Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-zpsnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T03:37:58.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Tanker Conversion and Decommissioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2009

Jeom Kee Paik
Affiliation:
Pusan National University, Korea
Get access

Summary

Introduction

For offshore oil and gas production, storage, and offloading, particularly in marginal fields, existing tankers are often converted to ship-shaped offshore units instead of using a new-build option. In fact, more than two thirds of all such ship-shaped offshore installations worldwide are currently thought to be built from converted tankers. More recent practice indicates that the application of converted offshore structures is more common in relatively benign environments, although a new-build installation may be more appropriate for special purposes in harsh conditions and/or for longer term use (e.g., more than 10–15 years). These are general statements, and operations using conversions have also been considered for fields with harsh environmental conditions as well. In marginal fields, it is often the relative cost advantage and better ability to fast track that makes a conversion more compelling than a new build. The number of vessels potentially available for conversions, however, have continued to dwindle over time.

In Section 1.6 of Chapter 1, the many advantages and disadvantages of the conversion option for ship-shaped offshore installations were discussed. The possible advantages include reduced capital costs, a less expensive and fast-track design and construction schedule, increased choices regarding construction facilities, and perhaps reduced overall project supervision requirements (Parker 1999). The disadvantages may include shorter design and remaining lives; greater site-specific environment limitations; perhaps increased operating costs because of difficulty in building in high safety factors; reduced or minimal resale and residual values; reduced reusability opportunities; and the relatively greater need for increased risk-mitigation measures related to regulatory compliance, which, as expected, have increased over time.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
Design, Building, and Operation
, pp. 447 - 462
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anthony, N. R., Ronalds, B. F., and Fakas, E. (2000). Platform decommissioning trends. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, SPE 64446, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., Brisbane, Australia, October 16–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assayag, S., Prallon, E., and Sartori, F. (1997). Improvements in design of converted FPSOs regarding 20 years of operation without docking. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8389, Houston, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamidele, B. (1997). Review of the hazards and management control issues in abandonment safety cases. (Offshore Technology Report, OTH 1997/547), Health and Safety Executive, UK.Google Scholar
Biasotto, P., Bonniol, V., and Cambos, P. (2005). Selection of trading tankers for FPSO conversion projects. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 17506, Houston, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filho, da Costa F. H. (1997). The world's biggest conversion. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8407, Houston, May.Google Scholar
Dempsey, M. J., Mathieson, W. E., and Winters, T. A. (2000). Learning from offshore decommissioning practices in Europe and the USA. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, SPE 64444, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., Brisbane, Australia, October 16–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E and P Forum (1995). Removal/disposal of large North Sea steel structures. (Report No. 10.14/243), The Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, July.
E and P Forum (1996). Removal and disposal of offshore platform topside facilities. (Report No. 10.15/248), The Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, August.
Garland, E. (2002). Environmental regulatory framework in the North Sea: An update of the existing and foreseeable constraints. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE 77390, Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, September 30–October 2.Google Scholar
Garland, E. (2005). Environmental regulatory frameworkin Europe: An update. SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, SPE 93796, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Galveston, Texas, March 7–9.Google Scholar
Gorman, D. G., and Neilson, J. (1998). Decommissioning offshore structures. Germany: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, W. S. (1998a). The global and international regulatory regime for decommissioning disused platforms. SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, SPE 46591, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Caracas, Venezuela, June 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, W. S. (1998b). Managing the platform decommissioning process. SPE International Conference and Exhibition, SPE 48892, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Beijing, China, November 2–6.Google Scholar
Griffin, W. S. (1998c). Evolution of the global decommissioning regulatory regime. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8784, Houston, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyle, B. J., and Griffin, W. S. Jr. (1989). International standards for removal of abandoned and disused offshore oil production platforms: Negotiation and agreement. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 5932, Houston, May.Google Scholar
HSE (1999). Decommissioning – Heavy lift operations: A review of safe lifting procedures. (Offshore Technology Report, OTO 1998/170), Health and Safety Executive, UK.
HSE (2001). Decommissioning topic strategy. (Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2001/032), Health and Safety Executive, UK.
Hustoft, R., and Gamblin, R. (1995). Preparing for decommissioning of the Heather field. SPE Offshore European Conference, SPE 30372, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Aberdeen, Scotland, September 5–8.Google Scholar
IMO (2003). Guidelines for application of MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs. (MEPC/Circ. 406), International Maritime Organization, London, November.
ISO DIS 18072-2 (2006). Ships and marine technology – Ship structures: Part 2. Requirements for ultimate limit state assessment. (Draft International Standards), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO FDIS 18072-1 (2006). Ships and marine technology – Ship structures: Part 1. General requirements for limit state assessment. (Final Draft International Standards), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Johnson, M. (1996). Application of the ABS/SafeHull technology to FPSO conversions. Presented at the 23rd February 1996 Annual Meeting of the Texas Section, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, NJ.Google Scholar
Lane, J. A., Bryans, R., and Preston, R. (2004). Conversion of the TTSahara to FPSO Fluminense: A low cost solution for the Bijupira and Salema field development, offshore Brazil. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 16707, Houston, May.Google Scholar
Meenan, P. A. (1998). “Technical aspects of decommissioning offshore structures.” In Decommissioning offshore structures, Gorman, D. G. and Neilson, J., eds. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Mones, M. (2004). Hull structural assessment and refurbishment for conversion FPSOs. Proceedings of ASMR-PTI FPSO Integrity Workshop, American Society Mechanical Engineers/Petroleum Technology Institute, Houston, August 30–September 2.Google Scholar
Neto, T. G., and Lima, Souza H. A. (2001). Conversion of tankers into FPSOs: Practical design experiences. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 13209, Houston, May.Google Scholar
Newport, A., Basu, R., and Peden, A. (2004). “Structural modifications to the FPSO Kuito cargo tanks.” Proceedings of OMAE–FPSO 2004 – OMAE Specialty Symposium on FPSO Integrity, OMAE–FPSO'04-0085, Houston, August 30–September 2.Google Scholar
Neil, W. A. (2001). Reaching the breaking point. (DNV Forum, No. 3), Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Oil and Gas Journal (1998). “Shell picks re-use option for Brent Spar.” Oil and Gas Journal, 96, February 6.
Park, I. K., Jang, Y. S., Shin, H. S., and Yang, Y. T. (1998). Conceptual design and analyses of deep-sea FPSO converted from VLCC. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8809, Houston, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. (1999). The FPSO design and construction guidance manual – A reference guide to successful projects designing and constructing FPSOs in all water depths. Houston: Reserve Technology Institute.Google Scholar
Passard, J. P. (1997). Environmental impact from removal of installations: The North East Frigg field installations. SPE/UKOOA European Environmental Conference, SPE 37857, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Aberdeen, Scotland, April 15–16.Google Scholar
Pearce, F. (1996). “101 things to do with an old oil rig.” New Scientist Magazine, Issue 2058, November 30 (http://www.newscientist.com).Google Scholar
Prasthofer, P. H. (1998). Decommissioning technology challenges. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8785, Houston, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terpstra, T., Hautefeuille, d' B. B., and MacMillan, A. A. (2001). FPSO design and conversion: a designer's approach. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 13210, Houston, May.Google Scholar
Terpstra, T., Schouten, G., and Ursini, L. (2004). Design and conversion of FPSO Mystras. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 16198, Houston, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UKOOA (2006). Guidelines on stakeholder engagement for decommissioning activities. Offshore Operators Association, UK.
Voorst, O., Baan, J., Loenhout, A., and Krekel, M. (1995). Conversion of existing tanker to North Sea FPSO use. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 7724, Houston, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×