OTC-26330-MS

The Buoy Supporting Risers (BSR) System: A Novel Riser Solution for
Ultra-Deep Water Subsea Developments in Harsh Environments
I. Cruz, C. Claro, D. Sahonero, L. Otani, and J. Pagot, Subsea 7

Copyright 2015, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 27–29 October 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author (s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author (s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
The Sapinhoá and Lula North-East oil fields were developed through pilot systems composed of satellite
wells connected to spread moored FPSOs. Each of these developments needed to connect up to 45 lines
coming from the wells to a single balcony at FPSO portside, not including gas export riser and its ESDV
umbilical. It was expected variable levels of CO2 and H2S, posing the challenge to find a suitable solution
that could endure the 27-year life of the fields in waters of 2140-meter depth and in the severe
environmental conditions of the Santos Basin. To cope with these challenges, Petrobras and its partners
(BG E&P Brazil and Repsol Sinopec Brazil, in Sapinhoá field, BG E&P Brazil and Petrogral Brazil, in
Lula Field) decided to pursue a decoupled riser system solution, and to launch a “design competition”
process, which ended up selecting the Buoy Supporting Risers (BSR) concept solution developed by
Subsea 7.
This paper is divided in two main sections that represent the two main project phases. First, the Design
phase where the BSR System is described, the need for careful physical and numerical modelling, the
massive analysis of this complex new system is also presented. The second is the Installation phase, which
was all backed up by a prototype tank testing performed in order to capture the in-place behaviour, and
to generate the design input envelopes for all system components. It also describes the considerable
installation engineering efforts led to solutions for the logistical problems associated with the sheer
quantity, volume, size and weight of the foundations and top connector structures as well as for the
installation itself in ultra-deep waters and in seas often characterised by bi-directional swells.
Design Phase
Introduction
Evaluation of the Santos Basin produced fluids indicated that the levels of CO2 and H2S were significantly
high and would pose serious challenges for flexible lines to withstand the required 27-year endurance life
of the field, especially under dynamic conditions worsened by the waters of 2140-meter depth and the
severe environmental conditions. All these factors combined led the field operator and its partners to
develop the fields using a decoupled riser system, comprising of suitable corrosion resistant alloy (CRA)
rigid pipes. Decoupling the risers from the platform (FPSOFloating Production Storage and Offloading)
directly reduced dynamic loadings, which improved fatigue endurance of the rigid risers, and with the
2 OTC-26330-MS

additional benefit of reducing the pay-load on the platform, a one-sided balcony spread mooring FPSO,
with 45 lines hanging from waters of 2140-meter depth. For these specific cases, a saving of some five
thousand metric tons on pay-load was achieved. Another benefit of this system would have been the
potential pre-installation of the risers’ system, allowing for a quick production ramp up. However, this was
not established in the project due to execution scheduling constrains, see reference (Camozzato, G. et al.,
2015).
The concept was to have the risers coming from the wells’ end to an intermediate structure, protected
from the surface environment loads, and then continue to the FPSO through low-tension and “damped”
double catenary flexible jumpers. For the SCRs, a seabed transition to flexible flowlines was made
through PLETs/VCMs (pipeline end termination/vertical connection modules) for the connection with the
wells’ Christmas trees. The system comprises of two tether-moored buoys submerged at 250 m below
surface, capable of accommodating 22 or 23 lines each. A single buoy displaces close to 10 000 (metric)
tons of water, providing a nominal net up thrust of 32 500 kN (3,250 metric tons) with all lines connected
to it. The system net tension was set to cope with both FPSO and buoy offsets responding to the
environment loads, as well as transferred variations in fluid density. The buoy shape is a closed pontoon
with uneven volumes, designed to balance the asymmetric pay-loads between the risers coming from the
deep seabed end, and the flexible jumpers connecting the buoy to the FPSO, refer to Figure 1. The BSR
Buoys are 52 meters in width, by 40 meters in length, by 10 meters in height.

Figure 1—System overall configuration

The tethered mooring lines are connected on both the Buoy and the foundation ends through gimbaling
devices that allow the built up of conical angles to accommodate all loadings: platform offsets, riser and
jumper forces, and the direct action from the environment (currents) forces. Therefore, the system
resembled a tension-leg platform (TLP) where the inverted pendulum-like movement does not affect the
Buoy even-keel condition. The lateral offset envelope mostly results from the balance between the
restoring horizontal forces projected from the inclined tethers tension, which is a direct function of the
available net up thrust, the catenary horizontal pull and the external action from current and platform
OTC-26330-MS 3

