Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© OTM Consulting Ltd, 2014. The information contained in this document is believed to be accurate, but no representation or warranty, express or
implied, is made by OTM Consulting Limited as to the completeness, accuracy or fairness of any information contained in this document, and we do
not accept any responsibility in relation to such information whether fact, opinion or conclusion that the addressee may draw.
1
UMSIRE JIP
London
(Subsea7 Host)
24th September 2014
Agenda
2
Wednesday 24th September 2014
Arrival with Tea & Coffee 09:00-09:15
1 Introductions, agenda & safety Chetan Laddha, OTM
Richard Hughes, Subsea7 09:15:-09:20
2 Last meeting – minutes, actions & conclusions Chetan Laddha, OTM 09:20 – 09:30
3 TR10 discussion – Current status and review major changes ALL 09:30 – 10:00
4 TR9 discussion – Current status ALL 10:00– 10:30
Tea/ Coffee 10:30 – 10:45
5 TR9 discussion – Decision tree ALL 10:45 – 12:30
Lunch 12:30 – 13:30
6 TR9 discussion – Risk model development ALL 13:30 – 14:45
Tea/ Coffee 14:45 – 15:00
7 Conclusions and assign actions for next meeting ALL 15:00 – 16:00
Close of Meeting 16:00
Safety
Minutes will be circulated after the meeting with the attendee list
Welcome
3
14th Meeting of UMSIRE JIP
Name
Company
Area of expertise
Particular areas of interest relevant to the technical scope of this JIP
Objectives for the meeting
Introduction
4
One trend that has emerged in recent years in the design of umbilical systems is the progressive increase of the size and weight of end terminations
Driven by the need to integrate functions normally found on manifolds, this emerging trend poses extremely severe challenges to installers and appears to be compounded by the differing requirements of parties in the supply chain (FEED contractors, termination designers, operators and manufacturers)
Why UMSIRE?
5
The problem
2000 2012
Why UMSIRE?
6
The consequences
Following an Umbilical Manufacturers’ Federation initiative, several major umbilical installation contractors and OTM Consulting collaborated towards the launch of a JIP for the development of a TR (technical report).
The document would address the need to optimise the shape, design and weight of UTAs
UMSIRE JIP objective: to reduce the size of umbilical terminations through increased understanding of the key issues associated to their design, manufacturing and installation and the development of a TR
Why UMSIRE?
7
The solution
17TR10: Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Design Recommendations
Design recommendations to reduce the size of UTAs
17TR9: Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Selection and Sizing Recommendations
Provide guidance on the installation implications of decisions made early-on in the field design and umbilical specification stages
UMSIRE – TR documents
8
Seismic imaging
EM/ MT/ Gravmag
Res Characterisation
Petrophysics
IOR/ EOR
Extended reach drilling
Advanced drilling systems
Intelligent wells
I-fields
Subsea systems/ processing
Subsea processing
Multiphase flow
FPSO/ floating systems
GTL/ LNG
Condition monitoring
Nanotechnology
Gas hydrates
Composites/
novel materials
Fibre optics
Environmental (flaring/ oil
spills)
Deepwater
Heavy oil/ oil sands
Tight & shale oil/ gas
HPHT
Sour gas
Arctic
CCS
Examples of application areas
Decide which
technologies to
invest in, and how...
