Assessing SURF Technologies for Deepwater Oil

and Gas Exploration

Gonçalo Pedro Martins Rego

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Mechanical Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Manuel Frederico Tojal de Valsassina Heitor

Examination Committee

Chairperson: Prof. Mário Manuel Gonçalves da Costa

Supervisor: Prof. Manuel Frederico Tojal de Valsassina Heitor

Member of the Committee: Eng. Artur Costa

November 2015
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank specially to Professor Manuel Valsassina Heitor for his guidance
and availability all through this work, for opening my in mind to such different areas of interest
and for the opportunity to work with him.

To my parents and my brother, eternal gratefulness for their unconditional support,

patience and help throughout every step of my life, and for turning me into what I am today.

To all the interviewed experts I want to express my gratitude for their availability and
good will to help me, and most of all, their valuable contributes to this thesis.

I want to leave a word of gratitude to LusoTechnip, in the person of Cristiano Silva, for
the opportunity of working there, for sharing his immense knowledge and ceaseless support to
my work. To all the others at LusoTechnip, thank you for welcoming me during my stay, and a
special thanks to Fernando Costa for the patience and for helping me in such technical issues.

I would like to thank my colleagues at IN+ with whom I spent a great deal of time
debating essential topics to this work.

Finally, to my close friends, who accompanied me throughout this work and the 5 years
at IST sharing good moments and enduring difficult ones, I will always be grateful for the
neverending friendship and support.

iii
iv
ABSTRACT

Subsea umbillicals, risers and flowlines (SURF) technologies are an essential element
of any deepwater oil and gas exploration, with countless associated challenges but immense
potential. This work intended to explore the available solutions existent nowadays in terms of
riser systems, as well as possible future technological developments in the area. Combining
specific technical analyses with an overview of the whole oil and gas industry was the key to
reach this thesis’ objectives.

This thesis was based on IRGC’s risk analysis framework, which contemplates
interviews with experts and extensive literature review, and a comparative case-study analysis.
The dynamic analysis and comparison of two flexible riser configurations, namely Free Hanging
and Lazy Wave, gives an insight on the system’s limitations and the path to follow towards
innovation in SURF engineering.

From the results and investigation throughout this work, the most unanimous solution
found for the future of riser systems consists of changing part of the structure’s material to
composites. Moreover, it is believed that the key to SURF technologies’ development is the
systemic integration of structural modelling with hydrodynamic and heat transfer analysis within
engineering education, since this collaboration is crucial to the systems’ global analysis.
Therefore, this work is a helpful tool to understand the correlation between engineering, the
intricate global market that the oil and gas industry is inserted in and the influence an
improvement in engineering education can have in such a complex industry as this one.

Keywords:

Oil and Gas; Deepwater; SURF Engineering; Riser Systems; Risk Governance;
Technological Development

v
vi
RESUMO

Tecnologias SURF (Subsea Umbillicals, Risers and Flowlines) é a designação dada a

um dos elementos mais importantes de qualquer exploração de petróleo e gás em águas
profundas, a que se podem associar inúmeros desafios e um enorme potencial. Este trabalho
procurou explorar as soluções de sistemas de risers atualmente existentes, assim como
possíveis desenvolvimentos futuros na área. Combinar análises técnicas com uma perspectiva
global de toda a indústria foi a chave para atingir os objectivos desta tese.

Esta tese baseou-se no modelo de governança de risco desenvolvido pelo IRGC, que
contempla entrevistas com peritos e extensiva revisão bibliográfica, e numa análise de casos
de estudo comparados. A análise dinâmica e comparação de duas configurações de risers
flexíveis, nomeadamente Free Hanging e Lazy Wave, proporcionou uma compreensão das
limitações dos sistemas e do caminho a seguir em direção à inovação em engenharia SURF.

A partir dos resultados e da investigação feita, a solução mais consensual encontrada

para o futuro dos sistemas de risers consiste em alterar parte do material da estrutura para
compósitos. Além disso, acredita-se que a solução para o desenvolvimento de tecnologias
SURF reside na integração sistémica de modelação estrutural com análise hidrodinâmica e
transferência de calor, crucial para a análise global dos sistemas. Assim, este trabalho é uma
ferramenta útil para compreender a relação entre engenharia, o intricado mercado global em
que a indústria do petróleo e gás se insere, e a influência que uma melhoria no ensino da
engenharia pode ter numa indústria tão complexa como esta.

Palavras chave:

Petróleo e Gás; Águas Profundas; Engenharia SURF; Sistemas de Risers; Governança

de Risco; Desenvolvimento Tecnológico

vii
viii
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  ....................................................................................  iii  

ABSTRACT  .......................................................................................................  v  

RESUMO  .......................................................................................................  vii  

LIST  OF  FIGURES  ............................................................................................  xi  

LIST  OF  TABLES  .............................................................................................  xii  

1.   INTRODUCTION  .....................................................................................  1  
1.1.   Context  ....................................................................................................................  1  
1.1.1.   Following  an  Oil  driven  World  .................................................................................  1  
1.2.   Motivation  ...............................................................................................................  3  
1.3.   Deep-­‐sea  Offshore  Oil  and  Gas  Exploration  ..............................................................  4  
1.3.1.   From  Onshore  to  Offshore,  from  Shallow  to  Ultra-­‐Deep  ........................................  5  
1.3.2.   Technological  Overview  ...........................................................................................  8  
1.3.2.1.   Global  deepwater  exploration  trajectories  ......................................................  9  
1.4.   Research  Methodology   ............................................................................................  9  
1.4.1.   Case  Study  Definition  ...............................................................................................  9  
1.4.2.   Risk  Governance  ....................................................................................................  10  
1.4.3.   International  Risk  Governance  Council  ..................................................................  12  
1.4.4.   Risk  and  Benefits  of  Deep-­‐Sea  Offshore  Oil  and  Gas  Exploration  ..........................  14  

2.   EMERGING  FORMS  OF  SURF  ENGINEERING  .........................................  17  

2.1.   Introduction  ...........................................................................................................  17  
2.2.   Riser  systems’  technology  ......................................................................................  18  
2.2.1.   Function  .................................................................................................................  19  
2.2.2.   Stiffness/Flexibility  .................................................................................................  20  
2.2.3.   Auxiliary  Equipment:  Buoyancy  Systems  ...............................................................  25  
2.3.   Examples  and  Study  Cases  ......................................................................................  27  
2.3.1.   Flexible  ...................................................................................................................  28  
2.3.2.   Rigid  .......................................................................................................................  35  
2.3.3.   Hybrid  ....................................................................................................................  35  
2.4.   Risk  Analysis  ...........................................................................................................  38  

ix
 3.   CASE  STUDY:  DYNAMIC  ANALYSIS  OF  A  DEEPWATER  FLEXIBLE  PIPE  
RISER  SYSTEM  ..........................................................................................................  43  
3.1.   Flexible  Pipe  Design................................................................................................  44  
3.1.1.   Layered  Structure  ..................................................................................................  45  
3.1.2.   Design  Methodology  ..............................................................................................  48  
3.1.3.   Failure  Modes  ........................................................................................................  51  
3.2.   Modelling  and  Analyses  Fundamentals  ...................................................................  53  
3.2.1.   Types  of  Analyses  ..................................................................................................  54  
3.2.2.   Software  ................................................................................................................  57  
3.3.   Configuration  Comparison  and  Results  ...................................................................  59  
3.3.1.   Structure  Selection  ................................................................................................  60  
3.3.2.   Failure  Modes  ........................................................................................................  61  
3.3.3.   Configuration  Studies  ............................................................................................  62  
3.3.4.   Fatigue  Analysis  .....................................................................................................  64  

4.   DISCUSSION  AND  CONCLUSIONS  .........................................................  67  

4.1.   Summary  ................................................................................................................  67  
4.2.   Future  of  the  Oil  and  Gas  industry  and  SURF  Technologies  .....................................  68  
4.3.   The  role  of  industrial  policies  and  Opportunities  for  Portugal  .................................  71  
4.3.1.   Challenges  and  Opportunities  for  Engineering  Education  .....................................  73  
4.4.   Concluding  remarks  ................................................................................................  74  
4.5.   Future  work  ...........................................................................................................  75  

REFERENCES  .................................................................................................  77  

ANNEX  A:  SELECTED  CASES  FOR  DYNAMIC  ANALYSIS  ....................................  80  

ANNEX  B:  INTERVIEWS’  GUIDELINES  .............................................................  81  

ANNEX  C:  LIST  OF  INTERVIEWED  SPECIALISTS  ...............................................  82  

ANNEX  D:  INTERVIEWS  SUMMARY  ...............................................................  83  

   

x
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Structural changes in world primary energy supply (1850-2000) - model estimates
Brown – traditional fuels; Grey – coal; Red – modern energy forms, like oil/gas and
renewables/nuclear Dashed lines – 1850-1980, based on logistic substitution model; Solid lines
– 1980-2000, approximated by linear trends [3] ............................................................................ 2  
Figure 2 - Global fuel mix by decade, by Exxon Mobile [5] ........................................................... 3  
Figure 3 - Oil and gas business lifecycle [8] .................................................................................. 4  
Figure 4 - Oil and Gas Production Platforms [12].......................................................................... 7  
Figure 5 - IRGC's framework with the five main stages [18] ....................................................... 12  
Figure 6 – Example of a typical subsea layout with underwater equipment, a support vessel and
riser systems [21] ........................................................................................................................ 18  
Figure 7 – Typical Hybrid Riser Components [30] ...................................................................... 24  
Figure 8 – Example of a Mid-Water Arch used in riser systems of S-type configurations [28].... 26  
Figure 9 – Example of a Balmoral Buoyancy Module used in riser systems of Wave-type
configurations [29] ....................................................................................................................... 26  
Figure 10 – Practical examples of shallow water cases, framing the Number of Risers by the
Water Depth [31] ......................................................................................................................... 27  
Figure 11 - Flexible pipe riser systems configurations: a) Free Hanging; b) Lazy Wave; c) Lazy
S [21] ........................................................................................................................................... 30  
Figure 12 – Flexible pipe riser systems configurations: a) Steep Wave; b) Steep S [21] ............ 31  
Figure 13 – Flexible pipe riser systems configurations: a) Pliant Wave®; b) Pliant S®; c) Free
Standing Riser [21] ...................................................................................................................... 32  
Figure 14 - Recent flexible pipe riser system configuration: Double Camel Wave type [21] ....... 33  
Figure 15 - Integrated Service Umbilical, ISU®, an example of a bundled pipe solution [32] ..... 34  
Figure 16 - Integrated Production Bundle, IPB®, an example of a bundled pipe solution [21] ... 34  
Figure 17 - Hybrid riser concept: Free Standing Hybrid Riser [23] .............................................. 35  
Figure 18 – Example of SLOR (Single Line Offset Riser) Development [23] .............................. 36  
Figure 19 – Typical Risers Lifecycle [35] .................................................................................... 40  
Figure 20 - Layout of the vessel balcony, with all the types of lines in place .............................. 44  
Figure 21 – Typical structure layers of a riser system’s flexible pipe [21] ................................... 45  
Figure 22 – Typical project flowchart, from preliminary structure to finish .................................. 48  
Figure 23 - Vessel's degrees of freedom [37] ............................................................................. 50  
Figure 24 - Overall flowchart from general data to dynamic analysis ......................................... 57  
Figure 25 – Example of the Free Hanging model defined in Deeplines ...................................... 63  
Figure 26 – Comparison of the resulting configurations determined and modelled .................... 64  

xi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Selected Deepwater FPSO Riser Concepts for a number of examples [20] ................ 38  
Table 2 - Summary of riser configurations' comparison .............................................................. 42  
Table 3 - Lazy Wave riser configuration against Free Hanging Catenary [24] ............................ 59  
Table 4 - Structure used .............................................................................................................. 60  
Table 5 - Drafts and corresponding occurrence .......................................................................... 65  

xii
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Context

The impact of a natural resource in civilization, in the definition of political and diplomatic
strategies, has never been so profound and decisive as in the case of oil. The continuous, yet
sustainable, exploration of this resource not only contributes to a progress in the technological
development in the oil and gas industry, but also in several other industries and areas of interest. [1]

The current on-going fluctuations in oil prices generate increased uncertainties in the oil and
gas industry, affecting the development of new technologies, with potential impact in its sustainable
exploration. These technological outbreaks, potentiated by the economic growth associated with the
oil and gas industry, are converted into a change of paradigm in the oil exploration. [2]

Technological development in the oil and gas industry has been prominent in the exploration
of the North Sea; however, the conditions are not close to the ones found, for example, in pre-salt
fields in Brazil. Being able to migrate the highly advanced technology used in the North Sea in shallow
waters to these deep and ultra-deep locations is not always possible, resulting in the need to develop
specific technology to each location and its own specifications. The industry is being pushed to reach
unprecedented water depths and harsh conditions by a combination of factors from an increase in
worldwide demand to the scarcity of simple exploration reservoirs. Although the benefits arising from
the pre-salt exploration are numerous, the technological risks associated are also immense and
sensitive to the global markets’ uncertainty.

Accounting for the history of oil prices and the global events that influence these variations,
the technological divides that the oil and gas industry encounters make space for a debate and
reflexion on the future challenges of the industry. It is also important to understand to what extent can
engineering contribute to confront these issues.

Thus, in this thesis it is aimed to open the debate about technological questions of the
deepwater oil exploration challenges. SURF (Subsea Umbillicals, Risers and Flowlines) engineering is
a major topic within the oil and gas exploration industry, gathering some of the most complex
engineering design processes. Those challenges are exponentially increased when considering
deepwater exploration, therefore being relevant to survey the existent solutions and assess the
viability of an alternative to the current option.

1.1.1. Following an Oil driven World

th
Since the Industrial Revolution, in the 18 century, fossil fuels have been featuring on top of
the list of energy sources with the most importance, with an increasing number of applications and
people using it. At that time, coal was the main symbol of fossil fuels and these were seen as the ideal

1
energy source. This transition to processed modern energy forms, imported to and used
predominantly in urban settings, was made from traditional energy forms, collected locally and used
largely in rural areas. [3],[4]

100  
Percent  in  Primary  Energy  

75  

50  

25  

0  
1850   1875   1900   1925   1950   1975   2000  

Figure 1 - Structural changes in world primary energy supply (1850-2000) - model estimates
Brown – traditional fuels; Grey – coal; Red – modern energy forms, like oil/gas and renewables/nuclear
Dashed lines – 1850-1980, based on logistic substitution model; Solid lines – 1980-2000, approximated by linear
trends [3]

th
It was not until the 19 century that petroleum and natural gas, also included in the fossil fuels
sector and nowadays the most important of the pack, had their exploration industries started. Between
1920 and the early 1970s, increasing shares of oil and natural gas and non-fossil energy sources
progressively replaced coal. Since then, the usage of fossil fuels has been continuously increasing
along with the economic growth and carrying with it a worldwide transformation to a new industrial
civilization. [3],[4]

The structural changes in the global primary energy mix then fell off considerably since oil
established itself on the front line of energy sources, in the 1980s, mainly motivated by the lack of new
fuel technology that can compete with the existing ones. This follows the trend of major historical
shifts, which were propelled by technological spurts and direct responses to important drivers (like the
dissemination of steam or gasoline engines) and not by resource scarcity or economical factors. [3]

The civilization tends to be more and more concentrated in cities and highly populated
locations, which translates in an advantage of fossil fuels when compared to other energy sources,
due to their higher power density. Urban areas are characterized by high spatial power densities,
caused by high population density and high per capita energy use, allowing fossil fuels to lead against
traditional renewables, which are confined by site-specific limitations. [3]

2
 Figure 2 - Global fuel mix by decade, by Exxon Mobile [5]

1.2. Motivation

The need to exploit new concepts of problem solving strategies is constantly increasing
because of the demand of new technologies. These new technologies come as a result of the
incessant modifications of the energy sector, that trigger the exploration of far more complex areas, as
well as more productive.

Finding new approaches to problems and situations has become a new challenging matter for
science nowadays. Mainly due to the connections between different concepts, technologies and
backgrounds, companies from today are continuously searching for innovative concepts to
understand, analyse, prevent, solve and manage situations that could not be considered in the past
few years.

Discovering several oil reserves with large dimensions in the pre-salt layer in Brazil has largely
contributed to the emergence of new challenges, due to the remote locations and great depths of the
fields. The Brazilian pre-salt is seen as a world laboratory for innovation, where the oil companies
invest to improve productivity and efficiency, as well as minimizing the associated risks. With these
discoveries, the global economy is able to limit its dependence on the Middle East oil. [6]

This thesis’ motivation is to assess complex engineering systems, namely SURF technologies,
for the sustainable exploration of deepwater oil and gas reserves, and attain such objectives by:

• Presenting a brief overview of the offshore oil and gas exploration industry;

3
 • Presenting a review of the available riser technologies, characterizing its benefits and
drawbacks, properly accompanied and justified with examples and real applications in
a case study basis with appropriate bibliographic review and interviews;
• Evaluating the feasibility of using a Free Hanging riser in a simple catenary as a
substitute of a Lazy Wave configuration in a Brazilian pre-salt field, through structural
dynamic analysis and thorough comparisons;
• Analyse in what manners can these riser technologies be improved, what are the
probable paths to future developments and relate to the Portuguese industry and the
way it can be a part of those developments.

1.3. Deep-sea Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration

The oil and gas industry handles processes that go from exploration, production, transport,
refining and marketing of natural hydrocarbons. Adding to this, it is common to separate this
processes into three sectors: upstream sector (exploration and production), midstream sector
(transport) and downstream sector (refining and marketing). [7] This thesis’ focus is on the upstream
value chain, for which the technologies studied are developed.

As far as the oil and gas business is concerned, it is important to arrange a way of creating
and adding value for stakeholders which does not put people and the environment in jeopardy. The
following picture can describe the typical stages of the oil and gas exploration lifecycle, ahead
described:

Figure 3 - Oil and gas business lifecycle [8]

The first phase, due diligence, comprises the evaluation of risks and impacts in various areas
including health, environmental, social and political issues. From this, one goes to prequalification,
when the legal matters of the exploration have to be dealt with, addressing topics from financial
capability to contributions to local economic development.

Once the licence is awarded, the first all technical stage can take place, which is exploration
seismic: seismic surveys are carried out to grow a picture of the geological structures and the

4
probability of hydrocarbon existence. Following this is site survey that consists of a more elaborate
series of tests (taking geological samples from the seabed, for example) to determine the future well
location.

Having determined the most probable locations, exploration drilling comes up to ascertain if
oil or gas is really there. If promising amounts of oil and gas are confirmed, appraisal drilling is
performed to get more accurate information on the size and characteristics of the discovery, as well as
precious information to determine the best recovery method.

The next stage, assuming that technically and commercially viable quantities of oil and gas are
found through appraisal wells, development plans are prepared and submitted to authorities; it is
during this stage that most of the design is done. Once again, everything is assessed in a long-term
basis, given a timeframe of between 10 and 30 years. If no major problems are found, the essential
phase, what this process is all about, is ready to start: production. Throughout the many decades of
production, new risks are assessed and, therefore, reviews are essential.

Finally, once there is no longer a viable option of extracting hydrocarbons from the field, the
end of the lifecycle arrives with decommissioning. It is vital to shut down everything in a way that no
legal boundaries are crossed and environmental safety is not compromised. This thesis’ focus is
mainly in the development and production phases, given the fact that most of the engineering design
is carried out in those stages. [8]

1.3.1. From Onshore to Offshore, from Shallow to Ultra-Deep

Hydrocarbons’ exploration is a complex and highly expensive activity, enclosed in a very

competitive industry that puts huge amounts of money into motion. Despite dealing with an
indispensable service, which is providing energy to diverse sectors, in the end what really matters is
business; and this is a highly lucrative one. This said, it goes without saying that priority is given to the
most commercially viable reserves, being the onshore exploration the obvious choice.

However, not only economic factors influence this choice; offshore exploration is much more
challenging in terms of technology, and only recent technological evolution allowed for that kind of
exploration. So, the transition from onshore to offshore has been ongoing with the discovery of several
offshore reserves and the technological breakthroughs that make this kind of production possible. In
fact, onshore oil operations have been developing over decades, as nowadays are fully tested and
proven to be reliable, while deepwater offshore equipment, techniques and contingency programs are
still in a stage of continuous evolution. [9]

Offshore rigs tend to be much more expensive that onshore ones, being equipped with more
cutting edge technology, typically requiring a specific training to operate it: for example, in shallow
waters there is a need for divers, which is a very peculiar type of operator. In terms of the actual

5
production and engineering concepts, there are not much differences between onshore and offshore,
but the complexity of the offshore exploration is many degrees above. One can say that in offshore
production yet another level of uncertainty is added: if in traditional onshore it is hard to know what is
going on underground, offshore takes it to another level as visual inspections can only be attained with
ROV (Remote Operated Vehicle).

