PETROLEUM ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION

“ALL ABOUT OFFSHORE”

 OFFSHORE EXPLORATION
Scope and Structure of the Document

The main stages and activities associated with the exploration, development and production of offshore oil and gas
resources are summarised in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Stages and Activities

The document is structured so that each major stage is summarised in a separate section along with its associated activities
and potential sources of environmental effects. In common with other specialist areas, there are a number of terms and
acronyms peculiar to the oil and gas industry – to aid understanding a combined glossary and abbreviations list is provided
at the end of the document. While the summary is a stand alone document, for the curious, some suggestions for further
reading are included.

AN OVERVIEW OF OFFSHORE LICENSING

Exploration and production in the oil and gas industry is regulated primarily through a licensing system managed by the
DTI Oil and Gas Directorate's Exploration and Licensing Branch. A brief overview of the offshore or “Seaward” licensing
process is given below, more detail can be found on the DTI’s website at www.og.dti.gov.uk/upstream/licensing.

The first offshore licensing round took place in 1964 and the first significant discovery of gas was made in the southern
North Sea in 1965 and oil was discovered four years later in the central North Sea. Seaward licensing rounds have been
held roughly every two years since 1964 with the last, the nineteenth being held in 2000/2001. In January 2000, there were
109 oil fields, 87 gas fields and 16 condensate fields in production offshore.

The Petroleum Act 1998, entered into force in 1999 and consolidated a number of provisions previously contained in five
earlier pieces of primary legislation. The Act vests ownership of oil and gas within Great Britain and its territorial sea in
the Crown, and gives Government rights to grant licences to explore for and exploit these resources and those on the UK
Continental Shelf (UKCS). Regulations set out how applications for licences may be made, and specify the Model Clauses
to be incorporated into the licences.

There are two types of Seaward Licences:

• Exploration Licences which are non-exclusive, permit the holder to conduct nonintrusive surveys, such as seismic or
gravity and magnetic data acquisition, over any part of the UKCS that is not held under a Production Licence. Wells
may be drilled under these licences, but must not exceed 350 metres in depth without the approval of the Secretary of
State. These licences may be applied for at any time and are granted to applicants who have the technical and financial
resources to undertake such work. Each licence is valid for three years, renewable at the Secretary of State’s discretion
 for one further term of three years. Exploration licence holders may be commercial geophysical survey contractors or
licence Operators. A commercial contractor acquiring data over unlicensed acreage may market such data.

• Production Licences grant exclusive rights to holders “to search and bore for, and get, petroleum”, in the area of the
licence covering a specified block or blocks. For licensing purposes the UKCS is divided into quadrants of 1° of latitude
by 1° of longitude (except where the coastline, “bay closing line” or a boundary line intervenes). Each quadrant is further
partitioned into 30 blocks each of 10 x 12 minutes. The average block size is about 250 square km (roughly 100 square
miles). Relinquishment requirements on successive licences have created blocks subdivided into as many as six part
blocks in some mature areas. Production Licences are usually issued in periodic “Licensing Rounds”, when the Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry invites applications in respect of a number of specified blocks or other areas.

Most activities carried out under a Exploration or Production Licence require the consent of the Secretary of State and may
require compliance with other legislative provisions and specific conditions attached to the consent.

EXPLORATION AND APPRAISAL

The purpose of exploration activity is to identify commercially viable reserves of oil and gas. The conditions necessary for
such reserves to have accumulated are complex and largely dependent on past geological history and present geological
formations and structures. For the deposits to occur, particular combinations of potential source and reservoir rocks together
with migration pathways and trap structures are needed. Finding such reservoirs and estimating the likelihood of them
containing oil and gas is a technically complex process requiring the use of a range of techniques. Such techniques include
deep and shallow geophysical (seismic) surveys, shallow drilling and coring, aero-magnetic/gravity surveys and
exploration and appraisal drilling.

Based on a general geological understanding, broad areas of the earth have been identified as prospective, with the potential
to contain reserves of oil and gas. Prospective areas are further defined using surface/shallow mapping techniques and
geophysical (seismic) surveys to aid understanding of deeper, subsurface geology. Aero-magnetic and gravity surveys are
useful in defining general structure such as sedimentary basins but not for pinpointing areas with potential oil and gas.
Areas of potential interest are subjected to further geophysical study, which may involve reinterpreting existing seismic
data or conducting new surveys. The only reliable way to determine whether the identified formations contain hydrocarbons
is to drill into them. However, the decision to drill is not taken solely on geological grounds. Government requirements,
economic factors (drilling costs, transport costs, market opportunities, relative merit/financial risk) and technical feasibility
(including safety and environmental considerations) are all factored into the decision.

Geophysical surveys
Surface techniques do not allow reliable extrapolation as to the subsurface geology. Although other methods may be used
for reconnaissance, seismic survey techniques remain the most effective method of developing an understanding of the
deep geology of an area. Seismic surveys are based on the same principles used to record data on subsurface geology during
earthquakes but utilise a much smaller man-made energy source to generate energy waves which are directed into the
earth’s crust. Some of these energy waves are reflected or refracted back from geological structures deep beneath the
surface and pickedup by sensitive detectors (geo- or hydrophones). Geophones are deployed at the ground or sediment
surface and detect surface particle velocity whilst hydrophones are used principally in marine seismic and detect pressure
(sound) waves in water. The strength and speed with which the waves return is affected by the nature of the formations and
other media through which they have travelled. The data are recorded and interpreted using a combination of computer
software and experienced judgment to produce geological maps.

Marine seismic surveys are conducted from survey vessels which deploy a seismic source, normally an array of air guns,
beneath the sea surface to generate pressure (sound) waves which transmit through the sea, sediment and the subsurface
geological structures. Pressure waves reflected from subsurface structures are recorded by a series of hydrophones, typically
arranged at intervals along buoyant streamers towed just beneath the sea surface behind the vessel (Figure 2). Where
floating streamers are used, corrections have to be calculated to compensate for the drift induced by currents (feathering
effect).
One or more guard vessels normally accompany marine seismic survey vessels, to liase with fishermen and other small
vessels and prevent collisions with the streamers etc.

On occasion, a multi-component system involving a combination of geophones and hydrophones may be deployed on the
surface of the seabed. These are arranged along cables which may be towed along behind the vessel (dragged array) or
lifted and replaced in a new location as the survey progresses. Such surveys normally involve two vessels, one attached to
and processing the data from the sensors and one from which the source is deployed. Multi component systems are
considered to be better at penetrating through some structures which are opaque to traditional towed seismic survey
techniques. This method of hydrophone deployment is not usually used in initial seismic survey. There are two types, a
dragged array involving up to 750m of cable which can be used down to water depths of 2000m, or a dual sensor ocean
bottom cable where up to 72km of cable is laid on the seabed but only in waters of less than 200m. The deployment and
retrieval of the cables is intended to be along straight lines, and without lateral dragging although tidal and other currents
can cause this to occur.

Seismic surveys mainly use 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional methodologies:

• 2-D seismic utilises a single hydrophone streamer towed behind the survey vessel together with a single source. The
reflected pressure waves are assumed to lie directly beneath the streamer and hence the nomenclature of 2-D. Repeated
parallel lines are typically run at intervals of several kilometres (minimum ca. 0.5km) and a second set of lines at right
angles to the first to form a grid pattern. 2-D seismic provides a broad understanding of the geology of the area, however,
its weakness lies in the interpretation of what is between the grid lines.
• 3-D seismic utilises one or more hydrophone streamers towed behind a vessel. A series of closely spaced (some 25 or
30 metres apart) parallel lines are run in a “race track” pattern to allow adjacent lines to be run in the same direction.
Unlike 2-D no cross over lines are run. In simple terms, 3-D seismic collects a series of 2-D slices at very close intervals
which can be interpreted to produce a 3-D understanding of the geology of the surveyed area.
2-D seismic surveys can be conducted relatively quickly and inexpensively but the data produced, though valuable, does
not give as accurate an understanding as 3-D surveys. As a result, the majority of marine seismic surveys now conducted
to identify oil and gas reserves are 3-D.

Data from seismic surveys may be reinterpreted as the result of information from other sources including exploration
drilling. Seismic survey should not be viewed only as an exploration tool. Surveys are periodically conducted in areas with
developed fields to provide new information on the reservoir(s) and input to decisions on development drilling and reservoir
management programmes.

In some developed areas, fixed arrays of seismic receivers (multi-component system) have been deployed on the seabed
connected by a series of parallel cables to allow repeated surveys to be conducted over precisely the same area. This method
provides as detailed data as 3-D seismic but in addition, shows the temporal changes as oil is produced. Such surveys are
therefore referred to as 4-D seismic.

On occasion, vertical seismic profiles (VSP) may be generated through the deployment into a well of a number of
geophones spaced on a cable. The seismic source is deployed in the water column either suspended from the rig or platform
(zero offset VSP) or from a source vessel at some distance from the well (offset VSP). VSP allows data from the
rocks/structures encountered during drilling to be correlated with seismic data. Such surveys are usually of short duration
(1-2 days) and utilise sources with volumes intermediate between those used in typical seismic and rig site surveys (see
Section 3.3.1). 3-D VSP may, uncommonly be generated by making multiple passes with the source vessel.
Potential sources of effect

Figure 2 – Sources of potential environmental effects from seismic operations

Exploration and appraisal drilling
Well objectives and planning
As described above, the target structures to be drilled (bottom hole location) are identified principally from the
interpretation of seismic survey information. Specific objectives are defined early in the planning cycle for the well and in
many respects define the nature and cost of the well to be drilled. The simplest objective for a first exploration well in an
area (a “wildcat well”) may be to determine whether the structure identified contains oil and/or gas. The more complex the
objectives, the longer the well may take and the greater the range of tests to be conducted. Objectives will define the
information to be gathered during the drilling including well logs and possible well test, and whether the well would be
plugged and abandoned on completion of the programme or suspended for re-entry at a later date. On occasion, the well
objectives may include provision for a sidetrack to the main well bore in the event that hydrocarbons are encountered. The
majority of hydrocarbon reserves on the UKCS lie between 2000 and 4500m below seabed although there are shallower
and deeper reservoirs.

Surface hole locations (and therefore rig position) are normally chosen to achieve the shortest well consistent with avoiding
surface hazards and sensitivities. Before a well is drilled from a mobile drilling unit, information on the stability of surface
sediments and potential subsurface hazards (e.g. shallow gas formations) must be gathered to ensure that the rig will not
encounter problems when positioning or drilling the surface hole. Rig site surveys utilise a range of techniques, including
2-D seismic survey, although for rig site surveys a much smaller energy source and shorter hydrophone streamer is used.
The survey typically covers a relatively small area of seabed, in the order of 2km or 3km square. The rig site survey vessel
may also be used to gather baseline information on the seabed sediment, fauna and background contamination.

In scheduling a drilling operation the following are taken into account:

• the weather and current conditions
• seasonal environmental conditions and licence conditions
• availability of rigs
• commitments made to government
 • other company internal constraints and objectives
The well design, including the length and diameter of the various hole sections and casings, mud types (see Section 3.3.3)
to be used, and contingencies allowed for, is dependent on the nature of the rock formations to be drilled, the length of the
well and the well objectives. The well design and plan is subject to external review and approval.

Drilling rigs
Exploration wells are almost invariably drilled from mobile drilling rigs. Rigs are basically of three types:
• Jack-up rigs which are based on a buoyant steel hull with 3 or more lattice legs up and down which the hull can be
“jacked”. The rig is towed to location by 2 or more tugs with the legs jacked up so the hull floats. On reaching the
drilling location the rig jacks its hull up the legs until the base of the legs are firmly in contact with the sea floor and its
deck positioned above wave height. The rig's position is maintained by the legs which are in firm contact with the sea
floor. No anchors are deployed, although in areas of strong seabed currents where sediment scour may be expected,
gravel or rock may be dumped around the base of the legs to stabilise the sediments. Jack-up rigs are depth limited and
can only operate in water depths of around 100m or less. These are the rigs which are most often used in the shallower
waters of the southern North Sea.

Semi-submersible rigs which float at all times on pontoons are the most likely rig type to be used in the deeper waters
of the North Sea. The rig is towed to location by two or more tugs. The pontoons contain ballast tanks, and the height
of the deck above the sea surface can be altered by pumping ballast (sea) water in or out of the pontoons. During drilling
operations, the deck is lowered but still kept above wave height. Rigs used in deep water, harsh environments maintain
position over the drilling location either by anchors (and where fitted, with rig thruster assistance as necessary) or by
dynamic positioning using a series of computer controller thrusters. Rig anchoring typically involves the deployment
by anchor handler vessel, of eight or more 12 tonne high efficiency seabed penetrating anchors. The anchors are attached
to the rig by cable and near the anchor by chain, of which a proportion (a minimum of 100m) lies on the seabed (the
catenary contact). Hauling in of the cables by the rig “sets” the anchors in the seabed after which minor adjustments to
 the rig position can be made by hauling or paying out cable. The precise arrangement of anchors around a rig is defined
by a mooring analysis which takes account of factors including water depth, tidal and other currents, winds and seabed
features. The relationship between water depth and lateral extent of the anchor pattern is not linear and typical radius of
an anchor patterns for a semi-submersible drilling rig operating in a water depth of 100m is 1300 - 1400m. Anchors are
retrieved by anchor handler vessels by means of pennant wires which slide down the cable towards the anchor allowing
a more or less vertical retrieval, facilitating anchor breakout from the seabed.

• Drill-ships are based on a conventional ship’s hull adapted with a moon pool to allow the deployment of the drill though
the hull. They typically have their own motive power and are not dependent on tugs, maintaining position with DP
and/or anchors. Drill-ships can operate in deep water and are the platform from which the academic Ocean Drilling
Programme is conducted. However because of the hull shape, they are more affected by wind and wave movement than
semi-submersible rigs, and as a consequence would be more likely to suffer from weather down time.

Exploration rigs are self-contained with their own power generation, utilities and accommodation facilities. Supplies are
brought to the rig and wastes returned to shore by supply boat. Crew are transferred on and off the rig by helicopter. For
safety reasons, a stand by vessel is deployed in the field for the duration of the drilling programme. A drilling derrick above
the drill floor bears the weight of the drillstring, which is a series of 9m long sections of hollow drill pipe, screwed together
and to the bottom of which the drill bit is attached. Additional sections of drill pipe are added to the drill string as the well
is drilled deeper. The lower part of the drill string, adjacent to the drill bit, is comprised of a series of heavy drill collars to
give added weight to the drill bit. The drill bit is rotated either by rotating the whole drill string by means of a rotary table
on the drill floor/topdrive system or by a downhole turbine powered by the flow of mud pumped down the hollow drill
pipe.

Drilling operations
Once the rig is fixed in position, the well is commenced. A wide conductor (typically 30” or 36”) is installed (spudded)
into the surface of the seabed either by piling or using a water jet. The well is drilled in a series of steps with the hole sizes
and casing getting progressively smaller. The upper section(s) of oil and gas wells is normally drilled “open” without a
riser so that displaced sediments and rock are discharged directly around the wellbore. The uppermost section of the well
is sometimes made by water jetting rather than drilling, and can result in a plume of sediment in the water column. The
methods used and the depths to which a surface hole is drilled are dependant on several factors, particularly well design
and intended function and the nature of surface sediment/rock types. Side scan sonar and ROV inspection around
exploration wells indicate that surface hole cuttings form a low mound with a radius of 5 to 10m around the wellhead.

A blow out preventer (BOP), comprising a series of hydraulic rams which can close off the well in an emergency, is installed
at the seabed. A riser (pipe) is deployed from the rig and connected via the wellhead so that drill mud and cuttings from
lower hole sections can be returned to the rig for separation and treatment. The riser is fitted with devices to maintain it
under tension whilst compensating for heave.

Drilling muds are a combination of a weighting agent and other materials suspended in a fluid (the base fluid). The choice
of mud weight (specific gravity) and base fluid type (water, synthetic "oil" or low-toxicity oil) is dependent on the nature
of the formations to be drilled. The weighting agent most commonly used is the dense mineral barites (barium sulphate).
However in certain circumstances, including where local environmental sensitivities require this (e.g. where scallop beds
are present), alternatives such as calcium carbonate may be used. The function of the mud is to provide:
• a circulation to remove cuttings from the hole
• to cool the drill bit
• and to provide a hydrostatic head to maintain well control by exerting a greater pressure than that present in the well

Other chemicals are included in the mud formulation to aid its performance. Muds may be premixed onshore and
transported in the mud tanks of the rig, or via supply vessel, or alternatively they can be made on the rig.

The contaminant composition of drilling wastes has changed significantly over the last few decades, in response to technical
and regulatory developments. Previous widespread and substantial discharges of oil-based muds, and later synthetic oil
muds, have been superseded by alternative disposal methods (either containment and onshore treatment, or reinjection) or
by water-based muds. The major environmental effects of development of the North Sea in the 1980s and early to mid
1990s, i.e. the formation of cuttings piles beneath platforms and zones of benthic effects surrounding the platforms, are
therefore unlikely to be repeated in future UKCS developments.

Base fluids are chosen on the basis of the formations to be drilled since certain rock types, such as shales, absorb water and
expand, thereby potentially causing the drill pipe to stick and disrupting the drilling operation. If formations such as these
are expected, then a nonwater based fluid, either a synthetic or low-toxicity oil, may need to be used in those sections of
the well.

Muds and cuttings are returned via the riser to the rig for treatment. Firstly cuttings and muds are separated on shale shakers
(vibrating screens) and the mud returned to the mud tanks for re-use. Cuttings from the shale shakers are normally either
discharged, when drilled with water based muds or in the case of synthetic or low toxicity oil based muds, contained for
shipment to shore for further treatment and disposal. The opportunity to reinject cuttings is not normally available for
exploration and appraisal wells. The cuttings are monitored for evidence of hydrocarbons by the mudlogger.

Cementing
As each section of the well is drilled, the drill string is removed from the well and steel casing lowered into the well and
cemented into place to prevent the well from caving in. A measured amount of quick drying cement slurry is pumped into
the casing and a plug inserted above it. The cement is forced down to the bottom of the casing and then up the annulus (i.e.
the space between the outside of the casing and the wall of the well) by pumping mud on top of the cementing plug.
Pumping ceases once some cement is observed returning with the mud returns indicating that all the mud in the annulus
has been replaced with cement. Drilling activity is suspended, until the cement has set, the actual time being dependent on
the cement additives used.
Logging and coring
Dependent on the original objectives, readings and sampling may be conducted in the lower sections of the well, particularly
in potential reservoir rocks. Cores are taken by replacing the drillbit with a core barrel which can cut rock cores several
metres long. Other measurements, including porosity/permeability, electrical resistivity and formation density may be made
using electronic/radiographic instruments lowered into the uncased, lower sections of the well using a wireline unit
(wireline logging). If hydrocarbons are found, then a downhole tester is lowered into the well by wireline. This instrument
measures fluid pressures and takes samples of the fluids.