pull-push forces coming from its own excursion transmitted to the Buoy by the jumpers. It is worth noting
that a single rigid riser offers a drag area of about 500 m2, which is significantly smaller than the risers’
pontoon face that is the Buoy’s largest vertical panel area. Hence, the drag area of the risers dominates
the system’s response to the current loadings alongside the water column.
It is clear from the above that the choice of the net up thrust provided by the Buoy for any possible
pay-load is the key parameter to ensure the system overall functionality. If it is set too small the system
would loosely move around with potential clashing with platform mooring lines or building up exces-
sively large angles at risers’ top ends or tethers and excessive sagging movements on jumpers; if it is set
too high, the large size and strength of all structural components, including mooring, foundations and
Buoy hull, would impact the system’s cost. A parametric costing constrained-optimization study was
performed during the FEED phase, it demonstrated that the deeper and the closer to the FPSO the Buoy
was installed, the most cost effective the system would turn up to be, allowing for setting the minimum
net up thrust that still provided a sound design to fulfil operator requirements and system needed
functionality. Operator’s requirement to keep the buoy at diving access depth, limited it to be around 250
m. With this input and with a nominal offset of 400 m from the FPSO, the net up thrust of 32 500 kN has
proven to be the cost effective nominal value to provide the adequate excursions and coupling with FPSO,
free of interferences and with reasonable angular and loads variations for the system key elements,
including failure cases such as accidental tank flooding or a complete loss of a tethered mooring line. Also,
it needed to accommodate the conveyed fluids possible density variations passively, meaning with no
ballasting intervention. Considering all these aspects, the pay-load variation expected in the Buoy would
be around 7 000 kN, resulting in the system need to accommodate and to function properly within a net
tension variation approximately within the range of 28 000 to 35 000 kN.
Some operator requirements were essential for the design of the overall system:
● The system had to withstand the accidental flooding of any two tanks simultaneously, keeping
Buoy attitude within the acceptable envelope for its own stability and integrity of the other
components, especially risers, SCR flexjoints, and tether connection angles;
● Furthermore, even on such accidental case, it was required to have a positive net tension at each
tether bottom connection to its foundations;
● The system shall withstand a sudden and complete loss of any tether mooring line, including the
dynamic transient pulse generated, still keeping an attitude within admissible envelope for other
elements. In case of such event, a ballast intervention on appropriate tanks could bring the Buoy
closer to an even keel condition allowing for the failed mooring line retrofitting.

Concept of the BSR System

The Buoy Supporting Riser system consists of a Buoy which functions as a submerged TLP that acts as
an intermediate platform where the steel catenary risers are connected on one side and the flexible jumpers
on the opposite side which links to the floating production unit. The Buoy is connected to the sea bottom
by eight tethers, two on each corner of the Buoy. See schematics in Figure 2. The net up thrust provided
by the Buoy supports the SCR loads, and the four-corner tethers combined with the up thrust gives the
whole system stability to withstand the SCR pull, current forces on the risers and the lateral movement
caused by vessel offset.
4 OTC-26330-MS

Figure 2—BSR System and Configuration

The top angles of risers and jumpers were defined to optimize riser lengths, pay-loads at the BSR Buoy
and to minimize any possible interference between risers and system’s mooring lines. The angles for each
type of line can be found in Figure 2.
System Overall Field Layout
The subsea layout was prepared considering the development of the field in two phases as required, refer
to Figure 3. The definition of where which type of riser goes in the BSR slots followed the sequence of
riser type defined for the FPSO balcony.

Figure 3—Subsea Field Layout (Sapinhoá) with BSR excursion envelope plotted

The FPSO mooring system is used to ensure the right positioning of the system foundations. The
interference between mooring lines, and BSR system at the suspended section and seabed was studied in
OTC-26330-MS 5

details in order to ensure that enough space was provided, avoiding interference between adjacent BSRs
and FPSO mooring lines.
The cost of the project was directly associated with the length of risers, jumpers, tethers and BSR size.
The global performance analysis was carried out and it confirmed that the most cost effective solution was
also the one that presented the best BSR system performance.
BSR Buoy and Tethers Functional Description
The BSR Buoy was manufactured with 48 compartments with the purpose of adjusting the system’s
ballast and buoyancy during the lowering operation, the foundation hook-up and the installation of the
lines. Refer to Figure 4. The ballast was used for balancing the moment of the loads and to place the Buoy
in a suitable floating condition. The up thrust of the Buoy was required to be close to 32 500 kN for all
scenarios and it maintained the system’s required stiffness. When risers were installed onto the Buoy, the
up thrust was consequently reduced by the exact same load of the added lines, thus to return the system
to its required stiffness, ballast was removed from a suitable tanks afterwards. In this case, the tank to have
had ballast water removed would have been the one closer to the installed riser slot, therefore keeping the
BSR even keel and the loads on the tethers distributed.

Figure 4 —BSR Buoy Ballast Compartment

The scantling of the BSR Buoy had two design drivers during the design phase of the project. The BSR
Buoys were divided into 48 tanks to ease the BSR Buoy lowering during installation, to increase the BSR
Buoy inclination control, to increase tether load control on each corner, as well as to minimize the BSR
Buoy vertical displacement in case of two adjacent tank failure.
Eight tethers were provided for BSR Buoy station keeping. Two tethers were placed in each corner to
provide system redundancy. On the other hand, having two tethers in each corner required accurate tether
adjustments in order to achieve even tension forces.
Global Performance Analysis
Two different scenarios were evaluated in the global performance analysis with the objective of designing
the BSR system to withstand the most severe environmental loads throughout its life of field. The first
scenario was defined as the first stage of development of the field, when the BSR System begins its
operation with some of the risers installed, and the second scenario comprises of all risers and jumpers
already installed. Combining these two phases with all the current profiles, loading scenarios and the
different fluid densities expected through the life of field, resulted in a total of 3 600 load cases per Buoy,
6 OTC-26330-MS

in other words, 14 400 static load cases for the four Buoys from both oil fields. For each main result
presented in the Static analysis section, the load cases were identified and selected to be analysed
dynamically. As a result of this analysis, it was also possible to determine the critical dynamic
environmental loading scenario for each key design parameter of the BSR System. All components of the
BSR system had to be modelled in finite element software.
BSR System main elements description
Description of BSR
Figure 5 shows the main components of the BSR system.

