Jack-Up Interference 1

TECHNICAL REPORT
PREPARED BY: REV. DATE: FEB PAGE 1 OF 31
PREPARED FOR:
TECHNICAL REPORT
ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE INTERFERENCES

BETWEEN JACK-UPS AND DECKS
ISSUED FOR INTERNAL

FEB
REVIEW
PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED APPROVED CLIENT

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
BY BY BY BY APPROVAL
Rev.
TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE: 2 OF 31
Date: FEB
INDEX
1.0 ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE INTERFERENCES.......................................................................3
2.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Jack-Ups........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Pedestal Crane.............................................................................................................................. 5
3.3 Air Gap.......................................................................................................................................... 6
4.0 FRIEDE & GOLDMAN JU 2000E.................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and F&G JU-2000e.............................................................8
4.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and F&G JU-2000e...........................................................10
5.0 PPL PACIFIC CLASS 400............................................................................................................. 11
5.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and PPL Pacific Class 400................................................12
5.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and PPL Pacific Class 400..............................................14
6.0 KEPPEL FELS Super A................................................................................................................ 15
6.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and KEPPEL FELS Super A..............................................16
6.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and KEPPEL FELS Super A............................................18
7.0 KEPPEL FELS Super B................................................................................................................ 19
7.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and KEPPEL FELS Super B..............................................20
7.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and KEPPEL FELS Super B............................................22
8.0 COSL CJ-46................................................................................................................................... 23
8.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and COSL CJ-46................................................................24
8.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and COSL CJ-46...............................................................26
9.0 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 27
10.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................. 27
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................. 27
Rev.
Date: FEB
1.0 ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE INTERFERENCES

Below are the results of the assessment for the possible interferences between the Drill Floor or Cantilever of
the Jack-Ups and the elements over de Main Deck of the Jackets ACTIVO Central and ACTIVO Satellite.
2.0 REFERENCES.
The considerations taken to generate this document are based in the standards, regulations and
recommended practices listed in the table below and should be taken in the latest edition unless otherwise
indicated.
No. REF. / AUTHOR TITLE
RenewableUK by London Offshore Guidelines for the Selection and Operation of Jack-ups in the
[1]
Consultants. Marine Renewable Energy Industry.
Petroleum and natural gas industries - Site-specific

[2] ISO/FDIS 19905-1:2011(E)
assessment of mobile offshore units Part 1: Jack-ups.
C&C TECHNOLOGIES GEOMAR DE PROVISIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE INFORMACIÓN

[3]
MÉXICO. METAOCEÁNICA PARA EL CAMPO - INFORME TÉCNICO
Friede & Goldman JU 2000, Cellar Deck and BOP handling

[4] Global Santa Fe
area plan drawing and General Arrangement drawing.
PPL Pacific Class 400, Conductor Tensioner Platform drawing
[5] Oro Negro
and General Arrangement drawing
Keppel Fels super A Class, Machinery Arrangement BOP &
[6] Discovery Offshore
Cellar floor Drawings
Keppel Fels super B Class, General Arrangement Drill Floor
[7] Transocean
and Cantilever Drawings
China Merchants heavy industry
[8] COSL CJ-46, Cantilever Structure drawings
(Shen Zhen) CO
Table 1 – References
Rev.
Date: FEB
3.0 CONSIDERATIONS
For these assessment we are consider different classes of Jack Ups, one specific model of crane and a
minimum value in the Air Gap to discard possible clashes or interferences between both structures.
3.1 Jack-Ups
We are considering the next 5 classes of Jack-Ups, provided by ACTIVO

 F&G JU-2000e
 PPL Pacific class 400
 Keppel Fels Super A
 Keppel Fels Super B
 COSL CJ46
F&G JU-2000e PPL Pacific class 400
Keppel Fels Super A Keppel Fels Super B
COSL CJ-46
Rev.
Date: FEB
3.2 Pedestal Crane

Also for this assessment we are considering a crane MODEL 340B2A-90 with the geometry shows below
(Figure 3 -1 and Figure 3 -2) with a total height of 6m (236.5in) in crane arrangement.
Figure 3-1 – Pedestal Crane
Figure 3-2 - height above main deck

