133
Continued Service Workshop
Continued Service Workshop
Welcome
Greg Kusinski, Chevron DeepStar
Evan Zimmerman, OOC
Agenda7:00 – 8:00 Check-In / Breakfast
8:00 – 8:15 Opening, Welcome, Safety Brief (Chairs)
8:15 – 9:00 Introduction to the Overall API Framework (Jim Stear, Chevron; SathishBalasubramanian, ExxonMobil)
9:00 – 10:00 Operator Experiences: Case Studies and Interactive Discussion (Marc Wagner, Shell and Jose Abadin, Chevron)
10:00 – 10:15 Break
10:15 – 11:30 FSIM, MIM, RIM (Presentations and Questions) (Jack Kenney, Shell; Stephen Hodges, Shell; Dan Washington, AMOG Consulting)
11:30 – 12:30 LUNCH (Keynote Speaker: Mike Beattie, Anadarko)
12:30 – 1:15 Regulatory Perspective Panel (Paul Versowsky, BSEE; Russell Hoshman, BSEE; Capt. Josh Reynolds, USCG D8)
1:15 – 1:30 Implementation of Continued Service Plans (Robert Seah, Chevron; Craig Mullett, LLOG)
1:30 – 1:40 Break
1:40 – 3:30 Interactive Discussion (Evan Zimmerman, OOC; KT Ma, Chevron; Stephen Hodges, Shell; Jack Kenney, Shell)
3:30 – 4:00 Summary / Adjourn
Safety Briefing
• No drills planned today!
• Audible and Visual alarms will alert us
• Don’t panic, we have a plan:
• Follow the lighted “EXIT” signs to the stairwells
Anti-Trust Review
• The Sherman Act and the Clayton Act are federal statutes which make certain agreements in trade restraint illegal. Violators can be subject to criminal penalties and large monetary damages.
• The purpose of antitrust policies is to restrict communications concerning cost, production or other trade sensitive information which could be the foundation for such illegal agreements.
Anti-Trust Review
So we should always:
Avoid discussing cost, production, market analysis or other competitive trade sensitive data
Have an agenda reviewed by own legal counsel
Stick to the agenda
Report to our own counsel any concerns that we have of variation from the agenda
Keep minutes for a record of our discussions
DeepStar ® - Global Deepwater Technology Development Consortium - © 2016 Chevron
DeepStar ®
Global Offshore Technology Development Consortium
Greg Kusinski – DeepStar Director
8DeepStar ® - Global Deepwater Technology Development Consortium - © 2016 Chevron
DeepStar® mission and goals
Improve profitability, execution, capability, operability, flexibility,
reliability and safety of deepwater production systems
– Shorten the cycle form concept to technology/ solution deployment into major
capital projects and operations
– Assure lower Development Cost
– Enable and assure cost effective Continued Service of producing assets
– Assure correct technology availability at a correct business INTERCEPT time
Mission accomplished by:
• Providing a forum and process for discussion, guidance and feedback
• Examining capabilities of existing, but not used / deployed technologies
• Enhancing existing offshore technologies
• Investigating and framing the use of new technologies
• Stimulating market place to deliver improvement to meet near term needs
• Developing new enabling offshore technologies
• Gain acceptance of technologies by regulators and industry
near
longer
9DeepStar ® - Global Deepwater Technology Development Consortium - © 2016 Chevron
MIM – DeepStar® 11405 - Risk Based Mooring
Integrity Management
DeepStar ® - Global Deepwater Technology Development Consortium - © 2016 Chevron Corporation
This document contains Confidential, Proprietary Information. Right and obligations regarding this Information are under the DeepStar® Phase XII Agreement.
FSIM - DeepStar® - 12401Continuing Service
Guidance for Ageing Floating Infrastructure
DeepStar ® - Global Deepwater Technology Development Consortium - © 2016 Chevron
RIM - DeepStar® - 12401 Continuing Service
Guide for Steel Catenary Risers
12DeepStar ® - Global Deepwater Technology Development Consortium - © 2016 Chevron
DeepStar Acknowledgement
Collaborative Effort
Thank you to the dozens of SMEs from DeepStar
X400 Floating Systems Committee who initiated
and prepared industry draft documents
13DeepStar ® - Global Deepwater Technology Development Consortium - © 2016 Chevron
Phase XII Participants
Work funded by the 12 operators with technical
input from DeepStar Contributing members
Phase XII Contributors
*Highlighted in yellow: New Contributor Members
2H Offshore Inc. Exmar Offshore Company Quintus Technology
Advantek International Fluor Enterprises, Inc. Rice University
Aker Solutions Fugro Chance, Inc. Saipem
American Bureau of Shipping GE Oil & Gas (Vetco Gray) Sandvik Materials Technology
Amog Consulting, Inc. General Marine Contractors, LLC (GMC) SBM Offshore
Asian Star Anchor Chain Co., LTD (ASAC) Gibson Applied Technology & Engineering (GATE) Schlumberger
Assured Flow Solutions Granherne, Inc. Scoperta, Inc.
ATI Metals (TDY Industries) IntecSea, Inc. SOFTEC, Inc.
Baker Peterolite Corporation Liquid Robotics Oil & Gas LLC Sonomatic, Inc
Battelle Memorial Institute Lockheed Martin Corp. Southwest Research Institute
Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals, Inc. Magma Global Limited Stress Engineering Services
Blade Energy Marintek USA, Inc Structural Integrity Associates
Bluewater Energy Services Moog, Inc. Transocean Offshore Drilling Inc
Cameron International Nalco Champion Trendsetter Engineering, Inc
Colorado School of Mines New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology University of Houston
COTEC Inc. Oklahoma University Vicinay Marine innovation
DigSilent Oceaneering International VWS Westgarth
DNV-GL Oil States Industries Weatherford
Doris Engineering Parker Hannifin Corporation Wood Group Kenny
DeepStar ® - Global Deepwater Technology Development Consortium - © 2016 Chevron Corporation
This document contains Confidential, Proprietary Information. Right and obligations regarding this Information are under the DeepStar® Phase XII Agreement.
