Concept Select Report - REFERENCE ONLY

Ormen Lange Phase II
Compression TLP
Topside Concept Select Report
Project Ormen Lange Compression TLP
Shell International Petroleum Company

Originating Company
P&T EMEA EDES
Document Title Topside Concept Select Report
Document Number 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031
Document Revision 02
Document Status Issued for Review
Document type Other Report
Originator / Author Harald Traa
Security Classification Restricted
ECCN EAR 99
Issue Date 05-05-2011
Revision History is shown next page
Restricted
ECCN: EAR 99 Deminimus
This document is made available subject to the condition that the recipient will neither use nor disclose the contents except as agreed in
writing with the copyright owner. Copyright is vested in Shell International Petroleum Company.
© Shell International Petroleum Company 2011. All rights reserved.
Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.
Ormen Lange Compression TLP - Topside Concept Select Report Revision: 02
Revision History
Rev # Date of Issue Status Description Originator Checker Approver
01 18-04-2011 IFR – Issued for Review H. Traa H. Traa A. Dahle
02 05-05-2011 IFR – Issued for Review H. Traa H. Traa A. Dahle
Rev # Reason for Issue / Change
01 First Draft for Review.
02 Second Draft for Review – issued to Rijswijk team.
Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 2 of 253

The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 11
2. PROCESS ENGINEERING 13
2.1. Concept select design basis 13
2.2. Subsea scope summary 17
2.3. Topside process description 22
2.4. Topside design conditions 29
2.5. Compression configuration / strategy 33
2.6. Cooling requirements 35
2.7. Process safeguarding 40
2.8. Operational considerations 43
2.9. Water handling 45
2.10. Hydrate formation mitigation and MEG storage 46
2.11. Sand handling 50
2.12. Utilities systems 52
2.13. Materials selection 59
3. MECHANICAL - ROTATING EQUIPMENT 63
3.1. Design conditions 63
3.2. Gas analysis 63
3.3. Base case design conditions 63
3.4. Sensitivity 1 design conditions 65
3.7. Selected design conditions for concept select phase 65
3.8. Compressor configuration 66
3.9. Compressor design 66
3.10. Compressor type selection 66
3.11. Compressor mechanical design 66
3.12. Compressor operation strategy 68
3.13. Compressor rebundling strategy 68
3.14. Compressor driver selection 71
3.15. Gas turbine compressor driver design 71
3.16. Offshore power generation 74
3.17. Compression system availability 75
3.18. Fuel gas consumption and CO2 emissions 82
3.19. Onshore power generation (power from shore) 86
3.20. Weights and dimensions 86
3.21. Condensate export pumps 95
3.22. Condensate recycle pumps 102
3.23. Seawater lift pumps (hazardous system) 107
3.24. Essential seawater lift pumps (non hazardous system) 111
3.25. Fire water pumps and drivers 115
3.26. Sub main / emergency generation 119
3.27. Pedestal cranes 121
3.28. MEG injection pump 125
3.29. Air compressor package 129
3.30. LP fuel gas booster compressor 131
4. MECHANICAL - PIPING AND LAYOUTS 135
4.1. General 135
4.2. Power from shore option 139
4.3. GT drive option 149

5. MECHANICAL - STATIC ENGINEERING 151

5.1. Inlet separators (V-2001A/B) and compressor suction scrubbers (V-2701/V2801) 151
5.2. Gas compressor aftercoolers (E-2701/E-2702 and E-2801/E-2802) 154
5.3. HP flare knock out drum (V-4301) 156
5.4. Fuel gas system 156
5.5. Seawater filters (S-5001 and S-5002) 157
5.6. Fresh water maker skid (A-5301) 157
5.7. Diesel treatment 158
5.8. Compressed air system 158
5.9. Nitrogen gas generation 159
5.10. Jet fuel system 159
5.11. Power from onshore 160
6. TOPSIDES STRUCTURE 161
6.1. Structural arrangement 161
6.2. Weight comparisons 161
6.3. Not-to-exceed payload and vertical centre of gravity (CoG) 162
6.4. Modular deck structural analyses 163
6.5. Living quarters module 164
6.6. Areas to be addressed (in FEED) 175
7. CONTROL AND AUTOMATION 177
7.1. Introduction 177
7.3. Telecoms infrastructure 182
7.4. Operational philosophy 182
7.5. Maintenance philosophy 183
7.6. Safety and automation system 183
7.7. Field instrumentation 188
7.8. Asset management systems (AMS) 188
7.9. Actuated valves 189
7.10. Metering 189
7.11. Onshore control centre 189
7.12. Training simulator 189
7.13. Subsea interfaces 190
8. METERING 193
8.1. Introduction 193
8.3. Background 194
8.4. General recommendations on metering installations 198
8.5. Onshore control centre 199
9. ELECTRICAL – POWER FROM SHORE 201
9.1. Previous studies 201
9.2. Design development 201
9.3. Technical assessment 201
9.4. Technical feasibility 202
9.5. Transformer inrush 202
9.6. Dynamic cable 202
9.7. Cost estimate 202
9.8. Further study recommendations (FEED and detailed phases) 202
9.9. Detailed engineering phase 203
9.10. Equipment at Nyhamna 203
10. TECHNICAL SAFETY 209
10.1. Hazards and effects management process activities 209

10.2. ALARP and risk tolerability 210

10.3. HSE activity plan 211
10.4. Design HSE philosophy 211
10.5. Hazard identification 211
10.6. Floater concept quantitative risk assessment 213
10.7. Riser risk comparison 213
10.8. Tension leg platform quantitative risk assessment 213
10.9. Design accidental loads and safety functions report 219
10.10. Human factors engineering and working environment screening 219
10.11. Risk reduction measures / issues for define phase 220
10.12. ALARP summary 222
11. OPERATIONS READINESS AND ASSURANCE 223
11.1. Operations philosophy 223
11.2. Telecommunication infrastructure 225
11.3. SMART facilities assessment 226
11.4. NUI assessment 226
11.5. Logistics 227
11.6. OPEX modelling 228
12. EQUIPMENT LISTS 231
12.1. Gas turbine driver equipment list 231
12.2. Power from shore equipment list 235
13. CONCLUSION 239
14. ABBREVIATIONS 241
15. REFERENCES 249
16. HOLDS 253
Tables
Table 3-1 Gas Composition for Compressor Design 63
Table 3-2 Design Conditions 65
Table 3-3 Sensitivity 2 Design Conditions 65
Table 3-4 Sensitivity 3 Design Conditions 65
Table 3-5 GT Driven Compressor Mechanical Design Details 67
Table 3-6 Electric Motor Driven Compressor Mechanical Design Details 67
Table 3-7 GT Driven Centrifugal Compressor Shaft Power Design 67
Table 3-8 Electric Motor Driven Centrifugal Compressor Shaft Power Design 68
Table 3-9 Nozzle velocity details - Sensitivity 2 – 64 million Sm3/d Compressor design 69
Table 3-10 Nozzle velocity details - Sensitivity 3 – 60 million Sm3/d Compressor design 70
Table 3-11 Gas Turbine Site rating details 72
Table 3-12 Compressor Gas Turbine Driver Selection 72
Table 3-13 LM2500+G4 operating margin 73
Table 3-14 Emotor driver operating margin 74
Table 3-15 Estimated Electrical Load list for Offshore PowerGen 74
Table 3-16 PowerGen Gas Turbine Site rating details 74
Table 3-17 Power Generation Gas Turbine Driver Selection 75
Table 3-18 Availability Study Configuration Cases 76
Table 3-19 Reliability, Availability and Production Efficiency results 77

Table 3-20 2 x 50% Gas Turbine Driven Compressors Fuel Gas/CO2/NOX 83

Table 3-21 1 x 100% PowerGen Gas Turbine Fuel Gas/CO2/NOX 84
Table 3-22 Power from Shore CO2 Emmissions 84
Table 3-23 NOX Emission Factor Calculation 85
Table 3-24 Estimated Electrical Load list for Power from Shore 86
Table 3-25 LM2500+G4 GT Driver and Compressor weights and dimensions 87
Table 3-26 Solar Mars 100 GT Driver PowerGen weights and dimensions 91
Table 3-27 Emotor Driven Compressor weights and dimensions 95
Table 3-28 Condensate Export Pump Design Conditions 96
Table 3-29 Condensate Export Pump Process Requirements 99
Table 3-30 Export Pump weights and dimensions 102
Table 3-31 Condensate Recycle Pump weights and dimensions 107
Table 3-32 Seawater Lift Pumps (Hazardous System) Specifications 108
Table 3-33 Hazardous System Seawater Lift Pump weights and dimensions 111
Table 3-34 Essential Seawater Lift Pumps (Non Hazardous System) Specifications 112
Table 3-35 Essential Service Seawater Lift Pump weights and dimensions 115
Table 3-36 Fire Pump, Gearbox and Diesel Engine Specifications 116
Table 3-37 Fire pump weights and dimensions 119
Table 3-38 Sub Main / Emergency Generation loads 119
Table 3-39 Sub Main / Emergency Generation Specification 119
Table 3-40 Submain /Emergency Diesel Engine weights and dimensions 121
Table 3-41 Pedestal Crane Design Conditions 121
Table 3-42 Pedestal Crane Specification 122
Table 3-43 Pedestal Cranes Hoist Charts 124
Table 3-44 Pedestal Crane weights and dimensions 125
Table 3-45 MEG Injection Pump Skid weights and dimensions 129
Table 3-46 Air Compressor Package Specification 129
Table 3-47 Air Compressor package weight and dimensions 131
Table 3-48 Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Specification 131
Table 3-49 Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Package weights and dimensions 133
Table 5-1 Inlet Separator and First Stage Suction Scrubber - Summary Details and Weights 151
Table 5-2 Inlet Separator and First Stage Suction Scrubber - Vessel Fabricators’ Responses 152
Table 5-3 Inlet Separator and First Stage Suction Scrubber - Plate Supplier Responses 153
Table 5-4 Inlet Separator and First Stage Suction Scrubber - Equipment List Weights 154
Table 5-5 Gas Compressor Aftercooler - Design Conditions 155
Table 5-6 Gas Compressor Aftercooler - Summary Details and Weights 156
Table 5-7 HP Flare KO Drum - Summary Details and Weights 156
Table 5-8 Fuel Gas Package - Summary Details and Weights 156
Table 5-9 Seawater Filters - Summary Details and Weights 157
Table 5-10 Fresh Water Maker Package - Summary Details and Weights 157
Table 5-11 Diesel Treatment Equipment - Summary Details and Weights 158
Table 5-12 Air Compression Equipment - Summary Details and Weights 159
Table 5-13 Nitrogen Generation Package - Summary Details and Weights 159
Table 5-14 Jet Fuel System - Summary Details and Weights 160
Table 9-1 Electrical Load List – 60 million scm/d Reference Case – GT Driven
Compression/Generation 204
Table 9-2 Electrical Load List – 60 million scm/d Reference Case – Power from Shore (PfS) 206

Table 10-1 HEMP Activities 209

Table 10-2 Floater concepts Major Hazards 212
Table 10-3 GIR per area - Major accidents originating at the TLP 214
Table 10-4 GIR - Helicopter transport and occupational accidents 215
Table 10-5 GIR values for different groups 215
Table 10-6 PLL and FAR - contribution from different accident categories 216
Table 10-7 PLL and FAR per main area - major accidents originating at the TLP 217
Table 10-8 Frequency for loss of main safety functions for the Ormen Lange TLP 1) (frequency per
10,000 years) 217
Table 12-1 Equipment List Details 233
Table 12-2 GT Driver Equipment list weight 235
Table 12-3 GT Driver Equipment list cost estimate 235
Table 12-4 Power from Shore Equipment list weight 236
Table 12-5 Power from Shore Equipment list cost estimate 237
Figures
Figure 1-1 Floating Concept Key Features 12
Figure 2-1 Mid-Case Production Profile 13
Figure 2-2 PQ Curve (Discharge pressures based on 90 bar(a) at Nyhamna) 14
Figure 2-3 Mid Case – Production Rate vs. Pressure 15
Figure 2-4 In-field Flow line Arrival Temperatures vs. Time 16
Figure 2-5 Blended Arrival Temperatures vs. Time 16
Figure 2-6 Ormen Lange Template Positions 18
Figure 2-7 Existing installation of A and D Templates 19
Figure 2-8 Final Installation with TTR Template and Flowlines 21
Figure 2-9 Inlet Riser/Flexible Jumper Arrangement 22
Figure 2-10 Riser Bay PDMS Snapshot 23
Figure 2-11 Sketch of Riser Bay Layout (plan view) 24
Figure 2-12 Ormen Lange Floating Compression Control Scheme 27
Figure 2-13 Ormen Lange Floating Compression Safeguarding PFS 31
Figure 2-14 Single Stage Compression Discharge Temperature Profile 33
Figure 2-15 Required Polytropic Head (Mid-Case Profile) 34
Figure 2-16 Extract from General Electric (GE) Proposal showing Re-Wheeling Approach 35
Figure 2-17 Mid-Case Power Requirements 35
Figure 2-18 Mid-Case Profile Cooling Demand 37
Figure 2-19 Mid-Case Profile Compressor Discharge Temperatures 38
Figure 2-20 Compression Power Required to Produce Mid-Case (with and without suction cooling) 39
Figure 2-21 Platform Layout showing Flare Stack in NE Corner 42
Figure 2-22 Minimum Pipeline Flow vs. Landing Pressure 45
Figure 2-23 Condensed water content in gas as a function of reservoir pressure for typical wells 46
Figure 2-24 Hydrate Formation Temperature Upstream of Inlet Separation 48
Figure 2-25 Hydrate Formation Temperature Downstream of Inlet Separation 49
Figure 2-26 Proposed Drains System Configuration 54
Figure 2-27 Ormen Lange Floating Compression Materials Selection Diagram 61
Figure 3-1 Vertically Split Back-to-Back Centrifugal Compressor Design 66

