ISO 19906!ARCTIC OFFSHORE STRUCTURES!

Walt Spring Bear Ice Technology - Consultant to Shell

1 September 2010

AGENDA - 19906 OVERVIEW !

  Background on initiation of activity,

  Summary of activities to develop the Standard,

  Briefly summarize all Clauses

  Review following Clauses in slightly more detail

  7 - Reliability,

  8 - Actions,

2 10/11/10

Extreme •  Wave load •  Wave over-topping •  Wind load •  Current load •  Ice load •  Ice over-ride

Accidental •  Process explosion •  Dropped object •  Ship collision •  Helicopter related •  Drilling related

Abnormal •  Extreme events at lower probability

PLATFORM DESIGN ISSUES

3 10/11/10

Applicable to offshore structures for oil and gas operations in waters that may be partially or wholly covered with ice, whether seasonally or year-round;

Caspian Sea Drilling Island at 46 ° N

ISO 19906 - ARCTIC OFFSHORE STRUCTURES!

4 10/11/10

WHY AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ?

  In 2002, offshore oil and gas E&P operations in ice covered waters were underway in nine countries

  Only four of the nine countries had existing Arctic Codes: Canada, Norway, Russia, United States

 wide variation in coverage, methods and age of documents

  Harmonization of existing codes, including integration of latest knowledge:

 Ensures consistent approaches (ice loads, integrity)

 Reduces approval times and save design effort

  Existing codes would be withdrawn and new code accepted for use

  Allows use of limit states design approach which newer codes are using

5 10/11/10

ISO/TC67

6 10/11/10

ISO/TC67

SC 2 SC 7 SC 3 SC 4 SC 5 SC 6 WG2

WG4

WG5

WG7

WG9

Conformity Assessment

Data Collection

Aluminium Drill Pipe

Corrosion Resistant Materials

Life Cycle Costing

EC/MC EC = Executive Committee MC = Management Committee

WG10 LNG systems & equipment

ISO 19900-SERIES!STANDARDS FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

  ISO 19900 General requirements for offshore structures

  ISO 19901-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7 Specific requirements

  ISO 19902 Fixed steel offshore structures

  ISO 19903 Fixed concrete offshore structures

  ISO 19904-1, -2 Floating offshore structures

  ISO 19905 Mobile offshore units (site specific assessment)

  ISO 19906 Arctic offshore structures

  Proposal from Canada – approved by SC7 in 2002

  WG8 created – Convener: Denis Blanchet

7 10/11/10

WG8 APPROACH TO WRITING ISO 19906

Objective: to ensure that arctic and sub-arctic offshore structures provide an appropriate level of reliability with respect to personal safety and environmental protection.

Guiding Principles:

  Supplement the ISO 19900 suite of standards with issues only relevant to structures in ice – no duplication.

  Pipelines, harbor facilities and bridges are excluded

  Report Format

 Normative: to present requirements

 Informative (Annex A): to present accepted methods & knowledge

 Regional Descriptions (Annex B): to present regional descriptions 8 10/11/10

WG 8: DIMENSIONS

  12 meetings: from June 2002 (Toronto) to August 2009 (Houston).

  Special meeting: Nov 2007 (Moscow )

  16 Technical Panels established

  Included >100 international working experts representing all areas of Arctic expertise

 >1,000,000 man-hours – voluntary from non-oil company researchers, contractors and academicians

  Budget and funding mechanisms established

 Travel costs for non-industry individuals (over $400,000).

 Funding provided by OGP for technical editing, calibration study and case studies (~$450,000).