Contact Information
DeepStar Director
Greg Kusinski (713) 703 2891
DeepStar Project Manager
Joseph Gomes (713) 372 2860
API Standards for Integrity Management of
Floating Production Systems –An Introduction
James Stear – Chevron / API SC2 Chair
Overview
Background
API SIM Principles
FSIM Progress to Date
FEAT – Floater Evaluation and
Assessment Team
Review - Aging Floaters• Continued service becoming a critical
issue for GOM:
– 11 platforms have been in service 15+ years
– 16 more for 10+ years
– Some have components at or close to original design lives
• Need standardized process for evaluating continued service of floating systems
Preliminary API SC2 17
Previous Experience – 2SIM• We’ve seen this issue before –
fixed Gulf infrastructure
• RP 2A Section 17 outlined process in early 1990s
• RP 2SIM formalized it in 2014
– SIM process
– Continued service
– Performance levels
Preliminary API SC2 18
Structural integrity management (SIM):
“an ongoing process for ensuring the continuing fitness-for-purpose of an offshore structure or fleet of structures”.
DATA EVALUATION STRATEGY PROGRAM
Managed system
for the archival
and retrieval of
SIM data and
other pertinent
records
Evaluation of
structural integrity
and fitness for
purpose;
development of
remedial actions
Overall inspection
philosophy and
strategy and
criteria for in-
service inspection
Detailed work
scopes for
inspection
activities and
offshore execution
to obtain quality
data
API 2SIM - Process
8th June 2016 FEAT Workshop - API 2SIM 19
EnvironmentalConsequence
Life-SafetyConsequence
SIM Application
HighMediumLow
Manned/Non-evacuatedManned/EvacuatedUnmanned
Design-useChange-of-useReuse
Acceptance Criteria Design Code Vintage Region
SimilarityReference loadReserve Strength RatioProbability of FailurePrior Exposure
Before 1st Edition1st to 19th Edition20th and 21st Editions22nd Edition
U.S. Gulf of MexicoU.S. West CoastU.S. East Coast
Used Outside U.S.
Loading Assessment Method Loading Criteria
MetoceanSeismicIceFatigueAccidental
SimplifiedDesign Basis CheckDesign LevelUltimate StrengthAlternative
API RP 2A 22nd EditionAPI 2METAPI 2NAPI 2EQ
API 2SIM –Platform Assessment
8th June 2016 FEAT Workshop - API 2SIM 20
1. Scope
2. Normative References
3. Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms
4. SIM Process
5. Surveys
6. Damage Evaluation
7. Structural Assessment Process
API 2SIM - Organization
8th June 2016 FEAT Workshop - API 2SIM 21
8. Assessment for Metocean Loading
9. Assessment for Fatigue Loading
10. Assessment for Seismic Loading
11. Assessment for Ice Loading
12. Risk Reduction
13. Platform Decommissioning
Opportunity to adopt risk principles
Economic risk left to owner/operator
Life Safety
Category
Consequence Category
C-1, High Consequence
C-2, Medium Consequence
C-3, Low Consequence
S-1, manned/non-evacuated L-1 L-1 L-1
S-2, manned/evacuated L-1 L-2 L-2
S-3, unmanned L-1 L-2 L-3
In the Gulf of Mexico for sudden hurricanes and winter storms it is possible that the platform will be manned/non-evacuated during these design events.
API 2SIM – Risk Philosophy
8th June 2016 FEAT Workshop - API 2SIM 22
Inspection recommendations:
– Baseline underwater inspection
– Risk-based underwater inspection strategy/program
– Prescriptive (default) inspection strategy/program
– Special inspections
Level I, II, III and IV terminology used
API 2SIM – Inspections
8th June 2016 FEAT Workshop - API 2SIM 23
Assessment recommendations:
Assessment initiators
Acceptance criteria based on exposure category
Acceptance criteria based on the return period of the hazard
Methods with varying degrees of complexity
Damage/degradation evaluations
Risk mitigations
API 2SIM – Assessment
8th June 2016 FEAT Workshop - API 2SIM 24
GoM – Ultimate strength metocean criteria
Category
API 2A Design Edition / Return Period
19th and Earlier 20th or 21st 22nd and Later
L-1 300-yr FPH* 300-yr FPH* 1,000-yr FPH
S-2 2,500-yr SH 2,500-yr SH 500-yr FPH
C-2 25-yr FPH 300-yr FPH 500-yr FPH
L-3 10-yr FPH 100-yr FPH 100-yr FPH
Use higher of L-1 / S-2 criteria for 21st Edition and earlier
API 2SIM – Assessment Levels
8th June 2016 FEAT Workshop - API 2SIM 25
API 2SIM / 2GEN: Continued Service
• Design Life ≠ Service
Life
• Continued Service
• “Life Extension”
OTC-27257 • Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management of Floating Offshore Structures – A DeepStar 12401 Product • David Wisch
Time
Ra
te/D
eg
rada
tio
n
Design Life
Service Life
API 2SIM links:
– Data e.g., In-service inspection
– Evaluation e.g., FFP acceptance criteria
– Strategy e.g., Inspection planning
– Program e.g., Risk mitigation
DATA EVALUATION STRATEGY PROGRAM
API 2SIM – Floater IM Philosophy
8th June 2016 FEAT Workshop - API 2SIM 27
Floater IM Gaps Identified Q4 2015• No specific riser guidance• Need for consistency of
separate IM efforts with existing SIM process
• No integrated system-level performance criteria– Consistency with 2GEN
philosophy– Overlapping hull / mooring /
riser limit states– Fatigue limits – importance of
single event
• Alignment at overlap points– FSIM / MIM / RIM / SC17 / SC6
Preliminary API SC2 28
Mapping A-D to system-level targets for a floater…?