Figure 3-2 Compressor Operation Strategy over field life 68

Figure 3-3 Compressor Re-wheeling timescales over field life 69
Figure 3-4 Through Life expected production for all configurations 78
Figure 3-5 Through Life expected production for all configurations years 2018-2020 79
Figure 3-6 Production Efficiency % - Electric Drive Cases 80
Figure 3-7 Production Efficiency % - Gas Turbine Drive Cases 81
Figure 3-8 GE LM2500+G4/PGT25 Gas Turbine Compressor Driver GA 89
Figure 3-9 GE LM2500+G4/PGT25 Gas Turbine Compressor Driver GA ctd 90
Figure 3-10 Solar Mars 100 Power Generation Gas Turbine Driver GA 93
Figure 3-11 Condensate Export Pump GA 97
Figure 3-12 Condensate Export Pump Curves – Part 1 100
Figure 3-13 Condensate Export Pump Curves – Part 2 101
Figure 3-14 Condensate Recycle Pump Curve and GA 105
Figure 3-15 Hazardous Pump Curve and GA 109
Figure 3-16 Non Hazardous Pump Curve and GA 113
Figure 3-17 Fire Pump Pump Curve and GA 117
Figure 3-18 Sub Main and Emergency Generation Diesel Engines 120
Figure 3-19 Pedestal Cranes 123
Figure 3-20 MEG Injection Pump 127
Figure 3-21 Air Compressor Package 130
Figure 3-22 Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Outline Selection 132
Figure 3-23 Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Package Outline Details 133
Figure 3-24 Electric Motor Drive Compressor GA 134
Figure 4-1 General Layouts of the TLP and Modules 135
Figure 4-2 Winds (from) for all year 137
Figure 4-3 Waves (from) for all year 138
Figure 4-4 Area L56 North 144
Figure 4-5 Electrical General Layout 145
Figure 4-6 Electrical Plot Plan 145
Figure 4-7 Nyhamna Location Plot Plan 147
Figure 4-8 Local Power Generation 149
Figure 4-9 Power from Shore 150
Figure 5-1 Gas Compressor Aftercooler - Preliminary Dimensions 155
Figure 6-1 Weight Estimates from Equip List 09b TLP Onshore Power: TLP Modular Algorithm
Algo and TLP Integrated Algo 162
Figure 6-2 Payload Estimate Trend - Local Power Figure 6-3 Power from Shore 163
Figure 6-4 Horizontal Movement of CoG Figure 6-5 Variation in Vertical CoG 163
Figure 6-6 Architectural GA - Level 1 (37-1Y-NS-L58-00001) 167
Figure 6-8 Architectural GA - Level 3 – Lower Manning Option (37-1Y-NS-L58-00003) 169
Figure 6-9 Architectural GA - Level 4 – Lower Manning Option (37-1Y-NS-L58-00004) 170
Figure 6-12 Architectural GA - Level 3 – Upper Manning Option (37-1Y-NS-L58-00007) 173
Figure 6-13 Architectural GA - Level 4 – Upper Manning Option (37-1Y-NS-L58-00008) 174
Figure 7-1 Overall Systems Schematic 179
Figure 7-2 Typical DACA Layout 184

Figure 7-3 Flow Control Schematic 191

Figure 7-4 Safeguarding Flow Control Schematic 192
Figure 8-1 Overall Process Control Schematic 195
Figure 10-1 HEMP Process 209
Figure 10-2 Methodology - Ormen Lange TLP QRA 214
Figure 10-3 FAR - Contribution from different accident categories 216
Figure 10-4 FAR per area 217
Figure 10-5 Impairment frequency - Main safety functions 218
Figure 10-6 Iso-radiation plot of 50 kg/s jet – 15 kW/m contour (case ID 24 in Table 5.1 in TLP
2
QRA Appendix C, TN-5) 219

Figure 11-1 Floater OPEX Model result 228
Figure 11-2 Floater base Case OPEX Breakdown 229


1. Introduction
This report is an update of the Ormen Lange Floating Compression concept selection report, issued in
October 2009 (37-1Y-NS-X15-00012) (Ref: 100). At that point a Tension Leg Platform (TLP) was
recommended and this was endorsed by an interim VAR 3. This updated concept selection report provides a
more comprehensive description of the TLP topside functionality and configuration based on more mature
design information and the process design also reflects the latest subsurface models. A brief description of the
overall concept is shown below but this report details only the topside concept. For a complete description of
the selected concept it needs to be read in conjunction with the Subsea (37-1B-NN-P15-00001 03M) and
Substructure (37-1Y-NS-X15-00032) Concept Selection Report (Ref: 63 and 99).
The selected floating compression concept for Ormen Lange is a steel TLP.
The design export gas capacity for the TLP is 60 million Sm3/d. This is delivered by 2 x 50% gas compression
trains each comprising two stages of compression. The compressor drivers will either be local Gas Turbines
(GTs) or electric motors (EM), with power supplied from the grid via a power cable form shore. The export
gas pressure from the platform will be in the range of 130-160 bar(a) depending on throughput. An onshore
arrival pressure at the Nyhamna plant of 90 bar(a) is assumed based on future third party field production
assumptions through Nyhamna.
The floating facility is fed by eight top-tensioned risers; two from each subsea template. A flexible jumper
connects each riser to the platform. Gas and bulk liquid is separated in the inlet separators prior to gas
compression. Condensate/ Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) from the separators is pressure boosted via pumps
to the associated Second Stage compressor discharge.
The facility is safeguarded by a 30 million Sm3/d flare system and the topsides is configured in a modular
arrangement with four major perimeter modules, a central riser bay module and a living quarters/helideck
module. A dedicated skiddable rig is provided on the topsides to perform riser installation. The platform will
be will be permanently manned.
The TLP is located in around 868 m water depth, approximately 600 m west of the existing trunk lines. The
TLP hull [including hull systems] weighing ca. 35,000 MT will be held to the seabed by four tendons per
column, each tendon founded on a large diameter driven pile. The TLP will support twelve 16” diameter
mono-bore carbon steel top-tensioned risers. The risers are tied back to a riser base template with suction pile
foundations. The riser base template provides the tie/backs to the subsea flow lines.
The subsea systems associated with the floating facility include one 16” diameter carbon steel flow line per
riser. There are eight import flowlines and four export flowlines in total:
Four import flowlines arrive from the south: two connected to Template A and two connected to tie-in points
on the infield flowlines from Template D. Four import flowlines arrive from the north: two connected to
Template B, and potentially another two connected to tie-in points on the infield flowlines from the mid-north
template.
Four export flowlines connect downstream at hot-tap points on the 30” trunk lines. An umbilical is provided
for controlling the Subsea Isolation Valves (SSIVs) on each flowline, and in the case of the sub-concept using
electrical drive motors, an electrical power cable extending from Nyhamna provides power from shore (refer
to Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1 Floating Concept Key Features

2. Process Engineering
This section describes process design work carried out for the Ormen Lange Floating Compression concept
select phase. Technical decision work is primarily documented within KDL’s, technical information notes
(TINs), and philosophy documents (safeguarding and control); these have been referred to where applicable.
2.1. Concept select design basis

2.1.1. Production profile
The floating compression design is based on “Strategy 1 – Mid Case Profile H202” (from Ref: 98), this is
shown graphically in Figure 2-1. This production profile is based on a gas arrival pressure at Nyhamna of
90 bar(a) for all years. This represents the landing pressure required with future third party business being
taken through Nyhamna, which is the basis for floating compression design.
The profile is based on a total compression shaft power of 77 MW. It should however be noted that latest
vendor proposals indicate that for both the power generation options under review (local Gas Turbine (GT)
vs. Power from Shore (PfS)) a shaft power of 77 MW is not achievable. This means that the production
plateau will be shorter than shown in Figure 2-1, and the floater arrival pressures assumed by Integrated
Production Model (IPM) are lower than actually achievable. The impact of this is discussed in Section 2.5.5.
Figure 2-1 Mid-Case Production Profile

With reference to Figure 2-1, floating compression comes online in 2018 boosting gas production from
around 45 million Sm3/d back up to 60 million Sm3/d. A production plateau of 60 million Sm3/d is
maintained through 2018/2019. Over this plateau period, the floater arrival pressure is forecast to fall from
initially around 82 bar(a) to 64 bar(a) in 2019. The compression power and driver speed will increase across the
plateau until maximum driver power is reached at end of plateau. The production rate drops off thereafter
although maximum power is maintained for a period of around eight years through until 2026/2027; beyond
this date the compression ratio becomes limiting with respect to discharge temperatures, and compression
power is “backed-off”. It should be noted that IPM limits the compression ratio to 9:1, this constraint is very
conservative however, and it is likely that full power can be utilised beyond 2027 (Front End Engineering and
Design (FEED) IPM optimisation).

To determine the associated compression suction and discharge pressures for the Mid-Case profile, a pressure-
flow (PQ) curve was generated (see Figure 2-2); “system” pressures refer to the pressures at the top of the
import and export risers. The “system out” pressures are based on IPM model predictions of export pipeline
backpressure, the suction/“system-in” pressures are calculated based on a compression power of 77 MW and
a compression adiabatic efficiency of 80%.
Floater (77 MW, 90 Bar)

180
160
140
120 System In Pressure

Comp Discharge Pressure
Pressure (bara)
100 Comp Suct Pressure

System Out Pressure
80
60
40
20
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
MSm3/d
Figure 2-2 PQ Curve (Discharge pressures based on 90 bar(a) at Nyhamna)
Notes for Figure 2-2:

1. The suction pressures shown assume full driver power is utilised. This is not representative of the on-
plateau production phase. “Day 1” compressor inlet pressure is estimated to be around 80 bar(a) at
60 million Sm3/d.
2. At 60 million Sm3/d, discharge pressure is around 140 bar(a), this pressure then reduces with
decreasing flow. The sudden increase in discharge pressure at 37 million Sm3/d is due to a reduction
to a single 30” export pipeline which is required to maintain the minimum export pipeline flow (see
Figure 2-22). If minimum flow is not maintained there is a concern over unstable production and large
liquid surges when ramping up from low flow.
3. At low rates (< 18 million Sm3/d) the compression ratio reaches 9 and the suction pressure tends to
flatten off corresponding to a reduction in compressor driver power. Gas recirculation from onshore
is also required at low production rates to maintain single export pipeline minimum velocity, therefore
the compressor discharge pressure effectively becomes independent of net gas production (see
Section 2.8.4).
Figure 2-3 amalgamates the above information into a single Pressure-Flow vs. time profile:

Mid Case: Pressure Profile

180 10
160 9
8
140
7
Pressure (bara), Flow MSm3/d
120
Compression Ratio
6
100
5
80
Suction Pressure 4
Discharge Pressure
60
Gas Export MSm3/d 3
40 Compression Ratio
2
20 1
0 0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Year
Figure 2-3 Mid Case – Production Rate vs. Pressure
It can be seen from Figure 2-3 that single export pipeline operation is expected to commence in early 2022
(green spike), and that compression ratio will become limiting from around 2027.
2.1.2. Template flow contributions
Figure 2-1 shows the flow profiles from individual templates over time. It can be seen that post-2018 the flows
from the A and D templates make up the majority of the production, these templates have broadly similar
production profiles. The production rates from B and C templates are also quite similar, but contribute less
than A and D.
2.1.3. Arrival temperatures
Refer to Figure 2-4.
OLGA has been used estimate the floater arrival temperatures, a “U” value of 25 W/m2°C was assumed for
this work. Early in floating compression, the A and B template fluids arrive at significantly hotter temperatures
than C/D due to their relative shorter distance from the platform. By 2030 production from all templates is
arriving within a closer temperature range (-4 to 12°C).
The arrival manifold arrangement provides the flexibility to route any riser to either inlet separator, the
operating temperature of each separator will therefore depend on the wells lined up. Figure 2-5 shows the
average arrival temperature assuming full mixing of all production (blue line), also shown is an extreme case
where hot A/B production is produced segregated from cold C/D (red and green lines).

Template Arrival Temperatures Mid-Case
60
50
Template A
B Template
40
C Template
D Template
30
Deg C
20
10
0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
-10
Year
Figure 2-4 In-field Flow line Arrival Temperatures vs. Time
Arrival Temperature Mid-Case
60
50
Homogeneous Mix
A/B seg
40
C/D Seg
30
Deg C
20
10
0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
-10
Year
Figure 2-5 Blended Arrival Temperatures vs. Time
2.1.4. Gas export temperature

The design temperature of the existing 30” export pipelines is 80°C. The platform export risers are also
designed for this temperature. The second stage compressor discharge gas will be cooled to 60°C by after-
coolers E-2702/2802 prior to export.

2.1.5. PVT properties and compositions

The gas composition has been taken from the Study design basis (Ref: 98), composition 3 has been used for
process simulation work and equipment design. This represents the composition at the bottom reservoir (rich
in liquids) at the end of plateau production with reservoir pressure having dropped from 200 to 120 bar(a). It
has the highest liquid loading for plateau production period and is therefore recommended for pipeline
hydraulics and sizing of condensate handling facilities onshore. Compositions 1, 2 and 4 are viewed as
sensitivities.
The compositions in Ref 98 are given on a dry basis. Condensed water was added to the UniSim simulation
model such that the fluids were saturated with water at reservoir conditions, formation water was added at the
Nyhamna design handling rate of 50 m3/d. Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) is added to the model such that the
MEG concentration in the free water in the pipeline is 67.5% at -5°C and the design Closed in Tubing Head
Pressure (CITHP) of 255 bar(a).
2.1.6. Slug handling
A slug handling capacity of 25 m3 has been allowed for in the design of each arrival separator. This surge
capacity allows for swept-out liquid during individual flow-line ramp-up.
2.1.7. Well shut-in pressure
For design purposes a maximum well CITHP of 255 bar(a) at –890 m True Vertical Depth (TVD) has been
considered. All import/export risers, and new flowline sections will be designed suitable for this. Credit for
static head losses has been taken in setting topside design pressures (see Section 2.4).
2.2. Subsea scope summary

Refer to Ref: 101 (TLP Subsea Study Report) for details of the sub-sea installation.
A, B and D templates are currently installed; the mid-north C template is expected to be installed and
producing by 2013. Figure 2-6 shoes the geographic layout of each template. The Tension Leg Platform (TLP)
will be installed in around 870 m water depth and between the A and B templates (around 3.8 km apart) and
around 600 m to the West of the hot-tap tie-ins to the 30” export pipelines. This results in the A and D
templates approaching the floater from the South, and B and C templates approaching from the North.

Figure 2-6 Ormen Lange Template Positions
Gas is currently exported to Nyhamna via 2 x 30” pipelines, the end of each pipeline is connected via a pigging
loop template. Each production templates is comprised of multiple wells producing to 2 x 20” production
manifolds. Any well can be lined up to either 20” manifold. Each 20” template production header is tied into
one of the 30” export pipelines. In the case of the D template, 2 x 15 km flowlines are run from the template
Pipeline End Modules (PLEMs) to local PLEMs adjacent to each 30” export pipeline. Figure 2-7 shows the
current installation of the A and D templates. B is similar to the A template hook-up although it connects to
the pipelines via the pigging loop template.