 BP, Statoil and Shell have provided additional funding to cover some individual’s manpower to participate

9 10/11/10

WG8 - 16 TECHNICAL PANELS

10 10/11/10

Technical Panel Number

Technical Panel Name

Leader Countries Represented

TP0 Editing W. Spring Canada, Finland, Germany, Norway, US

TP1 Environment W. Spring Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Norway, Russia, UK, US

TP2a Reliability F. Bercha Canada, Norway, Russia, The Netherlands, US

TP2b Ice Actions T. Kärnä Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Japan, Norway, Russia, US

TP2c MetOcean C. Shaw Canada, France, Norway, The Netherlands, UK, US

TP2d Seismic F. Puskar Canada, Japan, Norway, Russia, US TP2e Metocean Actions P. Tromans Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Russia, The

Netherlands TP3 Foundations D. Clare / P. Jeanjean Canada, France, Norway, Russia, The Netherlands,

UK, US TP4 Artificial Islands D. Mayne/ Michel

Metge / K. Been Canada, France, The Netherlands, UK, US

TP5 Steel Tom Zimmerman / J. Berger

Canada, Germany, Japan, Russia, UK, US

TP6 Concrete M. Vache Canada, France, Norway, Russia, The Netherlands, UK

TP7 Floaters C. Makrygiannis Canada, Norway, The Netherlands, US

TP8a Topsides P. Sharma / O. Gudmestad

Norway, US

TP8b EER J. Poplin Canada, Norway, The Netherlands, US

TP9 Ice Engineering S. Løset Canada, Germany, Kazakhstan, Norway, Russia, UK

TP10!(from 2008)

Case studies and Calibration

G Thomas Canada, Germany, Kazakhstan, The Netherlands, Norway, UK, US

19906 DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS

11 September 2010

 Normative and Annex A (Informative) have the same clause numbers for ease of reference

 Document really meant for a practicing engineer to use due to assumed background

  Annex B provides only guidance on physical environment and data provided are not meant for design

  Alaska one of the few regions where a large amount of data exists

 Document states that ice and metocean specialists should be employed to develop physical environment data for use in design

CLAUSE 6 - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Barents Sea (Norway & Russia)

Kara Sea/Ob Bay (Russia)

Pechora Sea (Russia)

Laptev Sea (Russia)

East Siberian Sea (Russia)

Tatar Strait - Russia)

Okhotsk Sea – (Russia – Sakhalin)

Bohai Sea (China)

Sea of Azov (Russia)

Black Sea (Russia)

North Caspian Sea (Netherlands) 12 10/11/10

General information provided in Normative and Annex A Annex B provides data on ice types and morphology found in each region below along with meteorological and oceanographic data.

Greenland (Denmark)

Canadian Arctic Archipelago (Canada)

Baffin Bay / Davis Strait (Canada)

Labrador Sea (Canada)

Newfoundland (Canada)

Beaufort Sea (Canada and US)

Chukchi Sea (Russia and US)

Cook Inlet (US)

Bering Sea (Russia and US)

Baltic Sea (Finland)

CLAUSE 7 – RELIABILITY AND LIMIT STATES

  Uses limit states design – approach which newer codes are going towards

  Provides safety classes with exposure

  Provides load factors for ice

  Discusses load combinations

  Will be discussed in more detail later in presentation

13 10/11/10

CLAUSE 8 – ACTIONS AND ACTION EFFECTS

  Action is ISO “speak” for load

  Wave, current and wind loading in combination with ice loading.

  Ice loads - global and local ice loads including deterministic and probabilistic methods and dynamic loading.

  Seismicity – seismic issues discussed in association with structural designs. No con-current occurrence of earthquakes with ice.

  Will be discussed in more detail later in presentation

14 September 2010

CLAUSE 9 - FOUNDATIONS

Foundation issues covered include;

  Site investigations,

  Geophysical surveys,

  Geotechnical investigations,

  Design considerations such as,

 offshore permafrost

 ice grounding,

  Dynamic load effects,

  Limit states as relates to foundation

  Foundations for GBS, piled structures and anchoring of floating structures,

  Water scour and ice gouge effects

15 10/11/10

CLAUSE 10 - MAN-MADE ISLANDS

Issues covered include;

  Island types,

  Island considerations for shape and orientation,

  Geotechnical considerations,

  Slope protection against ice,

  Ice encroachment and

  Seismic design,

  Monitoring and maintenance,

  Decommissioning and reclamation.

16 10/11/10

Ice encroachment on Caspian Sea Island February 2003

CLAUSE 11 - FIXED STEEL STRUCTURES

17 10/11/10

Refers to ISO 19902, but addresses unique issues such as;   Stiffened flat plate structures,

  Allowance for membrane action under high local loads,

  Fabrication issues in cold temperatures,

  Steel and concrete composite design,

  Seismic design.