API SC2 Vision for Floater IM RPs:
• Aligned IM suite for floaters, delivering 2GEN-consistent system-level performance in continued service
• First editions in 2017
Preliminary API SC2 29
Floater IM - Progress• Where we’ve been…
– DeepStar example IM documents completed 2015-2016, shared to API
– API SC2 TGs formed for 2FSIM (2016), 2MIM (2015), 2RIM (2016), coordinated under FEAT – Floater Evaluation and Assessment Team
– Coordination workshop with TG members / regulatory agencies held June 8
• Where we’re going…– FEAT TGs continue to work issues / refine draft RPs– Info shares – sessions like today– First editions published in 2017
Preliminary API SC2 30
Acknowledgements / Closing• Hugh Westlake / BP
– 2SIM input
• DeepStar 12401 members (Anadarko, BG, BP, Chevron, Maersk, Woodside) and the Energo Project Team– The draft FSIM documents developed were a great kick-start for
the API SC2 efforts!
• API SC2 FEAT TGs– The energy shown in moving the new 2FSIM, 2MIM and 2RIM
RPs forward is greatly appreciated!
• BSEE / USCG– Comments / feedback have been extremely helpful for TGs!
Preliminary API SC2 31
Questions?
Integrity Management Standards Development for Floating Systems – An Overview
Sathish BalasubramanianExxonMobil Production Company
Integrity Mgmt. - Stakeholder Landscape
Owners/Operators • Own & operate the assets
• Accountable to the regulator, share-holders, JV partners for asset integrity
Regulators
• Accountable to government to safeguard people and the environment
• Set minimum requirements across the industry
• Seek industry expertise as input
• Have expertise and experience to design the asset and provide services to assure design intent & asset integrity targets are met.
• Can provide CVA and I3P review capacity for the Regulator
• See wide range of practices across operators
API - Administer the development and
promotion of the suite of industry standards
required to demonstrate fitness-for-service across
the portfolio of assets
API Floating Structures Standards (AFSS)a series of API and other standards for offshore structures in the GOM
API Recommended Practice 2FPS – is the principal document that addresses the
Planning, Designing, and Constructing of Floating Production Systems (2nd Ed., Oct 2011)
• Explicitly covers the following types of floating structures
• Monohulls (ship-shaped structures and barges)
• Semi-submersibles, Spars, TLPs
• Applicable to all possible-cycle stages of floating production systems, such as
• Design, construction and installation of new structures, including requirements
for inspection, integrity management , conversion for different use at different
locations and future removal
API 2 GEN is being developed to provide guidance to standards developers
• Establish a framework for implementation in standards that builds on a systems
perspective and offer a conscious approach to risk management over life of
assets
API RP 2SIM - Structural Integrity Management addresses
• Designer’s role in the initial specification and development of the SIM system;
• Expectations on the owner for effective implementation of SIM over life time of
the structure
• FEAT will deliver 3 new standards to expand this portfolio to specifically address
moorings, risers and floating systems and their interfaces with respect to integrity
management.
Topics Standards
Definition of design and analysis interfaces for platform structural design:Hull Design, structural design, load cases, safety categories, factors of safety.
API RP 2GENAPI RP 2FPSAPI RP 2T;
API RP 2A-WSDAISC 360-05; API Bull 2U, 2V
Moorings API RP 2SK
Risers API RP 2RD
Metocean Considerations API RP 2A-WSD;API Bull 2INT-MET
Platform Integrity API RP2SIM
Riser Integrity API RP 2RIM
Mooring Systems Integrity API RP 2MIM
Floating Systems Integrity API RP 2FSIM
Interfaces
2FSIM
2RIM
2SIM
2MIM
2GEN
A systems level view of IM is critical to ensuring that we address critical interfaces between various specialized disciplines
2FPS; 2T…
FEAT Overview
Objectives
• Deliver a coordinated set of IM standards by 2Q17 that references a common integrity management frame work
that recognizes and addresses interfaces between floater hull, mooring and riser
• Recognize intent is to deliver an “assessment” (fitness-for-service) document and not a design document
• identify issues that need to be returned to the design document for updates
How, Why & What
• Phase 1: Leverage the Deepstar reports and progress aggressively to develop a Phase 1 set of RPs for 2017
publication.
• Focus on getting the philosophy and common reference frame work codified and capture the highest priority
IM needs.
• Ensure that the FS interfaces are covered; links to 2SIM in terms of performance targets are made keeping in
mind the differences between floaters and fixed structures
• Phase 2 will begin immediately on conclusion of Phase 1 and will continue to address aspects that require further
study and or alignment for implementation
Life Extension:An Operator’s Perspective
Marc Wagner, P.E.
Shell Exploration & Production Company
Overview
• Introduction
• Drivers & Timing for LE Studies
• Overview of Shell’s LE Program
• Findings and Next Steps
Marc Wagner, P.E.
• Shell Exploration & Production Company –New Orleans, LA (2011 – Present)
• Deepwater GoM Life Extension Program Coordinator
• Registered Professional Engineer in Louisiana
• University of Michigan Graduate– M.S.E. Civil Eng (‘11)
– B.S.E. Civil Eng & Construction Mgmt (‘10)
Why Should an Operator Perform a Life Extension (LE) Study?
Start
Finish
19,000 miles
Now Future
End
of
Des
ign
Lif
e
20
20
20
25
20
30
20
35
20
40
+
Drivers & Timing for LE Studies
• Best “problem” to solve; resources beyond End of Design Life (EoDL)
• Essential input to field development decisions made today
• Economic enabler for future subsea tie-backs and near field exploration compared to new-build
Drivers & Timing for LE Studies• Emerging regulatory requirements and industry
standards
• Develop a long-term maintenance and project execution strategy around life extension
• Proving technical feasibility and economic viability of life extension is the responsible approach to resource booking beyond EoDL
• 7-10+ years prior to EoDL is not too early!
