TOPIC 11 - Offshore Structures

PgDip/MSc The Energy Programme/FacilitiesENM 202 Offshore Structures
Offshore Structures
Review
This topic gives the student an appreciation of the different types of offshore
structures that are in use at the moment and the methods of storage and
loading crude oil onshore and offshore. It will give the designer the options
that are available so that the optimum choice can be made to suit the design
conditions of the field that is being developed. This is a constantly changing
area of design and this topic is in no way a final statement on the extent of
the structures that are currently in use.
Content
The technology of offshore development of oil and gas production has a history of rapid
continual change in response to the challenges of greater water depths and more
severe oceanic environments. The primary requirement has been the provision of a
working deck mounted on a structure from which production wells could be drilled and
on which sufficient area could be provided for the installation of production equipment,
such as the oil and gas process facilities to separated oil, gas, water and contaminants,
oil storage, gas disposal systems, pumps, compressors, utilities, living accommodation,
and connections to the seabed pipelines for transhipment of oil and gas.
In the early days of platform development it was normal, for reasons of safety, to
complete the well drilling before production was initiated. Production process equipment,
utilities and living accommodation were frequently mounted on separate adjacent
structures. As water depths increased different types of platform were designed.
Gradually the practice of concurrent drilling and production, with operatives
accommodated on the same platform, emerged as an economic requirement, dictated
by the very high cost of a deep-water structure. The necessary improvement of safe
practice and fire prevention were effected and it is now usual to find a total offshore
development being carried out within the confines of a single structure.
Offshore Platforms – Fixed
The first essential for offshore activity has been provision of a platform on which a
successful drilling and production programme can be carried out. Conventionally,
production has been developed offshore from fixed platforms. An extensive research
and development programme has led to the development of floating production facilities
and quite a lot of successful applications of the method have been made and are in
operation. Floating production units are the favoured option for deep-water applications.
For fixed platforms, two basic types are in general use. Both types have subsidiary
variations in design. These are firstly piled structures and secondly gravity structures. A
preference for one type of structure over another has not clearly emerged due in part to
the continual change in the cost of materials, specialised labour and equipment
available for total construction; in part to the changing demands of the offshore industry
with respect to total size of platform; in part due to the lack of history of the different
types of structure in greater water depths and more severe environments.
Piled structures suffer from disadvantages of uncertain and costly installation times
offshore, their vulnerability to damage by adverse weather during the early period of
their installation, their lack of oil storage capacity and the need to install the oil and gas
drilling and process facilities and living accommodation offshore after completion at site
of the base structure. Gravity structures on the other hand are more expensive to
© The Robert Gordon University 1

fabricate, are relatively inflexible to design modification should foundation soil conditions
very even slightly from foreseen, criteria, and pose soil mechanics problems which
cannot be answered with absolute confidence in relation to optimum economic design
objectives.
The history of offshore platforms is complex and shows the fluid response given by the
engineer to the demands of offshore industry. Platforms are now being designed and
installed in offshore areas which were thought, only a few years ago, to pose
insurmountable problems. The rapid evolution of new technologies will no doubt
continue.
Piled Structures
The early offshore structures were designed on the basis of a small number of relatively
large (24 in and 30 in) diameter tubular steel piles driven by steam hammers. The areas
where platforms of this type were used were predominantly seabed with thick deposits
of soft, sedimentary silts and mud; for example Gulf of Mexico, Lake Maracaibo, the Gulf
of Paria between Trinidad and Venezuela, the South China sea offshore Brunei and
Sarawak and the Arabian Gulf. The platforms required four, six or eight piles and on
completion of pile driving operations the platform decks were welded to the tops of the
piles. It was essential that the very long piles required to penetrate the thick layers of
soft mud should be driven accurately and straight. This led to the use of a pile- driving
template known as the jacket. A space frame structure would be fabricated onshore
which had sufficient height to provide continuous conductor pipes through which piles
could be driven from above the surface of the sea whilst the jacket rested on the seabed
with sufficiently small bearing pressures to ensure the jacket remained stable and
vertical, at least until pile driving was completed. These jackets were carried to the
offshore site mounted horizontally on a barge and launched into the sea. From an initial
position of horizontal floating, gradual ballasting of selective leg members would bring
about upending to a vertical floating position and further ballasting after final positioning
would effect seabed placement. These early structures did not use the jacket as an
integral part of the structure but solely as a pile driving construction tool.

