operations and requirements fpso and shuttle tanker...

Operations and Requirements

FPSO and Shuttle Tanker Positioning

Chris Jenman

Global Maritime, Inc.

October 17-18, 2006

Return to Session Directory

MTS 2006 FPSO and Shuttle Tanker Positioning

Global Maritime - Chris Jenman Presentation

FPSO & Shuttle Tanker Positioning

[email protected]



FPSO and Shuttle Tanker

Separation about 70m



Background• Ref 1 QRA of shuttle tanker collisions

published 1998 (all types all areas)• HSE in the UK set a target for improvement• Contracted Global Maritime in 2001 and

2004 to independently assess improvement• FPSOs & DP tanker offtake increasing • What are the present risks?



Position from 1998 ReportOFFSHORE OFFTAKE TANKER OPERATIONS - NUMBERS OF COLLISIONS and OTHER

STATION KEEPING INCIDENTS BY YEAR 1979 - 1998

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

YEAR

NUMB

ER O

F OFF

TAKE

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

NUMBER OF INCIDENT

Number of offtakes

Other Station Keeping Incidents

Contact Incidents

Trend of Station Keeping Incidents 1979-1998



1998 Shuttle Tanker QRA Report

– Loss of Life– Collision– Major Near Miss– Minor Near Miss– Collision frequency per

DP hour 5.89x10 -5

1

14

63

78



Incident Types• Re-categorised (expanded) the four levels

– L1 -Loss of Position and Loss of Life or Major Pollution

– L2 - Loss of Position and Collision with Loading Point, ESD and Minor Pollution

– L3 -Loss of Position causing ESD, near miss or high Hawser Tension

– L4 -Station Keeping problem causing concern to operator

L1

L2

L3

L4



Incident Frequencies

– L1 - Loss of Position and Loss of Life or Major Pollution

– L2 - Loss of Position and Collision with Loading Point, ESD and Minor Pollution

– L3 - Loss of Position causing ESD, near miss or high Hawser Tension

– L4 - Station Keeping problem causing concern to operator

L1 3.92 x 10-6

L2 5.89 x 10-5

L3 4.94 x 10-4

L4 3.06 x 10-3



People, procedures, position references & propellers

The collision frequency of 5.89 x 10-5 per DP hour was far too high especially with an increasing number of tankers offtakes being performed.

The incident frequency was also too high; the expectation of the 1998 QRA study was 7 incidents per vessel per year.

The UK HSE had set a target to deliver a 25% improvement and wanted to prove it had been achieved.

Problems



1998 - 2001 Data

Distribution by level • 6 of 16 reported to HSE (37.5%)

• Total hours 41,638• Frequency of level 2

incidents 3.84 x10-4

• About once in every 108 loadings

0

16

40

24



Distribution of Type II Incidents 1998 to 2001

0

1

2

3

4

5

1998 1999 2000 2001Year

Num

ber o

f Inc

iden

ts

There was only one incident that resulted in collision



1998 - 2001

Distribution by level • To compare with the ‘98 work only collisions should be placed in Level 2

0

1

15

64

0

15+1

40

24



Comparison before and after1998

• To 1998

• Collision frequency 5.89x10-5

• 1998 - 2001

• Collision frequency 2.4x10 -5

1

14

63

78

0

1

15

64



Distribution of Type II Incidents 1998 to August 2004

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Num

ber

of In

cide

nts Type II

There were no level II incidents reported in 2004



Comparison before and after1998

• To 1998


• 1998 - 2004


1

14

63

78

0

1

18

84



19981999

20002001

20022003

2004

I

II

III

IV

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

Year

Type

Distribution of Incidents 1998 to August 2004

IIIIIIIV



Causes of Improvement• Close attention by Oil Companies backed

by good budgets and pushed by authorities.• Training and Auditing by owners and Oil

Companies.• Better procedures and DP CAP

(DP Competence Assurance Practice)

• Tanker Offtake simulator training.• Improvement in hardware and software.



Create a programme to secure practical DP experience to the Shuttle Tanker DPO’s.

- Shuttle tankers are operating as little as 5-10% of total operational time on DP.

DP Cap TM aim :

increase the DP practice time

make DP practice time more qualitative

DP CAP TM ; Scope of Work for the development programme

Taken from IMCA seminar 2004 Teekay presentation



Hardware & Software

105m

15°15°

30° 30°

SHUTDOWN

SHUTTLE TANKER / FPSO HEADING DIFFERENCE 50°ESD CLASS 2 SHUTDOWN SHUTTLE TANKER / FPSO HEADING

DIFFERENCE 15°HEADING DIFFERENCE ALARM



Typical DP Display showing short and long distance alarms



Remaining Problems (FPSO)• Heading control• Marine Personnel• Weather (limits & visibility)• Position References• Consistent Standard• Thruster reliability



Shuttle Tanker Approaching FPSO



Approach Continues Satisfactorily



FPSO Changes Heading and Approach is Lost



Remaining Problems (Shuttle Tanker)• Maintaining the improvement• DP Class 2 or Class 1 or 1.75?• Personnel Changes• DP Control System differences• DP experience• Position References• Consistent Standard• Thruster reliability

– control 4.35x10-5 - ME/DG 4.35x10-5 - Thruster fail 1.45x10-5

• Misalignment



Conclusions• There has been a marked improvement in

DP shuttle tanker safety• There are still some areas that need

attention• The biggest challenge is to maintain the

improvement• If there is a significant collision one of the

likely findings will be inconsistency

operations and requirements fpso and shuttle tanker...

Documents