How is Shell Addressing Life Extension?
Overview of Shell’s LE Program
• Multi-discipline approach evaluating all safety and production critical equipment and systems– Review of maintenance & inspection records,
design documents, facility reviews, brownfield project documents, future facility plans, etc.
– Offshore site evaluation
– Strength & fatigue analyses for hull, deck, risers, tendons / mooring system, global motions / stability, all using historic site-specific and post-Katrina metocean data
Multi-Discipline Approach• Alignment with USCG D8 Policy Letter 01-2016
• Complete understanding of LE scope and costs
• Maintain safe operations across entire facility
Civil / Structural &
Marine
Materials Corrosion Inspection
Electrical
Process Automation, Controls &
Optimization
Subsea & Pipelines
Rotating Equipment
Static Mechanical
Technical Safety
Shell LE Studies
• Detailed studies performed to date include:
– Perdido Spar (Installed 2009)
– Ursa TLP (Installed 1999)
– Mars TLP beginning 2016 (Installed 1996)
– Additional studies planned
• 5, 10, 15, 20+ year extension cases considered
What Were the Outcomes from Work Performed to Date?
General Learnings
• No technical “showstoppers”
• Overall Life Extension project economics are very competitive
• Significant investment comes as early as 5 years prior to EoDL
• Changes in maintenance or project strategies can begin as early as 10 years prior to EoDL
Civil / Structural & Marine Learnings
• Tendon fatigue of steel components well understood, longevity of elastomeric flex elements more uncertain
• Mooring system replacement can be expected
• Replacement of SCRs / TTRs due to fatigue is extremely costly (consider production deferment + cost), though early mitigations (e.g. cleaning, VIV suppression) may prevent replacement in some cases
• Internal tank corrosion and CP system depletion are primary threats to hull
• Enhanced inspection of hull / deck is required (ISIP)
Other Discipline Learnings• Strong commitment to painting program is
essential
• Control systems / electronics / field device obsolescence a common theme
• Subsea CP system depletion is a threat
• Umbilical failures are a threat
• Crane replacement can be expected
• Lifeboat / FRC replacement can be expected
Parting Thoughts
• Understanding the technical and financial implications of life extension is a necessity when approaching EoDL
• 7-10 years prior to EoDL is not too early to begin thinking about Life Extension
• A multi-discipline approach is the only way to gain a true understanding of scope and cost
• Above all, the safe continued operation of a facility must reside at the core of any life extension decision!
Questions?
Genesis SparContinued Service Assessment & Plan
March 2014 – PresentJose Abadin – Chevron, GOMBU
Daniel Madden – Chevron, GOMBUDan Gallagher – Energo Engineering
SummaryGenesis Hull and Mooring will reach 20-year design life in 2018
Genesis Asset Development strategy indicates production profiles estimated 2024 as potential end of field life
Process based on 2SIM to evaluate Genesis from a Hull, Moorings, Marine Systems, Risers and Topsides Structural for safe operations through 2028
Focus on demonstrating “Robust Asset Integrity Program”
No High Safety or Environmental risks identified
Deliverable a Continued Service Plan and revised ISIP to 2028 containing all existing activities including additional activities to address / mitigate each, safety, environmental, and financial risk identified in assessment
Project Background
Situation
• Genesis Asset Development Plan
– End of Field estimated 2024
• Genesis Facility Design/Service Life –
20 years
– Installation Date: August 1998
– Approved ISIP Cycle: August 2018
Project BackgroundOpportunity
• Demonstrate Genesis Facility
robustness for “Continued Service”
beyond Facility Design Basis of 20
Years
– A properly designed, engineered,
installed, inspected, and
maintained facility can operate
beyond its original design life
– All required periodic inspections to
date have been performed, found
anomalies have been addressed
and resolved, hindcast analyses on
exposure to severe events have
…been performed when needed to assess critical fatigue issues and revise inspection plans, as necessary Chevron has assessed risks based on design, condition, operating and analyses to demonstrate asset is capable of service beyond its original service life
Historical Inspection and Performance
In-Service Inspection Plan
• USCG Approved
– Continuous Internal Inspections
– External UWILD Inspections
Genesis Performance
• Prior Storm Exposures
– No significant damage observed
• 2000 – 2003 Activities
– Riser Guide Repairs
– Mooring Integrity Project
• VIM Mitigation – SLT
• Mooring components restored to near original capacity – strength, wear, fatigue
0.17
0.4
0.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
original design
basis
field observation
2001
updated design
basis
A/D
Historical Inspection and Performance• 2005 – 2009 Activities
– Production Riser Repairs:
• A1 – Air Can Centralizer
• A6 – Air Can Bolts
– Export Riser Fatigue Inspection Assessment
– Mooring Shackle Integrity Project
• Shackle material with low impact toughness
• 2010 - 2012
– Riser Repairs
• Riser Twist
– Riser Integrity Management Plan
• Defines the Genesis Riser System, History, and Inspection Requirements
Continued Service Methodology Determine if Genesis marine and structural
systems can safely and economically remain
in service for 10 years beyond design
service life.