When talking about offshore oil and gas industry, the term deepwater can be seen as a fast
moving target; still, there are three main categories to consider in terms of water depth, currently:

• Shallow waters: water depth of up to 400 meters;

• Deepwater: from 400 to 1,500 meters;
• Ultra-deepwater: more than 1,500 meters.

One of the few, yet game-changing, issues to take into account that make a huge difference is
the location of the BOP (blowout preventer) stack and wellhead. On jackup rigs, which is a type of
mobile platform that consists of a buoyant hull fitted with a number of movable legs, capable of raising
its hull over the surface of the sea, these items are located on a platform, meaning that the operations
are very similar to the ones performed in onshore rigs. On the other hand, when dealing with
deepwater rigs other options arise (such as semi-submersibles, drill ships and other jackups), in which
the BOP and wellhead are located on the seabed; important parameters like well control, running
casing or even drilling suffer changes with this. [10]

Although most concepts are alike in the two cases, there is a major difference concerning the
construction of the facilities, given the immense limitations found in offshore that simply don’t exist in
onshore. There is practically no access, no easy manipulations and robot dependence, thus
everything must be engineered with critical precision to be installed in one go, as multiple attempts
mean extra money and risk.

Adding up to all this, another key issue makes a difference between the two cases: onshore
production rates are typically slower that deepwater ones, given its overall smaller size. This has
critical influence when dealing with possible oil spills, because onshore spills are much easier to
correct as the amount of oil spilled is lower; also, in offshore, water acts as a natural dispersant,
making it difficult to control the spill. These high flow rates were responsible for the fast increase in
deepwater production and, at the same time, consist of the greatest risk factor due to the spill
situations described. [9],[11]

As previously mentioned, the bigger the water depth is, the more complex the challenges are;
this said, the approaches to these challenges have to be continuingly adapted and improved. One of
the most relevant topics, and clearly the most visible one, is the kind of production platforms used in
each case. The following picture summarizes an overview of the main categories of platforms:

6
 Figure 4 - Oil and Gas Production Platforms [12]

The first two platforms shown in the previous picture, designated “Gravity-based platforms”
and “Steel jacket fixed platforms”, both include themselves in the fixed platforms group. Directly
anchored on the seabed and typically with legs built of steel and/or concrete, can accommodate space
on the deck for production facilities, drilling rigs and crew facilities. Associated with shallow and calm
waters.

Opposing to the rigid fixed platforms, a flexible option appears with the designated compliant
towers, in which a narrower tower makes the connection between a foundation on the seabed and the
platform. The flexibility makes it feasible to apply the concept to deeper waters because it absorbs
much of the pressure caused by the wind and sea. The range of water depth is from 500 m to 1000 m.

The remaining structures represented in Figure 4 consist of floating production platforms that
can assume different forms and concepts. The first is named tension leg platform (TLP), designation
that comes directly from the tensioned vertical links that secure the platform. These tendons are
hollow steel pipes with high tensile strength and ensure limited heave. This solution can be found in
applications with a wide range of water depths, up to 1800 m.

Semi-submersibles is the designation given to partially submerged structures that support

the platform by means of 4 columns filled with sea water. Widely used around the world with flexible
risers, this layout consents more movement both in lateral and vertical directions.

7
 FPSO, standing for Floating Production, Storage and Offloading, designates a kind of
vessel/platform which has the main advantage in its ability to function all by itself, meaning that
infrastructures external to the subsea system are not necessary. This is particularly due to the storage
capacity, since the offloading operations are performed through a shuttle tanker at intervals that range
from days to weeks. The main operations occur on the deck, whereas the offloading and storage are
forwarded to the hull. Although there are still many FPSO vessels built from the conversion of crude oil
tankers, the dissemination of this solution (due to its good performance in deep waters) is enabling the
creation of structures like these “from scratch”. In addition, some companies are also taking into
account the idea of adding other applications to the FPSOs, like drilling and stranded LNG (Liquid
Natural Gas) production processes.

Finally, the SPAR technology has a fixed deck supported by a single tall floating cylindrical
hull, which does not reach the seabed and is, instead, tethered to the seabed by cables. The platform
is stabilized by the cylindrical structure, where the allowable movement absorbs possible extreme
environmental loadings. The range of water depths is quite large, starting at 300 m and reaching
around 3000 m.

This thesis’ studies cover mainly application of FPSOs in great water depths, although not
excluding semi-submersibles in many situations. FPSO applications are spread around the globe, from
fields in West of Africa, Brazilian Offshore, Far East and Gulf of Mexico. Again, in this work particular
emphasis is given to the pre-salt exploration fields in Brazil.

1.3.2. Technological Overview

Throughout the full oil and gas exploration process, from the first diligences to the
decommissioning phase, a very wide range of technologies is necessary. It is clearly impractical to go
through them all, therefore this work has the focus on the production and support related equipment,
namely the riser systems. These systems are part of the exploration paradigm that consider subsea
production systems along with seabed to surface transport and offloading through vessels.

Typical subsea production systems have their components divided in two main sectors: the
submerged well and the control systems. Whereas the first includes the wellhead, underwater
christmas tree, drain pipelines, risers and flowlines, the control and well operation systems are based
in the umbilicals.

Several wells can coexist in the same field, integrated by two possible means: one, a
combining structure that physically aggregates the different equipment, or else, a cluster form where
each thing is individually lying and everything is connected through flowlines to the manifold. Either
way, the connection between seabed and surface is attained through risers, then releasing into the
platforms, frequently FPSO platforms.

8
 The paradigm of subsea development brings with it three main technological trajectories: one
considering continuity, other totally disruptive and an intermediary one.

1.3.2.1. Global deepwater exploration trajectories

Firstly, the continuity trajectory is grounded by the reduction of technological uncertainty, by

making use of incremental innovations of technologies previously used in similar contexts.
Consequently, the technological frontiers are not prone to be defied with the developments based on
this trajectory.

A middling option comes up aiming for the integration of common technological concepts
within new environments, the so-called intermediary trajectory. Not only do the technological risks of
transferring the knowledge to the new fields get limited, but also the potential growth towards leading
the market suffers from limitations of the same kind.

Clearly, the possibility of taking a leap in the market only appears with considerable risks and
large uncertainties. This is the case of the disruptive trajectory, in which it is intended to yield radical
innovations, ideally eradicating the need for surface platforms and reaching for “subsea to shore”
solutions. Nevertheless, the numerous challenges to overcome can’t be disregarded. [13]

All in all, the path to follow in the future is still unknown and each of the trajectories briefly
described gather support from the most various quadrants. Everything is open for debate, scientific
studies are being performed to assess the risks and benefits of each option but, in the end, there will
never be a clear and certain solution, since there too much uncertainties.

1.4. Research Methodology

As far as the research methodology is concerned, this thesis follows the IRGC framework of
risk governance (International Risk Governance Council) and the analysis is established on the basis
of available bibliography and semi-structured interviews with industry experts. This analysis is aimed
for the construction of case studies, as well as its comparison and discussion.

1.4.1. Case Study Definition

In the succeeding chapters two case studies are performed, following the literature review and
interviews previously mentioned. Note to the fact that the interviews were made with common script as
foundation (which can be found in the annexes).
The process of inducting theory from case studies analysis is a validated concept, considered
of special importance to new topic areas. This is a highly iterative procedure and very dependent of
specific data. [14]
According to previous work of several authors on this subject, the framework of building theory
from case study research can be summarized and divided in the following stages: research questions

9
definition, population specification, selection of multiple data collection methods, combine qualitative
and quantitative data from multiple investigators, overlap data collection, data analysis, comparison
with conflicting literature, and closure. [14]
It has been stated, with extensive proof and support, that this technique can be applied to
science related subjects if there is enough data to overlap and reach actual conclusions. Once the
theory is built, one must guarantee that it is evaluated, testable and logically coherent. [15]
Although the implications in this thesis are not direct, the analysis of technology foresight is a
concept deeply connected to the offshore oil and gas exploration. This is an industry constantly
adapting its technology, and the correct thought methodology to be applied in incoming decisions must
take this analysis into account.
The term “foresight” is intrinsically related to the idea of dealing with long-term issues, in
various areas; however, it has been gaining the connotations of preparedness and prudence, instead
of the simple forecasting of future eventualities. A prospective analysis should be integrated into
policy/strategy thinking, planning and action, when dealing with science, technology and innovation
systems. [16]
The reason why technology is such an important part of the companies’ strategy is the fact
that it is responsible for providing them with competitive advantages within the market. It goes without
saying that the increases of factors like cost, complexity and rate of technology change and the
globalization of technology sources, contribute to turning these technological outbreaks into critical
issues. [17]
Technology management must guarantee the existence of technological potential to
correspond to the needs, in present and future times of company and sector, as well as assessing
potential threats and opportunities resultant of changes in technology. This said, the effective
integration of technological considerations into business strategy is a key issue of business planning.
One must not disdain a cardinal postulate held by many authors: technological resources should be
considered as an integral part of business planning, rather than developing technology strategy
independently from the business one. [17]
Technology roadmapping is a hefty technique for supporting technology management, which
can be used to measure the kind of positive or negative impact that a technology may have in solving
challenges. [17] In this thesis it is intended to have a significant role in the kind of procedures here
previously explained, with the appraisal of the risks and limitations of the technologies addressed in
the case studies. Basically, the benefits/risks analysis performed for each case might be a helpful tool
in sustaining a technological trajectory focused on innovation.

1.4.2. Risk Governance

There is a primal objective in doing a risk governance analysis that consists in assisting
experts to design policies, strategies and regulations to maximize the benefits of a technological
improvement and new approaches to the deep-sea offshore oil and gas industry.

10
 Recognizing the existence of risks is the first step of a process that leads to working on
measures to comprehend, prevent and solve those same risks. This process includes risk analysis of
new technologies’ projects in the oil and gas industry, and also possibly combining other industries’
developments. Clearly, this thesis aims for these analysis, with results on the limitations and risks for
the technologies approached in the case studies.
The framework used contains specific employment of some terms, keywords that ought to be
clarified according to the IRGC’s documents on this subject.
“Risk is an uncertain (generally adverse) consequence of an event or activity with respect to
something that humans value. Risks are often accompanied by opportunities.
Systemic Risks are embedded in the larger context of societal, financial and economic
consequences and are the intersection between natural events, economic, social and technological
developments e policy-driven actions. Such risks are not confined to national borders; they cannot be
managed through the actions of a single sector; they require a robust governance approach if they are
to be adequately managed. The governance of systemic risks requires cohesion between countries
and the inclusion within the process of governments, industry, academia and civil society.
Governance refers to the actions, processes, traditions and institutions by which authority is
exercised and decisions are taken and implemented.
Risk Governance is defined as the identification, assessment, management and
communication of risks. Deals with the identification, assessment, management and communication of
risks in a broad context. It includes the totality of actors, rules, conventions, processes and
mechanisms and is concerned with how relevant risk information is collected, analysed and
communicated, and how management decisions are taken. It applies the principles of good
governance that include transparency, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, strategic focus,
sustainability, equity and fairness, respect for the rule of law and the need for the chosen solution to
be politically and legally feasible as well as ethically and publicly acceptable. Risk accompanies
change. It is a permanent and important part of life and the willingness and capacity to take and
accept risk is crucial for achieving economic development and introducing new technologies. Many
risks, and in particular those arising from emerging technologies, are accompanied by potential
benefits and opportunities.
Uncertainty refers to a lack of clarity or quality of the scientific or technical data. Highly
uncertain risks include many natural disasters, acts of terrorism and sabotage and the long-term
effects of introducing genetically modified species into the natural environment.
Ambiguity results from divergent or contested perspectives on the justification, severity or
wider meanings associated with a given threat. Risks subject to high levels of ambiguity include food
supplements, hormone treatment of cattle, passive smoking, some aspects of nanotechnology and
synthetic genomics.” [18]

11
 1.4.3. International Risk Governance Council

IRGC’s risk governance framework consists of an understanding approach to pay help in the
analysis and management of relevant risk issues for which there is a shortage of structures and
processes in risk governance. The framework contains five major linked stages: [18]

• Pre-assessment;
• Appraisal;
• Characterisation and evaluation;
• Management;
• Communication;

Figure 5 - IRGC's framework with the five main stages [18]

These phases, combined and employed properly, allow for a complete understanding of a risk
and correspondent options to deal with it. [18] Each one of these five topics revolves around a
particular group of main questions, distinctly specified in the IRGC documents.
Pre-assessment is responsible for clarifying the diverse perspectives on a risk, forming the
baseline for how a risk is assessed and managed. It is particularly important in characterizing the
systems that make up or surround the complex issues being dealt with, as well as its risks and
causes. The degree of novelty, the scope, the range, the time horizon, the type of hazard, the delay
and the possible rapidity of introduction are also relevant aspects to take into account. [18]
As far as appraisal is concerned, it includes both development and synthesis of the
knowledge base for the decision on whether or not a risk should be taken, comprising a scientific risk

12
assessment and a concern assessment. The most relevant issues to be addressed firstly are: [18]

• “What are the potential damages or adverse effects?

• What is the probability of occurrence?
• How ubiquitous could the damage be? How persistent? Can it be reversed?
• How clearly can cause-effect relationships be established?
• What scientific, technical and analytical approaches, knowledge and expertise should be used
to better assess these impacts?
• What are the primary and secondary benefits, opportunities and potential adverse effects?”

Regarding concern assessment, the following types of questions come out:

• “What are the public’s concerns and perceptions?

• What is the social response to the risk? Is there the possibility of political mobilization or
potential conflict?
• What role are existing institutions, governance structures and the media playing in defining
public concerns?
• Are risk managers likely to face controversial responses arising from differences in
stakeholder objectives and values, or from inequities in the distribution of benefits and risks?”

Characterization and evaluation appear with the need to justify the options taken throughout
risks management phase. This stage is defined by the combination of scientific facts and societal
values to reach judgments like, for example, deciding if a risk is acceptable, tolerable or intolerable.
If a risk is considered as tolerable, it then enters the management stage, in which appropriate
and adequate risk management is made. The fundamental questions at this point are: [18]

• “Who is, or should be, responsible for decisions within the context of the risk and its
management?
• Have they accepted this responsibility?
• What management options could be chosen (technological, regulatory, institutional,
educational, compensation, etc.)?
• How are these options evaluated and prioritized?
• Is there an appropriate level of international cooperation and harmonization for global or
transboundary risks?
• What are the secondary impacts of particular risk reduction options?
• What potential trade-offs between risks, benefits and risk reduction measures may arise?
• What measures are needed to ensure effectiveness in the long term (compliance,
enforcement, monitoring, adaptive management plans, etc.)?”

Finally, communication is of extreme importance, enabling stakeholders and civil society to

13
understand the extension of risks and their particular roles in the governance process. A key matter in
this stage is the creation of trust in risk management, which can only come up with effective
communication. [18]
To sum up, this framework fixes existence and quality of knowledge as the most important
factor. More complex, uncertain or ambiguous systems may appear, which leads to the need of
different approaches to risk evaluation.

1.4.4. Risk and Benefits of Deep-Sea Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration

Each one of the case studies presented afterwards is concluded with risks/benefits analysis,
built from those specific cases. However, it is also of major importance to know what are the global
risks associated with the deep-sea offshore oil and gas industry.

As the sector keeps changing and adapting to the constant new challenges that emerge
everyday, the analysis to the risks is essential to the development of state of the art technology. The
IRGC’s methodology is important to collect vital information to overcome, analyse, govern and manage
all the possible phenomena, generating knowledge around uncertainty.

In an attempt to fulfil the world’s energy demand within the changing environmental
regulations, the energy sector experiences some deep transformation, meaning that better
performances are required. This makes it essential for an investment in research and development for
this industry, from which some major benefits emerge, such as: [19]

• Provide affordable energy to businesses and consumers in the industrial, residential, and
transportation sectors;
• Create direct and indirect employment and economic prosperity;
• Contribute to a country’s energy security by lowering dependence on imported energy;
• Provide a backup energy source to renewables;
• Enhance the competitiveness of a country’s manufacturing sector, especially subsectors (e.g.,
chemicals, steel, plastic, and forest products);
• Attract new investors;
• Reduction of Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX);

These are just some examples from a vast list of positive outcomes of an agenda for
technological and industrial development, which is particularly prominent in countries under
development (like Brazil and Angola). [19]

Despite the fact that technological development might help mitigating some risks, these
possible outbreaks can also contribute to the appearance of new risks and threats in various areas.
Here are some examples of these risks: [19]

14
 • Pirate actions;
• Cyber-attacks;
• Degradation of local air quality and water resources;
• Consumption of potentially scarce water supplies;
• Community stress and economic instability;
• Exacerbation of global climate change by triggering more emissions of methane;
• Slowing the rate of investment in more sustainable energy systems.

All this taken into account, managing these risks emerges as an important issue. The key
factor to bear in mind is that this industry must take to high levels the research and development fields,
allowing the industry to take a relevant and positive part in developing other sectors, as well as being
in the lead against challenges. [19]

15
16
2. EMERGING FORMS OF SURF ENGINEERING

2.1. Introduction

Subsea technologies play a vital role in the hydrocarbon exploration process, where each
pump, sensor or cable has its specific function and must not fail. Within these range of equipment and
parts, there is one that is widely recognized as the most critical one, carrying enormous implications
along with its possible failure: the riser.

In a very simplistic way, a riser is basically a pipe connecting the platform or vessel on the
surface and the wellhead at the seabed. Obviously, this is a very reductionist definition, as the level of
complexity involved in this particular component is as high as modern technology can go. The riser
system has fluid transportation from the seabed to the surface as its main function, but additional
functions can be added, like workover purposes and serving as guide for drilling.

A riser system has a level of complexity rarely found in any other deepwater equipment, also
being clear that its role within the offshore infrastructures is vital. No matter what kind of floater
concept is used in deepwater hydrocarbon exploration, the need for a riser system connecting the
surface and facility on the seabed is always present. [20]

Different kinds of riser systems’ concepts and technologies are idealized for dissimilar
conditions; water depth and environmental issues are the key factors responsible for this need of
different approaches. Following the trend of every other system in the offshore oil and gas exploration,
riser design for deepwater fields is far more challenging that for shallow waters. As far as the
environmental conditions are concerned, terms as benign, mild and harsh come in the way: wind,
waves and tides appear as the limiting factors. Locations like the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic (Brazil,
for example) and West of Africa are considered to have benign to mild conditions; on the other hand,
the North Sea and the Artic show very harsh conditions.

17
Figure 6 – Example of a typical subsea layout with underwater equipment, a support vessel and riser systems [21]

The kind of platform or vessel being used in the exploration activity is also responsible for the
different shapes and formats that the riser systems can assume. In terms of deepwater riser concepts,
some have been successfully deployed to FPSO application, such as classic steel catenary risers
(SCR), flexible risers and hybrid risers. Also, options like Tension Leg Riser (TLR), Hybrid Catenary
Riser (HCR) and few more, have also been having positive feedback when applied in deepwater. [20]

In this field of study, science and engineering focus on two things: innovation and creation of
new technologies, and the accurate selection and design of the best solution for each case. In this
work, emphasis is given to the characterization of the available technology and related methods for
choosing optimal options.

The next section will address the above-mentioned topics and show the relation with specific
cases of study. Finally, it also covers the risks, limitations and benefits associated.

2.2. Riser systems’ technology

The variables that define the operating conditions can take numerous ways and, given that,
selecting the type of system adequate to each case is a challenge by itself.

Even though the number of options when choosing the adequate riser system to an application
is quite high, following some simple criteria can make the primary selection much simpler. Emphasis
here on the word “primary”, since the final choice depends on more than this technical issues.
Nevertheless, few of those main influencing technical factors are highlighted subsequently, according
to the interview made to Cristiano Silva at Technip, an expert in flexible pipe design:

18
 • Inner fluid composition (with or without gas);
• Application (static or dynamic);
• Working conditions;
• Number of lines;
• Crowding of seabed;
• Platform displacements and admissible loads;
• Required service life.

So, taking this information into account, it follows as logical to deepen the knowledge around
the various choices available in terms of riser systems. The best way to do it is by categorizing them in
different sectors according to defining parameters. In this work, the function parameter was the first to
be dealt with, since it is one of the most differentiating, followed by the kind of structures’ stiffness.

2.2.1. Function

Defining the primary function of the equipment is a key issue here; after all, what it is designed
for is what really matters. Hence, no better way of assorting the different solutions. Two very distinct
duties, yet both indispensable, must be referenced: drilling and production.

