OTC-30905-MS

Unmanned Full Processing Platforms; Using Subsea Technology as Enabler

Anna Isabella Thomassen Frostad, Thomas Singer, Linda Fløttum, Trygve Andreas Rikheim, Robin Balas, and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

Svein Audun Haaheim, Aker Solutions

Copyright 2020, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference originally scheduled to be held in Houston, TX, USA, 4-7 May 2020. Due to
COVID-19 the physical event was not held. The official proceedings were published online on 4 May 2020.

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
Offshore full-processing platforms are permanently manned due to the large number of operational and
maintenance tasks. Having these platforms unmanned and remotely operated would improve the field
economy, reduce the personnel risk and minimize the environmental footprint. The use of subsea mindset
and technology in the platform design can enable such a shift in the manning and operations regime.
Unmanned platforms have been in operation for decades in the form of simple platforms without
complex process functions. The frequency of visits has however, turned out to be quite high. Further,
maintaining facilities as unmanned has proved challenging when processing functions are added. To
enable full-processing platforms to operate as unmanned installations, a new approach to design can be
adopted. This new approach is characterized by use of design principles for complex subsea processing
facilities and benefitting from the digital revolution.
A main difference when comparing subsea and topside processing facilities is the significant number of
utilities, support and safety functions on a platform. For the new platform concept proposed, several of
these functions are simplified or eliminated, which reduces complexity, the need for maintenance and
cost. The platform concept is among others proposed without accommodation and helideck. Access by
personnel and evacuation is via bridge to Service Operation Vessel.
By examining the Mean Time Between Failure for topside vs subsea equipment, it is evident that the
subsea equipment has higher availability and requires less maintenance. For the topside equipment which
as of today is maintenance intensive, e.g. compressors and pumps, the concept includes using subsea
derived equipment. Seal-less subsea derived compressors are already proven for topside application. The
maintenance need is determined based on surveillance by sensors and predictive analytics, i.e. predictive
maintenance.
On a staffed facility there are cranes and trolleys for material handling and personnel are carrying
out in-situ inspection and repairs, representing a significant number of offshore man-hours. For Subsea
installations, the principle is plug & play replacement by use of intervention vessels. The layout of the
new platform concept is arranged in a subsea derived manner adopting the replacement principle by use
of vessels. Also, the platform is proposed with robotics tailored for intervention of minor items.
2 OTC-30905-MS

New technologies as drones and crawlers are developing rapidly and are used for inspection tasks
replacing personnel, in addition to sensors and cameras and in combination with a digital twin. These
technologies are comparable to using ROV for inspection of subsea equipment.
This paper will present the conceptual idea for the subsea derived full-processing unmanned platform
in more detail, and discuss benefits compared to a conventional staffed full-processing platform.

Introduction
Unmanned platforms have been in operation for decades, in the form of simple platforms without

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

complex process functions [1], [2], [3]. The frequency of visits has however, turned out to be quite high.
As of today, offshore full-processing platforms are permanently manned due to large number of tasks
and activities requiring human intervention, e.g.:

• Equipment and Process Surveillance

• Operational activities, e.g. sampling and calibration
• Inspection
• Testing, e.g. safety critical equipment
• Maintenance, both planned and corrective
• Logistics and re-supply
• Emergency response

Throughout the last decades and years, it has proved feasible to move processing functions as
separation, compression and boosting subsea, and technology development is ongoing for additional
subsea functions. Subsea functions are remotely operated and without any need for human intervention.
By designing topside processing systems differently; harvesting from the approach to design of subsea
processing functions, benefitting from the digital revolution and use of technology as drones, crawler and
other types of robotics, the idea is that a shift in the manning and operations regime of offshore
processing platforms can be obtained.

Definitions, Statement of Theory and Study Approach

Study Definitions
In this study an offshore full-processing platform is defined as a Floating, Production, Storage &
Offloading (FPSO) vessel with facilities for processing of well fluid from subsea production wells into
stabilized oil for offloading to shuttle tanker, conditioning of produced gas for reinjection, treatment and
boosting of produced water for reinjection as well as treatment and boosting of seawater used as
supplementary injection water. FPSO oil storage capacity is set at 1 Mill barrels. The FPSO is assumed
located in the southern North Sea, Barents Sea or the equivalent of areas adjacent to the cyclonic waters
north/north-west of Australia. Maximum water depth is set at 1000 m and distance to shore up to 200km.
A conventional FPSO is permanently manned for operation and performing of different tasks.
Assumed Personnel on Board (POB) level is in the order of 60 equaling about 260 000 offshore man-
hours per year (12 hours shift 365 days a year).
An unmanned FPSO is remotely operated and the idea is to only have personnel onboard for
maintenance campaigns 1-2 times a year. For the conceptual idea, the target is to limit yearly offshore
man-hours to 7
000. Enabling this shift from permanently manned to unmanned requires moving of positions and tasks to
shore, remote operations and a changed approach to design and maintenance.
OTC-30905-MS 3

Utilization of Digital Twins is considered key for successful unmanned operation with long intervals
between visits. In this paper, a Digital Twin is defined as a data model with a corresponding suite of
applications providing access to all relevant asset data through one unified data platform [4]. The
objective is to optimize the utilization of data across data sources and asset lifecycle phases. The Digital
Twin must be managed and enriched as the asset progresses through its lifecycle. Digital applications for
operation, planning and optimization can utilize data from the Digital Twin. This approach to the value of
data (engineering data, updated integrity data and live on-line data) is currently being embraced by the
industry.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