Well testing
Where significant hydrocarbons are encountered, the well may be tested by installing a section of production liner in the
lower hole and flowing the well to the surface for a short period to measure pressures and flow rates and take samples of
well fluids (well test or drill stem test). Prior to a well test, the well is cleaned up using a combination of high-density brines
and clean-up chemicals to remove all traces of mud and cuttings debris from the bore. The brines are circulated to the rig
via the riser and may be contained for reuse/disposal or discharged overboard. The liner is then perforated in the reservoir
section allowing reservoir fluids to flow into the liner bore and up to the rig. A gravel pack may be installed to prevent
production of unconsolidated sand from the reservoir with the fluids. The well fluids are processed on the rig, through a
surge tank and a test separator, to provide information on the relative proportions of gas, oil and water. The hydrocarbons
produced during a well test are either burned in a high efficiency burner or in the case of oil produced during extended well
tests, contained typically in a specialist storage vessel for transport to shore for treatment.

Well suspension and abandonment

Following completion of the drilling programme the well is either abandoned or suspended. When being abandoned, the
well is plugged with cement and the casing cut below the surface of the seabed, (using a circular metal cutting tool attached
to the bottom of the drill string, or explosive charges). Suspending a well allows re-entry and involves plugging it with
cement and capping the top hole casing. Following suspension or abandonment, a video debris survey is conducted using
a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and any dropped objects recovered.

Abnormal operations
On occasion a mechanical failure of the tools down the hole may occur, for example a fracture of the drill pipe. A range of
“fishing” techniques and tools may be used to recover the equipment to the surface so that drilling can recommence. Should
this be unsuccessful then the well may be plugged with cement and a (mechanical) sidetrack well drilled from just above
the plug and down to the target location.

The drill pipe may become stuck in some formations. The first approach is to attempt to carefully jolt the pipe free. If this
approach fails then a small amount (a "pill") of synthetic or oil base fluid may be used to help free the pipe, with the fluid
recovered for disposal when circulated to the rig.

Whilst drilling through porous formations, the drill mud may be lost into the pore spaces in the rock resulting in a dramatic
reduction in the amount of mud returned to the rig. Mud returns are constantly monitored to aid early identification of such
lost circulation. Lost circulation is remedied by loading the mud with various materials to plug the porous rock e.g. cellulose
strips, ground walnut shells.

In the event that gas, oil or water pressures exceed the hydrostatic head and invade the well (known as “a kick”) the back
pressure is detected on the rig. Normally, the mud weight is increased through the addition of weighting material to the
point where downhole pressures are balanced and contained. In extreme circumstances the blow-out preventer (a series of
hydraulic rams which can close off the well) is operated.
Appraisal wells
If a hydrocarbon bearing reservoir is discovered during exploration drilling, one or more appraisal wells may be drilled.
Appraisal wells are used to delineate the physical dimensions of the field and calculate its development potential. Such
information is important in determining:
• whether it would be economically viable to develop the field
• likely hydrocarbon production rates
• appropriate process and export facilities

Most appraisal wells would normally include extensive logging and involve a well test. Because of the cost, as few appraisal
wells as possible would be drilled, the actual number being dependent on the particular circumstances of the field. Some
appraisal wells are drilled as future potential production wells and suspended following completion for future reentry.
Potential sources of effect

Figure 3 – Sources of potential environmental effect from semi-submersible drilling operations

FIELD DEVELOPMENT
A number of factors including field economics, availability of export routes,
technical feasibility and environmental sensitivities are brought to bear on the
decisions as to whether, when and how to develop a field for production. The
development of a field is a staged process (see Figure 4 below) with a great deal
of activity taking place prior to the commencement of construction work offshore.
Environmental Impact Assessment is an integral part of the selection of options,
design, planning and execution processes.

Figure 4 – Offshore Design and Development Process

The summary description below focuses on the nature of the key potential field
activities:
• Drilling of development wells
• Construction and installation of production and export facilities
• Commissioning of the systems

Development drilling
The objective of a development drilling programme is to access as efficiently as
possible the recoverable reserves from the field. The number of wells and
locations from which they are drilled are dependent on the size and nature of the
reservoir. Development wells are often drilled over a period of time and both the
temporal and areal spacing of the wells dependent on the reservoir properties and
field economics. The function of the wells that may be drilled during the life of a
field would fall into the three broad categories:

• Production wells
• Injection wells (water or gas)
• Disposal wells ( cuttings, produced water or gas) although it is

sometimes possible to convert wells from one function to another.

In terms of operations and activities, development drilling is similar to exploration

and appraisal drilling. The surface locations of development wells are normally
centred at the main production facility and directional drilling techniques are used
to access the different parts of the reservoir. The drill string incorporates
assemblies to weight and deflect the drill bit to the desired angle from vertical.
Electronic/radiographic instruments are incorporated in the string to relay to the
surface information on location and angle of deviation of the drill bit and porosity
and density of the formations. Because the frictional coefficient increases with
the angle of deviation, turbo drills or jet bit drills are used rather than rotary drills.
Particularly where shales may be expected, the rheological properties of an oil
based or similar mud may be required to prevent stuck pipe in these sections of
the well. The reservoir section of the well may be drilled more or less horizontal.
In such cases one or more horizontal sidetracks may be drilled from the same well
to maximise access to the reservoir.

Where it is not technically feasible to drill to the target location from the main
facility then development wells may be drilled at one or more satellite locations.
However, to minimise footprint and maximise use of infrastructure deviated
drilling techniques are also used.

To reduce delay between the installation of the main facility and commencement
of production, some development wells may be predrilled from a mobile rig and
temporarily suspended. Where a number of wells are to be drilled from the same
surface location a steel template may be deployed on the seabed rather than a
series of individual guide bases. Templates are normally fixed on the seabed with
two or more piles and also provide for accurate subsequent positioning of the
jacket relative to the template. Cuttings reinjection facilities are often not
available at this stage and cuttings contaminated with synthetic or low-toxicity
oil based muds are contained and would be shipped to shore for treatment.
Subsequent development wells at the main facility are either drilled from a drill
rig permanently installed on the facility or from a mobile drilling rig adjacent to
a floating installation or cantilevered over a fixed platform. The conductors for
wells drilled from a fixed platform extend from the seabed through slots on the
facility with the wellhead and blow out preventer located on deck. With floating
facilities, the wellheads and blow out preventers are on the seabed and connected
to the installation by flexible risers (see Figure 5). Following completion of a
production well, a valve assembly (Christmas tree) is installed on the wellhead,
and production tubing installed in the well. The well is cleaned up using a
combination of heavy brines and clean-up chemicals which are either discharged
or contained and shipped to shore for reuse/disposal dependent on type. Once all
debris and mud has been cleaned from the well, well fluids will be flowed for a
short period. Where clean-up operations are being conducted on the platform, the
well fluids will normally be processed. Satellite wells may be cleaned-up via a
mobile rig and in these cases, the well fluids may be disposed of via a high
efficiency burner. Subsea wellheads are typically fitted with various trawl
protection structures to avoid snagging. Past development drilling using oil based
muds has resulted in significant accumulations of contaminated cuttings under
some platforms in the central and northern North Sea. Since only cuttings from
the surface hole and sections drilled with water based muds would be discharged,
significant accumulations of contaminated cuttings would not be expected from
future development drilling in the North Sea.

Construction and installation

Possible types of production facility
A range of different structures have been used to support offshore oil and gas
production on the UKCS including fixed, floating and subsea facilities, see Figure
5.

Fixed
Fixed steel jackets are normally 4 or 6 leg structures, constructed of a welded steel
tubular framework. The jackets are normally towed out to the development
location and manipulated into position by a heavy lift barge. Piles are driven into
the seabed at each leg to fix the jacket into place and the topsides lifted into place
by in one or more lifts. Fixed steel jackets are deployed in water depths of up to
450m. In some instances, to achieve separation of accommodation and
hydrocarbon processing, 2 or more platforms may be installed in proximity and
bridge linked.
Concrete gravity base platforms are constructed out of concrete reinforced with
steel and have been used in locations where the seabed is too hard to permit piling.
The platform is supported on concrete legs, at the base of which are ballast and
storage tanks. Having been towed out to the development location, the ballast
tanks are flooded and the structure settled on the seabed. Concrete structures have
been used in water depths of up to 350m.

Floating
Tension Leg Platforms (TLP) are floating structures, ballasted and anchored by
tensioned steel tendons to templates piled to the seabed. TLPs are relatively stable
and can operate in a wide depth range (up to ca. 2,100m).

Floating Production Systems (FPS) and Floating Production, Storage and

Offloading Systems (FPSO) are facilities based either on ships’ hulls or semi-
submersibles. They are ballasted and anchored to the seabed, can accommodate
vertical movement and operate in a wide depth range. Wells are normally fitted
with subsea completions and produced to the facility via flexible risers with built
in compensation for vertical movement.

Both types of structures can operate in relatively deep water and are normally
towed out to the development location with the topsides facilities already pre-
commissioned onshore.

Subsea
Smaller fields or parts of the reservoir, which cannot be successfully accessed by
directional drilling from the main facility location, are developed using a
combination of subsea completions, manifolds and pipelines tying the
development back to a surface facility for fluids processing and export (host
facility). Umbilicals with multiple cores are used to inject chemicals at the
wellhead/manifold as necessary (e.g. to prevent the formation of hydrates or
protect the pipeline from corrosion) and to support electric and hydraulic control
of the wellhead and/or manifold valves from the main facility.
It is not possible to be definitive as to which structures would be used for future
developments in the North Sea, although it is likely that they would be based on a
combination of floating and subsea structures and perhaps fixed platforms in the
event of a very large discovery. A number of issues affect the selection of production
facility including expected field life, reservoir fluid type and flow rates and location.

Offshore installations are self contained units with all the facilities needed to support
the main processes and export including:
• power generation
• pressure relief
• water treatment
• utilities
• drains
• helideck
• cranes
• crew accommodation

Drilling facilities may or may not be permanently installed depending on the type of
development. Structures are fitted with corrosion protection in the form of sacrificial
anodes and/or impressed current systems.

Export facilities
The majority of oil production from the UKCS is exported to shore by pipeline with
the remainder exported by tanker. Currently gas is only exported by pipeline,
although technologies in development may allow the conversion of gas into liquids
(gas to liquids) and therefore export via tanker or oil pipeline. In fields with no
economically viable export route gas surplus to fuel gas requirements is either
injected into the reservoir for future recovery or other rock formations via disposal
wells. The disposal of surplus gas by routine flaring is unlikely to be approved for
any developments on the UKCS.

There is a well developed export pipeline infrastructure in the North Sea and
production from small new developments can be expected to be exported via existing
facilities. The development of very large new reserves could justify the installation
of new pipelines and terrestrial reception facilities.
Tanker offloading requires both oil storage and offloading facilities. These may be
provided by the main facility as, for example, in the case of FPSOs. Where
insufficient storage is available on the main facility, a separate storage facility may
be permanently anchored in the field. Where the main or storage facility design does
not permit safe approach by tanker then an alternative mooring, for example, a single
point mooring, is located a safe distance (up to several kilometres) away. Oil is
transported by short infield pipeline(s) from the host facility to the storage and/or
offloading units.

Marine oil and gas pipelines are laid either by anchored or dynamically positioned
pipelay barges, where sections of steel pipe are welded together to form the pipeline
as the barge progresses along the pipeline route. Alternatively, a prefabricated
pipeline is laid from a large reel mounted on a dynamically positioned ship, although
this technique has limitations in terms of the size of pipeline that can be
accommodated. Anchored pipelay barges usually have an array of 12 anchors which
are redeployed in sequence during pipelaying. The anchor type is selected according
to sediment and weather/current conditions of the area and are normally either 12
tonne high efficiency seabed penetrating anchors or 20 to 25 tonne stockless general
marine anchors. The anchors are attached to the barge by steel cables (typically
75mm in diameter) of which about a third to a half forms a catenary contact on the
seabed. The anchors are repositioned by anchor handler vessels and dropped in a
corridor between 2 and 3km wide centred on the pipeline. Each anchor is advanced
about 650m which results in a total of 24 anchor drops being made within the pipelay
corridor for each 1300m advanced (24 drops in an area of 2.8km2). Once dropped,
the anchor cable is hauled in from the barge until a good hold is achieved. This
normally drags the anchor along the seabed for between 5m and 50m depending on
anchor type. The barge then uses the anchor spread to pull itself along as pipelaying
progresses and during this process the catenary contact cable is dragged across the
seabed surface, resulting in cable scrape. Mounds of sediment up to 2m high may be
formed in clay and mud seabeds during the pulling against the anchors or when the
anchors are retrieved for redeployment.

The degree and nature of seabed scarring or disturbance during pipelay barge
operations is dependant on a range of factors including:
• Laybarge type
• The anchor type, size and weight
• The nature of the seabed sediments
 • The load placed on the barge and hence the anchors by prevailing weather and
current conditions
• Barge and anchor handler crew skill
Dynamically positioned (DP) vessels normally have no contact with the seabed other
than the pipeline being laid. As a result of continuous thruster use to maintain station,
DP vessels can generate more underwater noise than conventional barges.

Large diameter (greater than 16 inches) pipelines are typically laid directly onto the
surface of the seabed while smaller ones are normally trenched into it to a depth of
about 1m. The pipeline trench is either cut by plough where displaced sediment is
sidecast or made by water jet which disperses the removed sediment more widely as
a plume in the water column. Trenches are either backfilled with sidecast material
or allowed to fill naturally over time with sediments transported by tidal and other
currents. Umbilical cables for the control of subsea facilities are either placed
alongside a buried pipeline in its trench or buried separately, normally using a marine
version of the agricultural mole plough. The trenching is typically undertaken using
equipment deployed from the laybarge or other support vessel.

In recent years, pipeline “bundles”, have been used for some developments. Pipeline
bundles consist of a large diameter carrier pipe which contains a number of pipelines
and often the umbilical. Bundles are normally surface laid. The bundle is
manufactured onshore and towed out to the location in completed sections which are
then filled with sea water (chemically treated to prevent corrosion of the bundle) and
lowered to the sea floor.

Pipelines and subsea structures are fitted with corrosion protection in the form of
sacrificial anodes, normally of aluminium.

Pressure testing (hydrotesting) of pipelines and subsea equipment with seawater is

carried out to detect leaks prior to use. The seawater typically includes a small
quantity of a dye and is normally. The treated seawater is normally discharged. The
pipeline is dewatered/dried prior to use using a quantity of glycol and/or methanol
or by using air drying or vacuum drying techniques.

Potential sources of effect

Potential sources of effect from the construction, installation and pre-commissioning
of export facilities are:
Atmospheric Emissions
• Combustion emissions from vessel power generation

• Fugitive emissions from vessel fuel and chemical storage

Discharges to Sea
• Hydrotest water

• Machinery space and other oily drainage from construction vessels

• Deck drainage and washings from construction vessels
• Sewage and food waste from construction vessels
• Dissolution of corrosion and antifouling protection from construction vessels

Other Interactions
• Physical disturbance to seabed from pipelaying/trenching, rock dumping and
anchoring
• Physical presence of vessels
• Physical presence of pipelines and facilities
• Airborne noise
• Underwater noise
• Light

Wastes to Shore
• Solid and liquid construction and commissioning wastes

Accidents
• Fuel and other oil spills

• Gas releases
• Chemical spills
• Dropped objects
• Collisions
Commissioning

Much of the topsides process and utility equipment may be pre-commissioned

onshore. Once the well(s) are brought on stream, final commissioning will be
completed. As systems are being fully commissioned and fine-tuned, some process
“trips” normally occur, resulting in shut down of part or whole systems and
sometimes necessitating the disposal of gas to flare for a period.

Potential sources of effect

Commissioning of facilities may result in short term changes in performance of the
process systems resulting in following potential sources of effect:

Atmospheric Emissions
• Venting and flaring of gas

• Emissions from power generation

Discharges to water
• Discharges of injected chemicals

• Produced water quality

 SUBSEA DRILLING
The operations and equipment used to drill a well from a production platform are
almost identical to those used for a land well. A conductor is driven into the seabed
and the hole sections are drilled through wellhead and BOP equipment which is
similar to that used on land locations. The wellhead and BOP are located on the
lower deck of the platform. When the well has been drilled and completed the
Christmas tree (which is also similar to that used on land locations) is mounted on
top of the wellhead.

The type of wellhead and blowout prevention equipment used when drilling a well
from a mobile drilling rig will be quite different from that used on a platform
based operation. The equipment used in this case will depend on whether the
operation is being conducted from a floating drilling vessel (drillship or Semi-
submersible) or from a stable, Jackup drilling vessel. The vessel used will in turn
depend largely on whether the well is an exploration or development well and the
water depth in which it is being drilled.

When drilling from a Jackup, the drilling operations are very similar to
platformbased or land-based operations with a conductor being driven into the
seabed and conventional wellhead and surface BOP stack equipment being used.
However, since the Jackup will have to move off location when the drilling
operation is complete the casing strings must be physically supported at the seabed
and it must be possible to remotely disconnect the casing strings between the seabed
and surface when the operation is complete. The only alternative to this seabed
support is to leave a ‘freestanding’ conductor on location but in most areas this is
not a feasible alternative. Seabed support for such wells is provided by a Mudline
suspension (MLS) system. The MLS system is a series of full bore housings and
hangers run with the casing strings and is discussed fully, later in this chapter.

When drilling with an MLS system the casing strings are temporarily extended back
from the mudline to surface and the conventional wellhead and BOP stack is nippled
up on top of these extension strings (just beneath the rigfloor). The MLS system
only provides physical support for the casing strings. All annulus sealing and
monitoring functions are provided by the wellhead at surface.
When the well has been drilled it is possible to convert the MLS system into a subsea
wellhead, such that the well can be completed subsea with a subsea Christmas tree,
although this is not a typical application of MLS technology. These systems are
generally used on development drilling operations, where a platform is to be used
for production purposes. The operations are conducted as follows: a Jackup drilling
unit and MLS system is used to drill the wells; the wells are suspended and the
tieback strings removed; and the rig is moved away from the location. When the
platform is complete it is installed over the location and the wells are re-entered and
re-connected, with extension strings, to the lower deck of the platform and a
conventional wellhead and Christmas tree system is installed on top of the extension
(tie-back) strings. This is known as a ‘pre-drilling’ operation.