Chronologically, in terms of an exploration site, the drilling risers are used first, which means
that the production risers depend on the drilling ones to work. Yet, the drilling activities all-alone do no
good, and the production risers are vital to accomplish the final goal of hydrocarbon extraction. None
can be accredited with a bigger relevance than the other, therefore the choice of focusing on just one
of the riser functions was based on other factors. It would be impractical to approach both issues with
the thoroughness intended, so the subject had to be narrowed and the spotlight is on production.

Drilling risers are ducts used throughout the drilling phases as a temporary extension of a
subsea well to the surface drilling facility. They can be divided into two types, basically depending on
the position of the BOP: marine drilling risers are associated with a subsea BOP, whereas tie-back
drilling risers are used with a surface BOP, as stated by Sílvio Carneiro at Partex Oil and Gas, an
engineer with 30 years of experience in drilling activities.

Once the drilling stages are completed, the production risers must be installed to complete the
whole system and proceed with the extraction operations. Production risers can be applied with
various functions, some of the most important here highlighted:

• Crude transport;
• Gas transport;
• Dead oil transport;
• Water injection;
• Chemical injection;

19
 • Gas injection;
• Gas lift.

2.2.2. Stiffness/Flexibility

Within the production riser category, there are few factors that can be used to differentiate the
risers from one another, none as critical as the stiffness or flexibility of the pipes. Consequently, this
section is divided into three main sub-sections: flexible, rigid and hybrid pipes.

Flexible

There are basically two distinct groups of flexible pipes, used in riser systems:

• Flowlines and static risers – consist of the sections of pipe along the seabed connecting the
dynamic riser and the subsea facilities, or linking a subsea structure to another structure or to
a production facility and the static sections of the riser;
• Dynamic risers and dynamic flexible jumpers – consist of the dynamic sections of the riser
and the jumpers are short pipes sometimes used to connect a flowline to a subsea structure or
two subsea structures located close to one another.

Shallow water applications using FPSOs have their riser needs almost always fulfilled by
flexible riser concepts, as its arrangement is very compliant. Configurations like Lazy Wave, Steep
Wave or Pliant Wave (addressed in detail in this chapter’s next section) can be adopted. Brazilian
exploration is the best example of flexible riser usage, given the fact this concept is widely spread over
their deepwater fields. It’s a solution that can be optimized to minimize the cost and still sustain FPSO
motions without major implications due to the flexibility. [20]

One of the major pros of flexible pipe is its relatively simple installation, mainly supported by a
reel, which is hydraulically powered. It may require, however, a subsea tie-in to the flowline. The
installation in ultra-deepwater cases issues other questions, given the immense tensions that the
installation vessel is subjected to. Concerning maintenance, another advantage emerges, as pigging
operations are usually not necessary. Nevertheless, ROV inspections may be needed with a particular
focus on the critical segments: TDP, connections and bend stiffener. [20]

The type of flexible pipes used in the riser applications here considered is a good solution to
some other applications. So, adding to the static and dynamic risers, flowlines and jumpers (wellhead,
dynamic or loading ones) are also typical appliances of this kind of pipe.

As it has been continuously stated and proved, there are a number of solutions available for
each application with positive and negative aspects associated. Flexible solutions have numerous
advantages related with a variety of subjects and areas, henceforth listed:

• Ability to be retrieved and reused;

20
 • Ease and speed of installation, performed by a lightweight and economical vessel;
• Tie-in simplicity;
• High reliability due to its complete manufacture onshore;
• Functions’ separation (leakproofness and mechanical resistance) which increases its
reliability;
• Ability to adapt to all sorts of sea beds without buckling problems;
• High corrosion resistance.

Flexible solutions differentiate from the others mainly due to its stiffness/flexibility, obviously.
They have, however, other particular characteristics that set them apart: long lengths of pipe can be
continuously manufactured; each end must be terminated with an end fitting; and a capability of
undergoing large displacements induced by direct hydrodynamic loads on the pipe and motions of the
support vessel.

The subject related to the design of flexible structures will be addressed and thoroughly
explained in the next chapter. Nevertheless, since this topic is also being covered in this section, here
follows a list of issues to account for in a preliminary design:

• Inside Diameter;
• Working Pressure;
• Design Pressure;
• Length;
• Water Depth;
• Chemical composition of the fluid (percentage of H2S and CO2, etc.…);
• Temperature of the fluid;
• Burying or other protection requirement;
• Type of application (static or dynamic);
• Movements of the floating support in the case of a dynamic application;
• Type of end connections;
• Stability requirements;
• Thermal insulation requirements;
• Service life.

Similarly to what happens in the situation of choosing the type of technology to use in the riser
systems (whether it is rigid, flexible or hybrid), within the flexible range of solutions there are some
different options. In this case, those options will be addressed as configurations and are better
explored in section 2.3.1. Given the possibilities, four major issues emerge as key to choose the
solution that best suits each particular case:

21
 • Static and Dynamic Behaviour – The chosen system must be able to operate in the field
water depth, even when subjected to extreme vessel offsets and storm wave loading, without
compromising the integrity of the riser structure;
• Suitability for Field Development Pattern – The riser system is only one element of an
overall field development plan. Therefore, it must be capable of integrating in the overall
development scheme and the designer should consider vessel type, number of wells, distance
to well, turret crowding, mooring pattern, general crowding (to avoid interference and clashing
between umbilicals, risers, etc.);
• Installability and Recovery – The system must be capable of being installed and recovered
(if applicable) by the available installation equipment in the specified water depth and
environment. The selection process should also consider the suitability of the system for
available subsea intervention resources (divers or ROV).
• Economics – The overall cost assessment of a riser system should include riser length
required, packing, additional hardware costs (clamps, buoys, tethers etc.) and installation
cost/time.

Rigid

Steel catenary risers (SCR) can be used in applications with larger diameters, higher
pressures and temperatures and, overall, are cheaper than flexible lines. The increased diameter
allows for a higher production flow rate, consequently making a more profitable use of the production
vessel. However, the use of this concept in shallow waters is very limited. [24]

The common SCR configuration combines very well with tethered platforms, as is a TLP
(Tension Leg Platform), because the platform motions are mostly lateral, moving very little vertically;
then, the natural catenary shape is not significantly altered. Also, in deep waters the effect of dynamic
excitation from the action of the waves at the surface is attenuated along the way until the seabed. [24]

Regarding the seabed layout, there is a need for a minimum length of flowline, which
guarantees that the high back tensions and flowline movement across the seabed are supported,
sometimes requiring relatively long lengths on the seabed prior to any change in direction. Moreover, if
there is a radial arrangement of a big amount of risers around the vessel, there is quite some coverage
of the seabed and attention must be paid to prevent the interference with mooring lines. It remains
relevant to say that the vessel should be located at enough distance from the subsea main equipment,
the manifold, so that riser and flowline geometries are more easily anticipated. [24]

It is known that a SCR consists of a series of welded pipe joints. It is also common knowledge
that the fatigue performance of the welds is a critical issue, which is impacted by factors from the
material properties, to the welding process and procedure. As a part of the installation process, the
welding is performed offshore along with every other process. It goes without saying that the costs of
maintaining the installation vessels offshore is huge, yet the quality of the welds can never be

22
despised, even though it means taking long to do it correctly. This kind of riser system is most
commonly used with tension leg platforms or spars when the heave motions are small and with FPSO
or semi-submersibles if the environment is mild. [26]

In the cases where the floating unit is an FPSO, steel catenary riser systems are mainly used
in the West of Africa and Campos Basin in Brazil, being the SCR particularly subjected to compression
in the sag bend area, appearing the need to account for factors like: SCR dimensions, geotechnical
data, FPSO motion, internal turret configuration, metocean data and SCR cross section design. [20]

Hybrid

The first riser with a structure considered to be within the “hybrid” patterns was installed on
Placid’s Green Canyon. The main section is composed by a central tubular structure and syntactic
foam buoyancy modules attached around it. These modules, which have peripheral lines going
through them, have freedom of movement in the axial direction accounting for the extension induced
by pressure and temperature variations. In terms of connection, the central member keeps linked to
the riser base and the peripheral lines are connected to hard piping on the base, providing a
continuous way until the flowlines, and terminate in goosenecks near the surface. The final connection
between the goosenecks and the vessel is attained through flexible piping. [24]

Hybrid risers are typically characterized by being able to accommodate large vessel motions,
having a good fatigue performance and not being very sensitive to environmental loading. On the other
hand, the large spatial requirements, the clearance challenges, the complex design and, most of all,
the high CAPEX constitute some major drawbacks to this arrangement. In terms of installation, despite
the positive aspect of being pre-installable, a few installation challenges appear with the need for long
and heavy components. [24] Also, although it requires diverless subsea tie-in between the riser base
and the flowline, constant monitoring associated with assistance, assurance and verification is key in
this case. [20]

In terms of fabrication and testing in tower risers, those processes are usually performed
onshore, a factor that might constitute a risk in areas of political instability (for example, in the West of
Africa). [20]

23
 Figure 7 – Typical Hybrid Riser Components [30]

There is a limit to the number of SCR that can be installed by a single vessel, which is defined
by the space existent in the deck, the pontoon and the turret porch. The hybrid solutions have a limit,
which is slightly lower, being determined by some fabrication requirements and the possibility of
congestion of flexible pipes at the upper goosenecks. [24]

Each riser system is more suited to one or more types of floaters: flexible ones are most
commonly used with FPSO applications, the rigid solutions work well with both semisubmersibles and
tankers, and the hybrid arrangements are best for semisubmersibles. Hybrid riser configurations are
characterized by allowing a compact subsea layout, partially, and sometimes completely, eliminating
the interference with mooring lines.

As far as shallow water exploration is concerned, depths below 300m, the flexible riser
systems are probably going to keep providing the best solution for a while, due to the limitations
encountered by hybrid and rigid solutions. [24]

Given the limitations, there is still plenty of room for improvements in the field of hybrid riser
systems. The most relevant issues to target are listed hereafter:

• Reduce components sizes

• Reduce the need for specialized vessels
• Enable a faster installation
• Use distributed buoyancy
• Connect the pipes using mechanical couplings

24
 2.2.3. Auxiliary Equipment: Buoyancy Systems

This far, the technological emphasis of this text has been given to the pipes and that option
will remain the same, as that is the primal goal. However, there are also some auxiliary pieces of
equipment worth mentioning. No doubt that the pipe itself is the core part, it is through it that oil and/or
gas (the ultimate motivation of the industry) actually goes by, but without the supporting accessories
nothing would be possible.

Numerous pieces of equipment could be cited here, with many different functions. In flexible
lines, bend stiffeners are absolutely essential to assure no limits are crossed in terms of radius and
bending. Also, the lines are typically divided into sections, which can be few or many depending on the
total length; obviously, the various segments need to be connected and such can’t be achieved without
specific equipment: it is called a connector. These are, probably, two of the most important
accessories found.

Other than this, the majority of configurations used nowadays in the deepwater oil exploration
require buoyancy systems. Not only do they play a key role, but also consist a great opportunity of
improvement and, therefore, should be noted and more thoroughly approached in this section.
Depending on the configuration, different parts compose the buoyancy system adopted; in this
situation, two main options emerge, one designated Mid-Water Arch System and the other Buoyancy
Modules.

The Mid-Water Arch System is characteristic of the Lazy S and Pliant S riser configurations
(explained later in this chapter) and also partially of the Steep S, since it uses two of the four system’s
main components (the buoy and the clamp):

• Mid Depth Buoy – traditionally consist of cylindrical steel tanks with thin walls for optimum
buoyancy/weight ratio, internal stiffening for riser loads and net buoyancy to ensure that
tethers are kept in tension;
• Tethers – typically two chains placed in parallel or at a small angle, although recent
applications have used rope tethers;
• Clump Weight – normally concrete blocks in a steel frame, which react to the tether tension’s
components: the vertical through the weight and the horizontal through the friction with
seabed.
• Riser Clamp – is used to maintain the riser in position relative to the buoy and, depending on
the water depth, can be secured remotely or through diver intervention.

25
 Figure 8 – Example of a Mid-Water Arch used in riser systems of S-type configurations [28]

The Buoyancy Modules are characteristic of the Wave type configurations, namely Lazy
Wave, Steep Wave and Pliant Wave. Providing distributed buoyancy along a certain length of the riser,
the modules are mounted are the pipe by clamping two half shells made of high buoyancy foam
material. The dimensions and location of the modules constitute a major design challenge, and one
should always take into account the following considerations:

• The riser can be either empty, full or both, and that, together with the fluid density, can result
in huge design differences;
• Hydrostatic pressure causes volume displacement and buoyancy is lost through time, hence
being necessary to consider both a “start of life” and “end of life” buoyancy;
• Avoid sudden changes of buoyancy along the riser, which could origin curvature problems or
fatigue hot spots;
• Assess entanglement with other elements (like risers, tethers, etc.) and perform interference
analysis if needed.

Figure 9 – Example of a Balmoral Buoyancy Module used in riser systems of Wave-type configurations [29]

26
 This kind of equipment is generally expensive and sometimes problematic to install, increasing
the cost even more; it is, no doubt, one of the key factors in increasing the cost of implementing Wave
type and S type configurations when compared to Free Hanging solutions. Nonetheless, some
situations require those kinds of solutions and the buoyancy systems that come along with them.
Therefore, technological developments in this area should be pushed and new ideas should be
adopted, so that the overall cost can diminish and the solutions are even more competitive than
nowadays.

2.3. Examples and Study Cases

Not only deepwater fields have faced technological developments, although it has been the
most prominent area especially due to the recent pre-salt discoveries. The following picture shows
some of those shallow waters real cases, framed by the number of risers:

Figure 10 – Practical examples of shallow water cases, framing the Number of Risers by the Water Depth [31]

It is relevant to highlight the OSX-2 and OSX-3 cases, both located in Brazil, that comply a
large number of risers: the first, at about 135m and from Waimea, has a total of 25 risers, and the
second one, at 105m and from Tubarão Martelo, stops at 23 risers. [31]

One of those innovations was developed for Statoils’ field Peregrino, in the Campos Basin,
with water depth around 100m and 11.5’’ flexible pipes designed for production and water injection
risers. It is a flexible pipe configuration designated Weight Added Wave (WAW), which is based on
traditional Lazy Wave configurations and incorporates a set of weight chains attached to the buoyancy
modules. This structure reveals itself a dynamic, self-compensating mechanism that maintains the
riser configuration’s elevation within a desirable range accounting for the exposure to extraordinary
variations in weight or FPSO excursion. These variations come from heavy environmental loads
(strong currents and waves), excessive FPSO excursion and extreme content density changes. With

27
this vertical lifting “spring effect”, the WAW configuration provides stabilization. The traditional Lazy
Wave configurations proved themselves incapable of satisfying the required clearances, whereas the
typical Lazy S was a viable possibility in engineering terms but too costly: financially speaking and in
terms of schedule, as the middle water arch is a part of complex fabrication. [31],[32]

2.3.1. Flexible

The most common solution is designated Free Hanging, consisting of a pipe that runs in a
catenary shape from the upper connection point (on the floating unit) to the seabed. Actually, it is not a
flexible exclusive as it is easily proven by the extensive use of SCR (included in the rigid sector). No
doubts in claiming that it is the simplest and most cost effective solution, as well as the easiest to
install because it does not need intermediate support structures. Nonetheless, it obviously has some
drawbacks; if not, no other solutions would have ever emerged.

The fact that all the weight is suspended and supported by the sole connection with the vessel
makes it difficult to bear when higher depths are attained. Also, the dynamic motions caused by the
hydrodynamic loads on the riser and vessel constitute a major problem in terms of fatigue in the top
connection. One of the major ideas in using solutions with buoyancy modules is precisely to isolate
those motions, in some way, and avoid that the whole structure suffers with it. Problems like buckling
and over bending near the TDP get particular importance following the operations of lifting the riser
from the seabed and dropping it back down at high velocities.

All in all, this solution is especially adequate to benign environments, where the effects of
waves and vessel motions are remote from the TDP. Applications with a fixed platform also constitute
a suitable match with Free Hanging configurations, because the vessel motions are not to be
considered. Tension leg platforms’ applications are also a logical option, given the fact that lateral and
heave offsets are limited.

The Lazy Wave configuration shows a sort of “loop” formed between the upper connection
and the seabed caused by the attachment of buoyancy modules along a given section of the riser. The
major difference to the Free Hanging solution is the distributed buoyancy section that allows for
greater vessel motion: these motions are partially dissipated by the buoyed sections flexibility and only
the rest affects the riser. This constitutes a great advantage, although not the biggest, since that is
considered to be the ease of installation.

Considering the Free Hanging configuration, there are some additional requirements in terms
of installation and fabrication that consist of the buoyancy modules and the inherent issues. In terms of
complexity one verifies an increase with the buoys being installed as the riser is over boarded, not
needing much (if any) subsea intervention. The economical factor is indubitably the most relevant
aspect to account for, given that these modules are some expensive technology, as previously seen.

28
 One of the challenges of this configuration is to define exactly how much buoyancy is needed
from the modules, since the pipe experiences different states along time, from situations filled with
different fluids to an all-empty case. It goes without saying that this causes vertical movements, which
can only be supported in medium or deep water applications, making it unfeasible for shallow water
applications because the empty situations can origin interference issues with the vessel. These
situations are especially relevant if the vessel is weathervaning (meaning that it is allowed to spin in
the direction of the wind freely so the equipment is not damaged due to the wind).

Interference problems can also emerge related to other risers and mooring lines, making this
solution not particularly appealing to crowded multiline systems. These issues come from the fact that
the Lazy Wave configuration has no intermediate transverse restraints, then being sensitive to out of
plane loading and, consequently, interference problems.

All in all, the Lazy Wave configuration is, probably, the most cost effective solution next to the
Free Hanging riser.

The Lazy S configuration displays a riser in a double catenary with the help of a subsurface
buoy and a mid-water arch. Both the mid-water arch and the buoy are tensioned through a sling (that
consists of a wire rope loop commonly used for heavy equipment lifting) and dead weight. Usually, the
risers are clamped at the top of the buoy and guided over gutters to avoid overbending issues, and
each buoy as a capacity to accommodate a number of risers, which can reach up to 20 as seen
posteriorly in the BSR example.

In terms of installation, the techniques used are fairly complicated especially concerning the
arch and buoy, despite the fact that it can all be achieved without divers. However, there is already a
vast experience and a variety of procedures to complete the installation.

It is a similar solution to the Lazy Wave in many aspects, where the main difference is the fact
that the part played by the buoyancy modules is now played by the mid-water arch, and the associated
subsurface buoy, sling and dead weight. As in the previous case, particular caution is needed in the
definition of adequate buoyancy to deepwater applications. Concluding, this configuration has proven
its value in multiline systems and difficult environments. Nevertheless, the cost and implications of
fabricating the components, namely the arch, is a major drawback in adopting this solution.

29
 Figure 11 - Flexible pipe riser systems configurations: a) Free Hanging; b) Lazy Wave; c) Lazy S [21]

There is a configuration designated Steep Wave which is very similar to the Lazy Wave
solution, previously approached, but with one specific difference: instead of having the lower part of
the riser lying on the seabed, this part is connected to a riser base. This modification eliminates the
tensions near the seabed and keeps the riser in a position close to vertical in that sector. Other than
that, this seabed connection provides out of plane restraint to the system, hence granting Steep Wave
solution a greater suitability to congested riser systems.

Some changes may occur along time in the density of fluids going through the lines, therefore
interfering with the buoyed section and consequently causing vertical movements; the seabed
connection also helps minimizing those effects. Apart from the buoy, there is a need for other specific
equipment, particularly a seabed bend stiffener (to resist the dynamic angle and tension variations)
and a pipeline end manifold (PLEM). This consists of one key drawback in the solution, because each
individual riser requires its own equipment.

The main idea behind this concept is to accomplish two tasks simultaneously: to generate
reservoir data through the extended well testing and provide early cash flow by exporting oil or gas.
Hence, this solution is ideal for early production situations, where the reserves are still to be accurately
known and the exploration scheme to be defined. It is also commonly associated with single well
applications, and its dynamic performance is excellent in various environments, water depths and
vessel motions.

Just like what happens between Lazy Wave and Steep Wave, Lazy S also has a relative of the
same kind: Steep S. This classic configuration, which generated the Steep Wave solution as a
straightforward extension of itself, combines the mid-water arch and subsurface buoy with the seabed
connection achieved with a riser base and bend stiffener arrangement.

30
 The installation of this configuration is a complex process, since the sequence in which the
elements are added is of major importance. Although it reveals a good general response in terms of
dynamic behaviour, one relevant problem emerges from the limited rotational stability of the arch. If
one verifies severe hydrodynamic loads on the arch, it may tend to rotate about the vertical axis,
hence resulting in torsional loading or entanglement of the flexible and instability. To sum up, it is a
complex system that should be considered in specific situations where others can’t perform, as its high
costs make it not that competitive in regular situations.