Study Approach
A study to explore the opportunity to enable the shift from permanently manned to unmanned has been
carried out.
The work started out with establishing the overall philosophies for the unmanned FPSO. Thereafter
functions required at the unmanned FPSO were defined based on the Frame of Design parameters and
by use of a Justify-in based approach. Next, the conceptual design for required processing, utility and
support functions was developed using subsea design principles, along with tailoring of a hull for
unmanned operation. Activities and tasks to be performed on the unmanned FPSO were identified and
conceptual ideas for how to perform these without human intervention were established.
At the end, the unmanned FPSO conceptual idea was compared towards a conventional permanently
manned FPSO concept and differences in Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), Operational Expenditure
(OPEX), income/availability, personnel risk and environmental aspects were assessed.

Justify-in
To ensure a lean, low complexity design for the unmanned FPSO, a Justify-in based approach has been
developed and used. The approach means starting with a blank sheet rather than starting with a historical
analogue, shave off/justify-out and adapt. The theory is that this Justify-in design approach will give
reduced weight/CAPEX and OPEX compared to a Justify-out approach.
The Justify-in approach starts with a systematic walkthrough of the Frame of Design parameters and
definition of required core functions (main processing functions) for the facility. Next, mandatory utility
and support functions are defined. The last step is to define the content of and number of equipment units
within each system. All elements need to be justified.

Subsea Design Mindset

The design of subsea processing functions is characterized by design simplicity, robust equipment and
material selection and modularization to enable plug & play replacements.
Design Simplicity. Use of the Justify-in approach described in the previous section is a mean to secure
design simplicity. This includes challenging the location of required functions, i.e. if they can be installed
elsewhere than on the FPSO itself. Frame of Design parameters may also be challenged.
Equipment and Material Selection. Another key for unmanned is the selection of robust equipment, i.e.
equipment with low maintenance, long Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and preferably utility-less.
The latter is to lower the complexity, number of component and auxiliaries that may fail.
For gas compressors, the preferred choice for unmanned operation is seal-less, compact compressors
without any lube oil or seal systems [5], [6], [7] which have contributed considerably to availability and
maintenance issues in the past. Topside, this type of compressor is in operation at the Ivar Aasen platform
in the North Sea which came on stream in 2016 [8]. This compressor is installed subsea on the Aasgard
field in the Norwegian Sea in 2015 [9]. Based on operational experience from the Aasgard field, the
MTBF is better than 7,9 years which is significantly higher than for conventional, topside compressors
[10].
4 OTC-30905-MS

The seal-less compressors are without a gear system, hence a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) is
needed. To minimize number of equipment units, a transformer-less VFD can be chosen [ 11], [12], [13]
and [27]. Further, it is an option to choose a compressor with some liquid tolerance [5], [7], so that the
requirement for upstream gas conditioning becomes less stringent.
MTBF for topside pumps is typically less than 2 years [10], which is considered unacceptable for
unmanned operation. Subsea pumps have a MTBF of 5 years or better [14].
Static equipment in general has higher MTBF than rotating equipment and is of less concern for
unmanned operation. However, when designing separation vessels for instance, there should be emphasis

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

on a robust design to minimize the need for internals.
Permanently installed redundant units need to be carefully evaluated. Redundancy is a mean to avoid
shutdown if something fails. However, redundancy increases the complexity of the facility and increases
the number of units that need to be maintained. With reference to subsea design practice, it is foreseen
that some extra control/instrumentation will have to be added to make the whole system more fault
tolerant and potentially for monitoring purposes.
Materials should be selected with the objective of eliminating the need for inspection and maintenance.
Hence, the proposal is to select Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRA) for piping and equipment wherever
possible, also for non-corrosive service. For the main carbon steel structure, and optionally also largely
sized equipment where the use of CRA will be very expensive, the idea is to use coating systems with
long lifetime, e.g. Thermal Spray Aluminum (TSA). For equipment skids, cable trays and outfitting steel
extensive use of corrosion resistant materials (Stainless Steel or aluminum) is proposed. Bolting and pipe
supports can be in CRA. To prevent corrosion under insulation, insulation materials which do not absorb
water can be used. However, the preferred option is to avoid insulation.
Subsea Principles for Topside Layout. During the development of subsea processing facilities, a set of
layout principles has been established [9].
For subsea processing units, the typical approach to developing a layout starts with development of
an intervention philosophy to guide modularization. Replacement is done by use of intervention Service
Operation Vessels (SOV's). The crane capacity of SOV's and market availability dictates the maximum
allowable size of modules.
Larger modules containing equipment with expected long MTBF, e.g. separation vessels or cooler
modules, are used as base for modules with equipment having shorter MTBF. Equipment with short
MTBF is collected in smaller modules that are easy to replace. Module base frame structures include
piping, in addition to vertical stab in points/connectors for the equipment packages. The modules have
spool interface units that cater for interconnecting piping between equipment packages and can also
facilitate supporting of equipment above if required.
Low/no maintenance modules are placed in least accessible locations.
Multibore connectors are utilized to cover all interface points in one remotely operable connector.
Further, sliding spools are used to interconnect individual equipment packages within a module. They are
also designed to allow removal of the independent equipment by sliding out of position.
Each equipment item and/or base frame assembly facilitates a control module of some kind.

