ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Subsea technology has come a long way from the first of its kind deployed in the Ekofisk field, Norway in the 1970s. The continuous advancement of these technologies has been hinged on the associated technical and economic benefits. Subsea technology encompasses a host of technologies, all of which attempt to relocate specific production operations from the platform to the seabed. In an environment that is both harsh and fragile, key challenges for these technologies are long-term reliability and safety – with the flexibility to meet each field’s unique characteristics and enable expansion over time. This paper presents a review of the various technologies employed and the inherent challenges.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 Page 81
Abstract
Subsea technology has come a long way from the first of its kind deployed in the Ekofisk field, Norway in the 1970s. The
continuous advancement of these technologies has been hinged on the associated technical and economic benefits. Subsea
technology encompasses a host of technologies, all of which attempt to relocate specific production operations from the platform
to the seabed. In an environment that is both harsh and fragile, key challenges for these technologies are long-term reliability and
safety – with the flexibility to meet each field’s unique characteristics and enable expansion over time. This paper presents a
review of the various technologies employed and the inherent challenges.
Keywords: Subsea Completion, Subsea processing, Subsea Production, Subsea Technology
1. INTRODUCTION
The traditional way to extract offshore reserves is via a fixed or floating production facility, with all the equipment needed
(pumps, separators, water handling, compressors, processing and storage) located topside. However, in deep or remote
waters, surface facilities are expensive and space optimization is critical, making production from such locations
challenging[1]. Subsea technology provides a means to technically and economically produce remote and/or deepwater
reserves by placing wellheads and associated mechanical and electrical infrastructure on the sea bed [1]. Production from
such wells can be tied back to surface facilities like Floating production systems or to the shore. The advantages of this
technology include, but are not limited to, reduced development and production costs and in the case of technologies like
multiphase pumping or subsea separation, increased recovery factors due to the reduction of backpressures on wells [1].
The first subsea technologies were developed in the 1970s by placing wellhead and production equipment on the seabed
with some or all components encapsulated in a sealed chamber for shallow production [1,2,3]. The hydrocarbon produced
would then flow from the well to a nearby processing facility, either on land or on an existing offshore platform [2,4].
Technology has advanced since then to enable production at water depths greater than 2000 m and the industry is
constantly extending this reach [1]. The oil industry is reluctantly, but inexorably, accepting these technologies as the new
“mainstream”, primarily out of economic necessity due to the reduced development and production costs [3].
Initially, subsea tapped the fringes of reservoirs not reachable from the platform. When these wells declined, the
economics had been met, and a simple well abandonment was required [3]. Now, however, the availability of subsea
technology is a key requirement for deepwater and remote developments, and the rise in this need for subsea technology is
expected to persist. Technology reliability, rather than cost, is likely to remain the most important aspect for all
applications in the medium-term [1]. A study conducted by ADL show that respondents expect that subsea processing,
long-distance tie-back and electric control systems will be the most prominent growth areas in the next five years,
particularly for developments in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Brazil and West Africa [1].
However, quite a host of technical, operational and safety challenges face this evolving technology. Some of the
challenges identified thus far include Subsea Power, Flow Assurance, Subsea Separation, Temperature Management,
Pipeline Integrity Management/Cost Reduction, Low Cost Intervention, Specific Regional Challenges, amongst others[5].
Figure 1 Subsea Technologies and Equipment [3]
SUBSEA TECHNOLOGY: A WHOLISTIC
VIEW ON EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES AND
OPERATIONS
Chukwuma G.J. Nmegbu1 and Lotanna V. Ohazuruike2
1Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, P.M.B 5080, Nkpolu-
Oroworukwo, Port Harcourt, Nigeria (Corresponding Author)
2Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, P.M.B 5080, Nkpolu-
Oroworukwo, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 Page 82
2. SUBSEA STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT
The subsea technology used for offshore oil and gas production is a highly specialized field of application that places
particular demands on engineering. The development of these subsea production systems requires specialized subsea
equipment [3]. Some of them are briefly discussed and illustrated as follows.
2.1 Subsea Manifolds and Connection Systems
The manifold is an arrangement of piping and/or valves designed to combine, distribute, control, and often monitor fluid
flow. They are used to merge the flow from multiple subsea wells for transfer into production flowlines and to manage
distribution of injected water, gas and chemicals [6]. Subsea manifolds are installed on the seabed within an array of wells
to gather production or to inject water or gas into wells. The available types of manifolds range from a simple pipeline-
end manifold to large structures such as a subsea processing system.
Subsea connection systems are used to provide diverless links between subsea wells, manifolds, pipelines, risers and
control umbilicals [6].