Figure 2-7 Existing installation of A and D Templates
To tie the A and B templates back to the floater, new connections will be made from each 20” template
production header (non-utilised header end) to two new PLEMs (with a piggable branch for pig
launcher/receiver (PLR) connection). From each PLEM, a new 16” carbon steel flowline will be run to Flow
Line End Terminations (FLETs) (with isolation valve) local to the subsea Top Tensioned Riser (TTR)
template, 16” tie-in spools with diverless connectors connect the FLETs to the TTR template. The TTR
template will contain 12 riser slots (eight import/ four export), and is effectively a mirror image of the riser bay
on the floater above.
For the D template, two new in-field flowlines will be tied into the existing PLEMs (adjacent to the export
pipeline tie-ins). These flowlines will also be run to two new FLETs (with isolation valve) adjacent to the TTR
template. The C template will be tied-back in the same manner as D, although it approaches from the North.
All eight new in-field flowlines and risers have been taken as 16” NB for topside design, however the size of
the C flowlines may only be 12” NB. Furthermore it is also possible that C may be taken over the B template
(the manifold design of the pigging loop template can permit this). In this event only six infield risers would
need to be installed. Based on predicted velocities there may also be scope to reduce the size of the A/B/D
16” import risers (FEED Optimisation).
The concept is based on a thin carpet of rock in the flowline sections where the lines are not in free spans.
This is in order to achieve maximum cooling of the gas from a compression efficiency point of view; the
requirement for rock carpets is not finalised. The flowlines are in general lying exposed on the seabed. Pre and
post-lay seabed intervention is required by excavation and rock dumping to ensure flowline integrity and
foundations for FLETs, PLEMs and spools.
Subsea Safety and Isolation Valves (SSIVs) will be provided for all in-field risers (to be confirmed by
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) study); these SSIVs would be located within the subsea TTR template.
The main purpose of the SSIVs is to isolate potential gas backflow in case of e.g. riser rupture at the TLP. The
SSIVs are remotely operated via an umbilical connection from the TLP.

Four 16” NB export risers will be installed on the floater, based on predicted velocities there may be scope to
reduce the size of the export risers (FEED Optimisation).
There are one pair of risers allocated to each 30” main export pipeline. The export risers connect to the subsea
TTR template and then connect to four adjacent FLETs. 16” tie-in spools with diverless connectors connect
the FLET to the TTR template. From the FLETs, new 16” NB pipeline sections of around 600 m will run to
four new PLEMs (with one piggable branch for PLR connection) located adjacent to the existing 30”
pipelines. The PLEMs are welded to and installed with the flowlines. The flowlines are in general lying
exposed on the seabed. Pre- and post-lay seabed intervention is required by excavation and rock dumping to
ensure flowline integrity and foundations for FLETs, PLEMs and spools. Each PLEM will be tied-into the
associated export pipeline by hot-tap.
The location of the export flowline SSIVs is not finalised and is subject to the outcome of QRA study work.
These will either be located within the TTR subsea template, or alternatively will be located at the PLEMs local
to the export pipeline tie-ins. It may be desirable to locate the SSIVs local to the main export pipelines to
protect from the full inventory of the trunk line to Nyhamna being discharged beneath the platform (e.g. due
to dropped object), however this requires an additional longer umbilical(s).
The subsea TTR template riser slot arrangement will “mirror image” the layout of the topside riser bay. The
export risers are allocated to the centre block of four slots. The A and D templates will utilise the Southern
block of four slots, while the B and C risers will take the Northern block of four. The final envisaged subsea
layout is shown in Figure 2-8:

Figure 2-8 Final Installation with TTR Template and Flowlines

2.3. Topside process description

2.3.1. Import risers and inlet manifold arrangement
Refer to Process Flow Scheme (PFS) PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00001 (Ref: 37).
All topside flowline/risers (including export) have two Emergency Shut Down Valves (ESDVs). The riser
ESDV is located in the vertical plane above the TTR tendome structure, and an inboard ESDV (also located
in the vertical plane) is installed above the riser ESDV. The inboard ESDV is the “workhorse” valve used for
start-up/shut-down isolation; the riser ESDV is primarily for emergency fire or gas isolation of the riser. These
are both located upstream of a flexible jumper (or downstream in the case of the export risers) which links the
riser to the platform.
Figure 2-9 Inlet Riser/Flexible Jumper Arrangement
A MEG injection point is provided between each riser ESDV and inboard ESDV to allow pressure
equalisation prior to opening the riser ESDV; a flexible connection will be required to each MEG injection
point. All inboard ESDVs will have a smaller bore bypass line to allow pressure equalisation prior to opening,
and riser/pipeline depressurisation. MEG injection may also be required during depressurisation to prevent
hydrate formation.
Above each inboard ESDV is a blinded-off flange which can be used to allow connection of a temporary
vertical pig launcher/receiver (PLR); the temporary PLR will be installed on the upper deck and connected to
the afore-mentioned flange via a deck hatch. The riser and inboard ESDVs will be used to isolate the riser
during the installation.

Downstream of each topside jumper is a PLR bypass valve (normally open) which is used to direct flow
through the PLR during pigging operations. The kicker line ties in downstream of this valve, this line is likely
to require a flexible connector which will run along the underside of the riser bay roof and up through the
same deck-hatch referred to above (TBC). A connection to flare downstream of the kicker line take-off allows
depressurisation of the in-field flowline and riser to the platform flare system; note that this is not part of the
emergency depressurisation sequence.
Each import flowline then splits in two, with one connection to each separator inlet collection manifold.
Actuated routing valves allow Operations to select which separator collection header they want to route
production to. Each separator collection manifold is comprised of 2 x 24” (TBC) parallel headers which run
down either side of the riser-bay, these then common-up into a main 30” (TBC) separator inlet line. Figure
2-10 shows a Plant Design Management System (PDMS) screenshot of this arrangement (note that this is not
up-to-date with latest steelwork/piping and is intended to give an impression of relative layout only). Figure
2-11 shows a plan view layout sketch.
Figure 2-10 Riser Bay PDMS Snapshot

Export
Crossover
Valve
To Sep TR1 To Sep TR2
Topside Bypass (TR 1) Topside Bypass (TR 2)
FI
C1 B1
Dashed red line shows

possible future gas
recirculation f acility to
C2 B2
templates
X1 Y1
X2 Y2
D1 A1
D2 A2
Figure 2-11 Sketch of Riser Bay Layout (plan view)
2.3.2. Inlet separation and condensate pumps

Refer to PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00002 (Ref: 38) and KDL_SPh3-FI-04-02 Separator Configuration (Ref: 30).
In separators V-2001 A/B (2 x 50%) gas and bulk liquid is separated. In addition these vessels also absorb
start-up liquid surges. These are 3.4 m internal diameter (ID) x 9.0 m Tan to Tan (T/T) vertical vessels, which
contain SMS internals (or equivalent). They have a turndown ratio of approx 10:1. The separators are located
on the lower deck, but will penetrate through the upper deck as the Bottom Tan Line (BTL) is elevated to
around 5 m. This BTL elevation satisfies the Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) requirements of the export
condensate pumps P-2001 A/B/S.
The gas from each inlet separator is metered and sent to a first stage compressor suction scrubber
(V-2701/2801). In normal operation each separator is lined up to only one of the compression trains, which is
in turn lined up to a dedicated 30” export pipeline. There is however a normally isolated crossover valve in the
compressor suction header, which when opened will allow load sharing of the separated gas to both
compressor trains.

The arrival separator pressure is regulated by a pressure controller which controls the speed of the associated
compressor driver (both compression stages are off a common drive shaft), the separator pressure floats on
the compressor suction. A connection from each separator gas outlet to flare is provided. A PIC/ Pressure
Control Valve (PCV) will vent gas to flare in the event of high separator pressure. The separator flaring facility
is primarily provided to facilitate kicking-off low pressure wells in later life and to aid with commissioning.
For the local power generation design option, a fuel gas take-off will be provided downstream of the separator,
this will be used for the first four years of operation. Beyond this date it will become necessary to take fuel gas
from downstream of the first stage compressors. Refer to section 2.12.4 for details of the fuel gas system.
Separated MEG and condensate enter the condensate export pumps (P-2001 A/B/S) where the pressure is
boosted to export conditions, these are 3 x 50% multi-stage variable speed drive pumps. P-2001S will act as a
common spare and can be lined up to either separator. Each pump is sized for a design flow of 113 m3/h and
1,020 m head in early life, however in around 2023 a cartridge change-out will reduce the capacity to around
55 m3/h and increase the head to around 1,400 m.
The separator level controller is split-ranged to the pump variable speed drive and a Level Control Valve
(LCV). It is envisaged that the LCV will normally modulate to control level, with the driver speed being step
changed when the control valve moves out-with a specified stroke range. Over time the pump driver speed
will steadily increase in line with the compression ratio. A standard minimum flow spillback loop is provided
upstream of the LCV and is routed back to the arrival separator inlet.
2.3.3. Compression
Refer to PFSs 37-1Y-NS-C72-00003/4 (Ref: 70) and KDL_SPh3-FI-04-03 Single or Multi-stage Compression
(Ref: 31).
Two-stage compression is needed to deal with the required compression ratio in later life, both compression
stages will however be installed from day one. Vendor proposals are based on both stages sharing a common
housing and driven off a common shaft. The re-wheeling philosophy is discussed in Section 2.5.
Gas from each arrival separator enters a First Stage Compressor Suction Scrubber (V-2701/2801). These are
approx. 3.2 m ID x 5.3 m vertical vessels which have SMSM internals (or equivalent). In the suction scrubbers
any condensed liquid or carryover is removed. The clean gas is sent to the first stage compressor where its
pressure is boosted to between 50 bar(a) – 105 bar(a) depending on the profile year. The temperature of the
gas leaving the First Stage Compressor can vary significantly and is a function of arrival temperature,
compression ratio and well line-up; it is expected to be around 60°C in early life, increasing to around 120°C
(based on max compression ratio of three).
The first stage compressor discharge gas is cooled in the First Stage After-cooler (E-2701/E-2801) to around
25°C; direct seawater cooling is employed. E-2701/2801 are sized for 20 MW, which satisfies both the process
cooling requirement and the recycle cooling duty. As the anti-surge recycle line is taken downstream of the
discharge cooler an additional hot gas bypass may be required to protect the compressor against sudden surge
(TBC). Because all the gas (with the exception of inter-stage fuel gas) from the stage one compressor enters
the stage two compressor, it may be possible to install a common anti-surge recycle line around both stages
(FEED optimisation). To avoid excessively cold temperatures downstream of the anti-surge control valve
(ASCV), a temperature controlled bypass facility is provided around the after-cooler to upstream of the ASCV
(requirement TBC).
Gas leaving the first stage compressor after-cooler arrives at the second stage suction scrubber V-2702/2802.
These are approx. 2.75 m ID x 5.0 m vertical vessels with SMSM internals. The clean gas is sent to the second
stage compressor which boosts the gas pressure to 130-160 bar(a) (subject to profile year). The second stage
after-cooler E-2702/2802 is sized for 20 MW, this ensures that export gas is cooled to less than 60°C and also
provides the second stage compressor recycle cooling duty. To avoid excessively cold temperatures
downstream of the anti-surge control valve ASCV, a temperature controlled bypass facility is provided around
the after-cooler to upstream of the ASCV (requirement TBC).

Liquid leaving the first and second stage suction scrubbers in each train is routed to a liquids collection header.
The first stage scrubber liquid is pumped to the header by P-2701/2801 (A/B), whereas the second stage
scrubber liquid will flow under pressure differential (on/off level control is envisaged for all suction
scrubbers). The liquids collection header contains a crossover valve, in normal operation this will be closed
and the liquids originating from a given compression train will be routed back to the associated inlet separator,
however the crossover valve can be opened to allow all liquid to be routed to either separator, or equally to
both.
Downstream of the second stage aftercooler is a PCV and associated discharge pressure controller. In normal
operation the PCV will be fully open (or bypassed) and the second stage compressor discharge pressure will
float on the export pipeline backpressure. The discharge PCV will be used to maintain backpressure on the
compressors if the export pipeline is at low pressure e.g. at start-up; it will also be used at start up to feed
forward gas to export in a controlled manner.
Liquid from the condensate export pump (P-2001A/B) is injected downstream of the second stage
compressor. It is desirable to have a homogeneous mix of gas/liquid upstream of the export manifold to limit
the potential for mal-distribution of liquids to the risers (refer to Ref: 59). The liquid will be injected as a mist
as far as possible.
2.3.4. Export manifold arrangement and risers
Refer to PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00005 (Ref: 39).
The cooled gas and recombined liquid is sent to the export manifold. This is comprised of two headers which
run the length of the well bay, each header is connected to 2 x 16” export risers (which both tie into the same
30” export pipeline), refer to Figure 2-11. A crossover valve connects these headers, but in normal operation
this is closed such that all the gas from each compression train is routed to only one 30” export pipeline, the
reasons for this line-up are discussed in Section 2.8. Operations can choose to open the crossover valve in
order to split all the gas equally to all risers or to direct it to specific risers, such as may be necessary during
later life when only a single 30” export pipeline is in use (refer to Section 2.8.1). Non-Return Valves (NRVs)
are installed on either side of the export manifold crossover valve. Without the NRVs the two 30” export
pipelines would effectively be linked with the potential for significant flow from one to the other as a result of
pressure equalisation.
For the GT-drive option, fuel gas import connections are installed on the downstream side of the NRVs. The
GTs will not be dual-fuel design to improve emissions, and therefore once the reservoir pressure drops below
around 40-50 bar(a), either fuel gas booster compression or fuel gas import from the export pipelines will be
required for start-up; at this stage the design base case is fuel gas import.
Tie-in points are included on each export header to allow for possible future gas recirculation from the export
header back to the template in-field flow-lines (see Figure 2-11). Gas recirculation may be necessary to mitigate
low in-field flowline velocities in later life (refer to Section 2.8.4).
The design of the export risers is fundamentally the same as the import risers. These will also be 16” NB.
2.3.5. Topside compression bypass lines
Refer to KDL SPh3-FI-01-05 Floater Inlet and Export Manifolding Configuration (Ref: 15).
A bypass facility will be provided around each separator/compression train. The bypass lines will allow arrival
fluids from each inlet separator manifold to be sent directly to the export header. As a result of the layout of
the riser bay (see Figure 2-11) the bypass lines will be relatively short connections with a remotely actuated
isolation valve(s).
These are primarily provided for use during commissioning and give the facility for continued partial
production in the event of a loss of compression.
2.3.6. Metering
Refer to Metering Philosophy (Ref: 65).

