The Low Motion FPSO

(LM-FPSO)
The SCR and TTR Friendly Floater in Harsh
Environment

Alaa Mansour, Ph.D

Marine Engineering Manager
 Slide 2

Outlines

 Field Development Challenges

 The Low Motion FPSO (LM-FPSO)
• The Design
• The Constructability
• The Install-ability
• The Performance
• The Economics
 Case Study: Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea
 The Semisubmersible Version - TLS
 The Business Case
 Scope and Required Funding
 Concluding Remarks
 Slide 3

Outlines

 Field Development Challenges

 The Low Motion FPSO (LM-FPSO)
• The Design
• The Constructability
• The Install-ability
• The Performance
• The Economics
 Case Study: Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea
 The Semisubmersible Version - TLS
 The Business Case
 Scope and Required Funding
 Concluding Remarks
 Slide 4

Field Development Challenges

 Lack of Infrastructures/Remoteness FPSO or
FPU+FSO/FPSO
 Requirement for DVA to wells TTR feasibility or
Separate DTU
 Water depth
 Persistent swells
 Harsh environment Riser feasibility
 Large number/diameter risers
 Inherently high dynamic floater
1.6 2.5

1.4
FPSO 0
45
22.5
67.5

Heave
2 90 112.5

FPSO
135 157.5
1.2 180
Roll (deg/m)
Heave (m/m)

1.5
Roll
1

0.8 0 22.5
45 67.5 1
0.6 90 112.5
135 157.5
180
0.4 0.5
0.2
0
0
5 15 25 35
5 15 25 35
Period (s)
Period (s)
 Slide 5

Field Development Challenges

Question?….
Can we develop FPSO that offers:
 High oil storage capacity and deck payloads
 Superior motion response - TTR/SCR/mooring friendly
 No turret or swivel
 Large number/ large diameter risers
 Fast deployment & decommissioning
 Quayside integration
 Simple and efficient hull form
 Maintain simple topside layout
 Commercially attractive (CAPEX & OPEX)
 Low risk and minimum or no schedule impact
 Slide 6

Outlines

 Field Development Challenges

 The Low Motion FPSO (LM-FPSO)
• The Design
• The Constructability
• The Install-ability
• The Performance
• The Economics
 Case Study: Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea
 The Semisubmersible Version - TLS
 The Business Case
 Scope and Required Funding
 Concluding Remarks
 Slide 7

The LM-FPSO Design

Conventional
Topside

Conventional hull
Tendon Top construction
Connector
Conventional
Short Tendon Pipe
Mooring System
No couplings

Solid Ballast tank

(SBT)

SCRs / Umbilicals

Tendon Bottom
receptacle
 Slide 8

The LM-FPSO Constructability

► Simple hull form

► Stiffened plate structure
► Simple fabrication
► SBT fabricated independently
► Solid ballast is added in SBT
► Hull modules are integrated above SBT
► Topside integrated
► Mooring chains are used to connect SBT
to hull
► Dry dock is flooded
 Slide 9

The LM-FPSO Install-ability

Wet-tow
 Slide 10

The LM-FPSO Install-ability

Positioning and Ballasting

 Slide 11

The LM-FPSO Install-ability

Tendon Installation
 Slide 12

The LM-FPSO Performance

 The mass of the SBT:
 Maintains positive tendon tension in all design conditions
 Ensures full coupling in heave, roll and pitch
 Ensures full coupling in the slow motion surge/sway & yaw
 Provides high stability (high GM) – less compartments
 SBT mass and added mass
 Long heave, roll and pitch natural periods
 Significantly low heave roll/pitch motions
 The relative motion in surge, sway and yaw
 Limited to first order
 Much less than TLP hull-to-foundation relative motions
 Slide 13

The LM-FPSO Performance

Typical Heave Response Typical Roll Response

► Very long Heave Natural ► Very long Roll Natural period

period
► Significantly reduced Roll
► Significantly reduced heave response in WF & LF
response in WF
 Slide 14