Manifolds and connection systems are the key building blocks for subsea infrastructure. This is mainly because they
connect wells to export pipelines and risers, and forwards them to receiving floater, platforms and onshore facilities [5,6].
Figure 2 Subsea Manifold [7]
2.2 Jumpers
In subsea oil/gas production systems, a subsea jumper is a short pipe connector that is used to transport production fluid
between two subsea components, for example, a tree and a manifold, a manifold and another manifold, or a manifold and
export sled [6].
Figure 3 Subsea Rigid Jumper [8]
2.3 Subsea Wellheads
Wellhead is a general term used to describe the pressure-containing component at the surface of an oil well that provides
the interface for drilling, completion, and testing of all subsea operation phases. It can be located on the offshore platform
or onshore [surface wellhead] or settled down on the mudline [subsea wellhead or mudline wellhead] [5].
Figure 4 Subsea Wellhead [7]
2.4 Subsea Trees
The subsea production tree is a system of valves, pipes, fittings, and connections placed on top of a wellbore. Orientation
of the valves can be in the vertical bore or the horizontal outlet of the tree (see Fig. 5) . The valves can be operated
electrically or hydraulically or manually by a diver or Remote operated Vehicle (ROV).
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 Page 83
Figure 5 Comparison of Vertical-Bore and Horizontal Subsea Production Trees [9]
2.5 Umbilical Systems
“An umbilical is a bundled arrangement of tubing, piping, and/or electrical conductors in an armored sheath that is
installed from the host facility to the subsea production system equipment” [4]. It is used to transmit the control fluid
and/or electrical current necessary to control the functions of the subsea production and safety equipment
(tree,valves,manifold, etc.) [6]. Each tube in an umbilical is used to specifically monitor pressures and inject fluids
(chemicals such as methanol) from the host facility to critical areas within the subsea production equipment. Electrical
conductors transmit power to operate subsea electronic devices.
Figure 6 Subsea Steel Umbilical [10]
2.6 Risers
The riser is the portion of the flowline that resides between the host facility and the seabed adjacent to a host facility.
Riser length is defined by the water depth and riser configuration which can be vertical or a variety of wave forms. During
the drilling phase of a project, the drilling riser forms a conduit for transporting of the drillstring and fluid to the hole
bottom, protecting them from the harsh subsea conditions. A slightly different design is also employed during the
production phase.
Figure 7 Subsea Drilling Riser
3. SUBSEA DRILLING
Drilling offshore began near the turn of the 20th century when shallow water fixed platforms were used to access offshore
reservoirs. But offshore drilling and production did not really develop to be widely viable until after 1947 when the first
offshore well was drilled at a location completely out of sight of land [11]. Since then, offshore production, particularly in
the US Gulf of Mexico, has resulted in the discovery and delivery of a significant contribution to the total US energy
production, with about 35% of crude oil production in the US coming from offshore developments [11]. More recently,
international oil companies in West Africa have embarked on a “near-total” deep offshore production.
The first subsea well was installed at West Cameron 192 in 55 ft. water in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in 1961 [11].
Others soon followed but a significant departure was introduced in 1993 with the advent of the first horizontal tree [12].
Developments of subsea and other equipment for higher pressures and temperatures continued as operators progressed to
drill deeper wells with more stressful physical conditions. The next major advance in subsea trees came in 2007 with the
introduction of an all-electric tree [13].
Subsea wells can be classified as either satellite wells or clustered wells [4]. Satellite wells are individual and share a
minimum number of facilities with other wells. They are usually drilled vertically and can be produced directly to a
surface facility (the platform of a floating vessel) or through a subsea manifold that commingles the production of several
satellite wells. The primary advantage of satellite wells is the flexibility of individual well location, installation, control,
and service. Each well is handled separately, so that its production and treatment can be optimized. Alternatively, a
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 Page 84
clustered system can be employed. In this system, several subsea wellheads are located on a central subsea structure. This
arrangement provides the possibility of sharing common functions among several wells, such as manifolded service or
injection lines and common control equipment, which then require fewer flowlines and umbilicals, thus reducing costs
[4].
4. SUBSEA COMPLETION
“A subsea completion is one in which the producing well does not include a vertical conduit from the wellhead back to a
fixed access structure” [11]. A subsea well typically has a production tree to which a flowline is connected allowing
production to another structure, a floating production vessel, or occasionally back to a shore-based facility. Subsea
completions may be used in deep water as well as shallow water and may be of any pressure and temperature rating
including high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) ratings. Subsea completions consist of a production tree sitting on the
ocean floor, an upper completion connecting the production tree to the lower completion and the lower completion which
is installed across the producing interval [4,11].