Figure 12 – Flexible pipe riser systems configurations: a) Steep Wave; b) Steep S [21]

There is a more complex configuration designated Pliant Wave®, a registered trademark

owned by Technip (and originally by Coflexip, company that degenerated into Technip at some point in
time). This configuration can be understood as a hybrid merging Lazy Wave and Steep Wave, where
the riser base is then replaced by a short tether and clump weight restraint. This change helps
reducing the dynamic motion at the riser’s TDP based on the transmission through the tether of
dynamic tension variations from the riser to the clump weight. The dynamic behaviour compares to the
Steep Wave one, except for the near seabed sections.

The installation process is simpler that its relative’s, given the fact that the riser can be
installed all complete with the weight and tether, whereas in the Steep Wave there is a more complex
sequence of steps. Still, the installation must be very precise and, in some cases, an additional tether
and clamp arrangement are placed to ensure that everything stays in place throughout time. These
additional elements can result in the so-called Reverse Pliant Wave configuration (where the pipe on

31
the ground is orientated in the opposite direction), which can be used in very dynamic applications
where wellheads are far from the FPSO.

Another trademark configuration, also held by Technip and previously from Coflexip, is the
Pliant S®, considered to be a hybrid of the Pliant Wave® and Lazy S solutions. If all the hardware
from both systems is mixed together but only a clump weight is used, that is the equipment needed for
this configuration. The upper catenary configuration is identical to the one found in the Lazy S solution,
whereas the lower catenary is restrained in configuration, almost parallel to the mid depth buoy
tethers.

This system’s installation is fairly complex, mainly due to the large number of elements. Pliant
S® is being developed with focus just on the shallow water applications, in which one finds large
vessel offsets very challenging to accommodate using common solutions. The difficulties are caused
by the over bending issues found near the TDP, and the system contributes to the dynamic loading’s
reduction in that area.

Free Standing Riser (FSR) is the designation of a vertical riser tensioned with buoyancy
cans. From this, two options can emerge: one where the riser is hybrid (FSHR), approached in the
next section; other where the riser is flexible. The Free Standing Flexible Riser (FSFR®) is also
registered by Technip.

The core challenges of this configuration are in the design phase of the buoyancy cans and
chains that maintain the riser in position, because the high tensions and cyclic fatigue loadings have a
massive effect. Problems from Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV) of the riser and VIV + Vortex Induced
Motion (VIM) of the buoyancy module must also be considered. This is a deepwater solution and is still
being developed to account for the flexible pipe instead of rigid.

Figure 13 – Flexible pipe riser systems configurations: a) Pliant Wave®; b) Pliant S®; c) Free Standing Riser [21]

32
 As new locations and new challenges appear in the recent and upcoming exploration sites,
other riser configurations can be proposed if their value is proven advantageous for the field’s viability.
The majority of these new developments are companies’ property and not accessible; yet, Figure 14
shows a recent configuration:

Figure 14 - Recent flexible pipe riser system configuration: Double Camel Wave type [21]

It is being studied for the Olowi field, located in Gabon (west coast of central Africa), for a very
shallow water depth of around 35m. The large offsets and strong currents forged the need for a
special configuration, which looks like a double camel wave type and is currently under scrutiny.

Not always do riser systems appear as a single function unit, sometimes those systems are
integrated into bundles where other purposes are met. Although these bundle technologies are not
flexible exclusive, the focus here is on that part so here follow two cases worth mentioning: ISU® and
IPB.

ISU®, standing for Integrated Service Umbilical, is a patented technology that involves joining
both riser and umbilical functions in one single equipment. The core is composed by the typical flexible
pipe layered structure; next one can find the bundle where different purpose equipment is seen; and
outwardly there are insulation layers. The bundle can be composed of: [21]

• Stainless steel pipes for injection of gas lift;

• Electrical cables;
• Optical fibre for monitoring;
• Chemical injection hoses.

33
 Figure 15 - Integrated Service Umbilical, ISU®, an example of a bundled pipe solution [32]

IPB, standing for Integrated Production Bundle, is a technology property of Technip, which
follows the same general ideas as ISU®. The main differentiating factor is the high efficiency active
heating, circling hot water around the central core of the pipe. This appears as essential to overcome
flow assurance issues for ultra deepwater developments, also considering temperature monitoring to
contribute to safety and flexibility of operations.

The integration of gas lift tubes in the riser systems shows advantages against classical
solutions, which have a pipe for each application. It is possible to take advantage of the heat from the
produced fluid, there is no need for extra insulation of the gas lift lines and the connections on the
seabed are simplified by having a smaller number of pipes to connect.

Insulation  for    
flow  assurance  

Satellite  lines:  heating,  

gas  lift,  monitoring  

Central  production  line  

Figure 16 - Integrated Production Bundle, IPB®, an example of a bundled pipe solution [21]

34
 2.3.2. Rigid

A Steel Lazy Wave Riser (SLWR) consists of a special SCR, in which a trench of the pipe has
buoyancy modules attached, countering the gravity force with the impulsion of the buoys. Naturally, a
significant reduction is verified in the top tension provoked by the connection of the riser with the
vessel since the buoyancy absorbs most of the dynamic motion coming from the FPSO motion.
Practical tests have shown good performance results in great water depths, exceeding 3000m, mostly
because of the ability to control the dynamic heave response along the riser and the reduced top
tension, improving fatigue life at the TDP. The first field to apply this concept successfully is located in
Campos Basin. [20],[25]

2.3.3. Hybrid

The Free Standing Hybrid Riser is a concept being developed for some years, which gathers
some precious advantages when compared to other options. It consists mainly of a vertical section of
pipe, then tensioned by a near surface steel buoyancy can that is connected to the top of the riser. In
addition, the connection to the vessel is achieved through a flexible jumper, as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17 - Hybrid riser concept: Free Standing Hybrid Riser [23]

The fact that it is decoupled from vessel motions, not being sensitive to environmental loads
and weighing considerably less than usual on the vessel, corresponds to a great fatigue performance

35
by the structure. Other advantages are the flexibility in the installation processes (by means of a
vertical pipe handling and multiple options of pipe laying) and flexibility in the flow assurance, or even
the possibility there is for design standardization. In terms of negative aspects, the high cost when
compared to SCR solutions, the mechanical complexity (both in the design and the procurement
phase) and the installation challenges due to the large components and the weights come as the main
issues. [23]

A Single Line Offset Riser (SLOR) is a recent concept that consists of a vertical steel riser
section linked to the vessel through a flexible pipe jumper. The most important advantage of this
configuration as an alternative to the classic ones described is the reduction (sometimes total removal)
of the vessel motions’ effect on the largest section of the riser. Consequently, the fatigue damages are
considerably fewer and allows for a less strict design. ExxonMobil’s Kizomba A & B and Petrobras’
P52 are examples of the implementation of this technology. [26]

Figure 18 – Example of SLOR (Single Line Offset Riser) Development [23]

Many believe that the key to follow a global path of successful integrity management in the
industry is to aim for standardization. This means not only agreeing on standard concepts to use (with
the obvious and inevitable variations demanded by each site’s specifications) but also building a
common database of industry failures (considered indispensable to perform grounded risk analysis).
This said, according to present deepwater riser solutions, SLOR seems to be the contender in best
position to reach that goal based on the following:

• Compatibility with a broad range of vessels, environmental conditions and installation

methods;
• Opportunity for local in-country fabrication;

36
 • Availability from a number of installation contractors;
• Compatibility with a wide range of water depths, diameters and pressures;
• Ability to sustain changes in system design requirements. [Standardisation of Deepwater Riser
Systems]

Although flexible systems in the Lazy Wave configuration are good solutions, it is also true that
they have plenty of implications. Petrobras tried to come up with an alternative and recently
implemented the first BSR systems in offshore Brazil, with Subsea7 responsible for the greater part of
the design. BSR stands for Buoyancy Supported Risers and consists of a floating structure, flexible
jumpers and steel catenary risers. The jumpers are connected to the vessel (an FPSO) and the
floating structure, whereas the SCR connect the structure to the seabed, altogether constituting a de-
coupled riser system.

The floating structure, a number of submerged buoys installed around 250 meters below sea
level and anchored to the seabed by tethers, can accommodate multiple lines (up to 27 already proven
by now in the Guará-Lula field). The BSR system absorbs the dynamics of the floating unit, which
releases the SCR from the related stresses. [32]

Another recent solution focused on the deepwater and ultra-deepwater applications is the
Tethered Catenary Riser (TCR), developed by Subsea7. In this concept, a number of rigid risers,
typically SCR, are supported by a subsurface buoy that resorts to tendons for tethering to the seabed.
Again, like in the BSR, the connection between the buoy and the platform is achieved by means of
flexible jumpers that absorb the dynamic excitations. This system has the ability to accommodate from
four to eight risers and the necessary number of umbilicals. [32]

Both these solutions combine flexible and rigid concepts, harmoniously put together and
forming excellent hybrid alternatives that present great benefits in some environments.

37
 Table 1 - Selected Deepwater FPSO Riser Concepts for a number of examples [20]

2.4. Risk Analysis

The extended riser lengths encountered in ultra-deepwater significantly increase the weight,
leading to bigger and bigger challenges from design to installation. The higher internal and external
pressure may presuppose thicker pipe walls, meaning an additional challenge in the fabrication,
welding, hang-off system and riser joints. These problems all convey into an evident conclusion: the
accurate selection of the adequate riser concept for each case is a critical issue. Adding to this,
technological gaps are sometimes found and should be addressed with care to enable the so much
needed evolution of the industry. [25]

According to Jérémy de Barbarin, from Subsea7, the main challenge in the riser systems is to
find a compromise between the cost, including development and installation costs, and every factor
linked to costs afterwards, like maintenance, operability, and risk of damage. If someone so deeply
connected to the subsea exploration industry and responsible by major technical projects has this kind
of position, there is no denying of the fact that the major factor is the economical one.

The design of deepwater riser systems faces severe challenges in a broad spectrum of areas,
as the higher depths contribute to aggressive loadings and stresses. The long unsupported lengths,
high pressures, environmental loading and high fatigue damage rates (coming from FPSO motions
and offsets, for example), all come together to a design life of 20 to 30 years. [23]

Steel catenary riser configuration (SCR) is sensitive to vessel and the environment as a result
of three main motions: fatigue motions, vessel-induced motions (VIM) and vortex-induced vibration
(VIV). The touch down point (TDP) is a critical point due to its interaction with the soil, the fatigue
problems and the compression/buckling issues. [23]

38
 Flexible risers are characterized for having a compliant response, not being so sensible to
fatigue and for its installation easiness, all in all having a better dynamic response. The main
limitations come with the issues related to pressure, diameter and temperature, as well as the obvious
and incredibly relevant economical factor. [23],[31]

Risk factors are intrinsically connected to the exploration sites’ location, directly affecting both
the choice of concept/configuration and its design. For example, the harsh environment in the Gulf of
Mexico leaves very little space for margin when designing SCRs, and in West of Africa the SCRs have
a limited centre of gravity proximity of a spread moored FPSO. On the other hand, fatigue and
interference issues are the ones to limit both flexible and rigid solutions in Brazil. [31]

As any other system or equipment liable to damages and failures, riser systems should have a
continuous integrity management. The most relevant outcomes can be listed, as follows:

• Ability to anticipate an increase in end-of-life failures; 


• Development of deepwater monitoring systems and real time assessing of fatigue,
accumulated stress and corrosion;
• Inclusion of inspection capacity and replacement issues in the design phase. [35]

One very dangerous situation, even though not that common in the majority of locations, is the
possibility of an emergency disconnection. That need, caused by factors from environmental issues
(like severe storms and glacier temperatures) to technical problems, makes it essential for some riser
systems to provide the possibility of disconnecting and moving off station until the problems are not
overcome. The hybrid riser systems typically allow for this option, being the riser left free standing. [24]

It goes without saying that each risers’ service life and lifecycle depends on its particular
operating conditions and specifications. However, it is possible to define a broad scenario to each
concept concerning failure issues. The following graph shows the evolution of a failure rate parameter
along time, as well as defining each concept’s typical service life.

39
 Figure 19 – Typical Risers Lifecycle [35]

The problems and inherent risks of each riser system solution, mentioned so far or not, come
from different quadrants and are should always be considered, not only for the design phase but also
throughout time in integrity management systems. As far as technical matters are concerned, some of
the most important issues are presented next, accompanied with possible recommendations that can
turn into solutions if properly developed and implemented.

• SCR flexjoint degradation – a premature degradation of the elastomer can occur and it is
very difficult to predict, as there isn’t any monitoring methods and the only possible indicator
comes from visual inspection after a surface cleaning. The improvements should be in the way
of enhanced elastomeric materials and modelling tools, and most of all in developing methods
to predict failure more accurately;
• VIV in straked riser sections – the presence of marine growth can cause strakes to foul,
typically in high current regions and can reach complete fouling in few years’ time. It is
recommended that better and more effective cleaning tools are developed, as well as upgrade
anti-fouling treatments;
• SCR’s TDP Stress and Fatigue – the complexity of fatigue issues increases with the water
depth, partially justified by the fact that it is very hard to measure degradation and process
data in real time. For one, in terms of design, methods should be developed for accumulating
long term fatigue; on the other hand, the lines that can’t be “pigged” should have in-line-
inspection tools primed;
• Flexible Pipes Internal and External Corrosion – the means of deterioration are not easy to
predict or measure and there are not many signals to notice from visual inspections; also, the
annulus volume testing is highly subjective. The recommendations go for the volume tests’

40
 enhancement, as well as the development of corrosion models, inspection and monitoring
tools (through optics and acoustic). [35]

Assuming that rigid and hybrid concepts are discarded and a flexible solution is to be selected,
the multiple configurations previously presented ought to be considered. Unlike other selection
processes of the same kind, the decision is not entirely based on rigid rules. In fact, experience and
sensibility are key factors, in association with an overall knowledge of the field, the economic factors
and technical suitability of course. All things considered, including the risks and benefits of each
option, the following guidelines can be presented (seen by many as “rules of thumb”):

• The starting point of any analysis should be the Free Hanging configuration, considering the
fact that it is the most economical (both in hardware requirements and installability terms). Its
dynamic limitations, however, put it aside very soon in many situations;
• If the first option fails, the next most economical comes with the wave configurations: typically
with the Lazy Wave, which is the simplest of the bunch, but also Steep Wave and Pliant
Wave. All require more hardware than the Free Hanging configuration and have sluggish
installation processes, yet not more complex. The constraints in the number of risers appear
as a major drawback and force these configurations to be abandoned in some cases;
• The S configurations, namely Lazy S and Steep S, have more complex installation
procedures due to the large (and somewhat cumbersome) equipment needed. Despite this,
they constitute very good solutions, with great technical robustness and permitting multiline
systems with a large number of risers;
• The Pliant S system should only be considered for shallow water applications, where it has
been demonstrated that vessel excursion cannot be accommodated by a Lazy S configuration.
It is very costly to implement this solution, both time consuming and in terms of complexity,
requiring many additional hardware.

All things considered, Table 2 sums up and rates the performance of each flexible
configuration considered in the previous examples, according to real life scenarios and conditions.

41
   Free  Hanging   Lazy  Wave   Lazy  S   Steep  Wave   Steep  S   Pliant  Wave   Pliant  S   Free  Standing  
1. Static  behaviour  
Shallow  Water   Limited   Excellent   Good  +   Good   Good   Excellent   Excellent   Limited  
Any  Weather  
Deep  Water   Good   Excellent   Excellent   Excellent   Excellent   Excellent   NA   Excellent  
2. Dynamic  behaviour  
Shallow  Water   Bad   Good  -­‐   Good   Good  -­‐   Limited   Good   Excellent   Limited  
Hostile  Weather  
Deep  Water   Limited   Good  +   Excellent   Good   Good   Excellent   NA   Excellent  
Shallow  Water   Limited   Good   Good  +   Good   Good  -­‐   Good   Excellent   Good  -­‐  
Fair  Weather  
Deep  Water   Good   Excellent   Excellent   Good  +   Good   Excellent   NA   Limited  
3. Ease  of  Installation   Excellent   Excellent   Good   Good-­‐   Limited   Good  -­‐   Limited   Limited  
4. Adaptability  
Template  Case   Good   Good   Good  -­‐   Excellent   Excellent   Good  -­‐   Limited   Limited  
Crowding  of  Seabed  
Number  of  Lines   Excellent   Limited   Excellent   Limited   Excellent   Good   Good   Good  
5. Economic  Profile  
One  Line  System   Excellent   Good  +   Good   Good   Limited   Excellent   Good   Limited  
Several  Lines  System   Excellent   Limited   Good  +   Limited   Good  -­‐   Excellent   Good  +   Limited  
Table 1 - Summary of riser configurations' comparison

42
3. CASE STUDY: DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A DEEPWATER FLEXIBLE PIPE

RISER SYSTEM

It is important to understand the overall process from the choice of the exploration field to the
actual pipe design, since that goes through various entities and stages, and only a small part of the
process is addressed in this work. Not considering all the prospection and preparation work already
discussed in the first chapter, it all starts with the definition of the field to be explored. One single
company can be responsible for the whole exploration; otherwise a consortium is formed to manage
such activities.

A limited number of “big” oil companies control most of the fields being explored, and also to
be explored in the future. The case study here presented is part of a real project, currently in the
design phase; therefore some of the information is sensible and will be carefully dealt with.

The project is included in the exploration of pre-salt oil field, in the Santos basin, about 300
kilometres off the coasts of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo states. The vessel/platform to be used is an
FPSO, as usual in the Brazilian fields, spread moored type, and will operate at a water depth of 2150
meters. The purposes of the project cover many areas like producing, storing and offloading oil, also
producing, re-injecting and exporting gas, injecting water and re-injecting CO2.

Back to the global exploration process, once a company is in charge of the field’s global
exploration process, two different paths are followed in terms of equipment design: although some are
internally designed, the majority of the subsea equipment and technological elements are obtained on
an outsourcing base, hiring other companies to do it. Those companies are specialized in dealing with
specific technology and pieces of equipment. Then, the role of the oil companies that own the fields is
to supervise the activities of the other companies, making sure everything is the way they intended, as
well as managing the overall unreeling of events, ensuring that deadlines are met and nothing is left
behind. As far as riser systems are concerned, not always do the project owners attribute all the lines
to the same company, sometimes each company is assigned with a batch of lines. There are always
rules and premises to be followed when providing such technical services, nevertheless, some degree
of freedom is present in the design phase and occasionally problems happen. Interference problems,
between the lines designed in different places. That is also an issue to be taken care by the owning
company (or consortium, of course).

This work was done in association with a company specialized in designing and producing
flexible pipes. This thesis’ case study, in particular, corresponds to a gas injection line. Although its
purpose is completely different from the oil production ones (usually seen as the most relevant),
overall the design process and issues faced are similar, typically having one major difference: the
diameter; in this case, a 6’’ inner diameter structure is the goal, whereas a production line would be
larger.

43
 Every FPSO has a specific place all along its length, designated balcony, where all the lines
are attached. Figure 20 shows a typical configuration of that, where the types of lines are specified:

Figure 20 - Layout of the vessel balcony, with all the types of lines in place

This configuration is also particularly important ahead in the design phase, as there are very
similar risers in different positions; given the fact that different positions are affected in a different
manner by the currents and waves, one can assess which is the over critical case and only perform
the dynamic analysis in that case. Consequently, all the other locations will be safe and fulfil the
requirements.

Throughout this chapter much specific technical data is provided and used in the studies
performed and presented. Apart from the knowledge gained from numerous conversations with
experienced engineers, three main documents were used as ground for this work, three very detailed
technical procedures used worldwide by design engineers. In an attempt to avoid making reference to
these documents exhaustively, they are referred here and it is noted that their use is constant for the
full extent of the chapter. [36],[37],[38]

3.1. Flexible Pipe Design

It has been meticulously explained the existence of numerous options within the riser systems’
solutions, from flexible to rigid and hybrid. From this point onwards only the flexible solutions are
considered, as the case study here presented adopts those kind of technology.

Whatever the option taken in terms of configuration is, some basic considerations are common
and will always be respected: the structure consists of several layers, even though those layers vary a
lot depending on the conditions; the types of layers are limited, although in each case one can detail
specific parameters according to the requirements; the kind of physical tests that must be performed,
some of them in the factory and others on-site.

As far as the layer types are considered, there are four main types worth mentioning, here
disregarding the also very important tapes. First of all, the designated pressure vault whose primary
function is to absorb the radial forces generated by the internal pressure. These layers are not able to
resist axial forces as they are laid in helix at angles close to 90º. The internal pressure is also
responsible for the generation of hoop stress, absorbed by layers designated as pressure armours.