Optimise
commercialisation
and deployment
Identify technology
opportunities & threats
for your business
Engage
with technology
practitioners
Market intelligence
Market demand and
trend analysis
Technology
landscape analysis
Competitor analysis
Emerging
technology transfer
Corporate technology
strategy development
Technology needs
analysis
Portfolio optimisation
Knowledge
management
Technology strategy
Planning/ roadmapping
Value analysis
IP monetisation
R&D management
Technology
qualification
Technology
commercialisation
Knowledge-share
networks
Industry knowledge-
sharing networks
Collaborative RP/
standards
development
Technology
knowledge-base
development
OTM Consulting
9
JIPs and networks managed by OTM
10
JIP / Knowledge sharing networks
1 AWES – Advanced Well Equipment Standardisation
2 DEA(e) – Drilling Engineering Association (Europe)
3 ETF – Expandable Tubular Forum
4 GMN – Geopressure Management Network
5 MDIS – MCS/ DCS Interface Standardisation Network
6 Oiltech – Oil and Gas Technology Investment Network
7 OPUS EOR
8 PEA – Production Engineering Association
9 PICT – Passive Inflow Control Technology
10 PWRI OPNet – Produced Water Re-Injection Operational Network
11 SAFEBUCK
12 SEAFOM™ – Subsea (& Downhole) Fibre Optic Monitoring
13 SEPS – Subsea Electrical Power Standardisation
14 SIIS – Subsea Instrumentation Interface Standardisation
15 SWiG – Subsea Wireless Group
16 TMN – Technology Management Network
17 UMSIRE - Umbilical Termination Assembly Size Reduction
OTM provides independent overall group activities management including:
Facilitate and assist development of TR document
Providing a single point of focus for queries
Preparation and facilitation of workshops
Promotion of UMSIRE and its activities
Widening UMSIRE membership
Resolving contractual membership issues with UMSIRE members
Role of OTM in UMSIRE JIP
11
Review and take actions on remaining comments in TR10 document
Review the structure of TR9 document
Review and discuss the Workflow for selection and sizing of the UTA
Risk model development
Objectives for the day
12
UMSIRE – Members
13
Apologies for this meeting
Guest for this meeting
UMSIRE – timeline
14
Dec
2014
Mar
2015
June
2015
Sept
2014
Finalise TR10
Complete the
structure of TR9
Send TR10 to
API
Finalise TR9 –
to be sent to API
in Jan 2015
Address
comments from
API on TR9
Submit updated
TR9 to API
Aug
2015
Publish TR9 and
TR10
Majority of the comments from API have been addressed. There are a few outstanding comments which we’ll be discussing today.
OTM will be making the formatting changes in coming weeks, to adhere to API guidelines.
We aim to send the document to API by end of October.
TR10 document
15
Outstanding comments in TR10 document
16
# Section Topic Comment
11 3.1.7 Flying Lead
(Jumper)
Explain the reason for comment 80
17 4 UTA configuration Review Chapter 4
21 4.6 UTA configuration Revisit comment 204
31 5.5 Structural design
considerations
Assign action for comment 388
38 7.1 STI Review the action on comment 384
53 10.6.1 Closed Tensioner
Vertical Lay
Systems (VLS)
Review table for available head room and relevant
height restrictions
Comments on TR10
17
80 Affirmati
ve
2.1.1 7th
Bullet
Editorial Although commonly used in the
controls world, the term "jumper"
should not normally be used as it
more commonly refers to a rigid
flowline spool.
Rewrite to avoid the use of the
word "jumper"
Disagree Explain why disagree...
204 Affirmati
ve
4.6 2nd para Technical The use of a large central steel tube
core (normally for chemical services)
is often a key system architecture
benefit and should not be discouraged
in this way. It will lead to umbilical
termination specific requirements
however.
Discuss large central chemical
core benefits in more detail.
Disagree add note / words in 1.
scope
384 Abstain Section/
Clause
4 Technical Foundation or manifold that interface
with the UTA/SUT to be included in
the description
Parking consideration, load
sharing, intervention etc.
Agree in
Principle
Could consider to
include a paragraph
about "Interface
between UTA and
manifold needs to be
managed". Parking etc
could be mentioned as
part of this.
388 Abstain Section/
Clause
5.5 Technical Load calculations based on
installation and in-situ to be
considered
Include description Agree in
Principle
Expand proposed text
and include in section
5.5, as well as to
consider project
specific requirements.