Data Review
Design
Condition
Operations
Evaluate Marine and Structural Systems
Hull, Marine Systems, Mooring, Risers,
and Topsides Structure
Identify Longevity Drivers
Investigate Mitigation Options
Scope of Activities, Risk Reduction,
and Costs
Develop Strategies
Continued Service Plan to 2028
Extended ISIP Inspection Cycle
Condition Data
Develop
Continued
Service Plan
and ISIP
Data
Collection
and Review
Operating DataDesign Data
Workshop Preparation
Data Gathering Workshop
Chevron and Partners
Subject Matter Experts
(SMEs)
Energo/Granherne
Facilitation and Subject
Matter Experts (SMEs)
Workshop Summary and
Longevity Driver Identification
Reporting and
Document
Development
Revised ISIPFinancial AddendumContinued Service Plan
Data Refinement, Risk Ranking,
and Engineering Assessment
Continued Chevron
Input via Teleconference
Preliminary Strategy
Development
Meeting with Chevron
to review plan and
obtain buy-in
To USCGChevron OnlyTo USCG/BSEE
Simplified CVX/Energo Assessment Process
Data Gathering Workshop• Workshop held at Chevron on
June 18, 2014
• SMEs from Energo, Granherne, Chevron, and ExxonMobil were present
• Asset was broken down into systems
o Hull and marine systems
o Mooring system
o Risers
o Topsides structure
• Each system was further broken down into subsystems for ease of discussion
Workshop Evaluation Process
Evaluate each system at the component level:
Confirm original design function
Identify any features or design attributes which contribute to design margins
Condition and Operations columns intended to characterize component condition and identify any operational deviations that would affect the design life
Summarize key life drivers (e.g. fatigue life, coating deterioration, etc.)
Document input from SMEs and recommendations from workshop
64
Strategy Table Summary Example
• Conducted condition review of structural and marine systems identifying longevity drivers.
• Longevity driver risks determined along with any required mitigation.
• No high safety or environmental risks identified
– Good baseline data available on design, condition and operations
– Spar overall good condition
– Prior anomalous conditions have been thoroughly analyzed and addressed
– Spar design has many inherently safe features (e.g., stability characteristics)
• Mitigation identified to maintain low risk future service
– Revisions to ISIP
– Capability to identify and address anomalous conditions in-situ
Note: Table Risk scale based on the Chevron risk matrix (1 = highest risk and 10 = lowest risk).
Assessment Results
Continued Service Plan & Revised ISIP
• Assessment results are captured in the Continued Service Plan to 2028 Report
The Continued Service Plan to 2028 presents the study objectives, a platform condition overview, current operations and integrity management activity summary, the assessment process, workshop documentation, conclusions, and key electronic reference documents
Defines strategies for the identified longevity drivers and summarizes into a comprehensive Continued Service Plan
Enhanced inspections, additional required assessments, and also considers potential future in-situ repairs and renewals to achieve 2028 target
• Required Inspection Activities are captured in the Revised In-Service Inspection Plan
All activities from original ISIP (hull and mooring) plus the increased scope and frequency items required for continued service
A revision summary is provided to clearly show the additions
References the Continued Service Plan to 2028
Key Takeaways - ExperienceMilestone Date Activity
March 2014 Project Commencement
Early June 2014 Regulatory Alignment Meeting
Mid June 2014 Data Gathering Workshop
December 2014 Continued Service Plan & Revised ISIP Completed
February 2015 Joint BSEE & USCG Presentation
March 2015 BSEE Requests CVA Review
September 2015 CVA Review Completed
December 2015 Revised CSP & ISIP to 2028 Submitted
January 2016 USCG Issued Policy Letter
April 2016 USCG Approval of ISIP to 2028
July 2016 BSEE Acceptance Approval in Review
Lesson Learned
Start Early
Networking with Regulatory
Good Documentation History
Single Ownership
Address Financial Impact to BU
USCG Policy Letter Leveraged OOC & DeepStar Input
BSEE Leveraging API SC2 Task Group
USCG Requirement for Alignment with BSEE for Final Plan Acceptance/Approval
Questions?
BREAK
API 2FSIM TASK GROUPPresented By: J. J. (Jack) Kenney, P.E.
Shell International E & PSenior Principal Offshore Engineer
API 2FSIM – Task Group Terms of Reference
• The 2FSIM Task Group is developing a Recommended Practice API RP 2FSIM for Floating Systems Integrity Management. It is intended that this RP will provide a clear and consistent framework for demonstrating Floating System integrity in a practical and transparent manner.
• The Recommended Practice will be consistent with other related API standards being developed simultaneously, namely API RP 2MIM for Mooring Integrity and API RP 2RIM for Riser Integrity.
• The Recommended Practice will be consistent with existing US regulatory requirements and early input from Regulatory personnel is currently being provided
• The product will be developed for worldwide application to the extent that it does not extend the publishing date. It is acknowledged that the there is a pressing need for this document in the US and that will be our primary focus.
API 2FSIM – Task Group Terms of Reference• The Task Group will use the framework set forth in API RP 2SIM, Structural Integrity
Management of Fixed Offshore Structures, which was published in November 2014. Consistency, particularly in terms of definitions, process, and level of detail will be achieved to the extent that it is practical
• The Task Group will adopt those portions of the DEEPSTAR Report, “Continuing Service Guidance for Aging Floating Infrastructure”, that make sound engineering sense and are properly vetted by the Task Group
• The Task Group will take advantage of learnings from Continuing Service Process, Applications & Regulatory approvals for several of the GOM Floating Systems (e.g. Genesis Spar and Joliet TLP) that have already passed regulatory review
• The 2FSIM Task Group will coordinate with 2RIM and 2MIM through the FEAT team
• API RP 2 FSIM will be ready for ballot by Q2 2017
2 FSIM Task Group – What’s In and What’s Out
• 2FSIM will be developed for the Floating System. To this extent it will include all Floating System components except for risers, conventional mooring system components, subsea umbilicals and subsea structures.
