Initial Proposal

Week 1 - Report
SEATECH Solutions
19
th
May 2014


1
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. CANTILEVER 3
2.1 Considerations 3
2.2 Structural Design 4
2.3 Construction and Installation 4
2.4 Costing 4
2.5 Summary 5
3. FLOATING STRUCTURE 6
3.1 Structural Design 6
3.2 Members dimensions and figures for preliminary design 7
3.3 Considerations 7
3.3.1 General considerations 7
3.3.2 Accessibility 7
3.4 Construction and Installation 8
3.5 Costing 8
3.6 Summary 9
4. FIXED STRUCTURE 9
4.1 Structural Design 9
4.2 Loading 10
4.2.1 Load Transfer Paths 10
4.2.2 Design of Bracings 10
4.3 Considerations 10
4.3.1 Sustainability: Emissions, Discharges & Waste 10
4.4 Construction and Installation 10
4.5 Costing 11
4.6 Summary 11
5. MONO COLUMN 11
5.1 Structural Design 12
5.2 Foundations 12
2
5.3 Considerations 13
5.3.1 Sustainability 13
5.3.2 Risks and mitigation measures 13
5.4 Construction and Installation 13
5.5 Costing 13
5.6 Summary 14
6. SUBSEA 14
6.1 Outline of Scheme 14
6.2 Case Studies 15
6.2.1 Background 15
6.2.2 sgard 15
6.2.3 Gullfaks 16
16
6.3 Feasibility 16
6.3.1 Structural Forms 16
6.3.2 Subsea Structure Properties-Chosen Solution 18
6.4 Construction 20
6.5 Costs 21
6.7 Risk Assessment 22
Sustainability 22
6.8 Advantages and Issues 23
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24

3

1. Introduction

The initial approach to the brief involved the development of 5 different concepts considering all the
options available for use in 136 m water depths. Particular attention was paid to the construction
and installation times and the total cost of each solution as these are the main drivers for the client.
The concepts development included consideration of the most severe loading case acting on the
structure and a preliminary investigation of the geotechnical conditions, with sustainability and risk
assessment being taken into account throughout. These were then compared and used to
recommend the most viable option to the client.

2. Cantilever
2.1 Considerations
One way of installing the new module was to support it from
the existing topside. It was determined that a suitable way of
doing this is to support the module using a cantilever attached
to the superstructure.
Three ways of implementing the design were identified:
containing the module within a truss, propping the module
from underneath, or suspending the module from above.
These designs were then considered in terms of feasibility, cost,
sustainability and ease of construction.
Based on the geometry of the topside, propping the module
from the jacket was determined to be an inefficient solution;
furthermore, it required underwater construction. It was
therefore concluded that the optimum solution was to attach a
truss to the superstructure, either on its own or suspended
from cables attached to the superstructure above. The final solution will depend on the size of the
new module, and size and structure of the topside.
Research on previous studies led us to a similar project using this solution. AMEC is currently adding
a brownfields modification module to the Alder platform in the Britannia field. This would suggest
that this is indeed a sensible solution to the problem.
Since the only changes made are to the superstructure, this design will have little impact on the local
environment. The energy use and CO2 emissions are largely incurred during construction and
transportation. Material usage is the main contributor to energy usage and emissions in these
proposals; therefore this solution has the least impact. The environmental impact of this module is
small relative to the impact of the general operation of the platform.
One of the advantages of this design is that the structure is prefabricated and modular, meaning that
it can be re-used on a different platform once Albion has been decommissioned, with varying
degrees of modification. The ability to re-use the module beyond the design life of the platform
makes this a particularly sustainable solution.
Figure 2.1: Cantilever impression
4
2.2 Structural Design
As the new module is added to the original structure, there will be an increase in the global and local
loads on the structure, as well as a change in the position of the loading applied to the substructure.
Given that the BCM weighs very little compared to the
original topside, the increase in the global loading is
negligible for each proposed solution; there is an increase
of less 2% on the total load on the jacket. The shift in the
centre of gravity due to the attachment on the side of the
superstructure is also small. It can be shown that the
increase in the load on each foundation is also negligible
(approximately 1%).
The larger concern when considering the effects of the
additional module on the existing structure are the local
stresses produced at the joints and brackets. Attaching a
truss to the superstructure, either on its own or supported by a cable, will introduce additional load
on individual members, which may go beyond their design loading. Rough initial calculations suggest
a force of around 500kN in the joints attaching the truss to the structure, which would translate
directly as point loads on the individual members on the structure.
2.3 Construction and Installation
The truss for this solution can be assembled onshore and shipped out to the platform by barge. The
installation of this solution would be relatively simple, and can be summarised as shown in figure
2.3.