Introduction
Installers’ Handling Requirements
Workflow for selection and sizing of the UTA
Category Functionalities
UTA Categorization Method
Selection of Packing Reel/ Carousel
SUT Rigid Length
Selection of Installation Method
Vessel Requirements
Risk/ Cost/ Schedule Rating
Conclusion
Appendix – Responsibility matrix
TR9 document – structure
18
TR9 – Workflow for selection and sizing of the
UTA
19
• Category Functionalities
• UTA Categorization Method
• SUT Rigid Length
• Selection of Packing Reel/ Carousel
• Selection of Installation Method
• Vessel Requirements
• Risk/ Cost/ Schedule Rating
Umbilical specifications
Specific system requirements
Combine with UTA Categorization Method?
Category Functionalities
20
Describe 4 categories of UTA
UTA Categorization Method
21
Selection of Packing – Reel/ Carousel
22
2 2 4
Couplings per plate 7 way 10 way 24 way
QTY ≤ 1/2" lines 5 6 12
QTY ≤ 3/4" lines 2 4 8
QTY ≤ 1" lines No No 4
Electrical / Optical connectors (max) 6 12 12
Electrical (max) 6 12 12
Optical (max) 2 6 6
Junction box (max) No 2 x 3 way 2 x 3 way
No No Yes Yes
No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
3m 3m 3.5
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No No
A B C D E F
0.5
0.6
0.7
MQC Plates (max)
Valves
Distribution
Max. UTA length (including the padeye)
ROV operable
CLOSED / OPEN OPEN
Not recommended
Combination of:
Combination of:
Large service lines
UTA Category (Table 1)
Tensioner Type (Figure 7)
VesselCarousel
InstallationReel
< 350 tonne > 350 tonne
≤ Length (X) > Length (X)
Special Case only
Yes No
A to D Umbilical Length
Check(Table 4)
Max STILength check
(Table 3)
E to F Umbilical Length
Check
Total System Weight
Check(350 to 500 tonne special case only
Vibor's input from here down?
Matrix / flowchart Process
1. Select required function (look up)
2. UTA category (result)
3. Tension type (result)
4. Total weight check (calculate)
5. STI length check (look up or calculate)
6. Category A to D Umbilical length capacity
check (calculate)
7. Category E to F Umbilical length capacity
check (calculate if required)
8. Input Vibor’s risk model (s)
9. Reel or carousel (result)
Notes:
The group needs to define the functions / sizes of
category's E & F
Table 1 & figure 7 ref: TR9 document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Selection of Packing – Reel/ Carousel
23
2 2 4
Couplings per plate 7 way 10 way 24 way
QTY ≤ 1/2" lines 5 6 12
QTY ≤ 3/4" lines 2 4 8
QTY ≤ 1" lines No No 4
Electrical / Optical connectors (max) 6 12 12
Electrical (max) 6 12 12
Optical (max) 2 6 6
Junction box (max) No 2 x 3 way 2 x 3 way
No No Yes Yes
No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
3m 3m 3.5
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No No
A B C D E F
0.5
0.6
0.7
MQC Plates (max)
Valves
Distribution
Max. UTA length (including the padeye)
ROV operable
CLOSED / OPEN OPEN
Not recommended
Combination of:
Combination of:
Large service lines
UTA Category (Table 1)
Tensioner Type (Figure 7)
VesselCarousel
InstallationReel
< 350 tonne > 350 tonne
≤ Length (X) > Length (X)
Special Case only
Yes No
A to D Umbilical Length
Check(Table 4)
Max STILength check
(Table 3)
E to F Umbilical Length
Check
Total System Weight
Check(350 to 500 tonne special case only
Vibor's input from here down?