Digitalization and Robotics

Digitalization is illustrated in Figure 1.
OTC-30905-MS 5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

Figure 1—Digitalization

The idea is that a Digital Twin is established and matured throughout the project development phases.
The principle is that all Engineering and Supplier data are fed into a digital platform giving a correct
static representation of the asset.
Moving into operations, live operational data are linked in and stored. Typical data are data from
sensors/ instruments at the facility, drone scans etc. Applications performing specific tasks and analyses
can access all relevant data. Examples of application areas are surveillance and monitoring,
logics/automated operations incl. production optimizations, testing activities, asset integrity management
and analysis, planning and initiating of intervention, logistics and re-supply activities, initiation of
emergency response activities, as well as predictions of time to failure and/or need for taking actions.
The idea is that all maintenance shall be based on continuous monitoring and predictions; i.e. that
historical data and time series are continuously used to predict and plan required actions for maintenance
of equipment and the facility in service.
The digital operation will typically be managed from an onshore Central Control Room (CCR).
However, by use of cloud-based solutions and relevant cyber security, it will be possible for Subject
Matter Experts as well as Vendors in different locations to access the data.
The operation from shore will be supported by use of drones, crawlers and other types of robotics –
technologies which are evolving rapidly. These can be used for surveillance and inspection, and thereby
limit the number of tasks that must be performed by humans during visits. This will have a significant
impact on the personnel risk. One example is the use of a drone for inspection of a flare tower.

Unmanned FPSO Conceptual Idea

Overall Philosophies
The FPSO will be controlled and operated from shore. Automation data transfer between offshore and
onshore will be via fiber optic cable with communication via satellite as back-up solution.
There will only be personnel onboard during maintenance campaigns 1-2 times a year. Maintenance
operations will be supported by a SOV with accommodation facilities for personnel. A bridge to/from the
6 OTC-30905-MS

SOV will be the primary access way to and from the facility. Hence, there will neither be accommodation
facilities nor helicopter deck on the FPSO.
In-situ repairs will be minimized. The philosophy is plug & play replacements and onshore repair
instead of performing extensive tasks offshore. Maintenance operations and replacements will be planned
carefully utilizing onshore condition monitoring and predictions. Further, automation and robotics such as
drones and crawlers will be used to minimize tasks that need to be performed by humans.
The FPSO will have safety barriers to prevent, control and mitigate consequences of acute pollution
and asset damage, as well as to ensure acceptable risk for personnel involved in activities and logistics for

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

the FPSO. During planned maintenance campaigns the main process will be shut down and depressurized.
The concept will be all-electric, i.e. all motors are electrical, heating is electrical, all valves are
electrical actuated etc. Power will be imported via cable from shore (combined fiber optic and power
cable). Assumed power supply is High Voltage (HV) Alternating Current (AC).
The unmanned FPSO conceptual idea is considered undefined by governing Rules and Regulations and
may require discussions and clarifications towards authorities for approval.

Process, Utility and Support System Design

Main Process. A schematic of the main process developed in the study by use of the Justify-in approach
is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2—Main Process Schematic

The oil is stabilized to tanker specification in two stages with inter-stage direct electrical heating. The
2nd stage separator is equipped with vessel internal electrostatic coalescing elements. The stabilized oil is
cooled prior to routing to storage.
Flash gas from the oil stabilization process is recompressed in two stages. Further, the recompressed
gas is mixed with gas from the 1st stage separator and compressed to required pressure for injection in
three
OTC-30905-MS 7

stages. To avoid challenges with hydrate formation in the injection system, the gas is dehydrated between
the 1st and 2nd gas injection stage. All compressors are of seal-less type with electrical motors and
transformer- less VFDs.
Produced water is boosted for reinjection into the reservoir. To avoid challenges in the injection
system, as well as to allow for disposal of the produced water in case the injection system is down,
residue oil is removed in a two-staged Compact Flotation Unit (CFU) process and the water is filtered.
Deoxygenated and filtered seawater is used as supplementary injection water. Mixing of produced water
and seawater may not be allowed due to scaling issues. Therefore, a common set of injection pumps is