The LM-FPSO Performance

DM-FPSO Hull vs. SBT, Heave Motion DM-FPSO Hull vs. SBT, Roll Motion
2 1

1.5
Typical Heave
FPSO Z w/o Mean

SBT Z w/o Mean

0.8
Typical Roll FPSO RX SBT RX

0.6
1
0.4

0.5
0.2

RX [deg]
Z [m]

0 0

-0.2
-0.5

-0.4
-1
-0.6
-1.5
-0.8

-2 -1
6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500
Time [s] Time [s]

DM-FPSO Hull vs. SBT, Pitch Motion

1

Typical Pitch • Full coupling in heave, roll and

FPSO RY SBT RY
0.8

pitch modes
0.6

0.4

0.2
RY [deg]

0
• Very low heave roll/pitch motions,
less than a third that of Spar, almost
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 TLP like

-0.8

-1
6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500
Time [s]
 Slide 15

The LM-FPSO Performance

DM-FPSO Hull vs. SBT, Surge Motion DM-FPSO Hull vs. SBT, Sway Motion
35 35
FPSO X SBT X FPSO Y SBT Y

30
Typical Surge
30
Typical Sway
25 25

20 20
X [m]

Y [m]
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400
Time [s] Time [s]

DM-FPSO Hull vs. SBT, Yaw Motion

1.00

0.80

Typical Yaw
FPSO RZ SBT RZ

0.60

0.40

0.20
RZ [deg]

0.00

-0.20

-0.40

• Full coupling in Surge, Sway and

-0.60

-0.80

-1.00
6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500
yaw modes
Time [s]
• Relative motion is quite small
 Slide 16

The LM-FPSO Performance

Critical Tendon Bottom Tension
30000
Critical Tendon Bottom Tension

25000
Tendon Tension
Bottom Tension [kN]

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
200 2200 4200 6200 8200 10200
Time [s]

TLP vs LM-FPSO
Dry Tree & Harsh Environment
1000 yr condition

• Tendon tension is positive even • LM-FPSO to SBT Relative

in survival conditions motion is less than that of TLP-
to-Foundation.
 Slide 17

The LM-FPSO Performance

Current speed = 1.1 m/sec

Vr = 3.7
A/D = 0.07

VIM Response
 Slide 18

The LM-FPSO Performance

SBT Structural Analysis

 Slide 19

The LM-FPSO Performance

SBT Structural Analysis

 Slide 20

The LM-FPSO Economics

Compared to the corresponding conventional FPSO:
Dry Tree – Harsh Wet-Tree
Environment Persistent Swell
Hull Steel 10-15% Increase -
SBT Steel (% of hull steel) 14% 5%
Solid Ballast (% of Displacement) 25% 15%
Tendon system TIC/tendon $4.1MM $4.1MM
Offloading Buoy cost $100MM Increase
Mooring system $15MM Increase $25MM Reduction
SLWR to SCR (per riser) $15MM Reduction $15MM Reduction
Turret $250MM Reduction -
Eliminate DTU (CAPEX) - Each $500MM Reduction -
Topside cost $50MM Reduction -
OPEX $100MM Reduction? -
Decommissioning $100MM Reduction -
 Slide 21

Outlines

 Field Development Challenges

 The Low Motion FPSO (LM-FPSO)
• The Design
• The Constructability
• The Install-ability
• The Performance
• The Economics
 Case Study: Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea
 The Semisubmersible Version - TLS
 The Business Case
 Scope and Required Funding
 Concluding Remarks
 Slide 22

Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea

 Water depth = 500 m
 Topside payload = 25,000 MT
 1.0 MMBBL Storage
 15 TTRs
 1 Multiphase production SCR
 Environment:
1,000 Yr 100 yr
.
Hs (m) 15.8 13.5
Tp (sec) 16.5 15.2
Ws (m/s) 51.6 49.8
Cs @ surface (m/sec) 3.9 2.4
 Slide 23

Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea

The Hull
LxwxH (m) 105.0 x 105.0 x 51.5
Corner radius (m) 10.5
Draft / Freeboard (m) 33.5 x 22.0
Center Well (L x W) (m) 60.7 x 60.7
Hull Lightship Wt (Mt) 44,330
Displacement (Mt) 227,768
The SBT
LxWxH (m) 142.5 x 105.0 x 3.7
Center Opening L x W (m) 24.4 x 14.6
SBT steel Weight (Mt) 6,076
Solid ballast weight (Mt) 49,556
The Mooring System
Mooring (-) 16 Chain-PE-Chain
Platform Chain Dia x L (mm x m) 162 mm R4S x 100 m
Polyester Dia x L (mm x m) 305 mm x 750 m
Platform Chain Dia x L (mm x m) 162 mm R4S x 150 m
Tendons (-) 16 @ 44"OD x 1.7"
Length (m) 88.0
Wt weight (Mt) 12.0
System Natural periods
Heave Np (sec) 25.0
Roll/Pitch Np (sec) 46.0
GM (m) 31.9
Pre-service Key Figures
Integrated Platform Lightship weight (Mt) 71,134
Hull+SBT Draft (inc. SB) (m) 12.3
Solid ballast is added in dry dock (-) YES
Lightship Draft (no solid ballast) (m) 4.9
 Slide 24

Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea

Heave RAO Roll Response

 Slide 25

Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea

Variable Unit 1,000-yr 100-yr
Max offset % 11.7% 8.7%
Max SCR Porch Velocity (m/s) 1.7 0.9
Max heave (SA) (m) 4.0 3.1
Max combined Roll/pitch (SA) (deg) 3.9 3.4
Max Yaw (deg) 1.8 1.8
Max Hull-SBT rel. horizontal motion (m) 18.8 13.5
Minimum tendon tension (Mt) -170 599
Max Tendon Tension (Mt) 6,411 5,178
TTR dynamic Stroke (m) 7.2 4.6
Max Keel Joint Reaction (Mt) 108 59
Max Von Mises Stresses (MPa) 551 358
 Slide 26

Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea

1,000-yr Critical Event 100-yr Critical Event

The System Performance

 Slide 27

Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea

LM-FPSO + ONE TLP Cost Delta
Fabrication cost delta (Hull + SBT) $50MM
Transportation & Installation $10MM
Solid Ballast TIC (at quayside) $5MM Compared to
Mooring system delta $15MM
a Turret-
Moored
Tendon cost including Installation (TIC) $65MM FPSO + TLP
Offloading buoy TIC $100MM in SCS
Additional Tensioner costs $24MM
Eliminate one TLP (Hull& Mooring T&I) -$500MM

Topside saving -$50MM

No turret -$250MM
No FTL from One TLPs -$30MM
Decommissioning saving of 1 TLPs -$100MM
OPEX delta -$100MM??
Total Delta -$761 MM
 Slide 28

Outlines

 Field Development Challenges

 The Low Motion FPSO (LM-FPSO)
• The Design
• The Constructability
• The Install-ability
• The Performance
• The Economics
 Case Study: Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea
 The Semisubmersible Version - TLS
 The Business Case
 Scope and Required Funding
 Concluding Remarks
 Slide 29

The Semisubmersible Version - TLS

 Similar technology is applicable to conventional semisubmersibles
designs to significantly improve their motions – Tension Leg
Semisubmersible (TLS)

Tendon Porch

Tendon bottom receptacle

The TLS Semi – In-place

 Slide 30

The Semisubmersible Version - TLS

The TLS Semi – Pre-service

 Slide 31

The Semisubmersible Version - TLS

4.0 2000

FHS Semi

Wave Energy Spectrum (ft^2-sec/rad)