Figure 5—BSR Components

In the following subsections the BSR system key components are presented. The SCRs are detailed in
(Gouveia, J. at al. 2015).
BSR Buoy Hull Description and Design The Buoys are typical hull structures designed and manufac-
tured in accordance with the applicable codes, and provided with internal compartments, allowing proper
ballast distribution and, consequently, attitude adjustments for all the loading conditions to which these
structures are submitted along their life time. The great variety of loading conditions, such as towing,
lowering, different in-place riser configurations, differential pressures, sagging and hogging conditions, as
well as the locally applied loading from tethers and lines on specific parts of the hull, drove the design
of the BSR hulls. The Buoys overall dimensions are 52 m at the SCR pontoon extension, by 40 m at the
side pontoons extension which connect the SCR pontoon to the jumper pontoon. The side pontoons have
heights which vary from 10 m at the SCR side to 5 m at the jumper side. Refer to Figure 6. Typical hull
strengthening made of web frames, equally spaced every 5 meters, and bulkheads, which are the tank
boundaries, stiffened by steel angle profiles that were spaced roughly by 450 millimeters each was
adopted. Compartmentalisation was thoroughly considered with respect to failure modes, installation and
operability. The distribution of compartments was carefully determined to provide the correct up thrust
distribution in order to balance the pay-loads where they occur, thus preventing global bending stresses.
The overall hull shape was mainly due to the requirement of having the best conformance of the flexible
radius lying on top of the deck, whereas the details and connections were kept as simple as possible, thus
minimizing fabrication timeframe and costs by the rectangular pontoon type structure with flat plate
construction and minimal rolled corners. Also, as the major pay-load contribution comes from the risers
which go all the way down to the seabed, one of the pontoons, called SCR pontoon, is bigger than the
OTC-26330-MS 7

opposite side pontoon, called the jumper pontoon. The compartmentalization encompasses ballasting
tanks, kept open and equalized in pressure with the external seawater during lowering operations to reach
a 250-meter depth, and installation tanks which have their internal pressure controlled during the Buoy
lowering in order to keep the differential pressure conditions within the design envelope for each lowering
step planned. While the ballast tanks were totally deballasted prior to Buoy set up for Life of Field (LoF)
phases, the installation tanks which have the role of helping during the lowering operation are unfilled
during this phase, have also the function of providing a residual up thrust needed in order to cope with
the jumpers and risers vertical loads during the variable risers configurations that may be assumed by the
system during LoF. In order to cope with all the uncertainties and inherent risks from the lowering phase,
a differential pressure design limit of 376 kPa or up to 500 kPa, in case of an unexpected accidental case,
was defined for the installation tanks, while a lower value of 200 kPa and 266 kPa for accidental cases
was assumed for the ballast tanks.

Figure 6 —BSR Buoy Hull

BSR Buoy Ballast System The BSR was designed to ensure that the BSR attitude and angles, yaw, trim
and list are within the required limits considering that no active ballasting is required during normal
operation of the system encompassing all internal fluid density variation on the risers. The Buoy is
featured with a ballast system for interventions on the compartments during installation and operational
activities. As more risers were installed more of the operational compartments were deballasted. This
feature was also essential for the Buoy installation and attitude fine adjustment.
BSR Buoy Tether Porches The Buoy was provided with two tether connections, named hang-off
porches, on each corner. Each tether was connected to the BSR Buoy hull through a dedicated porch
integrated to the BSR hull primary bulkheads structure. As such, the tether porches were an important
drive on the overall Buoy fabrication schedule. These receptacles, similarly to usual riser receptacles, are
featured with extended baskets or funnels planned to accommodate vertical relative motions expected
during the installation process. Likewise, for the LoF period, additional features such as structural
articulation by means of flexible joints components in order to align the tethers load direction were
provided.
BSR Buoy Flexible Lines and SCR Hang Offs Porches The Buoy was provided with hang offs
porches for the flexibles and rigid SCR lines at the SCR pontoon side. The SCR porches were provided
with flexible joints articulation to accommodate the system motion, as well as the usual funnel devices to
8 OTC-26330-MS

accommodate installation vertical movements. In order to allow diverless connection through the Angular
Connection Module (ACM) and with the flexible portion of the lines, the SCR porches were positioned
at the upper part of the SCR pontoon side shell, as indicated on Figure 7. On the other hand, the flexible
porches were positioned at a lower level, thus allowing for proper flexible lines curvature and conformity
to the deck chutes provided for this purpose. The required horizontal distance for installation, proper
access during maintenance as well as minimum length of the SCR pontoon extension, were provided.