Figure 1. A Traditional Large Steel Jacket Platform showing Piles Driven into the Sea
Bed.
With increasing depths of water and increasing top load carrying requirements the jacket
became an essential component not only of the construction programme but also of the
final structure and means were found to drive more than one pile in cluster from around
the base of each jacket leg. Up to eight piles have been driven in a cluster surrounding a
single jacket leg, with due attention to maintaining adequate clearance between piles.

Clusters of piles act as groups not as a sum effect of single piles. Platforms using up to
fifty or more piles have been constructed and up to 72 inches in diameter have been
driven.
Figure 2. Pile Guide of a Modern Jacket.
Figure 2 shows the pile guide of a modern jacket, with a man inside to give some
indication of scale. Steel pipe is driven down through these holes and is then cemented
in place to provide stability for the fixed platform. When the platform is removed, the
pilings are cut through and the platform can then be towed away. This however involves
a huge waste of steel. The cutting options for the piles involve the choice of either
explosions, diamond wire cuttings or slurry jet cutting.
Many variations on the early structures have been introduced. Even in the very early
days, concrete piles were substituted for the steel tubulars but did not prove fully
successful due to their inflexibility in length, when an unexpected variation in the depth
of an adequate foundation-bearing layer occurred. The use of higher tensile strength
steels for both piles and jackets was introduced with consequent savings in steel weight.
With greater severity of requirements, the problems of fatigue and stress intensification
at joints in the jacket frames became more complex, and have been subject to
continuous research. The jacket became so large that launch barges became significant
cost items in the construction budget, and the idea of self-floating jackets was
introduced. This made the launch barge unnecessary. Several structures of this type
were constructed in the Gulf of Alaska, where a major design criterion was an ability to
resist impact forces imposed by masses of drifting ice.

Figure 3. Self-Floating Jacket showing Large Diameter Flotation Legs on One Side of
the Jacket.
The launch type structure has however retained its general popularity and jackets in
excess of 20,000 tonnes have been prefabricated and successfully launched and
placed. Dead loads on these structures of as much as 20,000 tonnes have been
installed, equivalent to a live load imposition approaching double that amount. Water
depths exceeding 125 metres have been conquered with these huge installations, and
steel platforms pinned to the seabed with piling have been constructed in water depths
of 250 metres.
Figure 4 illustrates the classic launch sequence of a steel substructure fixed platform.
It is floated out to location by barge and allowed to sink. Steel pilings are then forced
approximately 100 metres into the seabed inside the pilings. The platform structure can
then be lifted in sections on top of the sunken structure using cranes.

Figure 4: The Launch Sequence of a Steel Substructure.
Examples of Piled Structures
The Bullwinkle is the tallest platform ever built. It is called Bullwinkle and is 412 metres
high. Figure 5 shows it being floated out to its location in the Gulf of Mexico.
One major difference between platforms built for the North Sea and the platform
shown above, is that North Sea platforms do not have the light lattice type construction
as seen for the Bullwinkle above. Due to the rough weather and sea conditions
encountered by vessels in the North Sea, this structure would not survive. Figure 6
shows three North Sea Valhall Field platforms joined together. A vast majority of
platforms worldwide are small, not usually of the scale of Bullwinkle!
The platforms used in shallow water are small, therefore, deck capacity is limited
necessitating the grouping of several small platforms to develop a field. The structure on
the left is a combination accommodation block and helideck. The structure in the middle
is used for the drilling of wells and to pass the fluids from the wellhead to the facility on
the right of the picture, which is the process platform.

The Compliant Tower
As oil and gas development moved into waters beyond 1500 ft deep, steel platforms
required more materials and costs started to escalate. The idea of compliant towers
became more of an attractive option for such depths of water. These are tall structures
built of cylindrical steel members, but slender in shape. They are piled to the sea bed as
in a traditional steel platform. The main difference is the area covered by the base of the
structure. With that narrow base the structure does sway by up to 10 – 15 ft under
extreme conditions.
Compliant towers (CT) are designed to have considerable “mass” and buoyancy in
their upper regions. The net result is that they have a very sluggish response to any
forcing function. The typical 10 to 15 second cycle waves pass though the structural
frame before it can respond, something like a water reed in a wave environment. (In
fact, an early version of CT was named the Roseau, the French word for reed)
A typical example of the compliant Tower is the Bullwinkle Platform in then Gulf of
Mexico.
Figure5. The Bullwinkle Platform Substructure.
Figure 6. Grouping of Platforms – Valhall Field.