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

proposed, but with possibility for segregation of the waters.
Based on historical data, pumps are prone to failure. Hence, all small pumps are proposed in a 2x100%
configuration. To save cost, parallel operating units are proposed for the larger high-pressure water
injection pumps. Filters require frequent cleaning operations and are configured as 2x100%. Due to
production criticality and risk for scaling, a spare unit is proposed for the electrical heaters in the oil
stabilization process (3x50% configuration proposed due to available equipment sizes in the market). The
rest of the main process units are proposed as 1x100%.
Process Utilities. A few process utility systems have been justified to serve the main process in Figure 2.
A cooling medium system is required for process cooling. The reason why is that compact type coolers
are preferred from a layout perspective and therefore included in the design. The cooling medium system
is a closed loop system where cooling medium is circulated and cooled by seawater.
A flare system is needed for overpressure protection, emergency depressurization and for
depressurization prior to maintenance or replacement. Further, there is need for a closed drain system for
drainage prior to maintenance or replacements.
Miscellaneous chemicals are required for flow assurance in the subsea production system, to aid
separation, to enhance water treatment etc., as well as for use during upsets, planned start-ups and
shutdowns. Also, for inerting prior to a "plug & play" replacements, the idea is that the inventory will
be displaced by use of e.g. Mono-Ethylene-Glycol (MEG), using the subsea philosophy. Hence, chemical
storage tanks and pumps are required on the FPSO.
Fuel gas is needed e.g. for use as flotation gas in the produced water treatment system and as hull
blanket gas.
Electrical, Instrument, Communication & Telecom (EICT) Systems. Power to the facility is supplied
from shore. The main power system on the unmanned FPSO contains transformers and switchboards for
stepping down the power from shore from e.g. 145kV to suitable voltage levels for supply to different
consumers on the facility. Low voltage equipment will be integrated with modules/equipment. Estimated
power requirement for the unmanned FPSO is in the order of 70MW. To minimize the risk for downtime,
there are two income transformers operating in parallel.
Batteries are included for bringing the facility to a safe mode in case of loss of main power. If long
term back-up power supply is required, an option is to power battery banks by solar panels.
ICT functions, as for a conventional manned FPSO, are required. The idea is however to keep offshore
functions at a minimum, use of high-quality sensors with justified in level of redundancy and possibilities
for replacement as found necessary. There is an opportunity to use wireless infrastructures.
EICT equipment which needs a controlled environment (air quality, temperature) is proposed located
in tailored containers designed for plug & play replacements, rather than in mechanically ventilated
rooms.
Safety Systems. To avoid escalation of hazards, both during normal operation and during maintenance
campaigns, a Fire & Gas (F&G) detection system and an Emergency Shutdown (ESD) system is required.
To minimize the need for testing, self-diagnostic F&G detectors are used.
8 OTC-30905-MS

The unmanned FPSO is proposed without a permanently installed firewater system. During
maintenance campaigns, there is an option to have firewater available from assisting vessel or firewater
supply to temporary firefighting equipment (monitors) by use of temporary connections from the
seawater system or the SOV.
Further, the idea is that firefighting equipment as well as miscellaneous emergency preparedness
equipment is brought on demand during campaigns. There will not be any life boats on the unmanned
FPSO, only evacuation chutes. Primary mean of evacuation will be via the bridge to the SOV. There will
not be any possibility for helicopter transportation to/from the facility.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

Miscellaneous. Due to regular need for calibration, oil fiscal metering is proposed relocated to shuttle
tankers or performed onshore.
The unmanned FPSO is proposed without a test separator. Subsea and/or topside multiphase flow
meters are proposed used for allocation purposes.
The idea is a chemical storage capacity of about 30 days and remote loading from a supply vessel by
use of multi hose bundle system, which is under development [15], instead of using tote tanks. An
alternative is supply via an umbilical from shore or another facility.
There is no nitrogen generator onboard, only nitrogen bottle racks for maintaining positive flow for
containerized EICT equipment. Hence, there is no back-up system for blanket gas for the cargo tanks.
This means that oil cannot be offloaded if the main process is shut down, unless it can be provided from
the oil tanker.
Due to the all-electric design neither diesel nor hydraulic oil systems are required.
Equipment for tasks to be performed during maintenance campaigns, as well as consumables as
freshwater (potable and service), hot water and inert gas are brought on board during maintenance
campaigns. This also applies for different material handling equipment. The unmanned FPSO is proposed
without any platform pedestal cranes.
Spills during maintenance activities will be collected and brought off the facility. Risk for leaks during
normal operation are minimized by use of fully welded connections. Open drains in the form of e.g.
rainwater will normally be routed overboard. There will not be an onboard treatment of open drains.

Topside Layout
An artistic illustration of the unmanned FPSO layout configuration is provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3—Overall Topside Layout

OTC-30905-MS 9

The topside layout configuration has evolved thru various interactions with subsea, operations,
maintenance and intervention teams. These key areas have influenced the overall layout philosophies and
principles stated earlier and have been instrumental in shaping the topside layout. The layout is based
on a flat top single deck level design. This not only allows for simple fabrication and construction but
is paramount for simplifying installation and retrieval of equipment. Further, the deck layout is split into
system functional pancakes, see Figure 4.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

Figure 4—Topside Layout Configuration

The functional pancakes, or base frames, are designed utilizing subsea equipment module principles,
including piping, electrical and control pods, which can be easily removed if failure occurs. Equipment
module packing is exemplified in Figure 5.

Figure 5—Example, Equipment Module Packing (Pump, Compressor, Scrubber)

Equipment locations within the base frames are dictated by MTBF figures with the equipment
requiring more frequent removal placed on the external areas of the frame. Feeder racks are also located
on the base frames to minimize hook up. The functional areas are serviced by a central pipe rack, similar
as for a conventional FPSO.
The layout incorporates maintenance freeways on both port and starboard again to easy access to
equipment and simplify removal. Required maintenance equipment can be lifted directly to these areas
during campaigns.
For the large intervention campaigns, i.e. removal of equipment modules, it is envisaged that
traditional subsea intervention vessels can be utilized. Although these vessels come in various ranges and
sizes [16], [17], [18], [19], the "Heavy Type" unit has been used as basis. This provides maximum lifting
capacity parameters, hook height and load. The lifting capacity of these vessels is 600 tonnes.
However, for this
10 OTC-30905-MS

study, equipment modules to be removed have been limited to approx. 200 tonnes which provides
adequate margins to allow for lift heights and sea states. An intervention lift is illustrated in Figure 6.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

