Arctic is the offloading of products to tankers. This operation
would need to be conducted in floating ice if year-round operations are going to be carried
out. In this case ice management has to be provided by assisting icebreakers or icebreaking
supply vessels. Support is necessary because otherwise the ice loads on the FSO may be so
large that a safe off-loading operation can not be guaranteed.
The technical feasibility of export/loading terminals for oil and gas in arctic areas has been
documented in a wide range of port facilities:
Nome (Alaska, Beaufort Sea)
Cook Inlet (Alaska)
Anchorage and Valdez (Alaska)
Godthab and De Long (Greenland)
Nanisivik (North Baffin Island, Canada)
St. David de Levis and Caps Noirs (Quebec, Canada)
Norwegian and Russian ports in the Barents Sea (Murmansk,
Arkhangelsk)
Magadan and Petropavlovsk (Okhotsk Sea, Russia)
The most recent examples are the large oil terminal in DeKastri and the LNG terminal in
Prigorodnoye (Sea of Japan), Russia., LNG terminal Aniva Bay (Sakhalin, Russia), oil loading
terminal Varanday (Russia), oil loading terminal Primorsk (Russia)
The main challenge of the above mentioned ports and terminals is that these marine
structures are to be managed, operated and maintained under adverse conditions (remote
area, undeveloped infrastructure, harsh environment and severe ice conditions).
In particular for fixed offshore and floating terminals there is a high risk that these marine
structures experiences high lateral ice loads. Floating ice does not only affect the marine
structure but also often complicates vessel operations. Additional uplift forces and
compression loads on structures may be generated by tidal change due to adfreeze to the
structure.
The loads generated through ice/structure interaction, in most cases, govern the design of
arctic ports and terminal structures.
A general review of experience in operation of high-latitude oil and gas marine terminals
indicates that existing technology of port structures design and construction is sufficient to
support operations in the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf.

structure concepts
While technically feasible, no tanker traffic has been proposed in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for upcoming Beaufort or Chukchi lease sales. Regulatory requirements
would require the use of pipelines (if economically feasible) rather than barging or tankering
production to shore. An exception may be gas export by LNG or CNG (IMVPA, 2008).
Conclusion
Worldwide, there are currently around 790 offshore drilling rigs (jack-ups, semisubmersibles,
drillships and barges), and 8,000 fixed or floating platforms. Of these, 116 rigs and more than
1,000 fixed or floating platforms are in European waters (Sandrea and Sandrea, 2007). Many
offshore installations are likely to be constructed in the near future as explorations in nearly
all sea areas. Some of the projects under development concern deepwater exploration
activities, particularly in the Northern North Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.
The shelf of the Barents Sea off northern Norway and Russia is also subject to intensive
exploration. A substantial increase in offshore activities related to offshore oil and gas
exploration is expected in this area in the coming years.
Fixed offshore structures are a family of technological solutions which are well established
and proven since tenth of years. A number of realized examples for fixed structures show a
variety of technological solutions for very shallow water, shallow water and water depths up to
300 m. Suitable production facilities are installed on artificial islands and concrete or steel
made Gravity Base Structures (GBS).The most concepts include Offshore Loading Systems
(OLS) or loading facilities on moles or jetties and have to be designed for harsh open water
conditions (waves) but also to withstand loads from drifting ice.
As fixed structures have technically drawbacks when the water depth increases and in the
case when sea ice occurs, alternative techniques and structure types have been developed.
Differences can be found in the individual product export means, such as pipelines or shuttle
tankers. The produced volume of oil or gas, the water depths or the distance to shore or the
related receiving plant as well as the chosen strategy to reach the next market access point
together with the expected field life are influencing the decision for the most favorable
offshore structure type solution. For this reason, there is no preferred type of structure that
can be used anywhere.
The first family of alternatives belongs to floating surface offshore structures which can be
developed, built and tested at invulnerably locations or comparably cheap construction sites
before moving to the offshore site and which can be removed with low effort to other places
when the field life has reached its end.
New technology developments are required regarding shipping operations, primarily by
providing the highest level of safety of tanker operations in ice-infested waters and by
maximizing the efficiency of ice management systems.
It is suggested that FPSOs operating in ice covered regions should adapt features of
icebreaker designs, such as icebreaking bow, reamers or inclined sidewalls in the waterline to
resist ice loads, and azipod drives to be able to manoeuvre efficiently in harsh ice conditions.
Active ice management, a tactical procedure to break the ice around the platform or moored
FPSO by icebreakers or icebreaking supply vessels is strongly recommended to enable align
FPSO with prevailing ice drift direction by weathervane due to turret and swivel systems. The
subsurface buoy is designed to fit into a specially configured compartment in the hull of the
FPSO, housing the swivel and bearing around which the FPSO can rotate.
Winterization aspects have to be considered because the FPSO superstructure is also
sensitive to atmospheric and sea spray icing and requires necessary measures with respect
to winterization of the facilities (Evers and Richter, 2014). Significant advantages of moored