Advances in upper and lower completions followed normal developments in materials, pressure, and temperature ratings
[14]. However, significant advancements in the area of gravel packing the lower completion occurred with the
introduction of one-trip installation of multiple-zone systems. This advancement reduced operational costs and led to the
capability to develop more stratified reservoirs with one-trip and single system [15].
Most recently, however, FMC reports that operators have been successful deploying solutions this technology in mature or
brownfield projects such as Statoil's Tordis, Petrobras' Marlim and Espadarte; and new or Greenfield projects like Total's
Pazflor, Shell's Perdido and Parque Das Conchas (BC-10) [16].
5. SUBSEA PRODUCTION
It can range in complexity from a single satellite well with a flowline linked to a fixed platform, FPSO (Floating
Production, Storage and Offloading), or onshore facilities, to several wells on a template or clustered around a manifold
that transfer to a fixed or floating facility or directly to onshore facilities. The subsea production system consists of the
following components [4,5,11]:
• Subsea drilling systems;
• Subsea Christmas trees and wellhead systems;
• Umbilical and riser systems;
• Subsea manifolds and jumper systems;
• Tie-in and flowline systems;
• Control systems;
• Subsea installation.
6. SUBSEA PROCESSING AND TRANSPORT
Subsea processing and transport are two of the key enabling technologies in the development of resources in the Arctic.
This includes both long range multiphase transport to shore, future ultra-long multiphase transport and sub-ice
developments [17,18,19].
“Subsea processing (SSP) can be defined as any handling and treatment of the produced fluids for mitigating flow
assurance issues prior to reaching the platform or onshore” [20]. This includes [4,20]:
• Boosting;
• Separation;
• Solids management; Gas treatment;
• Chemical injection.
The benefits of introducing SSP in a field development could be [19,21]:
• Reduced total CAPEX, by reducing the topside processing and/or pipeline CAPEX;
• Accelerated and/or increased production and/or recovery;
• Enabling marginal field developments, especially fields at deepwater/ultra-deepwater depths and with long tie-backs;
• Extended production from existing fields;
• Enabling tie-in of satellite developments into existing infrastructure by removing fluid;
• Handling constraints;
• Improved flow management;
• Reduced impact on the environment.
Subsea processing holds the potential to off-load fluid equipment to the seafloor. This provides for reduction in
platform/FPSO deck load requirements while also eliminating the backpressure imposed by the production riser [17]. As
opposed to the traditional methods of processing reservoir fluids at a process station, subsea processing holds great
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 Page 85
promise in that all of the processing to the point where the product is final salable crude is done at the seabed itself [4].
This offers cost benefits and also improves recovery factors from the reservoir. Other advantages include a lesser
susceptibility to hydrate formation and lower operating expenditures. It, however, ranks as the most targeted technology
for rapid development and application due to its huge potential for cost savings according to a recent survey of subsea
technologies conducted by officials with FMC Technologies Inc. [22]. This technology also improves flow assurance such
as hydrates, wax and slugging with less chemical injection.
Figure 8 Designer's Impression of Subsea Processing Complex for Water Depths over 60 m. 1) Control and Power
Distribution Centre; 2) Processing Units; 3) Storage Tanks for Condensate; 4) Pop up Loading Terminals; 5) Export Gas
Compression Station; 6) Export Shuttle Tanker; Onshore Facilities; 8) Supply Vessel [23]
Subsea flowlines are used for the transportation of crude oil and gas from subsea wells, manifolds, off-shore process
facilities, loading buoys, S2B (subsea to beach), as well as re-injection of water and gas into the reservoir. Achieving
successful tie-in and connection of subsea flowlines is a vital part of a subsea field development [24]. Subsea flowlines are
the subsea pipelines used to connect a subsea wellhead with a manifold or the surface facility [4]. The flowlines may be
made of flexible pipe or rigid pipe and they may transport petrochemicals, lift gas, injection water, and chemicals. Subsea
flowlines are increasingly being required to operate at high pressures and temperatures. The higher pressure condition
results in the technical challenge of providing a higher material grade of pipe for high pressure, high-temperature
(HP/HT) flowline projects, which will cause sour service if the product includes H2S and saltwater. In addition, the higher
temperature operating condition will cause the challenges of corrosion, down-rated yield strength, and insulation coating.
Flowlines subjected to HP/HT will create a high effective axial compressive force due to the high fluid temperature and
internal pressure that rises when the flowline is restrained [4,9].