CLAUSE12 – FIXED CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Refers to ISO 19903, but addresses unique issues such as;

  Limit states analysis

  Ice abrasion,

  Freeze thaw cycling,

  Materials and effect of low temperatures,

  Designing for large impact forces and

  Construction in cold temperatures.

18 10/11/10

Hibernia Platform designed for iceberg impact

CLAUSE 13 – FLOATING STRUCTURES

Refers to ISO 19904-1, provides guidance on issues such as;

  Ice loads and considerations on floaters

  Hull integrity

  Hull stability

  Station keeping

  Disconnection and reconnection

  Operations

  Ice detection and management deferred to Clause 17

19 10/11/10

CLAUSE 14 – SUBSEA PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Provides guidance on issues such as

  Sea floor considerations (ice induced gouges, permafrost, etc)

  Ice protection structures, including glory holes,

  Risers, flowlines and umbilicals,

  Seismic design

  Risk reduction

20 September 2010

CLAUSE 15 – TOPSIDES

Provides guidance on issues such as;

  Impact from sea ice

  Deck elevation,

  Winterization,

  HVAC and electrical systems,

  Icing effects,

  Heat tracing,

  Vibration effects (seismic design and equipment)

21 10/11/10

Orlan Platform!Fully Winterized Topsides

Creating Ice Barriers Caspian Sea January 2003

Spray ice drilling island

CLAUSE 16 – OTHER ICE ENGINEERING TOPICS!

22 10/11/10

Provides guidance on issues such as;   Ice roads,   Artificial ice island,   Ice protection barriers,   Measurement of ice pressure,   Ice tank modeling,   Offloading in ice

Modeling interaction of ice with structure in ice

basin

CLAUSE 17 – ICE MANAGEMENT

23 September 2010

Provides guidance on issues such as;   Ice management to reduce ice actions,   System reliability,   System capabilities,   Ice detection and threat evaluation,   Planning and operations,

Iceberg Towing off Newfoundland

ARKTOS escape vehicle in northern Caspian Sea

CLAUSE 18 – ESCAPE, EVACUATION AND RESCUE!

24 10/11/10

First use of performance based criteria

Discusses issues such as;   Governing principles and strategy,   Hazards and risks,   System design,   Emergency response organization,   Temporary refuge,

TPs worked to develop internal draft – 2002 to ~ early 2007

Committee Draft (CD) issued December 2007 Reviewed by country members and interested parties, over 1,000 comments received and acted upon

Draft International Standard (DIS) issued November 2008 Reviewed by country members and interested parties, over 900 comments received and acted upon

Sent to SC7 for review November 2009 Agreement reached in April 2010

Sent to ISO for translation into “ISO speak” – May 2010

ISO provided an “edited” version for WG8 review in June TP0 reviewed and recommended to WG8 that it be accepted

WG8 MILESTONES!

25 10/11/10

STATUS

ISO will issue a FDIS for yes/no voting by member countries today (16 September 2010)

Ballots to be returned two months after being issued.

Standard available for purchase about December 2010.

When approved 19906 can be purchased at following website

http://www.iso.org/iso/store.htm

26 10/11/10

CLAUSE 7 - INTRODUCTION

Probability of exceedance = 1 / return period

  probability of exceedance of 10-2 equals 100 year return period

Platforms are design to extreme events (10-2) events and then checked with abnormal events (10-4 for manned platforms and 10-3 for unmanned platforms)

  No damage for extreme events

  Minimal damage for abnormal events with no loss of life nor pollution

27 September 2010

Limit states design implies

Factored action combinations < Factored resistance

“action” is ISO speak for “load” “action combinations” are ice, waves, currents, winds, etc “Factored” implies use of safety factors

Principle action factors > 1 Resistance factors < 1

CLAUSE 7 – RELIABILITY AND LIMIT STATES

28 10/11/10

CLAUSE 7 –LIMIT STATES

29 10/11/10

ULS – Ultimate Limit State

Check on resistance to withstand “extreme” loads that can occur during life of the platform

No substantial structural damage after event

ELIE – Extreme Level Ice Event with annual probability of exceedance not greater than 10-2