Figure 2.3: Installation procedure
2.4 Costing
The cost of the project can be calculated based on the following assumptions about the individual
costs involved. These cost assumptions are consistent throughout the proposals. The costs incurred
by this solution are shown table 2.1.
Float the truss containing the
module out on a barge.
Hoist the truss into position,
adjacent to topside using a
crane vessel.
Attach the truss to the
superstructure.
If using cables for support,
these would be initially
attached to the top of the
superstructure, before being
attached to the truss and
tightened using a winch.
Figure 2.2: Loading paths
5
Table 2.1: Cantilever costing
Cost type Units No. of units Cost per unit Total cost
Material Tonnes of steel 100 $2 780/tonne $278 000
Labour (onshore) Worker-days 100 86 $500/worker/day $4.3 million
Labour (offshore) Worker-days 80 7 $3 300/worker/day $1.85 million
Barge hire Days hire 4 (+2)* $150 000/day $900 000
Crane hire Days hire 6 (+2)* $200 000/day $1.6 million
Total $8 930 000
*A contingency has been added to account for unseen costs due to bad weather, etc.
The total cost of this solution is around $8.93 million. This cost seems reasonable given the
additional profit made as a result of this project, and is cheaper than other designs. The
maintenance costs associated with this scheme are small; the module can be accessed directly from
the original structure, with no special equipment required.

2.5 Summary
Based on this assessment, the cantilever is a workable, efficient and cost effective solution. The
feasibility of this solution, however, can only be accurately assessed when the structural details of
the topside are known, and the effects on the superstructure can be analysed more effectively.
Furthermore, since information on the orientation and structural detailing of the platform is not yet
available, we cannot determine the exact location of the additional module on the structure. Based
on a previous case study of a comparable new module installation, however, it should be possible to
make additions to the superstructure.
Based on this discussion, the cantilever is viable, depending on the nature of the superstructure.











6
3. Floating Structure
The next scheme considered involves installing the module on a floating structure. This provides the
benefit of less rigorous structural works in comparison to building a new structure. There are 3 types
of floating offshore modules: tension-legged platforms, spar buoys and floaters. Floaters rest on
stiffened plates that are naturally buoyant. Spar buoys use a submerged ballast for stability. 2nd
generation spars also contain a truss structure at the bottom with concrete ballast for stability. This
type was decided to be more suitable as it more suited towards deeper waters and has the most
dynamic stability compared to the other options. The Amplitude of any motions must be sufficiently
low to ensure it is within the tolerance of the BCM to work and does not compromise the
accessibility of the platform for maintenance.
3.1 Structural Design
The spar truss works by having a low centre of gravity and a high centre of buoyancy. Near the top of
the spar there is a large tank to be filled with air and a concrete ballast is placed near the bottom.
This is represented in figure 3.1. Preliminary design calculations resulted in a 15 m diameter hull
which extends to a depth of 30m. It requires a truss that extends down to a depth of 88m supporting
the concrete ballast at the end. This is to ensure that the centre of buoyancy is positioned above the
centre of gravity. Further optimisation is possible and will be completed if this concept is to be
brought forward.
Along with the module itself, this scheme must also take into account the installation of a flow line
to transport the processed gas from the existing platform to the module. The flow line will tie in to
the existing pipeline on the seabed and will replace the pipe connection coming from the existing
platform. This option requires some subsea work which could push up the cost significantly.
An alternative would be installing a new riser inside a conductor to tie in with the existing pipes on
the existing structure. The feasibility of this option depends on the availability of a spare conductor
on the Albion platform.












Figure 3.1: a) Mechanism of a spar structure, b) Straked spar hull
7
3.2 Members dimensions and figures for preliminary design
Diameter of Spar hull: 15m
Length of Spar hull: 30m
Length of truss: 50m
Bar thickness: ~1m (dependent on further calculations of horizontal wave loading)
Diameter of suction anchors: 12m
Diameter of steel mooring cables: 300mm (safety factor of 2.5)
Length of suction anchors: 4m
Weight of concrete ballast: 1500 tonnes

3.3 Considerations
3.3.1 General considerations
The main risk would be of the platform drifting away and impacting the existing structure. For this
reason it has been chosen to place the new platform at least 50 m away from the Northeast corner
of the Albion Platform. This distance was estimated based on the metocean data provided.
A major issue with floating devices is motion caused by vortex shedding (VIM motions). This can
cause large 8-shaped displacements on the structure. To mitigate for this the design would include
strakes on the spar hull as shown in figure 3.1. The spar will be tied down using 4 mooring cables and
suction anchors positioned on the seabed.
Furthermore, the design will need to consider dynamic loading from the rotating machinery of the
booster compression module as well as from wind and wave loading. The spar would be designed in
a way that its natural period is far higher than the peak period of the wind and wave loading. If a
mooring cable were to fail, the risk of overturning would be minimised.