When drilling from a floating vessel drillship or Semi-submersible (Figure 1) there

is always the possibility that, at some point during the drilling operation, the vessel
will have to disconnect from the well or even move off location due to bad weather.
The wellhead and all other BOP equipment are therefore situated on the seabed with
the drilling fluids being circulated back to the drilling vessel via a marine riser. The
BOP stack on the seabed is the primary well control device, in the event of a kick.
A hydraulic latch between the marine riser and the BOP stack ensures that it is
possible to close in the well, disconnect the marine riser from the top of the BOP
stack and move the rig off location safely at any stage during the drilling operation.
When the well has been drilled and the well is either suspended for later completion
or it may be completed immediately and a subsea Christmas tree installed on the
wellhead. We will assume that the well is to be completed immediately after the
drilling operations are complete.
 Figure 1 Semi-Submersible Drilling Rig

The first part of this chapter will outline the operations and equipment used when
drilling and completing a well from a floating vessel, using a subsea wellhead
system. For continuity purposes, the casing scheme used as the basis for discussion
in this chapter will be: 30", 18 5/8", 13 3/8", 9 5/8" and 7" (Figure 2). It is worth
noting that all manufacturers use the same basic principles, although there are
certain differences in the design and operation of some components.
 Figure 2 Casing Configuration

There are two types of guidance system which can be used to run subsea wellhead
equipment to the seabed when drilling from a Drillship or Semi-Submersible – a
guideline and guidelineless system. The choice of system will depend on water
depth. In water depths of less than 1500ft this equipment is run and retrieved using
wire rope guidelines anchored at the seabed. In the case of very deep water (>1500ft)
it is necessary to use techniques which allow the equipment to be run and retrieved
remotely without the use of divers or fixed guidelines (guidelineless system). The
more common guideline system will be described in this chapter. The description
relates to those operations performed when using a VETCO wellhead system.

DRILLING THE WELL

Positioning the Rig

The drilling location is generally indicated by a survey vessel, using a marker buoy,
prior to the arrival of the drilling vessel. The rig is towed onto the location and
anchor handling tugs are used to drop the anchors in a pre-scribed pattern. The
anchors are tensioned to ensure that they are securely set into the seabed, then
slacked off and adjusted to obtain the final position and heading of the rig. This
whole operation may take a few hours or a few days, depending on weather
conditions. The drilling rig may be held in position over the well by using anchors
or by using dynamic positioning techniques. If anchors are used, great care must be
taken to ensure that the anchors do not damage seabed pipelines.
The condition of the seabed directly beneath the rig will generally have been
checked by a seabed survey before the rig arrived on location, but a final check is
generally made with an ROV – Remotely Operated Vehicle prior to running the
equipment.

Running the Temporary Guide Base (TGB)

The first stage in the drilling operation is to establish an anchor point, on the seabed,
for the 4 guidelines (3/4" or 7/8" diameter wire) which are used to guide drilling tools
and casing from the rig to the seabed. The guidelines are attached to a Temporary
Guide Base – TGB which is the first piece of equipment to be lowered to the seabed.
The guidelines are attached to the base at a 6ft radius from the centre and are kept
in tension.
 Figure 3 Running the Temporary Guide Base

The TGB is positioned in the moonpool of the rig and a special running tool, run on
drillpipe, (Figure 3) is latched into the base. The running tool has 4 pins which
engage J-slots on the internal profile of the 46" slot. Sacks of barite or cement are
loaded onto the base, to increase its weight to 25000-30000 lbs, and it is lowered to
the seabed on drillpipe. When the TGB has landed on the seabed the running tool is
unlatched by rotating the drillpipe by 1/8 of a turn to the right. The running tool and
drillpipe can then be retrieved. A level indicator (bull’s eye) on the TGB indicates
whether or not the structure is lying in a horizontal position on the seabed. If the
TGB is level the tension on each guideline is then adjusted to about 2000 lbs.
Drilling the 36" Hole
A 36" hole is drilled to a depth of 100-200ft. below the seabed. The bit is guided
down through the TGB by means of a Utility Guide Frame (UGF) fixed around the
drillpipe just above the bit and attached to the guide wires (Figure 4). Once the bit
has been guided through the TGB and the first 30" of hole has been drilled the UGF
is pulled back to surface.

The 36" hole may be drilled using an 181/2" bit and 36" hole opener, or a pilot hole
may be drilled and opened out to 36" diameter on a second run. The hole is drilled
with sea water, with the drilled cuttings settling onto the seabed (no riser or BOP is
installed at this stage). Having drilled to the required depth the hole is displaced to
mud to prevent debris from settling onto the bottom of the hole when running the
30" casing.

UTILITY GUIDEFRAME

36" HOLE OPENER

17 1/2" PILOT
DRILLBIT

Figure 4 Running the Drillbit to Drill the 36" Hole

Running and Cementing the 30" Casing

The 30" casing and casing head housing (CHH) is run to the seabed with the
Permanent Guide Base – PGB. The PGB provides precise alignment for the BOP
stack, and subsequently Christmas tree, over the Wellhead. The four guideposts are
12ft high and spaced at a 6ft radius around the centre of the base. A machined profile
on the inside of the central slot provides support for the 30" wellhead housing and
allows it to be locked in place. The PGB rests on the TGB.

The PGB is positioned in the moonpool of the rig and the guidelines are inserted
into the guide posts. The 30" casing is run from the rig floor through the PGB. The
top joint of casing, with the 30" casing head housing welded to it, is lowered through
the rotary table, landed on the PGB and locked in place. The 30" Casing Head
Housing supports the weight of the 30" casing, locks the 30" casing into the PGB
and provides an internal profile onto which the 18 3/4ft high pressure wellhead
housing will land.
 Figure 5 Running the 30" Casing and Permanent Guide Base – PGB

Drill pipe for cementing the casing is run down inside the casing and wellhead and
made up to the underside of the 30" running tool. The 30" running tool is made up
to the 30" casing housing. The Casing Head Housing running tools can be cam or
rotation operated. They have drillpipe thread preparations on their upper and lower
end. The upper connection is to allow the tool to be run on drillpipe and the lower
is for suspending a cement stinger inside the casing. An O-ring on the outside of
the running tools seal against a polished surface on the inside of the CHH
preventing circulation up the annulus between the cement stinger and 30" casing.

The 30" running tool is then locked into the 30" casing and the casing string and
PGB can be picked up as a single unit and run down until the PGB lands on the TGB
(Figure 5). The gimbal on the underside of the PGB rests on the funnel of the TGB
to give vertical alignment (checked with a the ROV viewing a bullseye indicator on
the PGB). The casing is cemented by circulating down the drill pipe and out through
the casing shoe until cement returns are observed, on a TV camera, to be coming up
between the TGB and the PGB, and spilling onto the seabed. The volume of cement
used is generally 100% in excess of the gauge hole annular volume. The cement is
then displaced to just above the shoe, the running tool released from the 30" housing
and the tool and drill pipe retrieved. The 30" casing is a major load bearing element
in the wellhead system and it is essential that the 30" is cemented all the way up to
the seabed. If cement is not observed at the seabed a top-up cementation, via a
stinger through the PGB, will generally be performed.

Although many companies do use them as standard it is not always necessary to use
a TGB. Indeed in soft conditions the TGB may sink into the seabed or settle
unevenly. It is possible to drill the 36ft hole and run the 30" casing without the help
of a TGB. In this case the guidelines are attached to the guideposts of the PGB.
Before cementing the 30" casing however, it is important to check that the slope of
the PGB is less than 1˚ (otherwise the BOP stack may not latch properly).

In the case of a very soft seabed the 30" casing can be “jetted” into position. A jetting
bit with a stabiliser on drill pipe is run down inside the 30" casing and suspended
from the casing running tool. The jetting bit should be spaced out such that it lies
about 2ft. from the open-ended shoe joint. The 30" housing is locked onto the PGB
and the running tool made up as before. The whole assembly is then lowered to the
seabed. Sea water is pumped through the jetting assembly to wash away the
formation (holes in the running tool allow the water to escape from the drill
pipe/casing annulus and spill onto the seabed). The casing is lowered slowly, as
jetting continues, until the PGB is a few feet from the mudline. The jetting is
stopped, the running tool released and the drill pipe is retrieved.

Installation of the Diverter

The 26" hole will generally be drilled with seawater to 1000-2000ft. In most cases
this hole section is drilled without circulation back to the rig and in this case the
drilled cuttings are deposited on the seabed. If however, the drill bit encounters an
unexpected gas pocket (shallow gas) there will be no blowout protection in place.
For exploration wells therefore, a riser and diverter system is normally installed
prior to commencing the 26ft hole. The riser and diverter system is comprised of 4
basic pieces of equipment (Figure 6):
(i) A hydraulic latch to provide a sealed interface between the 30" casing housing
and the riser

(ii) A flexible joint to allow some deflection of the riser (about 10˚)

(iii) A marine riser to provide a conduit for returns to the rig

(iv) A flow diverter to safely vent off any gas that may be encountered
Drilling the 26" Hole
Due to the I.D. restrictions of the hydraulic latch and riser a 26" bit cannot be run
through a diverter system. The 26" hole is therefore drilled by first drilling a small
diameter (12 1/4") pilot hole, logging the open formations, removing the diverter
assembly and then opening out to 26" diameter. The logging operation is performed
to ensure that there are no open hydrocarbon bearing sands in the pilot hole section
prior to removal of the diverter assembly. Alternatively the 26" hole is drilled by
drilling a small diameter (12 1/4") pilot hole, logging and then running an under-
reamer down through the diverter assembly to open the hole out to 26". The diverter
assembly will however still have to be removed before running the 18 5/8" casing.
Running and Cementing the 18 5/8"Casing

Figure 7 Running the Surface Casing and High Pressure Wellhead Housing – HPWHH

Having drilled the 26" hole the diverter, riser and hydraulic latch are recovered and
laid down. The required length of 185/8" casing string is made up. An 183/4" high
pressure wellhead housing (with a wear bushing installed) is made up onto the top
of the casing. The 183/4" Wellhead housing is the high pressure housing onto which
the BOP and subsequently Christmas tree will latch and seal. The 13 3/8", 9 5/8"
and 7" casing hangers will all land and seal inside this high pressure housing.

As before a drill pipe cementing stringer, attached to the underside of the running
tool, is run down inside the casing. The running tool is then made up (with left hand
rotation) into the 183/4" housing (Figure 7). The entire assembly is lowered on drill
pipe until the 183/4" housing lands and locks in place in the 30" housing on the
seabed. The casing annulus is circulated and cemented. The running tool is rotated
a few turns to the right for release, and the drill pipe and tool are recovered.

Installing the BOP

Since the 171/2" hole section will be drilled to considerable depth, a subsea BOP
stack and marine riser will generally be required at this stage in the operation. The
most common subsea BOP stack configuration used in North Sea operations is the
183/4" 10,000 psi single stack system. The BOP stack is comprised of the following
components (Figure 8):
 Figure 8 The Subsea BOP

(i) A hydraulic connector which latches onto and seals on the 183/4" wellhead

housing

(ii) A set of four rams and annular preventer

(iii) A “lower marine riser package" (LMRP) comprising of a hydraulic

connector which latches onto the top of the BOP stack (allowing the LMRP

to be disconnected from the BOP stack and retrieved on the riser if the rig

has to move off location for any reason), a second annular preventer and a

flexible joint which allows up to 10˚ of deflection of the marine riser

(iv) A marine riser equipped with integral choke and kill lines

(v) A telescopic joint at surface to accommodate the heave of the rig whilst the

marine riser is maintained in constant tension with a heave compensation

device.

The BOP stack, LMRP, riser and choke and kill lines are run in one operation. Once
the BOP stack is landed and latched onto the 18 3/4" housing the required tension
is set on the marine riser tensioners and the flow line is hooked up. The BOP stack
is then pressure tested.

Drilling the 17 1/2" Hole

The 17 1/2" bit and BHA is run and the 171/2" hole section is drilled, taking mud
returns to surface. When the casing point has been reached the hole is circulated
clean and the drilling assembly recovered in preparation for running the 13 3/8"
casing.
Running and Cementing the 13 3/8" Casing
The wear bushing sitting inside the 18 3/4" housing is removed. The 133/8" casing is
run into the hole through the BOP stack and riser assembly. The 133/8" casing hanger
is run together with a seal assembly (or packoff) which is used to seal off the 185/8”x
133/8” annulus after the cement job is complete. The entire assembly is run in hole
on a casing hanger running tool and casing or drillpipe. The system is designed such
that the casing can be run, landed, cemented and the seal assembly energised, all in
one trip.

Having landed the casing hanger in the 183/4" housing the cement is pumped and
displaced down the running string. The running string may be either casing joints,
extending back to the rig, or drill pipe. In the case of drillpipe a special cement plug
retainer is connected to the underside of the casing hanger running tool and the
cement operation is conducted in a similar fashion to a liner cemention. At the end
of the cement job the running string is rotated to the right. This releases the running
tool, while simultaneously energising the packoff assembly on the outside of the
hanger. When the packoff is set it can be pressure tested, and then the running tool
can be picked up and pulled back to surface. Since the casing is an integral part of
the BOP system it is vital that the annulus between successive casings is properly
sealed off. It is good practice to flush the wellhead area prior to pulling the running
string back to the surface. A wear bushing is installed above the 13 3/8" hanger to
protect the sealing surfaces during the next drilling phase.

Drilling the 12 1/4" Hole

The 121/4" bit and BHA is made up and run to just above the cement inside the 13 3/8"
casing. Prior to drilling out of the shoe the casing is pressure tested. To ensure that
it is safe to drill ahead, a leak-off test is performed immediately after drilling out of
the casing shoe. The next section of hole (12 1/4") is drilled to the required depth,
cleaned out and the 95/8" casing is run and cemented. Exactly the same procedures
are used for the 95/8" casing, as for the 133/8" casing string. If necessary, drilling can
continue to greater depths by drilling an 8 1/2" hole and running and cementing 7"
casing. The 3 hanger system (133/8", 95/8", 7") is the most common, but in certain
parts of the world 4 hanger systems are necessary (16", 13 3/8", 95/8", 7").
Preparing the well for completion
The well is now ready for completion and as stated in the introduction it is assumed
that the well is to be completed immediately after the drilling operations are
complete. At this stage, there are a number of alternative ways in which the
operation may proceed. These routes are dependant on the way in which the well is
to be perforated and cleaned up.

The well may be perforated with casing guns prior to the running of the tubing, it
may be perforated with tubing conveyed perforating guns run on the tubing, or it
may be perforated with through tubing perforators after the well has been completed.
The advantages and disadvantages of each of these scenarios are discussed widely
in textbooks relating to completion operations and will not be discussed here. It will
be assumed that the casing is to be perforated with through tubing guns, after the
completion has been installed.

The production casing must be cleaned up and the drilling fluid displaced to brine
after the drilling operation is complete and before any production tubing is run in
the hole. A casing scraper is run on drillpipe, to the bottom of the production string,
and a series of viscous pills, followed by brine, are circulated until the drilling fluid
has been completely displaced to clean brine.
Figure 9 Wellhead Configuration
 OFFSHORE COMPLETION
TYPES OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES AND DRILLING UNITS
A. Common Types of Drilling Rigs

As drilling extended further offshore into deeper water, offshore drilling rigs have
become larger and more complex with workers who are more highly skilled.
International oil companies do not
normally own fleets of drilling rigs; instead they contract or lease them from a
drilling contractor. The drilling contractor provides the drilling rig and people to
supervise, operate and maintain the equipment.

There are two basic categories of offshore drilling rigs (Fig. 1): those that can be
moved from place to place, allowing for drilling in multiple locations, and those
rigs that are temporarily or permanently placed on a fixed-location platform
(platform rigs).
Figure 1. Common types of drilling rigs (BOEMRE, 2010c).
Platform Rigs. Platform rigs are complete drilling rigs that are assembled on a
production platform and may be temporary or permanent installations. Some
production platforms are built with a drilling rig that is used for the initial
development and completion then may be “cold stacked” for a period of time until
it is again needed to drill or workover a well.

Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU). MODUs (Fig. 2) are drilling rigs that are
used exclusively to drill offshore and that float either while drilling or when being
moved from location to another. They fall into two general types: bottom-
supported and floating drilling rigs. Bottom-supported drilling rigs are barges or
jack-ups. Floating drill rigs include submersible and semi-submersible units and
drill ships.
Figure 2. Varieties of mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs). Drill Barge (TODCO via NETL,
2011), JackUp Rig (Transocean, 2011), Semi-submersible Rig (Eni, 2008), Drill Ship (BP p.l.c.,
2011).
Drilling Barges. A drilling barge consists of a barge with a complete drilling
rig and ancillary equipment constructed on it. Drilling barges are suitable for
calm shallow waters (mostly inland applications) and are not able to withstand
the water movement experienced in deeper, open water situations. When a
drilling barge is moved from one location to another, the barge floats on the
water and is pulled by tugs. When a drilling barge is stationed on the drill site,
the barge can be anchored in the floating mode or in some way supported on
the bottom. The bottom-support barges may be submerged to rest on the bottom
or they may be raised on posts or jacked-up on legs above the water. The most
common drilling barges are inland water barge drilling rigs that are used to drill
wells in lakes, rivers, canals, swamps, marshes, shallow inland bays, and areas
where the water covering the drill site in not too deep.

Submersible Rigs. Submersible drilling rigs are similar to barge rigs but
suitable for open ocean waters of relative shallow depth. The drilling structure
is supported by large submerged pontoons that are flooded and rest on the
seafloor when drilling. After the well is completed, the water is pumped out of
the tanks to restore buoyancy and the vessel is towed to the next location.

Jack-Up Rigs. Jack-up drilling rigs are similar to a drilling barge because the
complete drilling rig is built on a floating hull that must be moved between
locations with tug boats. Jack-ups are the most common offshore bottom-
supported type of drilling rig. Once on location, a jack-up rig is raised above
the water on legs that extend to the seafloor for support. Jack-ups can operate in
open water or can be designed to move over and drill though conductor pipes in
a production platform. Jack-up rigs come with various leg lengths and depth
capabilities (based on load capacity and power ratings). They can be operated
in shallow waters and moderate water depths up to about 450 ft.

Semi-Submersible Rig. Semi-submersible drilling rigs are the most common

type of offshore floating drilling rigs and can operate in deep water and usually
move from location to location under their own power. They partially flood
their pontoons for achieving the desired height above the water and to establish
stability. “Semis” as they are called may be held in place over the location by
mooring lines attached to seafloor anchors or may be held in place by
adjustable thrusters (propellers) which are rotated to hold the vessel over the
desired location (called dynamically positioned).

Drillships. Drillships are large ships designed for offshore drilling operations
and can operate in deepwater. They are built on traditional ship hulls such as
used for supertankers and cargo ships and move from location to location under
their own power. Drillships can be quite large with many being 800 ft in length
and over 100 ft in width. Drillships are not as stable in rough seas as semi-
submersibles but have the advantage of having significantly more storage
capacity. Modern deepwater drillships use the dynamic positioning system (as
mentioned above for semisubmersibles) for maintaining their position over the
drilling location. Because of their large sizes, drillships can work for extended
periods without the need for constant resupply. Drillships operate at higher
cruising speeds (between drillsite locations) than semi-submersibles.

