Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42797-022-00057-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Offshore oil and gas development in remote harsh environments:

engineering challenges and research opportunities
Sidum Adumene1 · Faisal Khan2 · Sunday Adedigba1 · Abbas Mamudu1 · Masli Irwan Rosli3

Received: 30 January 2022 / Revised: 20 March 2022 / Accepted: 21 May 2022 / Published online: 24 June 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

Abstract
The demand for energy is pushing operators to remote harsh offshore environments, which are characterized by extreme
waves, wind, storms, currents, ice, and fog that hinder offshore operation and enhance structural degradation. Safety is a criti-
cal factor for oil and gas fields development in such harsh environments. Resilient design and operation of offshore facilities
is one practical way to reduce the risks. Resilient design and operation require a comprehensive understanding of the static
and dynamic behavior of the offshore system, the environmental constraints, and the associated risks. This paper presents
a critical review of the harsh environments encountered during the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources.
A systematic review methodology is adopted in exploring the engineering challenges, potential risks, and models for the
field development and support technologies. While presenting the current understanding, the study also highlights research
opportunities. The study concludes that the current state of knowledge is inexhaustive and isolated, unable to provide an
integrated solution for the design, operation, logistic support, environment, and safety challenges of remote harsh offshore
operations. Digitalization provides an opportunity to fill some of the challenges. Research investments are needed to develop
robust design and resilient technologies.

Keywords Offshore field development · Remote harsh environments · Arctic · Deep and ultra-deep waters · Logistics
challenges · Oil and gas · Sustainable operation

Introduction These challenges include but are not limited to catastrophic

As oil and gas field operations move to the remote harsh
environment, a better understanding of the processes, sys-
tem dynamics, and associated risks is crucial to sustainable
field development. Offshore oil and gas field operations in
remote harsh environments present diverse technical, opera-
tional, and logistic challenges to the oil and gas industry.
* Faisal Khan
fikhan@tamu.edu
1 The metocean condition of a remote offshore environment
Centre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C‑RISE),
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, A1B 3X5 St. John’s, NL,
Canada
2
Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Artie McFerrin
Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A and M
University, College Station, TX 77843‑3122, USA
3
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
accidents, operational downtime, system failures, and occu-
pational risk (Necci et al. 2019; Rahman et al. 2020a, b).
Therefore, consideration should be given to understanding
the environmental, infrastructural, technical, and opera-
tional issues associated with remote harsh offshore opera-
tions, especially as they affects critical infrastructure and
resources (Wang et al. 2018). The interacting environmen-
tal factors affect the dynamics and performance of critical
infrastructures. The high rate of degradation and failure pose
unique challenges that are common to remote harsh offshore
operations.
describes the various natural phenomenon associated with
ocean dynamics. These phenomena include waves, wind,
storms, currents, ice, tides, and extreme states based on dif-
ferent return period predictions (generally, a 100 year return
period). These data are presented using a probability of
exceedance to describe the extreme state for a given period.
The floating/offshore structures are exposed to these harsh
ocean elements during operations. The floating structure

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
18
dynamics are characterized by six degrees of freedom
(6-DoF): roll, pitch, heave, sway, surge, and yaw motion (Bai
et al. 2016; Sanchez-Mondragon et al. 2018). The interaction
of the metocean elements and the floating system dynam-
ics poses severe risk and safety challenges for remote harsh
offshore operations in extreme sea states.
The complex environmental factors in remote off-
shore operations cause severe consequences for drill-
ing facilities and personnel, especially during extreme
sea states (Wang et al. 2018). Limited knowledge and
sparse data availability affect timely/precise predictions
for the design, operation, and detection of these critical
offshore infrastructures in the remote harsh environments
(Du et al. 2014). Also, safety assessments, performance
predictions, and structural life cycle analysis for the sys-
tems are limited due to sparse data availability. Many
subsea facilities such as risers, umbilical, and mooring
systems suffer damage because they are highly sensitive
to complex environmental loads in these regions (Yasseri
and Wang 2015). The actual information on the state of
the infrastructures and data gathering will help predict
the risky scenarios associated with remote harsh offshore
operations. Proneness and accuracy are also crucial for
effective response analysis and risk management (Jacob-
sen 2012). The state of knowledge of the engineering
challenges in remote and harsh offshore environments,
based on the environmental factors, structural dynamics,
operational risk and safety, and logistics perspectives, is
presented.
The current review shows that there is no comprehensive
or conclusive knowledge to accurately predict and analyze
operations in remote harsh offshore environments that will
minimize interruption and optimize production. Therefore,
this paper aims to present the state of knowledge on oil and
gas field development in remote harsh environments and the
prevailing engineering challenges. Thus, state of the art of
potential solutions were examined to identify the way for-
ward towards sustainable offshore operations.
This paper is structured thus: Second section presents
an overview of harsh offshore environments. Third section
reviews the engineering challenges of remote harsh environ-
ments. Fourth section examines the state of knowledge of
potential solutions. Fifth section considers research oppor-
tunities and gaps for continued research, and sixth section
concludes the paper.
Overview of harsh offshore environments
Offshore operations are oil and gas operations located at
some distance from the shore. The operations are catego-
rized based on the field distance from the shore and the water
depth. The oil and gas field located at a distance greater than
13
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
350 km offshore is considered remote (El-Wardani 2011).
Offshore operations span various terrains due to the avail-
ability of oil and gas fields across the globe. In this study,
the emphasis is placed on describing what remote and harsh
offshore operating environments and their specific charac-
terizations are.
The harsh offshore environment is commonly described as
extremely low temperatures, high winds, and waves; snow-
drifts, polar low pressures, storms, atmospheric and sea-spray
icing, sea-ice induced vibrations, seasonal darkness, high
temperatures, poor visibility due to fog and snowstorms, etc.
(Naseri andBarababy 2016). Such an environment is char-
acterized by increasing operational difficulty due to adverse
environmental challenges. Facilities in such environments
suffer multiple adverse and stochastic degradation effects in
operation (Adumene et al. 2020; Barabadi et al. 2013; Khan
et al. 2017). Harsh environments include the Arctic, deep
water, ultra-deepwater, and tropical environments.
Remote offshore environments are located at a dis-
tance greater than 350 km offshore, where helicopter
one-way services experience some challenges in provid-
ing support (Rahman et al. 2020a, b). The remoteness
presents associated drawbacks in transportation costs
and other offshore operations support services. It also
presents high travelling risks due to long distances that
often affect transport logistics, planning, costing, and
operations (Adumene and Ikue-John 2022; Barabadi
et al. 2013; Rahman et al. 2019). Service and spare parts
delivery take more time at these locations, which affects
the prompt repair of broken-down facilities and causes
unacceptable downtime in the production process. For
example, the Shtokman offshore field, located at about
600 km offshore in the northern Barents Sea, and the
Flemish Pass Basin located 500 km off Newfoundland,
are referred to as remote harsh offshore oil and gas fields.
The offshore field at these distances may be in shallow
water, deep water, or ultra-deepwater.
The drilling operation in deepwater offshore in new
terrain encounters extreme sea state challenges, such as
extremely low temperatures, intense waves and winds, crit-
ical storms, high pressure, and high-temperature drilling
challenges (Khatmullin 2014; Krüger 2013). These harsh
regions have rich oil and gas reserves undiscovered, under-
developed, or unexplored, which motivates the exploration
activities. The harsh arctic offshore environment, such as
the Barents Sea, Kara Sea and Flemish pass, has potential
(oil and natural gas) resources unexplored and undiscovered.
Harsh deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, such as the Gulf
of Mexico, North Sea, Africa coast, South China Sea, and
the Coast of Brazil, have tremendous natural resources and
billions of potential barrels that are yet to be explored.
Major accidents cases as a result of oil and gas operations
in the harsh environment have been reported in the literature
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33 19

(Baalisampang et al. 2018; Brazilian National Agency of • The 2015 explosion incident on the FPSO CIDADE DE
Petroleum 2015; Bucelli et al. 2017; Kvitrud and Løland SAO MATEUS in Brazil oil field.
2018; Necci et al. 2019). These include: • The 2015 COSLInnovator Semi-Submersible incident
that results in one fatality due to rogue wave impact in
• The crude oil spill was accidentally released in 2004 Troll field in the Norwegian Continental Shelf.
from the Terra Nova FPSO (Floating Production, Storage • The 2015 fire incident on the Gunashli platform in the
and Offloading) unit in offshore Newfoundland (Canada). Caspian Sea as a result of high pressure subsea pipeline
• The deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 in the Gulf of damage in heavy storm with 30 casualty.
Mexico released about 0.78Mm3 of crude oil into the
environment.
• The 2011 catastrophic capsized of the Kolskaya Jack- Harsh arctic region
up rig in the Okhotsic Sea of Russian Federation due to
extreme weather conditions. The harsh arctic offshore environment poses severe chal-
lenges that affect the offshore drilling support systems’
structural integrity. The recent large discovery of oil and
Table 1  Fleming-Drover harshness index for the arctic region (adopted from gas reserves in the arctic offshore has driven investors to
Nalcor Energy 2017) search for the best infrastructures to tap these reserves
Harsh Arctic Region Harshness index Location economically. Nalcor Energy (2017) presents the harsh-
ness index model that is used to evaluate the degree of
East Greenland 6.80 Greenland
environmental harshness of marine and offshore activities
West Greenland 4.40 Greenland
in the arctic region. The proposed Fleming-Drover harsh-
Beaufort Sea 4.20 Canada
ness index was built based on the prevailing sea state, sea
Kara Sea 3.90 Russia
ice (pack ice), and icebergs in this region. The categori-
Chukchi Sea 3.80 Russia/USA
zation based on the hardness index is shown in Table 1.
Flemish Pass 2.65 Canada
Figure 1 shows the highlighted oil and gas potential areas
Grand Banks 2.27 Canada
in the arctic regions and their distributions (Belonin and
Labrador 1.76 Canada
Grigorenko 2007).
Sakhalin Island 1.90 Japan
The challenging climatic factors in the harsh arctic regions
Caspian Sea 1.20 Europe/Asia
are due to latitudinal changes, influenced by solar radiation,
Barents Sea 0.50 Norway/Russia
which cause a decrease in the cyclonic activity by increasing
North Sea 0.50 Europe/Asia