Figure 7—Tether and risers hang offs

BSR Buoy Monitoring System As the BSR attitude, the tether tension values and risers built in angles
were critical parameters for the BSR system safekeeping, a permanent monitoring system was put in place
with the purpose to check the system integrity on a daily basis. This system was designed with a set of
equipment installed on the Buoys top deck, a communication umbilical which connects the Buoys to the
FPSOs, and another set of equipment on top of the FPSOs itself. The system is routinely managed onboard
the FPSOs, however, data can be retrieved directly from the Buoys using Remotely Operated Vehicles
(ROVs) in case it is needed. Some of the parameters measured are the FPSO absolute surface position,
short period motions and attitude, BSR absolute positions, BSR short period motions and attitude, BSR
up thrust by tether tension measures, SCR top dynamic and static inclinations and accelerations, Flexible
jumpers dynamic and inclinations at FPSO end, sea water temperature, sound speed and depth at the BSR
as well as visual inspection using cameras.
BSR mooring and Top Connector Description and Design The main requirement for the BSR moor-
ing was to deliver an acceptable Buoy attitude adjustment in a way to allow the desired even-keel
condition by tether adjustment through adequate tensioning step resolution. With this main objective, the
challenge was selecting proper tether material balancing adequate axial stiffness available in the market,
the corresponding weights, resistance and fatigue resistance. Another equally important parameter to be
controlled was the submerged tether weight, with the objective of minimizing the BSR required buoyancy
and consequently its overall dimensions.
A total of eight mooring tethers were connected to each Buoy, being two per corner. Each tether
consisted of a working Chain Tail at the top end of the tether to allow incremental tether length and tension
adjustment, a Sheathed Spiral Strand wire (SSW) rope section just beneath the chain with torque balanced
construction to improve fatigue performance, and a Bottom Chain Tail at the bottom region of the tether
to ease installation operation by protecting the SSW from being damaged in case of any potential contact
with the seabed. Interconnecting the above components there were Yand H-links.
OTC-26330-MS 9

Inside the tether hang off porch the mooring hang-off device (Top Connector) was planned to meet
some essential functions, such as articulation, adjustment in length and tension, locking mechanism and
interchangeability. Articulation was provided by means of flexible joints which allow tethers to be in line
with the tension loading originated from the Buoys vertical net up thrust and lateral off set movements.
In addition to that, the flexjoints were designed to absorb the maximum angular requirements during the
LoF, including accidental loading conditions.

Figure 8 —Top connector

On the bottom end of each tether, a Bottom Connector device was provided to allow the assembly of
the tethers on the foundations. The flexjoint bearing elements were designed to absorb the maximum
angular displacement during operation, including accidental loading conditions.
BSR Foundation Description and Design From the Buoy operating depth, each corner of the rectan-
gular Buoy supports two mooring lines that are connected to the bottom at a suction pile anchor. Each
Buoy was anchored by eight mooring lines and four suction anchor piles on the seabed (-2140 m being
the maximum bottom elevation). The bottom connector was the last structural piece part of the mooring
arrangement that transfers Buoy up-thrust to the anchor pile. Each bottom connector was locked in one
of the pile twin top receptacles. The anchor piles had a diameter of 8 m and a skirt of 18 m. Overall pile
size reached 23 m accounting for the top anchoring structure made of a reinforced plate, counter weight
supports and a central core pipe sustaining the connector receptacles. A total of 16 piles and 64 counter
weights were part of the field layout used to anchor the four BSR systems. All piles and counterweights
had the same design.
The top pile architecture has been guided by the mooring line arrangement and spacing constraints. The
upper part design, that was used to connect the mooring line bottom connector, was guided by the
functional requirement to have a spacing of five meters between the two adjacent mooring lines. The
numerical structural calculations were performed based on dynamic and extreme tension loads of the BSR
mooring lines. Local and global FEA models were done to cover all the design cases from transoceanic
transportation, offshore lifting, seabed installation and in-place analyses. Fatigue induced by the Buoy
motions and riser/flexible loads was also integrated in the foundation structural analysis.
10 OTC-26330-MS

A comprehensive cathodic protection system prevents corrosion for the operating field life duration of
27 years. Pile is fitted with cathodic protection aluminum anodes to protect the anchor the entire pile
arrangement. A special bushing insulates the pile from the mooring lines components.

Figure 9 —Buoy anchor arrangement as on the seabed.

Flexible pipes and Umbilicals as part of the BSR System

With exception of the BSR monitoring umbilical all other flexible pipes and umbilicals were not part of
the project’s scope of supply but had to be considered for designing the system. Thus, intense exchange
of information with client and suppliers were required during the design phase as it affected the BSR
system dynamic behaviour. Figure 10, shows the 3D rendered model of the BSR buoy, with details to the
Dynamic Jumpers, Service lines and Control umbilicals.

Figure 10 —3D rendered illustration of the in-place BSR buoy.