Rev.
Date: FEB
3.3 Air Gap
Its necessary take special attention in a possible overhang outside of the beam clearance, of certain units
during handing
We are considering a value of 98 ft to use in the air gap dimension (Figure 3 -3).
The hull elevation used in the arrangement shall comply with the requirements specified in:
 A hull elevation resulting in at least 1,5 m clearance between the assessment return period extreme wave
crest elevation and the underside of the hull shall be provided (Table 1 REF. 2).
 The minimum clearance between the jack-up hull and an adjacent structure or another floating vessel during
positioning should not be less than 3.0 meters at any point during the positioning operation (Table 1 REF. 1)
Generally this is the larger of that required to maintain adequate clearance.

This value must be corroborated by the operating area
Figure 3-3 – Air Gap

Rev.
Date: FEB
4.0 FRIEDE & GOLDMAN JU 2000E
For this Jack up class, the cantilever reach is:
 Maximum Cantilever Outreach 75 ft [22.8 m]

 Maximum Drill Floor Offset +/- 15 ft [+/- 4.6 m]
DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP
Figure 4-4 - General Arrangement with ACTIVO Central
DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP
Figure 4-5 - General arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite

Rev.
Date: FEB
4.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and F&G JU-2000e
In the centered position at first look we don’t have possible interference between the cantilever or drill floor
and some elements over the main deck of Structure as shown in the Figure 4 -6
Friede & Goldman JU 2000e
Figure 4-6 - Drill Floor centered on wells area
In the port position of the drill floor over the wells area we noticed a possible interference with the crane and
drill floor as shown in the Figure 4 -7, for this reason we check the elevations in this arrangement to
corroborate the possibility to have a clash between these elements.
For the elevation arrangement we consider minimum 98 ft for the Air Gap. With this consideration we confirm
the null possibility to have a clash between the drill floor and the crane as shown in the Figure 4 -8 with
31.89ft (9.72m) of clearance between crane and the bottom of the drill floor.
In the stbd position of the drill floor over the wells area we don’t noticed a possible clash with some element
over the main deck.
Rev.
Date: FEB
Figure 4-7 - Drill Floor in port position over wells area
CO
CLEARANCE 9.72m
CO
CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE JACK-UP

CTU AND AN ADJACENT STRUCTURE
4.08m
Figure 4-8 - Elevations in general arrangement with ACTIVO Central

Rev.
Date: FEB
4.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and F&G JU-2000e

In the case of the works with ACTIVO Satellite we don’t noticed a clash or interference between the drill floor
and some element over the main deck as shown in the Figure 4 -9 and Figure 4 -10.
Figure 4-9 - Arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite plan view
Figure 4-10 - Arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite elev. view

Rev.
Date: FEB
5.0 PPL PACIFIC CLASS 400


DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP
Figure 5-11 - General arrangement with ACTIVO Central
DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP

Rev.
Date: FEB
5.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and PPL Pacific Class 400
In the centered position at first look we don’t have possible clashes between the cantilever or drill floor and
some elements over the main deck of Structure as shown in the Figure 5 -13
PPL Pacific Class 400
In the port position of the drill floor over the wells area we noticed a possible clash with the crane and drill floor
as shown in the Figure 5 -14, for this reason we check the elevations in this arrangement to corroborate the
possibility to have a clash between these elements.
over the main deck.
Rev.
Date: FEB
CLEARANCE 2.30m CO
CO

Rev.
Date: FEB
5.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and PPL Pacific Class 400
and some element over the main deck as shown in the Figure 5 -16 and Figure 5 -17.