44
 Tensile armours is the name attributed to the helically wounded metallic wires that are laid at
angles from 20º to 55º, which form a layer responsible for resisting, totally or partially, the end cap
effect or the reverse end cap effect. The end cap effect results from the internal pressure and,
contrarily, the reverse end cap results from the external pressure. Then, the tensile or compressive
loads and the axial loads resulting from this pressure must be bear and these layers are typically
counter wound in pairs.

Finally, the crushing resistant layers are used to confront external radial forces: hydrostatic
pressure, clamping loads or crushing loads in caterpillars. Within these layers one can include the
layers of the pressure vault, the inner carcass (if existent) and the external carcass (if existent). This
said, here follows a more detailed (yet not exhaustive) explanation of every layer that can be used in a
flexible pipe structure.

3.1.1. Layered Structure

Axial Tensile Leakproofness

Traction armours
Armour
Protection
Carcass

External layer

Collapse Tapes

Radial
Mechanical
Compression
Pressure layer Teta and PSI Spiral Anti wear

Internal Pressure
Internal
Leakproofness Collapse
Radial
Mechanical
Compression

Figure 21 – Typical structure layers of a riser system’s flexible pipe [21]

Figure 21 shows a representation of the different layers found in the structure, properly
accompanied by the type of effects associated, summarizing the issues it helps avoiding. For one, the
tensile armours are responsible for resisting axial traction, as previously mentioned; the carcass helps
resisting collapse and radial mechanical compression; the pressure layer is a key element to assure
internal leakproofness; zeta/teta spiral layers are an essential complement to the carcass, adding to

45
that the ability to sustain internal pressure; the tapes, here schematized in pink, are fundamental as
anti-wear elements; finally, the external layer guarantees leakproofness and armour protection.

The inner interlocked carcass consists of a crushing resistant layer that is optional on the
structure, depending on the need for external radial forces’ resistance. The term interlocked comes
from the way its structure is shaped, with stripes shaped in a peculiar way and locked into each other.
Although its constitution can vary according to some parameters, stainless steel is always the material
to use. Those parameters include partial pressure of H2S, salinity, temperature and ph.

The thermal screen is a thermal barrier concept based on a strip layer inserted between the
carcass and the pressure sheath. Its purpose is the decrease of the pressure sheath’s temperature
beneath its maximum allowable temperature. Only PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene, is considered as a
qualified material for this application.

To guarantee internal leakproofness a pressure plastic sheath is included in this layered

structure. As for the material that it is made of, is highly constrained by the type of fluids flowing in the
tube, as well as its temperature and pressure. The list of possible materials to use includes
polyethylene polyamide or PVDF, polyvinylidene difluoride, a highly non-reactive and pure
thermoplastic; all these options can appear in different forms, considering the type of application and
the temperature and pressure limitations.

Complementing the carcass’s function of resisting collapse and radial mechanical

compression and also adding the resistance to internal pressure, the zeta spiral is usually composed
of two wires laid in spiral, usually made of carbon steel. The layout is completed with the addition of a
clip between the two wires spiralled in parallel:

Another spiral to take into account is the psi spiral, which comes in the same kind of material
but with two shapes, based on the type of application: static PSI – this layer, suitable for static
applications only, is composed of two identic wires spiralled in parallel; and dynamic PSI – this layer,
suitable for static and dynamic applications, is composed of two different wires spiralled in parallel.

A pressure backup layer can be used to reinforce the radial resistance of the Teta pressure
vault and, therefore laid above that same spiral: it is the flat steel spiral, and is made up of two wires
laid in parallel. Usually carbon steel is also the choice for this one, although low alloy steel wire can
too be used.

Anti-collapse plastic sheath is the name given to a layer that it is not necessarily always
used but whose function is to transmit the external hydrostatic pressure to the pressure armours,
preventing collapse. It is located between the pressure vault (zeta spiral, flat steel spiral, intermediate
interlocked steel carcass) and the armours. In terms of materials, its options are similar to the pressure
plastic sheath, with both polyethylene and polyamide as options, although with variations in the
conditions.

46
 In order to suppress the wear between metallic layers, an anti-wear plastic layer is used for
dynamic applications. This wear comes from relative moments, whether it is between the pressure
vault and the inner tensile armour layer, or between each armour layer.

Some of the most important layers in the whole structure are the tensile armours, which are
intended to resist axial forces. It is usually made of two sets of wires laid in opposite directions; if
necessary, that amount can be doubled, having two times those same two sets. The material to use is
typically carbon steel and is, as usual, dependent on the presence of H2S.

Along with the usual parameters that influence the layer’s specifications, like pressure,
temperature and operation fluid, the tensile armours have other factors associated some particular
problems that need to be accounted:

• Axial compression – the thickness and angle of the wires are important to avoid a dangerous
problem usually designated as “birdcage effect”;
• Curvature – again the thickness and angle, and also the width, are important to avoid another
problem, in this case lateral buckling;
• Axial tension variations – the dynamic movements are prone to cause fatigue problems,
resulting in the need for a thickness and angle control of the structure.

Tape layers are very important in the flexible pipe structure, especially the high strength
tape, which is widely used as a structural layer required to ensure integrity and long-term resistance of
the pipes, namely by resisting reverse end-cap effect. Its initial properties are degraded along time
with pipe manufacture, testing, installation, operation and retrieval. The long-term performance
accounts for a safety factor that considers wear, abrasion, fatigue, UV, hydrolysis, ageing and other
mechanical and chemical degradations. These kinds of tapes are typically constituted of aramid fibres
and can be accompanied by anti-wear tapes between armours if the contact pressures in the
dynamic sections exceed a certain value.

Sometimes there is a need for placing an intermediate plastic sheath above the pressure
sheath, or the anti-collapse sheath, and under the external sheath. The materials it can be made of
coincide with the polyethylene and polyamide ones described for the pressure plastic sheath.

All flexible pipes have an external plastic sheath and its main purposes are to keep the
armours in position, protect them against environmental corrosion and protect the insulation layers
against water ingress. In terms of material, again polyethylene and polyamide come up, and in this
case also a thermoplastic elastomer solution appears.

An extra mechanical protection can be added by having an outerwrap interlocked steel

carcass onto the external plastic sheath, being mainly submitted to external loadings. It is not
considered in the mechanical characteristics of the flexible pipe, even though it helps preventing the

47
transfer of crushing loads to the tensile armours. Both austenitic stainless steel and duplex stainless
steel options are possibilities for this layer.

Finally, it is important to refer the thermal insulation layer and the fire resistant layer.
Whereas the first one is made of foam strips and laid around the armour layers or the intermediate
plastic sheath, the fire protection is a cork base material with chloroprene rubber and should be
wrapped around the external plastic sheath and protected by an external stainless steel carcass. Also,
this type of fire protection only works against a pool fire and not in the case of a jet fire.

This concludes the overview on the types of layers accountable in a flexible pipe structure.

3.1.2. Design Methodology

As any other engineering design project, there is not just a single correct approach to it,
methods vary according to many factors, from the entity doing the work itself to external aspects.

Therefore, the methodology here presented is just one among many, although it is believed to be the
most adequate, and also it follows the guidelines used by the most renowned companies in flexible
pipe design. Figure 22 illustrates a typical project flowchart for this application.

Figure 22 – Typical project flowchart, from preliminary structure to finish

Clearly, everything starts with the definition of a preliminary structure, goes through a series of
analysis, finalizing in the longstanding fatigue analysis. Also, it can easily be understood from the

48
flowchart that when a criteria is not met, if it actually happens, the process recedes and starts over
from a specific point, where changes can then be made. It is important to clarify the reason behind not
including here the arrangement of each of the structure’s layers: in this particular work, the
configuration was actually the main focus; and in the majority of the projects, the company that orders
the design specifies the configuration beforehand.

Firstly, one believes it is relevant to list, with some degree of detail, the design parameters to
consider throughout the design process. Those are, for this purpose, divided in four different sections;
for start, configuration selection:

• Water depth;
• Vessel motion characteristics;
• Number of risers;
• Pattern of subsea system;
• Environmental criteria (wave and current data).

As for configuration analysis:

• Screening study;
• Quasi-static analysis;
• Full dynamic analysis.

For the purpose of integrity assessment:

• Forces and deflections of riser components;

• Service life assessment;
• Interference assessment;
• Disconnection simulation.

Finally, ancillary equipment design:

• Bend restrictors and stiffeners;

• Subsea arch or buoyancy modules;
• Tethers and clamps;
• End fittings;
• Clump weights.

Other than this information, knowledge about the subsea pattern and crowding of the seabed
are also vital. Certainly these are more qualitative rules, somehow subjective, which should be
assessed nevertheless as they influence the selection of a riser system. A good example of how can
this kind of awareness interfere and influence a good decision is the conclusion that wave type riser
configuration should not contain parallel risers in close proximity. This was inferred from previous

49
study cases, where it was concluded that transverse motions could result in clashing of
risers/buoyancy modules.

Further, it is essential that the vessel and the mooring systems be fully defined, in order to
enable complete understanding of the potential vessel motions and interference mechanisms to which
the riser may be exposed. As far as vessel behaviour is concerned, its total dynamic motion can be
seen as the sum of three distinct components:

• Mean vessel offset – resulting from pseudo-static loading on the vessel (current, wind and
tidal forces);
• Slow drift motion – caused by a combination of low frequency waves and the natural
frequency of the mooring system;
• Wave induced motion – result of the direct response of the vessel to wave forces (typical
periods of these motions are of the order of 0-30 seconds). As this is the range where most of
the sea wave energy is concentrated, these motions are often referred to as first order wave
induced motions. There are a number of different vessels with different motion characteristics
associated, which can be defined using Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs).

In this area of study and others related to ship design, a response amplitude operator is an
engineering statistic used to try to rule out what will be the behaviour of a vessel operating at sea.
They are essentially transfer functions that allow one to understand the effect of a particular sea state
on the ship’s motion. RAO data is obtained both on experimental and computational basis, testing
scaled models or running CFD (computational fluid dynamics) software, respectively. All ship motions
and wave headings are considered. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_amplitude_operator]

Six types of motions are possible on the vessel, the designated degrees of freedom: heave,
yaw, sway, pitch, roll and surge. Figure 23 shows a schematic representation of the fields of data
provided by the RAO analysis, with adequate axes:

Figure 23 - Vessel's degrees of freedom [37]

50
 Waves impact the subsea structures through cyclic hydrodynamic loads as a result of drag
and inertia effects. One can resort to two methods for defining these loads: regular waves and
irregular waves, having the first typically as the most conservative, although this is not always true. It is
usual to perform the dynamic analysis firstly with regular waves, because it is less time consuming and
less costly, then use irregular theory afterwards in the most critical cases.

3.1.3. Failure Modes

When designing flexible pipes for riser applications there are a number of major failure modes
to account for, here considered throughout the analysis. Some of those issues are addressed through
the structure design itself, meaning the layers and their properties, whereas others require an
exhausting and iterative approach posterior to the structure’s definition during the configuration studies
and dynamic global analysis.

First, it is relevant to refer the bursting pressure criterion, as this value is defined as the
lowest internal pressure for which the structural capacity is reached in one of two cases: all the layers
of the pressure vault, if they exist; or one armour layer. The software chosen to perform the
calculations is more thoroughly explained in a subsequent section. The program calculates the stress
in all layers due to an internal pressure, performing those steps iteratively through increments of the
internal pressure until the criterion previously defined is met.

Also important is the damaging pull, which is defined as the axial force for which the
structural capacity is reached in one layer, whether it is the interlocked carcass, the pressure vault or
the tensile armours. Again, the same software was used to perform calculations identical to the ones
described in the previous paragraph and comes to a conclusion when the structural capacity is
reached in one of the layers.

The internal pressure is also responsible for the designated end-cap effect, by means of the
axial tension generated; on the opposite, the external pressure and the consequent axial compression
are responsible for the reverse end-cap effect. These issues can be verified in the tape layers;
typically, when the criteria are not met, the tape’s composition is modified in order to have tapes with
higher strength or more tapes are added to the structure.

The armour wires are an important part of any flexible structure and are subjected to
compressive stresses and lateral displacements when they are submitted to cyclic bending under
differential external pressure. This can lead to disorganization, which is a critical problem, thus being
essential to check for lateral buckling, an issue addressed through software explained posteriorly.

Another critical issue is designated collapse, which is represented by the collapse pressure,
the external pressure that generates a collapse of at least one crushing resistant layer. Resistance to
collapse can only be attained by structures with one or more crushing resistant layers. A parameter

51
called maximum allowable utilization factor (MUF) is determined, calculated as a ratio between the
maximum differential pressure and the collapse pressure of the whole pipe, and serves as criteria.

One last possible source of problems is related to the vessel’s supports of each riser; each
line, according to its function and location on the balcony, has a specific support associated and a
correspondent support limit. The critical situation is during the installation process, when all the line’s
weight is being supported there, and the worst case happens if the installation is performed with the
line full of water. The limits are usually pretty high, but the supports’ design has a Lazy Wave
configuration in mind, where the buoyancy modules relieve the top connection from much of the
weight, and not a Free Hanging one. Then, this calculation is particularly necessary in the Free
Hanging case, disregarding it in the first case due to the fact that it clearly meets the criteria.

Although the issues addressed this far do not cover the whole list of possible problems to
account for in the flexible pipe structure design, these are the most important and also the ones
considered in this work. Regarding the global dynamic analyses, these are performed in order to
contemplate the problems that emerge from the effect of waves and currents on the structure within
the whole system (platform, risers, mooring lines, etc.).

All things considered, the biggest problems are related to fatigue, as the cyclic loadings cause
much more damage than simple one-time loadings. Clearly, when talking about underwater
applications there are always cyclic loadings, given the fact that currents and waves act on the
structures causing them to move in different directions. In this particular case of a flexible riser, the
critical sections are located on the top connection and on the TDP, both for the Lazy Wave and Free
Hanging. The fatigue problems are prone to be less in the Lazy Wave configuration, as that is one of
the reasons that lead to the configuration choice in the first place. The buoyed segment helps to
isolate some of the movement and releases some tension from the critical fatigue points. As far as the
Free Hanging configuration is concerned, the worst point is on the top connection, right next to the
bend stiffener, having all the structure’s length influencing the dynamic loading.

So, in order to assess if the total damage is within the acceptable value range (which comes
from safety factors and is highly influenced by the service life) one needs to consider a vast list of
currents coming from all directions, combined with waves that come in different periods and heights,
as well as the draft coming from the vessel’s load. All things considered, thousands of cases ensue
and lead to slow analyses. Some approximations may be done so the analyses’ duration is reduced,
yet not compromising its veracity. They are based on comparisons with other lines previously
designed, which are similar in very particular and relevant parameters, like the RAOs.

Similarly to any other engineering design project, it is always an advantage to have experience
in previous projects that are identical, rather than thinking every step for the first time. It is highly
important to be able to predict what are the risks, to know the problems to account for and also, not
least relevant, to know what kind of facilitating strategies can be adopted throughout the design

52
process. In this particular case, another project from a Brazilian pre-salt field with similar conditions
was used as a baseline and was particularly helpful in the fatigue analysis.

3.2. Modelling and Analyses Fundamentals

In the same way as in many other engineering design projects, the need for modelling is
unquestionable and essential for the static and dynamic analyses performed. In this particular case,
the software used, which will be detailed ahead, is based on finite elements. Rested on feedback from
previous user experience (gathered among experts on the subject) and general public knowledge
about this kind of software, one could define some very important notes before entering the actual
modelling phase.

First, the model should always be developed and tested statically, in the mean equilibrium
position without offsets or currents applied, prior to running global dynamic analysis. This minimizes
the difficulty of finding errors (bugs, as usually designated) in the model.

Also, the model should be as simple as possible, although not disregarding its accuracy.
Meaning that, for example, if it is a continuous pipe that is being designed, despite having other
ancillary equipment attached, it is preferable to model one single line rather than various components.
Every time one component is added, it is mandatory to define its form of contact with the other
components, frequently leading to convergence problems. Nevertheless, it is clear that adaptations
must be made in order to design just one line with all the components; the line should be segmented
and each segment should have its own characteristics (material and structural specifications)
accounting for what it represents.

On another matter, the connection of the riser with the seabed is a very critical issue, should
be carefully dealt with and impacts on many more subjects than first impressions tend to make
believe. Convergence problems and instability are results of this issue, questions to be covered later in
this section.

Proceeding, it is relevant to explain how are the hydrodynamic forces calculated on a riser,
although in an underlying way. The calculations are performed at each element of the riser and at
each time step during a dynamic simulation; they are also based on the Morison equation, which
determines the hydrodynamic load, Fh, as a uniformly distributed load:

• F h = F d + F i + F a.

Where Fd stands for the drag force, Fi stands for the inertia force and Fa stands for added
mass force. Each one has its own definition, given by:

• Fd = 0.5 Cd ρw V |V| D [N/m];

• Fi = ρw A as [N/m];

53
 • Fa = Cm ρw A ar [N/m].

Where: Cd and Cm correspond to drag and inertia coefficients, respectively; ρw is the density of
3
water in kg/m ; V is the relative velocity vector between the riser element and the seawater in m/s; D is
2
the hydrodynamic diameter of the riser in meters; A is the cross-sectional area of the riser in m ; M is
2
the mass in air of the riser in kg/m; as is the acceleration vector of the fluid in m/s ; and finally, ar is the
2
relative acceleration vector between the riser and water particles, also in m/s .

The riser configurations which use some kind of buoyancy system also require special care in
terms of modelling, given that more than one method can be used to account for all the loads in the
buoyed section. The two main procedures are here explained:

• Equivalent simplified model – through this process, combining adjustments to diameters

and coefficients, one can render a correct net loading on the riser. This method simplifies the
work in the software model through regular calculations;
• Discretised model – this consists of a detailed representation of the riser in which one has to
model every single segment of the buoyed section. It is clearly more complex in terms of
modelling and also in terms of analysis, as it will add more elements.

In the line of thought introduced a few paragraphs back, the buoyancy modules present in the
wave type configurations can be simplified. Instead of modelling the actual modules, it is common to
compute equivalent properties for the line and go from that point on.

3.2.1. Types of Analyses

Having gone through the modelling processes, the stage that follows is obvious: actually doing
the analysis, the ones that will then provide the results needed. Every possibility considered in this
work consists of theoretical software analyses, meaning that no experimental activities were
performed, mainly because the subject addressed is not consistent with such experiments.

Firstly, static and quasi-static analysis consider all loads acting on the system as static,
which means that loadings like large vessel offsets may still be introduced, ramped on over a series of
iterations (then quasi-static instead of simply static). Loads that vary in time, such as waves and
vessel motions, are not to be included here. So, the applicable loads can typically be reduced to
weight, buoyancy, and hydrodynamic loads from steady state currents and extreme vessel offsets.

This kind of analysis is usually relatively quick to run and allows for the extraction of very
important static results, as well as a step evolution of a parameter during the simulation. One possible
approach to the project is to use the static option to run multiple cases, as it runs faster, to select the
critical cases that are then dynamically analysed. One can also run every single dynamic case and
conclude afterwards. Either way, critical points to account for on a static or quasi-static analysis are:

54
 • Maximum curvature;
• Top angle – the angle between the vertical direction and the riser, at which the riser hangs in
the nominal equilibrium position, also designated natural catenary angle. It is particularly
important to have this defined equal to the angle at which the support on the vessel is
fabricated, or at least within the same range;
• Bottom angle – the bottom angle is critical for Steep Wave and Steep S riser configurations,
given the fact that it influences the design of the seabed riser base support;
• Maximum tension;
• Clearances – should be assessed to ensure that the potential clashing problems do not occur
during dynamic analysis, making the configuration unsuitable.

A time domain analysis is generally used to solve the dynamic equations of motion of the
riser system, computing parameters that vary with time. The software normally uses user-specified
wave data to generate the surface profile of the sea and a 3-dimensional array of water particle
velocities and accelerations based on standard wave theories. The surface profile may be used to
calculate riser top response motions using RAOs. The relative riser/water particle velocities and
accelerations are used to calculate direct hydrodynamic drag and inertia forces on the riser and
attachments, whereas hydrodynamic forces are usually determined using some form of the Morison
equation. The results extracted from this kind of analysis are used to check the design of the whole
system, considering riser and ancillary equipment, when facing extreme and fatigue loadings.

Frequency domain analysis can also be used to solve dynamic equations of motion on a
flexible pipe, but in a frequency domain instead of integrating in time. There is no doubt that this is a
much faster method than time domain; on the other hand, there a number of limitations of this method,
related to the hypothesis that need to be made to use it, which makes it typically unviable as a stand
alone. Because it is normally not representative enough, this technique ought to be used only as a
complement.

A modal analysis provides the natural modes, as well as the associated mode frequencies
and deformed shapes. It is not as important by itself as when it is combined with other information.