● Dynamic jumpers (located between the BSR end the FPSO) connecting the SCRs to the FPSO,
providing production flow to the FPSO and water and gas injection to the wells,
● Static Jumpers (located between the PLETs and the X-mas trees) connecting the wells to the SCRs,
● Service lines (passing through the BSR buoy) providing services to the wells; Umbilicals:
● Controls umbilicals (passing through the BSR buoy), providing direct control to the wells,
OTC-26330-MS 11

● BSR monitoring umbilical (dedicated to the BSR system monitoring), providing readings of
various properties acquire at the BSR buoy level to the FPSO;

Installation Phase

Introduction
Objectives The successful installation of the four BSR (Buoy Supporting Risers) systems in Brazil´s
Sapinhoá and Lula NE fields provides the final breakthrough for this new riser design concept, in which
SCR´s motions are uncoupled from FPSO motions by providing an intermediary support through a
vertically tethered submerged buoy at 250 m below the sea surface.
The installation of the systems’ foundations (16 suction anchors and 64 counterweights), tethers (32
spiral strand wires complete with top and bottom connectors, chain, chain tensioners and other special
links) and the four buoys (2800 ton steel weight, 10000 ton gross buoyancy each) did not happen without
overcoming serious challenges in operational constraints and events.
Methods, Procedures, Process In buoy design, solutions were found for the conflicting requirements for
permanent and temporary weight-buoyancy distribution and pressure differentials, further complicated by
the need to accommodate a considerable amount of temporary ballasting, pressurization, survey and other
equipment with associated ROV access envelopes in an area already congested with the structural
provisions for the permanent SCRs, flexibles, umbilicals and general monitoring equipment.
Results, Observations, Conclusions The required ballast configurations and detailed installation proce-
dures for buoy tow-out and lowering and tether hook-up to the foundations were determined following the
development of a buoy/tether numerical analysis model addressing weight, stability, ballast distribution,
internal pressure and hydrodynamic issues. This was backed-up by model tests and thorough sensitivity
analysis on all relevant parameters to ensure the system´s integrity in the most rigorous risk and
contingency scenarios would not be compromised.
During the offshore phase, the robustness of the installation concept, the ballasting, pressurization,
chain tensioning, bottom connector and other equipment, in conjunction with the developed installation
analysis tool, provided sufficient flexibility to resolve the operational set-backs related to equipment
damage caused by extensive weather exposure.
Other operational improvements were made continuously, taking advantage of the repetitive nature of
the installation scope for foundations, tethers and buoys by evaluating all installation steps systematically
and applying the assimilated lessons learned rapidly after thorough Management-of-Change risk assess-
ments.
Novel/Additive information Numerical modelling for dynamic analysis, prototype tank tests and step-
by-step 3D simulation methods were applied to ensure reliable multi-vessel operations offshore. The field
results obtained during the first time installation of such a large system demonstrated that the BSR
behaved as predicted.
The first four BSR systems were installed in more than 2100 m in water depth, bringing to life a novel
riser system for ultra-deep water field developments.

General Outline
The successful installation of four BSR (Buoy Supporting Risers) systems in Brazil´s Sapinhoá and
Lula NE fields is proving the viability of this new riser design concept, in which SCR´s motions are
uncoupled from FPSO motions by providing an intermediary support through a vertically tethered
submerged buoy at 250 m below the sea surface, where the effects of wave action are virtually eliminated.
12 OTC-26330-MS

Figure 11—Buoy Supporting Risers (BSR) System

The installation of the systems’ foundations, spiral strand tethers and submerged buoys did not happen
without overcoming serious challenges to their functional design as to accommodate the logistical
preparations and actual offshore installation operations.
The following sections describe the outline installation method, the risk management processes
applied, the challenges faced, the solutions applied and the resulting operational achievements, set-backs
and finally, the lessons learned for future reference.
Outline installation principles
By design the BSR buoy has a number of compartments and can be made negatively or positively
buoyant in order to manage and control its descent towards its final position at 250 m w.d.
The primary focus of the installation of the buoy was to avoid using a heavy lift vessel for the lowering
operation as that would not have been cost-effective given the required flexibility and time span needed
for installation of four BSR systems in total. For that purpose it was selected to lower the buoys by paying
out additional weight.
Using chain as additional weight allows a precise control of the descent of the BSR buoys. The selected
margin of buoyancy must be sufficient to account for the weight and dimensional tolerances affecting the
center of gravity (CoG) and center of buoyancy (CoB) properties of the buoy. In particular the effect of
air volume which cannot be displaced by ballast water must be accounted for.
Those considerations provide some of the constraints for the development of the BSR buoy and the
installation procedure.
Outline installation method
The BSR installation sequence consisted of the following phases:
a. Pre-survey foundation and riser-flowline routes (Seven Polaris)
b. Installation of suction anchors and counterweights (Seven Polaris / Seven Oceans)
c. (Post-fabrication) Tow-out from dry-dock (China)
d. Sea transportation to Brazil
e. Inshore preparation and pre-ballasting of buoy (in São Sebastião)
f. Tow-out of buoy (Siem Pearl / Siem Emerald)
g. Offshore preparation (lifting/spooling) of tethers (Seven Polaris)
h. Deployment of tethers to temporary top connectors (Seven Polaris)
i. Ballasting and pressurization of buoy (Seven Polaris / Skandi Neptune)
j. Lowering of buoy (Siem Pearl / Siem Emerald)
k. Subsea tow into foundation area (Siem Pearl / Siem Emerald)
OTC-26330-MS 13

l. Hook-up of temporary tethers to foundations (Seven Polaris / Skandi Neptune)

m. Installation of permanent tethers and top connectors (Seven Polaris / Skandi Neptune / Aker
Wayfarer)
n. Final de-ballasting of buoy (Skandi Neptune)