Figure 9 Artist’s Impression of Terra Nova Field Development [25]
7. FLOW ASSURANCE AND WELL INTERVENTION
The buildup of wax, scale and hydrate in subsea flowlines, wellheads and risers is a special problem for subsea production
where temperatures are quite low and the fluid is an un-processed well stream. “Flow assurance is the term given to a
study of the complex phenomena involved with transportation of produced fluids” [17]. These fluids are comprised of a
combination of gas, crude/condensate and water together with solids such as Hydrate, Scale, Wax / Paraffin, Sand and
Asphaltenes.
For effective subsea production, it is necessary to identify the potential for and quantify the magnitude of any of these
solids in the system. Changing pressures, temperatures and production profiles over the field life also complicates the
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 Page 86
difficulties posed. Apart from this, it is also necessary to control and predict potential problems during transient periods,
which means that the system should be able to shutdown and restart in a controlled manner.
Figure 10 Subsea Flow Assurance Challenges [18]
The cost of intervention in subsea wells in extremely high and has limited efforts to monitor wells. Conventional (non-
intelligent) well designs require intervention via wireline, coiled tubing, or rig to make measurements or alter zone flow.
By installing downhole well measurement and control devices connected to the surface (i.e.,” intelligent technology"),
measurement and control become possible without intervention [17]. One of such technologes is the Installed
FlowManager™. It provides accurate production and injection flow rates in addition to advice for optimal choke setting
and well routing. Installed Flow Manager™ can easily be expanded to become a Flow Assurance System (FAS) to include
online monitoring of potential flow assurance issues. The technology has been in operation since 1995 and is currently
operating on 450 wells distributed on 20 fields globally [26].
Alternatively, thermal insulation and protective coating can be applied to components subjected to deepwater immersion.
Subsea Thermal Insulation with materials of superior thermal properties helps delay the onset of hydrate formation and
wax deposition [27]. Direct electric heating, the current applications for which are focused on hydrates, is also an
alternative mature and growing technology [22]. DEH can keep fluid temperatures above the hydrate formation
temperature and above the wax appearance temperature. It has mostly been used in North Sea fields, such as Statoil's
Asgard, Huldra, Kristin, Urd, Tyrihans, Alve, Ormen Lange, Morvin, BP's Idun and Skarv fields, Shell's Serrano,
Oregano, Nakika and Habanero [22], [28].
One of the chemical flow assurance technologies, scale inhibitor chemistry is a matured technology but its treatment
applications are still evolving. It has found onshore applications in recent years as hydraulic fracturing activity has picked
up in the United States [26], [27]. Some key flow assurance technologies benefiting from further development include
[27]:
Rheology modification, or flowing hydrates
Long distance direct electrical heating
Monoethylene glycol (MEG) loop optimization
Low dose inhibition
8. CONCLUSION
A basic introduction to subsea engineering and technology has been presented. Economic and technical advantages have
been identified as the main propellants for the continued growth of this industry. However, key challenges for these
technologies remain which need to be addressed for further deployment in more difficult terrains. Some of these
challenges are long-term reliability and safety, with the flexibility to meet each field’s unique characteristics and enable
expansion over time. Nevertheless, the subsea technology industry offers a whole new level of technological advances
whose numerous advantages may have already cemented its place in the sands of time.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Dorcas Etim Jimmy for her immense contributions to this work.
References
[1] S. Crombie and B. Thuriax—Aleman, “Sunken Treasure: Opportunities and Threats in a maturing market”, Arthur
D Little Energy and Utilities, 2008, [online], Available: www.adl.com/sunkentreasure (Accessed: March 21, 2014)
[2] M. Golan and S. Sangesland, “Subsea Production Technology”, The Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, 1, 1992.
[3] B. Skeels, “Subsea Technology”, SPE J. of Pet. Tech., 63(8), pp.64, 2011
[4] Y. Bai and Q. Bai, Subsea Structural Engineering Handbook, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2010, pp.3-25.
[5] ITF “ITF Call for Proposals: Subsea Technologies”, August, 2011, Australia
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014 Page 87
[6] GE Oil & Gas “Subsea manifolds and connection systems”, Drilling and Production, General Electric Company,
2011
[7] M. Faulk and ManTIS FMC “Manifolds & Tie-in Systems”, SUT Subsea Awareness Course, Houston, 2008.
[8] C. Horn, “Flowline Tie-in Presentation”, SUT Subsea Seminar, 2008.
[9] S. Fenton, “Subsea Production System Overview”, Vetco Gray, Clarion Technical Conferences, Houston, 2008.
[10] P. Collins, “Subsea Production Control and Umbilicals”, SUT, Subsea Awareness Course, Houston, 2008.