B. Offshore Drilling and Production Platforms

For the development of a reservoir after commercially viable natural gas or

petroleum deposits are located, a permanent production platform may be
constructed or the wells may be completed subsurface. Large permanent
production platforms are extremely expensive to build and operate. There are a
number of different types of permanent offshore platforms, as shown in Figure
3.
Figure 3. Varieties of offshore production platforms (NOAA, 2010).

C. Subsea Completions

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. 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)1 ratings. Subsea
1
HPHT environment means when one or more of the following well conditions exist: (1) pressure rating greater
than 15,000 psig or (2) temperature rating greater than 350 degrees Fahrenheit.
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 intervals.

Hansen and Rickey (1995) reviewed the history and types of subsea production
systems and Bernt (2004) provided a more recent example of actual
implementations.

The first subsea well was installed at West Cameron 192 in 55 ft. water in the
Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in 1961. Others soon followed but a significant
departure was introduced in 1993 with the advent of the first horizontal tree
(Skeels et al., 1993). That allowed access to the wellbore for workovers and
interventions without having to disturb the tree and associated flowlines,
service lines, or control umbilicals. 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 (Bouquier et al., 2007).

Subsea completions typically contain an upper completion, a lower completion,

and a production tree. Advances in upper and lower completions followed
normal developments in materials, pressure, and temperature ratings
(Maldonado et al., 2006). However, significant advancements in the area of
gravel packing the lower completion occurred with the introduction of one-trip
installation of multiple-zone systems. The latter advancement reduced
operational costs and led to the capability to develop more stratified reservoirs
with one-trip and single system (Burger et al., 2010). Additional details are
explained below.

Production Tree. The production trees are typically available in traditional

vertical trees and horizontal trees. Those are further characterized by their mode
of operation (electric versus hydraulic) and the number and types of
penetrations through the tree to control subsurface equipment and hydrocarbon
production.

Upper Completion. The upper completion consists of production tubing from

the tree to the subsurface safety valve (SSSV) and then production tubing down
to the production packer installed in the production casing. The types of SSSVs
vary by their method of installation. For normal wells, the typical mode is
within the tubing and installed with the completion. If situations warrant, the
SSSV can be installed on wireline in a specially prepared profile inside the
tubing string. Other variations of SSSVs include the method of operation
(hydraulic versus electric), and various types depending on methods of
construction (opening method, sealing mechanism, etc.). The production tubing
varies by metallurgy which is dictated by the combination of well loads and
fluid environment. The production packer varies by the desired method of
retrieval. Permanent packers must be drilled out to remove them from the
wellbore while retrievable packers may be retrieved (usually with a dedicated
pulling tool). Other variations of the packer include the connection to the tubing
string (ratch-latch with seal assembly, tubing connection, or polished bore
receptacle) and the packer/slip geometry. Most manufacturers offer an HPHT
package if required.

Lower Completion. The lower completion consists of a gravel-pack packer,

sand control screens, and a lower sump packer all connected together by
production tubing. The gravel-pack packer is installed above the screens and
serves to anchor the lower completion inside the production casing. Various
types of packers are available depending on the method of gravel packing the
well and the desired release mechanism. The sand control screens and the
accompanying gravel pack or frac pack vary with the formation types and
desired productive interval placement. Screens may be of various types
including wire mesh; wire wrapped, and pre-packed screens. Expandable sand
screens may also be installed to maximize the remaining inside diameter of the
screen base pipe.

BASIC WELL CONSTRUCTION

A. Sequence of Well Construction Operations
The sequence of drilling operations (Fig. 4) involves drilling a large diameter
hole first and running a large diameter conductor casing then drilling
progressively smaller hole sizes as downhole pressures increase. As drilling
progresses, successively smaller and stronger casings are installed (if they
extend back to surface) or liners, rather than casings, if the liner extends back to
the previous casing.

For drilling from permanent installations and for drilling from a jack-up rig, a
conductor pipe is installed and secured to the seabed for circulation of the
drilling fluid to remove cuttings. For those applications the blowout preventers
(BOPs) are installed just below the drilling rig.

For deepwater operations after drilling the first casing interval, a drilling riser is
attached to the wellhead and used to circulate drilling fluid to remove cuttings.
The BOPs and riser are installed at the seafloor onto a wellhead system. The
wellhead system is run while attached to the first string of casing run inside a
large diameter conductor pipe that accommodates the jetting or drilling action.
The first string of casing is usually conducted as “riserless drilling”, namely,
with no riser connection and therefore with fluid and cuttings exhausted to the
seafloor. Figure 5 shows the riser and subsea BOP for a floating semi-
submersible rig.
Figure 4. Simplified view of drilling and oil or gas well (Nergaard, 2005).

Figure 5. Connection of a subsea well to a

 For each drilled interval, the drill bit is floating drill rig (Eni, 2008).
rotated either from a surface-located
mechanical motor or by a downhole mud
motor. The hole is drilled into subsurface
formations as high-pressure drilling fluid
(mud) is pumped down the inside of the drill
string to circulate downward and lift the
drilling cuttings upward through the casing
annulus. Once the drilling fluid and cuttings
reach the drilling rig, the cuttings are
removed by vibrating shale shakers and the
drilling fluid is processed and chemically
treated to sustain continuous recirculation.
Efficient processing and proper treatment are
important because they limit the quantity of
drilling fluid required and the volume of
waste generated.

Each depth interval of the well is evaluated

and designed in the planning stages and re-
evaluated for modification during the
wellbore construction process. The length of
each interval, the drilling fluid density, the
drilling assembly, the casing to be run, the
type and quantity of cement to be used, the
type of drilling fluid used and many other
processes are decided based on the
anticipated subsurface pressures, equipment
limitations, actual wellbore conditions and
other factors. The number and type of casing
strings and the depth for each string is
determined by evaluating each interval for
the subsurface rock stress and pore pressure,
the strength of the casing that will be run,
anticipated hole problems, required hole size
at total depth, and the type of completion to
be used. Figure 6 illustrates the number and
sizes of casing strings that might be needed for a deepwater Gulf of Mexico
well.

Figure 6. Examples of changes in drill casings during

Well control (which is treated in a downhole well development. (Leimkuhler,
2010).
separate topic paper) is established
by having barriers to prevent
unwanted influxes of formation
fluids into the wellbore. The most
basic barrier is to use a drilling fluid
of sufficient density that its
hydrostatic pressure will prevent the
influx of subsurface fluids. Drilling
fluid densities typically range from
that of seawater to more than 2
times that of seawater. However, if
the drilling fluid is too heavy or the
exposed formations are too weak, a
fracture in the rock may occur and
circulation of drilling fluid may
become impaired as fluid leaks from
the wellbore into the underground
formation. As the water depth
increases, the mudweight operating
window at shallow depths gets
progressively smaller such that
numerous shallow casing strings
may be needed unless special
drilling practices are employed
(such as riserless drilling).

B. Circulation System

Drilling fluid circulation (Fig. 7) begins at the mud tanks which hold a large
volume of fluid to allow the mud pumps to draw and pump drilling mud under
high pressure into the inside of the drill string where the fluid is circulated
downhole.
The fluid sent downhole serves to power downhole equipment and to provide
hydraulic power to accomplish removal of drill cuttings to the surface. Fluid
and drill cuttings are separated at the surface by vibrating shale shakers which
use fine mesh screens to remove drill cuttings from the drilling fluid.
Additional processing of the fluid includes gas removal (degasser),
supplemental solids separation (desanders, desilters, and centrifuges), and
chemical treatment to maintain the desired fluid properties. Depending on the
applicable regulatory permits, the drill cuttings may be discharged to the ocean
water, collected for transport to land for disposal or made into a slurry which
can be injected into a disposal well.
 Figure 7. Drilling fluid circulation system (OSHA, 2009).

C. Formation Logging

To identify potentially productive

formations within the geological
horizons being drilled, a variety of
techniques are used. The most basic
technique is called mud logging
where the drill cuttings are
evaluated for formation type and
the presence of any hydrocarbons.
More sophisticated techniques are
called well logging where special
electronic tools are run either in the
drill string or on a wireline
normally at selected casing points
to evaluate key rock properties. Also, formation pressures can be measured or
core samples can be obtained with specialized drilling tools or wireline logs.

Figure 8. Completed well (Oil in Israel, 2009).

D. Completions

After being drilled, the offshore well

must be completed with tubing and a
variety of other equipment to allow the
oil or gas to be produced. Completion
work may involve installing a slotted
liner or perforated casing adjacent to the
productive formations then installing
packers and tubing to conduct the oil or
gas flow to the surface. Figure 8 is a
schematic example of a completed
subsea well.

D. Riserless Drilling

When an offshore deepwater well is

spudded, and prior to the installation of
the riser, seawater and sweeps are used
to jet or drill the structural and
conductor casings. Effective deepwater
well designs require that the first casing string is positioned deep enough that
the formation has sufficient mechanical strength to withstand the formation
pressures anticipated in the next (deeper) interval. Due to the limits on the
number of casing strings that can be run in any one well, often riserless drilling
with water-based, weighted drilling fluids is used to drill to a depth where the
formations have the required strength. This practice is critical to the
development of reservoirs in ultradeepwater between the continental shelves
and deep oceans but it also discharges large volumes of weighted water-based
muds at the seafloor.

In the past 10 years, mechanical subsea systems have been developed which
allow deepwater riserless drilling with weighted mud and with fluid returns to
the drilling rig (Gordon et al., 2010). Those systems allow a dual-gradient
hydrostatic pressure to be applied, thereby more closely matching the natural
deepwater pressure profile. While those systems have been used on a number of
offshore wells, there is a limited supply of the necessary equipment and other
wellcontrol issues must be carefully considered for each particular application.
DRILLING WASTE MANAGEMENT
Waste generated during drilling falls into four primary categories:

• Residual drilling fluids and cuttings which constitute the largest volume
of waste produced during drilling operations.

• Different types of wastewater produced during the drilling process.

• Air emissions generated from the drilling equipment and support vessels
and aircraft.

• Industrial or solid waste including paint, spent solvents and packing

materials.
The approach to handling each type of waste depends on the volumes and
worksite circumstances and can involve treatment and disposal, waste
reduction, recycling and re-use options to reduce environmental impacts.
Efforts in recent years have been increasingly toward more environmentally
friendly outcomes.

A. Drilling Fluids and Cuttings

There are two primary types of drilling fluids for offshore: water-based fluids
(WBFs) and nonaqueous drilling fluids (NAFs) that often also are called
synthetic-based fluids (SBFs). The selection of the drilling fluid to be used
depends on many variables including geologic formation conditions, wellbore
stability, temperature and pressure, lubricity required, mud density required,
gas-hydrate prevention, logistics, and overall drilling and completion plan -- all
factors to be considered to make the drilling operation safe and environmentally
sound.

NAFs reduce drill solids and liquid waste volumes, are more recyclable than
WBFs, allow faster drilling rates, reduce drilling problems, allow greater
extended-reach drilling to access more resources with fewer offshore
installations, and overall result in fewer rig days which means reduced overall
emissions and health and safety risks to personnel (Bernier et al., 2003;
Pettersen, 2007). Those features and the pollution-prevention aspects of SBFs
were cited by the US EPA (Code of Federal Regulations, 2011b) when
guidelines were established for the water discharge of NAF drill cuttings:

“In these final regulations, EPA supports pollution prevention

technology by encouraging the appropriate use of synthetic-based
drilling fluids (SBFs) based on the use of base fluid materials in
place of traditional: (1) Water-based drilling fluids (WBFs); and (2)
oil-based drilling fluids (OBFs) consisting of diesel oil/or and
 mineral oil. The appropriate use of SBFs in place of WBFs will
generally lead to more efficient and faster drilling and a per well
reduction in non-water quality environmental impacts (including
energy requirements) and discharged pollutants. Use of SBFs may
also lead to a reduced demand for new drilling rigs and platforms
and development well drilling though the use directional and
extended reach drilling.”

However, NAFs have limitations as compared to WBFs including higher costs

(especially if lost circulation is anticipated), increased disposal and logistical
issues, more difficult displacement and clean-up, issues of cement
compatibility, and possible logging incompatibilities (Jacques Whitford
Environment Limited, 2001). Often WBFs and NAFs are used in drilling the
same well wherein the WBF is used to drill the shallow section and the NAF is
used for the deeper horizons.

WBFs consist primarily of water (~ 75%) mixed with a variety of chemical

additives and barite to obtain the desired properties and density. WBFs have
been demonstrated to have only limited effect on the environment. The US
EPA has evaluated the environmental issues with regard to WBFs and
established effluent guidelines for the discharge of WBFs and cuttings (Code of
Federal Regulations, 2011b). Other countries and the IFC World Bank Group
also provide for effluent guidelines and discharge of WBF and cuttings with
toxicity and mercury and cadmium limits (Code of Federal Regulations,
2011b). The clay and bentonite are chemically inert and non-toxic and the
heavy metals (Ba, Cd, Zn and Pb) are bound in minerals and therefore have
limited bioavailability. Ocean discharges of WBFs have been shown to affect
benthic organisms by smothering to a distance of approximately 100 feet from
the discharge and to affect species diversity to 300 feet from the discharge.
However those impacts normally are temporary in nature.

The NAFs are further grouped according to their aromatic hydrocarbon content
and include the following:

Group I NAF (high aromatic content). These were the first NAFs used
and include diesel and conventional mineral oil-based fluids. The
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content of the diesel-oil fluids is
typically 2 to 4%. Because of concerns about toxicity, diesel-oil cuttings
are not discharged.

Group II NAF (medium aromatic content). These fluids, called Low

Toxicity Mineral Oil-Based Fluids (LTMBF), were developed to address
the concerns of the potential toxicity of diesel-based fluids. The PAH
content of the diesel-oil fluids is reduced to less than 0.35%.
 Group III NAF (low to negligible aromatic content). These fluids are the
newest generation of drilling fluids that include highly processed mineral
oils and syntheticbased fluids produced by chemical reactions of
relatively pure compounds and include synthetic hydrocarbons (olefins,
paraffins and esters). These synthetic fluids are stable in high-
temperature downhole conditions and are adaptable to deep water
drilling environments. The PAH content is very low (<0.001%).

Group III NAFs have the lowest acute toxicity. Group III cuttings discharges
have produced far fewer effects on benthic communities than the early
generation oil-based mud cuttings discharges and the effects are rarely seen
beyond 750 to 1500 feet from the discharge. Studies have shown that in most
cases, but not all, benthic communities start to recover within one year of the
drilling discharge. The development of these more sophisticated NAFs was
required to meet the technical challenges of directional, extended-reach and
deepwater drilling and to deliver high performance yet also environmentally
sound operations.

Technical developments with regard to drill cuttings relate to the volume

generated and processing techniques prior to disposal. Drilling improvements
which can reduce the volume of cuttings generated include closer spacing of
successive hole sizes and casing strings, increased casing sizes, expandable
casing, increased bit sizes, bi-centered bits, and reaming-while-drilling, plus
advanced casing-while-drilling technologies.

For NAF drill cuttings, thermal processing equipment has been developed
which can reduce the base fluid retained on cuttings to very low levels, below
1% total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The most compact of these thermal
units are Hammermill-process (impact friction-based) thermal desorption types
(Murray et al., 2008). Although that type of equipment has seen limited use in
offshore drilling, its size is too large to be widely applicable for retrofitting
onto most existing offshore drilling units or production installations. Such
equipment is used most frequently for land-based centralized processing
stations where NAF waste is processed and the resulting solids are disposed
into landfills.

There are several options for disposal of drilling fluids and cuttings and all have
their advantages and disadvantages with regard to environmental impact. The
primary considerations in selecting a waste-management option are the
characteristics of the environment, operational circumstances and costs. The
three principal options are offshore discharge, re-injection and onshore
discharge.
Offshore Discharge. Offshore discharge is the least expensive, operationally
uncomplicated and safest of the three options (Jacques Whitford Environment
Limited, 2001). WBFs and cuttings have been discharged offshore for 50 years
with minimal impact to the environment (Neff, 2005). The recent development
of more environmentally friendly NAFs has been undertaken to reduce the
environmental impact associated with discharge of NAF drill cuttings and make
this option more broadly acceptable. After separation from entrained solids,
NAF liquids are not discharged but are reused or recycled. Offshore discharge
is often critical for efficient deep water exploratory drilling due to the long
distance from shore, lack of land-based disposal facilities and technical
limitations on use other disposal options, such as subsurface re-injection.

Offshore discharge often results in the least overall environmental impact.

Alternatives to offshore discharge come with an additional environment impact
plus associated environmental and personnel safety risks. The additional
impacts pertain to the increased level of handling as well as the energy required
to perform the other disposal options (James and Rørvik, 2002; Pettersen and
Hertwich, 2008). The US EPA noted the extended impacts when guidelines
were established for the water discharge of NAF drill cuttings in 2001 (Code of
Federal Regulations, 2011b):

Compliance with this rule is estimated to reduce the annual

discharge of priority and non-conventional pollutants by at least
7.82 million pounds per year and result in the reduction of 2,927
tons of air emissions and reduce energy use by 200,817 barrels of
oil equivalent (BOE).

Drilling Fluid / Cuttings Re-injection. Another option for drilling waste

disposal is on-site cuttings reinjection. This process involves pumping fluids
and seawater-diluted cuttings, which have been ground into small particles, into
an underground formation that has been fractured. Care is taken to make the
slurry particles sufficiently small that they do not readily settle or plugup the
fractures in the receptor formation. Injected fluids are confined in the receiving
formations, which are selected for their geological isolation, and by cementing
the injection-well casings. Cuttings may be injected via the annulus of a well
being drilled or through a dedicated or dual-use disposal well.

Injection is a complicated process which requires assessment of several issues.

First, a geologic formation is required that is suitable for sealing the cuttings
and will not allow them to migrate into other formations or to the surface.
Also, the types and quantities of waste, surface equipment and well design and
integrity must be considered before injection is performed. Research is
continuing to make improvements for cuttings injection to be a more successful
application.
Subsurface re-injection has been used about 20 years. Industry best practices
have been developed (Nagel and McLennan, 2010), improvements to fracture
modeling and monitoring have been made, and specialized companies have
become established for designing and executing subsurface injection projects
with greater reliability and operational monitoring (Redden, 2009).

Onshore Disposal. The third option for disposal of drill fluids or cuttings is to
capture and transport to shore for disposal. Consideration of any onshore
disposal option must also include consideration of the offshore operations
associated with getting the drilling waste to shore. Bringing cuttings to shore
requires extensive use of support vessels which produce air emissions
(James and Rørvik, 2002; Jacques Whitford Environment Limited, 2001).
Safety and environmental risks (potential for a spill) are increased over those of
other options, particularly in areas of harsh weather conditions. There may be
operational or business-continuity issues with handling large volumes of
cuttings if transport operations are shutdown due to inclement weather. The
baseline zero-discharge operation uses “cuttings boxes” which hold 15 to 20
barrels of solid or liquid waste and must be lifted with a crane 10 to 15 times
during each filland-disposal cycle. Recent advancements in bulk handling of
drilling waste can become feasible where the drilling unit is large enough to
justify the bulk handling vessels.