Figure 6—Intervention Proposal utilizing SOV

Hull Design
Hull Shape. The design of the unmanned FPSO hull is optimized to support the unmanned operations
concept over the traditional ship industry design practices which is mostly optimized for low CAPEX.
This is primarily achieved by simplifying the structural shapes, structural details and the inherent
maritime and utility functionality by elevating all non-essential functionality to topside where equipment
and piping are more easily accessible for maintenance and inspection. In addition to optimizing the hull
structure for low OPEX, volumes in the substructure are freed up so that it is fully utilized for storage and
improving the flotation and global structural bending moments.
A key success factor for the hull design is to optimize for the structural fatigue life, as this is the driver
for inspection requirements. In addition, the idea is that design will allow for periodic inspection, if
required, by use of remotely controlled devices and not requiring personnel accessing confined spaces.
Further, the concept is that the hull buoyancy distribution is tailored to allow for passive trimming and
minimization of requirements for active ballast/de-ballasting by positioning and sizing any internal moon-
pools and seawater intake/dump lines to achieve the correct trim.
Turret. For a harsh weather FPSO design the natural weathervaning response of the hull needs to be
taken into consideration when positioning the turret longitudinally to balance and mitigate unwanted fish-
tailing or excessive roll motions as this impacts the offloading regularity and separator efficiency in harsh
weather states or when non-colinear wind/wave situations are seen. Tunnel thrusters for heading control
are required for most harsh weather applications to achieve reliable offloading and the sizing is linked to
the turret position optimization.
External power supply to the FPSO will be through an electrical swivel design based on AC power.
Conventional AC swivels are qualified in excess of the assessed unmanned FPSO power demand of
approximately 70MW. The current state of art for qualified and commercially available AC power swivels
is regarded to be approximately 100MW as seen in equipment available from SBM [20] and Focal
MacArtney [21].
Systems in Hull. Of the systems required to be located in the hull, only the ballast and bilge pumps
remains when comparing to a conventional FPSO design. The pumps in these systems is accessible and
retractable from above and are of the line shaft or stack type to allow for minimum intervention in
confined spaces. The ring mains for the hull systems, branches, ejectors and any valves associated with
these systems are
OTC-30905-MS 11

still located in the hull and are made inspectable by remotely controlled devices. All other systems are
split to have any inspection and maintenance point elevated and to be reachable from process deck
elevation. For the cargo storage section, the utilization of bulkhead valves in addition to the cargo
offloading pumps are implemented to facilitate the passive trim and minimum ballast operations through
the loading and unloading sequences, and to act as a back-up for any cargo off-loading pump which sees
a degraded service. The cargo system piping headers are run elevated on cargo deck to prevent any green
water effects to impinge onto the system. A conventional inert blanketing gas facility is avoided for
unmanned duty as it is found to require too much manual intervention and maintenance for reliable

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

operation. An international shore connection allows for support vessels or a containerized temporary
facility to be used for campaigns requiring multiple cargo and ballast tank interventions.
Offloading Concepts. Two types of cargo off-loading concepts are available to unmanned FPSO
designs, a tandem moored principle where a tanker is moored to the FPSO stern while conducting the
offloading, and the offloading buoy type, as is used on most fixed offshore installations, with an oil
export line through the turret to an adjacent moored buoy where shuttle tankers connects. The preferred
solution with respect to cost is the tandem moored offloading – with a Dynamic Positioning (DP) system
instead of a physical mooring to the FPSO. Equipment qualifications are being discussed with vendors as
all manual tasks of connection, disconnection, monitoring, line throwing etc. are moved to the tanker side
for unmanned FPSO operations and this imposes some changes to the equipment design which needs to
be worked out and field tested prior to implementation.

Safety in Design
The unmanned FPSO will be designed with barriers to promote safe operation with zero harm to
environment. The barriers need to be tailored for unmanned operation as well as to take into consideration
the planned operation and maintenance philosophy of the FPSO. In general, for unmanned design, passive
barriers (e.g. a fire wall) are preferred over active barriers such as a fire water system, in order to reduce
maintenance requirements. Compared to a staffed FPSO, the goal for the unmanned FPSO is a simplified
safety system design with minimum maintenance requirements. This may require clarifications towards
prevailing Regulatory Requirements.
Regulations governing HSE in the Norwegian petroleum sector contain risk- and performance- based
requirements [22]. The regulations allow for designing simpler solutions for unmanned facilities than the
regulations prescribe for manned facilities [23]. This is provided that the solutions can be proven
satisfactory through special assessments. As for a manned facility, the unmanned facility shall be
designed to fulfil the requirements for acceptable risk, as defined in the regulations [23]. Simplification
of the safety system design is, hence, possible without conflicting with the regulations. Still, since no pre-
accepted solutions for unmanned design existing in guidelines/standards, it may be considered a risk for
the project that the safety system design will not be approved by the authorities.
Australia has a goal-based regulation, following the Safety Case Regime [24]. In this regulatory
regime, there are few prescriptive requirements and the safety system design needs to be justified
for each design. This opens for simplification of the safety system design for an unmanned facility given
it can be documented that the design follows the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) principle.
The layout is an important safety and environmental barrier also for an unmanned FPSO. One of the
main features of the layout HSE design for the unmanned FPSO is separation of potential ignition sources
and leak sources. The main electrical equipment is located in nitrogen-inerted containers. Further, the
single deck design and rectangular shape allows for good natural ventilation, as well as good explosion
ventilation. A plated process deck is proposed included in the design and will protect the cargo tanks from
dropped objects, as well as prevent the escalation of potential process fires to the cargo tanks.
12 OTC-30905-MS