Gravity Structures
The gravity structure relies entirely on its own weight, and the ability of the seabed to
carry that weight for structural stability during the design storm condition. There are a
number of variations in design of gravity structures and they may be made in either
concrete or steel or in a combination of both materials. The first application of the gravity
structure principle in the offshore oil industry was in the Ekofisk Field, offshore Norway.
Previously the theory had been applied in Lighthouse construction. The Ekofisk
structure, which was originally designed for use as an oil storage structure but was later
modified for use as a very large gas handling and compression plant, was followed in
rapid succession by the construction of several drilling and production gravity structures
of basically reinforced concrete construction. It is of interest that the great demands on
the onshore prefabrication sites, together with the significance of the water depths
available to the constructor for the fabrication and towing of these structures near to
shore, resulted in designs which showed quite wide variations, constrained as they were
by the conditions of the construction site. It proved virtually impossible to make an
optimised design, which could be built at all the available sites.
The gravity structure is built to a shape, which tries to concentrate as much of its mass
and bulk as close to the seabed as possible. The objectives are to construct the platform
as near to shore as possible, place the topside facilities in position at a sheltered site
prior to the offshore tow, and then move the whole to its offshore location using ocean-
going tugs. These objectives are met as far as possible by construction of a multi-celled
caisson raft, which may be up to 100 metres in diameter and 60 metres high. From this
raft base a number of columns are carried up to the full height of the structure. After
arrival at the offshore location the caisson base is water ballasted and landed on the
seabed. Offshore installation time can therefore be reduced to a few days, which in a
hostile environment, with relatively short fair weather periods, gives the gravity structure
a marked advantage over the piled structure. Gravity structures have been designed for
160m water depths with weights in excess of 300,000 tonnes.
Examples of Gravity Structures
Ninian Central:
Figure 7 shows Ninian Central, a large concrete tower with a series of tanks around the
base. Concrete fixed platforms can store fluids as well as be attached to export lines.
This is a major advantage over steel jacket platforms.

Figure 7. Schematic Diagram of Ninian Central.
Jacket platforms have no tanks (unless they are built on deck) and their export ability
can be lost if, for example, a tanker doesn’t turn up in time. Concrete platforms do not
need to be secured to the seabed. Skirts around concretes prevent erosion around the
fixed structure. Concrete platforms perform the same functions as steel jacket platforms,
the only difference being the support structure. Figure 8 shows all you are likely to see
of the Ninian Central platform on a bad weather day! The accommodation block and
satellite dishes on the left of the structure, as well as several lifeboats.

Figure 8. Ninian Central Platform.
Lifeboat stations tend to always be situated near the accommodation block, a lesson
learnt from the Piper Alpha disaster. Ninian Central is a concrete monotower. Its weight
is between 500 and 750 kilo tonnes, depending on which literature is read.

Condeep:
Figure 9 shows a large concrete fixed platform being built in a Norwegian fjord. This type
of structure is called a condeep.
Figure 9. Condeep.
Tanks, which aid in both the sinking of the platform when it has been towed to its
location, and can be used thereafter as storage tanks for produced reservoir fluids, are
built around the base of the concrete structure.

Modern Concrete Platforms:

Figure 10. A Modern Concrete Platform.
Figure 10 illustrates another advantage that concrete fixed platforms have over steel
jacket platforms. The main concrete structure can be built in the fjord, and then ballasted
down to allow mating of the deck. The topside deck can be built onshore, sailed out to
the concrete structure, and floated over the top before being attached. This operation is
impossible with a steel structure. This is a good illustration of a modern platform. The
accommodation block is white and on the far left of the picture; the process equipment is
located on the right side of the surface structure as far away as possible from the
accommodation block for safety reasons.

Ravenspur:
Figure 11 is a picture of a concrete platform being towed with no surface structure

attached.
Figure 11. The Ravenspur Substructure Under Tow.
This platform was named Ravenspur, and located in the Southern North Sea; the
concrete structure weighed 20,000 tonnes. The reason a concrete structure was used at
the Ravenspur location was due to the lithology of the subsoil in other words it was
unsuitable for pilings (too soft). These structures are usually only suitable for large
deepwater fields, but due to the subsurface problems, a concrete platform had to be
used for the shallow Ravenspur field.