structure concepts
ship shaped FPSOs are single point disconnection using turret and the ability to self-
manoeuvre after disconnection from the mooring lines. The type of an appropriate mooring
system varies with water depth and expected response forces respectively mooring line loads
due to ice.
The most modern strategy of hydrocarbon production belongs to the subsea production
facilities. These facilities are installed completely at the seafloor by means of heavy duty
construction vessels. The facilities are permanently connected via export pipelines to a
related onshore receiving plant Remote control takes place via multipurpose umbilicals with
high bandwidth from the onshore plant and even from all over the world via the Internet.
Although fully submerged from time to time these facilities need work over drilling; service
requires free access of remotely operated vehicles (ROV) or autonomous underwater
vehicles (AUV).
The experience of the past few decades with the installation, operation of offshore exploration
and production structures, as well as transportation systems in the Arctic are a solid basis for
future developments of innovative technologies, that enable year-round drilling and
production with a high level of reliability.

structure concepts
7 References
[1] Aggarval, R. and DSouza, R., 2011. Deepwater Arctic Technical Challenges and
Solutions, Arctic Technology Conference, 7-9 February 2011, Houston, Tx, USA,
paper OTC 22155
[2] AMAP, 2010. Assessment 2007: Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic - Effects and
Potential Effects. Volume 2. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP),
Oslo, Norway. vii + 277 pp.
[3] Annual Energy Outlook 2014 - With Projections to 2040
[4] Bagnel, C. , 2007. First Jackup Drilling Operation on Grand Banks of Newfoundland
Lessons Learned. Rowan Companies Inc. Presented at OTC 2007, Report No 19077.
[5] BASS and OTD/KeppelFels, 2005. Jack Up Units A Technical Primer for the
Offshore Industry Professional. Prepared by Bennett & Associates, L.L.C., New
Orleans, LA, and Offshore Technology Development Inc., Singapore. July.
[6] Berger, J., 2008. Ice Protection Structures. Schiff & Hafen, June 2008, No.6
[7] Bott, R. , 2004. Canadas Evolving Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. Canadian Center
for Energy Information. March.
[8] Bruun, P.K., Husvik, J. , Le-Guennec, S. and Hellmann, J.-H., 2009. Ice Model
Test of an Arctic SPAR, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Port and
Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions June 9-12, 2009 Lule, Sweden
[9] Budzik, P., 2009. Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Potential, U.S. Energy Information
Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting Oil and Gas Division ,
October, 2009
[10] Callow, L., 2012. Oil and Gas Exploration & Development Activity Forecast Canadian
Beaufort Sea 2012 2027, Report LTLC Consulting in association with Salmo
Consulting Inc.
[11] Cammaert, A.B., and Muggeridge, B.B.,1988. Ice Interaction With Offshore Structures.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, pp.160-268
[12] C-Core, 2005. Ice Island Study, MMS Project #468, prepared for Minerals
Management Service US Department of the Interior, C-Core Report R-05-014-
241v1.0, August 2005
Available Online
(http://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/2005/c_core468.aspx)
[13] CEAA, 2005. Research Findings: Case Study Applications, Section 5.2 Deep Panuke
Offshore Gas Development. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
[14] Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering (Rubin) (n.d.). Platforms for
Development of Fields on the Russian Continental Shelf
[15] CKJ Engineering, 1997. A Brief Investigation Into the Structural Feasibility of Using
the Jack-up Rig SX During Freeze Up in Sakhalin. Calgary, AB.
[16] Comfort, G., Singh, S., and Spencer, D., 2001. Moored Vessel Station-Keeping in Ice-
Infested Waters: an Assessment of Model Test Data for Various Structures and Ship
Shapes, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Port and Ocean
Engineering under Arctic Conditions POAC 01, Ottawa, Canada