ALS – Abnormal (Accidental) Limit State

Check to ensure structure and soil have reserve resistance to withstand “abnormal” events

Some structural damage allowed but no loss of life nor harm to the environment

ALIE – Abnormal Level Ice Event generally with annual probability of exceedance not greater than 10-4

SLS – Serviceability Limit State

Check to ensure structure performs adequately under normal use

SLIE – Serviceability Level Ice Event with annual probability of exceedance not greater than 10-1

FLS – Fatigue Limit State

Check to ensure structure performs adequately under cumulative damage due to repeated loads

CLAUSE 7 – LIFE SAVING AND CONSEQUENCE CATEGORIES!

30 10/11/10

Three Life Saving Categories - ranking of exposure and safety to personnel on platform

S1 – Manned, non evacuated

S2 – Manned, evacuated

S3 – Normally not manned

Three Consequence Categories – hazard potential to life, environment, economic loss

C1 – High consequences

C2 – Medium Consequences

C3 – Low Consequences

CLAUSE 7 – EXPOSURE LEVEL

31 10/11/10

ALS – Abnormal (Accidental) Limit State

Check to ensure structure and soil have reserve resistance to withstand “abnormal” events

Some structural damage allowed but no loss of life nor harm to the environment

For L1 structure – Check uses an ALIE (Abnormal Level Ice Event) with annual probability of exceedance not greater than 10-4

For L2 structure – Check uses an ALIE (Abnormal Level Ice Event) with annual probability of exceedance not greater than 10-3

For L3 structure – ALIE check not required

Life‐SafetyCategoryConsequencesCategory

C1HighConsequences

C2MediumConsequences

C3LowConsequences

S1–Mannednon‐evacuated

L1 L1 L1

S2‐Mannedevacuated L1 L2 L2S3‐Unmanned L1 L2 L3

ULS AND ALS ACTION FACTORS FOR L1 AND L2 STRUCTURES!

32 10/11/10

EnvironmentalAc9on

EL AL

Ul9mateLimitState

ExtremeEnvironmental L1–1.35L2–1.10

DamagedCondiFon 1.0

AbnormalLimitState

AbnormalEnvironmental 1.0

CLAUSE 7 – EXAMPLE OF COMPANION EL ACTIONS!

33 10/11/10

PrincipleAc9on(ELorAL)

CompanionELEnvironmentalAc9onsStochasFcallyDependent

StochasFcallyIndependent

MutuallyExclusive

Seaice Wind,wave‐drivencurrent,Fdalcurrent

Waves,swell(foriceconcentraFon>8/10)

SeaIce Wind,wave‐drivencurrent,Fdalcurrent

Waves,swell(foriceconcentraFon<8/10)

Environmental data to determine the actions should be joint probability (if available) i.e., wind in the presence of sea ice

CLAUSE 7 - PRINCIPLE AND COMPANION ACTION FACTORS!

34 10/11/10

Example for L1 Structure for EL action

Total EL Action = 1.35 * Ice Action + 0.9 * Stochastically dependent actions + 0.6* stochastically independent actions

PrincipleAc9on

FactorforRepresenta9veELCompanionEnvironmentalAc9onCompanionAc9onisStochas9callyDependentonthePrincipleAc9on

CompanionAc9onisStochas9callyIndependentonthePrincipleAc9on

ELAc9on 0.9 0.6

ALAc9on 0.5 0.4

35 September 2010

CLAUSE 8 – INTRODUCTION

  Clause written by multiple nationalities that brought in global experience.

  Most, if not, all experts in the field of ice load determination were asked to participate in the development of this clause. A large portion of these provided input.

  The resulting clause is the consensus of these experts.

  All available measured ice load data, including the multiyear ice events at the Molikpaq, were used to develop the empirical factors developed. Most recent data (Lolief and STRICE) were made available by the EU before confidentiality expired.

  Because of the international effort, existing codes/Recommended Practices will be withdrawn and replaced by 19906. National Annexes may be developed to cover areas not sufficiently detailed in 19906.

  EU will accept 19906 as part of their EuroCodes.