Selection of Packing – Reel/ Carousel
24
2 2 4
Couplings per plate 7 way 10 way 24 way
QTY ≤ 1/2" lines 5 6 12
QTY ≤ 3/4" lines 2 4 8
QTY ≤ 1" lines No No 4
Electrical / Optical connectors (max) 6 12 12
Electrical (max) 6 12 12
Optical (max) 2 6 6
Junction box (max) No 2 x 3 way 2 x 3 way
No No Yes Yes
No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
3m 3m 3.5
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No No
A B C D E F
0.5
0.6
0.7
MQC Plates (max)
Valves
Distribution
Max. UTA length (including the padeye)
ROV operable
CLOSED / OPEN OPEN
Not recommended
Combination of:
Combination of:
Large service lines
UTA Category (Table 1)
Tensioner Type (Figure 7)
VesselCarousel
InstallationReel
< 350 tonne > 350 tonne
≤ Length (X) > Length (X)
Special Case only
Yes No
A to D Umbilical Length
Check(Table 4)
Max STILength check
(Table 3)
E to F Umbilical Length
Check
Total System Weight
Check(350 to 500 tonne special case only
Vibor's input from here down?
Selection of Packing – Reel/ Carousel
25
Selection of Packing – Reel/ Carousel
26
UTA Size Category
Reel (m) A B C D
ØRim ØBarrel k k k k
6 2 67.1 64.6 62.1 59.5
3 55.4 53.3 51.2 49.1
7 3 84.6 81.4 78.2 75.0
4 68.1 65.5 63.0 60.4
8.6 4 124.7 119.9 115.2 110.5
5 103.4 99.5 95.6 91.7
6 77.5 74.6 71.7 68.7
9.2 4 149.0 143.3 137.7 132.1
5 127.8 122.9 118.1 113.3
6 101.8 98.0 94.2 90.3
9.8 4 175.0 168.4 161.8 155.2
5 153.8 148.0 142.2 136.4
6 127.9 123.0 118.2 113.4
11.2 4 242.3 233.1 224.0 214.9
5 221.1 212.7 204.4 196.0
6 195.2 187.8 180.4 173.1
11.4 5 231.5 222.7 214.0 205.2
6 205.5 197.8 190.0 182.3
Calculation of SUT rigid length: UTA + STI + (BSR/3)
Construct a table similar to STI?
SUT Rigid Length
27
Basic horizontal tensioner and overboarding system
Horizontal tensioner with vertical overbearing system
Closed Vertical Lay System (VLS)
Open Vertical Lay System
Any specific points/ requirements/ limitations/ system parameters to highlight?
Selection of Installation Method
28
Indication of vessel availability pertaining the selection of UTA
Categorisation of installation vessels?
Indicative cost
Applicability
Vessel Requirements
29
Assume a base case scenario
Consider four scenarios (for each category of UTA) – design permutations
Identify geometric specifications (weight, dimensions, STI, rigid length)
Consider a range of variables (sea state, umbilical length, wave period)
Assess the change in max allowable Hs with varying size and weight
Operational time
Analysis of Downtime Impact
Cost reduction
Risk/ Cost/ Schedule Rating
30
Reconstruct Vibor’s model?
Effect of Umbilical Head Size Install-ability A Case Study Vibor Paravic MSc CEng FIMechE
A statistical analysis of the effect termination design has on the perfomance of offshore installation vessels
Anybody Remember this?
UMF Meeting Aberdeen June 3rd 2009
Umbilical manufactures
Umbilical Designers
Installers
Hot topics
Reducing the size of subsea terminations
Lots of bad experiences shared
Matching installation vessel spreads to umbilical characteristics
Highlighted the chasm between installers and umbilical manufacturers.
Better understanding of umbilical internal behaviour
Extremely topical
Decommissioning issues still not understood
Standards and Specifications
Operator focus
Lessons Learned.
January 2010 meeting in Aberdeen S7 office
Way forward and JIP idea born.
Who was there?