Operation & Maintenance Tasks

Approach. Elimination of tasks by design is the prioritized and the most efficient mean to reduce
offshore man-hours. If the tasks cannot be fully eliminated by design, sensors and automation is the next
step to be considered. The tasks remaining after elimination by design and use of sensor technology need
to be handled by humans in maintenance campaigns or alternatively by robotics.
Surveillance. On a staffed FPSO, surveillance is partly performed by operators doing regular inspection
and surveillance walks. In addition, the platform areas and systems are monitored by fixed sensors, e.g.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

for monitoring of potential gas leakages, surveilled from the central control room on the platform. For the
unmanned FPSO, the idea is to replace the surveillance performed by humans with additional fixed
sensors and in addition, to some extent, use robotics technology, e.g. larger drones equipped with
cameras/sensors for overview of the FPSO. The surveillance will also include the security and
environmental monitoring of the FPSO. Fixed sensors and robotics with sensors will be used to check
upon detection of anomalies.
Inspection and Testing. Inspection and testing activities ensure that the safety and environmental
barriers on the FPSO have good technical condition and the required performance. Inspection is also a
mean to reduce maintenance cost, by detecting and repairing defects before they develop into major
damages. On a staffed FPSO, inspection and testing activities require a substantial number of offshore
man-hours per year. Structural inspection in hull tanks, internal inspection of pressure vessels, functional
testing of the fire and gas detection system and testing/re-calibration of Pressure Safety Valves (PSVs)
are examples of typical manual and time-consuming activities.
The conceptual idea for the unmanned FPSO is to select a high design fatigue factor (DFF > 10), use
high- quality materials and coatings, ensure high fabrication quality and avoid insulation in order to
significantly reduce the need for surface, piping and structural inspection. Separator internal devices shall
be simple and robust.
Even though most of the traditional inspection requirements are removed by design, capability to
perform removal of marine growth, visual inspection and measurements of degradation is required for the
unmanned FPSO.
Global visual inspection is proposed performed by larger drones equipped with cameras/sensors in
combination with fixed cameras. For ad-hoc requirements, autonomous and remote-controlled robots,
crawlers and drones can be used for close visual inspection, measurements and quantification of
degradations. Entering of hull tanks or pressure vessels is not planned for. However, if these tasks cannot
be eliminated, they will have to be performed during maintenance campaigns.
The proposed solution for ensuring integrity of explosion protected (Ex) equipment is minimising the
Ex-equipment by design and use of high integrity Ex-equipment when needed, in order to minimise the
inspection requirements. Surveillance by sensors is possible for critical Ex-equipment, and in general
inspection should be possible without opening the equipment. The inspection required will be performed
by humans during maintenance campaigns or by use of robotics with cameras/sensors.
Testing activities on the unmanned FPSO will be performed from remote or by use of self-diagnostic/
testing functionality. For PSVs, the proposed solution is improvement of the valves (based on failure
mode analysis) and plug & play replacement with certain intervals and after the PSV has been in
operation, i.e. no testing/re-calibration offshore.
Maintenance. Remaining maintenance tasks, other than inspection and testing tasks, are routine
preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance.
Significantly effort has been made in design to avoid and reduce maintenance for the unmanned FPSO,
both by elimination of systems, simplifications and improvements of systems. Examples of maintenance
intensive systems/functions that have been fully eliminated from design are fire water system, crane and
OTC-30905-MS 13

material handling systems, Heat, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system as well as offshore
turbine power generators and auxiliary diesel generators.
For the systems and equipment justified in on the FPSO, the idea is that equipment MTBF and material
selection will be systematically improved based on failure mode analysis and vendor cooperation as part
of further maturing of the concept.
In the maintenance campaigns minor repairs and maintenance, including required inspection, will be
performed offshore, but for most equipment the strategy is plug & play replacement. An equipment
lifecycle cost analysis will be performed to determine the replacement and maintenance strategy for each