3.3.2 Accessibility
Since the floating structure would be at 50 m away from the existing platform, the way of
connecting the two was considered. One option would be installing a bridge to connect the module
to the platform. The bridge would ideally be retractable so the connection can be broken during
extreme weather events. It is suggested to use a telescopic access bridge resting on a Stewart
platform to deal with vibrations. Figure X shows what such bridge could look like. These bridges can
be rented on charter at a day rate of $4000. A permanent, commercially available bridge spanning
both structure has not been identified.
A less expensive and more practical possibility is to rely on maintenance vessels to access the
module from the main land. Maintenance will then have to be planned ahead as access would not
be constantly and immediately possible. Any unexpected problem with the compressor would not be
able to be dealt with immediately which could potentially result in downtime and loss of revenue.





8
Figure 3.2: Telescopic access bridge (Ampelmann A1 model)

3.4 Construction and Installation
All members can be dry towed to location. For the foundations, 4 suction anchors need to be driven
into the seabed to function as anchor points. They are open at the bottom and have an opening near
the top through which seawater is pumped. This causes them to be sucked into the seabed. Suction
anchors have been chosen because these have proven to work with floating structures such as the
Diana (Gulf of Mexico) and Snorre A (North Sea). Steel mooring cables will be used to secure the spar
to the anchors. Each suction anchor weighs 20 tonnes.
The spar hull is placed in the water and its soft tank is then slowly filled up with seawater until it is
upended. Once it reaches its upright position a fixed concrete ballast of 1500 tonnes will be placed
to stabilise it. The second stage of the installation would be placing the new flow line and tying it in
to the existing pipeline on the seabed.
3.5 Costing
Table 3.1: Floating structure cost breakdown
Type Cost/unit Amount of units Total
Installation (off shore) $3 300/day 80 workers, 10 day $2 640 000
Fabrication (on shore) $500/day 8months, 100
workers
$8 800 000
Material -Suction Anchors:
$260 000

-Steel: $6 200
000
1 Spar, 4 Steel
mooring lines, 4
suction anchors

$6 460 000
Equipment hire $150 000/day for
crane

$150 000/day for
barge
7 days $2 100 000
Topside - - $10 000 000
Installing foundations - - $7 000 000
Installing flow line $5 000 000 - $5 000 000
Downtime $1 000 000/day 1 day $1 000 000
Total $43 000 000
9
3.6 Summary
This solution is reliable as there is precedence of spar structures being implemented in the oil and
gas industry. The transportation and installation process is well known and relatively simple. The
floating spar structure also creates the sustainable possibility of infrastructure sharing. This is
because it may be reused after the platform is decommissioned. The Sir Ian Woods report suggested
that the Oil and Gas industry ought to share infrastructure and data, such a module is capable of
that, should its design life exceed that of the existing platform.

4. Fixed Structure

4.1 Structural Design
To connect the booster compression module (BCM) to the existing Albion platform, a satellite
triangular jacket design has been proposed. Prior to the design of this jacket, the pros and cons of
various types of existing offshore jackets such as the conventional, fixed jacket, the compliant tower
and the conductor system (Cosmos) have been carefully studied and an optimal design for the given
design brief is produced, as shown in the figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 New jacket structure
The satellite jacket is 160 m in height and the BCM is placed on a platform to bring it to the same
elevation as the existing platform. Bracings are provided as shown in Figure 1 to provide stiffness
against the fluid loadings. The design also encompasses a bridge link between the two platforms to
enable personnel access and service support. The bridge is 30m in length, 2m in width and 2.5m in
height. It is a truss structure with cable rack to support pipework, cabling and connection
requirements as well as provide access to enable maintenance work to be carried out on the BCM.