[11] Offshore Operations group “Subsea Drilling, Well Operations and Completions”, NPC North American Resource
Development Study, Sept 15, USA, 2011.
[12] H.B.Skeels, B.C.Hopkins and C.E.Cunningham, “The Horizontal Subsea Tree: A Unique Configuration Evolution
(7244-MS)”, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 3-6, 1993. pp. 18, available online:
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-7244-MS&soc=OTC (Accessed: March 21, 2014)
[13] L.Bouquier, J. P.Signoret and R.Lopez, “First Application of the All-Electric Subsea Production System
Implementation of a New Technology (18819-MS)”, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 30-May
3, 2007 , pp. 5, available online: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber=OTC-18819-
MS&societyCode=OTC (Accessed: March 21, 2014)
[14] B.Maldonado, A.Arrazola, and B.Morton, “Ultradeep HP/HT Completions: Classification, Design Methodologies,
and Technical Challenges (17927-MS)”, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 1-4, 2006, pp. 16,
available online: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-17927-MS&soc=OTC last visited
21.03.2014
[15] R.Burger, T.Grigsby, C.Ross, E.Sevadjian, and B.Techentien, “Single-Trip Multiple-Zone Completion Technology
Has Come of Age and Meets the Challenging Completion Needs of the Gulf of Mexico's Deepwater Lower Tertiary
Play (128323-MS)”, SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, February 10-12,
2010, pp. 20, [online]. available http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE128323-
MS&soc=SPE (Accessed: March 21, 2014)
[16] FMC Technologies, “Subsea Processing Systems”, [online], available
http://www.fmctechnologies.com/en/SubseaSystems/Technologies/SubseaProcessingSystems.aspx(Accessed: March
21, 2014)
[17] S.L.Scott, D.Devegowda, and A.M.Martin, “Assessment of Subsea Production & Well Systems”, Department of
Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, Project 424 of MMS, 2004.
[18] H. Eidsmoen, “Subsea Processing”, STATOIL, Sept 8, 2011, Oslo.
[19] P. Hedne, “Flow Assurance and Subsea Processing”, STATOIL
[20] N.C. Prescott, “Subsea separation and processing of oil, gas and produced water: Past, present and Future”, RICE
Global E & C Forum, Jan 13, 2012.
[21] CITEPH “Long Tie-Back Development”, Saipem, 2008.
[22] K. Boman, (2013), “Subsea Separation Tops List of Subsea Technology in Demand”, June 06, [online], available:
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/126947/Subsea_Separation_Tops_List_of_Subsea_Technology_in_Demand(
Accessed: March 21, 2014)
[23] S. Medved, and A. Nedelin, “Underwater Equipment for Developing of Deepwater Gas Deposits”, Armament and
Equipment (Tekhnika i Vooruzhenie), 1993, [online] Available at: http://lib.rus.ec/b/328566/read [Accessed March,
2012] (Translated)
[24] FMC Technologies, “Subsea Tie-in Systems”, [online],
Available:http://www.fmctechnologies.com/~/media/Subsea/Technologies/TieInSystems/Colleteral/Subsea%20Tie%2
0In%20Systems_low%20res.ashx?force=1&track=1 (Accessed: March 21, 2014)
[25] T. Doyle, and J. Leitch, “Terra Nova Vessel Design and Construction”. In: Offshore Technology Conference, Paper
no. OTC11920. Houston, USA. May 1-4th, 2000.
[26] FMC Technologies, “Integrated Flow Assurance Solution: Ormen Lange - a case study”, [Online],
Available:http://www.fmctechnologies.com/~/media/Subsea/Products/FlowManager/Brochures%202008/CASE%20-
%20FloCASEFlowManagementServicesOrmenLange_LOWRES.ashx?force=1&track=1(Accessed: March 21, 2014)
[27] FMC Technologies, “Subsea Thermal Insulation”, [Online],
Available:http://www.fmctechnologies.com/en/SubseaSystems/Technologies/AdvancingTechnologies/SubseaThermal
Insulation.aspx(Accessed: March 21, 2014)
[28] J. Presley, “Collaborative efforts turn technical challenges into successes”, E&P, Hart Energy, USA, May 2013,
[Online], Available:http://www.fmctechnologies.com/~/media/Subsea/Products/0513HEP-ULTRA-
FMC.ashx?force=1&track=1 (Accessed: March 21, 2014)
... The HDD method is usually used to avoid dense areas or wide rivers. There are some risks associated in the HDDconstruction method such as failure in the pilot boring and reaming [2], the ground collapsing [3]and the risk of failure in the pullback process [4]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Pipelines crossing rivers, highways, and railways require special consideration that includes details in both design planning and the field installation. One of the methods used for pipelines crossing is the horizontal directional drilling method (HDD). Risks are associated with the HDD installation such as the failure of the pilot boring and reaming, the ground collapsing, and the failure of the pullback process. Construction method based on these risks will be analysed in this paper. Based on the construction method proposed, the quantity of materials, heavy equipment, and workers, and the cost and time are analysed.