Different Leg Configurations for Concrete Platforms:
This Norwegian platform has a different leg configuration to the fixed platforms we have
previously seen. The central column houses the conductors, which carry the reservoir
fluids to the surface.
Figure 12. A Norwegian Concrete Leg Platform.
On the left of the picture is a small support platform for the flare boom. Whenever a
platform is producing, the flare is lit so that if any gas problems are encountered, the
flare valve can be opened and the excess gas can be burnt off to ensure the safety of rig
personnel. In the foreground, there is a vessel with a circular carousel; this vessel is
laying a flowline to a completed subsea well from the platform. A supply vessel can also
be seen in this picture. On the right is an accommodation vessel. Accommodation
vessels are widely used when operations (such as commissioning) on the platform are
such that the usual accommodation area cannot support the required level of personnel.

Horsepower Requirement:
Figure 13 illustrates the amount of horsepower needed to move a concrete platform with
a surface structure attached, to its field location. There is approximately 25,000-30,000
tonnes of superstructure plus the jacket weight of 400,000 tonnes. Approximately
300,000 horsepower is needed to control the movement of this structure as it is towed.
Figure 13: A Concrete Platform Under Tow.
Brent Field:
Figure 14 shows the Brent field in the Central North Sea taken from the fourth platform
in the field. It is one of the original Shell fields. All these platforms are close together
because of the technology at the time, which means that there is a platform for each
reservoir in the field! If Shell were given the same task again, with the new technology
now available, there would be no need for four platforms. Subsea technology and
extended reach drilling has provided a means for reservoir fluids to be brought safely
back to one location where the fluids can then be processed.
Figure 14: The Brent Field.

Summary Of Comparison –Piled Versus Gravity Structures
For a Piled Platform:

• The horizontal stability is more fully understood and this allows more economy in
the design;
• The final selection of the platform location is less critical because pile design
need not be oversensitive to changes in soil conditions and because pile make-
up may be modified at a very late stage;
• The combined costs of materials and fabrication are in general lower;
• The site soil investigations can be less extensive and the costs lower, provided a
decision to select a piled structure can be made sufficiently early and before
much information about the reservoir is available;
• A deep-water construction site is not required;
• Fabrication skills are principally associated with steel working and assembly
experience and these are usually available in the main industrial centres
associated with ship construction;
• The attachment of pipeline risers to a steel jacket is relatively simple and
additional risers can be installed after placement of the structure offshore;
• At abandonment a considerable amount work has to be carried out to clear the
area of all debris. This would add cost at the end of the life of the platform.
For a Gravity Platform:

• The installation time for the platform is short, thereby reducing costly offshore
operations and their exposure to weather risks;
• The potential exists, although historically it has not been used very successfully,
for transport of all the deck and facilities to the offshore location after installation
inshore, thus avoiding costly offshore placement;
• The platform has capacity for oil storage;
• A larger deck can be provided;
• Retrofitting later addition of riser and other such alterations will be difficult;
• Construction relies on labour with a higher unskilled component. Work forces of
this type are more readily available. On the other hand, the construction sites for
gravity structures require deep-water close inshore and it can be expected that
the selected site may be remote from traditional construction and industrial areas;
• Theoretically it is possible to de-ballast and float the structure away at the end of
its life. This would reduce the cost of abandonment. This theory has still to be put
to test.
Floating Structures
Many discoveries of oil and gas cannot be exploited commercially by use of fixed
structures. The water depth may be so great that a field structure is uneconomic and in
water depths where fixed structures could be employed the oil or gas deposit may be
too small or spread too thinly and widely to justify the cost of a fixed platform. These
cases can be developed using seabed-completed wells connected via a production
marine riser to a floating platform moored above the oil or gas field. The limiting
conditions for fixed installations have not been defined and they have been used in
water depths exceeding 250m albeit in a benign environment. It has also been shown
that it can be attractive to use a floating platform as the basis for an EARLY
PRODUCTION SYSTEM (EPS). This is a system whereby the appraisal wells drilled
from a floating drilling vessel are completed at the seabed and produced to a floating

