Technology needs in cold climate projects

Contribution to Norwep open network meeting #4

Prepared by K. J. Eik – Principal Engineer Metocean and Arctic Design
Classification: Open 8 mars 20
Presented by F. Scibilia – Principal Researcher Metocean and Arctic Design
© Statoil ASA
Objectives with presentation

• Provide information on ongoing and upcoming projects with Statoil involvement

• Present facts and clarify what we know/ do not know in relation to physical
environment in the cold climate regions we are active in
• Describe how we manage the Arctic specific challenges

• => Clarify to which extent new technology or new knowledge is required in relation
to cold climate projects

2 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Delimitations
• Statoil Metocean and Arctic Design (MAD) is organized in Statoil Research and Technology Unit
• MAD mandate is to provide technology services to all Statoil business units and perform
research/development related to meteorology, oceanography and Arctic specific challenges.

• The presentation focus on characteristics in the physical environment in cold climate regions, how it affect
operations and how its managed.
• E.g. environmental vulnerability, oil spill recovery etc. is outside the mandate and competence of MAD and
given limited attention in this presentation.
• The presentation is based on current MAD assignments and may not necessarily reflect exactly current
Statoil strategies and priorities.

• Presenter background:
− Francesco Scibilia, Statoil employee since 2012
− Computer Science Engineer UNICAL (IT) 2006 – Industrial Automation Systems
− PhD NTNU 2010 – Engineering Cybernetics

3 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Statoil in the Arctic
Exploration and
field development

Exploration

Commitment to
government

20 Cold climate regions

defined in ISO 19906

4 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

The Barents Sea

Areas open for Petroleum activities on the

Close up of the Norwegian Barents Sea Norwegian Shelf

5 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Exploration drilling
• More than 100 wells drilled in the Barents Sea to date

Source: www.npd.no

6 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Field developments / Production units
• Snøhvit (Statoil)
− Subsea gas production
− Terminal at Melkøya
− Production since 2007

• Goliat (ENI)
− FPSO
− 180 Mill barrels
− Production started in 2016

• Shtokman (SDag)
− Gasfield – matured to DG3
− Development stopped at DG3 around 2009 due to lack
of a good business case

• Johan Castberg (Statoil)

− Discovery 2010
− 540 Mill barrels
− DG2 passed at end of 2016

• Wisting (OMV)
− Discovery (OMV) 2014
− 200-500 Mill barrels

• Alta/Gotha (Lundin)
− Discovery 2014
− Can be up to 400 Mill barrels
− Appraisal wells to be drilled
Note: Volume estimates are found in various open sources and have not been subjected to quality control

7 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

New acreage in Barents South East

8 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

 • Statoil plans to drill 5-7 wells within 2017

9 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Korpfjell environment
Iceberg observations
Sea ice in 25 of 46 years

10 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Challenges and criticality
The industry is often met with three concerns in relation to operations in the Barents
Sea:
1. Demanding physical environment
− Sea ice, icebergs, icing, snow, darkness, fog, polar lows, low temperatures
2. Environmentally vulnerable area
− Within the ice edge
− At the Polar Front
3. Remoteness
− More severe consequences of emergencies

11 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Important terms and definitions

12 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Important terms and definitions

13 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Physical environment => Korpfjell vs Northern North Sea
Parameter: Wind (1h) Wave (Hs) Surface Air temp Sea ice Icebergs Sea spray icing
[m/s] [m] Current (24 h) [⁰C]
[cm/s]
Location: Ko NNS Ko NNS Ko NNS Ko NNS Ko NNS Ko NNS Ko NNS

Mean 8.3 9.0 2.1 2.6 17 22 0 8 Present No Impact No Sea spray icing can occur in
wintertime once in both regions but will occur
in 25 of 46 approx more frequency and
100 year extreme 30.5 35.0 13.8 15.0 79 135 -32 -9 years No 2000 No accumulate more at Korpfjell
years compared to NNS

• Floating structures are always affected by wind, waves and currents trying
to push installations of site and cause motions/accelerations.
 These parameters are less severe at Korpfjell compared to NNS

• At Korpfjell – awareness must be given to low temperatures, heavy snow

fall, icing and occurrence of sea ice and icebergs.

• The probability of ice intrusions during time limited operations is low and
negligible during summer months!