FUEL GAS
FLARE Note 1
FUEL GAS
TO EXPORT PIPELINE 1
A/S A/S TC
XC TC XC
PC
PT TT TC PC TO EXPORT PIPELINE 1
HOLD 1 TC
FT PT TT
FT PT TT PT TT
PC
FI
FI Note 1
E-2702
E-2701
SC
TEMPORARY PIG
LAUNCHER/RECEIVER
V-2702 K-2701
V-2701
K-2701
2nd STG
1st STG
Gap Control Kicker Line
Gap Control
LC
V-2001A LC
Suction
Crossover
LC
Valve
FLARE
P-2701 A/B Discharge
Crossover
Valve
FC FC FI
XI
P-2001A
PI TI
Pigging bypass
valve XI
E-2802
ESDV
E-2801
Note 1
MEG
K-2801
K-2801 V-2802
V-2801 2nd STG
1st STG
PI
V-2001B
Riser
ESDV
P-2801 A/B
P-2001B
FI
TO EXPORT PIPELINES
BYPASS LINE (TYPICAL BOTH TRAINS)
GAS RECIRCULATION LINE (POSSIBLE FUTURE)

2.4. Topside design conditions

Refer to KDL_SPh3-FI—06 Inlet Facilities Design Pressure (Ref: 34), and Safeguarding Philosophy (Ref: 73).
Design conditions are subject to confirmation in FEED based on vendor compressor/pump curves and latest
reservoir information. Those given are however considered conservative for conceptual design purposes. A
safeguarding PFS showing design conditions is included in Figure 2-13.
2.4.1. Inlet manifold
The inlet manifolds and piping up to the inlet to the arrival separators will have design conditions of 241 bar(a)
and 80°C. When corrected for static this design pressure is consistent with the subsea design CITHP of
255 bar(a) @ -890 m True Vertical Depth Subsea Level (TVDss). Furthermore these design conditions also
allow the use of 1500# Low Temperature Carbon Steel (LTCS) piping.
The subsea design CITHP is conservative and is only expected to be realised if a virgin reservoir pocket is
drilled in the mid/far North (C Template). Notwithstanding this event, the CITHPs of all development wells
are expected to be below 172 bar(a) by 2017 (A and B wells are likely to be 145 bar(a) max). A review of scope
to reduce the design pressure of the risers and inlet manifolding will be a FEED optimisation.
The maximum arrival temperature at the floater is not expected to exceed 60°C (see Figure 2-4). The selected
design temperature of 80°C provides a safe margin above this.
2.4.2. Inlet separators and 1st stage suction scrubbers
The flare design capacity is 30 million Sm3/d based on emergency depressurisation requirements (see Ref: 73).
As part of work carried out for KDL_SPh3-FI-01-06 (Ref: 26), analysis was carried out of the well
performance at each template (Flow vs. Flowing Tubing Head Pressure (FTHP)) at varying floater relieving
pressures.
It was found that with an inlet separator design pressure of 145 bar(a), at the relieving pressure (159 bar(a)) the
A and B wells would be fully backed out, and D wells would be limited to delivering around 5 million Sm3/d
gas. Reservoir engineering predict that even if a virgin pressure pocket were drilled in the North the maximum
production rate would be limited to 10 million Sm3/d.
The separator design pressure of 145 bar(a) was also selected as it is within the Maximum Allowable Working
Pressure (MAWP) of 900# ASME LTCS and 22% Cr duplex piping at 80°C, there may however be scope to
further reduce this design pressure (FEED optimisation). The settle out pressure of the 1st stage compressor
will be within 145 bar(a), and as a result 145 bar(a) is also assigned as the design pressure of the 1st stage
suction scrubbers (V-2701/2801).
The design temperature of the inlet separators has been set at 80°C consistent with the inlet risers. The 1st
stage suction scrubbers have a design temperature of 120°C (TBC in FEED).
The option of using High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems (HIPPS) to allow a lower arrival separator
design pressure has been rejected based on previous work carried out for Ref: 74. The Capital Expenditure
(CAPEX) reduction associated with a lower design pressure is expected to be more than offset by the
additional cost of HIPPS. Ref: 74 identified significant lifecycle Operating Expenditure (OPEX) and
production deferment costs for testing and maintenance of HIPPS. In addition, as stated above there may
already be scope to lower the separators design pressure.
2.4.3. 1st Stage Compressor and inter-stage design pressure
The 1st stage compressor (K-2701), after-cooler (E-2701/2801) and second stage scrubber (V-2702/2802)
have been assigned a design pressure of 150 bar(a). This provides a margin above the estimated shut-off
pressure of the first stage compressor, and should also be above the expected settle-out pressure of the second
stage compressor (TBC). The 1st stage aftercooler (E-2702/2802) design temperature is 180°C, while the
second stage scrubber is 120°C (TBC).

2.4.4. 2nd stage compressor and export manifold

The design pressure of the 2nd stage compressor and downstream piping and equipment has been set
consistent with the design pressure of the existing 30” export pipelines (255 bar(a)); allowing for static losses a
design pressure of 241 bar(a) has been chosen, this is also the MAWP of ASME LTCS 1500# piping (at a
design temperature of 80°C). This design pressure is predicted to be a safe margin above the maximum shut-
off pressure of the second stage compressor (TBC based on vendor curves).
The 2nd stage compressor and aftercooler (E-2702/2802) design temperature will be 180°C up to the discharge
ESDV. This will reduce to 80°C downstream of the ESDV. A high integrity temperature trip (HH) will trip
the compressor and close the ESDV to protect the downstream section.
The piping upstream of and including the compressor discharge ESDV will be 2500# to satisfy the higher
design temperature, as 1500# ASME LTCS piping is only suitable for a MAWP of 222 bar(a) at 180°C. Note
that the shut-off pressure of the 2nd stage compressor is expected to exceed 222 bar(a) so unless a relief valve
or HIPPS is installed, this increase in pipe class may be unavoidable (TBC).
2.4.5. Export condensate pumps P-2001 A/B/S
These pumps are variable speed drive multi-stage pumps. A cartridge change-out is forecast in around 2023 in
order that they will develop higher head at lower flows. The pump casing and downstream piping will have a
design pressure of 241 bar(a) consistent with the export manifold. To limit the shut-off pressure of these
pumps to within 241 bar(a), the inlet separator PSHH will be relied on. It will be necessary to reduce the
PSHH set-point coincident with the timing of the pump cartridge change-out. An alternative is to install a
PSHH on the pump discharge. The required Safety Integrity Level (SIL) level of instrumentation will be
confirmed in FEED.

FLAR
FLARE
TYP
TLET TYP
both trains
TYP both trains FLARE TYP
TYP FLARE FIRE
both trains FIRE both trains
both trains 150 bara TYP
BDV
80 145 bara
both trains
BDV
FLARE
145
FUEL 60
GAS 2500# RISER A
ESDV 80 (HOLD 1) 1500# EXPORT PIPELINE 1
60 60
180 80
SP = 190
barg SP = 75 °C
SP = 130 barg SP = 130 bara (Note 3) ESDV
SP = 100 bara (Note 3) SP = 115°C RISER B
TSHH
PS HH
PSHH TSHH
PSHH EXPORT PIPELINE 1
P SHH
SP = 150 °C
SP = 150 °C E-2702
E-2701 25 25 TSHH
900# 1500# TSHH
165 130
110 130 180 120 241 180
60 60 V-2702
150 180
80 120 V-2701
2500# (HOLD 1) TEMPORARY PIG
160 60
LAUNCHER/RECEIVER
241 80
LSHH 110 K-2701 (2nd)
80 K-2701 (1st ) 150
900# 1500# LS HH
145 Kicker Line
25 25 25
ESDV
60 80 120 LSLL
120
V-2001A
900# 1500# LSLL 120 80 110
Suction 60 60 145 150
Crossover
80 80 120
Valve ESDV
145 900# 1500# ESDV
FLARE
80 150
145 241
60
80
P-2701A/B
Export
LSLL 60 Crossover Flexible
80 Valve
900# 1500# 150 ESDV
80 150 FSLL PS HH
241
145 241 1500#
TE 5
ESDV
P-2001A
ESDV
P SHH TSHH
P SHH Pigging bypass
PSHH TS HH
PSHH valve Flexible
E-2802
E-2801 TSHH
Inboard
TS HH
ESDV
V-2802
V-2801
MEG
LSHH
K-2801 (2nd)
K-2801 (1st) LSHH
V-2001B ESDV
LS LL
60 160
LSLL
TO RISER B 80 241
(EXPORT PIPELINE 2)
ESDV Riser
ESDV ESDV
P-2801A/B
LSLL
ESDV
FSLL PSHH
ESDV
P-2001B
TO EXPORT PIPELINES
BYPASS LINE (TYPICAL BOTH TRAINS) 80 160

145 241
60 60
80 80
GAS RECIRCULATION LINE (FUTURE)
ompressor re-bundle and pump cartridge change-out.

DVs on scrubber liquid outlets, export condensate pump discharge
arator.
2.5. Compression configuration / strategy

Refer to KDL_SPh-FI-04-03 Single or Multi-stage Compression (Ref: 31).
2.5.1. Compression configuration and sparing
Reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM) analysis carried out indicates that a 2 x 50% compression
train configuration is optimal (see Ref: 52). Results also show that a spare compression train (i.e. 3 x 50%) is
not justified.
2.5.2. Requirement for multi-stage compression
Figure 2-14 shows the predicted compressor inlet/outlet temperature profile for the Mid-Case assuming a
single stage of compression. The straight red line in Figure 2-14 represents the maximum allowable discharge
design temperature of 150°C. This is the value assigned by Shell for new compressor designs.
Mid-Case Production Profile

Compressor Discharge Temperature (Single Stage)
180 6
160
5
140
120 4
Compression Ratio
100
Deg C
3
80
Single Stage Discharge Temp
60 2
Homogeneous Suction Temp
Compression Ratio
40
1
20
0 0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year
Figure 2-14 Single Stage Compression Discharge Temperature Profile
It can be seen from Figure 2-14 that in late 2022 the single stage discharge temperature exceeds 150°C,
therefore sometime prior to this, multi-stage compression with inter-cooling will be required. At this time the
average floater arrival temperature is <20°C, therefore suction coolers will not help postpone this date.
2.5.3. Compression installation strategy
As shown above, multistage compression is not required until around 4-5 years into floater life. The project
strategy is however to install both compression stages from “Day 1”, with the aim of avoiding future heavy
lifts. This applies to both compression trains. Vendor proposals have been based on this design approach.
Note that the concept of installing 2 x 50% single stage compressors and switching these to an in-series set-up
in later life was considered in KDL_SPh3-FI-04-03 (Ref: 31). However the expected production deferment
associated with the reduction in volumetric capacity could be significant, and this option has been ruled out.
2.5.4. Re-wheeling requirements
Figure 2-3 shows the Mid-case profile compression suction and discharge pressures over time. Assuming an
equal compression ratio across each stage for all years, Figure 2-15 shows the compressor polytropic head
requirement over time.

18000
Compressor Differential Head
16000
14000
12000
10000
Head (m)
1st Stg Differential Head

8000
2nd stage Differential Head
6000
4000
2000
0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Year
Figure 2-15 Required Polytropic Head (Mid-Case Profile)
Based on vendor proposals, a re-bundle of both compressor stages is expected in 2022. Figure 2-16 shows an
extract from GE’s proposal showing the flow vs. head requirements across platform life (NB: inconsistencies
between this and Figure 2-15 relate to the fact that vendors calculated suction pressures based on actual
installed motor powers). The red bubble represents the first bundle configuration of each stage, both trains
would be run with this configuration until 2022. Re-wheeling would then take place in 2022 in order to cover
the operating points up until 2029 (blue bubble). Beyond this date only a single train is required to deal with
the production rates (pale blue bubble). Refer to Section 3.13.
2.5.5. Driver power and IPM modelling
Figure 2-17 shows the Mid-case calculated compression powers based on UniSim simulation of each year. The
calculated powers are somewhat less than the 77 MW assumed in IPM modelling. This is mainly because
UniSim models the effect of inter-cooling on overall compression efficiency. The powers in Figure 2-18 are
unlikely to be achievable for either the GT Drive or E-motor options based on vendor proposals. Each GT
driver is expected to be site rated to around 32 MW, with mechanical losses the shaft power will be less. For
the PfS option, the electric motors are each likely to be 36 MW rated, but will again deliver less with
mechanical losses accounted for.
The result of the above is that the suction pressures predicted by the PQ curve in Figure 2-2 are optimistic.
This means that for the Mid-case there would be a shorter plateau and a general deceleration in production.
For the purposes of concept select, the impact of this is that vessels have been sized slightly conservatively at
this stage. It is recommended that during the BFD engineering phase, IPM production profiles are re-run
incorporating compressor vendor proposal feedback.

Figure 2-16 Extract from General Electric (GE) Proposal showing Re-Wheeling Approach
Required Power - Mid-Case

80
Total Power
70
60 Standard volume flow

Power (MW), Std Vol. Flow (Msm3/d)
50
40
30
20
10
0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Year
Figure 2-17 Mid-Case Power Requirements
2.6. Cooling requirements

Refer to Ref: 72 and 109 and PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00010 / PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00011 (Ref: 40 and 41).
2.6.1. Cooling medium type selection
Direct seawater cooling is recommended. This conclusion has been reached considering the following criteria:

• Health and safety

• Environmental impact
• Equipment Costs
• Operability and Maintenance
• Layout
• Weight
• Reliability
• Manning.
Decision basis:
In Ref 72 (Feb 2009), the pros and cons of indirect cooling (cooling medium), direct cooling (seawater) and
air-cooling were reviewed. The conclusions of this work are still considered valid for the latest Mid-Case
production profile. Each cooling system type was assessed as technically feasible; the layout requirements for
air coolers would however be greater than the available deck space on the floating compression hull, this
option was therefore ruled out.
Qualitative differentiation using a points weighting/scoring basis was carried out to select between indirect and
direct seawater cooling. On the basis of this exercise, direct seawater cooling was selected. This was also
viewed as consistent with the preference for minimum facilities and minimum operations and maintenance.
Note that measures may need to be taken to temper the seawater supply temperature to after-coolers
E-2701/2801 to minimise hydrate formation potential in these exchangers (TBC in feed).
2.6.2. Required compression cooling duty
Two main factors affect the compression cooling demand; the gas arrival temperature from each template, and
the overall compression ratio. The gas export temperature is limited to 60°C based on an export riser design
temperature of 80°C.
Figure 2-18 shows the Mid-case profile compression cooling requirement. This peaks at close to 70 MW in
2019. Compression cooling will be supplied by the hazardous area seawater cooling system, refer to Section
2.12.1 for design details.