32
5 years
3 ER visits
2 weddings
1 child
2 countries
2 companies
7 titles
33
Qualitative assesment of head size impact abounds
old wives tales
practical experinece
opinions
Quantitatvie assesment
Deck handling
Overboarding
Installtion
Abandoment
Comprehensive review of head size effect
SCOPE
34
SCOPE
Single Executed Project
Difficult head size
Not abnormal
Tricky installtion
100 – 100 case
100% weight
100% size
Vary weight and size
See effect on installtion
Vary installation location
See effect of head size
Statistical analysis
Case Name Corresponding Size
(% of Actual Size)
Corresponding Weight (% of Actual weight )
S300W100 300 100
S200W100 200 100
S100W100 100 100
S090W100 90 100
S080W100 80 100
S070W100 70 100
S060W080 60 80
S080W110 80 110
S080W090 80 90
S080W080 80 80
35
Instalaltion Vessel: Normand Cutter
Carousel
Overboarding Chute
36
Property Unit Value
Outer Diameter m 0.150
Nominal Mass (lines full of shipping fluid & interstices full of seawater)
kg/m 41.99
Nominal Weight in Air (lines full of shipping fluid & interstices empty)
kg/m 39.11
Nominal Weight in Seawater (lines full of shipping fluid & interstices full of seawater)
kg/m 23.95
Estimated Axial Stiffness MN 583.8
Estimated Bending Stiffness kNm2 15.5
Max Allowable Tension kN 256.0
Max Allowable Compression kN 5.0
Min Bend Radius during installation (@17 t tension) – LOAD CONTROLLED
m 6.96
Umbilical Properties
37
Property Unit Value
Spool Piece Length m 1.25
Flanged Termination Length m 0.32
Weight in Air kg 670.0
Submerged Weight kg 586.0
Allowable Bending Moment at Flange kNm 100.0
Allowable Axial Load kN 196.2
38
z
Property Unit Value
SDA-3 Dimensions (X x Y x Z) m 3.96 x 1.50 x 1.32
SDA-3 Weight in Air kg 4800.0
SDA-3 Submerged Weight kg 4185.0
CoG m 2.02, 0.75, 0.56
Drag Coefficient X-direction - 1.49
Drag Coefficient Y-direction - 2.57
Drag Coefficient Z-direction - 2.60
Added Mass Coefficient X-direction - 0.28
Added Mass Coefficient Y-direction - 0.88
Added Mass Coefficient Z-direction - 0.89
Photos of Termination
Handling of Termination
46
Design Permutations Analyzed
Pro
pert
ies
S300W
100
S200W
100
S100W
100
S090W
100
S080W
100
S070W
100
S060W
080
S080W
110
S080W
090
S080W
080
Length (m) 11.88 7.92 3.96 3.564 3.168 2.772 2.376 3.168 3.168 3.168
Width (m) 4.5 3 1.5 1.35 1.2 1.05 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2
Height (m) 3.96 2.64 1.32 1.19 1.06 0.93 0.79 1.06 1.06 1.06
Weight in air (kg) 4800 4800 4800 4800 4800 4800 3840 5280 4320 3840
Weight in water (kg) 4185 4185 4185 4185 4185 4185 3348 4604 3767 3348
Cd 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6
Cm 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
47
Methodology
SZDC DNV Marine Ops RAO based motion 5-12 seconds 99.4% of weather
Lowering Not according to sketches but more
onerous
SZDC
Slack wire criterion SWL criterion DAF criterion < 2*static tension
Lowering Maximum umbilical tension <
allowable value Maximum umbilical compression <
allowable value umbilical MBR > allowable value
SDA-3 Size and
Weight
Corresponding to
Umbilical
Length (m)
Wave
Direction
(deg)
Hs (m)Wave
Period (s)
Total
Cases
All Size
Combinations
300, 350,
400, 450,
500, 550,
600
0, 45. 90,
135, 1802.5
5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11,
12
2800
48
Tabulated Results
Case
Max
Allowabl
e Hs (m)
Minimum
Tension
(te)
Maximum
Tension
(te)
Limiting
Factor
S300W100 0.08 0.23 16.06 Slack Sling
S200W100 0.15 0.01 8.95 Slack Sling
S100W100 1.33 0.03 9.18 Slack Sling
S090W100 1.62 0.01 9.23 Slack Sling
S080W100 1.95 0.01 9.28 Slack Sling
S070W100 2.35 0.01 9.35 Slack Sling
S060W080 2.49 0.01 7.47 Slack Sling
S080W110 2.08 0.03 10.24 Slack Sling
S080W090 1.8 0.01 8.29 Slack Sling
S080W080 1.64 0.02 7.31 Slack Sling