Conventional Spar
3.0 Semi 1500
Wave
Heave RAO (ft/ft)

Energy
H1000

2.0 1000

1.0 500

0.0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Period (sec)
 Slide 32

Outlines

 Field Development Challenges

 The Low Motion FPSO (LM-FPSO)
• The Design
• The Constructability
• The Install-ability
• The Performance
• The Economics
 Case Study: Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea
 The Semisubmersible Version - TLS
 The Business Case
 Scope and Required Funding
 Concluding Remarks
 Slide 33

The Business Case

 FPSO market share is greater than the combined FPU market
 Potentially replace the common development scheme in west Africa
(TLP+FPSO) … big market share (Example Maersek Chissonga, Hess
Ghana)
 Attractive solution for Liuhua development in SCS
 Attractive solution for Talisman development in Vietnam
 No feasible riser solution on FPSO for ultra-deepwater (Example
Petrobras Pre-salt)
 Industry is developing FPSO with SCRs for the GoM
 Enable dry tree Semi with potential application (Mad Dog 2,
Shenandoah, ..etc)
 Improved semisubmersible response in wet tree application (CVX
Jansz Io, Equus,…etc)
 Slide 34

Outlines

 Field Development Challenges

 The Low Motion FPSO (LM-FPSO)
• The Design
• The Constructability
• The Install-ability
• The Performance
• The Economics
 Case Study: Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea
 The Semisubmersible Version - TLS
 The Business Case
 Scope and Required Funding
 Concluding Remarks
 Slide 35

Scope and Required Funding

 Develop a basis of design
 Develop a LM-FPSO design that meets the BOD.
 Perform compartmentations and stability analysis
 Perform hydrodynamic and mooring analysis
 Perform TTR analysis
 Prepare model test specs (wind tunnel test, wave basin test, and towing tank
test)
 Perform Tendon top and bottom connector fatigue (ongoing)
 Perform structural analysis (ongoing)
 Perform model tests
 Perform model test calibration
 Verify the design based on model test to ensure it still meets the BOD
 3D rendering
 Presentation and marketing material
 Slide 36

Scope and Required Funding

 RDC contribution of $178K (55%) with WP/INTECSEA covering:
* $55,000 USD in cash
* $55,000 USD in-kind

 Potentially RDC can contribute $200K (62%) with WP/INTECSEA

covering the $121,810 (38%):
* $33,000 USD in cash
* $55,000 USD in-kind
 Slide 37

Outlines

 Field Development Challenges

 The Low Motion FPSO (LM-FPSO)
• The Design
• The Constructability
• The Install-ability
• The Performance
• The Economics
 Case Study: Dry Tree LM-FPSO in South China Sea
 The Semisubmersible Version - TLS
 The Business Case
 Scope and Required Funding
 Concluding Remarks
 Slide 38

Concluding Remarks
 The LM-FPSO is an enabling solution for TTR and SCR on FPSOs in
harsh environment
 It avoids the need for a separate DTUs. Compared to FPSO+TLP a
$760 MM saving is estimated
 The LM-FPSO offers
• High oil storage capacity and deck payloads
• Superior motion response - TTR/SCR/mooring friendly
• No turret or swivel
• Large number/ large diameter SCRs
• Fast deployment & decommissioning
• Quayside integration
• Simple and efficient hull form
 Slide 39

Concluding Remarks
 The LM-FPSO offers (cont.)
• Maintain simple topside layout
• Low risk and minimum or no schedule Impact
• Flexible ballast compensation capacity
 The LM-FPSO & TLP when project ready will be a game changer to the
industry
 Required funding is about $55K USD in Cash and $55K USD in-kind
contribution based on funding of $178K USD from RDC
Contact Information

INTECSEA Floating Systems

Alaa M. Mansour, Ph.D.

Marine Engineering Manager

575 North Dairy Ashford Rd.

Houston, TX77079

USA

1 281-206-8455 (O)

alaa.mansour@intecsea.com