Figure 12—China marine operations

Management of risk
Other than applying solid engineering practices, the whole design process and offshore execution
phases followed the basic installation philosophy that no single failure in any item or part of operation
could set-off an uncontrollable chain effect potentially leading to the loss of a buoy altogether.
This philosophy was developed further using a suite of Subsea 7 and PETROBRAS Risk Management
techniques and practices including but not limited to ‘Failure Mode and Effect Critical Analysis’
(FMECA), ‘Fault Tree Analysis’ (FTA) amongst the more common ‘Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment’ (HIRA) and Constructability Reviews.
Proposed mitigating solutions for the risks identified were developed further under constant peer
review and approval cycles by internal expert committees in parallel with client, marine warranty surveyor
and, where necessary, independent external adviser consultations.
Finally, during the field operations, application of the mitigations was guarded and enforced, with
further ‘task risk assessments’ (TRA) in relation to ‘Management of Change’ (MOC), ‘Simultaneous
Operations’ (SIMOPS) and fluctuating weather forecasts duly accounted for, causing various delays as a
result, but safeguarding the integrity of the BSR equipment and the installation vessels.
14 OTC-26330-MS

Figure 13—BSR Suction Anchors

Challenges foundations
Logistics The main challenge for the foundations was logistical caused by the sheer quantity and
size/weight of them and the need for a big storage area, quay side area and shore side lifting capability.
The solution found was phased delivery from China for the foundations’ suction anchors and
counterweights to alleviate the need for local storage. Furthermore, the foundations were lifted direct from
the transport vessel onto suitable sea going barges using the transportation vessels own crane.
The suction anchors and counterweight sea fastenings were prepared during fabrication and re-used for
cargo barge operations following the ocean transit.
Offshore lifting The lifting of the heavy suction anchors and counterweights (⬎ 200 ton) to a depth of
over 2100 m would be pushing the crane capacity to the limits of the Seven Polaris (at depth). The
introduction of a specific synthetic lowering pennant into the lifting arrangement solved both the lifting
capacity at depth and seabed range issues avoiding resonance issues altogether. The dedicated pennant
was deployed and recovered utilizing the tether deployment winch.
The cargo barge handling and lifting operations were undertaken in sea states characterized by
bi-directional swells, causing serious weather delay for the cargo barge and lifting operations. Specific
hydrodynamic analysis and vessel motion analysis was undertaken to find the optimum vessel heading to
minimize dynamic hook loads for all bi-directional swell combinations.
The actual lowering of the suction anchors, as well as the positioning, orientation and suction into the
seabed went without significant problems.
OTC-26330-MS 15

Figure 14 —Tether Installation

Challenges tethers, chain and connectors

Logistics and handling The main challenge for the tethers and equipment was also logistical caused by
the quantity of items and size/ weight of them and the need for a big storage area, quay side area and lifting
capability.
The solution found was phased delivery from Norway for the equipment with direct load-out to cargo
barges to alleviate the need for local storage. The tether reels lifting arrangements were subsequently
revised to allow offshore lifting.
The cargo barge operations and lifting of the tether reels onto the Seven Polaris suffered serious
weather delays. The spooling of the spiral strand wires onto the deployment winch worked well. The
deployment of the tethers into the sea and subsequent hang-off on the side of the Seven Polaris using the
vessel crane proved to be another weather sensitive operation leading to considerable weather standby.
The tether top connectors and tether tensioning equipment had their own design, qualification and
fabrication issues leading to delay. The need for a deep water buoy preparation basin to pre-install the top
connectors on the buoys, combined with their expected late delivery and the lack of space on the buoy to
secure the associated heavy chain, led to the introduction of temporary top connectors that could be
pre-installed during fabrication in China later to be replaced by the permanent top connectors offshore.
This also allowed undertaking the buoy preparations at a conventional quayside without the need for
heavy – and long range - lifting equipment. SIT activities in China on the top connector to buoy porch
interface were undertaken using “dummy” top connector models to simulate the offshore deployment and
landing of the top connectors onto the buoy porches.
For the installation methodology, the use of the temporary top connectors removed the possibility of
chain length adjustment during the primary hook-up of the buoy to its foundations and therefore the length
tolerances of each spiral strand wire (SSW) received increased focus in the quality control processes.
Once ready, the tether top connectors were loaded out within a specifically designed shipping and chain
support frame allowing the permanent top chain also to be pre-connected onshore rather than undertaking
this work offshore contributing to both safety and efficiency.
16 OTC-26330-MS

Challenges buoy
Weight / buoyancy control Unsurprisingly, the buoys’ static equilibrium behavior follows Archimedes’
law to the letter with follow-on effects on buoy inclination and tether tension. The challenges in this field
were to determine the buoys’ weight and buoyancy as well as the respective centers of gravity (CoG) and
buoyancy (CoB) with sufficient accuracy to be able to determine the required ballast volumes and
locations whilst leaving ample capacity in the ballast chain lengths for ad hoc corrections during lowering.
The buoy´s behavior under the effects of buoyancy, weight and ballast chain adjustments was studied
statically and dynamically during model basin testing, with test results providing valuable input for the
development of an on-line analysis tool predicting buoy depth and inclination and external chain or tether
forces as function of CoG, CoB, ballast distribution and paid-out length of lowering lines.
The buoys weight and horizontal CoG was determined in the dry dock using multiple load-cells. The
buoys buoyancy and vertical CoB was determined following draft measurements and buoy inclination
testing in the flooded dry-dock.
With baseline behavior of the buoy established for all lowering steps, contingency cases were analyzed
to verify if the ballast configurations and ballast chain would provide sufficient margin against excessive
vertical excursions beyond the design differential pressure or inclinations beyond the operability of the
buoy equipment.
Cases considered were broken lowering line / ballast chain and accidental flooding of any of the tanks.
The results led to optimization of the ballast chain weight and length as well as to a detailed ballast step
plan for each individual buoy and tank.