Article
Improved tools are needed to manage major accident hazard of progressively more complex offshore oil&gas systems in environmentally sensitive areas. Inherent safety principles provide a strategic opportunity to reduce major accident hazards since the early design phase, but a suitable metric to orient safer design choices is needed to apply such principles intro practice. This study aims at providing a systematic approach to the assessment of the hazard profile of alternative process designs in offshore oil & gas production facilities. A novel methodology providing a ranking of inherently safer solutions in conceptual design is described. The methodology is able to highlight the different contributors to the safety profile of the offshore oil & gas production system, linking them to the specific features of the design. The proposed approach, based on multi-criteria Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), addresses different targets (people, assets, environment) and provides a quantitative assessment of the safety score, accounting for both the possible accident consequences and their credibility. An application to a case study concerning an offshore facility for gas production is discussed to demonstrate the potential of the methodology.
Book
Full-text available
This book provides a comprehensive understanding of each aspect of offshore operations including conventional methods of operations, emerging technologies, legislations, health, safety and environment impact of offshore operations. The book starts by coverage of notable offshore fields across the globe and the statistics of present oil production, covering all types of platforms available along with their structural details. Further, it discusses production, storage and transportation, production equipment, safety systems, automation, storage facilities and transportation. Book ends with common legislation acts and comparison of different legislation acts of major oil/gas producing nations. The book is aimed at professionals and researchers in petroleum engineering, offshore technology, subsea engineering, and Explores the engineering, technology, system, environmental, operational and legislation aspects of offshore productions systems Covers most of the subsea engineering material in a concise manner Includes legislation of major oil and gas producing nations pertaining to offshore operations (oil and gas) Incorporates case studies of major offshore operations (oil and gas) accidents and lessons learnt Discusses environment impact of offshore operations
Chapter
This article discusses subsea production control systems. The systems are explained by the differences and similarities between them. Control systems that are covered include the following, direct hydraulic (D/H), electro-pilot and electro-hydraulic (E/H).
Article
Designing and building structures that will withstand the unique challenges that exist in Subsea operations is no easy task. As deepwater wells are drilled to greater depths, engineers are confronted with a new set problems such as water depth, weather conditions, ocean currents, equipment reliability, and well accessibility, to name just a few. A definitive reference for engineers designing, analyzing and instilling offshore structures, Subsea Structural Engineering Handbook provides an expert guide to the key processes, technologies and equipment that comprise contemporary offshore structures. Written in a clear and easy to understand language, the book is based on the authors 30 years of experience in the design, analysis and instillation of offshore structures. This book answers the above mentioned crucial questions as well as covers the entire spectrum of subjects in the discipline, from route selection and planning to design, construction, installation, materials and corrosion, inspection, welding, repair, risk assessment, and applicable design solutions. It yields a roadmap not only for the subsea engineer but also the project managers, estimators and regulatory personnel hoping to gain an appreciation of the overall issues and directed approaches to subsea engineering design solutions.
Conference Paper
The rapidly accelerating shift to subsea production systems represents a significant departure from conventional operations. Historically, subsea wells have had a good track record. However, complex subsea systems are now being deployed in ways rarely encountered in previous development schemes. These increasingly complex systems present a number of technical challenges. This paper presents an assessment of subsea production systems, considering the technical, operations and safety issues associated with this development modality. This assessment considers the following general areas: 1) subsea processing; 2) flow assurance; 3) long-term well monitoring and, 4) safety & environmental concerns. A review of the state-of-the-art in each of these areas is presented and several technical and operational gaps are identified. One of the most striking findings is the low ultimate recovery anticipated from many subsea wells. Two new technologies that can have a positive impact on recoveries are subsea multiphase pumping and subsea separation/processing. This assessment found, however, that the safety systems seem to be absent from current subsea processing plans. Other concerns include the inability to monitor subsea wells for sustained casing pressure, a widespread problem in the GOM. With regard to flow assurance, much work has been done to develop design tools for flow assurance, little has been done in the area of monitoring subsea production systems to detect and locate these materials. As more subsea systems are placed in operation, the monitoring and operation needs (rather than the design needs) will likely emerge as the top priority.