10
4.2 Loading
4.2.1 Load Transfer Paths
Figure 4.1: Load transfer path

4.2.2 Design of Bracings
Fluid loadings increase with depth; therefore the bracing design changes from cross-bracing
to K-bracing. Advantages of K-bracings compared to cross-bracings include easier assembly,
fewer members and intersections at joints and hence lower cost. X-bracings however, have
higher redundancies and support larger loads than K-bracings.
4.3 Considerations
4.3.1 Sustainability: Emissions, Discharges & Waste
Typical wastes generated during the onshore fabrication phase will include paint tins, solvent tins,
grit from sandbag, cardboard, wood and packaging materials, scrap metal and sewage. These wastes
will be recycle, where possible and disposed safely. On the other hand, wastes generated during
offshore installation and final leak test (hydrotest and/or gas pressure test) will be segregated in
skips and brought back to shore for appropriate disposal.
4.4 Construction and Installation
The jacket will be fabricated onshore and transported to its final location using a barge. Piles
will be driven into place using impact hammers prior to the installation of the jacket. At the
location of installation, the barge is ballasted at the end and the jacket is pulled forward
using towboats. The jacket will then be slid into the water. To provide buoyancy, the jacket
is fitted with floatation tanks and the valves at the end of the jacket are sealed. The crane
then lifts the jacket at the top and the valves are opened to allow water to enter. Accurate
positioning will be done using Global Positioning System (GPS).
Compression
Tension
11
4.5 Costing
Table 4.1: Costing for new structure
Type Cost per Unit Number of Units Total Cost
Stainless steel (jacket,
bridge, topsides)
$2 778 per tonne 10 800 tonnes $ 30 000 000
Construction Onshore $500 per day per
worker
100 workers, 8 months
(22 working days a
month)
$ 9 000 000
Installation Offshore $3 300 per day per
worker
80 workers, 21 days $ 5 500 000
Transportation (Crane
and Barge)
$ 350 000 per day 21 days $ 7 500 000
Maintenance
(Prevention against
corrosion)
$ 5 000 000
Foundations $ 15 000 000
TOTAL $ 72 000 000

4.6 Summary
This solution, building a new jacket, has its own advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, to reduce the
amount of work being done offshore, the steel jacket will be fabricated onshore and transported to
its final location offshore for installation. Since the jacket will be manufactured onshore, the quality
of construction can be closely monitored to produce a high quality jacket that meets the industry
standards. Another advantage of this solution is that the installation of the jacket does not affect
operations of the existing platform and hence no loss of revenue is expected during the duration of
installation. Although building a new jacket is more costly compared to the other solutions, the
jacket can withstand harsh environmental conditions and thus possess a lower risk of failure
compared to the other solutions. Lastly, since this scheme is a conventional solution, its
performance has been proven to be reliable in many existing platforms. Thus, for the reasons of
safety and reliability, this solution is recommended.

5. Mono column
Another solution considered is a mono-column concept. It consists of a single column attached to
the existing foundations in the NE corner of the Albion Platform. The BCM is placed on top of it and
connected through a bridge of XY m to the existing structure. This solution addresses a problem of
limited space on the existing platform and minimises a need for additional infrastructure. It provides
the benefits of time-efficient construction and low maintenance costs. It is a novel solution because
it has not been implemented before in such context. Therefore, all work is based on research of one-
legged offshore platforms, such as the Southern North Sea L09 Shell platform, and wind turbines
foundation.
12
5.1 Structural Design
Addition of the BCM and the mono-column will provide extra vertical loading of 19.33 MN. This
could be reduced by the buoyance force to 11.33 MN. However, assuming the worst case scenario,
the total increase in vertical loading is transferred directly to the foundations in the NE corner of the
platform. Horizontal props connecting the mono-column to the existing jacket will allow to transfer
the environmental loading directly to the jackets legs and foundations. This is shown in figure 5.1.
At this stage, it was assumed that only the top bracing would be required to ensure that the topside
of the extension is rigid. However, this simplification requires further structural justification, if the
concept is chosen by the client. The values of the environmental loading are: current loading: 0.24
MN, wave loading 6.8 MN. These were calculated using linear models. Wind loading was not
calculated at this stage.
Furthermore, to prevent local buckling of the column, internal ring stiffeners would have to be
installed. The size and the spacing between them were not determined at this stage of the
development of the concept.













Figure 5.1: Loading paths.
5.2 Foundations
Using the granular soil assumption, the total capacity of a single pile was calculated. The value was
obtained assuming open-ended piles and using the date provided by the client. This is equal to 94
MN. It results in the factor of safety of 3.84 (without the BCM extension). The additional force of the
environmental loading was assumed to be negligible because it is distributed equally between 10
piles (transferred through 2 legs). Since the soil considered is a dense sand, the pile efficiency can be
assumed to be equal to 1.
13
The vertical loading, however, was taken into account as the whole load is transferred to a single
pile. It led to a reduction of the factor of safety to 2.15. This is within acceptable limits and,
therefore, reinforcement of the foundations would not be required.
5.3 Considerations
5.3.1 Sustainability
Since the construction and installation times are relatively short, the energy use and CO2
emissions are kept at minimal levels. The environmental impact of the project is much lower
than the general operations of the platform. Extending the life-time of the offshore platform
is a more sustainable solution than building a new one.