Fig. 1  The Arctic region

potential basins (Belonin and
Grigorenko 2007)

13
20
the range of air temperature and decreasing precipitation
(Adumene and Ikue-John 2022; Necci et al. 2019).
Harsh tropical region
The tropical ocean environment presents a unique harsh-
ness of extreme wind, waves, storms, and high temperatures.
The coast of Africa is rich in oil and natural gas reserves.
The Girassol oil field of Angola, Ceiba field of Equatorial
Guinea, and the Agbami oilfield in Nigeria have shown a
promise of available reserves in the tropics (Brashier and
Pavia 2002; Odusote 2013; Raisson and Temple 2004). From
the coast of Angola through Cameroon’s coast, oil and gas
development have increased despite the harsh tropical high
temperatures and associated deep water challenges.
Harsh deep and ultra‑deep water region
The harsh deep, and ultra-deep waters have unique depths
and remoteness challenges with complex geological forma-
tions. This region has a typical water depth greater than
300 m, while ultra-deep water is a depth greater than 1500 m
(Wangjun 2016). The deep water and ultra-deep ocean envi-
ronment have great oil, natural gas, and mineral resources
that are untapped and undiscovered (CAPP, 2013). Some
of the deep water and ultra-deep water regions with great
potential for oil and natural gas resources include: the Gulf
of Mexico, North Sea, South China Sea, the coast of Brazil,
and coast of Africa.
Engineering challenges of remote harsh
offshore operations
Operation of the oil and gas fields in remote harsh environ-
ments is a challenging exercise. The prevailing challenges
faced by the oil and gas industry in the remote harsh arctic
region result from extremely low temperatures, impaired vis-
ibility, critical icing and icebergs and an extreme metocean
(Khatmullin 2014). The remote and harsh deep and ultra-
deep water also present unique challenges to developing oil
and gas fields in these regions, rooted in the environmental
characterizations. The following section describes the area’s
prevailing challenges.
Extreme low temperature conditions
The extremely low temperature condition presents unique chal-
lenges that cause operational interruption and degradation of
offshore infrastructures. As the temperature decreases to an ice
freezing temperature of −1.9◦ C, humans, systems, and materials
may be susceptible to failure and degradation (Krüger 2013).
Most brittle materials experience unpredictable failure trends
13
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
while the ductile materials undergo permanent deformation
before failure in extremely low temperature conditions. The sud-
den failure and degradation rate are predominant, due to con-
traction changes and dropping temperature (Wang et al. 2017).
Polymers exhibit characteristic changes and a high speed of
degradation in an extreme temperature gradient. Very low tem-
perature also affects lubrication oil performance and degree of
viscosity. As the viscosity drops below the oil pour point, torque
resistance may increase in the machinery, causing overstress,
leading to severe machinery damage in this harsh environment.
The following gives an overview of the temperatures pro-
file of the remote and harsh arctic regions (Gordeeva 2013;
Gudmestad 2012; Krüger 2013; Starodubtcev 2016).
• In the Northern Barents Sea, the average tem-
perature in the coldest months range from
−10◦ C, −15◦ C, and − 20◦ C, −22◦ C respectively, for the
coast and the northern island.
• In winter, the central sea area low temperature ranges
from−4◦ C to − 10◦ C , and the south-eastern region
from−15◦ C to − 20◦ C
• In the Canadian Beaufort Sea, the average annual tem-
peratures range from−1.4◦ C to − 1.8◦ C respectively for
summer and winter seasons. The sea is frozen for most
months except in August and September, when ice breaks
near the coast, granting access to transportation and oper-
ations in the Arctic
• In the Kara Sea, the average temperature for the month of
January ranges from −20◦ C to − 28◦ C, with the possibil-
ity of −50◦ C minimum; In July, the average temperature
is from−6 to + 1◦ C, with the possibility of +16◦ C maxi-
mum, and the air temperature in the Kara Sea is < 0◦ C
for about 9–10 months annually.
Impaired visibility and polar night conditions
Offshore field development involves a diverse form of opera-
tions and support service to enhance production. These ser-
vices are hindered by impaired visibility challenges caused
by prevalent fog, rain, and snowfall (Starodubtcev 2016).
Research has shown that in the Northern Barents Sea, snow
impaired visibility (below 2 km) occurs over 64 days per
year and fog impaired visibility (below 1 km) occurs 76
days per year (ISO, 2010). There is a high frequency of fog
formation over the northern arctic sea in summer due to
sea air saturation and temperature drop (Gordeeva 2013).
In the Kara Sea, the relative humidity ranges from 80 to
85% and 90–95% for winter and summer, contributing to
the fog formation in that region (Starodubtcev 2016). Sea
smoke fog types present unique challenges that are com-
mon in the region’s Arctic. They are the most dangerous fog
type encountered in the region’s vessel navigable channels
(NAVEDTRA, 2001).
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
Polar night is another unique challenge for remote harsh arc-
tic offshore operations. In Hammerfest, the northern Barents
Sea located at ­71oN, the production platform suffers polar nights
up to three months a year. This has economic and risk implica-
tions on the operation and investment. The polar night’s intensity
increases farther in the remote northern Barents Sea (HA 2011).
The challenges become complex because of the inability to
accurately predict the polar night characteristic in remote harsh
arctic operations. Similarly, the Shtokman (650 km northeast of
Murmansk Barents Sea) oil and gas field development experi-
ences setbacks due to critical remote and harsh arctic challenges
(Starodubtcev 2016).
Icebergs and icing conditions
In most seasons in the remote and harsh arctic environ-
ment, the seawater freezes at a temperature range of
−1.7◦ C to − 1.9◦ C. Research has shown that critically large
icebergs’ formation that are about 10 km in length with sail
heights of 30 m, are prevalent in the Barents Sea. Similar
critical icebergs are experienced in the Flemish Pass Basin.
Sea ice and icebergs’ action cause additional loads on struc-
tures operating in the arctic environment (Jacobsen 2012;
Khatmullin 2014). Extreme iceberg thickness of 0.99 m
with corresponding compressive strength of 2.8Mpa with
an extremely low exceedance probability of 2 × 10−5 has
been observed in the Baltic environment at an extreme sea
state (Steenfelt 2016). Another critical iceberg state was
observed in the Beaufort Sea up to 100,000 MT, and an
average ice thickness between 4.1 and 6.6 m and a transect
length between 10 and 15 km (Barber et al. 2014). The ice
motion is driven by excessive wind and current formation
within the Arctic. The formation of thick multi-year ice
(MYI) floes and marine glacial ice poses significant haz-
ards to floating or fixed offshore infrastructures. Similarly,
ice scours’ characteristic feature critically affects the subsea
systems (pipeline) in the Arctic Beaufort Sea.
Local and global ice action on offshore facilities
Offshore facilities operating in the remote harsh arctic region
suffers multiple ice load effects. The ice action effects on
structures may have local or global considerations. These
actions are either static, quasi-static, cyclic, or dynamic.
Structural fatigue, liquefaction, and personnel discomfort are
common cyclic and dynamic ice effect on the offshore struc-
tures. In extreme cases, when the ice spatial actions cause
ride-up, rubbing, and pile-up interaction with the structures,
operations are interrupted (Komljenovic et al. 2016; Løset
et al. 2006). The offshore system structural integrity under
global ice actions is assessed based on their resistance to
sliding, overturning, capacity of the foundation, fatigue, and
foundation liquefaction (Arif et al. 2020). This analysis is
21
hindered due to sparse data availability in offshore opera-
tions in the remote harsh Arctic environment. The sparse
data availability could further affect precision in the model
prediction of global ice effects on offshore structures. Also,
the limited models have a high level of uncertainties that
affect optimum design against ice loads in remote and harsh
arctic environments. This necessitates integrating experi-
ments, probabilistic and numerical models for optimum ice
load design analysis (ISO, 2010).
Ice accumulation and ice gouging effects on offshore
facilities
Offshore facilities in the remote harsh arctic environment
are exposed to ice accumulation and ice gouging. The ice
accumulation propagation on structures is enhanced by
extreme wave, wind, and current effects. Also, sea spray
and precipitation play contributory roles to the accumulated
ice thickness on offshore facilities (Standards Norway 2007).
The effects of accumulation may alter the center of gravity
of the floating structures, resulting in vessel instability. The
fixed structures may experience local stress effects under ice
accumulation (Krüger 2013). Ice accumulation on supply/
service vessels makes the accessibility of the deck equip-
ment a critical challenge. A similar experience is faced by
offshore platforms and other offshore facilities in the open
water arctic region.
Ice gouging is characterized by deep keel movements,
which cut deep gouges into the seabed and interact with sub-
sea pipeline structure (Kim and Kim 2021). This interaction
affects the integrity of the subsea pipeline. In most cases,
when the subsea pipeline cannot withstand the gouging ice
impact, it may experience sudden catastrophic failure. Con-
tinuous research is needed to capture the complexity and
variability effect of gouging ice on offshore structures.
Ice failure modes on offshore facilities
Offshore operations in the remote harsh arctic region
frequently experience ice impact resulting in ice-induced
failure mechanism. The ice formation or interaction
exhibits different failure modes with structures in the
arctic environment. The magnitude of the ice action is
significantly dependent on the mode of ice failure against
the structure (Wu et al. 2021). The ice failure mode on
structures is classified as crushing, shear, flexure, and
creep. Each failure mode presents different loading
effects that cause different degradation levels over time
(Khatmullin 2014; Starodubtcev 2016). The failure mode
characteristic dependency is defined by the ice thickness,
structural geometry, ice temperature, and velocity. Also,
the dynamic response of the offshore facilities to the
ice load impact affects the failure characteristics of the
13
22
structures (Eurasia Group 2013; NORSOK 2007; Répub-
lique Francaise 2016).
The failures are associated with the distinct structural
shape. For example, the flexural failure mode is associated
with sloping surface offshore structures, while the crushing
failure mode is common in vertical-sided offshore struc-
tures (Kujala and Arughadhoss 2012). The complicated
process of ice interaction with a sloping surface offshore
structure includes failure of intact ice, ride-up of broken ice
pieces, accumulation of ice rubble on the slope, and sub-
sequent clearing of the rubble accumulation (ISO 2010).
This induces structural vibration, and because of its complex
features, precise prediction of such ice loads is still a chal-
lenge (Wang 2015).
Arctic extreme metocean conditions
Remote and harsh arctic offshore operations experience
extreme metocean effects. This extremity (Waves, winds,
currents, and storms) has a devastating impact on offshore
facilities in the remote harsh arctic environment. Offshore
operations in the northern Barents Sea (Tromsøflaket) expe-
rience an extreme sea state of wave period of 17–19 s, which
is higher than that of the North Sea. This excessive wave
load is not favorable for a sustainable offshore operation.
Similarly, in Bjørnøya, a wave period of up to 18 s was
reached, close to the platform resonance period of 20.3 s
by design. This resulted in offshore operation interruption
for 8 h in the oil field operation (Kvitrud 1991). Extreme
wind speed has been observed in the remote and harsh arctic
Norwegian offshore to the value of 30-39 m/s at the height
of 10 m. This severe storm interrupted offshore operations
for 22 h on the Norwegian shelf (Khatmullin 2014). Dur-
ing such extreme cyclones (storms), offshore facilities suf-
fer damage that could cause catastrophic failures and envi-
ronmental pollution. Another effect of strong wind load is
crane and helicopter operational interruption and structural
damage. This is the indirect effect of supply chain manage-
ment interruption, logistics delay, and an overall operational
interruption with great economic consequences.
Offshore operations in the Canadian arctic deep water
experience three main storm tracks, one from the Great
Lakes Basin, one from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina,
and one from Mexico’s Gulf (Oceans Limited 2011).
Similarly, eight extreme pressure lows per month, due to
the storm track effects, predominate in the basin, result-
ing in operational shutdowns. The intense low pres-
sure together with the warm water of the Gulf Stream
in southern Newfoundland, may deepen the storm chal-
lenges which sometimes become explosive, forming
“weather bombs” (oceanic cyclones) that cause opera-
tional interruption (Oceans Limited 2011). An intense
13
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
research framework is needed to map the arctic deep
water environmental elements’ instability for a resilient
structural design.
Deep and ultra‑deep water extreme metocean
conditions
Metocean analysis presents the interaction of the vari-
ous natural phenomena associated with ocean dynamics.
These phenomena include waves, wind, storms, currents,
and tide. These ocean parameters have a special interaction