structure concepts
[17] Cottrill, A., 2000. Floaters Enter Icy New Territory. Offshore Engineer, August 1st.
[18] Croasdale, K.R. and Marcellus, R.W. ,1977. Ice and Wave Action on Artificial Islands
in the Beaufort Sea. Presented at the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Third
International Hydrotechnical Conference, May 1977. This article was reprinted in The
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 5, pp. 98 - 113, March 1978.
[19] Department of Natural Resources, 2007. Oil and Gas Report. Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. March 2007.
[20] Doyle, T. and Leitch, J., 2000. Terra Nova Vessel Design and Construction, Offshore
Technology Conference (OTC), Houston Texas, Paper No. OTC 11920, May 2000
[21] EIA, 2007. Sakhalin Fact Sheet. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S.
Department of Energy.
[22] EIA, 2014. Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Early Release Overview, U.S. Energy
Information Administration Available Online
(http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er%282014%29.pdf)
[23] Evers, K.-U. and Richter, F., 2014. ACCESS Report D4.23 Report on Winterization of
Structures in Arctic Regions, EC Seventh Framework Programme Oceans of
Tomorrow, ACCESS Arctic Climate Change, Economy and Society, Project no.
265863,
[24] Evers, K.-U. and Jochmann, P., 2011. Experiences at HSVA with Model Testing of
Moored Structures in Ice-covered Waters. Proceedings of the 21st International
Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions (POAC11), July
10-14, 2011 Montral, Canada
[25] ExxonMobil , 2007. Sable Project, Volume 1 Sea Ice and Ice Bergs. Available Online
(http://www.soep.com/cgi-bin/getpage?pageid=1/5/0&dpa=1/6/0/2)
[26] Fitzpatrick, J. and Kennedy, K.P., 1997. Steel Gravity-Based Structures for Iceberg-
Infested Waters. OMAE 97, Yokohama, Japan, 15 pp.
[27] Fletcher, S. and Clark, J., 2001. Canadas East Coast Emerging as Key Energy
Exporter, PennWell Corporation, Oil and Gas Journal, May 7th, Vol. 99, Issue 19.
[28] Frantzen, B. and Bambulyak, A., 2003. Oil Transport from the Russian part of the
Barents Region. Svanhovd Environmental Center, July.
[29] Frohne, C., Harten, F., Schippl, K., Stehen, K. E., Haakonsen, R., Eide, J., Hvik,
J.,2008. Innovative Pipe System for Offshore LNG Transfer, OTC-19239, Houston,
USA, 2008
[30] Furlow, W. (Technology Editor), 1998. Terra Nova System Designed for Quick
Release, Iceberg Scouring. PennWell Corporation, Offshore (Magazine), April 1st,
Vol. 58, Issue 4.
[31] Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 2005. GHEXIS Online Exploration
History.
[32] Ghoneim, G. A., 2011. Assessing the state of arctic technology development, Offshore
Magazine, http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-71/issue-
2/Arctic/assessing-the-state-of-arctic-technology-development.html