5.3.2 Risks and mitigation measures
The installation process is considered of a medium level of difficulty. This is because of the
following risks:
1. Possible collision of the unit with the existing structure
2. Dynamic positioning failure
3. Floating unit collisions with installations
4. Weather window forecasting failures
5. Geotechnical failure of the foundations
6. Risks associated with installing the unit (e.g. underwater welding)
7. Exceedance of the budget
The above risks can be mitigated by:
1. All work to being performed safely
2. Minimising capital costs
3. Minimising complexity of the structure to avoid not needed welding
4. Undertaking the work as quickly as possible in the weather-permitting conditions
(weather monitoring)
5.4 Construction and Installation
The construction of the mono-column is expected to be uncomplicated. It may be manufactured in
Britain and then transported offshore. The following steps outline the construction and installation
process:
1. The mono-column is constructed onshore in Britain possibly Teesside
2. It is transported to the Albion Platform on a barge
3. The mono-column is lifted by an offshore crane
4. It is then placed and attached to a pile in the NE corner of the platform
5. Lateral bars are welded to the top of the jacket
5.5 Costing
The material cost can be obtained by calculating the amount of stainless steel required for
the mono-column to be constructed. This produces a material cost of $4.2534 mln. The cost
of the BCM is unknown. The cost of the equipment hire would consist of hiring an offshore
14
crane and a barge. Assuming the installation time of 10 days, the equipment cost would be
$3.5 mln. The cost of labour offshore was assumed as $3,300 per day whereas onshore was
valued as $500 per day per workers. Assuming 80 working offshore and 100 onshore, the
labour cost would be $8.14 mln. This equates to the total cost of $14.333 mln. The above
information is summarised in table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Summary of the costs for the mono-pile concept
Cost type Units No. of units Cost per unit Total cost
Material Tonnes of steel 1530 $2 780 $4 253 400
Labour (offshore) Worker-days 80 x 10 $3 300 $2 640 000
Labour (onshore) Worker-days 100 x 110 $500 $5 500 000
Barge hire Days hire 10 $150 000 $1 500 000
Crane hire Days hire 10 $200 000 $2 000 000
Total $15 893 400
5.6 Summary
Based on the above assessment, the mono-column concept is a viable and cost-effective
solution. However, in order to assess the full feasibility of the proposal, additional data are
required. Full structural analysis of the mono-column has to be performed in order to
ensure a safe design. Also, the environmental loading calculations have to be performed
using non-linear models. Moreover, the capacity of the piles requires full assessment which
is only possible with the full geological data.
Based on the limited number of case studies, the solution may be characterised as a novel
project in the industry. However, if the analysis is performed thoroughly, the solution can be
regarded as safe and fully feasible.

6. Subsea
6.1 Outline of Scheme
Of the options outlined within this report for adding a Booster Compression Module to the existing
Albion platform, the subsea solution can be considered one of the most innovative solutions. The
technology is relatively new and operators are quickly realising that value it can add to oil and gas
field developments. A number of projects around Norway are going ahead with subsea compression,
although the compression of dry gas without additional processing modules has yet to be installed in
the North Sea.
Subsea compression involves compressing the export gas following separation on the platform such
that it can overcome internal pipe friction and reach the onshore terminal (St Fergus). In this section
of the report, existing subsea projects are considered in addition to an initial feasibility study.
15
6.2 Case Studies
6.2.1 Background
In the Oil & Gas industry, subsea processing has been experimented with since the 1970s but has
grown massively in terms of both interest and investment in recent years. The functional ability of
subsea modules range from simply pumping the extracted petroleum to a nearby platform or vessel
(tiebacks), to full scale processing on the sea floor mitigating the need for an offshore platform at
all.
Early subsea programs suffered from major under-investment in the underlying technology. Since
2000 several operators have recognised the importance of subsea developments as offshore
environments become increasingly challenging. Currently subsea equipment is employed in large
water depths (usually greater than 500m) where the cost of constructing a fixed jacket would be too
large. As with all new technologies, subsea modules are becoming more efficient as time progresses
and the market expands, and will therefore be applicable to shallower depths.
Subsea projects have been considered or delivered all over the world. In particular, Norway has seen
much interest in recent years for projects that maximise the extraction potential for the numerous
oil fields. Analysts predict market growth of subsea facilities to increase from $27bn in 2011 to
$130bn in 2020.
6.2.2 sgard