with offshore facilities, and in extreme states affect the
stability and integrity of the offshore facilities. This wave
impact, especially at extreme height, affects the offshore
facilities and can result in instability, excessive roll effects,
and structural damage in remote and harsh deep and ultra-
deep waters. Research shows the occurrence of swells and
squall waves in the remote and harsh deep water coast of
Africa. The swells are high waves with periods between
ten to twenty seconds that gradually increase along the
propagation path. Although the wave amplitude may be
small, it can cause heavy vessel oscillations due to the
wave period being too close to the vessel’s natural period
(Anundsen 2008). Its steep size also affects the dynamic
of the floating structures in extreme sea states (Topaj et al.
2019).
The North Sea suffers critical waves, wind, and storm
loads that exceed the normal operating conditions in deep
water operations. Research has shown that wave peak
periods have exceeded 2% at a time in the central and
northern North Seas of about 12.3 and 15.4 s, respectively
(Akandu and Barltrop 2015). The deep water North Sea
has also experienced storm surges in extreme sea states
with devastating effects on offshore structural performance
and reliability. This consequently results in sudden struc-
tural failures (Ross et al. 2018). Similarly, storm surges at
speeds of more than 75miles/hour with strong waves and
turbulent water conditions affect offshore operations in the
deep water northern South China Sea (Wangjun 2016).
The Gulf of Mexico (GoM) deep and ultra-deep water
operations experience the diverse effect of storms and hur-
ricanes that regularly endanger the coastal community and
critical offshore infrastructures (Kaiser 2008). The forma-
tion of these high storm-induced hurricanes in the GoM
is due to tropical cyclones steered by various wind forms
with high critical velocity and violent sea states (Bell et al.
2017). The Atlantic Ocean suffers over 90 tropical distur-
bances annually, which have induced about ten tropical
storms and five hurricanes on average. The GoM annually
experience 2–3 likely impacts of this tropical disturbance,
especially storms with speeds greater than 75mph (Leira
2010). The offshore facilities in these regions experi-
ence different structural damage scenarios due to extreme
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
storms, hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones in deep water
operations during different seasons (Chatar et al. 2010).
Well depth and geological conditions
The drilling operation in harsh arctic deep water or harsh
open deep water offshore presents complex depth chal-
lenges because of limited knowledge of the geological for-
mation of the region. This is due to the limited availabil-
ity of specialized tools that can run in the well to obtain
geological information at bounded specifications (Aracri
et al. 2021). The complexity of the well-influencing factors
directly affects the design and sensitivity of specialized
tools required for harsh deep water offshore operations.
The challenges of pore pressure and fracture gradi-
ent windows increase during deeper well drilling in deep
water operations. Research has further shown that as the
well depth increases, the window between the pore pres-
sure and the fracture gradient reduces (Chatar et al. 2010;
Rocha et al. 2004). The reduction effects can be com-
pounded if the drilled hole diameter reduces progressively
with the same mud weight. If not properly managed, this
scenario affects the mud weight with devastating effects,
as recorded in the GoM Macondo 2010 accident.
Salt formation with unpredictable characteristics has
been observed in deep water drilling. It poses unique chal-
lenges due to inadequate and/ or lack of seismic data that
will help in mapping pre-salt geological formation and
establish ideal pore pressures for such drilling operations
(Lloyds 2011; Chatar et al. 2010). Deep water drilling
involves high pressure and high temperature (HPHT) that
poses critical risks to the reliability of the measurement
while drilling (MWD) or logging whilst drilling (LWD)
tools. Critical high pressure and high temperature of over
35,000psi and 4­ 50oF, respectively, should be anticipated
in deeper well deep water offshore drilling (Lloyds 2011;
Glass 2005).
The deep water northern GoM, Alaska North slope,
Japan’s Nankai Trough, and the South China basin show the
presence of suitable gas hydrate reservoirs. Drilling through
this gas hydrate presents unique challenges described as
“geo-hazards” (Department of Energy 2015). Geo-hazard
challenges describe events that naturally occur or are trig-
gered by unintentional industrial activities with gas hydrate
sediment during drilling operations. Though there is an
established framework for shallow gas, geo-hazard and
drilling fluid temperature management, long-term produc-
tion may trigger the generation of pervasive destabilization
of shallow and hydrate-bearing sediments (Department of
Energy 2015; Lach 2010). This may result in gas release
and sediment instability, leading to failure in casing sys-
tems (Department of Energy 2015). Similarly, in the ultra-
deep water operation of Brazil’s Satos Basin (over 1500 km
23
water depth) salt and shale formation, shallow gas flow, gas
hydrate, and low fracture gradients are predominant chal-
lenges faced in this region (Gupta et al. 2014). It is evident in
the available literature that continued research is needed for
geo-hazard prediction and management under uncertainty.
Logistics infrastructures and search and rescue
(SAR) challenges
Logistics and supply chains are vital to the offshore drill-
ing operation. The offshore operation involves heavy lifting
operations, such as the positioning of rig structures, subsea
installations, offloading, and supply of spare parts or equip-
ment. These services suffer a setback in remote harsh envi-
ronments (arctic, deep, and ultra-deep water) due to rapid
weather changes that cannot be predicted and remoteness
(Krüger 2013). Although the remote and harsh environment
offshore operation is still at mid-stage of development, there
are limited infrastructures that can enhance stress-free oil
and gas logistics operations in extreme sea state.
Remote harsh offshore operations suffer from limited
and/or unavailability of developed network connections in
terms of communication and seaports infrastructure that will
support vessels and platforms. In most cases, the weather
condition hinders signal transmission, and wrong decisions
result in collision risk. For instance, the oil and gas field
in the northern Barents Sea suffers severe communication
and response infrastructure deficits that limit shipping and
helicopter response and even logistics services in extreme
sea states. This limitation affects emergency response and
oil spill contingency measures for these regions’ oil and
gas fields (Hasle et al. 2009). Weather infrastructures that
enhance weather predictions for navigational and operational
services are rare in most of these regions (République Fran-
caise 2016). This is especially the case for adequate weather
prediction, where robust weather infrastructure that is tech-
nologically sophisticated is needed to account for every hid-
den detail of the weather for effective supply chain (logis-
tics) planning and management (Adumene et al. 2021a, b, c;
Ascencio et al. 2014; Aziz et al. 2019; Jia and Zhang 2021).
The unavailability of infrastructure limits the accurate pre-
diction of the size, location, and strength of polar low build-
up in the arctic environment (Gudmestad et al. 1999). This
gap poses a significant threat to search and rescue response,
logistics planning, supply chain management, and shipping
operations.
Remoteness and climatic conditions increase the cost
of the drilling operation and logistics exponentially. Ser-
vice and spare parts delivery usually takes more time, with
increased operational cost and downtime, in the repair of
a facility. The logistic challenges faced are significant and
complex, from the oil and gas rig development to the well’s
operational phase (Barabadi et al. 2013; Yan et al. 2021).
13
24
Escape, evacuation, and rescue (EER), and SAR are criti-
cal emergency operations that need promptness and exter-
nal support in an extreme scenario. Recently, Rahman et al.
(2019) and Rahman et al. (2020a, b) developed a dynamic
EER logistics model for remote offshore applications. The
model captures influential factors that could promote logis-
tics risk in emergency rescue operations in the region. The
model provides an adaptive strategy for resilient operation
in the arctic offshore. This model could be further improved
by integrating offshore logistics supply chain support for
remote harsh offshore field operations.
These environmental challenges have prompted a regu-
latory framework that sets restrictions and an operational
limit for the support systems. For instance, helicopters can-
not operate on a helicopter deck at wind speeds over 55
knots and over 350 km offshore. The lifeboat release mech-
anism in the Barents Sea suffers ice accretion in extreme
snow that can affect emergency operations performance
(Jacobsen 2012). Prompt medical services, ambulance, and
SAR missions are hindered in severe weather conditions
(arctic winter darkness) due to limited and/or unavailable
infrastructures (Rahman et al. 2020a, b). The existing SAR
response capability in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas shows
limited capacity/performance due to remoteness. The nearest
Coast Guard station is located more than 1448 km south of
Dutch Harbor (Stephenson and Pincus 2018). In view of this
challenge, Rahman et al. (2020a, b) proposed a conceptual
modular volume-limited ship design offshore resource centre
(ORC) for logistics/EER support in remote harsh offshore
operations. This will serve as an intermediate support sta-
tion between shore and offshore field platforms. It is evident
from the research that further study is needed to capture the
economic viability and applicability of the modular ORC
concept in extreme sea state operations.
Structural integrity challenges
The remote and harsh environment has been described
as a location characterized by extreme ice features, wind,
waves, and storms. In these regions, the reliability and
integrity of structures and equipment are critically threat-
ened by multiple and stochastic degradation processes due
to extremely low temperatures and other ecological factors
(Adumene et al. 2021a, b, c; Shahraki et al. 2017). This
environmentally induced degradation enhances the develop-
ment of offshore facilities’ internal and external corrosion
(Adumene et al. 2021a, b, c; Khan et al. 2021; Thodi et al.
2010) The progressive wear and destruction of the structural
elements by chemical reactions and microorganisms pre-
sent a severe challenge to structural integrity management
in a terrain where inspection, maintenance, and monitoring
work are frequently interrupted by dynamic and unpredict-
able weather. Although there has been some improvement
13
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
in structural steel material against wear and corrosion to
operate between − ­36oC - -39oC, the challenge of sufficient
toughness characteristics for material thickness and deliv-
ery condition at these extreme temperatures is still a con-
cern (Hauge 2012; Naseri and Barabady 2016). Moreover,
extremely low temperatures of up to -50oC have also been
observed in some areas (such as in Prirazlomnoye fields)
within the arctic environment.
Technological challenges
Technological advancement has increased the oil and gas
field development in remote harsh (arctic, deep, and ultra-
deep water) environments. This is evident in operations
within the remote Arctic (Wassink 2013) and remote deep
and ultra-deep water operations (Aracri et al. 2021). How-
ever, this technology exhibits different degree of limitations,
especially, in critical and extreme sea state operations. Tech-
nological uncertainties are associated with most drilling and
drilling support facilities for the remote harsh environment
because of their complexity and robustness. There is a clear
indication that the available technological solutions exhibit
operational limitations beyond which the facilities will
experience catastrophic failures. Some of the failure modes
(plastic collapse of hull structures, fatigue failure, buckling
failure) beyond the operating envelope associated with the
present technologies are highlighted in the referenced litera-
ture (Leira 2010; Necci et al. 2019).
The environmental complexity and dynamics with unpre-
dictable characteristics also affect and limit the available
technological solutions’ performance. The review studies
show that these regions have limited sensitive technology to
precisely predict hazardous marine glacial iceberg character-
istics, polar low build-up, navigation routing, vessel position
monitoring, and geo-hazard risk during exploration. This
inadequacy of prediction and monitoring tools enhances sud-
den failure of offshore critical infrastructures and increases
integrity risk, with major consequences and maintenance
costs in most cases. Continuous research is needed to find
holistic failure mitigating measures and structural resilience
against ice loads in remote offshore operations.
State of knowledge of potential solutions
for remote harsh offshore operations
The challenges of remote harsh offshore regions require an
integrated solution that can promote safer and uninterrupted
operations. The integrated framework that can provide the
needed solution must harness organizational, environmental,
technological, regulatory, and operational techniques that
are dynamic and interdependent (Haavik 2017; Ma et al.
2018). The interdependency will provide better workable
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
solutions that will enhance understanding, interpretation,
and decision-making within the regions. The following are