Once onshore there are several options for treatment, recycling and disposal of
drilling waste. Those options include landfill disposal (if WBFs were used),
stabilization/solidification, bioremediation and thermal treatment technologies
such as thermal desorption and incineration if NAFs are used. The viability of
each of those options will depend on an assessment of the environmental
conditions, components of the drilling waste, regulations, operational
limitations and economic factors. As with other options, onshore disposal may
not be a technically or economically viable option and selection must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

B. Wastewater
Liquid discharges from offshore drilling include domestic and sanitary
wastewater, deck drainage water, once-through fire water, non-contact cooling
water, bilge water, and ballast water. Any effluent discharges are regulated and
monitored according to the applicable permit. In general the quantity of those
wastewater streams is small and has less environmental impact as compared
with the discharges of drilling fluids and drill-cutting wastes.

Discharges of domestic and sanitary waste and food wastes usually are
permitted. Sewage wastes are typically treated in a marine sanitation device, as
approved by the US Coast Guard, prior to discharge to sea. This treated effluent
is regularly monitored to verify treatment is within the permitted limits, such as
no floating solids or foam and residual chlorine concentrations of at least 1
mg/L. Food waste discharges are allowed generally beyond 12 miles from land
but are required to have no floating solids and generally must be macerated to
below 25-mm particle size before discharge. Gray and black water discharges
will elevate the oxygen demand in the waters close to the point of discharge but
will rapidly disperse in the receiving sea water.

Deck drainage waters discharged from the rig drainage system vary with the
amount of rainfall during the drilling program and also with wash-water usage.
Rainwater runoff from nonhazardous areas of the rig, such as the living quarters
area, is discharged without treatment. Drain water from areas that might come
in contact with oil, such as near the rig floor and mud pit area, is collected and
sent to a holding tank and oil separation system. The water is separated before
discharge and generally must meet “no free oil” requirements. Separated oil is
collected and is either incinerated or sent for disposal or recycling.

Miscellaneous fluids such as desalination unit, blowout preventer, once-through

fire water, noncontact cooling water, ballast, bilge, and other fluids comprise
the process fluids for offshore drilling. They are generally classified as being
either uncontaminated or treated with chemicals. Uncontaminated fluid
discharges are generally allowed as long as they meet “no free oil” limitations.
Treated fluid discharges must meet the “no free oil” requirement plus toxicity
and other limitations.

C. Air Emissions

The potential generally is low for emissions from offshore exploration and
development drilling to cause significant atmospheric impacts. Air emissions
are highly regulated by the EPA through an air permitting process for drilling in
offshore Federal waters and by the State authorities if drilling is in state waters.
Air emission limits are in accordance with the approved permit limitations.

The principal sources of atmospheric emissions considered from routine

drilling operations are:

• Emissions from combustion of power-generation equipment on the

rig.

• Exhaust emissions from helicopters and marine support vessels and

from mobilization and demobilization of the rig.

• Emissions from well clean up and well testing, if performed.

• Emissions from venting of storage vessels, bulk materials transfer,

drilling fluids circulation and water treatment facilities.
 • Fugitive emissions from process equipment.
Emissions from power generation on the rig and from support vessels typically
are estimated based on predicted diesel fuel consumption during the drilling
operation. Emissions from helicopters are derived from the predicted
consumption of jet helicopter fuel. Well testing emissions depend on the
predicted duration and flow rate of hydrocarbon production, if performed at all.
Emissions of all other activities depend more on the types of equipment and
products being used and the duration of the drilling program, however those are
very minor emissions.

The atmospheric substances of concern from drilling operations are the

following:

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx).

• Carbon monoxide (CO).

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2).

• Particulate matter (PM).

• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

• Carbon dioxide (CO2).

• Methane (CH4).
The most significant air emissions from drilling operation are from combustion
of diesel fuel used for power generation, transportation and well testing. In
comparison, air emissions from miscellaneous activities such as venting of
storage vessels, bulk materials transfer, drilling fluids circulation water
treatment facilities and fugitive emissions from process equipment are
considered to be negligible.

Diesel engines used for power generation are the source of the majority of
drilling emissions. This has been recognized by the drilling industry and steps
have been taken in recent years to make the diesel engines more energy
efficient. To reduce operational emissions, drilling contractors are making
improvements in diesel engine efficiency using, for example, diesel injection
technology that reduces energy consumption and NO X emissions without
reducing engine response or power output (Cadigan and Payton, 2005).
Air emissions from helicopters and marine support vessels depend on the type
of equipment being used, distance from operational shore base on land, and the
duration of the drilling program.

If well testing is performed, hydrocarbons from the reservoir are flowed to the
surface for pressure, temperature and flow-rate measurements to help evaluate
well performance characteristics. Well-testing tools are installed in the cased
wellbore at the specified zone of interest. During testing, formation fluids are
allowed to flow to the surface test facility in a controlled manner. Those fluids
may contain hydrocarbons (oil and gas) or formation water. Flow periods and
rates are restricted to the minimum necessary and in accordance with air permit
allowances. The hydrocarbons are flared using high-efficiency igniters to
ensure relatively complete combustion of hydrocarbons and minimization of
emissions. The high-efficiency burners have combustion efficiency ratings of
99%. The short duration of the well test and flaring event and the rapid
dispersion of the emissions in the offshore environment indicates that a residual
impact should be insignificant.

D. Solid Waste

Non-hazardous solid waste generated on offshore drilling rigs includes general

trash and garbage that are categorized, containerized and transported to shore
under manifest for proper disposal in regulated landfills. Many companies now
segregate at least some solid waste for re-use and recycling. Those efforts range
from simply recycling large items like wooden pallets and scrap metal to more
extensive efforts to segregate and recycle all waste streams. Hazardous and
combustible wastes such as oil, oily rags, spent solvents, paint cans and used oil
filters are placed in approved hazardous material containers, sealed, labeled and
brought onshore for disposal in an approved hazardous waste handling facility.
All drilling operations manage those waste streams in accordance with their
Waste Management Plan which details the type of waste generated, the volume
and final disposal.

E. Source Reduction, Recycling and Re-Use

For a specific well, drilling source reduction involves reducing the volume of
hole which must be excavated to reach a producing formation by drilling
smaller diameter hole sizes and by using non-aqueous drilling fluids which
minimize wellbore enlargement, dilution volumes and sidetracks and redrills
(as compared with water-based fluids). Techniques which can reduce the
volume of cuttings generated include closer spacing of successive hole sizes
and casing strings, increased casing sizes, expandable casing, increased bit
sizes, bi-centered bits, and reamingwhile-drilling, plus use of casing-while-
drilling technologies.
NAFs generate less liquid drilling waste than WBFs because they tolerate
higher contents of drill solids and because “shale drill” (silt- and clay-rich)
solids do not degrade as readily so that a high solids-removal efficiency is
realized (EPA, 1999; Veil et al., 1995). Water-based drilling fluids generally
require dilution volumes of 5 to 10 times the hole volume excavated whereas
NAFs generally require 1 to 3 times the hole volume. Other rigsite methods are
used to reduce the amount of liquid waste that must be discarded, including use
of pipe wipers, mud buckets, and vacuuming of spills on the rig floor. Those
techniques allow clean mud to be returned to the mud system and not treated as
waste. Other efforts, such as additional solids-control equipment to provide
improved solids removal efficiency, are widely used depending on the
economics and logistics of a given operation. Solids-control equipment, like
centrifuges, can be used to remove solids from the recirculating mud stream.
Although such a process does generate some solid waste, it avoids the need to
discard large volumes of solids-laden muds. Waste from drilling fluids products
also can be reduced through the use of products in bulk supplies rather than as
sacked or drummed quantities.

The recycling and re-use of drilling fluids depends on many factors including
type of formation being drilled, what hole volume has been excavated, type and
capacity of the solids control equipment, drill solids content of the drilling fluid
at the end of the operation, type of drilling fluid being used, and overall drilling
operation. While water-based fluids are generally not recyclable from well to
well, certain drilling operations during field development, such as batch
drilling, can make them more reusable and reduce waste volumes. NAFs are
much more recyclable and re-usable than WBFs and generally can be processed
through centrifuges to remove solids then diluted and treated for continual re-
use.
BENEFITS AND OPPORTUNITIES WITH SUB-SEA
COMPLETIONS
A. Environmental and Economic Benefits

Subsea completions offer environmental benefits that accrue during the

development of the resource (less time over the hole, fewer resources used, less
capital equipment requiring resources to develop the field, etc.) as well as
continuing availability during the production and eventual disposal of the
production equipment (platforms, manifolds, etc.).

Subsea completions have an economic advantage compared to other field

development alternatives such as bottom-founded structures (platforms, etc.).
This advantage increases with increasing water depth and, in some cases;
bottom-founded structures are not possible due to the sheer size potentially
required for such a structure. At present, the maximum water depth for a fixed
platform is 1,353 ft. (Shell’s Bullwinkle platform) and 1,754 ft for a compliant
tower (ChevronTexaco’s Petronius). In one example, the cost of a bottom-
founded structure was compared to a Floating Production, Storage, and
Offloading (FPSO) facility. The FPSO cost was approximately one-half of the
cost of a bottom-founded structure ($71MM). Similarly, operating costs of
FPSO were $250,000/mo compared to satellite subsea trees of $25,000/mo.

During well construction and installation of the subsea completion, rig costs are
paramount. Currently, daily costs run from $500,000 to upwards of $1MM per
day. Operators anxious to improve the profitability of an endeavor take every
opportunity to reduce time over the well and reward contractors who
significantly reduce their well construction/completion times. This includes
reducing the number of trips (downhole insertions) to install completions as
well as reducing non-productive time from excessive trips. Specific bottom-
hole completion methodologies have evolved to minimize the number of trips
to complete the well. This includes both methods of setting packers as well as
single-trip multiple zone sand control completion methodologies.

As subsea completions are required in deepwater operations, it is useful to

review the potential for deepwater operations in areas like the Gulf of Mexico.
In a report published by the MMS (now BOEMRE), French et al. (2006) stated
the following:

“Approximately 350,000 barrels of oil and 1.7 billion cubic feet of

gas come from deepwater subsea completions each day. Subsea
completions currently account for about 34 percent of deepwater
oil production and about 50 percent of deepwater gas production.
Figure 62a shows that very little deepwater oil production came
from subsea completions until mid-1995, but by the fall of 1996
 that production had risen to about 20 percent. Since 2000, subsea
oil production has increased slightly, whereas total deepwater oil
production has increased dramatically. Deepwater gas production
from subsea completions began in early 1993, and by mid-1994 it
accounted for over 40 percent of deepwater GOM gas production
(Figure 62b). Gas production from subsea completions increased
from 1996 through 1999, remained constant in 2000, and increased
rapidly after 2000.”

Figure 9 reproduces key charts cited by French et al. (2006) that demonstrate
how rapidly increasing hydrocarbon production was correlated with expanded
use of subsea completions.
Figure 9. Benefits of subsea completions to hydrocarbon production. (French et al.,
2006).
 B. Barriers and Opportunities

The true success of a subsea completion lies in its ability to continue to produce
over time. Any interruption of the production stream (particularly from
deepwater, high-producing wells) can quickly affect the economic performance
of a project. Fortunately, subsea completions are relatively trouble-free after the
initial installation. Although a single database of all subsea completion
equipment failures is not available, a survey by Hammett and Luke (1986)
found an overall reliability of active subsea completions to be 80% from 1960
to 1984. When failures did occur, they were primarily due to downhole
components.

The barriers and opportunities for subsea completions fall into five categories:
regulatory controls, safety management, economic advantages, technological
aspects, and environmental issues.

Regulatory Controls. Regulatory controls for subsea wells and completions in

the United States are managed by BOEMRE as directed by the Secretary of the
Interior. Those controls are stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
under Title 30, Parts 200-299. The primary part regulating operations in the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is 30CFR250 (Code of Federal Regulations,
2011a).

Requirements for completion equipment found in 30CFR250.806 were

modified in January 2010 to deal with HPHT completions. Although the rule
explicitly mentions sub-surface safety valves (SSSV), there are far-ranging
implications due to the clause inserted in the rule pertaining to
“related equipment”. The new requirements are that when a lessee or operator
plans to install SSSVs and related equipment in an HPHT environment, the
lessee/operator must submit detailed information with their Application for
Permit to Drill (APD), Application for Permit to Modify (APM), or Deepwater
Operations Plan (DWOP) that demonstrates the SSSVs and related equipment2
are capable of performing in the applicable HPHT environment. The detailed
information must include the following:

• A discussion of the SSSVs’ and related equipment’s design verification

analysis.

• A discussion of the SSSVs’ and related equipment’s design validation

and functional testing process and procedures used.

• An explanation of why the analysis, process, and procedures ensure that

the SSSVs and related equipment are fit-for-service in the applicable
HPHT environment.

The BOEMRE also issues Notices to Lessees (NTL) to provide interim

requirements until the agency can establish laws through normal rulemaking
channels. The regulatory controls for subsea completions were acknowledged
by the MMS in 1998 to be behind the current technology (Alvarado, 1998) due
to lagging regulatory capacity attributed to limited resources, increasing
coordination needed among federal, state, and local agencies, and lack of
standards for some downhole equipment. The Deepwater Horizon incident, and
associated Macondo well blowout, has driven regulatory activities to a fever
pitch since April 2010 as the industry, lawmakers, and regulators struggle with
how to manage safety and environmental aspects of drilling and completing
deepwater oil and gas wells.

After the Macondo blowout, but before the root cause was established, industry
task groups made recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how to
improve safety in well operations. Those recommendations were adopted and
formalized into a Department of the Interior report to the President (DOI,
2010). Many aspects of the report were covered when the BOEMRE issued two
new NTLs to operators in OCS waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, an
NTL was issued that temporarily imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling
(NTL 2010N04). The two NTLs affecting remaining operations are
summarized below.

• NTL 2010-N05 (MMS, 2010). Although a legal challenge later led to

invalidation of this NTL, its original provisions set a significant tone by
requiring that each operator must:

o Examine all well-control system equipment (both surface and subsea)

currently being used to ensure that it has been properly maintained
and is capable of shutting in the well during emergency operations.
Ensure that Blowout Preventers (BOPs) are able to perform their
designated functions. Ensure that the ROV hot-stabs are function-
tested and are capable of actuating the BOP.

o Review all rig drilling, casing, cementing, well abandonment

(temporary and permanent), completion, and workover practices to
ensure that well control is not compromised at any point while the
BOP is installed on the wellhead.

o Review all emergency shutdown and dynamic positioning procedures

that interface with emergency well control operations.

o Ensure that all personnel involved in well operations are properly

trained and capable of performing their tasks under both normal
drilling and emergency well control operations.

In addition, operators were directed to submit to BOEMRE: (1) a general

statement by the operator’s Chief Executive Officer (authorized official)
certifying the operator’s compliance with all operating regulations at
30CFR250 and (2) a separate statement certifying compliance with each of the
four specific items above. Finally, NTL 2010-N05 required certification from
an independent third party regarding the condition, operability, and suitability
of the BOP equipment for the intended use and the operator must have all well
casing designs and cementing program/procedures certified by a Professional
Engineer, verifying the casing design is appropriate for the purpose for which it
is intended under expected wellbore conditions. While not specifically
mentioned, it was inferred that subsea completions would come under the same
scrutiny as the drilling operations and well-construction products/practices.

• NTL 2010-N06 (BOEMRE, 2010a). The NTL effectively rescinds a

previous NTL
(2008-G04) that relaxed the information required from operators in their
applications
to the BOEMRE (previously, MMS) with respect to blowout
scenarios. As a result of this NTL, operators are now required to
provide in-depth analysis of blowout scenarios along with
calculations on probable discharge rates followed by measures taken
to prevent and reduce the probability of a blowout and also measures
that the operators are proposing will be taken in the event of a
blowout.

The BOEMRE Drilling Safety Rule (Federal Register, 2010a) prescribes proper
cementing and casing practices and the appropriate use of drilling fluids in
order to maintain wellbore integrity. The regulation also strengthens oversight
of the BOP and its components, including remotely operated vehicles, shear
rams and pipe rams. Operators must also secure independent and expert reviews
of their well design, construction and flow-intervention mechanisms.

The BOEMRE Workplace Safety Rule (Federal Register, 2010b) requires

offshore operators to have clear programs in place to identify potential hazards
when they drill, clear protocol for addressing those hazards, and strong
procedures and risk-reduction strategies for all phases of activity, from well
design and construction to operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. The
Workplace Safety Rule makes mandatory American Petroleum Institute (API)
Recommended Practice 75, which was previously a voluntary program to
identify, address and manage safety hazards and environmental impacts in their
operations.

Safety Management. The safety management of different types of subsea

completions has been reviewed in previous industry publications (Cooper,
2008; King, 2001; Fahlman, 1974). The safety aspects can be distilled into the
following categories: (1) risks to personnel, (2) risks to the environment, and
(3) risks to equipment or operations.

Risks to personnel occur during normal installation and operations of the subsea
completions and are effectively covered by Workplace Safety Rule mentioned
above. Since subsea completions effectively remove personnel from the vicinity
of operations during production, risks to personnel are minimized. However,
some have argued that having personnel in the vicinity of operations also
allows continuous monitoring and prevention of problems due to observations
prior to complete failures. The remoteness of exploration and production in
subsea applications makes access to medical treatment facilities limited unless
standby vessels are in use throughout the drilling and completion process.

Risks to the environment are similar to other oil and gas well drilling
operations. Unintended releases of hydrocarbons to the environment can occur
during drilling or completion of the well. An effective barrier strategy including
both fixed and operational barriers increases the overall reliability of the
completion so the environmental risks are minimized. As described in the
status report by BOEMRE (2010b), an API task group is developing a
Recommended Practice for the Design of Deepwater Wells that effectively
outlines barrier strategies and provides recommendations for their selection,
maintenance, and replacement if damage occurs.

Risks to equipment or operations also are similar to those in other oil and gas
well drilling operations. Qualitative risk assessments and subsequent risk
management are key to minimizing risks. Those measures may be simple items
such as developing a more robust tubing or drill pipe connection (Griffin et al.,
2008) or more complex such as developing an electric control system for a
subsea tree that includes automatic shut-down capabilities (Bouquier et al.,
2007).

Economics. The primary economic advantage of a subsea completion can

evaporate instantly if a workover is required. The subsea wellheads are
designed so that workovers are possible by reentering the well but mobilization
of floating workover rigs and the day-rate costs of those vessels make all but
the most serious operations to be cost-prohibitive. As a result, many subsea
completions will be left alone until the end-of-life is reached. Design
requirements of 20 to 25 years for completion equipment are not uncommon.
Advances in well intervention to reduce cost and improve operational capability
are required to further enhance the economic attractiveness of subsea
completions.