80.00
Total Compression Cooling Demand
70.00
60.00
50.00
Cooling (MW)
40.00 Cooling Load
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Year
Figure 2-18 Mid-Case Profile Cooling Demand
2.6.3. Exchanger design duties
The peak compression cooling load per train is around 34 MW. Ideally as much of this cooling as possible
would be done with the inter-cooler (E-2701/2801) as the colder the inlet temperature to the Second Stage
Compressor, the more efficient second stage compression becomes. The following are however design
constraints:
1. Minimum achievable cooling temperature may be around 25°C (TBC).
2. First and second stage after-coolers must be large enough to provide the compressor recycle duties.
In full recycle the compressor cooling duty matches the shaft power delivered by the driver, both first and
second stage compressors are on a common shaft. It has been assumed for concept work that each
compressor stage will have its own recycle loop. Without mechanical losses, the GT option motor is site rated
to approx 32 MW, while the E-motor is site rated to around 36 MW. Preliminary compressor vendor curves
indicate that this power would be apportioned roughly 50/50 to each compressor stage in normal operation.
The maximum recycle power is not known at this stage, however clearly it cannot exceed the motor power.
Considering the above requirements, for preliminary design purposes a design duty of 20 MW has been
conservatively assumed for both the first stage and second stage after-coolers (both trains).
2.6.4. Requirement for first stage compressor suction cooling
Suction cooling could either be installed upstream of the inlet separators, or on the gas stream upstream, of
1st stage compression. The primary reasons for installing suction would be:
1. To limit the discharge temperature from the first stage compressor discharge to within materials design
temperature limits, normally 150°C for new Shell designs.
2. To improve the efficiency of overall compression.
The blue line in Figure 2-19 shows the expected 1st Stage Compressor discharge temperature over time (note
that post-2027 the trend levels and then drops-off with falling arrival temperature). On the basis of the
temperatures shown, suction cooling is not required for materials/integrity reasons.

140
Compressor Discharge Temperatures
120
100
80
Deg C
Stg 1 Discharge
Stg 2 Discharge Temp
60
40
20
0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Year
Figure 2-19 Mid-Case Profile Compressor Discharge Temperatures

Improvement in compression efficiency:

Compression will be run at full power for as long as there are no production rate or temperature constraints
imposed. The colder the gas inlet temperature the more mass of gas the compressors can pump for a given
power, and as a result this will accelerate field production. In addition to improved economics, there will be a
net reduction in CO2 emitted for the same ultimate recovery.
The blue trend line in Figure 2-5 shows the arrival temperature profile at the floater assuming full mixing of
production from all templates. On the basis of being able to cool with seawater to 20°C, suction cooling would
only add any value for around the first three to four years of operation. Note that hydrate considerations may
dictate that higher gas outlet temperatures than 20°C are required, particularly if the suction coolers are
installed downstream of arrival separation (TBC in FEED).
Figure 2-20 shows the total compression power required to produce the mid-case production profile, with and
without suction cooling, the graph gives a visual indication of the relative power efficiency of both methods.
80
70
60
50
Total Power Required with cooling
Power (MW)
Total power required (no cooling)

40
30
20
10
0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Year
Figure 2-20 Compression Power Required to Produce Mid-Case (with and without suction
cooling)
Figure 2-20 shows that suction cooling only adds any significant value in the first three years. The economics
of accelerated production during this period are difficult to calculate, however the following are
considerations:
1. Mid-case production is capped to 60 million Sm3/d in accordance with the current Ormen Lange Plan
for development and operation (PDO), this negates to a large extent any production acceleration benefit
during 2018/2019. Furthermore there is already excess power available when “on-plateau”. On this
basis the effect of suction cooling would be to extend the plateau slightly and also provide some
acceleration off-plateau. However a key point is that by 2020 the average arrival temperature is 28°C and
rapidly falling, therefore the returns diminish away quickly. It cannot be known at this stage if the PDO
will change in the future.
2. The major benefits of suction cooling are reduced fuel gas / emitted CO2 and some plateau extension.
Ref: 75 has previously looked at the economics of installing suction cooling vs. reduced fuel gas and
CO2 emissions (2008 profiles). On the basis of these factors alone suction cooling was not justified.

3. A design objective for the Ormen Lange floater is minimum facilities and manning.
Suction cooling - segregated production operating mode:
The A and B templates are located closer to the floater location, whereas C and D are further away. As a result
production from A and B will arrive relatively hotter (see Figure 2-4).
The FTHPs of the D wells, are also higher than from A/B/C. In spite of this the latest IPM simulations show
no benefit in processing D segregated, this is primarily because D production is forecast to be significantly less
than 50% of total production in all reservoir realisations.
In spite of the above, lining up wells to deliberately create a hot train and cold train could improve the
economics of suction cooling. This approach would increase the period for which suction cooling was
beneficial, and also improve the amount of cooling possible. Furthermore only a single suction cooler would
be needed. See recommendation 2 below.
Suction cooling recommendations:
1. On the assumption of an average arrival temperature to both trains, by inspection, suction cooling will
not provide a step change in achievable production, rather perhaps 2-6% over a window of two to three
years, and only if the PDO is changed to accommodate rates above 60 million Sm3/d.
While the economics have not been calculated, the additional equipment and OPEX is not viewed as
justifiable bearing in mind the drive for minimum facilities and manning.
It is recommended however that for now the conceptual design makes weight and space allowance for
suction coolers, as this issue will be looked at further in FEED.
Deliberately lining up a hot train and cold train has the potential to improve the argument for suction
cooling. Only a single suction cooler would be required, this could be manifolded such that it could be
lined up to either compression train.
2. Deliberately lining up a hot train and cold train has the potential to improve the argument for suction
cooling. Only a single suction cooler would be required, this could be manifolded such that it could be
lined up to either compression train.
It is recommended that further analysis of this scenario is carried out in FEED.
3. The risk of hydrate formation in suction coolers needs careful assessment. Direct seawater cooling could
result in low skin temperatures and it may be necessary to temper the seawater through recycling or
other means. Locating suction coolers upstream of the arrival separators should help protect against
hydrates as the presence of MEG significantly suppresses the hydrate formation temperature. However
this location will result in a higher design duty and possibly a higher design pressure, furthermore there
may be process control advantages in locating suction coolers upstream of 1st stage compression and
using these for recycle cooling. These design aspects to be looked at in FEED.
2.7. Process safeguarding

Only key points are summarised below, refer to the Safeguarding Philosophy (Ref: 73) for details of
Instrumented Protective Function (IPF) and relief systems.
2.7.1. Flaring philosophy
Seal gas hydrocarbon (HC) content and other fugitive emissions are low enough such that a vapour recovery
system would provide no environmental benefit as the continuous running of the recovery compressor would
create more CO2 emissions than would be saved by gas recovery (refer to Ref: 67).

The flare system will have a continuous N2 purge. This results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than
continuous purging with fuel gas. A continuously lit flare will not be used, thereby eliminating emissions from
pilot gas. The flare ignition package will be a ballistic type ignition package driven by compressed air or
nitrogen. This will be activated by either high pressure in the Flare Knockout (KO) Drum or high gas flow.
A cold Low Pressure (LP) vent system will be used to vent nitrogen purge gas from compressor seals and flash
gas from the drainage systems.
2.7.2. Flare stack design
The flare system design capacity is set by emergency depressurisation which requires a peak rate of
30 million Sm3/d, refer to Section 2.7.4 below.
A vertical flare stack will be situated on the NE corner of the upper deck. This location is dictated by the
prevailing wind direction. Figure 2-21 shows the position of the flare stack and Flare KO drum relative to the
overall topsides. The acceptable radiation limit during emergency depressurisation is 4.73 kW/m2
(API RP 521 (Ref: 103) / ISO 23251 (Ref: 108)) taken from the nearest manned location. Fire Radiation
Explosion and Dispersion (FRED) analysis indicates that on this basis a flare stack height of 105 m is required
based on a design capacity of 30 million Sm3/d.
2.7.3. High Pressure (HP) flare header and KO drum sizing
Preliminary sizing calculations indicate that a 24” flare header and stack will be required for the design rate of
30 million Sm3/d. A horizontal KO drum with preliminary dimensions of 5.5 m ID x 13.75 m T/T is required.
The operating pressure in the KO drum at the peak flaring rate would be approximately 8 bar(a). The design
pressure of the drum has been set at 11 bar(a).
2.7.4. Emergency depressurisation philosophy
See Ref: 73 for details.
The emergency depressurisation system will be based on simultaneous and automatically initiated
depressurisation of the entire plant. Sequential depressurisation would require equipment in adjacent fire zones
to be protected by a combination of layout, firewalls, fire-proof installation, drainage and deluge. This
approach is not usually practical on an offshore platform.
Activation of emergency blowdown will be automatically initiated by the Fire and Gas (F&G) system.
Sufficient time for sectionalising valves to close will be allowed for before opening of blowdown valves. Full
platform depressurisation shall also be possible from the Central Control Room (CCR).
The emergency depressurisation criteria has been taken as depressuring to 100 psi in 15 minutes based on
API 521 (Ref: 102) guidance. This gives a peak flare load of 30 million Sm3/d.

Figure 2-21 Platform Layout showing Flare Stack in NE Corner

2.8. Operational considerations

2.8.1. Process line-up
Refer to Ref: 59.
Normal operating mode:
The normal operating mode is to operate with two segregated processing trains from the arrival manifold right
through to the 30” export pipeline. For this mode of operation all crossover valves at the compressor suction
manifold, export manifold and export liquid crossover are in the closed position.
This line-up guarantees the correct distribution of gas/MEG to the export pipelines, as all arrival fluids are
sent to the same export pipeline. It also allows the option to run the separators at different operating pressures
(although latest IPM work suggests this may be of limited benefit).
Load sharing operating mode:
Compression load sharing is possible by opening the actuated crossover valve on the 1st stage compression
suction manifold. This mode of operation can be used to line up both separators to a single train (if other
compression train shut down) or can be used to share the production from both separators equally to each
train. Utilising load sharing control could potentially give more efficient compression operation as it does not
rely on Operations to manage each compressor load at the wells.
There is a concern that load sharing could however introduce the potential for some mal-distribution of the
wet gas and liquid MEG in the export system. This can happen because when a portion of the wet gas from
Separator A is sent to the Train B, it takes water vapour with it. If Pipeline B is then shut –in to CITHP
conditions, when water vapour condenses at -5°C, the MEG solution is more diluted compared to the
equivalent concentration at the wells (67.5 wt% at CITHP).
For most envisaged load sharing scenarios e.g. 5 million Sm3/d from one train to another, the effect of the
above is not significant enough to be a major concern, although partially increasing the MEG dosage rate may
be recommended.
There are however more extreme flow-splitting cases such as when gas from both separators is lined up to a
single compression train. To ensure proper MEG distribution in the export pipelines the operational
approaches for these cases are written up in Ref: 59.
In general the following are the primary forms of mitigation:
1. When possible operate in a segregated train/pipeline manner, i.e. all fluids from one separator are
routed to one export pipeline; or at least until sufficient operational experience of any mal-distribution
risk is obtained.
2. Over-dosing of MEG from onshore to compensate for any mal-distribution when operating in a mode
which carries a higher risk of gas/MEG mal-distribution e.g. load sharing.
3. Topside storage of MEG which will allow short term injection direct to export risers during any
transient periods of change or upsets.
4. Endeavour to intimately mix the compressed gas and liquids prior to export, such that the phases will
follow each other as far as possible.
Export manifold crossover valve:
This is an actuated valve which will be kept closed in normal operation. If placed in the open position, it
allows both compression trains to be lined up to common export risers. This may be desirable if for example
an export riser, or one export 30” pipeline is out of use, or in later life when one export line is used for gas
recirculation from onshore (note that the optionality to recycle gas around the floater export manifold may
also be desirable).

Alternatively the total gas produced could be allowed to be shared among all the export risers. This might be
desirable if only one compression train is operating in order to minimise pipeline backpressure and maximise
production. A consideration in doing this however is the potential for an uneven split of gas and MEG to each
export line (see Ref: 59), operational experience in conjunction with use of the mitigations above may be
required to assess whether this is feasible.
As this crossover valve will effectively link the two export pipelines, to avoid full pressure equalisation
between them, two NRVs will be installed on either side of the crossover valve.
Export liquids crossover valve:
In the event that only a single compression train is in use with both separators, this crossover facility allows
the total liquid from both separators to be injected into the discharge of the online Second Stage Compressor.
The design intent is to create a homogeneous mixture of gas and all liquid prior to the flow splitting to the
risers.
2.8.2. Late life well start-up
In late field life it may be necessary to “kick wells off” to a lower arrival pressure than can be achieved by the
compressors. As there is no test separator this would be done by de-pressuring one of the main separators to
low pressure (note that in late life there may effectively be a spare separator). The separator and infield
flowline would be depressurised and, the produced gas routed to flare until stable well flow is established.
Each separator has a flare connection and PIC/PCV specifically for this purpose.
2.8.3. Fuel gas supply
The following is not applicable to the PfS option. Refer also to Utilities Section 2.12.4.
A fuel gas supply pressure of approx. 40 bar(a) is required for the compressor GTs (vendor to confirm). In
early life fuel gas will be taken from the gas leaving the arrival separators as these vessels will operate at
pressures higher than this until sometime between 2021-2022. After this date fuel gas will be taken from the
discharge of the first stage compressors which should operate at >50 bar(a) even in late life. Note that if a
common anti-surge recycle design is utilised for both compressor stages, the impact of drawing fuel gas inter-
stage should be assessed.
A third fuel gas supply connection will be taken from each export header downstream of the crossover valve
NRVs. This is intended for start-up fuel gas import. The GTs will not be dual fuel design in order to minimise
emissions, therefore either fuel gas booster compression or gas import from the export pipelines will be
required. This decision is not closed out yet.
2.8.4. Gas recirculation
Gas is exported to Nyhamna via 2 x 30” 120 km export pipelines. When the export gas rate in a pipeline falls
to below a critical flow, unstable production and large liquid surges when ramping up from low flow can
occur. Figure 2-22 shows the relationship between minimum flow required and landing pressure. For a landing
pressure of 90 bar(a), the minimum pipeline flow required is approx 20 million Sm3/d. Note that these are
conservative values which can likely be challenged during actual operation.