presented to discuss potential solutions for some of the chal-
lenges identified in "Engineering challenges of remote harsh
offshore operations" section.
De‑icing and ice protection technology
Offshore operations in the remote and harsh Arctic are faced
with extremely low temperature and icing conditions. Resil-
ient system solutions are crucial to support such operations.
De-icing and ice protection technological development have
shown the capability to support operations in the arctic off-
shore were extremely low temperatures and ice accumulation
challenge sustainable oil and gas exploration. The types and
mode of application of this technology are discussed briefly
in the following section.
De‑icing technology
De-icing technology provides ice removal solutions for facil-
ities operating in harsh arctic environments. The technology
may be classified as active, passive, or manual, based on its
mode of application.
Active de-icing technology is offshore support technol-
ogy that utilizes a power supply to operate. This includes
thermal systems that use electrothermal heating to melt ice
formations on the facilities. The technology either uses a
heating element bonded to the interior of the windows or
places the heaters directly on the icing surfaces (Ryerson
2008; Zaki and Barabadi 2014). The technique is commonly
used for complex offshore operations in the remote arctic
environment. Because of its high need for maintenance, lack
of infrastructure, and logistic delays in the Arctic, it is not
commonly used.
Carbon fibre heating wires (CFHWs), an active de-icing
electrothermal technique, uses carbon fibre heating wires
with light weight, large flexibility, and high tensile strength.
This technique is commonly used for accident-prone loca-
tions (Ryerson 2008). The pulse electro-thermal de-icing
(PETD) technique uses an electrically conductive thin film
applied to the surface for ice protection. It is used on ice
structures just above the melting point, causing the ice to
slide. It shows wide application capability both for airplanes
and offshore systems’ de-icing.
Infrared de-icing technology and high-velocity water, air,
and steam are also active de-icing technologies for arctic
operations. The former uses a gas-fired or electrical emitter;
the ice absorbs the heat energy and melts. The surfaces are
also heated to prevent icing. For the application of this tech-
nique, surface absorptivity is essential; therefore, the object
should be coated with materials that have high absorption
in infrared wavelengths. The high-velocity water, air, and
25
steam are used to cut large ice accretions into smaller pieces.
This makes it easier to use mechanical de-icing technologies
to remove soft and new ice on the superstructures (Koenig
and Ryerson 2011; Ryerson 2011). This method may be the
best to use in remote harsh environment characterized by a
high waves and wind in prolonged darkness.
Chemical de-icers and anti-icers are passive de-icing
techniques that use chemical performance properties such
as melting, undercutting, penetration, and disbanding. There
are several chemical de-icing substances with different char-
acteristics and applications. For instance, FAST-type chemi-
cal spray systems are used below the decks of platforms for
superstructure icing and in the moon pool areas. The use
of calcium chloride provides an effective deicing ability in
lower temperatures and snow operations (Zaki and Barabadi
2014). However, it has a corrosive effect on the structures.
The manual deicing methods use wooden baseballs, mal-
lets, and shovels. This was a traditional method in deicing
marine structures, and it requires a large number of person-
nel, which increases the risk of ‘man overboard’. The appli-
cation of this method is not appropriate in heavy weather and
complex offshore platforms.
Ice protection technology
Coating is a protective technology intended to increase the
hydrophobicity and ice-phobicity of surfaces. Coating can
be ablative and hydrophobic with different cases of applica-
tions and need. Farzaneh (2008) reported that an increase in
hydrophobic decreases the ice adhesion strength and makes
ice unable to accumulate on the surface. Using coating with
active nanotechnology increases the efficiency and effective-
ness of the structural ice-protective approach. The appli-
cation of coatings of most offshore platform surfaces has
helped to remove accumulated ice, especially for sensitive
equipment like fire and rescue equipment.
Protective covers are flexible materials, strong, water-
proof, lightweight, and fire retardant. They make the deicing
of equipment such as fire and rescue equipment, hatch cov-
ers, and winches easier. The applicability of flexible materi-
als (wrapping tarps) around the crane and flare booms lattice
structure will make the accumulated ice removal more effec-
tive. The application of the potential de-icing and ice protec-
tion technological solution requires the integration of the
most effective techniques for optimum performance based
on the regions and the ice type characteristics.
Winterization
Winterization in remote harsh arctic environment offshore
operations is achieved by enclosing equipment and working
areas of fixed or floating offshore infrastructures (Gudmes-
tad et al. 2013). This technology limits personnel and
13
26
systems’ exposure to extremely low temperature conditions
and enhances year-round drilling operations in the arctic
environments. It also provides support to enable less reli-
ance on active (and power consuming) means of anti-icing
technology. Therefore, from the design stage, this should
be integrated into offshore infrastructures that will oper-
ate in ice-infested regions. Further consideration should be
given to integrating a risk-based winterization framework
for optimum performance (Yang et al. 2015; Ratnayake
2017). Proper integration of the risk-based framework will
help address the challenges of inadequate winterization of
systems operating in the arctic region and preserve both
human and facilities’ reliability. A rig winterization solu-
tion covers areas such as the elimination of pockets of liquid
and maintaining a constant flow in exposed piping, insula-
tion and heat tracing, instrumentations seals and wind walls
to reduce heat loss rate, and the use of integrated de-icing
technology such as Methanol, steam services, etc. (Geuns
2012). The literature shows the need for continued research
in the development of a holistic risk-based winterization of
critical infrastructures and support vessels for remote harsh
offshore operations.
Regulatory framework and infrastructural
development
Exploration advancement in remote and harsh environments
requires a proactive and dynamic all-inclusive regulatory
framework. This will provide the baseline for the infrastruc-
tural development of these regions. Several modifications of
the material selection framework, winterization, operational
restrictions, and strict compliance enforcement can reduce
prevailing risks in the harsh environments (Hauge 2012).
This modification will help to manage the critical risk chal-
lenges. For example, in Greenland and the Canadian Beau-
fort Sea, there is a need for potential regulatory modification
for relief wells to manage the event of a blowout accident
scenario (Lloyds 2011; Shafiee et al. 2020). Also, there is a
need for the authorities and industry players in the oil and
gas industry to develop a robust exploration plan for remote
and harsh environments.
Material enhancement and ergonomic design
To provide a critical and enduring solution to the chal-
lenges of integrity risk (corrosion, degradation, etc.) in
remote and harsh environments, there is a need to better
understand the multiple and dynamic degradation mecha-
nisms. Possible progressive approaches were presented in
(Shahraki et al. 2017). They recommend the integration of
data-driven models with physics of failure approaches in
stochastic degradation modeling. Further to the suggested
methods for degradation prediction and management, the
13
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
use of nanotechnology for material enhancement has shown
promise for these regions (Fakoya and Shah 2017). The tech-
nology was demonstrated by (Jauhari et al. 2011), where a
novel nanomagnetic fluid was used in an experimental dis-
persal of ferromagnetic nanoparticles. The results showed
that the technology proved effective in reducing the corro-
sion rate of carbon steel in an acidic medium. The addition
of corrosion inhibitors enhances the capability of nanotech-
nology in material enhancement.
Further consideration of silica nanotechnology in drilling
scenarios, and water-based mud to reduce water invasion in
shale formation, was demonstrated by Sensoy et al. (2009).
The potency of this technology was further reflected in the
use of nanorobots for logging in remote and harsh environ-
ments (Singh and Bhat 2006), especially in deep water drill-
ing where high pressure and high temperature are a concern.
This technology can further enhance data gathering and
facility inspection in the most challenging drilling terrain
characterized by salt and shale formation. Similarly, Bhatia
and Chacko (2011) developed a novel nanotechnological
model, using self-heating nickel ferrite (­ NiFe2O4) nanopar-
ticles for the liberation of methane from gas hydrate was
presented. This model demonstrated a potential for meth-
ane production and extraction from gas hydrate. It further
showed the capability to minimize geo-hazard risk during
drilling in a gas hydrate infested area. Furthermore, improve-
ment in weldability qualification and thermal insulation
material enhancement provide core nanotechnological solu-
tion was proposed (Hauge 2012). This was demonstrated by
the introduction of aerogel (superinsulation) materials into
the flexible elastomeric foams (FEF) to reduce the thickness
and enhance performance. These technologies, in synergy
with other material science technology and best maintenance
practices, will improve structural integrity in remote harsh
environments.
Human factors and ergonomics pose significant chal-
lenges in the harsh arctic region. Human performance
suffers setbacks in cold, dark, and remote environments.
As the temperature falls below the freezing point, the
efficiency of workers drops, increasing the proneness
to errors (Islam et al. 2018; Krüger 2013). Therefore, to
enhance the winterization solution, human factors (ergo-
nomics) should be integrated into the system design.
This will improve the performance and reliability of the
operators and system. This concept was demonstrated
on harsh offshore drilling operations. The approach pro-
motes safer inspection and maintenance operation and
enhances operational resilience in remote harsh environ-
ments. The application of an integrated intelligent opera-
tions strategy that focuses on reliability, operability, and
maintainability will also reduce human error challenges
in these areas. This includes the application of Remotely
Operated Vehicles (ROVs), Autonomous Underwater
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
Vehicles (AUVs), and other robotics infrastructures for
inspections, monitoring, observation, and system perfor-
mance analysis (Aracri et al. 2021; Capeto et al. 2017; Li
et al. 2018; Toal 2012).
Resilient drilling support systems’ design
There is a progressive improvement of drilling support
platforms that support safer exploration, minimize inter-
ruption and optimize production. The drilling support
platforms choices are not generic but depend on the
defined task, design, structural dynamics, hull charac-
teristics, and configuration. In this study, drilling support
platforms such as the gravity-based structural platform,
Spar platform, semi-submersibles, Tensioned Leg Plat-
form (TLP), Floating production storage and offloading
(FPSO) and Drillship are considered with details of their
areas of application in remote harsh offshore operations.
Resilient drilling support infrastructures could minimize
operational interruption in these environments. Further
study and research in advanced technology can pro-
duce an optimum resilient design of offshore support
platforms for the harsh offshore environment. Table 2
in "Knowledge gaps and research opportunities" section
gives more information on the platforms types and their
application area.
Fig. 2  An integrated framework
for safer and sustainable opera-
tions in remote harsh offshore
environments
Opera onal
framework
27
Knowledge gaps and research opportunities
The research findings on the potential engineering chal-
lenges and risk analysis show that the available models,
technology, and knowledge require continued research for
holistic approaches and perspectives to address operational
interruption in remote harsh offshore environments. The
associated setbacks and state of knowledge have been identi-
fied and highlighted accordingly. The literature has revealed
core research opportunities and knowledge gaps in terms
of data mining, optimization, digitalization, smart systems,
resilient and robust design for sustainable offshore opera-
tions in extreme conditions (Aracri et al. 2021; Asadabadi
and Miller-Hooks 2020; Khan et al. 2021; Thibaud et al.
2018; TOMA and POPA 2018; Wanasinghe et al. 2020a, b).
Integrating system design, operation and performance data
into an automated structure via digitalization (digital twin
framework) have been identified as a new research frontier
for oil and gas development in harsh offshore environments.
The essence is to build sustainable/resilient infrastructures
and floating system operations to withstand the dynamic
impact of waves, wind, storms, icebergs, and material failure
in harsh environments. Furthermore, an integrated solution
is proposed to incorporate the organizational, environmen-
tal, technological, regulatory, and operational models into
a robust and dynamic framework (see Fig. 2) for remote
Organiza onal framework
Safer &
sustainable
opera on
Regulatory
framework
13