Figure 6.1: sgard subsea frame with caisson foundations
In 2015 the worlds first subsea gas compression station will be installed in the sgard field offshore
Norway. The project has been engineered to boost gas pressures from the Midgard and Mikkel
satellite reservoirs which will soon drop below that required for the tieback. An additional 280
barrels of oil equivalent are estimated to be recovered over the lifetime of the project whilst
imposing a smaller environmental footprint than constructing a new jacket structure.

Key information:
Operator: Statoil
Type: Wet Gas Compression
Depth: 250m
Modules: Power Supply, Separation,
Compression (x2), Pump, Outlet Cooler
Flow rate: 875,000 Sm3/h
Dimensions: 70m x 55m x 25m
Comes online: Q1 2015

Contracts:
Design & construction of subsea unit -
$340m (Aker Solutions)
Installation - $194m (Technip)

16
6.2.3 Gullfaks
Statoil and Petoro have invested in a subsea wet gas compression solution to increase the recovery
of the Gullfaks South satellite field, which is due to come online in 2015. An estimated 22 million
barrels of oil equivalent of natural gas will be recovered over the lifetime of the subsea unit. The
package operates at a depth of 135m, equivalent to that of the Albion field.
Key information:
Operator: Statoil
Type: Wet Gas Compression
Depth: 135m
Modules: Power Supply, Multiphase
Pump, Control Systems
Flow rate: 6,000 Sm3/h
Dimensions: 34m x 20m x 12m
Comes online: Q4 2015

Contracts:
Design and construction of subsea unit
- $200m (Framo Engineering)
Installation of subsea unit; engineering
and installation of 15km power
umbilical and protective structure -
$70m (Subsea 7)
Necessary topside modifications - $60m
(Apply Srco)


Figure 6.2: Gullfaks subsea compression package designed by Framo Engineering.

6.3 Feasibility
In order to consider the feasibility of a subsea compression module, consideration was given to a
number of different structural forms for the housing structure in addition to a number of
compressor solutions and installation methods. A qualitative assessment of each subsea solution has
been carried out and a more detailed analysis of the chosen solution is presented herein.

6.3.1 Structural Forms
Table 6.1 contains rough sketches of some of the designs considered with initial observations.






17
Table 6.1: Initial subsea design ideas with concluding remarks.
Structural Support System Notes

Side elevation of a structural option
involving the connection of a BCM
support frame to the existing pile top.
High risk option given the unknown
response of the pile foundation to the
dynamic loads from the BCM in
addition to the fact this solution is
completely novel.

Three dimensional view of another
subsea support frame. This design is
similar in form to those adopted on
the Asgard and Gullfaks projects
outlined in section Y. Due to this, it is
considered the lower risk solution of
the subsea options.

Side elevation of the BCM supported
just above the sea bed on a relatively
short, single steel caisson foundation.
The BCM itself is housed in a structural
frame. A relatively simple solution,
however, considering the required
resistance against overturning in
severe sea states, this solution is
considered unsuitable.

Three dimensional view of a four
legged solution. The BCM is contained
in a frame housing which is supported
by four legs. Similar solutions to this
have been adopted for smaller subsea
installations.

18
6.3.2 Subsea Structure Properties-Chosen Solution
StructuralConsiderations
Of the considered subsea solutions (see figure X), the chosen solution is shown in figure X.a, b and c.
From initial sizing calculations (considering hoop buckling, global buckling and yielding under fluid
and static loading), the primary tubular members have dimensions of the order = 1.2 and =
0.030 where and represent the tube diameter and wall thickness respectively.

Figure 6.5: Modular construction proposed for the Gullfaks South subsea compression project.


Figure 6.3b: Three dimensional view showing the general arrangement of members in addition to
the caisson supports
19

Figure 6.3c: General load paths for the subsea frame under static loading and with a uni-
directional current.