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

equipment. Detailed planning of the maintenance campaigns including need for spare parts will be
important.
If an unexpected failure occurs, it might be required to visit the FPSO outside the planned maintenance
campaigns. In this case a SOV needs to be mobilized. Some type of failures can potentially be handled by
robotics to avoid the need for an unplanned visit.
Shutdown and a depressurized process plant during maintenance campaigns has been the basis for the
study. The advantage with this approach is that it facilitates for more efficient maintenance campaigns
and increased safety for personnel. Further, elimination and simplification of safety systems is easier to
justify with this approach. It is assessed that shorter, unplanned visits to the platform without shutting
down the process plant would be possible by including temporary mitigating measures, e.g. temporary
fire water supply. Maintenance and simultaneous production are investigated as a potential upside of the
concept. This approach would improve the production availability, but additional safety systems may be
required.
Operation. Many operational tasks are related to follow up of field instrumentation and collection of
process samples.
Quality control of measurements and calibration of instrumentation need to be limited by use of
instrumentation with auto-calibration functionality. As of today, this functionality is available for most
SMART field instruments. Certain instruments such as measuring equipment which, if out of calibration,
would result in hazards or produce unsafe products may have to be replaced with instruments calibrated
on-shore when they lose performance.
Collection of samples from various points in the process plant is normal to ensure good understanding
of the process behavior and control of product quality. The need for manual sampling and fluid analysis
can be minimized or removed by limiting number of sampling points only to the ones strictly required.
Also, it should be considered if sampling can be replaced by analysis of other measurements, such as
pressure and temperature. There are also options to use online analysis technologies for product control,
e.g. online oil in water analysis which is industry standard [25].
Logistics and Re-supply. Logistics and re-supply are on and off-loading for maintenance purposes,
loading of consumables, off-loading of waste and offloading of stabilized oil.
On and off-loading of equipment required for maintenance and replacement must be done during the
designated campaigns.
Loading of liquid consumables and liquid waste is normally handled by lifting of tote tanks. This can
be streamlined by use pumping of chemicals etc. from the service vessel via a multi hose bundle to a
topside termination unit for distribution to chemical storage tanks [15], thus eliminating multiple lifting
operations. Liquid waste such as collected chemical spills or used cleaning agents can be drained to the
service vessel via the same multi hose bundle. The multi hose bundle can be connected to the facility by
use of a crane on the supply vessel.
Solid waste such as sand may be produced at the facility pending reservoir quality. Sand cleaning
systems are designed with collection of treated sand in big bags. These must be stored and lifted from the
facility during campaigns.
14 OTC-30905-MS

Emergency Response. Emergency response tasks for the unmanned FPSO will be led from the onshore
control centre. There will not be any fireman's team onboard to combat fires/accident, but robotics may
be considered used for minor emergency response tasks onboard. For most purposes the emergency
response tasks for the unmanned FPSO will not vary significantly from a staffed FPSO.

Comparison – Unmanned vs Manned FPSO

Overview of Unmanned vs Manned FPSO

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

An overview of key differences for the unmanned FPSO conceptual idea vs a typical conventional
manned FPSO is given in Table 1.

Table 1—Overview of Key Differences, Manned vs Unmanned FPSO

Equipment dry weight for different functions for the unmanned FPSO vs the manned FPSO has been
assessed and is shown in Figure 7. There is a considerable reduction in weights for the unmanned FPSO,
dominated by simplifications and elimination of functions.
OTC-30905-MS 15

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

Figure 7—Equipment Dry Weights, Manned vs Unmanned FPSO

Topside weight has been assessed based on equipment weights. Assessed topside dry weight for the
unmanned FPSO is ~50% lower than the weight for the manned FPSO; 10 000 tonnes vs 20 000 tonnes.
This is a result of less equipment and functions, as well as reduced ratio of structural weight since the
layout for the unmanned FPSO is arranged over a single deck level.

CAPEX
An assessment of CAPEX for the unmanned FPSO vs the manned FPSO is shown in Table 2. Costs are at
2019 price level and calculated for a Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) development.

Table 2—CAPEX, Manned vs Unmanned FPSO

16 OTC-30905-MS

In the assessment the topside unit cost for the unmanned FPSO is set 20% higher than that of a
conventional manned FPSO due to use of high-quality equipment and materials, as well as less structural
steel. Hull cost is assessed to be similar. The unmanned FPSO hull is more robustly designed than the
manned FPSO hull, but it is less complex/without equipment.
Due to the plug & play philosophy, the cost for capital spares will be higher for the unmanned FPSO
than for the manned FPSO. It has been assessed that, on weight basis, about 35% of the topside likely will
have to be replaced during a typical field life time of 20-25 years. Including additional cost of capital
spares in the CAPEX estimate, the total cost for the unmanned FPSO will be about 10% lower than the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

CAPEX for the manned FPSO. However, the cost of capital spares can be phased during the life time of
the field.

OPEX
The reduction in yearly offshore man-hours for the unmanned FPSO is illustrated in Figure 8; a reduction
from about 260 000 to the target of 7 000 and key elements to achieve this.

Figure 8—Reduction in Offshore Manhours for Unmanned FPSO

An overview of OPEX elements that are different for the unmanned FPSO concept compared to a
manned FPSO concept is shown in Figure 9. Costs are at 2019 price level and assessed for operation on
the NCS.
OTC-30905-MS 17

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

Figure 9—Yearly OPEX Elements, Manned vs Unmanned FPSO

Adding the estimated OPEX elements, OPEX for the unmanned FPSO is assessed to be 55% lower
than for the manned FPSO. However, since OPEX elements such as well maintenance, onshore
administration etc. considered similar for the two cases are not included, the overall reduction in OPEX is
less. When assuming the offshore man-hour cost to be 50% of the overall OPEX, the total OPEX
reduction will be 25-30%. Cost for purchasing of power to the unmanned FPSO may be higher than the
cost of offshore power generation, which may reduce the difference in OPEX. The difference will depend
on how the cost for CO2 emission will develop in the years to come.