• Drill rigs are less vulnerable to snow and icing compared to minor vessels

Data sources:
• Korpfjell: BaSEC Exploration MDB (Statoil-2015)
• Northern North Sea: Kvitebjørn & Valemon MDB, rev. 4 (Statoil-2012)

14 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Air temperatures

15 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Summary – Barents Sea
• HARSH ENVIRONMENT
− The «every-day» conditions are similar to what's experienced in the Northern North Sea excepts that
its colder.
− Some precautions must be in place to prevent new phenomenon's causing hazardous situations:
• Ice Risk Management
• Polar Low Forecasting
• Winterization

• VULNERABLE ENVIRONMENT
− Studies making conservative assumptions show that the environmental risks are within normal limits.
• The distance to shore is far
• Populations scattered over large areas
• Reservoir characteristics is of importance

16 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Særlig Verdifulle Områder (SVOer)
Ice edge

17 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Environment and oil spill response – main findings
Environmental risk analysis (Korpfjell area)
• Statistically, a blow out occurs in 1 in 7092 wells drilled*
• Should an oil spill occur:
− Given that the nearest sea ice is at least 50 km away, it is extremely unlikely that oil will drift into the marginal
ice zone. Oil and ice will drift in the same direction, as the movement of both are dependent on wind and
currents
− Oil will not reach shore
• The maximum environmental risk related to the different VECs is 8,2% of the acceptance criteria
throughout the year

Oil spill contingency analysis and Status oil spill response in ice
• A combination of mechanical systems combined with dispergation from airplane found to be most
efficient for collection of oil
• Active systems are faster and more efficient than conventional systems
• Mechanical recovery systems are effective in ice concentrations up to 30%

• A regular NOFO system can be deployed and operated along the marginal ice zone, but with reduced
skimmer efficiency in “slush ice”

*LRC , 17.03.2015, Blowout and well release frequencies based on SINTEF offshore blowout database 2014
18 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA
Polar front – a first constructed scenario

• A worst case scenario with a

total population of a vulnerable
seabird specie distributed along
polar front
• Environmental risk well within
acceptable levels
• Need a better understanding of
the polar front and its
ecosystems

19 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Oil spill – possible influence areas

20 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Summary – Barents Sea
• HARSH ENVIRONMENT
− The «every-day» conditions are similar to what's experienced in the Northern North Sea excepts that
its colder.
− Some precautions must be in place to prevent new phenomenon's causing hazardous situations:
• Ice Risk Management
• Polar Low Forecasting
• Winterization

• VULNERABLE ENVIRONMENT
− Studies making conservative assumptions show that the environmental risks are within normal limits.
• The distance to shore is far
• Populations scattered over large areas
• Reservoir characteristics is of importance

Notes
• The overall risk related to exploration drilling in the Barents Sea is relatively low compared to other
risks the industry face BUT only conditional we prepare well and understand the region we enter
into.
• Field developments need to consider sea ice and icebergs in several new Barents Sea leases

21 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Logistics and emergency response – main findings

• Remoteness a key challenge for ensuring a robust level of emergency response

• Helicopter operations (transport and SAR) within 300 nm is feasible with existing
helicopters
• The field resources (especially SBV) to be given an extensive role during operations and
serving as an integral part of the area emergency preparedness
• Winter operations acceptable, will require adequate winterization of equipment and focus
on operational procedures
• A system for sea ice management and surveillance is needed

22 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Ice Risk Management (IRM) definitions
• Ice threat= Ice features posing a threat to vessel/structure/operation

• Ice Management (IM) is a set of activities to support a stationary operation (e.g.

drilling) with high consequence of being moved off location or damaged by sea ice.
IM activities will typically include:

1. Sea ice detection, tracking and forecasting (surveillance)

2. Alerting of and assessing threat level for offshore spread and facilities.
3. Sea Ice breaking / clearing;

23 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

 Actions to reduce ice risk
Actions
1. Cease drilling operation
2. Disconnect from well
3. Leave drill site temporarily

Disconnection definitions

Planned disconnection (PDC) – disconnection at the end of the operation

season or upon reaching target drilling objective with sufficient time to plug and
abandon or to leave the well in an ideal condition for resuming operations at a
later date.

Orderly disconnection (ODC) – managed disconnection due to the forecast of

intruding ice, with sufficient time to leave the well in good conditions for quick
resumption of activities.

Emergency Quick Disconnect (EQD) – fast disconnection due to ice first

detected in the proximity of the drilling site with insufficient time to complete an
orderly disconnection. The well is left in a safe and secure condition but
resumption of activities may require lengthy recovery operations.