Technology. The barriers and opportunities of subsea completions related to

the application of technology for completing oil and gas wells fall into four
categories: general, production trees, installation issues, and production issues.

• General Technology Issues

General technological aspects of subsea completions are concerned with the
materials and environment of the wells. Typically, the cost of interventions
drives operators to select materials which have known survival rates in the
estimated downhole environment. With possible well changes from producers
to injectors and potential reservoir souring, high alloy materials are generally
selected to insure life-of-the-well performance regardless of their cost
multiplier over conventional alloys. Material availability in large-bore
components can sometimes be an issue as well as delivery in volumes as
required for subsea field development.

Since the completion of subsea wells began, the push to deeper and deeper
water to reach more and more hydrocarbons seems to be an unstoppable march.
Drilling and completing exploratory wells is replete with risks relative to
unknown pressures, temperatures, and gradients of pressure that may change
quickly due to geologic conditions. Shallow gas is one example of a drilling
hazard that must be adequately anticipated and managed during well
construction.

Depending on the reservoir location, HPHT conditions may exist in the wells.
This may require extensive product development (Bradley et al., 2006) to safely
contain the elevated pressures and temperatures. The effect of temperature on
the material performance has been extensively studied and data are widely
available (for example, ASME, 2010). But beyond temperature effects alone,
subsea completions and associated surface equipment may suffer from tension
or torsional loads as a result of the completion type (particularly compliant
towers and spar installations). Those cyclical loadings on the surface or seafloor
equipment, when combined with HPHT conditions, may require a crack fatigue
investigation to fully understand the life of the equipment. In addition, the
effect of the produced fluid on the metallurgy under such situations, along with
any required inhibition methods for corrosion or cracking, must be investigated
and understood. A proposed API Technical Report to guide HPHT product
development is in work (“Protocol for Verification and Validation of HPHT
Equipment“, API Technical Report PER15K-1, publication expected in 2011).

• Production Tree Technology

Early subsea completions discovered the need for horizontal trees to allow
access to the main bore of the well without removing the tree or disturbing any
external connections to flow lines (Skeels et al., 1993). Those trees have grown
in both capability and complexity, including electric-operated subsea
production trees which were introduced in 2008 as a means to reduce lost
production days. Production availability gains of 2% were reported along with
a cost advantage of 12.4% (Bouquier et al., 2007).

One of the current issues with subsea wells is that the annuli between
successive casing strings can become pressurized as an undesirable
consequence of operations. The pressure is created by having a sealed annulus
containing fluids which are initially sealed at a lower temperature but later
heated during production, thereby causing an increase in the annulus pressure.
API RP90 recommends methods to deal with that pressure and design tubulars
to contain it.

• Installation and Production Technologies

The installation of the subsea completion generally involves two strings of
tubulars. The first string consists of the tubulars installed in the producing
interval (sometimes called the lower completion) while the second string exists
inside the production casing from the lower production packer to the production
tree (called the upper completion). Both strings have specific issues to be
addressed.

The lower completion in subsea completions (and particularly for deepwater

completions) is generally a sand-control completion. The requirement for sand
control is driven by the types of formations that are encountered in subsea wells
(Waltman et al., 2010). Since the water “overburden” is less dense than rock,
the lower formations are not typically well consolidated and therefore require a
sand control completion to prevent the unwanted development of formation
fines during production. Those types of sand-control completions may either be
installed in open hole or cased hole and are characterized by an upper packer, a
series of gravelpacked screens, and a lower sump packer.

Since the formations penetrated in subsea wells are typically thicker or more
dispersed compared with formations penetrated by onshore wells, barriers to
successfully completing subsea wells include bigger gravel-pack job volumes,
more wear on downhole components, and various surface issues related to fluid
and gravel storage prior to pumping the job. Pumping up to 1.2 million pounds
of gravel at rates up to 60 barrels per minute are not uncommon. Performing all
the gravel placement operations without multiple trips is an obvious advantage
to some completion types (Burger et al., 2010).

Production issues for multiple-zone, sand-control completions include water

invasion (sometimes in a wormhole fashion) (Wibawa et al., 2008) and stability
of the gravel pack over time. Water or other unwanted fluid invasion is
sometimes addressed by inflow control devices and the use of fiber optics to
monitor inflow is possible (Berthold, 1997). Intelligent well completions also
offer downhole monitoring and control of flows (Mathiesen et al., 2006).

After the lower completion is successfully installed and gravel packed, an

isolation or barrier valve is closed to protect the formation from damaging
effects of overbalanced fluid while the upper completion is run. The time and
method required to open the isolation valve in conjunction with other
monitoring or well control products is typically a focus of improvements in
well operations.
The upper completion typically consists of a lower production packer, tubing,
and a subsurface safety valve (SSSV). The operations of the packer and SSSV
have been the focus of new technology to overcome the barriers of time and
consistency of operation as subsea completions move into ever deeper water.
Hydrostatic set packers (Maldonado et al., 2006), pressure-pulse set packers
(Simonds et al., 2000) and electric-operated safety valves (Bouquier et al.,
2007) are all examples of how technology has developed to address the issues.
Electric operations remove the issue of pressure loss down hydraulic control
lines in deepwater operations. Other improvements focus on fewer moving
parts to achieve higher reliability or isolating moving parts from tubing
pressure (LeBoeuf et al., 2008).

Subsea completed wells require technology to address both the produced fluid
as well as maintain and manage the hydrocarbons still in the reservoir to obtain
the ultimate recovery of the resources. The produced fluids, in combination
with the surroundings and/or the changing environment inside the production
tubulars, create conditions where asphaltenes and hydrates may form. Those
by-products of production are typically managed by chemical injection. The
specific challenge of subsea completions is the storage and injection system of
the injected chemicals considering the depths, temperatures, and location of the
subsea completion relative to the control system.

The produced fluid itself may also attack the production tubulars and form scale
or corrosion inside the tubulars. Metallurgical controls on the selection of the
production tubulars with knowledge of the producing environment and the
stress state of the items is required to adequately plan and manage corrosion
and its by-products. Depending on the production rate, the produced fluid may
also contain particulates from the reservoir that are large enough, hard enough,
numerous enough, and traveling at sufficient velocity to erode the production
tubulars or subsea completion equipment. Technology for remote monitoring of
production includes both fluid composition and rate as well as equipment wall
thickness in critical sections to allow the prediction of remaining life of the
equipment. Again, the depths, temperatures, and location of the subsea
completion relative to the control system are factors that must be considered in
the overall completion plan.

The reservoir containing the hydrocarbons must also be maintained to insure

efficient overall recovery of the hydrocarbons. Reservoir management may
include pressure maintenance by means of injection of gas or other fluids and
possibly a field completion plan using a driving fluid such as gas (Kelly and
Strauss, 2009) to recover the maximum amount of hydrocarbons.

Environmental Issues. The barriers and opportunities for subsea completions

relative to environmental aspects fall into two categories. The first opportunity
is reduction of overall resources needed to develop the hydrocarbon production.
Considering the size and mass of steel required to construct an offshore
platform, the development of a series of wells using subsea completions make
the latter attractive. Similarly, the economic abandonment point for well
production can be optimized with subsea completions considering that they
obviate the considerable maintenance requirements and decommissioning costs
of topsides structures. Those advantages are not without impact as a topsides
structure offer stable platforms that can facilitate well interventions to perform
wellbore maintenance such as sealing off unwanted production or permanently
abandoning production. The effort required to perform well intervention on a
subsea completion by bringing in a support vessel, removing production
equipment, etc., is frequently cost-prohibitive relative to simple abandonment.
Advances in well intervention without the use support vessels are required to
overcome those constraints.

The second category of environmental effects is that on the potential for

reduction of spills, leaks, and other releases of hydrocarbons during well
construction and production. The subsea completion by its nature is a well-
controlled activity as the equipment must be designed to operate under water (at
sometimes significant pressures) which, in itself, requires sealed connections to
prevent water ingress and therefore prevents hydrocarbon egress. Equipment
operating at atmospheric pressure in air may not have such design
requirements. Similarly, subsea processing of produced fluids with subsequent
re-injection on unwanted fluids for pressure maintenance may be an area where
the potential for spills, leaks, and other releases of hydrocarbons are minimized.

C. Long-Term Vision (Year 2050)

The long-term outlook and vision for subsea completions is bright. Continuous
advances in materials, sensing capabilities (Berthold, 1997), and control
systems (Mathiesen et al., 2006) will allow more economic recovery of
resources. Additionally, well and field architecture developments, including
multilateral wells and extended-reach drilling, offer even more potential.
Adding to those advances are possibilities for complete field development,
production and control including subsea processing (Baker and Lucas-
Clements, 1990), re-injection, and potential waterflooding all controlled
without intervention (Dick, 2005), and matching a predefined model of field
drainage.
 OFFSHORE PLATFORM PRODUCTION
Offshore Platform Production
Overview
Offshore production consists of a number of operations that allow the safe
and efficient production of hydrocarbons from the flowing wells. The key
operations that will be conducted at the offshore platform include:
 Produced hydrocarbon separation;
 Gas processing;
 Oil and gas export;
 Well testing;
 Produced water treatment and injection;
 Seawater lift for cooling duty and injection; and
 Utilities to support these processes.

A simplified process flow diagram illustrating the principal offshore

processes.

Offshore Production Process Table

The principal production processes and support utilities are described in
more detail in the following sections.
Hydrocarbon Processing and Export
Separation

Hydrocarbon flow from the producing wells will be received at either the
High pressure (HP) or Low Pressure (LP) production manifolds on the
DUQ platform and transferred to the two platform separation trains for
separation into oil, gas and water phases. Each separation train will include
a two-phase (gas from liquids) HP separator in series with a three-phase
LP separator and coalescer. Table presents the design operating
specifications for the separators. Wells on test will run via an additional
test manifold and separator.

Separator Design Operating Specifications Table

Pressure (barg) Temperature (OC)

HP Separator 29 barg 40 to 55

LP Separator 12 barg 40 to 58

The separation trains will be designed to process up to:

 316 Mbpd of oil;

 350 MMscfd of high-pressure gas;
 225 MMscfd low-pressure gas; and
 131 Mbpd of produced water.

The majority of the gas present in the produced fluids will “flash off” in
the HP Separator. This gas will be routed to the gas compression and
dehydration system for further processing. The liquid hydrocarbon phase
from the HP separator will be routed to the LP separator for further
separation into oil and water phases. Produced oil from the LP separator
will flow into the oil booster pumps, across the bridge and into the
coalescer located on the PCWU platform. Thereafter it will pass to the main
oil line (MOL) pumps. From here, it will be exported to the onshore
terminal via the two Azeri Project 30” export oil pipelines. Produced water
will be routed to the produced water treatment system and then to the water
injection system.
Gas Processing

Gas removed from the HP separator will be passed to the PCWU platform
for treatment prior to export onshore via the Azeri 28” gas line. Treatment
will involve gas cooling and dehydration to remove water. Gas removed
from the fluids in the LP separator will be cooled and compressed via flash
gas compression before being co-mingled with the HP gas upstream of the
dehydration column (tri-ethelyne glycol (TEG) contactor). Final
dehydration will involve use of glycol to remove any residual moisture to
prevent hydrate formation and corrosion within the gas export pipeline.
Used glycol will be recovered, treated in a glycol regeneration package and
recycled. Water vapour generated in the package will be condensed and
routed to the closed drains drum. Following final dehydration, the
combined gas streams will be compressed to export pressure by 2 x 175
MMscfd electric driven compressors.

Unlike the Azeri facilities, associated gas from Phase 3 will not be re-
injected into the reservoir for disposal or pressure support purposes. A
portion of the treated associated gas will however, be taken off and used as
fuel gas on the platforms and for gas lift in producing wells.
Fuel Gas

Major DUQ and PCWU platform fuel gas users and design usage rates are
presented in Table below.
Major DUQ and PCWU Platform Fuel Gas Users and Design Usage Rates
Platfor User Design
m Rate3
(Sm
&2
/hr)1
DUQ: Purge gas to HP and LP flare 150
headers:
Power generators (1 unit): 7,400 (15 C)
6,812 (35 C)
PCWU: Purge gas in the HP and LP 150
headers:
Flare pilot light: 16
Glycol regenerator: 36
Water injection pump gas turbines 21,600 (15 C)
(3 units): 19,050 (35 C)
Power generators (4 units): 22,20
0
1 Standard cubic meters per hour.
2 Gas turbine design rates for power generation and water injection provided for both
iso conditions (28MW power @ 15C) and maximum ambient design (23MW power
@ 35C).

Fuel gas will be diverted from the HP gas process train downstream of the
main export compressor. It will be passed on to the fuel gas system on the
PCWU platform where liquid condensate will be removed in the fuel gas
knock out (KO) drum and returned to the LP separator train for processing.
Gas will then be heated and filtered prior to use.

Under normal operations, the base fuel gas load will be approximately
50,000 Sm3/hr (46 MMscfd) based on four gas turbine power generators
and three turbine driven water injection pumps operating at full capacity
plus nominal usage by other fuel gas users. Maximum design capacity will
allow for temporary operation of eight gas turbines plus auxiliary fuel gas
users and the fuel gas KO drum will be able to provide sufficient gas
inventory for automatic changeover of the gas turbine generators to diesel
fuel in the event of loss of fuel gas.

Facilities will be provided to enable the import of gas onto the platform
fuel gas system directly from the gas export line if required.

Gas Lift

Gas lift increases production flow-rate in low-pressure production wells

and all production wells will be fitted with gas lift completion equipment.
Gas lift will be required after the third year of production although it may
be required for some wells from start up.

Gas for gas lift service, will be diverted from the HP stream downstream
of the main export compressors. Maximum well injection rates will not
exceed 6 MMscfd per well and average injection rates are expected to be 4
MMscfd per well.

Production Chemicals

A range of chemicals will be required to aid the production process, inhibit

corrosion of equipment, prevent the build up of scale, and to assist
hydrocarbon export. AIOC has a policy to limit chemical use and where
use is essential, only selected chemicals of known low toxicity (i.e. OCNS
Category E or D or those approved under the Project’s Design Standards)
will, as far as practicable, be used. Chemicals to be used will largely be the
same as those adopted for the Azeri Project wherever possible. The
chemical systems will be continually evaluated and modified as necessary
depending on specific operating conditions.

No production chemicals used will be discharged from the platforms to the

marine environment under normal operating conditions. Any water-soluble
chemicals used in the produced water system will normally be re-injected
into the reservoir with the produced water. If all water injection lines
become unavailable simultaneously (a very low probability event) then
produced water with its chemical additives will be discharged to sea.
Chemicals will be supplied to the platform in transportable tote tanks.
These tanks will be decanted into skid mounted storage tanks that feed the
chemical injection pumps. All installed chemical injection pumps shall be
spared. The chemical storage tanks will be sized to provide a re-supply
interval of 14 days at the maximum design dosage rate.
A list of anticipated production chemical requirements along with the
dosage range for these is presented in Table. These requirements may be
subject to revision as detailed engineering progresses for the project.

Anticipated Production Chemicals and Requirements

Design
Typic Maxim
al um Injection Solubili
Chemical
Dosage
Dosag (ppmv) Points (Note ty
e 1) Portio
(ppm n
v)
  Each production manifold;
 Inlet each HP separator; Oil
Antifoam 3-5 10  Inlet each LP separator; and
 Inlet test separator
 Each production manifold;
 Inlet each HP separator; Oil
Demulsifier 20 30  Inlet each LP separator; and
 Inlet test separator
Wellhea
 Individual wellheads; and
d: 20 As Oil
Scale inhibitor Water "typic  Water outlet from each LP separator
lines: al" (Note 2).
30
 Water outlet from each LP separator;
Reverse 10 20 Produced
and
Demulsifier  Water outlet of test separator. water
Corrosion  Suction of each MOL booster pump
Inhibitor (Oil) 30 30 Oil

Corrosion 1 1  Gas export line

Inhibitor (Gas) litre / litre / Gas
MMs MMs
cf cf
Corrosion  Suction of each produced water pump. Produced
Inhibitor 30 30
(Produced water
Water)

Biocide 500 500  Inlet of produced water degasser. Water

60 litres  Flowing: gas export line; and
/  Equipment: individual production Oil/gas
Flowin MMscf wellheads.
Methanol g: 50
100 Note: The methanol tank is not part of
litre /
MMsc litres / the main chemical injection skid. The
MMscf methanol tank is a separate inert gas
f*
during blanketed vessel with its own
well injection pumps located on the
start PCWU.
up
Note: Not part of main chemical
Oxygen injection Skid. Oxygen scavenger to Seawater
150 150
Scavenger be dosed using portable
ppmv ppmv tank/pump arrangement. Oxygen
(Utility)
scavenger dosing to process is very
intermittent.

Notes:
(1) Where more than one location is given these are generally alternatives, although in some
instances multiple injection locations may be required, dependant on operational
experience.
(2) Down-hole scale squeeze treatment may also be carried out. No platform facilities are
required for this other than provision for entry to the production tubing as it will be
carried out by the well service company.

In addition to the chemicals cited above, it is anticipated that a drag

reducing agent (DRA) will be used in the oil export lines during peak
production years (e.g. 2009-2010) to allow increase oil throughput. Typical
dosage rate for the DRA will be 20ppmv, with a design maximum dosage
of 50ppmv. DRA trials were, at the time of writing being undertaken for
the EOP Chirag-1 platform and 24” oil export line. Similarly, a wax
inhibitor / pour point depressant, H2S scavenger and alternative demulsifier
may be used. Space and weight provisions on the platform topsides will be
provided for future utilisations.

Well Clean-up / Testing

The test separator train will provide the requirements for well clean-up,
well kick-off and well testing and will work across the full range of
conditions experienced by both the HP and LP separators to cater for tests
from both HP and LP wells. The test separator will also be capable of
operating as a production separator in the event that one production train is
unavailable. There will be no planned emissions to atmosphere or to sea as
a result of these test separator activities as hydrocarbon products will be
contained in the process train.

Produced Water
Anticipated produced water volumes for the Phase 3 Project.
Predicted Phase 3 Annual Produced Water
Volumes (Tonnes/year)
Under normal operating conditions, produced water will, following
treatment, be sent to the water injection pumps where it will be combined
with treated seawater and injected for reservoir pressure maintenance.

The produced water treatment package onboard the DUQ platform will be
capable of treating up to 131 Mbpd. It includes solids removal sand
cyclone units and de-oiling hydrocyclones. A separate sand cyclone unit
and hydrocyclone will be provided for each of the two process trains and
for the test train. Removed sand will be transferred to the sand separation
package.

Treated water exiting each of the hydrocyclones will be routed to a

degassing drum where any remaining gas will be “flashed” and directed to
the LP flare system. The degassing drum will be equipped with an oil-
skimming facility and oil / oily water will be routed back into the LP
separator for re-treatment.