structure concepts
[33] Haase, A. and Jochmann, P., 2013. DYPIC - Dynamic Positioning in Ice: Second
Phase of Model Testing , ASME 2013, 32nd International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Volume 6: Polar and Arctic Sciences and
Technology; Offshore Geotechnics; Petroleum Technology Symposium, Nantes,
France, June 914, 2013, Paper No. OMAE2013-10789
[34] Hals, T. and Efraimsson, F., 2011. DP Ice Model Test of Arctic Drillship, Dynamic
Positioning Conference, October 11-12, 2011, Houston, Texas, USA
[35] HMDC, 2007. About Hibernia. Hibernia Corporate Website. Available Online
(http://www.hibernia.ca)
[36] Hoog, S. , Berge, J., Myland, J., Clauss, G.F., Testa, D. and Sprenger, F.,2012.
The Mooring Bay Concept for LNG Loading in Harsh and Ice Conditions,
Proceedings of the ASME 2012 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering OMAE2012, June 10-15, 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
OMAE2012-83841
[37] Houlding, J.D.,1976. Polar Gas to use Three Techniques for Crossing Between Arctic
Islands. Pipeline and Gas Journal, May.
[38] Houlding, J.D., 1976. Polar Gas to use Three Techniques for Crossing Between Arctic
Islands. Pipeline and Gas Journal, May.
[39] Howell, G.B. and Duggal, A.S., 2001.The Terra Nova FPSO Turret Mooring System,
OTC 2001, Paper No. OTC 13030, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, May 2-5
[40] Howell, T., 2007. Newfoundland and Labradors Oil and Gas Industry: Status,
Challenges, Opportunities. Presentation by T. Howell, NOIA President and CEO, St.
Johns, NL. June 13th.
[41] ICETECH, 2008. Operations in Ice Photo Gallery. International Conference and
Exhibition on Performance of Ships and Structures in Ice, Banff, AB.
[42] Imaev, S., Alfyorov, V., Bagirov, L., Dmitriev, L., Feygin, V., and Lacey, J., 2005.
Supersonic Technology of Gas Processing and Liquefaction. Translang Technologies
Ltd.
Available Online (http://www.chem.ntnu.no/ecos2005/Monday/R5/11.00-
12.20/_Supersonic-technologies-of-natural-gas-Imayev.ppt).
[43] IMVPA (2008). Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment of Exploration and Production
Options for Cold Regions of the US Outer Continental Shelf. Prepared for United
States Minerals Management Service. IMV Projects Atlantic Project No. C-0506-15,
Technical Report No. TR-001, January 31st.
[44] IMPaC, 2014a. Resource extraction Scenarios, Report 1874-00-IHH-RPT-RD-00001-
000
[45] IMPaC, 2014b. Assessment of Subsea Structures, Report,1874-00-IHH-RPT-RD-
00003-000
[46] ISO/FDIS/19906, 2010. Petroleum and natural gas industries - Arctic offshore
structures, International Standard, International Standardization organization, Geneva,
Switzerland.

structure concepts
[47] Johnston, M.E. and Timco, G. W., 2003. Ice Loads on the SSDC during its Beaufort
Sea Deployments, Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Port and Ocean
Engineering under Arctic Conditions, POAC03, Vol. 1, pp 213-222,Trondheim,
Norway, 13-16 June, 2003
[48] Keinonen, A. J. and Martin, E. H., 2012. Modern Day Pioneering and its Safety in the
Floating Ice Offshore. Paper No. ICETECH12-153-RF (PLENARY)
[49] Keinonen, A. ,2008. Ice Management for Ice Offshore Operations,