Table 2  The state of knowledge of engineering challenges and development in remote harsh environments
Regions Challenges
13
Arctic Extreme low temperature condition
Impaired visibility and polar night condi-
tions
Icebergs and icing conditions
Extreme metocean conditions
Geological uncertainties
Structural degradation condition
Remoteness (Logistics, infrastructures, and
emergency response)
Potential solutions
Adequate winterization
Development of an enhanced Lighting
technology for far distance illumination
*Use of ice-strengthened vessel/icebreak-
ers for iceberg management
*An integrated De-icing and ice protec-
tion technology and winterization (see
Winterization section)
Improved design capacity of drilling sup-
port platform for specific site and task
application with disconnectable ability in
critical sea state
*Use of highly sensitive ROVs, AUVs
and 3D seismic survey systems for data
gathering
*Use of operational/control best practices
*Use of Nano integrated technology (see
Material enhancement and ergonomic
design section)
*Use of synthetic-based drilling muds
*Material enhancement and characteriza-
tion technology (nanotechnology)
*Ergonomic design for system maintain-
ability (see Material enhancement and
ergonomic design section)
*Commitment to infrastructural develop-
ment by authorities and industry players
through an integrated framework
*Development and application of dynamic
logistics and operational resilience
frameworks
*Application of rescue vessel technology
equipped with two 19-meter autonomous
rescue and recovery craft (ARRC)
with speed over 35 knots and rescue
capacity of 24 persons, able to operate in
Hs ≥ 7 m (JetBrief 2009)
*Application of emergency and rescue
technology (ERV) equipped with man-
overboard (MOB) and fast recovery
daughter craft (FRDC) with helicopter
in-flight refueling (HIFR) is required
(Jacobsen and Gudmestad 2013)
Operational envelope/ application
Site specific and task dependent
Site specific and task dependent regula-
tions for vessel and helicopter service
support
In extreme sea states beyond the opera-
tional margin, floating system disconnec-
tion is required
In extreme sea states beyond the opera-
tional margin, floating system disconnec-
tion is required
In extreme states, activation of a highly
effective well control system is required
as a risk control measure
Site specific and task dependent with effec-
tive design and maintainability plan.
In extreme sea states beyond operational
envelope, emergency response systems,
logistic and rescue service discontinua-
tion is required
Drilling support platforms
*Gravity-based structures applicable
in harsh arctic shallow water regions
(Hibernia, Pechora field, etc.)
*Semi-submersibles (turret-moored and
DP) show favorable motion charac-
teristics in arbitrary irregular Sea. Appli-
cable in harsh arctic regions (Snohvit,
Skrugard-Havis field)
*Tensioned leg platform (TLP) shows
cost-effective support for dry tree opera-
tion and is applicable in deep water (up
to 1500 m)
*Modern winterized Buoy-shaped,
conical-shaped, and SPAR-shaped FPSO
show flexibility for all water depths with
disconnectable ability in extreme sea
state (Barents Sea, Beaufort Sea, South-
west Greenland, North Sea etc.)
*DP class 3 drillships show flexibility
and additional equipment storage and
accommodation capacity for remote and
harsh arctic deep and ultra-deep-water
operations (drilling capability up to
12,000 ft)
28
Knowledge gaps/Recommendations
*Limited knowledge exists on the interaction
between iceberg and offshore facilities;
hence, continued research is required
to improve the predictions and impact
analysis.
*Further research is needed to understand
DP control systems performance and
failure mechanism under extreme sea ice
conditions.
*Continued research is required to enhance
de-icing, ice protection and winterization
technology to minimize disconnection and
sustain performance
*Research opportunity is presented in
nanotechnology and material charac-
terization for the remote offshore through
collaborative teamwork to develop resilient
materials to withstand degradation in harsh
environments
*No comprehensive knowledge and under-
standing of emergency and rescue facilities
performance, and crew survival limit
analysis in extreme sea state for remote
and harsh offshore operations.
*No comprehensive knowledge and
understanding of logistics prediction for
cost-effective and resilient supply chain
framework is available for the remote and
harsh regions; hence continued research is
needed for resilient site specific and real-
time model development
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
 Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33 29