INCLUDED:• All FPS forms: hull structure, hull mechanical systems, deck
structure, all structural appurtenances (e.g. riser baskets, umbilical pull tubes)
• For Tension Leg Platforms (TLP’s): tendon porches, tendons, tendon foundations
• For Spars and Semisubmersibles: fairleaders, hawse pipes, chain jack foundation porches
• For FPSO’s: turret
2 FSIM Boundaries – What’s In and What’s Out
EXCLUDED
• Risers
• Conventional Moorings
• Umbilicals
• Process Equipment
2 FSIM Task Group – What we will do?
Will • We will create a standard that is practical to apply • We will engage across the stakeholders• We will leverage the experience of operators and
engineering companies across our industry • We will have a completed draft in Q2 2017
Will Not• We will not create an overly complex standard that does
not add value to the stakeholders• We will not re-invent the wheel• We will not be overly prescriptive
2 FSIM Task Group – Current Status?
Floating Systems Integrity Management
API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2FSIMDraft No. 1- July 27, 2016
API RP 2FSIM Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 8
1 Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 9
2 Normative References......................................................................................................................... 10
3 Terms, Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations .............................................................................. 10
3.1 3.1 Terms .................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 16
4 Floating systems integrity Management Overview ............................................................................. 18
4.1 General ........................................................................................................................................ 18
4.2 Risk.............................................................................................................................................. 19
4.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 19
4.3.1 References to Existing Recommend Practices ................................................................... 19
4.3.2 Economic Risk ..................................................................................................................... 19
5 Floating System Integrity Management Program Development ......................................................... 20
5.1 General ........................................................................................................................................ 20
5.2 Data ............................................................................................................................................. 21
5.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 22
5.2.2 Design Data ......................................................................................................................... 22
5.2.3 Condition Data ..................................................................................................................... 23
5.2.4 Pre-commissioning Operating Data .................................................................................... 23
5.2.5 Data Management ............................................................................................................... 24
5.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 24
5.4 Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 24
5.4.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 24
5.4.2 Scope .................................................................................................................................. 25
5.4.3 Interfaces ............................................................................................................................. 25
5.4.4 Competency ........................................................................................................................ 26
5.4.5 Inspection Plan(s) ................................................................................................................ 26
5.4.6 Minimum Requirements for Hull Structures ........................................................................ 29
5.4.7 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................................... 32
5.4.8 Maintenance Program ......................................................................................................... 33
5.4.9 Sparing Plan ........................................................................................................................ 33
5.5 Program ....................................................................................................................................... 33
5.6 SIM Program Implementation ..................................................................................................... 34
5.6.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 34
5.6.2 Data ..................................................................................................................................... 34
5.6.3 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 35
5.6.4 Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 39
6 Implementation .................................................................................................................................... 49
2FSIM Task Group Roster (August 18, 2016)
Name Company Email Address
1. Jack Kenney Shell [email protected]
2. Travis Welt Shell [email protected]
3. Christina Wang ABS [email protected]
4. Flora Yiu Anadarko [email protected]
5. Indra Datta Consultant [email protected]
6. Dave Petruska BP [email protected]
7. Wei Ma Chevron [email protected]
8. Brian Cheater GustoMSC [email protected]
9. Doug Angevine ExxonMobil [email protected]
10. Jack Zeng Kvaerner [email protected]
11. Steve Leverette SBM Offshore [email protected]
12. Ali Sari Genesis [email protected]
13. Robert Spong Energo [email protected]
14. Dan Gallagher Energo [email protected]
15. Matt Irick iSIMS-PD [email protected]
16. Amal Phadke ConocoPhilips [email protected]
17. Jose Abadin Chevron [email protected]
18. Andrea Mangiavacchi Experia [email protected]
19. Peter Wallace Shell [email protected]
20. Astrid Barros Woodside [email protected]
21. David Renzi Stress Engineering [email protected]
22. Travis Cummins Wood Group Kenny [email protected]
23. Sharif Huq Consultant [email protected]
24. Sam Fang Wood Group Kenny [email protected]
25. Shewen Liu ABS [email protected]
26. Robert Sheppard Energo [email protected]
27. Bob Wolfram - Advisor Consultant [email protected]
28. Peter Hosch – Advisor Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) [email protected]
29. Tracy Phillips – Advisor United States Coast Guard (USCG) –MSC [email protected]
30. Jenny Yan Lu - Advisor DNV [email protected]>
API RP 2FSIM Task Group Assignments(updated August 18, 2016)
Clause No. Clause Title Sub Task Group Leader Sub Task Group Members
1, 2 & 3Scope; Normative References; Terms, Definitions, Acronyms & Abbreviations I. Datta A. Mangivacci
4 Structural Integrity Management Overview D. Angevine W. Ma, J. Abadin, R. Sheppard
5 Structural Integrity Management Process J. Abadin T. Cummins, D Galleger, D. Angevine, W. Ma
6 Surveys T. Cummins J. Abadin, B. Cheater, R. Sheppard
7 Damage Evaluation D. Gallagher D.Petruska, S. Fang, A. Barros, D. Angevine
8 System Assessment Process D.Petruska D. Renzi, S. Huq, D. Gallager, P. Wallace
8a Stability and Marine Systems Assessment Process D. Petruska A. Barros, W. Ma, J. Zeng, P. Wallace, B. Cheater
9 Assessment for Metocean Loading Wei Ma D. Petruska, D. Renzi, S. Fang, F. Yiu
10 Assessment for Fatigue Loading D. Renzi S. Huq, Energo (tba), S. Valluri, A. Sari
11 Assessment For Seismic Loading R. Sheppard I. Data, A. Sari
12 Assessment for Ice Loading Shewen Liu I. Data, R. Sheppard
13 Risk Reduction P. Wallace D. Petruska, T. Cummins, A. Barros
14 Platform Decommissioning D. Petruska J. Abadin, S. Fang, F Yiu,
Annex A Commentary on Structural Integrity Management J. Abadin T. Cummins, D Galleger, D. Angevine, W. Ma
Annex B TLP Tendons and Foundations S. Leverette TBA
Document Consolidation and Consistency M. Irick TBA
Questions?