The static loads were calculated considering an approximate weight of the BCM in addition to the
flooded weight of the assumed steel members. The applicability of the assumed member dimensions
was checked through considering hoop buckling (brazier buckling), global buckling, bending under
fluid loading and material yielding. Given the size of the members relative to the joints, initial
calculations ignored moment transfer between the members i.e. all joints were assumed to be
pinned.
Fluid loading was calculated considering linear wave theory and Morisons Equation.
GeotechnicalConsiderations
The sea floor conditions comprise fine, silty sands exhibiting drained behaviour. The initial analysis
assumes the soil to be homogenous, isotropic and composing a semi-infinite half space. The Prandtl
solution to the bearing capacity problem is also assumed with the Skempton bearing capacity
coefficients.
From the bearing capacity equations, the steel suction caisson foundations (figure X) require the
dimensions

= 7.5 and

= 0.100 for a factor of safety against bearing capacity failure of

,1
= 2.0. Other foundation types to be considered in more detailed analyses include shallow pad
foundations and piled foundations. However, suction caissons provide rapid installation while
providing significant uplift resistance (unlike pad foundations). Furthermore, the embedded caissons
provide greater sliding resistance. Thus it is reasonable to assume from a qualitative point of view
that the suction caissons provide a more efficient solution and a suitable solution for this initial
analysis.
The lateral truss extensions are supported using steel mud-mats which were analysed using the
bearing capacity relations.
20

Figure 6.4: Jacket structure with suction caisson foundations
MethodandScopeofCalculation
Initial calculations are based upon the ISO standard 19902:2007+A1:2013, Petroleum and Natural
Gas Industries-Fixed Steel Offshore Structures. Further development of the final design solution will
include more detailed analyses. For instance, a structural finite element model will be presented
along with a dynamic response analysis. More detailed geotechnical analyses will consider seismic
effects; sediment scour; long term settlements etc.
Further to this, fluid loads will be calculated using higher order, directional non-linear wave models
with a revised current distribution model. Effects of diffraction and scattering around the existing
jacket and the subsea structure will also be considered.
6.4 Construction
Subsea processing units are well suited to prefabrication onshore. This significantly reduces the
amount of time spent on-site where the costs per day are much greater. Furthermore, a modular
design can be adopted to reduce the necessary lifting capacity of contracted crane vessels (see
figure 6.5), thereby reducing the installation cost further (which is included in table 6.2).
Following onshore construction, two main installation methods were identified. These are presented
in figures 6.6 and 6.7 respectively.

Figure 6.5: Modular construction proposed for the Gullfaks South subsea compression project.

21

Figure 6.6: Construction sequence one for the subsea solution.

Figure 6.7: Construction sequence two for the subsea solution.

6.5 Costs
As with the other proposals, the cost of the compression module and associated power and control
systems have not been included. These costs will be slightly high for subsea-grade equipment
however the power and control modules will hopefully be situated on the platform topside. As for
the subsea compression modules, manufacturers claim that costs are only marginally higher than
their topside counterparts. We are in contact with several companies than supply this equipment in
order to receive and accurate quote. Additional costs for the frame include those for corrosion
protection (epoxy resin coating and cathodic protection).
Table 6.2: Summary of cost for the subsea concept
Cost type Units No. of units Cost per unit Total cost
Material Tonnes of steel 2170 $2 780/tonne $6 020 000
Labour (offshore) Worker-days 25 x 6 $3 300/worker/day $495 000
Barge hire Days hire 6 $150 000/day $900 000
Crane hire Days hire 6 $200 000/day $1 200 000
ROV equipment hire Vehicle-days 3 x 5 $5 000/day $75 000
ROV pilot + supervisor Worker-days 5 $1 000/day $50 000
Total $8 740 000

Prefabrication of
subsea unit
Unit loaded onto
barge or combined
transport and lifting
vessel
Structural frame
lifted and lowered
into place on the sea
bed
Modules lifted into
the frame one-by-one
and secured by ROV
Topside power and
control modules
installed
Power umbilical
connected via. ROV
Subsea unit
connected to gas
export pipeline via.
ROV
Prefabrication of
subsea unit
Unit fitted out with
buoyancy tanks
Structural frame
floated out and towed
to installation location
Frame positioned
over required location
using 4 tugs
Buoyancy tanks filled
to sink frame
Final position
controlled using
ROVs
Subsea unit
connected to gas
export pipeline via.
ROV
22