Contrarily to what happens in the common uncoupled analyses, in which the vessel motion is
a boundary condition at the top of the lines imposed by RAOs definition and where the dynamic
analysis consists of solving the equations of motion for each line, vessel motion should add degrees of
freedom to the model. The lines, including the mooring ones, should be influencing the vessel’s
response and its six degrees of freedom should be added to the system. This kind of coupled
analysis is possible, although very demanding in terms of software.

There are many types of dynamic analyses, which can be divided, according to its actual
purpose, into the following groups:

55
 • Screening analysis;
• Sensitivity analysis;
• Extreme analysis;
• Fatigue analysis;
• Connection/disconnection analysis;
• Installation analysis;
• Vortex induced vibration (VIV) analysis;
• Vortex induced motion (VIM) analysis.

Not every item on the list was covered in this work, partly justified by the limited time range but
mostly because the configuration comparison objective did not require it. Clearly, some screening
was necessary at first and then extreme and fatigue analyses engaged most of the work. Installation
analysis could have been an interesting addition to the comparison; however, it was left unattended in
order to maintain the focus on the structural behaviour in extreme and fatigue analyses.

Now that the fundamentals of analyses are better defined, namely the dynamic ones that are
the most relevant to this work, it comes as logic to present a diagram that specifies the path to follow
in this kind of projects. The flowchart of Figure 22 is a good base, but with the information gathered
this far it is possible to go deeper in terms of specificity.

The flowchart presented in Figure 24 follows the typical guidelines followed by experienced
companies in the design of flexible pipe, being the best source one can have, defining suggested
paths from general data down to dynamic analysis.

56
 Figure 24 - Overall flowchart from general data to dynamic analysis

3.2.2. Software

To perform the analyses required throughout this work there was a need for a powerful
software dedicated to this matter; the same happens in any subsea pipe design project; three software
are available within the industry to assure such activities:

• DeepLines TM (commercialized by PRINCIPIA);

• OrcaFlex (commercialized by ORCINA);
• Flexcom (commercialized by MCS Kenny).

57
 These three different software can be considered equivalent in terms of results’ accuracy for a
general analysis purpose, but specific issues ought to be dealt with in different ways. All in all, the
choice of which software to use comes down to the experience the engineering team has, given the
fact that sensibility with the results is very important.

Adding to the principal software, there are a few auxiliary programs, developed to assist the
whole flexible pipe design process; the ones used in this work are all patented and intellectual property
of a company. Therefore, not only can they not be used outside the company’s offices, but also they
cannot be discussed in this work. These software were used in order to solve the problems related to
the failure modes previously referred.

Lateral buckling can be found in two different situations: in the installation phase, where the
pipes can either be empty or partially filled; in operating conditions for dynamic applications, when one
verifies an internal pressure smaller than the external. The software is used to evaluate lateral
buckling criticality of flexible pipes, and follows these fundamental equations:

• Wire’s equilibrium equations (forces and moments);

• Wire’s behaviour equations (curvature and torsion variation and relative elongation induced by
bending);
• Sliding equation.

Apart from the conditions already stated, regarding the content of the pipe in the installation
process, there are three leading parameters in this phenomenon: armouring angle, equivalent internal
diameter of armour wires and internal diameter of first armour layer. These parameters are used to
define the acceptance criteria.

The software used allows for the computation of the collapse pressure in straight pipe
configurations, and also in curved ones, taking into account erosion and corrosion effects. The
collapse pressure is calculated accounting for the following cases:

• Rough and smooth bore pipes;

• Collapse resistance as a function of the pressure vault relief;
• Straight and curved pipe configurations;
• Sheath leakproofness;
• Erosion and corrosion vault geometrical data;
• Pressure sheath radial gap.

In order to estimate the service life of tensile armour layers for any dynamic flexible pipe, one
used software that attains such objective through calculations of the mean and alternated stresses in
the armour wires when the structure is subjected to sets of loadings. Those loadings include internal
and external pressure loads, dynamic tension and in-plane cyclic bending motion. Additionally, the

58
individual damage associated with each set of loadings is determined as a function of the calculated
stresses and the selected fatigue environment. Finally, the actual service life is deduced from the
cumulated damage over a given period of time, following the Miner’s rule.

The main principle behind this software is numerical simulation of the armour wires’
displacements and deformations caused by flexible pipe bending. The pipe circumference is split in
segments delimited by equidistant meridians, and then modelled the armour wires as several beams
between two adjacent meridians. In terms of process, there is a numerical step-by-step bending of the
pipe (incrementing the curvature) between the extreme curvatures, defining a cycle as the sequence
Cmin - Cmax - Cmin, where Cmin stands for minimum curvature and Cmax for maximum curvature.
Stresses computation is completed during the last cycle of wires’ displacements change so the fatigue
damage can be assessed. Each load case inserted in the input file, provided to the software, has its
individual damage computed for each meridian, armour and corner; everything considered, the total
damage is then calculated.

3.3. Configuration Comparison and Results

The Free Hanging configuration is obviously much simpler than all the others in every aspect:
less complex to design, manufacture and install, less costly and causes less interference problems.
So, the crucial question relates to the reason behind not using the Free Hanging configuration;
evidently the structure must fail in some criterion, or else it would be feasible to adopt such
configuration. In this work it is intended to evaluate to what extent is this use possible and infer what
can be done to overcome the impediments found.

The Lazy Wave configuration is a consensual solution within the industry for deepwater
applications, revealing a reduced vessel payload and showing a partial decoupling of the vessel
motions. This configuration is the most popular nowadays among flexible riser design companies,
having substituted Free Hanging in that place for a few years now. Table 3 summarizes the pros and
cons of this “replacement”: [Recent Lazy Wave Riser Experience]

Pros Cons
Reduces Top Tension 


Decouples (partially) FPSO and TDP Hardware and Installation costs

Movements 

More configuration arrangements (for lateral
and vertical clearance) Increased design complexity 

Reduces tension & displacement at seabed
Table 3 - Lazy Wave riser configuration against Free Hanging Catenary [24]

Adding to this, some major design challenges must also be referred:

59
 • Configuration optimization – it is a very time consuming and costly analysis;
• Susceptibility to VIV if not straked;
• Possible flow assurance issues – the length of the lines and the sag and hog sections might
constitute a problem. [31]

Though, the Lazy Wave configuration is the most widely used solution nowadays within the
flexible riser industry, meaning that a deep structural comparison with the simplest solution reveals
itself an interesting and helpful exercise.

3.3.1. Structure Selection

First of all, one must select the composition of the layered structure, defining exactly which
layers are to be used and its specifications, namely materials and thickness. As it has been previously
detailed, each layer has its own purpose and selection parameters; given the characteristics of the
project in place, it is then a matter of attending every specification and finding a balance within the
layers.

Given the fact that this work was grounded on an on-going project, as explained before, and
that for this project the intended configuration was a Lazy Wave, it would only be logic to adopt the
same structure. The selection is made in a way somewhat similar to a catalogue based one, where it
is possible to find multiple structures that have been widely tested and given proof. With this in mind, it
would be an error trying to find the ideal structure for this project, from scratch, with a highly iterative
process. So, the structure was selected grounded on the vast experience of previous projects with
similar conditions, resulting on what is described by Table 4.

Layer number Type of layer

1 Interlocked carcass
2 Pressure sheath
3 Teta clip
4 Spiral
5, 7, 10, 12 Anti-wear tape
6, 11 First armour
8, 13 Second armour
9 Fabric tape
14 High strength tape
15 Leakproofness sheath
16 Fabric tape
17 External sheath
Table 4 - Structure used

60
 The first column corresponds to the number a given layer has in terms of order, considering
that the sequence starts from the interior until it reaches the outermost layer, the external sheath. For
example, there are four anti-wear tapes, located in the fifth, seventh, tenth and twelfth position,
therefore between the fourth and sixth layers, sixth and eighth and so on. Specific parameters like the
material used or the thickness of each layer cannot be disclosed, as that would make confidentiality
issues arise and could compromise the companies’ competitiveness in the market.

As far as the Free Hanging configuration is concerned, it is only logical to use a structure with
the exact same composition, as the conditions are equal. Thus, the same layers, material
specifications and thicknesses are used in the second case. One could argue that to adopt a Free
Hanging configuration in such water depths it would be necessary to arrange innovative structure
layouts. In this case study, it is intended to compare the configurations in terms of performance
subjected to the same conditions, isolating the effect of the actual configuration, therefore no
alterations are made. Nevertheless, in the last chapter this topic is addressed.

3.3.2. Failure Modes

There are many ways a structure this complex can fail, when subjected to harsh conditions
and loadings as in this application. Those ways have been previously explained, and the most relevant
failure modes are here referred, as well as the way they were dealt with in this case study.

Along with the explanation of the failure modes, also a brief overview of the working process of
the software used was presented, thus it shall not be repeated here. The same software was used for
the assessment of three modes: bursting pressure, damaging pull and end-cap effect. The layers that
compose the structure, previously studied, are defined in the programme with every material
properties and sizing parameters specified.

After everything was fully defined, the calculations were done and very specific results for
every layer defined were found. With them, one could compare the relevant parameters with the
results that would result in failure; the conclusion is that all the criteria regarding these three failure
modes are met with the selected structure.

As far as lateral buckling is concerned, the results found once again fulfilled the needs and
special adaptations were not necessary.

Regarding the collapse issues, happily everything elapsed the same as in the previous
problems, using the appropriate software, and every criterion was met.

Last but not least, an issue concerning the risers’ support on the vessel had to be addressed;
as explained before, this is only a need for the Free Hanging configuration. Basically, one needs to
account for the weight of the entire length of pipe in the worst situation possible and see if the support

61
is able to sustain that massive loading. The critical situation occurs on the installation process, since
the weight is all suspended and the pipe may be filled with water.

A preliminary static calculation was performed, summing up the weight of the different
components of the flexible pipe, since there is a top, an intermediate and a bottom section, which have
small differences on their structure that result in different equivalent properties. It was also considered
the fact that there is a small section of the top riser, mainly composed by the I-tube, which is
suspended in air, therefore having a different weight by unit of length. Of course the section of pipe
that is laying on the seabed, consequently not contributing to the support’s loading, was discounted.
The equivalent weight is from around 200 kgf/m on the top section to 120 kgf/m on the bottom one. In
contrast, the top riser’s length is below 200 m, whereas the bottom section goes almost up to 2000 m.

These calculations lead to a static result, which is amplified in dynamic conditions; to simulate
that, one resorts to the Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF), which is usually considered to be
around 2. All things considered, the resulting maximum static force is around 3300 kN, leading to a
dynamic maximum loading of 6600 kN. Since the maximum allowable is 5900 kN, this preliminary
result would lead to a failure; to confirm, the model was built and a simple dynamic analysis was done.

With a fully defined model (which is detailed in the next sub-section) it was possible to run
analyses for the most critical dynamic cases and get accurate results. The worst case scenario
resulted in 4900 kN maximum dynamic top tension and 3500 kN maximum static loading, which
corresponds to a DAF around 1.4, a result consistent throughout the various cases. Clearly, the
amplification factor typically used in Lazy Wave configurations is exaggerated and conveyed into a
misleading conclusion for the Free Hanging case. Concluding, the support was able to resist the
weight of the long flexible riser.

3.3.3. Configuration Studies

Once these first few issues related to the structure were overcome, one could proceed to the
configuration studies. It goes without saying that the Lazy Wave configuration is prone to have multiple
possible outlines, as the number and location of the buoyancy modules completely change it; given
the fact that those parameters are to be defined by the engineering design team with a certain degree
of freedom, the combinations are numerous. In this case, because defining those two parameters is a
very complex and time-consuming task that should be done by experienced engineers together with
the client’s specifications, one single option was adopted and maintained from beginning to end.

The 140 buoyancy modules are strategically located to isolate some of the riser’s motion
from the critical top connection and, at the same time, avoid interference issues with other lines. These
modules’ performance, namely its buoyancy, worsens with time; therefore one must consider the end-
of-life situation to study the configuration.

62
 Moreover, one of the most important issues to address is that the riser must leave at a certain
angle from the top connecting structure, which is related to the bellmouth angle. In this particular
project, the bellmouth makes a 7º angle with the vertical direction and it is conceived that, for the
configuration studies, the corresponding riser’s angle should stand at 9º because of the interference
issues. To assess if the 9º option is fine, a deformation study must be done to the bend stiffener. The
situation for the configuration study is the worst possible: not only are the buoyancy modules
considered to be in end-of-life, but also the line is considered to be flooded. Again, the idea behind it is
that if one can fulfil every criterion in that situation, then start-of-life and other favourable stages meet
them too.

Figure 25 – Example of the Free Hanging model defined in Deeplines

Since the riser does not have the same structure along its full length, to build the model one
must start by defining those different line types: apart from the three distinct sections (top, intermediate
and bottom riser), also a segment type corresponding to the bend stiffener and other to the stop collar
must be defined. Afterwards, it is a matter of building a mesh, in which each element is associated to a
line type, and finally defining the end connections (the vessel support and the seabed in case of a
riser). To accomplish this it is obviously also necessary to create a model of the vessel; apart from

63
loading the RAOs, it is also important to consider the draft and, of course, the type of vessel. Figure 25
shows an overview of what Deeplines looks like after the Free Hanging model is fully created.

Once the model is created, the connection point of the riser with the seabed is the responsible
factor for reaching the top angle requirement. It is an iterative process, where the user takes part by
changing the sea ground connection point, running a static analysis and verifying the top angle result,
until that result meets the criterion. This done, the modelling is finished. In order to compare the overall
layout of the two configurations, both were plotted in the same chart, presented here in Figure 26.

Configuration 6" Gas Injection Line

-­‐100  

-­‐400  

-­‐700   Free-­‐
Hanging  
Depth (m)

-­‐1000  
Lazy-­‐
Wave  
-­‐1300  

-­‐1600  

-­‐1900  

-­‐2200  
0   300   600   900   1200   1500   1800   2100   2400  
Horizontal distance (m)

Figure 26 – Comparison of the resulting configurations determined and modelled

It is clear that both configurations have the same top angle, although their path afterwards is
very different. To be accurate, the horizontal segment in the picture is actually not considered a riser
but a flowline; however, it must be included in the model, even though its results are not relevant. The
sag/hog sections noted in the Lazy Wave line, around 500 to 1100 meters, are the ones influenced by
the buoyancy modules; yet, those modules are only place approximately between the 650 and 1000
meters marks.

3.3.4. Fatigue Analysis

The service life of a flexible riser can be dictated by the fatigue characteristics of the steel
layers and by the fatigue characteristics of the polymers; in this case, the critical fatigue problem is in
the traction armours. Other phenomena such as ageing and wear can also govern the service life of a
flexible. The service life of the armour wire and pressure vault steel layers computation is based on the
number of cycles of each stress range to which the wires will be subjected during the design life of the
riser.

64
 Having the model completely built, the first step is to define the cases to analyse, i.e. the wave
classes and currents. Moreover, as previously referred, not all the selected cases are to be used in
this case study, because it demands much time and numerical effort. This selection was based on
previous similar projects where every single case was studied; from the results, it is possible to assess
which ones are the most damaging ones. 60% was considered to be a significant percentage of the
total damage to enable the extrapolation of the final result. This allowed for a drastic reduction of the
computation time, which was essential to complete the task, yet not compromising the accuracy.

Summing up, the cases result from combinations of wave classes, currents and also drafts.
The drafts have a specific percentage of occurrence, which is then considered in the final calculation,
at the definition of the load cycles. The list of the selected cases is presented in the annexes, each
one with a designation following the same code: draft_direction_height_period, where the direction,
height and period correspond to the waves; direction must be understood as comes from. Concerning
the draft it is relevant to note that they correspond to a percentage of the load and that the
percentages of occurrence associated are:

Draft Percentage of occurrence

20% Load 17%
36% Load 33%
68% Load 33%
100% Load 17%
Table 5 - Drafts and corresponding occurrence

Another important issue that must not go unattended is the fact that the most critical location
on the vessel was considered, since there are multiple slots where one can find lines of the same type.
To maximize productivity it is common to only evaluate the most critical, given that it will automatically
ensure that the others meet the criteria. In this case, slot 55 of the balcony, which can be seen in
Figure 20, was found to be the worst case scenario among the gas injection lines.

With the model previously built on Deeplines, all these cases were mounted and both static
and dynamic analyses were done. At this point, there was a massive setback in the work, by virtue of
a critical convergence problem. This is particularly sensitive software and even the most experienced
users sometimes face this kind of problems. Happily, after a number of reflections and experiments, it
was possible to understand the reason behind the problem, as well as inferring an important
conclusion to future work. In fact, the extra length added in the model to the section of the riser laying
on the sea ground was the issue: contrarily to what happens in the Lazy Wave configuration, where
every analysis went smoothly, the Free Hanging one is much more dynamic and that extra length was
not enough. Then, even more line was added to guarantee the results would have stabilized by the
time the riser had touch the ground; luckily the problem was solved and one could proceed.

After the post-processing phase, the results of the maximum tensions and curvatures could be
collected, since they were the relevant ones to the next stage. To run the final calculations, it remained

65
necessary to add the number of cycles to the rest of the parameters; the conversion accounting for
each draft’s percentage of occurrence was not discarded.

The term damage here mentioned is nothing else than a ratio between the projected life and
the actual life the part can sustain. It is the reason between fatigue life and service life; there is also a
safety factor, which, rearranging a simple equation, results in the maximum allowable damage. In this
case, one considered a safety factor of 10, which results in 0.1 as the maximum allowable damage.

All things considered, the final results show that the Lazy Wave configuration meets the
criterion, whereas with the Free Hanging solution there is a colossal increase in the total damage.
Extrapolating from the 60% of damage significant cases, the total damage stands at 7.223! It leaves
no margin for doubts or alternative processes; these processes go from adding directionality
properties to the fatigue analysis or including irregular waves and may be enforced to reduce
conservatism. On the other hand, the fact that the Lazy Wave fulfils the requirements means that the
model was well built and the analyses were performed correctly.

Considering that these kind of equipment are designed for a service life of 25 years, with a
safety factor, the result obtained for the Free Hanging configuration corresponds to a lifetime of less
than 3,5 years. Needless to say that this is definitely critical, impractical and, in the end, unfeasible.

66
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1. Summary

The deep and ultra-deepwater sustainable exploration of oil and gas, inevitably promoted by
the discovery of numerous reserves in the Brazilian pre-salt fields, has been leading to technological
breakthroughs. The biggest challenge is to accurately assess what else is there to be done in order to
reach new goals, greater depths in particular, and where should one allocate resources aiming for
those developments.

One critical part of those upcoming developments relates to SURF engineering, as there is
margin for improvement both for the kind of sites currently being explored and the increasing water
depths’ locations. Discovering reserves in such locations is just the first step towards a sustainable
exploration; in the end, if it is not technically viable, then everything will sink. Therefore, the main
purpose of this thesis was to single out and understand SURF technologies, performing a comparative
case-study analysis focused on the deepwater exploration.

The different technological solutions presented are associated with different challenges, risks
and benefits, which means that the analysis could not be accurate without a standardizing approach.
That is the point of the International Risk Governance Framework (IRGC) that was adopted and is
explained in Chapter 1, section 1.4: Research Methodology. Other than this risk analysis, also a
comparative case-study methodology was used, deepening the perception and knowledge about the
technological issues being addressed.

Prior to any specific assessment on SURF technologies, it is essential to understand the

industry behind those topics. Chapter 1: Introduction presents an overview of the oil and gas industry,
its evolution and how its current uncertainties have a profound impact on both technological and
economical perspectives.

In Chapter 2: Emerging Forms of SURF Engineering, the concept of SURF technologies is

introduced, with particular focus on the riser systems. Along with the concept, one was able to split the
numerous solutions into groups in an effort to categorize them and enable a more accurate analysis.
This effort is validated by the fact that the kind of solutions united actually gathered most of the same
challenges, risks and benefits, all in all resulting in a pretty enlightening risk analysis. Summarizing,
three main technological groups were studied, within the riser systems’ subject: flexible, rigid and
hybrid. It is not possible to rule out a single option as the correct one, given that all have pros and
cons; what happens is that the best fit needs to be found to each case’s particular conditions.

Being unfeasible to do a comparative case-study analysis with technical solutions from each
quadrant of the previous chapter, at least not to the extent it was intended to, there was a need to

67
narrow the target group. Flexible solutions are, nowadays, possibly the most widespread within the
deepwater oil and gas exploration, turning out to be the logical choice for the case study.