Offshore Technology Conference OTC, Houston, Tx, 5-8 May 2008, Paper OTC19275
[50] Keinonen, A., Wells, H., Dunderdale,P, Pilkington, R. , Miller, G. and Brovin, A., 2000.
A Dynamic Positioning Operation in Ice, Offshore Sakhalin May June 1999, in
Proceedings of ISOPE, 2000
[51] Keinonen, A. J. et al. , 2006. Transit and Stationary Coring Operations in the Central
Polar Pack; Proceedings; Ice TECH 2006 (ICETECH06-125-RF)
[52] Kemp, T. S., Foster, R. J. and Stevens, G. S., 1988. Construction and Performance of
the Karluk O-07 Sprayed Ice Pad. POAC88, Vol 3, Fairbanks, AK, pp. 551-564.
[53] Knott, T. ,2006. Oooguruk Comes in from the Cold. Offshore Engineer, June 7.
[54] Li, G., 2012. Arctic FPSO: Technical Feasibilities and Challenges, Proceedings 31st
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, July 16, 2012, Paper No. OMAE2012-83028, pp. 379-385; 7 pages;
doi:10.1115/OMAE2012-83028
[55] Lundamo, T., Bonnemaire, B., Jensen, A., Gudmestad, O. T., 2008. Back-calculation
of the Ice Load Applying on a Moored Vessel, Proceedings of 19th IAHR Symposium
on Ice, Vancouver, Canada, 2008 )
[56] Maritime Future, 2013. Future of Arctic Shipping Arctic Drilling: Is this the beginning
of the end ? 28 September 2013 , Available Online
(http://www.maritimefuture.com/?m=201309)
[57] Masterson. D. et al. 1991. Beaufort Sea Exploration: Past and Future. Offshore
Technology Conference paper OTC6530, Houston, Texas, USA.
[58] Moe, A. and Rowe, L. 2008. Petroleum Activity in the Russian Barents Sea
Constraints and Options for Norwegian Offshore and Shipping Companies, Report
commissioned by the Norwegian Shipowners Association, September 2008, Fridtjof
Nansen Institute
[59] Moran, K., Backman, J., McInroy, D.B., Mayer, L.A., and the Expedition 302
Scientists, 2006, Deepwater drilling in the Arctic Oceans permanent sea ice,
Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, Volume 302
[60] Moran, K., Backman, J., and Farrell, J.W., 2006. Deepwater drilling in the Arctic
Oceans permanent sea ice. In Backman, J., Moran, K., McInroy, D.B., Mayer, L.A.,
and the Expedition 302 Scientists, Proc. IODP, 302: Edinburgh (Integrated Ocean
Drilling Program Management International, Inc.). doi:10.2204/
iodp.proc.302.106.2006

structure concepts
[61] Mosbech, A., Boertmann, D., and Jespersen, M. ,2007. Strategic Environmental
Impact Assessment of Hydrocarbon Activities in the Disko West Area. National
Environmental Research Institute, University of Aarhus, Denmark. NERI Technical
Report No. 618, 2007.
(Available Online http://www2.dmu.dk/Pub/FR618_0_kap_3.pdf)
[62] MNP Group, 2007. New Designs Jack Up Rigs. Available Online
(http://www.mnpglobal.com/file/90730d21/Offshore projects.pdf)
[63] Murray et al., 2009. Design Considerations for an Arctic Spar, Proceedings of the 20th
International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions
June 9-12, 2009 Lule, Sweden
[64] Neth, V. W., Smith, T.R. and Wright, B.D., 1983. Design, construction and monitoring
of the Tarsiut relief ice island. Seventh International Conference on Port and Ocean
Engineering under Arctic Conditions (POAC), Espoo, Finland.
[65] NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (15 December 2008). Types of
Offshore Oil and Gas Structures. NOAA Ocean Explorer: Expedition to the Deep
Slope. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 23 May 2010
[66] Oil Rig Disasters, 2007. Ocean Odyssey.

Available Online (http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/o-odyssey.htm)
[67] OSTI, 2007. Energy Citations Database.. Available Online