platform carrying the required process plant and other facilities. This permits production
to be initiated and create income whilst a fixed platform is being designed and installed
for full field development.
The first of these production systems was developed for the use in the EKOFISK field,
offshore Norway. It was developed around a jack-up platform not a floating structure but
the principle was identical. Following the use of the early production scheme at Ekofisk,
the ARGYLL field, offshore United Kingdom (UK) was developed in 75 m of water depth
using a semi-submersible vessel as the base for the process plant. BP applied the
experience gained from this when they converted a drilling semi-submersible to that of a
floating production platform for their BUCHAN field in offshore UK. The Argyll and
Buchan development showed the commercial possibilities of this form of oilfield
development in around 75 m water depth but in a relatively severe environment.
Similar systems are being applied elsewhere in the world especially in the deeper
water developments in the Gulf of Mexico. There are economic barriers to the
widespread application of the semi-submersible floating platform as a basis for oil field
development. One of the major drawbacks is that because of the relatively small water
plane area of the semi-submersible vessel it will carry proportionately lower top loads
and the construction of larger vessels to carry larger loads becomes expensive and
generally less cost effective. As a result careful studies have been made of the use of
conventional ship-based platforms. One development has been the use of a marine riser
supported by a buoy at the sea surface. The fluids are produced up the riser and
through the buoy, which is built in a SINGLE POINT MOORING configuration. The oil is
piped to process facilities mounted on the deck of a tanker, which is moored to the buoy.
The gas is flared and the oil is stored in the tanker itself. Smaller shuttle tankers then
come alongside this field storage vessel and the cargo is transferred to onward
shipment.
The future of offshore development in deeper waters, which present even more severe
environmental problems, will depend largely on the successful application of floating
platforms – see FPSO.
Tethered Buoyant Structures
Another form of offshore platform that is under active development is becoming known
as the TENSION LEG PLATFORM or TETHERED BUOYANT STRUCTURE. The
proposal is aimed at development of oil and gas production from water depths greater
that 500 or 500 m. This type of platform works on the same principle as a taut moored
buoy, which is a buoy, moored to a heavy anchor at the seabed by means of a vertical
wire. The tethered Buoyant Structure is essentially a large semi-submersible form of
floating vessel moored by vertical cables to a very heavy gravity anchor at the seabed
instead of using a conventional mooring and anchorage assembly. A tension force is
maintained in the vertical cables by adjustment of the buoyancy in the floating platform
to ensure positive tension in the mooring in all states of the sea. This combination of
forces reduces marine response in the platform to a negligible movement in the vertical
plane and very minor horizontal movement. The horizontal drift excursion can also be
made very small. The use of controlled buoyancy acting against a tensioned mooring
system permits the use of a semi-submersible form of a floating platform, but with the
important advantage that the additional load can be carried on the structure and
balanced by increasing the buoyancy.
Development of this type of structure is still in its early stages and many questions still
remain unanswered. Its future use depends on coming up with reasonable answers to
these questions and a thorough economic evaluation in comparison with other available
systems.

Figure 15: Tethered Leg Platform.
SPAR
The name SPAR comes from the nautical term for booms, masts and other such
poles on a sailboat, it presents a profile that has minimal effect on current and wind.
An elongated cylindrical structure floats just like an iceberg. It is moored using steel
or polyester cables. To ensure that the centre of gravity is well below the centre
buoyancy (the principle that prevents the spar from toppling over), the bottom of the
SPAR has ballast of some heavy material such as magnetite iron ore.

The underwater profile makes the SPAR vulnerable to vortex shedding (eddies)
which can cause severe vibrations. Strakes are built into the frame to minimise this
effect.