Article
Operators are continually seeking improved reliability, availability and performance in subsea control systems due to the ever increasing cost of failure from downtime and intervention. Enhancements in functionality including more rapid response and improved condition monitoring of equipment are greatly desired. And, the increased focus on environmental concerns due to venting and leakage of control fluids to sea, coupled with the high carrying costs of control fluids in general, are forcing operators to look for cleaner, more economical alternatives to meet ever restricting standards. Resulting from these and other deficiencies, hydraulic control systems for subsea production have come under increased scrutiny. The advantages and benefits provided by all-electric systems over conventional, hydraulic based systems for subsea application have been rigorously evaluated by many operators and have demonstrated dramatically positive results. Due to the rapid development and advances in electric controls technologies, operators now have a viable alternative. The desire to realize improvements in equipment reliability, system availability, operational functionality and environmental performance propelled a major operator to select an all-electric subsea production system for a multiwell development in the North Sea. This paper describes the process, decision criteria and strategic impetus that led to the selection of the all-electric subsea production system for this application and outlines the desired objectives for the implementation of the all-electric technology. Figure 1 - All-Electric Deepwater Subsea SpoolTree System (available in full paper) Introduction Over the past decade, substantial gains have been realized in reliability and functionality of electro-hydraulic multiplexed (EHMUX) control systems for subsea production. These systems are the culmination of advanced hydraulic controls technology dating back to the early days of subsea systems. Since the 1960s, the evolution of control systems technology has proceeded from direct hydraulic to piloted and sequenced systems to provide improved response time and allow for long distance tiebacks. Today, most subsea developments make use of EHMUX control. This is essentially a subsea computer/communication system of hydraulic directional control valves (DCVs). These electrically actuated valves allow stored pressure within subsea accumulators to be routed to individual hydraulic lines and onward to actuated gate valves and chokes on subsea production equipment. Despite the many advantages provided by EHMUX systems, there is a general industry recognition of persistent weaknesses related to susceptibility of fluid cleanliness, materials compatibility, hydrostatic effects in deeper water and limitations for long distance tieback. The higher cost of deepwater and remote, long offset, subsea developments has focused much attention by operators on improving the reliability of subsea systems in general, and control systems in particular. Many subsea reliability assessments conducted by operators, in association with specialist academic and reliability consultants identified that a significant portion of reliability problems are attributable to the failure of hydraulic components. Reliability issues persistently occur during installation and in operations associated with high pressure/high fluid volume hydraulic systems. The positive results from reliability studies initiated significant technology development investigations to explore potential advantages and benefits of all-electric subsea controls capability.
Article
Increased energy demands and revenues for oil and gas has triggered the re-assessment of existing HP/HT fields as well as driven the search for new hydrocarbon sources with more extreme formation environments. In the Gulf of Mexico and world wide, this economic incentive is having a large influence on operations, drilling deeper on land and in shallow and deep waters. The traditional understanding of HP/HT applications, 10ksi and 300 °F are common in today's marketplace. The HP/HT working envelope has been successfully pushed out to 15ksi and 400 °F, with some limited gaps related to completion size availability rather than technology needs. As expected, this new larger envelope is now being pushed further out to 20-30ksi and 400-500 °F. The technology gaps associated with this new HPHT frontier are not limited to completion equipment but also include casing, tubing, BOPs, wellheads, perforating, lubricators, logging and drilling ¹ In an effort to identify HP/HT operating environments and also technology gaps, a new classification is developing which will segment HP/HT into three tiers. While existing technology embraces most of Tier I applications, Tier II and III demand extraordinary considerations in regard to the selection of the completion equipment. This paper discusses the design methodologies and technical challenges associated with Extreme (Tier II) and Ultra (Tier III) HP/HT completions based on 'typical' Deepwater and Deepgas HP/HT well parameters, casing and tubing programs. Evaluation and recommendation of methods for selecting completion equipment, including sand control, subsurface safety valve, packer to tubing interface, production packer, and flow control technologies will be reviewed. The completion of Extreme and Ultra HP/HT wells involve high risk and rig costs which demand special considerations and investments. This paper will outline completion technology gaps for these type HPHT wells. The paper will also highlight the importance of upfront planning, design, qualification testing, QA/QC, and contingency options. History and Classification The initial efforts to go after deep hydrocarbon reservoirs in excess of 20,000 feet started back in the 1970's in the highly pressured formations around Jackson Mississippi and the North Sea which were heavily driven by the oil boom. The next development in the 1980's occurred in the Tuscaloosa trend in Louisiana and in Miocenes offshore formations in the Gulf of Mexico. In the 1990's and continuing to present, several developments have taken place worldwide including major projects in the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico. It has been a very steep learning curve that has developed key completions technologies including high strength steels, nickel-based corrosion resistant alloys (CRA) and sealing compounds. The original definition of HPHT was first introduced by the Department of Trade Industry (Dti) for the United Kingdom continental shelf (UKCS) ². It was defined as 'Where the undisturbed bottom hole temperature at prospective reservoir depth is greater than 149 °C (300 °F) and the maximum anticipated pore pressure of any porous formation to be drilled through exceeds 18000 Newton/meter2/meter (0.8 psi/ft) or around 10, 000 psi) ³.