If the total water injection system becomes unavailable (e.g. in

circumstances when all of the three available injection pumps are
unavailable) produced water will be discharged to sea via caisson at 45 m
below the sea surface. A sampling point will be installed downstream of
the degassing drum to allow verification that water that needs to be
discharged to sea meets the following IFC standards:
 42 mg/l dispersed oil and grease – daily average; and
 29 mg/l dispersed oil and grease – monthly average.

Produced water will be preferentially injected before seawater to minimise

need for discharge of produced water to sea during any downtime of the
 injection system.

Through the management of the water injection and hydrocarbon

production systems, it is estimated that there may be a need to discharge
produced water to sea for up to 2% of the total platform
operating/producing time. Based on this assumption, anticipated volumes
of produced water that will be discharged to sea are quantified.

Water Injection
Water injection to the reservoir will initially be via one pre-drilled platform
well and the six to eight subsea water injection wells. Additional water
injection wells will be drilled from the DUQ platform for future
requirements.

Injection water will include produced water and lifted seawater. Seawater
will be taken from a depth of 107 m below the sea surface using two lift
pumps on the DUQ platform and four on the PCWU platform. Following
filtration to remove solids, some seawater will be used for platform
utilities. Filtered seawater required for water injection will be transferred
to the water injection system on the PCWU platform. The injection water
treatment system consists of a de-aerator tower where water oxygen levels
will be reduced via injection of an oxygen scavenger and other chemicals.
The chemicals that will be added to the injection water stream (as currently
planned) are presented in Table.

Table Injection Water Chemicals

Typical Design
Dosage Maximum Injection Points (Note 1)
Chemical
(ppmv) Dosage
(ppmv)
 For potential future use;
 Injection points have been provided upstream of the deaerators
Calcium Nitrate To WI: 57 and upstream of the produced water pumps; and
(Souring Mitigation) To PW: 163 As
 Allowance has been made in the layout for future installation of
"typical" nitrate storage tanks and pumps.
Oxygen Scavenger
(Water Injection) 5 10  Each deaerator system recycle loop.
Scale Inhibitor 30 30  Suction of each water injection pump.
Antifoam 1 2  Inlet of each deaerator.
  Inlet of each deaerator; and
 Exit of each deaerator.
Biocide 500 500  Batch dosed for 6 hours per week (period treatment)
Corrosion Inhibitor 30 30  Suction of each water injection pump.
Notes:
(1) Where more than one location is given these are generally alternatives, although in some
instances multiple injection locations may be required, dependant on operational
experience.

Once de-oxygenated, seawater will be routed to booster pumps and then

co-mingled with treated produced water. The combined streams will be
injected using three gas turbine driven water injection pumps onboard the
PCWU platform. Each water injection pump will be capable of pressurising
the water to the required injection pressure of 448 barg and the water
injection system in total will be capable of injecting up to 750 Mbwpd (i.e.
3 x 250 Mbwpd water injection pumps). The water injection system will
be designed to operate at an overall 98% availability. When the system is
unavailable, some volumes of injection water will be discharged to sea.
During these periods biocide dosing will cease.
Platform Utilities
A number of platform utilities will be provided to support platform
operations. These utilities are described in the following sections.
Power Generation

The power generation system will provide electrical power for the drilling
operations, production operations and all of the platform utility systems.
The principal power supply will be Rolls Royce RB211 gas turbine
generators each capable of generating 22-28 MW of electrical power
depending on the ambient temperature.

The PCWU will have four RB211 power generation packages (including
one spare) for general power supply and an additional three dedicated to
water injection duty. The DUQ will have one RB211 generator. The
generators will normally operate with dry fuel gas generated by the
platform fuel gas system. Diesel will however, be used in the event of
unavailability of fuel gas with up to six of the generators capable of running
on diesel. Back-up supply to the platforms’ RB211 generators will be
provided by two 1.2 MW emergency diesel generators, one on each
platform. These generators will also be used for first power at platform
start-up.

During drilling operations and prior to installation of the PCWU platform,

the DUQ will be powered by one RB211 and will have eight temporary
diesel engine generators for back-up power supply. This temporary
generation will be required for 4-6 months, following which the temporary
diesel engine driven packages will be removed from the platform and
shipped back to shore as they will be no longer required for the project.

Diesel System

In addition to providing fuel for the back-up power generation system, the
diesel system will also provide fuel to the following users:

 Cranes;
 Lifeboats; and
 Firewater pumps.

Diesel transfer to the platform will be by hose from supply boats. The hoses
will be equipped with breakaway couplings to isolate supply in the event
that the line tears or breaks. Diesel storage will be 109 m3 in each of the
two storage tanks located in the DUQ crane pedestals. During the initial
drilling period when PCWU platform is not installed, diesel will likely be
stored in the process separators located on the DUQ platform so as to
reduce the number of required supply vessel trips.

From storage, the diesel will be pumped to the various platform users via
the diesel treatment package, with a system design capacity rate of 33
m3/hr. Diesel bunkering will be a continuously manned operation. The
treatment package consists of a coalescing filter system that will remove
water, associated salts and particulates from the diesel in order to meet the
gas turbine generator quality specifications (when running on diesel). The
by-products of the diesel treatment system will be passed to the closed
drain system.

Flare System

The platform flare system is designed to collect and safely dispose of any
gaseous releases that need to be routed to the atmosphere for safety or
operational reasons. It is primarily an emergency relief system for use
under abnormal conditions such as during start-up, shutdown, planned
maintenance and times of equipment failure or an emergency event.

The offshore flare system will consist of a LP and a HP system designed

to gather gaseous releases from platforms’ equipment. It will route gas via
the HP and LP header / flare drum sets (one of each on both the DUQ and
PCWU) to a single flare tip on the PCWU flare boom where they will be
burned. The potential sources of gaseous releases include:

 LP Flare System:
 Cooling Medium Expansion Drum;
 Flash Gas Compressor Discharge Coolers;
 Fuel Gas Package;
 Gas Pipeline Pig Launcher;
 Gas Turbine Generator;
 Glycol Regeneration Package;
 HP Gas Cooler;
 Methanol Drum;
 MOL Pumps;
 Oil Booster Pumps;
 Produced Water Treatment Package; and
 Sand Separation Package;
 HP Flare System:
 Flash Gas Compressor Discharge Coolers;
 Flash Gas Compressor Suction Scrubbers;
 Fuel Gas KO Drum;
 Fuel Gas Package;
 Gas Turbine Generator;
 Glycol Contactor;
 HP Separators;
  Ignition Package;
 LP Separators;
 Coalescer
 Oil Booster Pumps; and
 Test Separator.

There will be no routine continuous flaring of associated gas for oil

production purposes from the Phase 3 facilities.

Although the flare system is primarily designed for use during abnormal
operating conditions, there will be a need to continually supply a small
volume of gas to the flare system and for this to be burnt at the flare tip for
the following reasons:

 Fuel gas for the continually lit pilot lights to ensure ignition of any gaseous
releases;
 Continuous purge gas to prevent ingress of oxygen into the system and
the build-up of a potentially explosive atmosphere;
 Glycol regeneration package vent;
 Fugitives from compressor gas seals; and
 Produced water degasser vent.

BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene) will be retained in the

hydrocarbon stream from the glycol regeneration package. This will be
flared. The combined HP and LP flare pilot lights consumption rate will
be approximately 4 MMscf/yr. The flare tip purge gas rate will be
approximately 600 MMscf/yr (not including losses from seals and vents).

During operations there will be occasions when plant upsets occur

necessitating flaring of gas to allow continued oil production safe repair of
equipment and safe restart of the plant. These occasions will be reduced by
the procurement of robust and proven and reliable equipment and the
design of plant and equipment with sparing capacity. In addition, regular
inspection and maintenance programmes will be implemented for plant
equipment to maintain efficiency. The overall plant design availability for
individual components of the offshore and onshore plant, plus the subsea
export pipelines is 95%. When all of these components operate together
the overall availability equates to 92% at production plateau1.
The flare tip will be designed to handle an emergency blow-down rate of
350 MMscfd. When flaring is necessary it will be maximised at the
offshore platform location in order to minimise flaring events at the
terminal. Flaring will be metered and a flaring policy will be defined for
the operating phase of the Project that will be consistent with the overall
flaring policy for ACG FFD. The policy will stipulate annual caps on
volumes of gas that may be flared.

Seawater System

Seawater will be drawn directly from the platform seawater lift pump
caissons (–107 m below the sea surface) using five of the six seawater lift
pumps. One pump (plus one spare) will be located on the DUQ platform
and the other four will be on the PCWU platform. Each seawater lift pump
will have a normal flow-rate of 1,718 m3/hr.
Seawater will be used for a number of purposes as follows:

 Water injection;
 Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning (HVAC);
 Living quarters ablutions;
 Drilling facilities;
 Fresh water generator;
 Fire water ring main pressurisation facility;
 Bio-fouling control unit;
 Sewage treatment system;
 Sand jetting system;
 Coarse filter backwash, and
 Cooling for the cooling medium system.
 Washdown facilities

Following lifting and filtration to remove particles greater than 150

microns, a proportion of the seawater will be dosed with a copper-chlorine
anti-fouling additive in order to prevent the build-up of organic matter.
There will be an anti-fouling package onboard both the DUQ and PCWU
platforms and design flow-rates will be 20 m3/hr and 80 m3/hr,
respectively. The anti- fouling system will pulse dose the water for one
minute in every five with a 5 ppb copper and 50 ppb chlorine mixture. Once
treated, the seawater will be passed to the various uses listed above.
Cooling Medium System

The main processes requiring cooling include the following equipment and
utilities:
 Flash gas compressors;
 Main gas compressors;

 Power generation turbine utilities;

 Turbine driven water injection pump utilities;
 MOL booster pumps;
 MOL pumps;
 Air compressor package; and
 Export gas compressor after-cooler.

The platform cooling systems will comprise of separate closed-loop

cooling medium systems on each platform. The systems will be an indirect
glycol-water cooling system (20 % by weight mono ethylene glycol
(MEG)) that is cooled by seawater. There will be four seawater exchangers
on the PCWU and two seawater exchangers on the DUQ. Top-up MEG
will be supplied to the system by tote tank. The cooling medium will have
an operational flow-rate of 3,142 m3/hr on the PCWU and 180 m3/hr on the
DUQ.
Once used, cooling water will be routed to the water injection system for
disposal. There will however, be two scenarios where it will be discharged
to sea, namely:

1. Prior to installation of the PCWU platform (i.e. when only the DUQ
platform is installed) and there will be no injection water treatment or
pumping system; and
2. When the PCWU is installed but when the water injection system is
unavailable.

The maximum amount that will be discharged under the first of these
scenarios is 1,718 m3/hr; that is, equal to the lifting capacity of the one
seawater lift pump located on the DUQ platform at that time.

Under the second scenario, cooling water will be discharged via a caisson
at 45 m below the sea surface and at a temperature of between 20 OC and
25OC. Discharge volumes will be small and rates will be variable
depending on the demand for injection water and the amount of produced
water that is being generated.

Firewater

Firewater will be supplied by two diesel driven firewater pumps, each with
a pumping rating of 2,150 m3/hr at the discharge flange. The pumps will
be located on the cellar deck of the DUQ platform and will provide a
dedicated firewater supply for both platforms from the seawater lift system.
The distribution system will supply firewater to general area deluge
systems, hose reels/hydrants and monitors. Deluge protection will be
provided to the majority of hydrocarbon processing areas, including the
wellhead/manifold and drilling areas.

A film forming fluoro protein (FFFP) concentrate system will be provided

to enhance the effectiveness of deluge water spray protecting the separator
module where there is potential for hydrocarbon pool fires. FFFP is a
natural protein foaming agent that is biodegradable and non-toxic.

Firewater hose reels/hydrants will be designed for a nominal capacity of

26 m3/hr and will be located to provide coverage to all parts of the
installation via two jets of water.

Firewater and foam monitors will be provided for helideck protection. At

least two monitors, each capable of a minimum 5.5 l/min/m2, will be
provided for the safe landing area.

Sand Jetting and Separation System

All producer wells will have down-hole sand production control. It is

expected however, that flowing hydrocarbons will still carry some sand
with it to the platform topsides and therefore, sand jetting equipment will
be provided to remove accumulated sand from the process equipment such
as separators, the produced water degasser drum and the closed drains
drum. Removed sand will be directed to the sand separation package via
dedicated sandwash piping.

Initially, sand-jetting water will be treated de-aerated seawater but as

produced water volumes increase, this will be used in preference. Produced
water used for jetting will be cleaned and routed to the water injection
system.

The sand separation package consists of a de-sanding hydrocyclone and a

de-oiling hydrocyclone designed to remove oil to a nominal level of 1% by
weight oil on sand. Cleaned sand will be slurrified and transported to the
cuttings re-injection system where it will be injected into one of the two
dedicated CRI wells. The resultant oily water mixture from the de- oiling
hydrocyclone will be routed to the closed drains drum. In the event that the
cuttings re- injection system is unavailable, the sand will be diverted from
the desanding hydrocyclone and containerised for transportation to shore
for treatment and disposal.
Based on anticipated sand production volumes, vessel jetting is expected
to be required on a weekly basis. Jetting systems will however be capable
of removing double the design sand loadings of 5 pptb by simply increasing
the jetting frequency.

Drainage System

The drainage system on the platforms will consist of non-hazardous and

hazardous open drains as well as a closed drains system. There are two
systems of drainage management on the DUQ and PCWU, as follows:

PCWU

 Open drains waters (including drainage from areas with a hazardous

safety rating) is routed to the open drains caisson and passed through a
skimmer in the caisson to draw off any oil prior to discharge at -45m.
 Closed drains waters will be directed to the LP and HP closed drains
drums. Liberated gas from these drums will be sent to the flare and the
liquids will be sent back to the LP separator for re-treatment.
DUQ
 Open drains from areas with a hazardous safety rating will be discharged to the open drains caisson fitted with
skimmer to draw off any oil, prior to discharge at -45m.
 Drainage from areas with a non-hazardous safety rating will be sent to an oil drains tank and from there to the cuttings
re-injection package for downhole reinjection.
 Closed drains waters will be directed to the LP and HP closed drains drums as with the PCWU. Liberated gas from
these drums will be sent to the flare and the liquids will be sent back to the LP separator for re-treatment.
Both open drains caissons are fitted with a sample extraction point at -30m and will be monitored for no visible sheen.
Instrument Air and Inert Gas System

The instrument air system will provide plant and instrument air for use in drilling,
process control and maintenance. On the DUQ, air will be provided by four oil-
free air compressors rated at 33% duty each, and a further two compressors rated
at 50% will provide the air on the PCWU. The total air-flow rate will be
approximately 9,000 Sm3/hr.
Inert Gas (nitrogen) will be generated on demand by a membrane package using
dry compressed air. A backup inert gas supply system shall also be provided. Inert
Gas users include compressor seals, cooling medium expansion drum and utility
stations.

Fresh Water

The fresh water maker system will utilise a reverse osmosis (RO) process to
desalinate seawater. It will include membranes to clean the seawater and will have
the capacity to produce 5 m3/hr of fresh water. Saline effluent from the fresh water
maker will be directed overboard through the seawater discharge caisson.

The fresh water will be stored in a fresh water tank on the DUQ platform.
Additional filtered fresh water will be supplied from the supply boats as required.

Water delivered to the accommodation module will be further sterilised in a UV

sterilisation plant then passed to the potable water header tank.
Sewage

Toilet and washing facilities will be located on the DUQ platform.

Sewage will be collected via the sewer system and treated in a USGC Certified
MSD. The package will have a maximum capacity of 56 m3/day, consistent with
the peak platform manning level of 300 personnel during HUC activities. The
average capacity will be 37 m3/day. An inlet surge tank will accommodate
variations in sewage production rates.
The sewage treatment package will include maceration and electro-chlorination.
Treated sewage will be co-mingled with seawater and untreated laundry grey water
such that a residual chlorine discharge specification of 1mg/l is met after which it
is discharged via the sewage caisson at 15 m below the sea surface. The package
is designed to meet the discharge limits present in Table below.

Table: Sewage Treatment System Specifications

Parameter Discharge Limit
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) <150 mg/l (average)
<150 mg/l (peak day)
pH 6 to 9
Residual chlorine 1 mg/l
Faecal coliforms <200 MPN/100 ml

Other Wastes

Organic food waste from the platform galley will be macerated to the MARPOL
standard of
<25 mm and discharged to sea via the sewage caisson.