Figure 2-22 Minimum Pipeline Flow vs. Landing Pressure
Based on Figure 2-22 in around 2023 it is forecast that production will be reduced to one export pipeline only
in order to maintain the required flow. Later in life (perhaps around 2027), gas recirculation from Nyhamna
may also be required to maintain minimum flow in the single export pipeline. The redundant export pipeline
would be used to send the gas from Nyhamana. The effect of both these actions is that the floater export
pressure tends to remain high despite falling net production as shown in Figure 2-3.
Similarly, the in-field flowlines may also be at risk of excessive liquid hold-up at low velocities. Tie-ins will be
provided on each export gas header to allow future gas recycling around each template. In this scenario all
subsea template wells would be lined up to only one in-field flowline, with the other flowline being used to
send platform gas back to the template.
2.9. Water handling

2.9.1. Design approach
The floater is not designed for MEG/condensate separation, all MEG/water is exported with the gas and
condensate. Water separation is carried out on onshore (note that separating and dispersing of water offshore
would also mean the requirement for MEG recovery to be installed on the floater).
2.9.2. Onshore handling capacity
The MEG dosing system is designed to handle 430 m3/d of water. Of this, 50 m3/d is produced water and
380 m3/d condensed water. The MEG injection system capacity is a possible bottleneck to higher rates.
The water loading depends on the reservoir pressure and temperature, in general as the reservoir pressure falls,
the condensed water per unit of production increases. Composition 3 has been used in simulations as this
represents the composition at the bottom reservoir (rich in liquids) at the end of plateau production with
reservoir pressure having dropped from 200 to 120 bar(a).
In 2019 (end of production plateau), the condensed water rate arriving at Nyhamna will be around 430 Sm3/h.
This is clearly on the limit for total water handling, however no formation water should be present at this time.
Accurate calculations of condensed water rates have not been carried out for subsequent years, as the fall off
in reservoir pressure has not been modelled in UniSim.

C o n d e n s e d w a te r c o n te n t a s a fu n c tio n o f re s e rvo a r p re s s u re fo r ty p ic a l w e lls in A ,B ,C a n d D a re a

12
10
T yp ic a l D -w e ll
Condensed water content m3/MSm3 gas
T yp ic a l A w e ll
T yp ic a l B w e ll
8 T yp ic a l C w e ll
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
R e s e rvo a r p re s s u re [b a ra ]
Figure 2-23 Condensed water content in gas as a function of reservoir pressure for typical wells
Recommendation: Condensed water rates to be checked in FEED, in conjunction with reservoir

engineer.
2.9.3. Formation water handling/detection
Refer to KDL SPh3-FI-01-09 Floater End of Field Life (EOFL) Performance and Operability (Ref: 28).
Production of formation water can impact late-life operability. The current design intent is to shut in wells,
once water production starts.
In addition to the total water handling constraints discussed above, the formation water is limited by the
desalination plant capacity. In case of sudden water break through (e.g. through high permeability layer), the
increase in formation water would be such that increasing the onshore water handling capacity would lead to
little extra overall production. In case of gradual water breakthrough (e.g. coning of rising water contact),
additional water handling capacity could increase ultimate recovery (UR).
Current field models however predict sudden, rather than gradual water break through. Current MoReS
models show sudden water breakthrough as likely, this means that there is little value in additional water
handling capacity, as this would not lead to significant increased UR.
Any formation water production during late life, could lead to increased production of sand and salts through
the liquid phase. This could lead to increased scaling and sand settling. Reliable detection of formation water is
essential in order to shut the water producing wells down. As the Roxar meters, installed at the wellhead may
not be reliable at the end of field life, the floating system needs additional formation water detection and
sampling points.
An allowance for scale inhibitor storage and injection has been made on the topsides layout.
2.10. Hydrate formation mitigation and MEG storage

2.10.1. Topside MEG storage volume
A nominal 50 m3 of MEG will be stored on the topside for the reasons outlined in the following sections
(refer also to Section 2.12.8). Permanent injection facilities will be provided to each import and export riser,
located between the riser and inboard ESDVs (these will require flexible connectors).

MEG injection points will also be provided on high risk sections of the topside process for possible hydrate
remediation, however these will rely on temporary hook-up of MEG injection facilities.
2.10.2. Risk of hydrate formation in the topside process

Note:
Hydrate formation analysis carried out for 2009 production profiles (Ref: 76) has not been updated for latest
design basis and production profiles from Ref: 98. This work has been referred to below, it will however be
necessary in FEED to update this. In particular, attention to be paid to the risk of hydrate formation in the 1st
Stage Compressor After-coolers E-2701/2801, and downstream of the 1st stage compressor anti-surge control
valves.
Summary:
The potential for hydrate formation was previously assessed for the topsides in Ref: 76. This document
concluded that for all operating conditions, in normal operation the process streams remained outside the
hydrate formation region. The only section of the process at a risk of hydrate formation during normal
operation was the gas line coming off the inlet separators. Here, the skin temperature could go below the
hydrate formation temperature during very cold ambient conditions. This risk may be mitigated against by the
use of heat conservation insulation or by electrical heat tracing. All pipework will be specified to drain to an
appropriate vessel, any points where water may collect shall be winterised. Tie-in points for temporary MEG
injection hook-up will be provided for this section of line.
Subsequent to the work carried out for Ref: 76, inter-stage cooling has been added to the process scheme. The
inter-coolers E-2701/2801 will be of shell and tube design with the gas expected to be on the tubeside. As a
result of direct seawater cooling, there is a risk of low skin temperatures in these coolers leading to hydrate
formation. This risk will be further assessed in FEED and any design modifications made as required. It may
be a requirement to temper the seawater supply temperature by recycling or other means. Tie-in points for
temporary MEG injection will be provided upstream of the intercoolers, and also upstream of
separators/scrubbers (for possible filling prior to start-up).
Analysis upstream of inlet separators:
Upstream of the separators the hydrate formation temperature is suppressed considerably by the presence of
MEG. The approximate operating envelope upstream of the separators is represented by the shaded rectangle
in Figure 2-24. The latest profile arrival temperatures are shown in Figure 2-4, even in late life these are out-
with the hydrate formation region.

Hydrate formation upstream of separators
200
190 Hydrate formation temperature
180 upstream of separators (I.e. Including
MEG)
170
160
150
140
130
120 FC-005 type 1 Hydrate
Pressure [bar]
110 Max Op Discharge

100 Min suction Pressure
90 FC-001
80 FC-001
70
60
50 Normal Operating range
40
30
20
10
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Temperature [C]
Figure 2-24 Hydrate Formation Temperature Upstream of Inlet Separation
Analysis downstream of separators:

The area where hydrate formation is more likely to occur is downstream of the inlet separators prior to
compression. At this point the vapour phase is separated from the liquid MEG, although the water content of
the vapour is reduced due to the drying effect of the MEG.
Figure 2-25 illustrates the hydrate formation curve in relation to the expected normal operating conditions for
the C and D templates (2009 profiles). It can be seen that the gas stream coming off the top of the separator is
sufficiently dried such that it is always a few degrees above the hydrate formation temperature regardless of the
operating conditions. If this stream were then to be cooled it is clear that it would be operating within the
hydrate formation zone (the option of installing a suction cooler downstream of the arrival separator presents
a risk of hydrate formation as it will reduce the margin above the hydrate formation temperature, and cold skin
temperatures in the cooler may lead to hydrates, refer to Section 2.6.4. The gas, having passed through the 1st
stage compressor will be further away from the hydrate formation region, however upon cooling in
E-2701/2801 there is a possible risk of hydrate formation in these coolers as a result of low skin temperatures.
This risk will be further assessed in FEED.

Hydrate formation temperatures on process topsides
200
190
180
170 Arrival temperatures of gas from
160 C and D templates through field
Hydrate formation temperature life
150
upstream of separators
140
130
120 Hydrate formation temperature 2017 FC-005 type 1 Hydrate
Pressure [bar]
downstream of separators at Max Op Discharge

110 operating conditions 2019
Min suction Pressure
100 2020
FC-001
90 2020.5
FC-001
80 2021 Hydrate formation in Separator gas stream
70 2022
60 2024
50
2027
40
30 2030 2035
20
10
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Temperature [C]
Figure 2-25 Hydrate Formation Temperature Downstream of Inlet Separation
2.10.3. Hydrate formation in risers and flowlines

Refer to KDL SPh3-FI-01-08 Floating Compression Hydrate Remediation (Ref: 27).
Hydrates should not form in the risers during normal operation as the MEG continuously injected at the
wellhead will maintain the fluids well above the hydrate formation temperature. The hydrate suppression
requirement is based on –5°C at maximum shut-in pressure of 255 bar(a). This results in a MEG
concentration of 67.5 wt% in the aqueous phase.
Primary hydrate remediation strategy:
In the event of a hydrate plug forming in an in-field flowline, the primary hydrate remediation strategy is dual
sided depressurisation against the floater. This must be done carefully with low differential pressure (dP)
across the plug to avoid having a “missile” in the pipeline if the plug loosens. Vent valves to flare for this
purpose are installed on the floater topside.
For the risers, the primary remediation strategy is MEG dumping. MEG will be stored at the floater for several
purposes (KDL: SPh3-Fl-04-04, Start-Up Chemical Storage on Facility (Ref: 32)). The required amount of
MEG to melt a hydrate plug is around 1:1 (volume) e.g. 100 m of hydrate in a 16” riser will require 10 m3.
Secondary hydrate remediation strategy:
If ice plugs are formed in the pipeline (e.g. during hydrate remediation with depressurisation) the pipeline must
either be replaced, or the ice melted with direct electrical heating (DEH). The chosen secondary remediation
strategy for the infield lines is currently pipeline replacement.
DEH via pre-installed connection points should be evaluated as remediation strategy in the FEED phase. If
the cost (including down time) is similar to pipeline replacement it should not be the selected strategy because
of uncertainties of success with regard to melting the ice.
For the risers the secondary remediation strategy is dual sided depressurisation against the floater. MEG
dumping can melt ice plugs formed in the riser (gravity will get the MEG in contact with the ice).

During start-up MEG will be injected downstream of the riser ESDVs for pressure equalisation prior to
opening of the riser ESDV. During depressurisation of the flowlines / risers it may also be continuously
injected.
2.10.4. MEG storage requirement for transient rate changes

Refer to Ref: 60.
When gas production in one of the infield lines to the floater is reduced the MEG content in the infield line
will increase. The MEG rate to the floater will therefore temporarily be reduced or even stopped. This creates
a potential hydrate formation risk by exporting wet gas without MEG injection.
Dynamic OLGA simulations have been run to evaluate the hydrate risk during production rate reduction. The
main conclusions were:
• MEG storage at the floater is not required for use in turn-down cases
• Rate reductions will not give hydrate formation risks in the infield lines
• Operating procedures should state min. allowable turn-down rates to avoid hydrate risk in the 30”
pipelines (work to be done)
• Under dosing of MEG when liquid hold-up in the 30” pipeline is at steady state (or decreasing) should
not occur even for short periods due to MEG “plug flow” behaviour in the pipelines.
Further work:
• MEG requirement for topside/process issues have not been evaluated, e.g.:
- MEG required for shut-down/start-up
- Water drop-out from gas: Diluting MEG in separator during turn-down
• MEG injection to export riser after shut-down/during start-up: Depends on flow split
• Estimate required MEG storage volume at floater based on the above.
2.10.5. MEG storage for transient operational changes

Refer to KD SPh3-FE-04-04 Start-up Chemical Injection Storage on Facility (Ref: 15) and Ref: 59.
There are operating scenarios where there is a risk of a mal-distribution of MEG and gas in the export lines
potentially resulting in inadequate protection of the export pipelines. Refer to Section 2.8.1 for further details.
In these circumstances, increasing the MEG injection rates from onshore to effectively over-dose is one means
of mitigation. As this additional MEG takes time to arrive at the floater it could be useful to also inject MEG
directly into the export risers from the topside.
There are also upset conditions such as loss of an export condensate pump, where it could be useful to inject
MEG into the export gas risers. If a condensate export pump were lost, it may be possible to continue gas
production for some time as there is significant liquid hold-up capacity in the arrival separators.
2.11. Sand handling

Refer to KDL SPh3-FI-01-09 Floater End of Field Life (EOFL) Performance and Operability (Ref: 28).
2.11.1. Sand production size and rate predictions
The Ormen Lange future compression study design basis set out the following cases for design assessment:

• Expectation level for sand production (P50) is: 20 µm particle size, 35% quartz at 3 ppm wt continuous
production.
• Design case (worst case) for sand fines production is: 44 µm particle size, 100% quartz at 5 ppm wt
continuous production.
• In the event of a gravelpack failure:
Partial Failure: Particle Size: 150 µm
Mineralogy: 100% quartz
Rate: 50 ppm wt
Catastrophic Failure: Particle Size: 890 µm

Mineralogy: Quartz/Bauxite
Rate: 20,000 ppm wt
During normal operations, including well start-up and shutdown no significant amount of fines can be
expected in the gas phase of the produced fluids. The only mechanism for large amounts of sand and fines in
the produced fluids is catastrophic gravel pack failure, which expected to be an infrequent event (mean time
between failure (MTBF) 50 years). This event is expected to play out over the course of several hours from no
sand production, to formation of a pinhole breach in the gravel pack, to catastrophic failure.
2.11.2. Current sand handling philosophy
The philosophy is that any well affected well is shut-in upon detection. In order to make this philosophy work,
accurate sand detection mechanisms which enable the operators to respond quickly upon initial detection are
of utmost importance. Currently, acoustic clamp-on sand detectors have been installed on the well heads. trips
and alarms have been set, based on the reading of these meters.
2.11.3. Impact of sand at partial and catastrophic sand screen failure rates
Carbon steel pipework is assumed. The assessment indicated that the partial failure scenario (50 ppmw and
150 micron size) would result in erosion rate less than 0.05 mm per year (this could be tolerated for short
periods depending on pipework and vessel materials and erosion allowances) and a critical deposition velocity
below the expected lowest velocity (taking into account the lower late life actual velocities for the Reference
Case).
The preliminary findings for the catastrophic failure scenario (20,000 ppmw and 890 micron size) show very
high erosion rates (up to 21 mm per year for carbon steel), but sand transport may be possible if there is a
minimum flowrate of 3 m/s. This indicates that the catastrophic failure scenario might be tolerable by the
floater facility for very short periods of time (e.g. sufficiently short period of time to allow flush through of the
residual sand collected in flowlines after sand detection at the wellhead and shut-in of a well), if the facilities
are designed to be sufficiently robust against erosion (correct sizing, material selection and erosion allowance)
and sized and configured to avoid deposition. A vertical inlet separator with a bottom of dish outlet should
not accumulate sand, the pumps can be specified to tolerate short bursts of high concentration sand with
hardened steel and seal protection devices. Sand should mainly remain in the liquid phase at the inlet separator,
so gas compression facilities are not expected to see levels of sand which could cause a problem.