Figure 15—Contingency analysis results

Ballasting / pressurization of tanks

Each buoy has 48 ballast and buoyancy tanks Ballast tanks are left open to the environment for
continuous pressure-equalization once the buoy is being lowered. The tanks must be flooded fully prior
to buoy lowering to avoid ingress of large volumes of water (read ‘weight’) during the start of the lowering
process disturbing the weight/buoyancy equilibrium (also known as the so-called ‘self-lowering’ process
which will happen until the buoy is stabilized at approx. 40 m of water depth).
Buoyancy tanks on the other hand are closed-off to the environment. They may be empty or partially
filled with water as required from the weight distribution calculation. The tanks must be pressurized from
the surface vessel to keep the pressure differential on the bulkheads within allowable structural limits. To
give confidence that the tanks are actually pressurized, a pressure monitoring system is necessary.
Each tank is provided with one 2” air pipe and one 4” water pipe to accommodate the expected air and
water flow rates and pressures. The routing of permanent piping (hard pipe) and temporary (hose) piping
on the buoy to give access to all tanks in all projected (and contingency) cases proved to be a big challenge
due to ROV accessibility issues and the fact that the final ballast configuration would not be known until
OTC-26330-MS 17

the buoys weight and inclination testing was completed. It can be noted here that without divers, changes
to the panel settings are only possible after the buoy reaches 30 m water depth as a minimum to ensure
ROV operability.
The solution found shows the pipes routed from the bottom of the tanks to 5 different ROV interface
panels allowing tank intervention through hot stab and sleeve (valve open/close) operations. Tanks to be
ballasted offshore have a dedicated ballast hose routed to the top of the buoy for hook-up to the installation
vessel whereas all buoyancy tanks are connected through a common air manifold with single hose routed
to top of buoy. Tank pressures are measured at the 4” outlets of the buoyancy tanks with data transfer
performed through hard-wire or acoustic interface.

Figure 16 —Tank piping and filling principle

Permanent and temporary buoy equipment The buoys simple functionality for field life differs greatly
from the installation phases where it needs to carry a substantial amount of temporary equipment in ROV
accessible locations affecting the CoG of the buoy.
The temporary equipment consisted of:
● Buoy depth and inclination monitoring survey equipment with acoustic and hard wire interface
● Buoy tank pressure monitoring equipment with acoustic and hard wire interface
● 2⬙ Air hoses, non-return valves and hotstabs/sleeves
● 4⬙ Water hoses and hotstabs/sleeves
● Fender for quayside mooring
● Boat landing
● Navigation aids
● Towing pad-eyes, tow pennants and (contingency) recovery rigging
● Pre-installed tether hang-off rigging
To optimize space and weight constraints without losing functionality or operability, 3D ROV
accessibility studies were performed and the following solutions applied:
● Combined fender/boat landings
● Bundling of water hoses
● Bundling of hard wire interface and air hoses
● Removable protection panels for hoses and hotstabs
● Pre-installation in dry-dock where possible
SIMOPS planning The planning of the various multiple vessel activities for the buoy/tether installation
was linked to the risk management parameters through the application of a ‘logic flow chart’ showing the
critical path activities with their weather sensitivity and expected durations including possible contingency
operations.
18 OTC-26330-MS