Floating Production Storage & Offloading (FPSO)
As the development of fields in the offshore sector was reaching its maturity in certain
productions areas, it became necessary to develop means of exploiting small or
marginal fields. Conventional solutions such as fixed platforms or even fully dedicated
semi-submersible platforms were proving to be too costly. Various novel ideas were
investigated and one that warranted full-scale trials was called the SINGLE WELL
OPERATION & PRODUCTION SYSTEM (SWOPS). This was a system where a
converted tanker was used to extract the reservoir fluids from a marginal field and then
transport the processed fluids to the nearest port for further processing and export. As
the trials proved to be a success BP built a dedicated floating unit, which acted as a unit
to extract, process and store oil. This became known as the FLOATING PRODUCTION
& STORAGE (FPS) unit. This system required a facility to offload the cargo. In the case
of the SWOPS, the vessel itself disconnected from the sub-sea manifold and sailed to
the nearest port. The advantage of the system was that a system like this could exploit
several different marginal fields at the same time, by extracting from field A, discharging
its cargo and going on to field B etc. The disadvantage was that every time the vessel
and connected and disconnected itself to the sub-sea manifold it exposed itself to
damage and hence either loss of production or, worse still, damage to the environment.
However, many valuable lessons were learnt about the technology of sub-sea
connections to a floating platform. These lessons were then applied to the next
generation of the floating platform designs. The one that has now been fully developed
is called the FLOATING PRODUCTION STORAGE & OFFLOADING (FPSO) system
where the tanker that is used to extract and process the reservoir fluids is permanently
moored on site and a separate tanker acts as a shuttle to offload the cargo and take this
to the nearest export port. The advantage of this system is that the system could go on
producing even in the absence of a tanker present to offload the fluids. However,
production could only proceed until the storage facilities on the FPSO itself were used
up. If the shuttle tanker were unable to return or dock itself to the FPSO due to bad
weather, production would have to stop.
Figure 16. FPSO.

Storage & Loading Facilities

Introduction
Storage and loading facilities for crude oil must be designed and constructed with regard
to the following salient points:
• Physical and chemical properties of the crude oil;
• Operation, maintenance and inspection requirements;
• Logistics of the operation;
• Quantities to be handled;
• Environment;
• Economics of the operation;
• Safety requirements.
Crude oil when transported will normally have a Reid Vapour Pressure of between 1 and
12 psia, depending on its origin, the processing it has undergone and the degree of
‘weathering’, which has occurred. It is possible to pump most United Kingdom (UK)
North Sea crude at ambient temperature, but some of the recent Eocene developments
will yield a crude that will need treatment for economic pumping. This is due to the high
viscosity of the crude at pipeline temperatures. Where heating is required the pumping
and storage phases should be considered separately to maximise the economic return.
For storage purposes crude should be kept below 300C to limit the boil-off of the light
ends, which in addition to the direct loss, would tend to lower the value of the crude.
The total storage capacity required in any situation will depend upon the production
rate or import rate, the hold up requirements and export route. Capital cost consideration
will tend to favour a small number of large tanks but this has to be balanced by the need
to remove tanks for cleaning or other maintenance activities. An optimum economic
shape for vertical tanks, in most situations, occurs when the tank diameter is equal to
the height.
Onshore Storage
Tank Types
Crude oil is normally stored in steel vertical cylindrical tanks. There are two main
categories of tanks, fixed roof and floating roof. The fixed roof tanks are to be found with
a cone roof, a dome roof or a column supported cone roof. Many situations are best
suited to a fixed roof over a floating cover. Floating covers are normally fitted to fixed
roof tanks on condensate duty.

Floating roof tanks (Figures 1 and 1a) are selected to hold evaporation losses from the
stored stock to a minimum. These tanks virtually eliminate filling losses also minimise
fire and explosion risk when handling flammable liquids. A floating roof tank is
essentially a flat disc which is given enough buoyancy, by means of an enclosed
pontoon structure, to allow its support by stored liquid.
Figure 1. Floating Roof Tank.
Figure 1a. Roof Tank Seal Detail.
Due to the presence of a variable vapour space above the oil in a fixed roof tank, it must
be vented. Variation in the radiant heat incident on the roof and walls of the tank will
cause evaporation of some of the oil, or condensation of the vapour within the space,
with a consequent loss of oil (as vapour) to the atmosphere or inhalation of air. Similarly,
discharge of oil from the tank, or filling of the tank, will cause respectively a large influx
of air or efflux of vapour. This escape of vapour not only causes an economic loss but