offshore field development. The aim is to explore the core

*Continued study is required for an improved

DP design modelling and low heave struc-
tural stability analysis in extreme sea state
influential factors based on these five frameworks and cap-
ture their interdependencies. For instance, the operational
Knowledge gaps/Recommendations

risk factors may be triggered by environmental factors, such

as strong wind, ice load, and vessel motions (Song et al.
2016). This complexity needs to be captured for the devel-
opment of a holistic approach for safety in remote harsh
offshore operations. The intertwined models will provide
better understanding, interpretation, and data solutions that
will enhance decision-making and sustainable operations
in these remote harsh offshore environments. The existing
states (GoM, North Sea, Coast of Africa,
conical-shaped, and SPAR-shaped FPSO

motion characteristic in arbitrary irregu-

*Semi-submersible (DP) shows favorable
shows flexibility for all deep water and
ultra-deep water with high storage and

lar sea & applicable in harsh deep and

*Conventional or Modern Buoy-shaped,

interconnectivity and interdependency will enable a holistic

disconnectable ability in extreme sea

South China Sea, offshore Brazil)

sense of work in offshore operation in the remote offshore

(Haavik 2017).
Drilling support platforms

The following are core research opportunities for safer

oil and gas field development in remote and harsh offshore
ultra-deep waters

environments:

i. Development of smart systems and intelligent methods

for condition monitoring of critical offshore oil and
effective well control system is required

envelope, floating system disconnection

gas infrastructures.
*Improved design capacity of drilling sup- In extreme sea states beyond operational

In extreme sea states beyond operational

In extreme states, activation of a highly

systems, logistic and rescue service

ii. Development of theories, principles, and framework

envelope for emergency response
Operational envelope/ application

for safer operation via data digitalization and IoT for

discontinuation is required

the oil and gas, and process industry.

as a risk control measure

iii. Performance optimization through data mining and

machine learning algorithms for Ice monitoring and
management, integrity assessment and risk mitigation
is required

prediction.
iv. Improved research in the design optimization and
systems’ resilience for long-distance icebreakers to
application with disconnectable ability in

*Development and application of dynamic

port platform for a specific site and task
and 3D seismic survey systems for data

*Commitment to infrastructural develop-

*Use of Nano integrated technology (see
Material enhancement and ergonomic

safeguard ships/offshore floating systems.

*Use of highly sensitive ROVs, AUVs

spill response and rescue contingent

*Use of synthetic-based drilling muds

logistics and operational resilience

*Development and application of oil

ment by Authorities and industry

v. Development of robust and dynamic resilience struc-

*Use of operational best practices

tures for drilling operations, emergency response,

human performance, logistics and offshore support
operations in remote harsh environments.
Potential solutions

critical sea state

design section)

vi. Advanced technologies for material characterization

framework

framework
gathering

and ergonomics for the remote harsh offshore oil and

players.

gas operations.
Remoteness (Logistics, infrastructures, and

Conclusions
Extreme metocean conditions

The current research paper presents an overview of the state

emergency response)

of development and engineering challenges for remote harsh

offshore operations with emphasis on the form of techno-
logical development, risk, and research opportunities. The
Challenges

Geohazard

review shows the state of extreme and critical challenges

faced by the oil and gas industry, which limit oil and gas
Table 2  (continued)