Start-Up Operations
Start-up of offshore production operations will be controlled under increasing
loads and hydrocarbon throughput. The oil processing equipment will be started-
up before the gas processing equipment and hence, while the latter comes on
stream, it is anticipated that there will be an initial requirement to flare gas. In
addition, early commissioning and start-up problems may also occur resulting in
the requirement for additional flaring events. It is predicted that plant availability
during the first year of operation will be 75%, and 85% in the second year.
Thereafter offshore availability is assumed to be 95%.
REFERENCES:
 Boesch DF and Rabelais NN (1987). Long-term environmental effects of oil
and gas development. Elsevier Applied Science, London.
 Cairns WJ (1992). North Sea oil and the environment: developing oil and
gas resources, environmental impacts and responses. Elsevier, Cambridge
 DTI (2001). Development of UK Oil and Gas Resources 2001. The
Stationery Office.
 Engelhardt FR, Ray JP and Gillam AH (eds) (1989). Drilling Wastes.
Elsevier Applied Science, London. 867pp.
 Environment Agency (1998). Oil and gas in the environment. Environmental
Issues Series, The Stationery Office, 104pp.
 Gallaway BJ, Senner RGB, Fechhelm RB and Hubbard GF (1997).
Environmental trends in the Gulf of Mexico in the twentieth century: The
role of offshore oil and gas industry. Report to the American Petroleum
Institute, 110pp. Available at www.api.com
 Gulland J and Walker C (1998). Marine seismic overview. In, Seismic and
Marine Mammals Workshop, 23-25 June 1998 (sponsored by AMJIG and
IAGC).
 Middleditch BS (ed) (1981). Environmental effects of offshore oil
production, the Buccaneer gas and oil field study. Plenum Press. 446pp.
 Reed M and Johnsen S (eds) (1996). Produced Water 2: Environmental
Issues and Mitigation Technologies. Plenum Press.
 Richardson WJ, Greene CR Jr, Malme CI and Thomson DH (1995). Marine
Mammals and Noise. Academic Press.
 Stockil P (Ed.) (1977). Our Industry Petroleum. The British Petroleum
Company Limited, London. 600pp
 Swan JM, Neff JM and Young PC (1994). Environmental implications of
offshore oil and gas development in Australia - the findings of an
independent scientific review. Australian Petroleum Exploration
Association, Sydney, 695 pp.
 UK Offshore Operators Association and the Natural History Museum.
Britain’s Oil and Gas. Second Edition. 55pp.
 UKOOA (2000). Balancing Needs 2000 Environmental
Performance Report. http://www.oilandgas.org.uk
 Adams, M. V. , John,C. B. , Kelly, R. F. , Lapointe, A. E. , and Meurer, R. W.
, 1976, Mineral resource management of the Outer Continental Shelf: U. S.
Geological Survey Circular 720, 32 p.
 American Petroleum Institute, 1974, The why and how of undersea drilling,
12 p.
 AMOCO Canada Petroleum Company, Ltd. , and Imperial Oil Ltd. ,
 Offshore Exploration Staff, 1974, Regional geology of Grand Banks: Special
A. A. P. G. Foundation Issue, East Coast Offshore Symposium, Atlantic City,
N.J.
 (H. H. Emmerich, Special Editor) , A. A. P. G. Bulletin
 v. 58, no. 6, (pt. 11 of 11) , p. 1109-1123.
 Anderson, J. , 1975, Coring and core analysis handbook; PPC Books, Tulsa,
200p.
 Benton, J. B. , Bisselle, C. A. , Gilliam, R. , McDowell, T. W. ,
 Slaughter, J. , Tyndall, R. W. , and Wik, J. D. , 1979 , Directory of federal,
state, and local OCS—re1ated activities and contracts: Prepared by the MIT
RE Corp . for the U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey
in cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality, 192 p.
 Benton, J. B. , Holman, R. , and McDowell, T. W. , 1979, Atlantic Index
(January 1975—Äpri1 1979) ; Prepared by the MI TRE Corp. for the U. S.
Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Land
Management in cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality,
68p.
 Bureau of Land Management, 1979, Final environmental impact statement,
proposed 1979 Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sale offshore the
Mid—Atlantic states , OCS Sale No. 49, v. 1 of 3, 673 p.
 Danenberger, E. P. , 1976, oil spills, 1971-75, Gulf of Mexico, Outer
Continental Shelf: U. S. Geological Survey Circular 741, 47 p.
 Dobrin, M. B. , 1960, Introduction to geophysical prospecting: McGraw
Hill, New York, 446 p.
 Dott, R. H. , sr. , and Reynolds, M. J. , 1979 , Sourcebook for petroleum
geology, semicentennial commemorative volume ; Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Memoir 5, 471 p.
 Energy Research and Development Agency and Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory, 1976, Near—normal geothermal gradient workshop, Univ. of
 California in cooperation with the U. S. Geological Survey, ERDA 76—11,
310 p.
 Harris, L. M. , 1972, Deepwater floating drilling operations:
 The Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma ,
 Hunt, J. M. , 1979 , Geochemistry of petroleum: W. H. Freeman and
Company, San Francisco, 617 p.
 Lamp (The) , Exxon Corporation; v. 56, no. 1, Spring, 1974, 37 p.
 Levorsen, A. I. , 1967, Geology of petroleum; (2nd Edition) : W. H. Freeman
and Company, San Francisco, 724 p.
 Macpherson, G. S. , and Bookman, C. A. , 1980, Outer Continental Shelf oil
and gas activities in the Mid—Atlantic and their onshore impacts: A
surtunary report, November 1979 : Prepared by Rogers & Golden, Inc. for
the U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, in cooperation with
the Council on Environmental Quality; U. S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 80—17, 63 p.
 Mattick, R. E. , and Hennessy, Jacqueline L. (eds.) , 1980, Structural
framework, stratigraphy, and petroleum geology of the area of oil and gas
Lease Sale No. 49 on the Atlantic continental shelf and slope : U. S.
Geological Survey Circular 812, 101 p.
 Moore, C. A. , 1963, Handbook of subsurface geology: Harper & Row, New
York, Evanston, and London , 235 p.
 National Academy of Sciences, Petroleum in the marine environ— ment,
Washington, D. C. , 1975, 107 p.
 Oil and Gas Journal, published weekly by PennWe11 Publishing Co. ,
Tulsa, Oklahoma .
 Payton, C. E. , (ed J , 1978, Seismic stratigraphy — applications to
hydrocarbon exploration: Am. ASSOC. Petroleum Geologists Memoir 26,
520p.
 Reineck, H. W. , and Singh, 1. B. , 1973, Depositional sedimentary
environments: Springer—Verlag, New York,
 Tissot, B, , and Welte, D. H, , 1978, Petroleum formation and occurrence, a
new approach to oil and gas exploration: Springer—Verlag, New York,
Heidelberg, Berlin, 580 p.
 U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U. S.
Geological Survey, 1974, Leasing and manage— ment of energy resources
of the Outer Continental Shelf , U. S. Geological Survey: 40 p.
 Alvarado, A. (1998). Regulatory Issues and Deepwater Production.
Minerals Management Service, US Department of the Interior. 19 p.
https://www.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/speeches/alex.pdf
 ASME (2010). Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code – 2010 Edition, II.
Materials, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
http://www.asme.org/kb/standards/publications/bpvcresources/boiler-and-
pressure-vessel-code---2010-edition/ii--materials
 Baker, A.C. and Lucas-Clements, D.C. (1990). Application of Subsea
Separation and Pumping to Marginal and Deepwater Field Developments
(20698-MS). SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, September 23-26, 1990, 7 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber=00020698&s
ocietyCode= SPE
 Bernier, R., Garland, E., Glickman, A., Jones, F., Mairs, H., Melton, R.,
Ray, J., Smith, J., Thomas, D., and Campbell, J. (May). Environmental
aspects of the use and disposal of non aqueous drilling fluids associated
with offshore oil & gas operations. (Report No. 342). International
Association of Oil & Gas Producers, May 2003, 114 p.
http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/342.pdf
 Bernt T. (2004). Subsea Facilities (16553-MS). Offshore Technology
Conference, May 3-6, 2004, Houston, Texas, 10 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-16553-
MS&soc=OTC
 Berthold, J.W. (1997). Overview of Fiber Optic Sensor Technology and
Potential for Future Subsea Applications (UTI 97-137). Underwater
Technology International Conference: Remote Intervention, Aberdeen, UK,
April 8-10, 1997, 16 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SUT-UTI-97-
137&soc=SUT&speAppNameCookie=ONEPETRO
 BOEMRE (2010a) Information Requirements for Exploration Plans,
Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations
Coordination Documents on the OCS (NTL No. 2010-N06). U.S.
Department of the Interior, June 18, 2010, 4 p.
http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/2010NTLs/10-
n06.pdf
 BOEMRE (2010b) Report on the progress of the Joint Industry Task Forces.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, US
Department of Interior, September 7, 2010, 26 p.
http://www.boemre.gov/forums/documents/Final_BOEM_Houston_Sept_7.p
df
 BOEMRE (2010c). Technology Assessment & Research (TA&R) Project
Categories, Offshore Structures, US Department of Interior, December 6,
2010. http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojectcategories/structur.htm
 Bouquier, L., Signoret, J. P., and Lopez, R. (2007). 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, 5 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber=OTC-
18819MS&societyCode=OTC
 BP p.l.c. (2011) Jack Ryan Drill Ship. BP p.l.c.
 http://www.bp.com/popuppreviewthreecol.do?categoryId=121&contentId=7
012268
 Bradley, A. A., Brimmer, A.R., Pettus, R. (2006). K2 Subsea Trees and
Controls: 15k; 5" Bore; 70 Tons-The Challenges (18302-MS) Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, May 1-4, 2006, 11 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC18302-
MS&soc=OTC
 Burger, R., Grigsby, T., Ross, C., Sevadjian, E., and Techentien, B. (2010).
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, 20 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE128323-
MS&soc=SPE
 Cadigan, M. and Payton, K. (2005). Baselining and Reducing Air Emissions
from an Offshore Drilling Contractor’s Perspective (94432-MS).
SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference,
Galveston TX, March 2005. 3 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-94432-
MS&soc=SPE
 Code of Federal Regulations (2011a). Code of Federal Regulations,
30CFR250, Title 30: Mineral Resources, Part 250 – Oil and Gas and
Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf. US Government Printing
Office. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=6329d28c687721b5bc9dd6b570d590ca&rgn=div5&view=
text&node=3 0:2.0.1.2.3&idno=30
 Code of Federal Regulations (2011b). Code of Federal Regulations,
40CFR435, Title 40 – Protection of Environment, Chapter 1- Environmental
Protection Agency, Subchapter N Effluent guidelines and Standards, Part
435-Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. US Government
Printing Office.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=1e61ed4f4fabc2b4b
0cadbdb77d3e5f3&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr43 5_main_02.tpl
 Cooper, S.R. (2008). People and Parts – Transforming the Risk Drivers
(116375-MS) SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Perth, Australia, October 20-22, 2008, 10 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-
116375MS&soc=SPE
 Dick, A.J. (2005). Deepwater Subsea Well Intervention - the Future Solution
(93866-MS). SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Jakarta Indonesia, April 5-7, 2005, 5 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-
93866MS&soc=SPE
 DOI (2010). Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the
Outer Continental Shelf.
 US Department of the Interior, May 27, 2010, 44 p.
http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile
&PageID=3 3598
 Eni (2008). Encyclopaedia of Hydrocarbons, 3.4 Offshore Drilling. Eni. p.
373-383.
 http://www.treccani.it/export/sites/default/Portale/sito/altre_aree/Tecnologi
a_e_Scienze_ applicate/enciclopedia/inglese/inglese_vol_1/pag373-
384ing3.pdf
 EPA (1999). Development document for proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for synthetic-based drilling fluids and other non-
aqueous drilling fluids in the oil and gas extraction point source category
 (EPA-821-B-98-021). US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
DC, February 1999, 282 p.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT
&INPUT1=C hemical%20effluents&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=37
 Fahlman, G.H. (1974). Safety Characteristics of Lockheed’s Subsea
Production System (2089MS). Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, May 6-8, 1974, 14 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-2089-
MS&soc=OTC
 Federal Register. (2010a). Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer
Continental Shelf – Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on
the Outer Continental Shelf;
 Final Rule, 30 CFR Part 250 (Document Number 2010-25256). Federal
Register 75, no. 198: 63346-63377. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-
10-14/pdf/2010-25256.pdf
 Federal Register (2010b). Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer
Continental Shelf— Safety and Environmental Management Systems, Final
Rule, 30 CFR Part 250 (Document Number 2010-25665) Federal Register
75, no. 199: 63610-63654. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-
15/pdf/2010-25665.pdf
 French, L.S., Richardson, G. E., Kazanis, E.G., Montgomery, T. M.,
Bohannon, C. M., and Gravois, M.P. (2006). Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
2006: America’s Expanding Frontier (OCS Report MMS-2006-022).
Minerals Management Service, US Department of the Interior, May 2006,
148 p.
http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/whatsnew/techann/2006/2006-022.pdf
 Ghiselin D. (2009). Best practices emerging for ERD wells. E&P Magazine,
September 1, 2009, 4 p.
http://www.varelintl.com/content/includes/best_practices_emerging_for_erd
_wells.pdf http://www.epmag.com/Magazine/2009/9/item44535.php
 Gordon, J., Saicic P., and McAllan, R. (2010). Deepwater Developments:
Challenging Equipment Limits (132516-MS), SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, October 18-
20, 2010, 9 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-132516-
MS&soc=SPE
 Griffin, R., Plessis, G., Chin, D., Dale, J. (2008). Gas-Tight Rotary-
Shouldered Connection Riser Simplifies Intervention (115215-MS).
IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition,
Jakarta, Indonesia, August 25-27, 2008, 8 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-115215-
MS&soc=SPE Hammett, D.S. and Luke, J.M. (1986). Success and Failure:
Subsea Completions (5313-MS).
 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 5-8, 1986, 10 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-5313-
MS&soc=OTC
 Hansen, R.L. and Rickey, W. P. (1995). Evolution of Subsea Production
Systems: A Worldwide Overview (29074-PA). Journal of Petroleum
Technology 47(8), p. 675-680.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00029084&soc
=SPE
 International Finance Corporation. (2007). Environmental, Health, and
Safety General Guidelines. World Bank Group, April 30, 2007, 99 p.
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/EHSGuidelines
 James, R.W. and Rørvik, B. (2002). Total Energy Consumption: A
Comparative Case Study of Two Alternative North Sea Cuttings Handling
Processes Associated with the Use of Oil Based Drilling Fluids (73919-MS).
SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and
Gas Exploration and Production, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 20-22,
2002, 6 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber=00073919&s
ocietyCode= SPE
 Jacques Whitford Environment Limited. (2001). Technical Report, Offshore
Drilling Waste Management Review (2001-0007). Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers, February 2001, 268 p.
http://www.capp.ca/library/publications/atlanticCanada/pages/pubInfo.aspx
?DocId=2502 2#uXR3ZfyFKMpE
 Jellison M., Muradov, A., Hehn L., Foster, B., Elliot G. and Sanclemente L.
(2009). Ultra-highstrength drill pipe: A new lightweight steel alloy will
allow wells to be drilled farther and deeper. World Oil, 230(7), July 2009, 9
p. http://www.worldoil.com/July-2009-Ultrahigh-strength-drill-pipe-
expands-the-drilling-envelope.html
 Associated graphic image at:
http://www.worldoil.com/uploadedimages/Issues/Articles/Jul-
2009/0907_Ultra_Jellison_fig4.gif
 Kelly, T. P. and Strauss, R. H. (2009). Agbami Field Development—Subsea
Equipment Systems, Trees, Manifolds and Controls (19919–MS). Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 4-7, 2009, 15 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-19919-
MS&soc=OTC
 King, J. (2001). Cost and Risk Reduction through Innovation: Remotely
Actuated Completion Equipment for Deepwater and Extended Reach Wells
(68763-MS) SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Jakarta, Indonesia, April 17-19, 2001, 11 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber=00068763&s
ocietyCode= SPE
 LeBoeuf, G., Adams, S., Pittman, A., and Dodd, P. (2008). Case History:
New Design in Surface-Controlled Subsurface Safety Valves Resolves Valve
Problems in Subsea Completions in the Gulf of Mexico (19620-MS).
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 5-8, 2008, 9 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-19620-
MS&soc=OTC
 Leimkuhler, J. (2010). Offshore Drilling Overview, Challenges & Solutions.
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil spill and Offshore
Drilling, August 25, 2010, 27 p.
http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
JoeLeimkuhlerSlides.pdf
 Maldonado, B., Arrazola, A., and Morton, B. (2006). Ultradeep HP/HT
Completions: Classification, Design Methodologies, and Technical
Challenges (17927-MS) Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
May 1-4, 2006, 16 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-17927-
MS&soc=OTC
 Mathieson, D., Giuliani, C., Ajayi, A., and Smithson, M. (2006). Intelligent
Well Automation - Design and Practice (103082-MS). SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 24-26,
2006, 6 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-103082-
MS&soc=SPE
 MMS (2010). Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the
OCS (NTL No. 2010N05). Minerals Management Service, US Department of
the Interior, June 8, 2010. [As a result of a legal ruling on October 19,
2010, this document no longer is available online.]
 Murray, A.J., Kapila, M., Ferrari, G. Degouy, D., Espagne, B.J.,
Handgraaf, P. (2008). FrictionBased Thermal Desorption Technology:
Kashagan Development Project Meets Environmental Compliance in Drill-
Cuttings Treatment and Disposal (116169-MS). SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, September 21-24, 2008, 6 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-
116169MS&soc=SPE
 Nagel, N. B. and McLennan, J. D., eds. (2010) Solids Injection, Monograph
24 (ISBN:978-155563-256-4). Society of Petroleum Engineers, 285 p.
http://store.spe.org/SolidsInjection-P437.aspx
 Neff, J.M. (2005). Composition, Environmental Fates, And Biological
Effects Of Water Based Drilling Muds And Cuttings Discharged To The
Marine Environment: A Synthesis and Annotated Bibliography. Petroleum
Environmental Research Forum, January 2005, 83 p.
http://www.perf.org/pdf/APIPERFreport.pdf
 Nergaard, A. (2005). Part V, Offshore drilling technology. University of
Stavanger and Smedvig Offshore (via Kenneth Larsen at Statoil), December
14, 2005, p. 3
http://www.ccop.or.th/PPM/document/INEXV2/INEXV2DOC05_nergaard.p
df
 NETL (2011). Exploration & Production Technologies, Advanced Drilling.
National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-
gas/EP_Technologies/AdvancedDrilling/AdvDrilling_main.html
 NOAA (2010). NOAA Ocean Explorer: Expedition to the Deep Slope.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of
Commerce, August 26, 2010.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/media
/types_600.ht ml
 Oil in Israel (2009). Completion Diagram. Oil in Israel.
http://www.oilinisrael.net/wpcontent/uploads/2009/10/Completion-
Diagram.jpg
 OSHA (2009). Mud Circulation System. Oil and Gas Well Drilling and
Servicing eTool, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, US
Department of Labor, May 20, 2009.
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/oilandgas/drilling/mud_system.html
 Pettersen, J. (2007). Overall evaluation of offshore drilling fluid technology,
Development and application of life-cycle inventory and impact assessment
methods. Doctoral thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
169 p.. http://ntnu.divaportal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:123306
 Pettersen, J. and Hertwich, E.G. (2008). Occupational health impacts:
offshore crane lifts in life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 13(5), p. 440-449.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p5037kju66182756/
 Redden, J. (2009). Subsurface waste injection taking quantum technical
leap, Offshore Magazine 69(4), p. 92-95.
 Ronalds B. F. (2002). Deepwater Facility Selection (14259-MS). Offshore
Technology Conference, May 6-9, 2002, Houston, Texas, 12 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-14259-
MS&soc=OTC
 Skeels, H.B., Hopkins, B.C., and Cunningham, C.E. (1993). The Horizontal
Subsea Tree: A Unique Configuration Evolution (7244-MS) Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 3-6, 1993. 18 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-7244-
MS&soc=OTC
 Simonds, R., Falconer, R., and Richard, L. (2000). Remotely Actuated
Completion System Offers Cost Efficiency for Offshore Environments
(11930-MS) Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 1-4,
2000, 15 p.
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-11930-
MS&soc=OTC
 Transocean (2011). Fleet Specifications. GSF Galveston Key (300 Foot
Jack-up Drilling Unit). Transocean Ltd.
http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/GSF-Galveston-
Key173C15.html?LayoutID=17
 Veil, J.A., Burke, C.J. and Moses, D.O. (1995). Synthetic Drilling Fluids- A
Pollution Prevention Opportunity for the Oil and Gas Industry. US
Department of Energy, January 26, 1995,
 11 p. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/184270-
LzuPM9/webviewable/184270.pdf
 Waltman, B., Torres, D., Dusterhoft, R., and Lizak, K. (2010). Technologies
or Intangibles: What Drives Sand-Control Selection? (20488-MS). Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 3-6, 2010, 6 p.
 http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-20488-
MS&soc=OTC
 Wibawa, S., Kvernstuen, S., Chechin, A., Graham, J., and Dowling, K.R.
(2008). ICD Screen Technology in Stag Field to Control Sand and Increase
Recovery by Avoiding Wormhole Effect (12385-MS) International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 3-5, 2008, 11
p. http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=IPTC-12385-
MS&soc=IPTC