also is source of pollution and fire risk. The vapour within the tank, mixed with air drawn-
in during breathing, also constitutes an explosion hazard.
The use of a venting system employing pressure relief and vacuum relief valves can
reduce vapour emission by allowing pressure within the tank to vary by a specified
amount before vapour is emitted or air is inhaled, but the advantage is limited when it
comes to reducing losses of vapour due to filling and emptying. Vapour recovery
systems are being designed and fitted to all storage system to minimise the loss of
vapour to atmosphere.
Siting of Tanks
In addition to size limitations imposed by the site, proximity of other buildings, plant, site
roads and the site boundary may impose restraints. Fire regulations require minimum
distance between these features and any tanks containing flammable fluids, and also
minimum distances between the tanks themselves. Options need to be considered of
siting tanks within their individual bunds, or grouped within a single bund. Ease of
access by road or rail tankers as well as mobile fire fighting equipment must also be
considered. For individual bund options, the bund is designed to contain the entire
volume of the tank contents in the event of tank rupture.
For large vertical tanks, the local soil conditions may significantly increase foundation
costs in one part of the site as opposed to another, particularly if part of the site has
been in-filled or is liable to flooding. Soil conditions may also dictate a maximum height
for the tanks. Siting of tanks at the highest point on the site can offer operational
advantages such as the reduction or elimination of pumping equipment and easier
handling of local drainage and leakage.
Safety, fire protection and explosion risk has a major impact on the siting of tanks,
particularly if space is also required for a large firewater storage tank. Space will also be
required for large fire pumps, some, if not all, driven by an independent source of power,
such as a diesel engine. Tanker loading points will require fire protection too.
Offshore Storage
Offshore storage of crude oil is not practical on piled steel platforms due to weight
limitations and related cost. Alternatives available offshore are:
• Within the structure of the platform such as the concrete gravity structures (figure
3
2) which have been constructed to store up to 50,000m of oil within the caisson
foundation raft. For reasons of structural integrity this normally has to be done by
maintaining the caissons full of liquid, either seawater or oil, at all times. This is to
obviate the very high cost that would have to be paid to provide structural
strength to counter the risk of implosion by external seawater pressure;
• by use of tankers moored to special buoys adjacent to offshore platform and
interconnected by seabed pipeline (figure 3). Single Anchor leg Storage – SALS
is a concept which is suitable for water depths up to 150 meters. It consists of a
tanker permanently moored by a ‘yoke’ and a single anchor leg to a fixed base
that is secured to the seabed by piles;
• by use of purpose designed floating storage vessels, which may incorporate
systems for loading tankers directly – Brent Spar (figure 4). More recently, the
development of the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) facilities
has combined the two methods, namely floating storage and production in one
vessel. Here, the tanker is converted to provide crude processing, storage and
offloading to a tanker berthed alongside;
• by use of purpose designed seabed storage Tankage. There have been many
proposals for such systems but few applications, principally for reasons of cost
effectiveness. There is at least one field where this is being used – offshore
Dubai.

The general design criterion for oil storage is one of safety and explosion/fire prevention.
This relies on careful control of the vapour pressure. It is also essential that the stored
oil should not cool to the extent of losing its ‘pumpability’.
Figure 2. Offshore Gravity Storage Platform.
Figure 3. Moored Tanker Storage.

Tanker loading
Crude oil loading terminals are located at the nearest point to the production field
gathering centre at which tankers of the required size can safely berth. Similarly
discharge terminals are located at a safe deep-water harbour convenient to the
particular consumer complex. Tankers are loaded either by pumps located on shore,
taking suction from Tankage or in those terminals fortunate enough to have a tank farm
at materially higher level than the jetty, it is possible to load tankers by gravity flow. The
higher loading rates of modern super tankers have necessitated a considerable increase
in the size of loading lines. 42-inch and 48-inch diameters are now quite common.
Offshore loading
Whenever economic and practical, offshore oilfields are produced through a subsea
pipeline to a shore terminal either through a dedicated pipeline or a common user line.
An alternative is to utilize an offshore loading facility. These usually offer a cheaper
solution for oil export than a long pipeline which may be at the expense of some
interruption to production when they are inoperable due to the environmental conditions.
Offshore loading facilities are usually associated with smaller and more remote oil fields.
They have the added advantage of providing potential for early production which can
give further reservoir information and add to the overall field economics. There are many
types of offshore loading facilities, these include:
• ALP – Articulated Loading Platform;
• Spar Buoy;
• SBM – Single Buoy Mooring;
• CALM Buoy;
• FPSO – Floating Production Storage & Offloading
ALP
Articulated Loading Platform (ALP) was designed and developed by the French
company EMH/CFEM and has been installed and operated successfully in the Beryl
Field (UK North Sea). The column is connected to the seabed anchor block by means of
a cardon joint, through which the oil is transferred, thereby eliminating the sub-sea hose.
A variant of this type is designed to provide a multi-chamber concrete storage facility
located on the seabed and to which the articulated column is anchored. This design is
self installing, being towed out with the concrete tank providing sufficient buoyancy to
support the column in the lower position. The structure is then progressively flooded until
it rests in its predetermined location in the manner of a gravity producing platform, the
column automatically coming to the vertical position. This design is independent of any
wave action in the vertical plane and therefore offers a relatively stable facility for
mooring operations.
SPAR
The SPAR buoy (Figures 4 and 5) is a particularly robust design of buoy, which has the
buoyancy located below the wave zone. It is built in three sections: main body, chimney
and superstructure. The lower unit contains the storage and ballast tanks, submarine
hose connections and anchor chain ties. The intermediate cylinder is essentially
provided to connect upper and lower chambers but is narrow in diameter to minimise
wave loading. The upper cylinder contains the living quarters and facilities to operate
and control the storage and transfer system. It is topped by a revolving platform part of
which supports a crane for handling the loading hoses, the other part supporting a
helideck. A service vessel is used to take a messenger rope to the ship, which is used to
haul in the mooring rope and subsequently the hoses.