Case
Max
Allowable
Hs (m)
Minimum
Tension
(te)
Maximum
Tension
(te)
Limiting
Factor
S100W100 1.38 0.03 9.17 Slack Sling
S090W100 1.67 0.004 9.23 Slack Sling
S080W100 2 0.01 9.28 Slack Sling
S070W100 2.41 0.001 9.37 Slack Sling
15 deg Inclination
Case
Max
Allowable
Hs (m)
Minimum
Tension
(te)
Maximum
Tension
(te)
Limiting
Factor
S100W100 1.54 0.0001 9.18 Slack Sling
S090W100 1.82 0.02 9.21 Slack Sling
S080W100 2.16 0.02 9.28 Slack Sling
S070W100 2.59 0.0001 9.39 Slack Sling
30 deg Inclination
49
Effect of Inclination
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
S100W100 S090W100 S080W100 S070W100
Max A
llow
able
Hs (
m)
0deg
15 deg
30 deg
50
Effect of Size - Weight 100%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
300 200 100 90 80 70
Max A
llow
able
Hs (
m)
Effect of Weight - Size 80%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
100 110 90 80
Max A
llow
able
Hs (
m)
51
Weight Size Comaprison
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Max A
llow
able
Hs (
m)
Effect of Weight - Size 80%
Effect of Size - Weight 100%
52
But how much?
SIZE
MATTERS
53
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (h)
Hs (
m)
Stage Description Duration (hrs) HsDependent
Independent
Prep for Handling 6 2.50 I
SZDC 3 1.33 D
Lowernig 3 2.00 D
Initiation 3 2.00 D
Lay 36 2.50 D
Abandonment 3 2.00 D
54
STATISTICAL Analysis of Downtime Impact
4 World wide locations North Sea (Central)
Mediterranean
West Africa
Brazil
Weather data 30 year historical data
Weather Window Nominal duration
Min Max duration
Average duration
P20
55
Raw Results
Hours S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100
Average 93 122 188 64 68 72 185 208 241 59 68 108
Minimum 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Maximum 726 948 2025 402 519 558 2115 2118 2379 294 504 1206
P20 132 177 273 57 63 75 255 297 345 54 60 150
Brazil Mediteranean North Sea West Africa
Hours S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100
Average 50% 65% 100% 89% 94% 100% 77% 86% 100% 55% 63% 100%
Minimum 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximum 36% 47% 100% 72% 93% 100% 89% 89% 100% 24% 42% 100%
P20 48% 65% 100% 76% 84% 100% 74% 86% 100% 36% 40% 100%
Brazil Mediteranean North Sea West Africa
56
Cost Downtime
Assume vessel cost/dayrate is $100,000
100
Hours S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100
Average $ 388 $ 510 $ 782 $ 268 $ 282 $ 301 $ 769 $ 865 $1,004 $ 246 $ 283 $ 448
P20 $ 550 $ 738 $1,138 $ 238 $ 263 $ 313 $1,063 $1,238 $1,438 $ 225 $ 250 $ 625
Brazil Mediteranean North Sea West Africa
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
S80 S90 S100
Time (h)
Hs (
m)
Brazil
Mediteranean
North Sea
West Africa
57
Cost Summary
For a 20% decrease in size average savings on installation
per umbilical are:
Brazil $394k
Mediteranean $ 33k
North Sea $235k
West Africa $203k
Time is money
Size is money
58
ONE LAST THOUGHT
Termination should be the size of
Smarts not Hummers
TR9 – Workflow for selection and sizing of the
UTA
59
• Category Functionalities
• UTA Categorization Method
• SUT Rigid Length
• Selection of Packing Reel/ Carousel
• Selection of Installation Method
• Vessel Requirements
• Risk/ Cost/ Schedule Rating
Working groups
60
Working Group 1
Vic Morrell (Lead)
Charlie August
Karl Atle Stevenik
Richard Hughes
Gustav Jensen Kibsgaard
Working Group 2
Tor Erling Ruud (Lead)
Todd McKinney
Phil Ward
Sam Almerico
Jessica Wells
Working Group 3
Daniel Abicht (Lead)
David Graham
Thomas Senne
John Bess
Erik Johnsen
Comments on TR10
61
80 Affirmati
ve
2.1.1 7th
Bullet
Editorial Although commonly used in the
controls world, the term "jumper"
should not normally be used as it
more commonly refers to a rigid
flowline spool.