Offshore, this flow chart was complemented with the daily weather forecast, current and wind
measuring and vessel movement reports in order to align the multiple vessel scope and SIMOPS.
Installation set-backs
Other than the considerable weather standby periods, the project also suffered some set-backs related
to equipment breakdown. To recover time, Seven Oceans, Skandi Neptune and Aker Wayfarer were
engaged to perform lifts, allowing Seven Polaris to concentrate on the tether spooling.
Pressure monitoring equipment The pressure monitoring system failed under the continuous hydrody-
namic loading at the pressure sensor cable connections after which the buoy was towed back to an inshore
position to effect replacement of the broken sensors. It was concluded that the system needed further
improvements to increase the reliability and these reinforcements were implemented on the subsequent
buoys.
Ballast system Whereas the buoy structural and marine design has limited restrictions (set at 4m
significant wave height), the temporary hose and hot stab rigging and protection arrangements did not
withstand the hydrodynamic forces applied to them under the inclement weather. As a result the ballast
system presented faults through punctured hoses and loose hotstabs, after which the buoy was towed back
to an inshore location for re-instatement by divers.
Eventually, to avoid the towing operation causing renewed loosening or damage to hoses and hot stab
connectors, it was decided to mobilize divers offshore and effect repairs in the field by fitting hose clamps
and local rigging on the hot stabs, which was performed successfully.
Tether load sensors The tether load sensors fitted inside the top connectors initially did not provide
consistent and reliable information, causing delay in the adjustment of the buoy / tether hook-up to the
foundations. The problem was resolved by using the chain tensioner load information coupled with static
buoy behavior analysis model to evaluate the tethers loads.
Corrosion The extended stand-by and buoy preparation period at São Sebastião caused an accelerated
corrosion process in the hot stab system, mainly in the temporary equipment necessary for the installation,
such as sleeves and male stabs. Following this, the hot stab design was amended with inclusion of anodes,
installed in-situ for the protection during the service life of the BSR system.
Installation achievements
Although the project lost considerable time waiting on weather and dealing with the temporary
equipment breakdowns, the following innovative equipment, tools and operations worked as expected:
Survey systems The survey systems for boxing-in the foundation areas were excellent with no re-
stabbing of suction anchors required.
The monitoring of the buoy depth, inclination and motions worked well with the cabled connection at
shallow depth and acoustic back-up for deeper draft.
Operation of subsea tensioners After the considerable efforts to design, develop, test (FAT/SIT) and to
prepare the tensioner tool offshore, the actual operation of paying out or paying in chain links for adjusting
the tether length using the ROV skid, as opposed to the original concept of operating the tool through
vessel downline, proved to be efficient.
Hook-up of bottom connectors Considered a challenge to hook-up the last tether, the control of the
buoy inclination following the on-line analysis tool predictions and the ease of operating bottom connector
tool (BCT), made this a fast and easy operation.
Hot stab / sleeve arrangement The concept of the hot stab and sleeve arrangement as opposed to fixed
ball valves worked well, with all later intervention to resolve corrosion possible due to the items being
fully recoverable.
OTC-26330-MS 19

Figure 17—Hot stab sleeve arrangement

Processes and analysis The constructability and risk assessments, detailed analysis and the FAT and
SIT phases showed their value with various amendments made to equipment and procedures based on the
findings.
Likewise, the model test and the development of the buoy ballast & tether tension analysis tool proved
indispensable in making calculated amendments offshore to the pre-calculated ballast/de-ballast order or
quantity.
The repetitive nature of the installation activities gave ample opportunity for continuous improvement,
clearly proven by the amount of raised MOCs.
Lessons learned All equipment, permanent as well as temporary, should be incorporated in the overall
design during early engineering phase rather than added on at a later stage. This will improve awareness
of concepts, overall layout, accessibility and reliability. This is particularly applicable for the temporary
hose arrangements where use could be made of more steel service lines as well as for the fender and boat
landing structure.
Sensitive equipment should be well protected, with contingency provisions and procedures in place
(e.g. redundancy). This applies to survey, pressure monitoring as well as riser monitoring equipment. The
availability of these data streams on-line facilitates decision making during critical operations reducing
risk and is extremely useful for fault finding in case of contingency events.
Logistical processes to be reviewed to avoid double handling of equipment in weather sensitive lifting
operations offshore.
Conclusion Numerical modelling for dynamic analysis, prototype tank tests and step-by-step 3D
simulation methods were applied to ensure reliable multi-vessel operations offshore. The field results
obtained during the first time installation of such a large system demonstrated the BSR behaved as
predicted.
The continuous implementation of Lessons Learned has allowed to significantly improve the instal-
lation duration from several weeks for the first BSR to just over two weeks for the fourth BSR.
The first four BSR systems were installed in more than 2100 m water depth, bringing to life a novel
riser system for ultra-deep water field developments.
20 OTC-26330-MS

Acknowledgements
To INTECSEA for the engineering services on the BSR buoy hydrodynamics, naval architecture, global
performance analysis, structural and fabrication design and mooring design and fatigue assessment.
To 2H Offshore Engineering for engineering services on the global fields’ layout, global performance
analysis and riser design.
To Principia Offshore for the engineering services on chains’ out of plane bending (OPB) and total
fatigue assessment.
To MARIN for the engineering services and reduced scale tank tests performed.
The authors would like to thank Subsea 7, Petrobras, BG E&P Brasil, Repsol Sinopec Brasil and
Petrogal for permission to publish this paper. However its content only reflects the opinion of the authors
and does not imply endorsement by the Company.

References
Camozzato, G. et al 2015. Execution challenges for a first of its kind project in Santos Basin Brazil.
Paper OTC-25843-MS presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 04-07 May.
Cruz, I. et al 2015. The Buoy Supporting Risers (BSR) System: Engineering a Solution for Ultra-Deep
Water Subsea Developments in Harsh Environments. Paper OTC-25865-MS presented at the
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 04-07 May.
Cruz, I. et al 2015. The new technology enablers developed and deployed on a live project. Paper
OTC-25832-MS presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 04-07 May.
Gouveia, J. et al 2015. Steel Catenary Risers (SCRs): from Design to Installation of the First Reeled
CRA Lined Pipes. Part I – Risers Design. Paper OTC-25839-MS presented at the Offshore
Technology, Houston, 04-07 May.
Gouveia, J. et al 2015. The Buoy Supporting Risers (BSR) System: Steel Catenary Risers (SCRs) from
design to installation of the first reel CRA lined pipes. Paper OTC-26332-MS presented at the
Offshore Technology, Rio de Janeiro, 27-29 October.
DNV, Offshore Standard OS-C101, Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General (LRFD Method),
April 2011.