API RP 2RIMRiser Integrity Management
Stephen Hodges, Shell
SCOPE• All dynamic risers connected to permanent floating platforms (rigid,
flexible, hybrid, TTR, drilling, etc)
• Umbilicals with hydrocarbons (i.e. gas lift)
• All riser components relevant to integrity of the riser, e.g. – Tensioners
– Top connections – flexible joints, stress joints, flexing pull-tubes, etc
– Corrosion protection
– Buoyancy
– VIV suppression
– Etc …
Does NOT address MODU drilling risers
SCOPE
Key Interfaces• Riser support structure• Pull tubes• Turret• Hull piping• Isolation valves• Subsea flow lines• Wellheads
• SC 17 Flexibles, Umbilicals• SC 6 Wellheads
What’s in it? OVERVIEW & PROCESS1. Scope2. Normative references3. Terms, definitions, acronyms and
abbreviations4. Riser Integrity Management
Overview5. Riser Integrity Management
Process
IN-SERVICE EVALUATION6. Inspection & Monitoring7. Damage Evaluation
ASSESSMENT8. Assessment Process
LOADINGS9. Met-ocean10. Strength11. Fatigue
12. Risk Reduction13. De-commissioning
Who is working on
it?
Regulators
• BSEE
Operators
• Anadarko
• BP
• Chevron
• ConocoPhillips
• ExxonMobil
• Shell
• Statoil
• 2H Offshore
• ABS
• Aker Solutions
• Clarus
• DNV/GL
• Energo
• Genesis
• IntecSea
• The Jukes Group
• RiserTec
• Stress Engineering
• Wood Group Kenny
2RIM Roadmap
ESTABLISH FRAMEWORK
IDENTIFY ISSUES
WORK PHASE 1 ISSUES AND
WRITE SECTIONS
INTEGRATE INTO A
STANDARD
Ballot Q2,
2017
Phase 1 or
Phase 2?
WORK PHASE 2 ISSUES
March – May 2016 June – Oct 2016 Oct – Dec 2016
REVIEW, EDIT, FEAT COORD.
Jan – Mar 2017
2017 – 2018 (TBC)
Questions?
Update on API-RP-2MIM
Dan Washington – AMOG Consulting
Overview
• Progress to Date
• Development Approach
• Intended Scope
• Interface Management
• Current Contents
• Philosophy & Approach to IM
• Intended Practical Guidance for Inclusion
91
Progress to Date
• Working committee well attended -
25+ attendees
• Leads for completion of document
appointed:
– Bob Gordon – DNV/GL
– Cesar Del Vecchio – Stress Engineering
– Bryan Horton – Arup
– John Ding – Exxon Mobil
– David Petruska BP.
• Steering Committee including:
– KT Ma
– Hongbo Shu
• 2 Drafts produced and reviewed.
Work underway on Revision C
Development Approach• Utilise prior work from DeepStar® Project 11405 – Completed 2013
– Objective
• DeepStar® Project 11405 set out to develop a state-of-the-art Mooring Integrity Management Guideline, e.g. a model API-RP-2MIM
– Methodology
• State of the Art Review (Integrity Management Guidelines)
• DeepStar® participant survey of mooring failures and replacements
• Mooring Integrity Management guideline development
• Workshops and reviews
• Application of draft Guidelines to Case Studies
– New design
– Existing facility
• Independent Review by 3rd Party (DNV)
• Integrate with 2SIM, 2FSIM, 2RIM
93
Intended Scope• Intended for Permanent Mooring Systems (FPSO, FSO, FPU,
CALM, etc.)
• New and Existing Moorings.
• Load Bearing Components of Mooring; Anchor to Primary Steelwork.
• Requisite Systems to extent required to manage Mooring Integrity:
– Turret Bearings,
– Fairleads,
– Chain Stoppers,
– Thrusters (for Thruster Assisted Moorings only),
– Mooring risk control measures.
• Not intended for:
– Drilling Moorings.
– DP Moored Vessels without a physical mooring hardware connection to the sea floor.
– TLP Tendons.
94
Dip-Down Point
Distance
Dip-Down
Point
Pad-Eye
Embedded
Ground Chain
Length
Working Fairlead
Chain Length
Fairlead
Wire Rope
SWL
Seabed
Interfaces
A systems level view of IM is critical to ensuring that we address critical interfaces between various specialized disciplines
Interface Management• Need to interface MIM
System with:
– 2FSIM.
– 2RIM.
– Organizational Management Systems.
• To do this through specification and management of performance requirements.
96
Current ComparisonTable of Contents - 2MIM to 2SIM
97
2SIM Section Content 2 MIM Section Content1 Introduction 1 Introduction2 References 2 References3 Terms, Definitions, Acronyms &
Abbreviations3 Terms, Definitions, Acronyms &
Abbreviations4 SIM Overview 4 Mooring Integrity Management
Background & Overview5 SIM Process 5 MIM Process6 Surveys 6 Inspection and Monitoring
7 Damage Evaluation 7 Mooring Assessment
8 Structural Assessment Process 7 Mooring Assessment
9 Assessment for Metocean Loading 2SIM addresses issues from the change in design basis from prior codes.
Not planned for 2MIM.Mooring assessment covered by 2SK.
10 Assessment for Fatigue Loading
11 Assessment for Seismic Loading12 Assessment for Ice Loading13 Risk Reduction Covered in Section 5 and Appendix A.14 Platform Decommissioning Covered in Section 4.
Philosophy & Approach to IM
• AP-RP-2MIM is intended to be risk based. Reference will be made to standards such as API-RP-2I to cover default inspection approaches as necessary.
• Risk based approaches provide more flexibility than prescriptive approaches, in particular when dealing with emerging or novel technologies or contexts.