One of the largest risks, is that when the production system downstream the well is shut in, this could lead to
settle-out of sand at the low points (e.g. at the base of the risers). If the design of the system caters for shut-
down of the flowline and riser system, a mechanism is required, so that fluid flow (either forward or reverse)
can be maintained, in order to avoid formation of sand-plugs during settle-out.
2.11.4. Assessment of requirement for dedicated topside sand removal system
For longer periods of high level sand production, preliminary calculations have shown that the following
concentrations may be tolerable without the need for sand removal upstream of the inlet separator, provided
facilities are designed optimally in terms of material specification, equipment specification and line sizing to
maintain minimum velocities to avoid deposition but ensure erosion rates are within acceptable levels:
< 1,600 ppm at 150 microns particle size
< 400 ppm at 890 microns particle size.
The system is not expected to produce continuous quantities of sand and fines. A dedicated handling system is
therefore not required.
2.11.5. Recommendations
It is recommended that the floating compression system incorporates sand monitoring and sampling points on
the flowlines and condensate lines in order to provide additional safeguarding against the effects of sand.
The floating compression system should be designed or have an operating philosophy, such that sand plugs in
flowline riser bases resulting from gravel pack failure can be avoided or flushed out. This should be looked at
in more detail in FEED.
2.12. Utilities systems

Refer to Ref: 77.
2.12.1. Seawater cooling systems
Refer to PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00010 (Ref: 40) and PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00011 (Ref: 41).
In accordance with the Design and Engineering Practice (DEP) on seawater systems (Ref: 10), two seawater
systems will be designed; one for process users and one for non-hazardous (and essential) users. This is to
prevent the possibility of migration of a hazardous substance into a non-hazardous area with the possible
result of ignition, explosion, poisoning or asphyxiation.
2.12.1.1.Design capacity of seawater systems
The design capacity of the seawater system for hazardous users, is dictated by the cooling duty of the
compressors. The platform will have 2 x 50% trains each with two compression stages; each compression
stage will have a discharge cooler with a design duty of 20 MW. The maximum allowable export temperature is
60°C (based on a riser design temperature of 80°C). The peak cooling demand for compression is around
68 MW in 2019 (See Figure 2-18), however it is proposed to design the hazardous seawater system based on
75 MW for conceptual design.
The total seawater cooling design load for the hazardous users has been calculated as approx. 3,900 m³/h and
will be handled by 3 x 50% lift pumps. The total seawater cooling design load for the non-hazardous users has
been calculated as 375 m³/h and will be handled by 2 x 100% lift pumps.
The hazardous seawater lift pumps will have a design differential pressure of approx 11 bar. The non-
hazardous seawater lift pumps will have a differential pressure of approx 13.5 bar, these have a higher head as
they will also pressurise the firewater ring main.

2.12.1.2.Essential users
Within the non-hazardous seawater cooling users system, most of the users are identified as “Essential
services”, these include:
1. HVAC
2. Power generator
3. Sub-main generator
4. Firemain pressurisation.
Based on this in the event of process shutdown or loss of power, the non-hazardous seawater lift pumps must
continue to run. This will be achieved by connecting the non-hazardous seawater pumps to the emergency
diesel power generation system.
(Note that the air compressor and emergency generator will be air cooled and thus independent of the
platform power and cooling systems.)
2.12.1.3.Specific Design Features
Electro-chlorination:
The electro-chlorination system will be designed to treat the seawater systems so that the continuous residual
concentration (equivalent free chlorine) is 0.5 ppm (vol/vol), see Section 2.12.8.2.
Minimum flow protection:
The seawater pumps will be of fixed speed type. The minimum flow should be controlled on flow (as advised
by Norsok) not pressure (following the Shell DEP would lead to minimum flow protection on pressure).
Filters:
Either 2 x 100% filters or 1 x 100% filter with online backwash shall be installed within each seawater system.
Shutdown valves:
The gas coolers will be equipped with shutdown valves on the seawater side to enable isolation in case of tube
rupture or hydrocarbon leakage into the system.
Layout requirements:
The proposal is to have electro-submersible pumps within a pump caisson for both seawater systems. In
accordance with Norsok where seawater is used for process cooling it is recommended to dump seawater to a
caisson at a higher elevation than the high point in the seawater system. By applying this solution the use of a
dump valve is avoided and the potential for vacuum is reduced.
2.12.2. Drains System
2.12.2.1.Open Drains System
The open drain system has been designed in accordance with Norsok standards by adopting the following
design features:
• Two completely segregated systems are installed to collect drainage from both hazardous and
non-hazardous areas.
• The hazardous drains are also segregated by the use of firewater seal boxes. This prevents the spread of
fire from one fire area to another.

HP Flare
Knockout
Drum To Atmospheric /
Cold Vent
LT
To Process
(Inlet Separators)
To reclaimed
oil sump
LT N2
LT
Non -
Hazardous
Hazardous
Drains
Drains
LT
Non -
Hazardous
Hazardous
Clean water Areas Drains
Areas Drains Clean water
overboard Sump overboard
Sump
20 m3
Closed Drains Vessel TOTE TANKS (HOLD)
Figure 2-26 Proposed Drains System Configuration
The open drains from non-hazardous areas and from hazardous will be completely segregated. This avoids the
possibility of liquids or vapours from hazardous areas migrating to non-hazardous areas. From Ref: 11, the
Open Non-Hazardous Drain (ONHD) may be routed to a dedicated non-hazardous caisson or to a collection
tank. Among the main advantages given for collection tanks rather than caissons are: reduced cost, easier
access and maintainability and the possibility to measure the discharge flow and quality. A main disadvantage is
potential for accumulation of solids in the vessel. It is not anticipated however that there will be a large
quantity of solids collecting in the system, therefore a collection sump (30 m3) is proposed (T-5601).
The water collected in the ONHD collection tank will be discharged overboard, an oil skimming pump will be
provided in the sump tank; no produced water treatment system is proposed. Sampling points will be provided
so that the quality of the water being discharged may be monitored. As the quantities of drains water are
generally small in comparison with typical produced water, there is normally no requirement to install on-line
continuous metering or quality measurement.
The skimmed hydrocarbons from the ONHD tank will be routed to the Open Hazardous Drain (OHD)
sump. An actuated valve and NRV are likely to be required to protect against backflow, a positive
displacement pump may also be a requirement to again limit any backflow.
The design of the (OHD) system will be similar to the ONHD. A separate collection sump T-5602 (also
30 m3) will collect the drain fluids. Clean water will be dumped overboard, skimmed oil will be sent to the
Closed Drains Vessel V-4301, similar backflow protection to that stated above for the ONHD skimming line,
will be required. In accordance with Norsok standards, the hazardous open drain will be continuously purged
with nitrogen in order to prevent ingress of oxygen into the tank.
2.12.2.2.Closed Drains System
In the floater design there is no LP flare system and depressurisation will take place via the HP flare system
(although it may be possible to achieve some depressurisation within the process). During maintenance
campaigns, when condensate is drained from depressured vessels, a closed drains drum with some pressure

capability is seen as a better and safer alternative than utilising a hazardous open drain to atmospheric tank.
Any line connecting a process vessel to the closed drains system will have positive isolation.
Closed drain drum (V-5701) design
The closed drains drum will be sized in order to drain down the process vessels on the platform, assuming that
these have been emptied to the low low liquid level. This would require a hold-up capacity of around 20 m³;
there may be scope to reduce this in FEED by optimisation around drainage/shutdown management.
The closed drains drum is vented via the atmospheric vent header. Shell DEP (Ref: 11) requires a minimum
design pressure of 3.5 bar(g) for the “closed drains drum”. This eliminates the risk of a rupture in the event of
a deflagration.
The closed drains drum will be emptied by the Closed Drain Drum Pump P-5701A/B, this will route fluids to
the Flare KO drum which is the lowest pressure part of the process. From the Flare KO Drum the liquid is
pumped back to the main inlet separators.
An option to pump out the closed drains drum to tote tanks which can be lifted to a support vessel will also be
included in the design.
2.12.3. Flare and vent system
A single flare system is proposed without flare recovery facilities. An atmospheric vent is included in the
design for venting of the closed drains vessel and compressor seal gas.
Flare gas recovery facilities have not been included. The hydrocarbon content in the seal gas from the
compressors is likely to be negligible in normal operation. The quantity of hydrocarbons resulting from leaking
relief valves is also likely to be very small. From a Greenhouse gas emissions and Energy Efficiency
perspective the continuous running of a recovery compressor is likely to create more CO2 emissions than will
be saved by recycling the gas back into the fuel gas system (refer to Ref: 67).
The flare system will have a continuous nitrogen purge in order to avoid a potentially explosive composition
due to air ingress. Using nitrogen as the purge gas will result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than
continuously purging with fuel gas. This analysis takes into account the CO2 emitted per kg of N2 produced
and also the effect of emitting methane directly to the environment (which has the effect of 22 times the
equivalent amount of CO2).
Flare metering will be used to monitor the flow of hydrocarbon emissions from the HP flare system. As the
flare will be continuously purged with nitrogen the metering system would be required to differentiate between
nitrogen and hydrocarbon.
The flare ignition package will be a ballistic type ignition package driven by compressed air or nitrogen. The
design of the flare and vent system is discussed further in the Safeguarding philosophy (Ref: 73).
2.12.4. Fuel gas system
Refer to PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00015 (Ref: 45) and Ref: 71.
This unit is not required for the “power from shore” design option. Design work carried out for the fuel gas
system is summarised in Ref: 71. This work was based on 2009 production profiles, however the required
platform power was similar ballpark to that required by latest profiles. In FEED this should be formally
updated. In Ref: 71 the arrival pressure assumed upstream of fuel gas letdown (120 bar) was higher than
expected for latest design data (80 bar(a)). This is likely to reduce the pre-heating duty stated below (to be
updated in FEED).
Key design aspects are summarised below:

• The fuel gas system shall have sufficient volume to enable a smooth changeover to an alternative fuel
source. 30 seconds of hold-up time above PSLL has been provided. Fuel gas scrubber dimensions are
approximately 1,450 mm ID x 3,100 mm T/T. There are no specific Norsok or Shell guidelines on the
minimum required hold-up capacity time.
• Actual superheating requirements will be determined by turbine vendor, and are typically 20°C to 30°C
above its water dew-point and 25°C to 35°C above its hydrocarbon dew-point. In design work it was
assumed the fuel gas will be superheated by 20°C by H-4501A. A duty of around 350 kW is estimated in
Ref: 71. Shell DEP requires at least 20°C superheating of the fuel gas.
• Fuel Gas Filter. A dedicated filter separator has been provided on the fuel gas supply to each gas turbine
at the turbine skid limit. Shell requirements are similar.
• Process shutdown valves. Process shutdown valves are required at the following locations: in the main
supply line to the fuel gas system and in all fuel gas supply lines to the gas turbines. Similarly, Shell
requires an automatically operated ESDV on each fuel gas line to each user prior to entering a safe area.
The line between the ESDV and the fuel gas user should be automatically depressurised on shutdown.
In addition to the above requirements, pre-heating is required to protect against hydrate formation upon
pressure letdown. Ref: 71 estimated a pre-heating duty of 450 kW.
The fuel gas system will be spared such that there will be 2 x 100% trains. This redundancy is installed in order
to maximise overall availability. It may be possible to justify a single fuel gas scrubber vessel, with sparing
installed on the pre-heater and super-heater. This is an optimisation for FEED.
2.12.5. Inert gas system
The inert gas system has been designed to supply nitrogen for the following users:
• Compressor seals
• Flare header purging
• Atmospheric vent header purging
• Hazardous Open Drains Sump
• Utility stations
• MEG Storage blanketing (TBC).
The system has been designed for a total capacity of 350 Sm³/h. The main nitrogen user will be the gas
compressor seals which require a normal flow of approximately 120 Nm³/h total flow.
The system is designed to provide a nitrogen purity of 97 vol% at design capacity of 350 Sm³/h. This satisfies
Norsok requirements of 97 vol% at normal operation and 95 vol% at peak flowrate.
The inert gas plant should, because of the risk of a non-breathable/suffocating atmosphere, be located in a
naturally ventilated area. Oxygen rich gas shall be ventilated to a location where personnel have no access.
Critical consumers, such as the compressor gas seals, need to have a separate back up such as from Nitrogen
bottles. Low priority users such as the utility stations will be automatically shut off favouring high priority
users.
2.12.6. Diesel system
The system has been designed to treat raw diesel and meet the specification of the following users:

• Firewater pumps/generators
• Emergency Generators
• Sub-main generators
• Life boat stations and utility stations.
Deck cranes will be powered by electric driven motors rather than diesel driven motors.
The design consists of the following features as recommended by Norsok:
• four days storage capacity with continuous consumption
• minimum flow protection for centrifugal pumps
• day tanks for large consumers
• filtration and water removal
• 2 x 100% diesel transfer pumps
• 2 x 50% raw diesel tanks (75 m³ each)
• 1 x 100% treated diesel tanks (50 m³).
Continuous consumption is based on 2 m³/h of diesel. The diesel requirements for each of the firewater pump
generators, emergency and sub-main generators is approx. 0.63 m³/h. Therefore, the total storage capacity of
200 m³ equates to more than 13 days of storage capacity (assuming only the emergency generator was in
operation). With reference to Shell’s code of practice document on diesel oil systems for offshore installations
(Ref: 13), typical designs in the North sea are based on between 8 and 11 days of diesel storage. Therefore, a
total storage capacity of 200 m³ is adequate.
2.12.7. Compressed air system
The compressed air system will supply clean, dry, oil free air to the following users:
• Air operated instruments and valves
• Purging of electric motors
• Nitrogen generation package
• Living quarters
• Plant air utility stations for use of air tools.
A capacity of approximately 2,734 Nm³/h is required. Concept select work has assumed 3 x 50% Atlas Copco
ZT 200 machines, each capable of supplying 1,711 Nm³/h.
The air is dried to a water dew point of –40°C within the air drier package D-6301 A/B. Norsok standards
require that the air be dried to a water dew point of –25°C within the air drier, however Shell DEP requires –
40°C in order to be 10°C below the lowest expected ambient temperature.
From Norsok, in case of low system pressure, low priority users such as plant air should be automatically shut
off favouring higher priority users such as instrument air. The design will shut off the supply to the plant air
system first when the pressure drops to 8.5 bar(a) (normal operating pressure is 9.5 bar(a)). Production users
such as purge air to electric motors will be supplied with air until the pressure in the system drops to 7.5 bar(a).
The safety critical items such as the flare ignition package, living quarters and instrument air have the highest
priority and will remain supplied with air until full platform shutdown occurs when the air pressure reaches
5.5 bar(a) (The flare ignition package should also have an independent back-up supply).
The air receiver V-6301 (2.6 m ID x 4.6 m T/T) is sized to provide 5 minutes of instrument air at operating
pressure. The hold-up time is based on the supply to the safety critical users only. Norsok standards require a
5 minute hold-up time but do not specify that the hold-up time applies only to safety critical items.