Chapter 3: Case Study: Dynamic Analysis of a Deepwater Flexible Pipe Riser System consists
of a thorough comparison between two flexible pipe riser system configurations, the two most relevant
within the industry: Free Hanging configuration, the simplest, and Lazy Wave configuration, the
common choice for deepwater applications. From an overview on the flexible pipe design process and
analyses fundamentals, to the actual modelling and structural comparison, this chapter allows for a
detailed insight on how to accurately study two different configurations based on a dynamic analysis.
The main purpose is to look in the direction of a technological breakthrough. Unlike what has
happened in the past, Lazy Wave has overcome Free Hanging as the most common configuration due
to the high depths requirements; what can be done to reverse this situation back to the simplest and
cheapest option is the drive, and to achieve that one must start by understanding its limitations. In a
very simplistic way, that is the reason behind this case-study analysis.

Merging structural and hydrodynamic analyses, all converging in complex finite elements
software built for these specific applications, towards a complete dynamic analysis of a riser system is
simultaneously a challenging and rewarding task. Although congregating so many variables and
technical issues in just one model, which is intended to be as complete as possible, it is possible to
study exactly where the problems come from. With this we can isolate the areas that need to
concentrate the focus of future studies towards overcoming the barriers that exist between a Free
Hanging flexible pipe configuration and deepwater riser applications. The scenario, common to the two
cases analysed, consists of a deepwater field in the Brazilian pre-salt to be explored in a near future
with a FPSO based structure.

Finalizing this thesis, Chapter 4 is a way of integrating the knowledge acquired over the
preceding chapters in the oil and gas industry’s global picture. Adding to that, from that integration one
can infer some relevant conjectures on how the industry can evolve. Not only can this be done in a
direct way with technical developments, but also considering the indirect influence of industrial policies
and possible structural changes in the formation of the future engineers of the industry. Moreover, it
was not discarded the fact that all this conjectures are connected with future energetic scenarios and
its ceaseless changes, which have repercussions in the global economy and, consequently, the
industry.

4.2. Future of the Oil and Gas industry and SURF Technologies

The future of the oil and gas industry is full of uncertainties, covering a wide range of topics
from technical issues to global energetic scenarios. Starting from these last ones, it is impossible to
detach economic factors from the actual energy related ones, like energy consumption, climate
change and new energy sources. Clearly this is a subject that concerns people around the world;

68
therefore studies have been made on this matter, from which one can itemize four main possible
scenarios for the future of the industry, according to a 2012 Deloitte study:

• Sustainable globalization – characterized by geopolitical stability, ordered economic growth

and trade cooperation between countries, this is a scenario where new alternative sources of
energy finally reach economic viability and can to the supply of conventional fuels;
• The decline of oil – marked by a lower economic growth and political tension, this scenario
foresees a decline in the importance of oil over the technological advances and growing
prominence of alternative sources of energy;
• The hegemony of traditional oil producers – alike the previous scenario there would be a
stagnation of emerging countries and the consequent decline of global demand, however, in
this case resulting in the continuity of the strong position of oil in the energy matrix;
• Dominance of fossil sources – defined by a growth tendency, a lack of competitiveness by
alternative sources and a non-commercialization of natural gas globally, this scenario predicts
that fossil sources would multiply and would combine with conventional oil exploration.

The scenarios presented, although based on studied and proven indicators, are just
possibilities and will always be influenced by numerous factors that are difficultly controlled. The global
uncertainty found these days along with possible game-changing events to happen in a near future
make it very difficult to predict any kind of scenario. Yet, it is highly improbable to see an extinction of
oil as an energy source, even though its role can vary a lot in the future (as seen by the described
scenarios). Either way, the technological development of oil exploration techniques can’t be discarded.

Considering the expectable continuity of fossil fuels as the most relevant vector in meeting the
world energy demand, one can say that natural gas (LNG) is prone to take the leading role in
producing electricity. On the contrary, the demand for oil will have a quiet growth, partially explained by
the improvement in vehicle efficiency; the reality of electric cars is, still, negligible because it is not
spread enough. Current oil crisis does not contribute positively to the competitiveness of alternative
energy sources, as there is much pressure and the oil prices have been continuously decreasing. This
decrease is mostly explained by the tensions between OPEC and the US, since the US shale-oil
exploration burst is being driven to a stop by the constancy of high production levels by OPEC.

This highly conflictive situation and the current low oil prices may have a negative impact in
the Brazilian pre-salt growing exploration. It is an expensive form of extraction and the panorama can
turn it into an unfeasible operation in economic terms, ultimately resulting in the backspace of the
Brazilian oil industry. Again, this leads to a need for measurements that result in reduced costs and
improved efficiency in the operations.

Whether it is verified that oil dependency is diminishing or that its dominance is stronger than
ever, the need for improvements in the oil exploration technology is essential. For one, these
developments are key to lower the costs of extraction and maintain oil as a competitive source in

69
relation to alternative sources. On the other hand, the developments may be vital to overcome current
impossibilities and reach new milestones to increase the global production, in order to keep up with
the demand. It is easy to relate to the offshore oil exploration, since the milestones mentioned consist
of, in this case, reaching greater water depths, unexplored this far.

The case studied in this work directly relates to this subject, by comparing two solutions that
are currently coexisting and battling for its own space within the industry. There was a time where Free
Hanging simple catenary configurations were leaders, both in the form of flexible and rigid solutions.
Once the extent of the water column started to increase, structural fatigue problems in the top
connection began to arise and solutions had to be found, or else the amount of fields worth exploring
and viable for the solutions available would not be able to meet the demand on a long term basis. To
respond to the request, the industry came up with solutions such as the Lazy Wave configuration here
studied. This is an example of the kind of challenges, which repeatedly face the oil and gas industry
and induce development.

Nowadays, the flexible pipe Lazy Wave configuration constitutes the most common solution for
deepwater exploration, mainly due to its capability of isolating much of the system’s movement from
the top connection. It has overcome the Free Hanging solution, despite its indisputably higher cost and
degree of complexity, proof that the demand controls everything. Although one way to reply to this
challenge is to come up with possible alternative configurations, the most commonly accepted
direction is to develop new methods of using the simplest solution existent.

Most of the problem with having the long riser in a single descending section, without any
buoyed part, comes from the massive weight that sums up from the whole structure. Naturally, this
weight conjugated with constant dynamic solicitations results in unbearable loads. Therefore, the
logical solution would be to, somehow, reduce the total weight. Despite its reasonable flexibility, the
pipes are mostly constituted by steel – it goes without saying that it is not the most lightweight
material, although with very good properties.

Simply reducing the amount of steel is not an option, since the structural properties would then
be compromised and criteria would not be met. Choosing a substitute material seems to be the only
possibility; but what is the best option? There is no consensus in this subject, but two major trends can
be uncovered from the experts’ ideas and contributions.

A fraction of the specialists believe that the solution comes from maintaining metallic
materials, adding noble materials to meliorate the alloys’ relation between structural performance and
specific weight. Learning from aeronautics and aerospace engineering is an interesting option, given
that in that industry one deals with some of the most challenging environments. Moreover, the
decades of resources, both human and material, invested in the development of that industry should
be availed in benefit of the oil and gas industry, and particularly SURF engineering. [39]

70
 However, this material changes mean a great increase in the cost of the structure and,
consequently, the system. It is true that desperate times require desperate measures, and although
desperate is not the accurate term for the situation faced, but important questions emerge: is it worth
the effort? And to what extent are these solutions viable? On a relatively short-term basis, seeking for
solutions to the immediate problems, meaning the current water depths and conditions, it is a matter of
evaluating if the savings from not using buoyancy modules can balance the cost increase related to
the addition of these noble materials in the alloys. Long-term takes uncertainty to another level, as a
degree of complexity is added because it needs to be assessed if the structural requests can be met
with these alterations. Also, the future scenarios for the energy market influence these responses, as it
is difficult to predict the oil prices’ path, making it tough to evaluate the economic feasibility.

The other solution, which is the most unanimous within the group of experts contacted,
consists of changing part of the structure’s material to composites, instead of keeping the metallic
alloys. The composites industry is fast-growing and spreading to diversified areas of application,
including some of the most challenging; again, the aerospace industry must be quoted as a reference.
Adapting the knowledge gained through years of development of aerospace equipment to the
demanding world of deep and ultra-deepwater oil and gas exploration is a challenge. But starting from
zero is an even bigger challenge, so it is believed that experience based breakthroughs are the correct
path to follow.

Similarly to the first solution presented, the same cost related issues emerge and forward to
identical conjectures. Nevertheless, one believes that there is a greater margin for the development of
this kind of materials than metallic alloys. Thus, it is probably not the best immediate solution but a
definitely something to consider when facing unexplored water depths. The first step is to solve the
issue that allows for the use of a Free Hanging configuration in current depths (until 2500 meters,
typically). Once this is attained, development may proceed to reach new horizons; the theoretical limit
is far beyond what has been identified to the date as profitable oil and gas reserves. It has been
observed that the Lazy Wave solution grants an improvement in relation to the Free Hanging one,
dismissing economic factors and maintaining the circumstances. Then, even when the theoretical limit
of the composite material evolution is reached, one can still go one step further by changing, once
again, back to a Lazy Wave configuration.

This said, notwithstanding the fact that it does not confer an immediate resolution, it is strongly
believed that the future of SURF engineering lies in composite materials.

4.3. The role of industrial policies and Opportunities for Portugal

Industrial policies are crucial to major paradigm shifts in terms of technological development,
whether it is at a country’s scope or in a global spectrum. Its arguable role is commonly countered by
stating that it deceives competition by “picking winners”, while the governments are exposed to its

71
established interests. [40] On the contrary, many already comprehend the compelling need for
constant adaptation to an ever-changing world, something only possible through governmental
intervention. The products are constantly suffering innovations, the prices are volatile, and only
through knowledge sharing and education can one keep up with the market demands and
uncertainties. [41] The interventions should be brought to action as a way of facilitating both the
formation and propagation towards all the stakeholders, then increasing the possibilities of
technological development. As far as the so called knowledge economy is concerned, the public
sector, and the governing entities themselves, are seen as facilitators of these knowledge spreading
among private companies, instead of actually governing the market and leading this private entities to
specific investments.

A common perception among experts of what is the correct industrial policy is that it
corresponds to the one that creates and preserves strategic collaboration between the public and
private sectors towards a reinforcement of the flow of information between the parts, in the end leading
to the fitting government interventions. This facilitation and coordination role played by the government
is very important to promote risk sharing and cooperation between stakeholders on different stages of
the value chain. Instead of following the typical “picking winners” strategy, the market forces are the
ones responsible for rule out which companies should be funded for knowledge investments. [42],[43]

In addition, the relations between industry and universities should be promoted, not only with
respect to the actual students during their formation, but also consider the scientific investigations; the
student related topic is approached posteriorly in this section. As far as the work developed by
investigators is concerned, a cooperation would be highly beneficial for both parts: for one, the level of
qualification and experience of the investigators is very high, difficult to find within the industry; on the
other hand, the industry has a more practical sense of knowledge, which sometimes lacks within the
academic stratum.

Portugal is in a privileged situation to benefit from a correct enforcement of an adequate set of

industrial policies considering the oil and gas exploration industry. Firstly, its wide continental shelf
constitutes an undeniable opportunity, actually not only for the hydrocarbon production but also for
other maritime activities. Also, one cannot discard the influence of the increasing interest and
exploration of the South Atlantic, namely with the already debated Brazilian pre-salt. Finally, Panama
Canal’s enlargement also contributes to the vitality of maritime connections and, consequently, to the
possible Portuguese industrial development.

Along with Brazil, also African oil-producing countries like Angola or Mozambique have
Portuguese as, at least, one of their official languages. It goes without saying that this is a critical
opportunity that, if well managed and pushed, can lead to great industrial development, whether it is
by means of intern investment or by attracting big foreign players of the oil and gas industry. This
appeal has already started to yield results: some of the major players in the industry have already

72
established themselves with offices in Portugal, namely the services’ providing companies. Adding to
what has been stated this far, one should sum two other relevant factors: the geographical position of
the country and the quality of the engineers formed there.

Portugal’s location allows for tight relations with important countries from Central and South
America (like Brazil) as well as Africa and, of course, Europe. If the first ones are important for their oil
and gas industry, Europe is relevant here because Portugal can be seen as an entry gate for the much
industrialized countries of the old continent. For example, considering the case of natural gas, the LNG
terminal in Sines can be vastly extended and have its capacity increased in order to be able to supply
gas to European countries. Obviously the gas is not produced in Portugal, but its strategic location
translates in a great business opportunity. Nevertheless, this option can only be explored once the
barrier between Spain and France is overcome, an actual physical hurdle embodied by the Pyrenees.

Perhaps it is not viable to have Portugal investing in a national company to complete all the
tasks needed for a possible national hydrocarbon exploration, let alone compete with the big oil and
gas industry players in foreign countries. In terms of a service providing company, as the ones already
installed in the country, there is probably enough knowledge and capacity to attain such goal. Also,
there are niches that can and should be explored; as an example one can refer the production of
composite materials, here mentioned as a possible course of action to the future of SURF
technologies. Nonetheless, the opportunities are clear and should be taken into account, studied and
ideally put in practise resorting to government measures.

4.3.1. Challenges and Opportunities for Engineering Education

Apart from every other opportunity mentioned before, possibly the most important one is
related to human assets. The quality of the engineering education in Portugal is recognized worldwide,
being recruited for numerous locations within very different areas and scope of work. A combination of
foreign need for Portuguese engineers and their knowledge, with a slight lack of internal challenging
projects, results in an emigration rampage.

These highly qualified workers end up contributing to the development of foreign industries
and companies, when they could be creating value within borders. Subjects directly related to this
topic should targeted by governmental actions, by means of facilitating the industrial investment in a
way to retain the value of the human assets that keep abandoning the country after they are formed.

However, not everything is correct in the Portuguese education, namely the higher education
that engineers get at universities. As far as engineering areas are concerned there are considerable
gaps, which are deeply connected to global manner of structuring the education system. Unlike other
countries, in the Portuguese engineering universities there is a tendency for over-specifying the
knowledge on a particular subject, consequently forgetting relevant topics. United States of America
are an example to follow in this affair. Typically, the students are able to choose diversified subjects in

73
early stages of their degrees, and narrow their focus areas along time according to the interests,
always maintaining a broad set of possibilities.

In relation to the particular case of SURF engineering, although it is not mandatory or an

exclusive specification, the typical background of the engineers working in this area is mechanical
engineering. In spite of being a very distinct subject, it is a multidisciplinary one, covering various
areas, from structural to hydrodynamic analysis, going through control systems as well. Then, to be
able to perform well on the job one must have the basic knowledge of all these areas. What happens
nowadays is that engineers leave the universities too specialized in one area, which commonly
correspond to the ones previously referred, and lack some knowledge in the other subjects.

It is true that the system has been able to provide capable human assets to the industry,
mainly based on their ability to adapt to new challenges and situations, but it could improve. The basic
idea is that the degrees should not have such a high level of specialization, at least not as soon as
verified nowadays, providing only the basic knowledge and tools for the future engineers. The actual
specialization should happen within the industry, where the real practical knowledge is and where, with
the proper competences acquired in the university, one can learn and thrive. Moreover, it is strongly
believed that mandatory internships should be included in the curricular plan along the full duration of
the degree, so the students could apply their knowledge and collect new expertise.

This thesis was done with the collaboration of a company, as previously referred, and it is
proof that practical knowledge of the oil and gas industry is inside the companies. From a student’s
perspective, the internship proved to be extremely beneficial by complementing the know-how brought
from the university. Also, confirms the idea that it is better to have basic education in various areas,
namely structural and hydrodynamic analysis, that being specialized in just one area. From a
company’s perspective, the perception is that such modifications in the educational system’s structure
are seen as a clear enhancement of new engineers’ capacities.

4.4. Concluding remarks

In this thesis the main topic addressed was the comparison of two flexible pipe configurations
for riser systems in a deepwater oil and gas exploration field. Overall challenges, opportunities, risks
and benefits of the SURF engineering scene were assessed based on the IRGC methodology, namely
the dissociation of flexible, rigid and hybrid solutions.

The risk analysis performed today will probably not correspond to identical ones done in the
future, as the risks and benefits are unsteady along time, with conditional topics ranging from technical
to economic factors, or even social. It is relevant to identify what drives these issues, and one finds it
clear by now that the influencing factors are broader than expected. For example, as far as the riser
systems topic is considered, a typically very technical one, the first instinct would be to think that its
technological development is determined by technical factors. Actually, the spectrum of impacting

74
factors is much wider and indeed the most relevant elements are related to global socio-economic
issues, highly influenced by the commercial interests of big stakeholders.

In the end, commercial interests typically reflect themselves in the oil prices’ variations, which
leads us to another topic: uncertainty. Generally not immediately associated with engineering, these
two are actually inseparable and predicting the future of such a complex as this one consists an
incredibly hard challenge, even provided with the best tools and data available. A good strategy
understood here and to be applied in the future is to prepare the system to distinctive future outcomes,
capacitating it towards flexibility. A practical example of this is the suggested future of riser systems
lying in composites: perhaps the near future is to stabilize in the water depths and environmental
conditions found by now, or perhaps the idea is to go deeper and in harsh environments
simultaneously; either way, the flexibility of composite engineering grants the ability to adapt.

On a more specific basis, considering that the future of deepwater offshore oil exploration
follows a continuity trajectory of using FPSOs and partial subsea factories, it is expected that the
SURF engineering basis in the future will lie on composites. There is a sound base to progress and
respond to the challenges that may appear in the future; by combining public and private entities, there
is a strong possibility to thrive. Hopefully this venture pays off.

4.5. Future work

This thesis was done based on extensive literature review, accompanied by interviews with
experts and complemented by a case-study analysis. There is always margin to improve the degree of
certainty and complexity of the opinions formed, increasing the number of interviews and broadening
the literature review; this constitutes a limitation, which can straightforwardly be overcome by
extending similar works for a longer period of time. Nevertheless, it is strongly believed that sufficient
elements were collected to build a robust theory.

In terms of the actual studied case, the work developed was mainly constrained by time
issues, because the dynamic analyses involve many variables: not only are they lasting all by
themselves, but also the preparatory actions of setting up the models and cases to study take a while;
yet, the proposed objectives were accomplished. It could have been interesting to analyse more
flexible configurations, as well as some types of rigid and hybrid riser systems; one could also deepen
the iterative process of defining the structure, here partially discarded for motives previously explained.
Of course the work would be more complete, however, that would go beyond the analysis’ extent
pretended and a long way off the amount of time available for this work’s development.

Apart from the possibility of maintaining the basic conditions and adding other possibilities to
the analyses as proposed, this type of work can be achieved in many other cases, which can serve as
suggestions to future work. From a pipe design point of view, there are a number of components of the
riser system that contemplate a sufficient degree of complexity to justify an analysis of this specificity:

75
bend stiffeners, connectors, collars, buoyancy modules, just to name a few. If one was to consider the
installation issues of the riser systems, the range of possible future work broadens; it is also an
essential field of study and such constraints were not considered here.

This thesis is a first approach to the comparative study of riser systems in deepwater oil and
gas exploration; clearly there is margin for progression. Adding to the issues already referred, one can
say that the medium/long-term objective should be to move these investigations to deeper exploration
fields, which will be more and more challenging along the way.

Finally, from a not so technical perspective, it would be interesting to expand the investigation
on the impact of engineers’ education in the industry and the opposite, always remitting to the
Portuguese situation. The repercussion of possible future changes in the system should be evaluated.

All in all, despite the constant oil prices’ variations and the less positive present condition,
there is a world of opportunities in the oil and gas industry. It should endure as a focus point of both
academic scientific investigation and internal development by the companies.

76
REFERENCES

[1] L. S. Pyagbara, “The Adverse Impacts of Oil Pollution on the Environment and Wellbeing of a
Local Indigenous Community: The Experience of the Ogoni People of Nigeria”, 2007.
[2] E. Ekmekcioglu, “The Macroeconomic Effects of World Crude Oil Price Changes”,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3, No. 6, 2007.
[3] A. Grubler, “Energy transitions”, 2013.
[4] “Why did fossil fuels become so popular?” [Online]. Available: https://www.mhi-
global.com/discover/earth/issue/history/history.html. [Accessed: 15-Apr-2015].
[5] ExxonMobil, “The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040,” 2014. 