• Risk based approaches, when implemented properly, typically result in a more optimized outcome than prescriptive approaches.
• The objective of a MIM Program is to manage the risk of a loss of position event to within acceptable bounds.
98
Philosophy & Approach to IM
99
Philosophy & Approach to IM
• The underlying risk management approach involves:
– The identification of causes of failure.
– The assessment of the risk associated with one or more causes of failure.
– The development of risk mitigation measures.
– The verification that the intended risk mitigation measures have been successfully implemented and the management of cases where this has not occurred (deviations).
– The capture and recording of suitable records to facilitate ongoing management and future reassessment.
100
MIM Process
• Underlying process as per API-RP-2SIM.
• Extended guidance on how to “get into IM Loop”:
– Design, Fabrication and Installation Phase Guidance.
Practical Guidance• Detailed list of Material and Configuration Based Vulnerabilities including
potential failure causes, component vulnerability, key influence parameters and means by which failure is revealed.
• Detailed list of event-based causes of failure and associated control mechanisms.
• Detailed list of Indications of Degradation Causes.
• Key component types covered – Chain, Wire Rope, Fiber Rope and Connecting Elements.
• Typical observed anomalies from in-service inspection.
• Causal type – event or rate based.
• Potential child processes that can be initiated by the initial causal mechanism.
• Qualitative ranking of degradation rate.
102
Practical Guidance
103
Mooring'Integrity'Management'Guidelines 'B'6
AC7028v20110608
Practical Guidance
104
Component Loca+ons Observed2Anomaly Causal2Type Possible2Causal2Degrada+onMechanisms
Child2Processes Known2Occurrences Qualita+vePoten+al
Degrada+onRate
Practical Guidance• Guidance on Incident Response covering a range of areas:
– Response Readiness.
– Response Type – Operational/Short-term/Medium-term/Long-term.
– Operation Risk Assessment.
– Metocean Condition considerations.
– Determination of Operating Limits.
– Determination of Inspection Thresholds.
– Monitoring and Detection Requirements.
– System Disconnection Considerations.
– Adverse Weather Operating Procedures for Degraded Systems.
– System Condition Verification Requirements.
– Mooring System Repair Considerations including Sparing.
105
Questions?
106
LUNCH
107
Regulatory Perspective
Paul Versowsky, BSEE
Russell Hoshman, BSEE
Capt. Josh Reynolds, USCG
D8 OCS OCMIInterim Guidance on Continued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
Unclassified9/6/2016 109
“Ageing is not about how old your equipment is; it is about its condition, and how that is changing over time. Ageing is the effect where a component suffers some form of material deterioration and damage (usually, but not necessarily, associated with time in service) with an increasing likelihood of failure over the lifetime.”
- UK HSE Research Report 509
Continued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
AGENCY ROLES
• Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) OCS-04Floating OCS Facilities
Continued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
EXISTING GUIDANCE & REFERENCES
• American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice
• Class Society Rules, Statutory Interpretations & Guidance Notes
• Coast Guard Interim Guidance 19 January 2016
Continued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
Policy for Certificate of Inspection RenewalContinued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
Floating OCS Facility CG1234 XYZPDQ
Louisiana
20 year design life
2018
PROPOSED STRATEGY FOR CONTINUED SERVICE
1) Initial concept meeting
2) Detailed proposal (Data, Surveys, Risk Assess & Eng Analysis)
3) BSEE/USCG acceptance
4) Plan execution (Stage 1 – Data & Surveys)
5) BSEE/USCG consultation
6) Plan execution (Stage 2 – Risk Assess & Eng Analysis)
7) Correction/Mitigation
8) Final submission & authorization
Continued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
BASELINE SURVEY
• Critical Systems• OEM Fitness for Service
Documentation (or other third party if not available)
• Operational Manual Updates
• 5 year Re-evaluation Plan
Continued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
• Assessment• Critical areas• Fatigue
• Analysis• Existing vs. As-built• Fatigue life• Environmental criteria
“The integrity of structural elements and systems should be evaluated by using a rational, defensible engineering approach.” - NORSOK Standard N-004
Continued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
CONCLUSION
Early engagement & close coordination!
D8 OCS OCMIInterim Guidance on Continued Service for Floating OCS Facilities
Unclassified9/6/2016 118
Implementation of Continued Service Plans
Robert Seah, Chevron
Craig Mullett, LLOG
Short and Long Term Targets, Difficulties and Uncertainties
Data Collection
• Baseline Surveys
– Location Selection
– Validation of Data
– Interpretation of Data
– Additional requirements
• ISIP
Data Archiving/Document Control
• Searchable and Concise Format
– Useful
– Repeatability
– Comparability
Uncertainties of Continuing Service
• Analyses are only as good as the input data. (Assuming good methodology)
Uncertainties of Continuing Service
• Inspectability poses significant barrier to Continuing Service.
– Inspections takes care of ‘what you don’t know’.
– Removal of marine growth is time consuming and may obscure in-situ inspection.
– Acceptable (riser) defects during fabrication may no longer be acceptable due to defect growth.
Session Objectives
• To establish consensus focus for the industry to advance the technology and science supporting deepwater facility continued service
• Via interactive discussion between operators, regulators and vendors.
• Hopefully result in definite topics of development to reduce the uncertainty of CS.
Interactive Discussion Kick-Off
Evan Zimmerman, OOC
Interactive Discussion
Topical Group
Discussion
Gap, Technology, or Highlight
Flag
Flags
Topical Interactive Session
• Floaters
– Discussion Leader: Jack Kenney, Shell
• Risers
– Discussion Leader: Stephen Hodges, Shell
• Moorings
– Discussion Leader: KT Ma, Chevron
60 minutes remaining
30 minutes remaining
5 minutes remaining
Summary and Action Items
Greg Kusinski, Chevron
Adjourn