Rewrite to avoid the use of the
word "jumper"
Disagree Explain why disagree...
204 Affirmati
ve
4.6 2nd para Technical The use of a large central steel tube
core (normally for chemical services)
is often a key system architecture
benefit and should not be discouraged
in this way. It will lead to umbilical
termination specific requirements
however.
Discuss large central chemical
core benefits in more detail.
Disagree add note / words in 1.
scope
384 Abstain Section/
Clause
4 Technical Foundation or manifold that interface
with the UTA/SUT to be included in
the description
Parking consideration, load
sharing, intervention etc.
Agree in
Principle
Could consider to
include a paragraph
about "Interface
between UTA and
manifold needs to be
managed". Parking etc
could be mentioned as
part of this.
388 Abstain Section/
Clause
5.5 Technical Load calculations based on
installation and in-situ to be
considered
Include description Agree in
Principle
Expand proposed text
and include in section
5.5, as well as to
consider project
specific requirements.
'Umbilical thermoplastic hoses should be connected to the UTA internal pipework inside the UTA body (and not connect within the STI or transition spool as is often the case for steel tube umbilical connections).
Thermoplastic hoses frequently terminate to individual connectors or to a bulkhead plate within the UTA. The location of these connectors or bulkhead plate within the UTA should be toward the front (padeye end) of the UTA thus allowing the umbilical hoses adequate length and flexure for ease of routing inside the UTA. In practice adopting this approach frequently means that the hoses can be routed and terminated within the UTA without a requirement for a transition spool.
Note: Positioning the bulkhead plate toward the rear of the UTA (STI end) means that the hoses can be very short and rigid which makes access and termination difficult as there is no 'slack' to play with in the hose length - positioning the bulkhead plate at the rear of the UTA should be avoided. '
Discussion on large central chemical core
benefits
62
Any additional risks to be considered?
HSE
Weather window (e.g. North Sea)
Decommisioning
Risk
63
Combine all the steps above to make a decision tree?
Decision tree
64
Case studies
65
Could we add case studies (anonymous) to better explain the ‘risk’ component?
OneSubsea has kindly volunteered to host the next meeting in Celle, Germany
Next meeting
66
OTM Consulting Ltd
www.otmconsulting.com
Boston Cambridge London Houston Dubai
Sagentia Group OTM Consulting Ltd OTM Consulting Inc OTM Consulting Ltd
Harston Mill
Harston
Cambridge
CB22 7GG
UK
Tel: +44 1223 875200
www.sagentia.com
Friary Court
13-21 High Street
Guildford, Surrey
GU1 3DG
UK
Tel: +44 1483 598000
3040 Post Oak Blvd
Suite 1212
Houston
TX 77056
USA
Tel: +1 832 581 2438
Reef Tower
Sheikh Zyed Road
PO Box 115738
Dubai
UAE
Tel: +971 4448 7595
67
68
69