Article
The Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon potential has confounded "naysayers," who once called it the Dead Sea. The planned development of the ultra deepwater lower-tertiary play is the latest chapter in the Gulf of Mexico's ongoing viability as a major hydrocarbon basin. To economically develop this challenging lower-tertiary play requires new completion technology to handle the long, stacked pay intervals. This has generated renewed interest in multi-zone completion technology. This technology is viewed as a method that hs the potential to increase completion efficiency as well as reduce overall completion cost. These systems were once considered too complex and risky for deepwater operations; but the hope that the technology could provide increased completion efficiency and alleviate some of the issues inherent with stacked completions in deepwater has again renewed interest in pursuing this technology. Thus, the latest generation of robust, cased-hole single-trip multiple-zone frac-pack completion systems has been developed. The renewed interest for development of these systems has also been the driving force for development of an openhole multiple-zone frac-pack completion system that could ultimately provide reductions in well construction cost. This paper will provide the reader with a brief development history of cased-hole, single-trip multiple-zone completion systems and then the focus will shift to the latest generation of tool systems. The discussion will also include the reasons why the previous systems have not proliferated globally as an accepted mainstream sand-face completion technique. The sand face is one part of the completion equation. The methodology of integrating the uphole completions to the multizone sand-face completion will be briefly discussed. The improved functionality of the newest multizone systems will be described and compared to the previous-generation systems. The presentation will cover the integration testing to qualify the newest multiple-zone system and will cover trial well installations. Deepwater case histories will be presented, if available by presentation time.
Article
The Terra Nova Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) is the first such vessel specifically designed for ice infested harsh environments. The development of this unique vessel will be described by presenting the major aspects of the vessel from the initial design by Brown & Root Energy Services (BRES), construction of the vessel by Daewoo Heavy Industries (DHI) in South Korea, through to delivery to Newfoundland Canada. The unique design considerations such as the harsh environment of the Canadian Grand Banks region and the requirement to dis-connect during ice flow/iceberg activity required a completely new vessel design. This paper describes these challenges and the eventual solutions by touching on analyses and the extensive model test program conducted. The vessel construction and delivery phases are also discussed together with shipyard interface and management issues. Introduction This paper addresses the development of the Terra Nova FPSO hull, from design through construction to delivery, highlighting the environmental drivers which led to the current design. In addition, the vessel performance in the harsh Canadian environment of the Grand Banks is discussed and an update of the vessel construction and delivery status presented. The Field The Terra Nova oil field is the second largest oil field discovered to date in the Jeanne d'Arc basin on the Grand Banks (Fig. 1). The first phase of the field development consists of the Graben and East Flank and is estimated to contain recoverable reserves of 47.7-63.6 SMm3 (300-400 million barrels). The Terra Nova field is located in 94 metres (approximately) of water, 350 km East-Southeast of St. John's, Newfoundland and 35 km Southeast of the Hibernia field. Field Development The Terra Nova oil field will be developed using an ice strengthened floating production facility, with ice avoidance capability and subsea wells (Fig 2). The export of crude will be by tanker. Produced gas will be used as fuel and for gas lift. Excess gas will be re-injected. Terra Nova is the first FPSO in these waters and the design solution adopted is a marker for follow-on developments in the area. The Terra Nova development proponents are: Petro-Canada (operator), Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Husky Oil Operations Ltd, Norsk Hydro Canada Oil and Gas Inc, Murphy Oil Company Ltd, Moschober Operating Ltd, and Chevron Canada Resources. Environmental Considerations General The Grand Banks region has a harsh environment, much like the Northern North Sea. Intense storms occur frequently in winter, with winds generally in the northwesterly and southwesterly directions, Table 1. Seastates produce short period, steep waves with waveheights in excess of 30 metres. Superstructure icing can occur between December and March because of the temperature, wind and wave conditions. Restricted visibility is common, especially in the spring and summer months, when warm air masses overlie the cold ocean surface. Pack ice occurs during the winter season but only reaches the Terra Nova regions one-year in three. Icebergs migrate into the region annually mainly during the months of March to August inclusive (ice season).