Income/availability
Assuming 16 days of production downtime each year (14 days maintenance campaign + 2 days for
shutdown and subsequent start-up), the availability of the unmanned FPSO will be above 95%, which is
similar to the availability of a typical manned FPSOs when planned shutdowns and regular turnarounds
are catered for [26]. Performing campaign work, or at least some of it, while the platform is hot is an
potential upside to increase the availability for the unmanned FPSO concept. It is key that unplanned
production shutdowns due to failures are avoided by having the correct level of redundancy in the design,
as well as careful onshore condition monitoring and predictions of time to repair and failures.

HSE
Helicopter transportation of personnel and having personnel located in the vicinity of or working in
hazardous areas are major contributors to potential loss of lives. These are risks that are nearly eliminated
for the unmanned FPSO concept. Even if there is a slight increase in required personnel onshore and
marine operations, the overall reduction in personnel risk will be significant.
18 OTC-30905-MS

The unmanned FPSO concept is also seen as a step in the right direction to reduce the environmental
footprint. The dominating factor is reduced CO 2 emissions due to no offshore power generation and the
assumption that the power supply to the unmanned FPSO will be green. Other deductions are reduced
material usage due to reduced topside weight and reduced personnel transport and logistics. Yearly
reduction is assessed to be about 240 000 tonnes CO2 per year.

Conclusions
A conceptual idea for an unmanned FPSO with annual maintenance campaigns has been established. The

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

idea is built around the use of subsea design mindset, digitalization and use of technology as robotics,
drones and increased level of automation.
The unmanned FPSO concept will improve field economy and reduce personnel risk compared to a
manned FPSO concept. Assessed reduction in CAPEX is minimum 10% and reduction in overall yearly
OPEX in the range 25-30%. Also, the concept is a step in the right direction to reduce the environmental
footprint. Hence, the concept is recommended for further maturing.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Aker Solutions for setting the vision to become a leader in unmanned solutions
and for supporting and funding the development of unmanned full-process platforms.

Nomenclature
AC Alternating Current
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCR Central Control Room
CFU Compact Flotation Unit
CRA Corrosion Resistant Alloy
DFF Design Fatigue Factor
DP Dynamic Positioning
EICT Electrical, Instrument, Communication and Telecom
ESD Emergency Shutdown
F&G Fire & Gas
FPSO Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading
HV High Voltage
HVAC Heat, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
KO Knock Out
MEG Mono-Ethylene-Glycol
MTBF Mean Time Between Failure
NCS Norwegian Continental Shelf
OPEX Operational Expenditure
POB Personnel on Board
PSV Pressure Safety Valve
ROV Remote Operated Vehicle
SOV Service Operation Vessel
TEG Tri-Ethylene-Glycol
TSA Thermal Spray Aluminum
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
VRU Vapor Recovery Unit
OTC-30905-MS 19

References
1. https://www.akerbp.com (Hod, Tambar, Valhall Flank North, Valhall Flank South, Valhall
Flank West)
2. https://www.equinor.com (Oseberg H, Valemon, Huldra, Sleipner B)
3. https://www.woodside.com.au (Angel)
4. https://www.akersolutions.com (Digital Solutions - ix3, Aker Solutions to Develop Digital
Twin for Wintershall's Nova Field)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/20OTC/3-20OTC/D031S032R005/2340686/otc-30905-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Sexton on 20 February 2024

5. https://www.bhge.com (ICL -Integrated Compressor Line)
6. https://new.siemens.com (Hermetically Sealed Compressors)
7. https://turbomachinery.man-es.com (High-Speed Oil Free Compressor)
8. https://turbomachinery.man-es.com/news/ivar-aasen
9. Si Huai Yeaw, Anders Storstenvik, Rune Vesterkjær, SUBSEA COMPRESSION: RELIABLE
AND PROVEN SOLUTIONS TO INCREASE GAS FIELDS RECOVERY, Paper OTC-
28527-
MS, OTC Asia, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, 20-23 March 2018.
10. Sintef, NTNU: OREDA Handbook 2015, 6th edition – Volume I Topside equipment
11. www.rockwellautomation.com (PowerFlex 7000 Direct-To-Drive)
12. www.abb.com (ACS 2000 Direct-To-Line)
13. https://www.gepowerconversion.com (MV7, Transformer-less)
14. Oluwatoyin, Shobowale & Hashim, Fakhruldin & Hussin, Hilmi, FAILURE MODE AND
EFFECT ANALYSIS OF SUBSEA MULTIPHASE PUMP EQUIPMENT, Web of
Conferences.
13. 05001.10.1051/matecconf/20141305001
15. https://www.hugg.no/Prosjekter/Fjernstyrt-lasting-av-kjemikalier-for-NOAKA-feltet
16. www.gulfmark.com
17. www.sriemas.com
18. www.boa.no
19. www.deepoceangroup.com
20. https://www.sbmoffshore.com
21. https://www.macartney.com
22. Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority www.psa.no,
23. Facilities Regulation, §6 Design of Simpler Facilities,
https://www.ptil.no/en/regulations/all- acts/?forskrift=634
24. NOPSEMA Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009,
https:// www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013C00945
25. http://oilinwater.com
26. David Llewelyn, Per Otto Selnes, 10 YEAR OPERABILITY SURVEY OF
NORWEGIAN FPSOS, The Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF), 15 March 2011.
27. https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/attachments/109746230/poster-SINAMICS-mv-
drives_en.pdf, see SH150