CLAUSE 8 – ACTIONS AND ACTION EFFECTS

36 10/11/10

Deterministic – Make best estimate of parameter extreme values and calculate design load values - ELIE

Probabilistic – Use parameter distributions in Monte Carlo simulations to determine design values – ELIE and ALIE

ICE ACTION DETERMINATION FLOW DIAGRAM

37 10/11/10

ICE ACTION DETERMINATION FLOW DIAGRAM – DETERMINISTIC APPROACH!

38 10/11/10

ICE ACTION DETERMINATION FLOW DIAGRAM – PROBABILISTIC APPROACH!

39 10/11/10

ICE ACTION DETERMINATION PROVIDED FOR EACH CELL !

40 10/11/10

FixedStructures Floa9ngStructures Ar9ficialIslands

IceScenarioVerFcal(narrowandwide)

Conical(narrowandwide)

MulF‐legged

ShipShaped

Spar/Buoy(bothverFcalandconical)

VerFcalSide

SlopedSide

FYLevelIce

RidgeandRubble

DiscreteFloes

MYLevelIce

RidgeandRubble

DiscreteFloes

Crushing with level ice - most common ice interaction

Vertical structure – easiest to build and transport

ICE ACTION - CRUSHING AGAINST A VERTICAL STRUCTURE!

41 10/11/10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Load

(M

N)

Ice Thickness (m)

Beaufort 100m

Barents 100m

Beaufort 50m

Barents 50m

ICE ACTION – EXAMPLE LOADS!

42 10/11/10

Total EL Action = 1.35 * Ice Action + 0.9 * Stochastically dependent actions + 0.6* stochastically independent actions

Total EL Action = 1.35 * 500 + 0.9 *(0.1 * 500)

720 MN

ICE ACTION – EXAMPLE DETERMINISTIC LOAD CALCULATION

43 10/11/10

Structure – Beaufort Sea, Vertical side GBS, 100 m wide

Ice – MYI Thickness = 4.5 m, Crushing failure

Load = ~ 500 MN (from previous plot)

Event Occurs in Winter = No wave load, current load (10% of ice load), no wind

Above is the left side of the equation, resistance (the right side) is determined by use of appropriate ISO Standard

CONCLUDING REMARKS - #1

44 September 2010

  ISO 19906, specifies requirements and provides guidance for the design, construction, transportation, installation, and decommissioning of offshore structures, related to the activities of the petroleum and natural gas industries, in arctic and cold regions environments.

  The document was written with the assistance of over 100 of the world’s leading experts in Arctic and structural design. It was estimated that over 1,000,000 man-hours went into the development of the first draft. Industry, through direct funding of certain contractors, travel contributions for academicians and research institute personnel and funding for the calibration and case studies, provided almost $1,000,000 to the writing of the Standard. Not included in this estimate are the manpower and travel costs associated with oil industry personnel for the document preparation.

  The document is the result of the analysis of the best available data as relates to ice actions on structures. The methodologies developed to calculate ice actions are considered to be the best available.

45 September 2010

CONCLUDING REMARKS - #2

  The objective of ISO 19906 is to ensure that arctic and sub-arctic offshore structures provide an appropriate level of reliability with respect to personal safety and environmental protection.

  ISO 19906 does not contain specific requirements for the operation, maintenance, service-life inspection, or repair of arctic offshore structures.

  While ISO 19906 does not apply specifically to Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (see ISO 19905), the procedures relating to ice actions contained herein may be applicable.

  While the document is now available for use, there are identified areas, such as ice actions on floaters, where additional work can be performed. WG8 will investigate these areas and if approaches with global consensus can be identified, work will be started for inclusion in the next version of the Standard.

AWARENESS INITIATIVE!

Arctic Technology Conference (ATC) – February 2011 (Houston)

7 papers (overview, Clause 7, Clause 8, Calibration, Calibration Load estimates, Case Studies, example use of the code)

POAC’11 – July 2011 (Montreal)

6 papers (ice crushing data, EER, Ice Engineering, Floaters, Annex B, Comparison with existing codes)

Plenary Session - Overview

RAO’11 – September 2011 (St. Petersburg, Russia)

Still being developed

46 10/11/10

Q & A

September 2010 47