field development in these regions. There is no comprehen-

Deep and ultra-deep

sive or conclusive knowledge of operational solutions for

open waters

these areas due to the dynamic and complex influential fac-

tors. Existing solutions and methodologies were examined to
Regions

identify the state of knowledge, technological viability, and

13
30
potential research opportunities to enhance sustainable oil
and gas development in remote harsh offshore environments.
The study identified that the engineering support technol-
ogy choices and operational envelope for remote extreme
environments are not generic but dependent on the defined
task, resilient design and structural dynamics, drilling/pro-
duction systems configurations, and heave characteristics of
the floating systems. Their operations in these areas have
often been interrupted by extreme sea state and natural
hazards. Therefore, to minimize interruption and optimize
production in remote harsh offshore environments, new
research frontiers that integrate resilient smart design/tech-
nology with digitalization are proposed (see Table 2 and
Knowledge gaps and research opportunities section).
The study revealed that the current state of knowledge
is inadequate and isolated, unable to provide sustainable
and uninterrupted operational solutions for remote harsh
offshore oil and gas fields’ operations. There is a need
to develop a terrain specific integrated framework that
is smart, dynamic, and adaptive to incorporate organi-
zational, environmental, technological, regulatory, and
operational regimes. This integration will produce new
frontiers and an all-inclusive integrated framework to
solve problems caused by extreme low temperatures (up to
-50℃); icebergs of up to 100,000 MT with maximum sail
height of more than 10 m above water; visible keels reach-
ing more than 40 m below the water surface; extreme wave
heights of over 18 m; extreme stormy wind of over 39 m/s;
stochastic and multiple structural degradation mechanisms
of structures and severe deep water drilling challenges.
Furthermore, there is a need to develop and integrate
a comprehensive smart system design technology with
operational resilience and material enhancement method-
ology for remote harsh offshore environments, and par-
ticularly for arctic oil and gas field development. For better
response and contingency planning, the development of
dynamic quantitative site-specific models for oil spill risk
and model sea trials provides a research opportunity and
further solutions for the remote extreme environments.
Environmental and regulatory frameworks also directly
influence the infrastructural development of remote and
harsh environments. Promoting supervised sea trials of
modern high technological tools and models through regu-
latory support will help build stakeholders’ capacity and
create new research frontiers to adequately break through
the prevailing challenges in remote and harsh environments.
It is evident that there is a need for continued research
to improve the state of technologies, operational regimes,
regulatory framework, risk and safety integration, and
infrastructural development in these areas. Research
investment in the identified research areas will promote
and enhance safer oil and gas field development in remote
harsh offshore environments.
13
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial support
provided by the Canada Research Chair (CRC) Tier I Program in Off-
shore Safety and Risk Engineering and Natural Sciences and Engineer-
ing Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through Discovery Grant.
Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analysed dur-
ing the current study are available from the corresponding author on
reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known com-
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have ap-
peared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Adumene S, Ikue-John H (2022) Offshore systems’ safety and opera-
tional challenges in harsh Arctic operations. Journal of Safety
Science and Resilience 3(2):153–168. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jnlssr.​2022.​02.​001
Adumene S, Adedigba S, Khan F, Zendehboudi S (2020) An integrated
dynamic failure assessment model for offshore components under
microbiologically influenced corrosion. Ocean Eng 218. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​eng.​2020.​108082
Adumene S, Khan F, Adedigba S, Zendehboudi S, Shiri H (2021a)
Dynamic risk analysis of marine and offshore systems suffering
microbial induced stochastic degradation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
207(March 2021):107388. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ress.​2020.​
107388
Adumene S, Khan F, Adedigba S, Zendehboudi S (2021b) Offshore
system safety and reliability considering microbial influenced
multiple failure modes and their interdependencies. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf 215(November):107862. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ress.​
2021.​107862
Adumene S, Okwu M, Yazdi M, Afenyo M, Islam R, Ugochukwu C,
Obeng F, Goerlandt F (2021c) Dynamic logistics disruption risk
model for offshore supply vessel operations in Arctic waters.
Maritime Transp Res 2(November):100039. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​martra.​2021.​100039
Akandu E, Barltrop N (2015) The floating production, storage and
offloading vessel design for oil field development in harsh marine
environment. 15(January):18–24
Anundsen T (2008) Operability comparison of three ultra-deepwater
and harsh environment drilling vessels. 106. https://​brage.​bib-
sys.n​ o/x​ mlui/b​ itstr​ eam/h​ andle/1​ 1250/1​ 82649/A​ nunds​ en%2​ CTho​
rgeir.​pdf?​seque​nce=1. Accessed 18 Qct 2021
Aracri S, Giorgio-Serchi F, Suaria G, Sayed ME, Nemitz MP, Mahon S,
Stokes AA (2021) Soft robots for ocean exploration and offshore
operations: A perspective. Soft Rob 00(00):1–15. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1089/​soro.​2020.​0011
Arif M, Khan F, Ahmed S, Imtiaz S (2020) Rare event risk analy-
sis – application to iceberg collision. J Loss Prev Process Ind
66(February):104199. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jlp.​2020.​104199
Asadabadi A, Miller-Hooks E (2020) Maritime port network resil-
iency and reliability through co-opetition. Transport Res E-Log
137(August 2019):101916. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tre.​2020.​
101916
Ascencio LM, González-Ramírez RG, Bearzotti LA, Smith NR, Cama-
cho-Vallejo JF (2014) A collaborative supply chain management
system for a maritime port logistics chain. J Appl Res Technol
12(3):444–458. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/S ​ 1665-6​ 423(14)7​ 1625-6
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
Aziz A, Ahmed S, Khan F, Stack C, Lind A (2019) Operational risk
assessment model for marine vessels. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
185(February 2018):348–361. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ress.​
2019.​01.​002
Baalisampang T, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan F, Dadashzadeh M
(2018) Review and analysis of fire and explosion accidents in
maritime transportation. Ocean Eng 158(September 2017):350–
366. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​eng.​2018.​04.​022
Bai J, Lee S, Lee H-H (2016) Drift off model test and simulation of
a deep water drillship. The 26th International Ocean and Polar
Engineering Conference
Barabadi A, Naseri M, Ratnayake RMC (2013) Design for arctic condi-
tions: safety and performance issues. Proceedings of the ASME
2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering OMAE2013-10287, 1–10
Barber DG, McCullough G, Babb D, Komarov AS, Candlish LM,
Lukovich JV, Asplin M, Prinsenberg S, Dmitrenko I, Rysgaard
S (2014) Climate change and ice hazards in the Beaufort Sea.
Elementa 2(1982):000025. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12952/​journ​al.​
eleme​nta.​000025
Bell RJ, Gray SL, Jones OP (2017) North Atlantic storm driving of
extreme wave heights in the North Sea. J Geophys Research:
Oceans :3253–3268. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​2016J​C0125​01
Belonin M, Grigorenko Y (2007) Resource and geological analysis
and the ways of development of offshore hydrocarbon resources,
in Oil and Gas of the Arctic. Oil and Gas Publishing House,
Moscow
Bhatia K, Chacko L (2011) Ni-Fe nanoparticles: An innovative
approach for recovery of hydrates. Proceedings of SPE EURO-
PEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, May, 23–26.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​143088-​MS
Brashier RS, Pavia AP (2002) Ceiba field development project execu-
tion. Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Confer-
ence, 771–781. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4043/​14082-​ms
Brazilian National Agency of Petroleum, N. G. and B (2015) Inves-
tigation report of the 11 / 02 / 2015 in the Fpso Cidade De São
Mateus Superintendence of Operational Safety and the Environ-
ment (Ssm)
Bucelli M, Paltrinieri N, Landucci G (2017) Integrated risk assess-
ment for oil and gas installations in sensitive areas. Ocean Eng
150(January 2017):377–390. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.o​ ceane​ ng.​
2017.​12.​035
Capeto J, Stahl M, Bhalla K, Kluk D, & Services SE (2017) Challenges
of drilling operations in extreme deepwater. OTC Brasil 24–26
CAPP (2013) Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas indus-
try: Opportunities and challenges
Chatar C, Israel R, Cantrell A (2010) IADC / SPE 128190 drilling deep
in deep water: What it takes to drill past 30, 000 ft. February,
2–4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​128190-​MS
Department of Energy (2015) Advancing systems and technologies to
produce cleaner fuels | gas hydrates research and development
technology assessment. In Quadrennial Technology Review
Du Y, Wu* W, Wang Y, Yue Q (2014) Prototype data analysis
on Lh11-1 semisubmersible platform in South China Sea
OMAE2014-24610. 1–8
El-Wardani R (2011) Challenges and solutions in subsea field devel-
opment for the high north and arctic credits [University of
Stavanger]
Eurasia Group (2013) Opportunities and challenges for Arctic oil and
gas development. https://​www.​wilso​ncent​er.​org/​sites/​defau​lt/​
files/​Artic​Report_​F2.​pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2021
Fakoya MF, Shah SN (2017) Emergence of nanotechnology in the oil
and gas industry: Emphasis on the application of silica nanopar-
ticles. Petroleum 3(4):391–405. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​petlm.​
2017.​03.​001
31
Farzaneh M (2008) Atmospheric icing of power network. Springer,
London
Geuns IV (2012) The challenges of Arctic oil exploration and produc-
tion. http://​braem​artec​hnical.​com/​files/​Lectu​re-​80_​The-​Chall​
enges-​of-​Arctic-​Oil-​Explo​ration-​and-​Produ​ction_​13th-​March_​
Grant-S ​ mtih-C
​ EO-B ​ raema​ r-A
​ djust​ ing_P
​ lease-c​ ontac​ t-t​ he-o​ ffice-​
for-a-​copy-​of-​this-​prese​ntati​on.​pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2021
Glass A (2005) High pressure, high temperature developments in the
United Kingdom Continental Shelf. Research report 409
Gordeeva TS (2013) Identification of criteria for selection of Arctic
offshore field development concept. Master’s Thesis Septem-
ber 2013
Gudmestad O (2012) Operations in cold climate. Lecture Series,
University of Stavanger, Stavanger
Gudmestad OT, Zolothukhin A, Ermakov A, Jacobsen R, Michtch-
enko I, Vovk VS, Løset S, & Shkinek KN (1999) Basic marine
and offshore petroleum engineering and development of facili-
ties with emphasis on the Arctic offshore. (1st Editio). Norwe-
gian Petroleum Directorate
Gudmestad OT, Efimov Y, Kornishin K (2013) Omae2013-10045
winterization needs for platforms operating in low temperature.
Omae, 1–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/​OMAE2​013-​10045
Gupta N, Bogaerts M, Bellabarba M, Mendiola A, Salehpour A
(2014) Overcoming ultradeepwater cementing challenges in
the caribbean cementing challenges in deepwater. SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference
1–16
HA T-P(2011) Frequency and time domain motion and mooring anal-
yses for a Fpso operating in deep water. PhD Thesis, School of
Marine Science and Technology, Newcastle University
Haavik TK (2017) Remoteness and sensework in harsh environments.
Saf Sci 95:150–158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ssci.​2016.​03.​020
Hasle JR, Kjellén U, Haugerud O (2009) Decision on oil and gas
exploration in an Arctic area: Case study from the Norwegian
Barents Sea. Saf Sci 47(6):832–842. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
ssci.​2008.​10.​019
Hauge M (2012) Arctic offshore materials and platform Winterisa-
tion. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second (2012) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 4, 278–282
Islam R, Khan F, Abbassi R, Garaniya V (2018) Human error assess-
ment during maintenance operations of marine systems – What
are the effective environmental factors? Saf Sci 107(April):85–
98. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ssci.​2018.​04.​011
ISO (2010) International Standard. ISO 19906: Petroleum and Nat-
ural gas industries-Arctic offshore structures. Geneva: ISO
2010. 2010
Jacobsen SR (2012) Evacuation and Rescue in the Barents Sea. Mas-
ter Thesis, University of Stavanger, Norway
Jacobsen SR, Gudmestad OT (2013) Long-range rescue capability
for operations in the Barents Sea. Proceedings of the ASME
2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering OMAE2013 June 9–14, 2013, Nantes,
France OMAE2013-10616, 1–10
Jauhari S, Parekh K, Upadhyay RV (2011) Corrosion inhibition of
mild steel in Acidic media using a nanomagnetic fluid as a
novel corrosion inhibitor. NACE International Corrosion Con-
ference & Expo, 11381:1–10
JetBrief (2009) Autonomous rescue craft fit well into BP’s north sea
jigsaw. 395.http://​www.​hamil​tonma​r ine.​co.​nz/​inclu​des/​files_​