Rev.
Date: FEB
6.0 KEPPEL FELS Super A


DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP
DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP

Rev.
Date: FEB
6.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and KEPPEL FELS Super A

some elements over the main deck of Structure as shown in the Figure 6 -20.
KEPPEL FELS Super A
For the elevation arrangement we consider minimum 98ft for the Air Gap. With this consideration we confirm
over the main deck.
Rev.
Date: FEB
KEPPEL FELS Super A
KEPPEL FELS Super A
CLEARANCE 3.33m CO

Rev.
Date: FEB
6.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and KEPPEL FELS Super A
and some element over the main deck as shown in the Figure 6 -23Error: Reference source not found and
Figure 6 -24.Error: Reference source not found
KEPPEL FELS Super A
KEPPEL FELS Super A

Rev.
Date: FEB
7.0 KEPPEL FELS Super B


DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP
DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP

Rev.
Date: FEB
7.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and KEPPEL FELS Super B
In the centered position at first look we don’t have possible clashes between the cantilever or drill floor and some
elements over the main deck of Structure as shown in the Figure 7 -27.
KEPPEL FELS Super B
In the port position of the drill floor over the wells area we noticed a possible clash with the crane and drill floor as
shown in the Figure 7 -28Error: Reference source not found, for this reason we check the elevations in this
arrangement to corroborate the possibility to have a clash between these elements.
For the elevation arrangement we consider minimum 98 ft for the Air Gap. With this consideration we confirm the null
possibility to have a clash between the drill floor and the crane as shown in the Figure 7 -29 with 4.66ft (1.42m) of
clearance between crane and the bottom of the drill floor.Error: Reference source not found
In the stbd position of the drill floor over the wells area we don’t noticed a possible clash with some element over the
main deck.
Rev.
Date: FEB
KEPPEL FELS Super B
KEPPEL FELS Super B
CO
CLEARANCE 1.42m

Rev.
Date: FEB
7.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and KEPPEL FELS Super B
and some element over the main deck as shown in the Figure 7 -30Error: Reference source not foundError:
Reference source not found and Figure 7 -31.Error: Reference source not foundError: Reference source not
found
KEPPEL FELS Super B
KEPPEL FELS Super B

Rev.
Date: FEB
Rev.
Date: FEB
8.0 COSL CJ-46

DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP
DRILL FLOOR
ENVELOP

Rev.
Date: FEB
8.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and COSL CJ-46

some elements over the main deck of Structure as shown in the Figure 8 -34.Error: Reference source not
foundError: Reference source not found
COSL CJ-46
the null possibility to have a clash between the drill floor and the crane as shown in the Error: Reference
source not found with 7.58ft (2.31m) of clearance between crane and the bottom of the drill floor.
over the main deck.
Rev.
Date: FEB
COSL CJ-46
COSL CJ-46
CO
CLEARANCE 2.31m

Rev.
Date: FEB
8.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and COSL CJ-46

and some element over the main deck as shown in the Figure 8 -37Error: Reference source not found and
Figure 8 -38.Error: Reference source not found
COSL CJ-46
COSL CJ-46

Rev.
Date: FEB
9.0 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Incluir tabla comparativa de las características principales de cada jack-Up
Incluir tabla comparativa de las características principales de cada Plataforma

Rev.
Date: FEB
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
With the consideration of the use 98 ft in the Air Gap for each RIG we obtain good results in the separation
between the Deck elements and Rig elements with possibilities of clash or interference.
If we compare the assessments of both Jackets (ACTIVO Central/Satellite) we can clearly see that
interference problems are between ACTIVO Central and the Jack-ups
Below is shown a table with the result of the assessment of clearance between the elements of the Jack-Ups
and the elements of ACTIVO Central.
Clearance
MODELO DE JACK-UP
Horizontal Vertical
F&G JU 2000e 13 ft 4.1 m 32 ft 9.7 m
PACIFIC CLASS 400 13 ft 4.1 m 7.6 ft 2.3 m
KEPPEL FELS SUPER A 13 ft 3.8 m 11 ft 3.3 m
KEPPEL FELS SUPER B 10 ft 3.1 m 4.7 ft 1.4 m
COSL CJ-46 26 ft 7.9 m 7.6 ft 2.3 m
Table 2 – Clearances between ACTIVO Central and Jack-Ups
 The horizontal clearance is taking between Cantilever and Crane