24 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Sources of iceberg information - observations
Main source of iceberg information in the Barents Sea:

• Satellite images analyzed for icebergs

+ Covers large regions (300x300km)
– Ships may be mistaken for icebergs
– Potential for many false positives

• Aerial observations (fixed wing reconnaissance flights)

+ Can verify targets visually or by other sensors
+ Very high resolution
- Vulnerable to bad weather
- Limited coverage and tracking capabilities

• Shipborne detections (visual or radar)

+ Very high resolution
+ Long endurance and tracking capability
- Very limited range

A good surveillance system will utilize both

satellite, fixed wing and vessel observations!

25 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

 Sources of sea-ice information – Ice charts
Main source of ice information in the Barents Sea is ice charts
by Norwegian met office.

• Of good overall quality

• Based on satellite information and human
interpretation
• Mix of SAR and passive microwave
• Covers the entire Barents Sea
• 5 days a week (weekends off)

26 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Metocean and Arctic Design
Technologies for cost reduction and risk mitigation in the Arctic
Arctic Design
• Iceberg Loads on offshore Structures
• Sesam Ice – Modelling of floating structures in ice
• Full scale Station keeping Trials
Ice and iceberg Data
• Iceberg Areal Density Studies
• BaSMIN – Barents Sea Metocean and Ice Network

Snow and Icing

• Rigspray – JIP for field validation and commercialization of numerical model for icing
• Icing on lifeboats at sea

Ice Risk management

• Improved detection, surveillance and forecasting of Sea Ice and Icebergs (NFLD STEP-UP)
• Unmanned aerial systems technologies

Metocean
• Polar Front Study
• Uncertainties in weather forecast
• New wind and wave hindcast – NORA5
• Current measurements verification study
Long Term Initiatives with academia
• CIRFA - Centre for Integrated Remote Sensing and Forecasting for Arctic Operations
• SAMCOT – Sustainable Arctic Marine and Coastal Technology
• AMOS – Centre for autonomous marine operations and systems

27 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Arctic Environmental Technology R&D
Develop technologies to support knowledge-based decisions within the
scope of the precautionary principle

Efficient
Arctic environmental Oil spill response
Environmental monitoring in technology
Assessment sub-arctic
conditions

Risk assessment tools Qualify technology to

Cost efficient, real advance year-round
for environmental time and increased
management and Arctic spill response
autonomy and capability
decision support digitalization

28 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Important new standards setting requirements for Arctic
operations and Arctic Offshore structures

1. DNV GL OS-A201: Winterization for Cold Climate Operations

2. ISO 19906 «Arctic Offshore Structures» - new revision early 2018

3. ISO TP67 SC8 Arctic operations – 6 new standards

ISO 35101 «Working Environment»
ISO 35102 «Escape, evacuation and rescue from offshore installations»
ISO 35103 «Environmental monitoring for offshore exploration»
ISO 35104 «Ice management»
ISO/DTS 35105 «Material requirements for Arctic operations»
ISO 35106 «Physical environment for Arctic operations»

4. Norsok N-003 «Action and action effects» - rev 3 published Feb 2017

29 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Summary
• Relatively high activity level in the Barents Sea and East Coast Canada expected

• Exploration activities can be performed with existing technologies and knowledge

• Optimal design of Arctic Offshore Structures needs to address uncertainties in

extreme and abnormal ice loads:
− Both design philosophy and Ice risk management need to be considered case
by case

• Regarding technology needs:

− No insuperable gaps but technologies and knowledge which improves e.g.
solutions for ice risk management or contributes to cost efficient and robust
design of offshore structures is appreciated.

30 Classification: Open 8 mars 2017 © Statoil ASA

Technology needs in cold climate projects

Francesco Scibilia
Principal Researcher Metocean and
Arctic Design

www.statoil.com

© Statoil ASA

This presentation, including the contents and arrangement of the contents of each individual page or the collection of the pages, are owned by Statoil. Copyright to all material including, but
not limited to, written material, photographs, drawings, images, tables and data remains the property of Statoil. All rights reserved. Any other kind of use, reproduction, translation, adaption,
arrangement, any other alteration, distribution or storage of this presentation, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of Statoil is prohibited. The information contained in this
presentation may not be accurate, up to date or applicable to the circumstances of any particular case, despite our efforts. Statoil cannot accept any liability for any inaccuracies or omissions.