cms/​file/​JetBr​ief/​JB395-​Delta​ARRC.​pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2021
Jia X, Zhang D (2021) Prediction of maritime logistics service risks
applying soft set based association rule: An early warning
model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 207 (March 2020):107339. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ress.​2020.​107339
13
32
Kaiser MJ (2008) The impact of extreme weather on offshore produc-
tion in the Gulf of Mexico. Appl Math Model 32(10):1996–
2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apm.​2007.​06.​031
Khan F, Reniers G, Cozzani V (2017) Special Issue: Safety and
integrity in harsh environments. Saf Sci 95:148–149. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ssci.​2017.​03.​008
Khan F, Yarveisy R, Abbassi R (2021) Risk-based pipeline integrity
management: A road map for the resilient pipelines. J Pipeline
Sci Eng 1(1):74–87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jpse.​2021.​02.​001
Khatmullin A (2014) Technological challenges and possible solu-
tions for drilling operations in the Great Barents region. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07394​56X94​01300​405
Kim YS, Kim J (2021) Icevaning control of an Arctic offshore ves-
sel and its experimental validation. Int J Naval Archit Ocean
Eng 13:208–222. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijnaoe.​2021.​01.​006
Koenig GG, Ryerson CC (2011) An investigation of infrared deicing
through experimentation. Cold Reg Sci Technol 65(1):79–87.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​coldr​egions.​2010.​03.​009
Komljenovic D, Gaha M, Abdul-Nour G, Langheit C, Bourgeois M
(2016) Risks of extreme and rare events in Asset Management.
Saf Sci 88(October):129–145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ssci.​
2016.​05.​004
Krüger J (2013) Operations and Maintenance of Oil and Gas plat-
forms under Arctic conditions. Master Thesis University of
Stavanger, Norway
Kujala P, Arughadhoss S (2012) Statistical analysis of ice crushing
pressures on a ship’s hull during hull-ice interaction. Cold Reg
Sci Technol 70:1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​coldr​egions.​
2011.​09.​009
Kvitrud A (1991) Environmental conditions in the southern Barents
Sea. Paper Presented in Stavanger in 1991, but Put on Internet
25.9.2002
Kvitrud A, Løland AH (2018) Observed wave actions on Norwegian
semi-submersible and TLP Decks. ASME 2018 37th Interna-
tional Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
Lach J (2010) Final Report to IOR for Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
Improved Recovery. https://​w ww.​n etl.​d oe.​g ov/​FileL​i brary/​
Resea​rch/​Oil-​Gas/​deepw​atert​echno​logy/​07121-​1701-​Final_​
Report-​12-​15-​10.​pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2021
Leira BJ (2010) Recent structural design considerations related to
floating production systems. IES J Part A: Civil Struct Eng
3(1):50–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19373​26090​32089​07
Li Y, An L, Jiang Y, He J, Cao J, Guo H (2018) Dynamic positioning
test for removable of ocean observation platform. Ocean Eng
153(June 2017):112–121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​eng.​
2018.​01.​079
Lloyds (2011) Drilling in extreme environments: Challenges and
implications forthe energy insurance industry
Løset S, Shkhinek KN, Gudmestad OT, & Høyland KV (2006)
Actions fromice on Arctic offshore and coastal structures (1st
Editio). St. Pertersburg
Ma Y, Yang J, Feng P, Zhang C (2018) The challenges and key technol-
ogy of drilling safety in the area of the Arctic. In: Proceedings of
the International Field Exploration and Development Conference
Nalcor Energy (2017) Metocean climate study offshore newfoundland
& labrador STUDY MAIN REPORT Volume 1 : Full Data Sum-
mary Report (Issue September). NORSOK. (2007). Standard
N-003: Action and action effects
Naseri M, Barabady J (2016) On RAM performance of production
facilities operating under the Barents Sea harsh environmental
conditions. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manage 7(3):273–298. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13198-​016-​0463-x
NAVEDTRA (2001) Aerographer’s Mate – Module 5: Basic Meteorol-
ogy. [online] Naval Education and Training Professional Devel-
opment and Technology Center, report no. NAVEDTRA 14132.
Available at:? http://​www.​hnsa.​org/​doc/​pdf/​aerogr
13
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
Necci A, Tarantola S, Vamanu B, Krausmann E, Ponte L (2019) Les-
sons learned from offshore oil and gas incidents in the Arctic and
other ice-prone seas. Ocean Eng 185(May):12–26. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​eng.​2019.​05.​021
NORSOK (2007) Standard N-003: Action and action effects
Oceans Limited (2011) Physical environment Jeanne d ’ Arc Basin /
Central Ridge / Flemish Pass Basins Seismic Program for Statoil
Canada Prepared for: LGL 388 Kenmount Road St. John ’ s, NL
A1B 4A5 Prepared by : Oceans Limited 85 LeMarchant Road
St. John ’ s, NL A1C 2H1 M. March
Odusote F(2013) Deepwater Nigeria field development: Challenges,
best practices and lessons learned from the Agbami field. Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers – 37th Nigeria Annual Int. Conf.
and Exhibition, NAICE 2013 - To Grow Africa’s Oil and Gas
Production: Required Policy, Funding, Technol., Techniques
and Capabilities, 1(1), 425–434. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​2 118/​
167534-​ms
Rahman MS, Khan F, Shaikh A, Ahmed S, Imtiaz S (2019) Develop-
ment of risk model for marine logistics support to offshore oil
and gas operations in remote and harsh environments. Ocean
Eng 174(May 2018):125–134. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​
eng.​2019.​01.​037
Rahman MS, Colbourne B, Khan F (2020a) Conceptual development
of an offshore resource centre in support of remote harsh envi-
ronment operations. Ocean Eng 203(March):107236. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​eng.​2020.​107236
Rahman MS, Khan F, Shaikh A, Ahmed S, Imtiaz S (2020b) A con-
ditional dependence-based marine logistics support risk model.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 193(July 2019):106623. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​ress.​2019.​106623
Raisson F, Temple FM (2004) Impact of sedimentary heterogeneity
on reservoir monitoring in a turbiditic channel complex. EAGE
66th Conference & Exhibition, June 2004
Ratnayake RMC (2017) Minimization of variability in risk-based
winterization analysis: Asset Integrity Assurance in Arctic
Environments. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 27(3):245–251
République Francaise (2016) The great challenge of the Arctic -
National roadmap for the Arctic. 1–60. http://​www.​diplo​matie.​
gouv.​fr/​fr/​IMG/​pdf/​frna_-_e​ ng_-​inter​ne_-_​prepa_-_​17-​06-​pm-​
bd-​pdf_​cle02​695b.​pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2021
Rocha LAS, Falcão JL, Gonçalves CJC, Petrobrás, Toledo C, Lobato
K, Leal S, Lobato H (2004) 11 International Association of
Drilling Contractors 2004: ‘Fracture Pressure Gradient in
Deepwater’ (IADC/SPE 88011)
Ross E, Sam S, Randell D, Feld G, Jonathan P (2018) Esti-
mating surge in extreme North Sea storms. Ocean Eng
154(March):430–444. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​o cean​e ng.​
2018.​01.​078
Ryerson CC (2008) Assessment of superstructure ice protection as
applied to offshore oil operations safety: Problems, hazards,
needs, and potential transfer technologies. Erdc/Crrel Tr-08-
14, September, 156
Ryerson CC (2011) Ice protection of offshore platforms. Cold Reg
Sci Technol 65(1):97–110. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​c oldr​
egions.​2010.​02.​006
Sanchez-Mondragon J, Vázquez-Hernández AO, Cho SK, Sung HG
(2018) Yaw motion analysis of a FPSO turret mooring system
under wave drift forces. Appl Ocean Res 74:170–187. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apor.​2018.​02.​013
Sensoy T, Chenevert ME, Sharma MM (2009) Minimizing water
invasion in shale using nanoparticles. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, October, 1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
2118/​124429-​MS
Shafiee M, Elusakin T, Enjema E (2020) Subsea blowout preventer
(BOP): Design, reliability, testing, deployment, and operation
Safety in Extreme Environments (2023) 5:17–33
and maintenance challenges. J Loss Prev Process Ind 66(May).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jlp.​2020.​104170
Shahraki AF, Yadav OP, Liao H (2017) A review on degradation
modelling and its engineering applications. Int J Perform Eng
13(3):299–314. https://​doi.​org/​10.​23940/​ijpe.​xx.​xx.​xx.​xxx
Singh P, Bhat S (2006) Nanologging: use of nanorobots for logging
introduction. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting
Song G, Khan F, Wang H, Leighton S, Yuan Z, Liu H (2016)
Dynamic occupational risk model for offshore operations
in harsh environments. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 150(November
2017):58–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ress.​2016.​01.​021
Standards Norway (2007) NORSOK: N-003 Actions and action
effects. The Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF) and
Federation of Norwegian Manufacturing Industries (TBL),
September
Starodubtcev AO (2016) CLuster development of the Barents and
Kara Seas oil and gas fields from the Archipelago Novaya
Zemlya. http://​www.​eleme​ntasc​ience.​org/​artic​les/​10.​12952/​
journ​al.​eleme​nta.​000025. Accessed 29 Nov 2021
Steenfelt JS (2016) Ice loads on structures in the baltic environment.
Proceedings of 13th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference, Sep-
tember 2016, 129–136. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 846/1​ 3bsgc.2​ 016.0​ 18
Stephenson SR, Pincus R (2018) Challenges of sea-ice prediction
for Arctic marine policy and planning. J Borderlands Stud
33(2):255–272. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08865​655.​2017.​12944​
94
Thibaud M, Chi H, Zhou W, Piramuthu S (2018) Internet of Things
(IoT) in high-risk Environment, Health and Safety (EHS)
industries: A comprehensive review. Decis Support Syst
108:79–95. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​dss.​2018.​02.​005
Thodi PN, Khan FI, Haddara MR (2010) The development of poste-
rior probability models in risk-based integrity modeling. Risk
Anal 30(3):400–420. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 111/j.​1 539-​6 924.​
2009.​01352.x
Toal D (2012) Challenges of ROV system integration for deep water
habitat mapping: Mapping cold water corals at 800–1,200 m
on the margins of the continental shelf off west coast Ireland.
2012(26/01/2012). http://​www.​searc​hmesh.​net/​pdf/​SWToal.​pdf
TOMA C, POPA M (2018) IoT security approaches in oil & gas
solution industry 4.0. Inf Econ 22(3/2018):46–61. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​12948/​issn1​45313​05/​22.3.​2018.​05
Topaj AG, Tarovik OV, Bakharev AA, Kondratenko AA (2019)
Optimal ice routing of a ship with icebreaker assistance. Appl
Ocean Res 86(November 2018):177–187. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​apor.​2019.​02.​021
33
Wanasinghe TR, Gosine RG, James LA, Mann GKI, De Silva O,
Warrian PJ (2020a) The Internet of Things in the oil and
gas industry: A systematic review. IEEE Internet Things J
7(9):8654–8673. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​JIOT.​2020.​29956​17
Wanasinghe TR, Wroblewski L, Petersen BK, Gosine RG, James LA,
De Silva O, Mann GKI, Warrian PJ (2020b) Digital twin for the
oil and gas industry: Overview, research trends, opportunities,
and challenges. IEEE Access 8:104175–104197. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2020.​29987​23
Wang Q (2015) Ice-induced vibrations under continuous brittle crush-
ing for an offshore wind turbine. Master Thesis, NTNU, Norway
Wang H, Ge Y, Shi L (2017) Technologies in deep and ultra-deep
well drilling: Present status, challenges and future trend in the
13th Five-Year Plan period (2016–2020). Nat Gas Ind 37(4):1–
8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3787/j.​issn.​1000-​0976.​2017.​04.​001
Wang P, Tian X, Peng T, Luo Y (2018) A review of the state-of-the-
art developments in the field monitoring of offshore structures.
Ocean Eng 147(October 2017):148–164. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​ocean​eng.​2017.​10.​014
Wangjun H (2016) Drilling and completion challenges in the deep-
water South China Sea – a case study of the Lufeng 22 – 1
oilfield (Issue Master ’ S Thesis May 2016). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​13140/​RG.2.​2.​15515.​57124
Wassink A (2013) Development of solutions for Arctic offshore
drilling. SPE Arctic and Extreme Environments Conference
& Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 15–17 October 2013, October,
1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​166848-​MS
Wu G, Kong S, Tang W, Lei R, Ji S (2021) Statistical analysis of ice
loads on ship hull measured during Arctic navigations. Ocean
Eng 223(February):108642. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​o cean​
eng.​2021.​108642
Yan R, Wang S, Cao J, Sun D (2021) Shipping domain knowledge informed
prediction and optimization in port state control. Transp Res B Meth-
odol 149:52–78. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​trb.​2021.​05.​003
Yang M, Khan F, Oldford D, Lye L, Sulistiyono H (2015) Risk-based
Winterization on a North Atlantic-based Ferry Design. 31(2),
1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5957/​JSPD.​32.2.​140008
Yasseri S, Wang B (2015) Extreme response of dynamic Umbilicals in
random sea extreme response of dynamic Umbilicals in random
sea. June 2014
Zaki R, Barabadi A (2014) Application of de-icing techniques for Src-
tic. Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Confer-
ence on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering OMAE2014,
June 8–13, 2014, San Francisco, California, USA, 1–8
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13