[6] A. Oliveira, C. G. Ribeiro, A. T. Furtado, “Competition between technological systems in pre-
salt fields”, 2014.
[7] P. Macini, E. Mesini, “The petroleum upstream industry: hydrocarbons exploration and
production”, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), 2008.
[8] Website of the company Cairn Energy: www.cairnenergy.com [Accessed 22-Apr-2015]
[9] “Onshore vs. Offshore Oil Production” [Online]. Available:
http://www.collierresources.com/Industry/Onshore_vs_Offshore_Oil_Production. [Accessed:
23-Apr-2015].
[10] “Jackup rig” [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackup_rig. [Accessed: 23-Apr-
2015].
[11] “A brief history of offshore oil drilling” [Online]. Available:
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/160618. [Accessed: 24-Apr-2015].
[12] Shell, “Oil and gas offshore production”, 2014.
[13] L. Santos, “Technological Trajectories in the Offshore Oil & Gas Industry: Dealing with
Uncertainty in Ultra Deep Exploration in the South Atlantic Thesis to obtain the Master of
Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering,” Instituto Superior Técnico, 2014.
[14] K. M. Eisenhardt, “Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1989.
[15] J. Pfeffer, “Organizations and Organization Theory”, 1982.
[16] I. Miles, “The development of technology foresight: A review”, Technological Forecasting &
Social Change”, Vol. 77, No. 9, 2010.
[17] R. Phaal, C. J. Farrukh, D. R. Probert, “Technology roadmapping - A planning framework for
evolution and revolution,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 71, no. 1-2,
2004.
[18] IRGC, “An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework,” International Risk Gover-
nance Council, Geneva, Tech. Rep., 2008. 

[19] IRGC, “Risk Governance Guidelines for Unconventional Gas Development,” Tech. Rep.,
2013. 


77
[20] R. Song, K. Uppu, “Assessment of Riser System Selection”, Deepwater Technology Asia
2012, Jakarta, 2012.
[21] Technip, “Flexible Pipe basic course”, 2014.
[22] “Risers system overview” [Online]. Available:
https://oilandgastechnologies.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/risers-system/. [Accessed: 2-May-
2015]
[23] 2H offshore, “Risers for Deepwater FPSO’s”, 2013.
[24] S. A. Hatton, H. Howells, “Catenary and Hybrid Risers for Deepwater Locations Worldwide”,
Advances in Riser Technologies, Aberdeen, 1996.
[25] N. Saglar, B. Toleman, R. Thethi, “Frontier Deepwater Developments - The Impact on Riser
Systems Design in Water Depths Greater than 3,000m”, Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, 2015.
[26] T. Eyles, F. Lim, “Standardisation of Deepwater Riser Systems”.
[27] 2H offshore, “TLP Top Tensioned Riser Design Challenges in Deepwater”, 2013.
[28] Website of the company Matrix Composites & Engineering:
http://www.matrixengineered.com/en/solutions/surf-ancillary-equipment/permanent-buoyancy-
systems/mid-water-arch-buoyancy/. [Accessed 15-May-2015]
[29] Website of the company Balmoral: http://www.balmoral-group.combalmoral-
offshoreindex.phpproductssurf-productsdistributed-riser-buoyancy]. [Accessed 15-May-2015].
[30] 2H offshore, “FPSO Riser Solutions for Harsh environments”, 2015.
[31] 2H offshore, “Recent Lazy Wave Riser Experience”, 2015.
[32] Oceaneering International Website:
http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/ocean/products/umbilicals/. [Accessed:
17-May-2015]
[33] Subsea7, “Riser Technology Reference” [Online].
http://www.subsea7.com/content/dam/subsea7/documents/technologyandassets/4_Pg_Leaflet
_Riser_Technology__Reference.pdf. [Accessed: 20-May-2015].
[34] Z. Tan, J. Zhang, T. H. Sheldrake, T. Hou, T. Hill, “Weight Added Wave (WAW) System in
production – A Brazil offshore application”, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2013.
[35] 2H offshore, “Riser System Integrity Management in the GoM”, 2011.
[36] Technip, “Flexible Pipe Design: Determination of Pipe Components – Detailed Procedure”,
2013.
[37] Technip, “Guidelines for Design and Analysis of Dynamic Riser Systems – Detailed
Procedure”, 2012.
[38] Technip, “Stress Analysis in Flexible Pipe – Detailed Procedure”, 2010.
[39] D. Santiago, “Learning from Aeronautics -Materials and Acoustics New Challenges of Oil &
Gas Exploration Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in Aerospace Engineering,”
Instituto Superior Técnico, 2013.

78
[40] P. Aghion, J. Boulanger, and E. Cohen, “Rethinking Industrial Policy,” Bruegel Policy Br., vol.
June, 2011.
[41] H. Pack and K. Saggi, “The case for industrial policy: a critical survey,” Policy Res. Work.
Pap., 2006.
[42] D. Rodrik, “Normalizing Industrial Policy,” 2007.
[43] M. Yulek, Economic Planning and Industrial Policy in the Globalizing Economy: Concepts,
Experience and Prospects. Springer, 2013.

79
ANNEX A: SELECTED CASES FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

20_E_2m_8-10s 36_ENE_3m_8-10s 36_SSW_2m_14-16s 68_SE_3m_8-10s

20_E_3m_8-10s 36_ENE_3m_10-12s 36_SSW_3m_12-14s 68_SE_3m_10-12s
20_ENE_2m_8-10s 36_ENE_4m_8-10s 36_SSW_3m_14-16s 68_SSE_2m_10-12s
20_ENE_2m_10-12s 36_ESE_2m_8-10s 36_SSW_4m_12-14s 68_SSE_2m_12-14s
20_ENE_3m_8-10s 36_ESE_2m_10-12s 68_E_2m_8-10s 68_SSE_2m_14-16s
20_ESE_2m_8-10s 36_ESE_2m_12-14s 68_E_2m_10-12s 68_SSE_3m_10-12s
20_ESE_3m_8-10s 36_ESE_3m_10-12s 68_E_2m_12-14s 68_SSE_3m_12-14s
20_S_2m_12-14s 36_ESE_2m_14-16s 68_E_3m_10-12s 68_SSE_4m_10-12s
20_S_2m_14-16s 36_ESE_3m_8-10s 68_ENE_2m_8-10s 68_SSW_2m_12-14s
20_S_3m_12-14s 36_NE_2m_10-12s 68_ENE_2m_10-12s 68_SSW_2m_14-16s
20_SE_2m_8-10s 36_NE_3m_10-12s 68_ENE_2m_12-14s 68_SSW_3m_12-14s
20_SE_2m_10-12s 36_S_2m_12-14s 68_ENE_3m_8-10s 68_SSW_3m_14-16s
20_SE_3m_8-10s 36_S_2m_14-16s 68_ENE_3m_10-12s 68_SSW_4m_12-14s
20_SE_2m_12-14s 36_S_3m_12-14s 68_ENE_4m_8-10s 100_E_2m_10-12s
20_SE_3m_10-12s 36_S_3m_14-16s 68_ESE_2m_8-10s 100_E_3m_10-12s
20_SE_4m_8-10s 36_S_4m_12-14s 68_ESE_2m_10-12s 100_ENE_1m_10-12s
20_SSE_2m_10-12s 36_SE_2m_8-10s 68_ESE_2m_12-14s 100_ENE_2m_10-12s
20_SSE_2m_12-14s 36_SE_2m_10-12s 68_ESE_2m_14-16s 100_ESE_2m_10-12s
20_SSE_3m_10-12s 36_SE_2m_12-14s 68_ESE_3m_8-10s 100_ESE_3m_8-10s
20_SSE_3m_12-14s 36_SE_2m_14-16s 68_ESE_3m_10-12s 100_NE_2m_10-12s
20_SSW_2m_12-14s 36_SE_3m_8-10s 68_NE_2m_10-12s 100_S_3m_12-14s
20_SSW_3m_12-14s 36_SE_3m_10-12s 68_NE_3m_10-12s 100_SE_2m_10-12s
36_E_2m_8-10s 36_SE_4m_8-10s 68_S_2m_12-14s 100_SE_2m_12-14s
36_E_2m_10-12s 36_SSE_2m_10-12s 68_S_2m_14-16s 100_SE_3m_10-12s
36_E_2m_12-14s 36_SSE_2m_12-14s 68_S_3m_12-14s 100_SSE_2m_12-14s
36_E_3m_8-10s 36_SSE_2m_14-16s 68_S_3m_14-16s 100_SSE_2m_10-12s
36_E_3m_10-12s 36_SSE_3m_10-12s 68_S_4m_12-14s 100_SSE_3m_10-12s
36_ENE_2m_8-10s 36_SSE_3m_12-14s 68_SE_2m_10-12s 100_SSE_3m_12-14s
36_ENE_2m_10-12s 36_SSE_4m_10-12s 68_SE_2m_12-14s 100_SSW_3m_12-14s
36_ENE_2m_12-14s 36_SSW_2m_12-14s 68_SE_2m_14-16s
Selected cases for the dynamic analysis

80
ANNEX B: INTERVIEWS’ GUIDELINES

The methodology adopted suggests interviews as a source of knowledge, collecting

information from specialists in the area. These specialists, from both industry and academic
environments, share their knowledge and their personal views on particular subjects. The interviews
were not done following a strict script, but rather a sort of conversation where relevant topics are
brought up. The questions here presented are nothing more than guidelines, typical themes that were
addressed during the interviews to foment sharing by the interviewed specialists.

Offshore Oil & Gas and Deep-Sea Exploration

• What are the main changes, nowadays, in the Oil and Gas sector in terms of technology and
business?
• What are the major risks in the Oil and Gas sector? And particularly concerning deep and
ultra-deepwater exploration?
• Which are the main technical challenges in your company’s business area for the next few
years’ time?
• Which emerging technologies are going to have the biggest impact in the Oil and Gas industry
in the future?
• Which projects are being developed in this area? And by who?
• In what way is the Portuguese industry involved in this sector?
• How can the Portuguese industry be a part of technological development in this sector?

Riser systems’ technology

• Which are the main projects being developed in riser systems’ technology?
• What are the main technological challenges to overcome in the next years in terms of riser
systems?
• What is going to be the main trajectory in risers’ technology: flexible, rigid, or hybrid? And in
the specific case of deepwater exploration, what is the tendency?
• What kind of solutions can be foreseen to overcome the biggest technological challenges
regarding SURF engineering?

81
ANNEX C: LIST OF INTERVIEWED SPECIALISTS

Interviewed person Company/Institution

Eng. Cristiano Silva Technip

Eng. Artur Costa CEIIA

Eng. António Sarmento WavEC/IST

Eng. Jérémy de Barbarin Subsea7

Eng. Luís Guerreiro Partex Oil and Gas

Eng. Sílvio Carneiro Partex Oil and Gas

Eng. Yannick Debruyne WavEC

Eng. Fernando Costa Technip

82
ANNEX D: INTERVIEWS SUMMARY

A summary of each one of the most relevant interviews to this thesis’ main subjects can be
found in this annex.

Interviewee: Cristiano Silva, Engineer

Occupation: Flexible Pipes Engineering Manager at LusoTechnip

Technip is a multinational corporation acting in the oil and gas business as a service provider.
LusoTechnip, the group’s office in Portugal, deals with engineering services, ranging from flexible pipe
and ancillary equipment design of SURF technologies to installation analysis. Within the company’s
assets there is a fleet of oil and gas support vessels, majorly connected to the installation of flexible
pipe riser systems.

Their clients worldwide cover most of the top oil and gas players, whereas in the Portuguese
office they are specialized in dealing with Brazilian pre-salt exploration fields, with Petrobras. Despite
the oil prices’ current condition and Petrobras’ struggle, Technip keeps providing projects for future
exploration activities in Brazil with the strong belief that flexible pipes are not only the present but also
the future of riser systems.

According to Cristiano Silva, an expert in the subject with many years of experience, there is a
need for technological development in order to find the path towards seeking ultra-deepwater
reserves. Technip’s internal investigation and development center contemplates highly qualified
engineers everyday looking for the best solutions for specific industry induced problems.

As far as the currently explored deepwater locations are concerned, among the diverse
solutions provided by flexible pipe systems there is one that stands out: Lazy Wave configuration. Its
performance is very good, although considerably more expensive and with a more complex design
process. It would be a significant breakthrough if one could find a way to adapt the simple Free
Hanging configuration to these applications, also considering that it would be profitable for the
company. That ought to be a focus area for engineers and researchers for the next few years.

83
Interviewee: Artur Costa, Engineer

Occupation: Offshore Business Development at CEIIA

CEIIA is an innovation and engineering center focused on market oriented products and
solutions. Their goal is to be a global reference on research, design, development, manufacture and
testing of products and services for mobility worldwide industries.

Already a national reference in terms of design and engineering, particularly in terms of

aeronautics, CEIIA is entering the offshore exploration world through oil and gas. The basic conditions
for it to happen are naturally gathered, given their immense knowledge on engineering related topics,
namely numerical analysis of complex engineering systems. There is a strong belief on the capacity of
Portuguese based entities to enter the oil and gas industry, being a matter of potentiating the already
acquired competences towards a new target.

The fundamentals of SURF engineering design come from structural studies, numerical
modeling and analysis. It is possible to draw a parallel between aeronautics and SURF technology
design, therefore CEIIA’s ambitions are sound and incredibly promising. Allying CEIIA’s ideal of
university and industry cooperation with their belief on the oil and gas industry’s need for technological
development, in order to thrive in the future, leads to the center’s objective for the next few years:
entering the oil and gas business by developing new solutions for specific problems already identified
in the industry.

84
Interviewee: António Sarmento, Engineer

Occupation: President at WavEC

António Sarmento is founder and President of WavEC. Professor at I.S.T. in the Mechanical
Engineering department, scientific area of Thermofluids and Energy Conversion Technology, for many
years, his main research area nowadays relates to offshore renewable energy.

WavEC’s objectives are mainly based on the dissemination and promotion of opportunities
associated with the early development of marine renewable energy in the country, among companies,
the public administration and the general public, and also the training of young people within curricular
internship and advanced training. Although not dealing with the oil and gas industry, this institution’s
vast knowledge of offshore activities, in this case represented by Professor António Sarmento, can be
extremely relevant and valuable for the technological development of SURF engineering.

Portugal’s potential within the maritime industry is found huge, going from its strategic
geographic location to the engineers proved capacity to excel in challenging situations, typical of
offshore environments. Partnering with I.S.T., CEIIA and many other institutions, WavEC is involved in
the development of a technological agenda related to the sustainable exploration of South Atlantic,
namely identifying opportunities for Portugal: it is designated the +atlantic project.

Combining academic and industry backgrounds is seen as the key to technological

development, joining their strengths in a combined effort towards new solutions. Therefore, actions like
the ones developed by WavEC are also fundamental, allowing young engineers to build bridges
between these two contexts, by simultaneously working with practical industry cases and
complementing their curriculums with higher education programs and scientific investigation.

85
Interviewee: Jérémy de Barbarin, Engineer

Occupation: Engineering Manager, Africa and Gulf of Mexico, at Subsea7 Portugal

Subsea7 is a world leader in engineering services in the oil and gas industry. Their activities
also cover an immense range of offshore exercises, for which they own a big fleet of varied vessels,
most of them unique and property of the Subsea7 group. In terms of SURF engineering, their solutions
mostly include rigid and hybrid solutions.

According to Jérémy de Barbarin, an experienced engineer who, in addition to Subsea7, has

been linked to Coflexip (an extinct company that had in flexible pipe solutions design their business
core), believes that different solutions have different advantages and disadvantages. Everything
conditions the choice of the type of riser system to use, like the tides and geological factors, from the
seabed to the surface or the kind of platform or FPSO to be used. There is no universal best option
between rigid, hybrid or flexible, every case must be studied individually. And even so, there is not just
one solution for each case, it depends on the criteria.

Approaching a very specific and technical topic, the single/bundled systems’ dichotomy
revealed itself to be a challenge all alone. The influence of this decision, which can be based either on
technical or costumer requirements, goes as far as structural and hydrodynamic analysis, both from a
design and installation perspective.

When asked about what the main challenges in riser systems are, he brought up the idea of a
compromise between the cost (including development and installation) and everything that is linked
with the cost after: maintenance, operability, and risk of damage. Nevertheless, in the end the major
factor, the one that prevails, is the cost, because ultimately this is a business.

86
Interviewee: Luís Guerreiro, Engineer

Occupation: Exploration and New Projects Manager at Partex Oil and Gas Portugal

Partex Oil and Gas is a company that operates in three main areas: oil and gas operations,
environment and renewables, and innovation and technology. Dealing with projects worldwide, from
the Middle East to Africa and Brazil, Partex is one of the major oil and gas players based in Portugal.

Based on the vast experience in the industry, it is possible to enumerate some of the major
risks for oil companies: volatile oil prices, regulatory changes and cost of compliance, operational
hazards (blowouts and spills, for example), inability to expand reserves or find replacements,
inaccurate reserve estimates, environmental restrictions, among others. Adding up, when investing in
the exploration of a well, the risk of not finding any oil is of about 18%! It is a complex combination of
factors to actually find oil, as the chance of success needs to contemplate and combine the main
variables of source, migration, timing and reservoir.

The parameter that weighs the chance of success is ultimately the risks complementary. It is
also made very clear that risk is something associated with total loss, whereas uncertainty is
associated with the range of possible outcomes.

Like most of the experts of the oil and gas industry, engineer Luís Guerreiro believes that the
future of this industry is based on technological development. The main changed drivers pointed out
were production, depletion strategies, work programs (drilling, workovers, facility modification) and
financial issues (funding, fiscal terms). With this in mind, the industry can prosper and so can the
Portuguese’s direct or indirect impact in it.

87
Interviewee: Sílvio Carneiro, Engineer

Occupation: Engineering Consultant at Partex Oil and Gas

Partex Oil and Gas is a company that operates in three main areas: oil and gas operations,
environment and renewables, and innovation and technology. Dealing with projects worldwide, from
the Middle East to Africa and Brazil, Partex is one of the major oil and gas players based in Portugal.

Now retired from the functions he played for over 30 years, engineer Sílvio Carneiro works as
consultant at Partex, applying his vast and valuable experience. With decades of offshore labor,
particularly connected with drilling activities, he accompanied severe changes in the oil and gas
industry, enabling him to build an opinion around what is important to technological development.

Drilling and SURF engineering are two areas somehow distinct, which cannot, however, exist
without one another. For an engineer to fully understand oil and gas exploration it is crucial to have a
certain level of basic knowledge of all the major areas; not only does it allow for a global perspective of
the business, but also it actually enables the engineer to perform better at his specific job in his
specific field of work.

On a field work perspective, more than knowing the concepts behind the other areas, it is very
important to comprehend the operations and be able to assess in what way does it impact on the one
we are designated. On a more engineering design oriented basis, it is also relevant to know most of
the components because, in the end, they are all connected to the same global system.

88
Interviewee: Yannick Debruyne, Engineer

Occupation: Numerical Modeling Researcher at WavEC

WavEC’s objectives are mainly based on the dissemination and promotion of opportunities
associated with the early development of marine renewable energy in the country, among companies,
the public administration and the general public, and also the training of young people within curricular
internship and advanced training. Although not dealing with the oil and gas industry, this institution’s
vast knowledge of offshore activities and numerical modelling, in this case represented by researcher
Yannick Debruyne, can be extremely relevant and valuable for the technological development of
SURF engineering.

Many of SURF technologies’ fundamental principles come from hydrodynamic studies, which
can be paralleled to offshore renewable energy, if properly filtered and understood. The concepts
behind the hydrodynamic analysis of mooring lines of an offshore wind turbine system and the
analysis riser systems of an oil and gas exploration site are basically the same. The ruling principles of
the modeling and analysis software are also similar. Taking this into account, the experience of an
expert in hydrodynamic and numerical modeling is valuable for an investigation on riser systems.

Moreover, Yannick Debruyne is one the young talents that benefits from WavEC’s policy of
associating academic education and industry based training. Then, with knowledge collected from
both ends, people rapidly turn into experts with a broad perspective of the topics, instead of a
sometimes rather obfuscated viewpoint of someone who only knows one of the edges.

89
Interviewee: Fernando Costa, Engineer

Occupation: Flexible Pipes and Equipment Supervisor at LusoTechnip

Technip is a multinational corporation acting in the oil and gas business as a service provider.
LusoTechnip, the group’s office in Portugal, deals with engineering services, ranging from flexible pipe
and ancillary equipment design of SURF technologies to installation analysis. Within the company’s
assets there is a fleet of oil and gas support vessels, majorly connected to the installation of flexible
pipe riser systems.

Other than Technip, Fernando Costa has collaborated with other renowned companies
worldwide within the oil and gas industry, not limiting his experience to flexible pipes and equipment
design nor to one business focus. LusoTechnip’s major line of work within the flexible pipe design
subject is the Brazilian pre-salt fields’ exploration, but his experience with UK and Norwegian projects
allows him to have a broad perspective of the oil and gas industry. Particularly, the experience gives
him an insight on SURF engineering solutions and their future.

Dynamic analysis of riser systems contemplates incredibly challenging features: for one, the
actual structure design, modeling, failure modes testing, fatigue analysis, altogether resulting in
arduous and time consuming tasks; on the other hand, interference analyses, due to the amount of
lines present in such confined space, are also a problem to account for.

A continuity trajectory in the oil and gas exploration is foreseen, where the role of riser
systems will not decrease of importance. The ability to reach greater water depths is seen as a
massive challenge and the solution rests in flexible pipe engineering.

90