6.7 Risk Assessment
Table 6.3: Risk Assessment
Hazard Risk Consequence Mitigation
Malfunction of
subsea processing
modules
Unlikely Disruption to gas export.
Emergency repairs
required.
Source reliable components
with extensive subsea testing.
Underwater geo-
hazard
Dependent
upon
submarine
topography
and seismic
conditions
Destruction of subsea
production facilities and
pipeline.
Carry out geo-hazard analysis
and locate module such that
the risk from submarine
landslides is minimized. Design
the frame against earthquake
loading.
Overturning during
extreme wave
conditions
Unlikely Disruption to gas export.
Emergency repairs
required.
Design supports/foundations
against large combined wave
and current induced fluid
velocities.
Burying Unlikely Burying of module
components under
sediment increasing
required maintenance
time.
Calculate sediment deposition
rates around the structure and
raise module form the bed if
necessary.
Accidents and Injury Unlikely Personal injury, delays to
project timeline
Well trained personnel and
adequate HSE briefing
Damage to module
during installation
Moderately
likely
Large accelerations of the
module during installation
could damage internal
components.
Set out a complete lifting plan
and conduct installation during
calm weather.
Sustainability
Subsea projects have relatively little environmental impact compared to traditional topside
solutions. This is partly due to processing modules (e.g. the subsea gas compressor) being
hermetically sealed and thus releasing zero emissions into the local environment. Additionally the
structure has a small physical footprint compared with the construction of a new jacket and is
hidden from sight below the water surface.
Moreover, it should be noted that the subsea compression module itself can be transported and
reused on other gas fields once the field in question has come to the end of its life. This makes this
solution more sustainable compared to a new jacket structure or other solutions requiring specific
modifications to the existing jacket and topside.
The modular nature of the subsea unit also allows for old equipment to be swapped out for newer
modules, increasing the productivity of the field and allowing reuse of the subsea frame.
23



6.8 Advantages and Issues
Table 6.4: Advantages
Advantage Notes
Does not require large
supporting structure to sea-
level
Extreme wave loadings not so important in determining the
properties of the structure.
Does not impart significant
loads on the existing jacket
No major jacket modifications required
Minimal influence on flow
around the existing platform
The fluid loading calculations for the existing platform are
still valid
Constructed mostly onshore Minimal construction time on site
But probably needs to be connected to new or existing
foundations
Re-usable Subsea gas compression module can be transported to
other gas fields upon exhaustion of the current field.
Safety Installing a subsea compression station instead of a
platform eliminates the need for offshore manning,
helicopter transport, and offshore supply, and increases
safety. Offshore operation is required only during
installation or retrieval and replacement of subsea modules
for maintenance and repair.
Lower embodied energy Smaller amount of steel / materials required for
construction leading to a lower production CO2 impact
Not susceptible to ship
impacts
Structural protection required for anchor impact for
instance.

Table 6.5: Issues and potential solutions
Issue Possible Solutions
Maintenance access to the
BCM
BCM contained within a larger housing
Divers perform maintenance
Remote operated vehicles
Corrosion of the outer casing Stainless steel
Epoxy resin coating
Thermoplastic coating
Sacrificial steel (additional thickness)
Catholic protection
Corrosion monitoring
Functional compressor
underwater
Develop new compression module
Licence an existing subsea BCM
Modify the given BCM to function in a subsea environment
Scour and erosion Place the subsea module over a coarse, gravel mat
Sliding and overturning Construct new foundations
Attach to existing foundations
24
Underwater geo-hazards Complete a underwater geo-hazards analysis and locate
module accordingly
Burying Determine rate of deposition
Raise module from sea bed via. legs
Pipeline connection Installation of module utilising a bypass valve
Requires power Electrical cables from the topside
Tidal power generation
Cold temperatures Antifreeze solution to prevent formation of hydrates
Insulated housing to keep the equipment at operating
temperature

7. Conclusions and Recommendations
The preliminary studies rapidly led to a choice between a cantilever, mono-column and subsea
concepts. Two key drivers were identified for the selection of the platform to pursue to a
recommendation.

7.1 Driver 1: Construction, Installation and Safety
Constructability and safety in the construction sequence have been identified as key issues for
the process and are a major factor in the decision made between the options. All three options
are very attractive as significant amount of work may be conducted onshore. This allows a
higher standard of work in safer conditions. Moreover, the subsea options seems to be the safest
in terms of maintenance as this would be performed by ROVs. However, it is predicted that the
cantilever option would be the least difficult to construct and install.

7.2 Driver 2: Cost
From preliminary studies and data provided by AMEC estimates of the costs were calculated.
For each of the concepts it was assumed that the cost of labour and equipment hire are the
same. This led to a conclusion that the cantilever option is the least expensive, followed by the
mono-column and subsea concepts.

7.3 Conclusion
The cantilever option is highly recommend since it meets clients main requirements, assuming that
it is possible to attach an additional module to the existing structure. If not, the mono-column
solution is recommended as it is second least expensive option and it is relatively easy to construct
and install.