(http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5249443)
[68] Palmer, A.C., Baudais, D.J., and Masterson, D.M., 1979. Design and Installation of an
Offshore Flowline for the Canadian Arctic Islands. 11 OTC, Houston, pp. 765-769.
[69] Petro-Canada, 2006. Production Resumes at Terra Nova. November 14th. Available
Online (http://www.petro-canada.ca/en/media/1886.aspx?id=621758)
[70] Petro-Canada (2007a). Terra Nova. Company Website. Available Online
(http://www.petrocanada.ca/en/about/721.aspx)
[71] PMB Systems Engineering, Inc.et al., 1983. Southern Bering Sea Production Systems
Study, Final Report, Volumes 1 and 2
[72] Poplin, J. P. and Weaver, J. S. 1992. Ice Force & Rubble-related Research Studies at
Isserk I-15. 11th OMAE, Vol 4, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp.75-84.
[73] Randell, C., Ralph, F., Power, D. and Stuckey, P., 2009. Technological Advancess to
Assess, Manage and Reduce Ice Risks in Northern Developments, OTC 2009, Paper
No. OTC 20264, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 4-7
[74] Sanderson, T.J.O. ,1988. Ice Mechanics Risks to Offshore Structures. Graham and
Trotman Limited, London, pp.198-199.
[75] Sandrea, I and Sandrea, R., 2007. Exploration Trends show continued promise in
worldsoffshore basins. Growth expected in global offshore crude oil supplies,Oil &
Gas Journal, March 2007

structure concepts
[76] Sofec ,2007. Floating Systems Mooring Systems Internal Disconnectable Turret
Mooring Systems, Terra Nova Internal Disconnectable Turret. Available Online
(http://www.sofec.com/MooringSystems/InternalDisconnectableTurretMoorings/TerraN
ovaFPSO.aspx)
[77] SPG Media Limited, 2007d. Industry Projects North America Hibernia. Offshore
Technology. Available Online (http://www.offshore-echnology.com/projects/hibernia/).
[78] SPG Media Limited, 2007e. Industry Projects North America Terra Nova, Jeanne
DArc Basin, Canada. Offshore Technology. Available Online
(http://www.offshoretechnology.com/projects/terra_nova/)
[79] SPG Media Limited , 2007g. Northstar Oil Field, Alaska, USA. Hydrocarbons
Technology. Available Online (http://www.hydrocarbons-
technology.com/projects/northstar/)
[80] The Telegram, 2007b. Developing Hebron: The challenges, the Equity and the Costs.
Reprinted in NOIA/OTANS Bulletin, August 23rd.
[81] Timco, G. W., 1998. NRC Centre for Ice Loads on Offshore Structures. Canadian
Hydraulics Centre National Research Council of Canada, Technical Report HYD-TR-
034, PERD/CHC Report 35 51, May.
[82] Timco, G. W. and Johnston; M. E., 2002. Caisson structures in the Beaufort Sea
1982-1990 : Characteristics, instrumentation and ice loads, Technical Report CHC-
TR-003
[83] US Army Corps of Engineers, 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Beaufort
Sea Oil and Gas Development/Northstar Project. Volume II, February. US Army
Engineer District, Alaska.
[84] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated and International Energy
Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, April 2014
http://www.eia.gov/Forecasts/aeo
[85] Weaver, J. S. and Poplin, J. P., 1997. A Case History of the Nipterk P-32 Spray Ice
Island. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34.
[86] Wright, Blake (2006). Pioneer Island Hops at Oooguruk. UpstreamOnline, 02 May.
Available Online (http://www.upstreamonline.com).
[87] Wright, B.D., 2001. Ice Loads on the Kulluk in Managed Ice Conditions. Proceedings
POAC'01, Vol. 2, pp 553-565, Ottawa, Canada
[88] Wright, B.D., 2000. Full Scale Experience with Kulluk: Stationkeeping Operations in
Pack Ice. B. Wright & Associates, Canmore, Al., PERD/CHC Report 25-44.
Visited Internet Sites (Links):
Arctic Climate Change, Economy and Society official website

http://www.access-eu.org/
Aerospace-Technology.com
http://www.aerospace-technology.com

structure concepts
Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering:

http://www.ckb-rubin.ru
Drilling rig Sunkar working in the Kashagan field in the north of the Caspian Sea:
http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/kashagan/
Fluor
www.fluor.com
Gazprom, 2014:
www:gazprom.com
Geosig Monitoring & Measuring Solutions

http://www.geosig.com
Hebron Project, 2014:

http://www.hebronproject.com
Hibernia Gravity Base Structure (GBS), Information from project official Website:
www.hibernia.ca
Hibernia Management and Development Company, 2014:

http://www.oshsi.nl.ca/userfiles/files/ExhibitP00130HMDCPowerPointPresentation20100118.
pdf
Hydrocarbons Technology
http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/snohvit-lng/
Infrastructure for Oil and Gas production in the Arctic part of Alaska, BP:
alaska.bp.com
Maritime Future, 2013:

http://www.maritimefuture.com/?m=201309
MPLS20, 2014:
http://www.mpls20.de/en_index.php
Northstar shallow water facility, Information from the operator BP:

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/A
/abp_wwd_alaska_bp_in_alaska_2011.pdf
Offshore Technology, 2014:

www:offshore-technology.com
Oil export terminal DeKastri

structure concepts
www.sakhalin-1.com/Sakhalin/Russia
Oil Rig Photos, 2014:

www.oilrig-photos.com
Sakhalin Energy
www.sakhalinenergy.com
Sakhalin II project, Information from major stakeholder Shell:

http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_strategy/major_projects_2/sakhalin/ov
erview/
Shtokman project, Information from project official Website:

www.shtokman.ru/en/
Shtokman, 2014:
http://www:shtokman.ru/en/project/gasfield/
Sleipner GBS Offshore Platform, Information from major stakeholder Statoil:

http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/NewEnergy/Co2Management/Pages/Slei
pnerVest.aspx
Snhvit project, Information about the LNG producing development, Statoil:

http://www.statoil.com/en/ouroperations/explorationprod/ncs/snoehvit/pages/default.aspx
SubSeaIQ, 2014:
http://www.subseaiq.com/data/PrintProject.aspx?project_id=418)
The Arctic, 2014:

http://arctic.ru


Impac v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impac v1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impac v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What types of fixed offshore structures are described in the document?

What types of fixed offshore structures are described in the document?

What types of floating offshore structures are described in the document?

What types of floating offshore structures are described in the document?

Project no.

Instrument: Collaborative Project

D4.21 Report on fixed as well as floating offshore structure

Due date of deliverable: 31/03/2014

Start date of project: March 1st, 2011 Duration: 48 months

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: HSVA

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Date: Sepptember 2014

Document Control Sheet

Customer : European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme

Rev. Prepared Checked Approved

Date: September 2014

Mention of trade names or commercial products in this report do not constitute

The report is prepared by HSVA (Hamburg) as taskleader and IMPaC (Hamburg) as

Date: September 2014

Artificial Islands (gravel / ice islands)

Artificial islands - Gravel islands

Artificial islands - Ice islands

Date: September 2014

Gravity Base Structures (GBS)

Date: September 2014

Jacket & Jack-up Structures

Date: September 2014

Date: September 2014

Export / Loading Terminals

Nome (Alaska, Beaufort Sea)

Date: September 2014

Date: September 2014

New technology developments are required regarding shipping operations, primarily by

Date: September 2014

3 History of Oil and Natural Gas Extraction in the Arctic ............................................. 20

4 Areas of Interest ............................................................................................................ 22

5 Structure Types ............................................................................................................. 28

Date: September 2014

5.2.1.4 Floating Production Storage Offloading Vessel (FPSO) .......................... 126

6 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 150

7 References ................................................................................................................... 158

Date: September 2014

Figure 1 Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Provinces Map......................................................................... 22

Date: September 2014

Figure 34 Piltun-Astokhskoye-B platform (P-B)........................................................................... 75

Date: September 2014

Figure 68 Open Glory Hole .......................................................................................................... 112

Date: September 2014

Date: September 2014

Table 1 Selected analogue areas ........................................................................................................ 23

Date: September 2014

Date: September 2014

Specific objectives of this study (Task 4.2.1) are:

3 History of Oil and Natural Gas Extraction in the Arctic

Date: September 2014

3.2 Future potential

Date: September 2014

4.1 Selected areas