Figure 4. Floating Storage Vessel.
SBM
The Single Buoy Mooring (SBM) (Figures 6 and 7) has been developed for crude oil
loading where tanker berthing facilities are impossible or uneconomic at the shoreline.
The Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM) buoy is relatively robust with shallow draft
held in position by a number of chains, which are held under tension by their own
weight. The buoy is fed from a subsea line via a flexible hose riser and discharges the
oil to a tanker through a swivel connection, which permits access and operation in any
desired orientation. It is a similar buoy to the SBM and has common operating
limitations.
In remote areas where terminal construction may take years or reserves do not justify
the capital investment for storage facilities, permanently moored tankers may be
considered as floating storage facilities. In some cases the tanker is modified to act as a
production platform capable of operating pre-drilled wells and processing the reservoir
fluids. This is known as the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) facility.
Crude is transhipped to a tanker that can either be moored alongside the FPSO or
moored to a remote SBM to which the FPSO would be permanently linked by a
submarine pipeline.

Figure 5. SPAR with a Tanker Being Loaded.
Figure 6. Single Buoy Mooring System.

Figure 7: SBM Connected to a Tanker.

TOPIC 11 - Offshore Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC 11 - Offshore Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PgDip/MSc The Energy Programme/FacilitiesENM 202 Offshore Structures

Offshore Platforms – Fixed

© The Robert Gordon University 1

© The Robert Gordon University 2

© The Robert Gordon University 3

© The Robert Gordon University 4

© The Robert Gordon University 5

Figure 4: The Launch Sequence of a Steel Substructure.

Examples of Piled Structures

© The Robert Gordon University 6

The Compliant Tower

Figure5. The Bullwinkle Platform Substructure.

Figure 6. Grouping of Platforms – Valhall Field.

© The Robert Gordon University 7

Examples of Gravity Structures

© The Robert Gordon University 8

Figure 7. Schematic Diagram of Ninian Central.

© The Robert Gordon University 9

Figure 8. Ninian Central Platform.

© The Robert Gordon University 10

© The Robert Gordon University 11

Modern Concrete Platforms:

© The Robert Gordon University 12

Figure 11 is a picture of a concrete platform being towed with no surface structure

© The Robert Gordon University 13

Different Leg Configurations for Concrete Platforms:

© The Robert Gordon University 14

© The Robert Gordon University 15

Summary Of Comparison –Piled Versus Gravity Structures

For a Piled Platform:

For a Gravity Platform:

© The Robert Gordon University 16

Tethered Buoyant Structures

© The Robert Gordon University 17

Figure 15: Tethered Leg Platform.

© The Robert Gordon University 18

© The Robert Gordon University 19

Floating Production Storage & Offloading (FPSO)

© The Robert Gordon University 20

Storage & Loading Facilities

© The Robert Gordon University 21

Figure 1a. Roof Tank Seal Detail.

© The Robert Gordon University 22

© The Robert Gordon University 23

Figure 3. Moored Tanker Storage.

© The Robert Gordon University 24

© The Robert Gordon University 25

Figure 4. Floating Storage Vessel.

© The Robert Gordon University 26

Figure 5. SPAR with a Tanker Being Loaded.

Figure 6. Single Buoy Mooring System.

© The Robert Gordon University 27

Figure 7: SBM Connected to a Tanker.

© The Robert Gordon University 28

You might also like