 The vertical clearance is taking between Drill Floor and Crane
In the Table 2 we can see the comparative of clearances with ACTIVO Central and Jack-Ups, with base in this
comparative we can see that the most unfavorable Jack-up is the Keppel Fels Super B class (Option 4) with
the most shorter clearance in both directions.
The Figure 10 -39 shows the horizontal clearance and Figure 10 -40 shows the vertical clearance between
ACTIVO Central and the Keppel Fels Super B class Jack-up
Rev.
Date: FEB
3.1m
Figure 10-39 – Horizontal Clearance
1.4m
Figure 10-40 – Vertical Clearance

Rev.
Date: FEB
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
For the options 2, 4 and 5 the free height it does not provide a reasonable tolerance for possible adjustments
in the height of the pedestal crane, for this reason our suggestions are.
 Take this three Jack-ups (options 2, 4 and 5) in the last use options unless increase the Air Gap 6ft
(1.8m).
 Don’t reduce the value in the Air Gap to warranties cero interferences between the structures.
 In the case of having to reduce the value of the AIR GAP take off the crane during the drilling works to
prevent equipment damage.
Is necessary the approbation of the operating area about the use of the considerations in the Air Gap.

Jack-Up Interference 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Jack-Up Interference 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT

PREPARED BY: REV. DATE: FEB PAGE 1 OF 31

ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE INTERFERENCES

ISSUED FOR INTERNAL

PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED APPROVED CLIENT

1.0 ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE INTERFERENCES.......................................................................3

3.2 Pedestal Crane.............................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Air Gap.......................................................................................................................................... 6

4.0 FRIEDE & GOLDMAN JU 2000E.................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and F&G JU-2000e.............................................................8

4.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and F&G JU-2000e...........................................................10

5.0 PPL PACIFIC CLASS 400............................................................................................................. 11

6.0 KEPPEL FELS Super A................................................................................................................ 15

7.0 KEPPEL FELS Super B................................................................................................................ 19

8.0 COSL CJ-46................................................................................................................................... 23

8.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and COSL CJ-46................................................................24

8.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and COSL CJ-46...............................................................26

9.0 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 27

1.0 ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE INTERFERENCES

No. REF. / AUTHOR TITLE

Petroleum and natural gas industries - Site-specific

C&C TECHNOLOGIES GEOMAR DE PROVISIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE INFORMACIÓN

Friede & Goldman JU 2000, Cellar Deck and BOP handling

We are considering the next 5 classes of Jack-Ups, provided by ACTIVO

F&G JU-2000e PPL Pacific class 400

Keppel Fels Super A Keppel Fels Super B

3.2 Pedestal Crane

Figure 3-1 – Pedestal Crane

Figure 3-2 - height above main deck

3.3 Air Gap

Generally this is the larger of that required to maintain adequate clearance.

Figure 3-3 – Air Gap

4.0 FRIEDE & GOLDMAN JU 2000E

For this Jack up class, the cantilever reach is:

 Maximum Cantilever Outreach 75 ft [22.8 m]

Figure 4-4 - General Arrangement with ACTIVO Central

Figure 4-5 - General arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite

4.1 Interferences with ACTIVO Central and F&G JU-2000e

Friede & Goldman JU 2000e

Figure 4-6 - Drill Floor centered on wells area

Friede & Goldman JU 2000e

Figure 4-7 - Drill Floor in port position over wells area

Friede & Goldman JU 2000e

CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE JACK-UP

Figure 4-8 - Elevations in general arrangement with ACTIVO Central

4.2 Interferences with ACTIVO Satellite and F&G JU-2000e

Friede & Goldman JU 2000e

Figure 4-9 - Arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite plan view

Friede & Goldman JU 2000e

Figure 4-10 - Arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite elev. view

5.0 PPL PACIFIC CLASS 400

 Maximum Cantilever Outreach 75 ft [22.8 m]

Figure 5-11 - General arrangement with ACTIVO Central

Figure 5-12 - General arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite

PPL Pacific Class 400

Figure 5-13 - Drill Floor centered on wells area

PPL Pacific Class 400

Figure 5-14 - Drill Floor in port position over wells area

PPL Pacific Class 400

Figure 5-15 - Elevations in general arrangement with ACTIVO Central

PPL Pacific Class 400

Figure 5-16 - Arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite plan view

PPL Pacific Class 400

Figure 5-17 - Arrangement with ACTIVO Satellite elev. view