The receiver is sized to allow for a flow of approximately 650 Sm³/h between 7.5 bar(a) and 5.5 bar(a). The
critical user flowrate has not yet been identified so it is not clear whether this is sufficient.
The Shell Code of Practice (Ref: 75) states that the sizing of the receiver shall be based on the design quantity
of utility air required. The design flow of Utility air has been estimated as 2,394 Nm³/h. This would result in a
much larger receiver vessel, 3.4 m ID x 9.6 m T/T.
The size of the air receiver will have to be reviewed in FEED when more information is available on the
required flowrate of critical users and Norsok requirements are clarified. An additional wet air receiver
VL-63-0002 is required as advised by the vendor Atlas Copco. The capacity of this vessel is 6 m³.
Sparing requirements given by Norsok are as follows:
• Two compressors are required to meet the total air requirement
• Instrument air will be supplied with 100% sparing for air drying.
Both of these requirements are met by the current design. In accordance with Shell guidelines (Ref: 75) each
drier package will contain two driers, one operating and one in regeneration/stand-by mode.
2.12.8. Chemical injection
2.12.8.1.MEG Injection
Refer to Section 2.10 for details. A 50 m3 MEG Storage tank T-4401 (operating volume) and injection pumps
will be provided. It is envisaged that MEG will be topped up via a supply vessel. Nitrogen blanketing of the
MEG storage tank is assumed (TBC). As this will be of process quality, there is the potential for oxygen
ingress into the MEG. However since topside MEG would be injected only intermittently and at low volumes
this may not be a concern (to be reviewed in FEED).
(Note that cryogenic nitrogen is used at Nyhamna for blanketing to minimise the potential for oxygen ingress
into the process due to the adverse impact of magnetite fouling of the production system and disruption of the
forced precipitation of iron carbonate in rich MEG storage.)
2.12.8.2.Additional Chemicals
It is not known at this stage exactly which chemicals will be required for the process however, possible
chemicals required are as follows:
• Demulsifier
• Scale Inhibitor
• Biocide.
These will be stored in a common compartmentalised tank (T-4402) with downstream electrically driven
positive displacement pumps.
The electro-chlorination system will be designed to provide a continuous design dosing concentration
(equivalent free chlorine) of 2.0 ppm (vol/vol). The sodium hypochlorite will be added to the seawater intake
as per Norsok standards (Ref: 117). The maximum residual concentration (equivalent free chlorine) in the
seawater will be 0.5 ppm (vol/vol).
2.12.9. Fresh water system
2.12.9.1.Capacity of the freshwater system design
The freshwater system produces both potable and service water to be used on the floating compression
station. The potable water capacity has been based on 80 persons with a rate of 300 L/day/person. This
equates to 24 m³/day.

The capacity of the potable water pumps P-5301 A/B, is 25 m³/h (2 x 100%). This is much higher than the
average daily consumption of potable water and will cater for peak loads. (This allows for a 27 person shift
change based on shower usage of 15 L/min per person).
As per the potable water system, the service water pumps will be capable of producing 25 m³/h to cope with
peak loads. The service water system will supply the following users:
• Utility stations
• Diesel centrifuges (TBC)
• Chemical injection system.
The service water design capacity has been taken as 30 m³/day for concept select, however it is known that
there should be scope to reduce this in FEED.
2.12.9.2.Comparison of design with Norsok standards
The design of the fresh water system complies with Norsok standards (Ref: 117). As per Norsok standards the
system is designed as follows:
• The Potable water is sterilised in a Ultraviolet (UV) steriliser
• The fresh water is dosed with hypochlorite upstream of the potable water tanks
• Imported fresh water will also be dosed with sodium hypochlorite and pass through a UV steriliser
• Separate storage tanks are supplied for potable and service water
• The water will be in continuous circulation in both systems in order to prevent freezing in the lines
• Potable water storage (2 x 60 m³) is designed for six days storage at average daily demand. This exceeds
the Norsok requirement which calls for four days storage
• The service water tanks (2 x 100 m³) are designed for more than six days supply. These are probably
oversized and in FEED storage volume may be reduced (optimisation).
2.13. Materials selection

Refer to KDL OL-1,06.08.03.02 Materials Selection (Ref: 15). Figure 2-27 shows a materials selection diagram.
2.13.1. Topside materials
Aker Kvaerner produced a material selection report as part of their 2003 Ormen Lange studies (Ref: 64). This
report was reviewed by Shell Global Solutions International (SGSi) in 2009 on behalf of Upstream Major
Projects (UMP) (refer to above KDL). In summary it was assessed that Aker Kvaerner had been generally
conservative in their selection of piping materials, opting for a blanket 22% Cr duplex throughout for piping
but suggesting challenges at latter stages. The SGSi review showed that opportunity exists to utilise LTCS for
the majority of liquid lines as they contain PH stabilised MEG + corrosion inhibitor. Also the two-phase lines
at the facility inlet/outlet, plus the dry gas lines on the compressor outlets can utilise LTCS. Therefore LTCS
will be employed from the inlet riser ESDVs to the separators, from the First Stage Compressor discharge to
the first stage aftercooler, and from the second stage compressor outlet to the export riser ESDVs. It will also
be used for the export condensate lines from the inlet separators through to the export manifold. Use of
carbon steel will incur a significant reduction in CAPEX, significantly reduce lead times and increase
availability of supply. The use of carbon steel will be particularly beneficial in the comprehensive inlet
manifolding arrangement.
The material selection for equipment will be generally in line with the Aker Kvaerner material selection from
Ref: 64, although higher-grade vessel cladding may be selected above 316L for reasons of integrity (at minimal
cost impact). Furthermore as direct seawater cooling is employed use of some titanium materials in exchangers
may be required.

2.13.2. Riser materials

The import risers are carbon steel with a corrosion allowance of 6 mm. The risers will be coated below the
Mean Sea Level (MSL) with Thermally Sprayed Aluminium (TSA) for primary corrosion protection. (This will
also allow cooling of the transported fluids.). Riser joints above the MSL will be covered with passive fire
protection (PFP) – thickness to be determined.
The export risers are carbon steel with a corrosion allowance of 6 mm. The risers will be coated below the
MSL with TSA for primary corrosion protection. Joints above the MSL will be covered with PFP – thickness
to be determined.

FLARE
Duplex
Duplex 22% Cr
22% Cr LTCS
Note 1 + 3mm
Note 1
Duplex CA
Duplex 22% Cr Duplex Duplex 22% Cr E-2702 TO EXPORT PIPELINE 1
22% Cr 22% Cr
E-2701
LTCS + 3mm LTCS + 3mm

CA V-2702 CA
V-2701
TEMPORARY PIG
LTCS Casing LAUNCHER/RECEIVER
LTCS + 316 weld
Casing + 316 LTCS overlay inlet
LTCS weld overlay
+ 316 casing Kicker Line
+ 316 inlet casing
Duplex 22% Cr clad K-2701
V-2001A clad K-2701 2nd STG
1st STG LTCS + 3mm
P-2701 A/B CA
TCS + Duplex
22% Cr
FLARE
16 clad
Discharge
Crossover
Duplex 22% Cr Valve
Duplex 22% Cr
P-2001A LTCS + 3mm
Duplex CA
22% Cr
A XI
LTCS + 3mm CA
E-2802
ESDV
E-2801
Carbon Steel + 6mm
Riser joints above MSL

to be covered with PFP
K-2801
K-2801 V-2802
V-2801 2nd STG
1st STG
V-2001B
P-2801 A/B
P-2001B
Carbon Steel + 6mm
TSA coating applied to

riser below MSL
TO EXPORT PIPELINES

3. Mechanical - Rotating Equipment

3.1. Design conditions
To complete the compressor design, various process conditions were developed:
Base Case 60 million Sm3/d
Sensitivity 1 60 million Sm3/d with reduced offshore CO2 emissions
Sensitivity 2 64 million Sm3/d with an inlet pressure to 74 bar(a)
Sensitivity 3 60 million Sm3/d with reduced inlet pressure to 70 bar(a).
Projected field life cycle conditions for Ormen Lange floater have been developed to enable a compressor
design to be developed suitable for the field life.
3.2. Gas analysis

The gas composition below has been used for the compressor design for all three design conditions.
Table 3-1 Gas Composition for Compressor Design

Carbon
CAS Formula Mol Wt Mol Wt LHV Gas Content
% % kg/ kmol MJ/ Sm³ % (Wt)
Mixture Mixture Mixture

Methane 74-82-8 CH4 93.889 86.87 15.063 31.874 64.98
Ethane 74-84-0 C2H6 3.407 5.91 1.024 2.059 4.72
Propane 74-98-6 C3H8 1.244 3.16 0.549 1.075 2.58
1-Butene (Butylene) 106-98-9 C4H8 0.224 0.72 0.126 0.241 0.62
n-Butane 106-97-8 C4H10 0.31 1.04 0.180 0.348 0.86
Isopentane (2-methylbutane) 78-78-4 C5H12 0.116 0.48 0.084 0.160 0.40
n-Pentane 109-66-0 C5H12 0.119 0.50 0.086 0.165 0.41
Nitrogen 7727-37-9 N2 0.356 0.58 0.100 0.000 0.00
Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 CO 2 0.262 0.67 0.115 0.000 0.18
Water 7732-18-5 H2O 0.07 0.07 0.013 0.000 0.00
Mixture 100.00 100.00 17.34 35.922 74.75
3.3. Base case design conditions

The base case design is a 60 million Sm3/d condition, reducing to 3.3 million Sm3/d. A decreasing inlet
pressure from 75 bar(a) to a minimum of 14.6 bar(a) has been used. A lower inlet pressure would increase the
compression ratio and would require additional compression stages.
The discharge pressure reduces as the pipeline back pressure reduces as the flow rate declines. See Table 3-2.


Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2
00.0 53,900,000.0 47,200,000.0 41,200,000.0 37,000,000.0 26,600,000.0 21,500,000.0 15,400,000.0 10,200,000.0 4,900,000.0 3,300,000.0
17.35 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.32 17.32 17.31 17.31
0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.767 0.843 0.781 0.850 0.792 0.854 0.791 0.833 0.662 0.811 0.706 0.811 0.750 0.829 0.769 0.814 0.761 0.799 0.680 0.789 0.663
104 67 95.8 58 87 52 81.6 62 108.2 38 76.8 28 62.9 22 55.2 14.6 43.4 14.6 48.4 14.6 49.2
25 28 25 24.5 25 21.7 25 21.7 25 13.3 25 9.1 25 5.9 25 7.8 25 5 25 4 25
10,938 15,790 10,933 15,839 10,577 14,285 9,205 9,809 5,684 12,540 6,458 13,587 6,389 12,213 5,201 15,755 5,624 11,678 3,776 7,795 2,489
140.1 96.4 133 87.6 127 82.2 124.8 109 164.2 77.6 138.2 63.7 132.4 56 131.3 44.2 130.3 49 129.9 49.8 130.6
50.7 57.0 52.9 56.9 56.9 57.4 61.1 67.4 67.8 72.4 82.8 77.1 95.1 81.6 105.8 102.2 132.4 110.9 133.0 112.8 134.8
1.35 1.44 1.39 1.51 1.46 1.58 1.53 1.76 1.52 2.04 1.80 2.28 2.10 2.55 2.38 3.03 3.00 3.36 2.68 3.41 2.65
case, a 60 million Sm3/d condition, reducing to 3.3 million Sm3/d, using a decreasing inlet pressure from 75 bar(a) to a minimum of 14.6 bar(a).
eration efficiency and resultant CO2 emissions. See Table 3-2.
4 million Sm3/d condition, reducing to 3.3 million Sm3/d, using a decreasing inlet pressure from 75 bar(a) to a minimum of 14.6 bar(a). See Table 3-3
Table 3-3 Sensitivity 2 Design Conditions

2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2034
3 4 5 5b 6 8 10 12 14 17
00.0 53,900,000.0 47,200,000.0 41,200,000.0 37,000,000.0 26,600,000.0 21,500,000.0 15,400,000.0 10,200,000.0 4,900,000.0 3,300,000.0
13 2,535,306 2,384,777
413 56,435,306 49,584,777 41,200,000 37,000,000 26,600,000 21,500,000 15,400,000 10,200,000 4,900,000 3,300,000
17.35 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.32 17.32 17.31 17.31
0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.767 0.843 0.781 0.850 0.792 0.854 0.791 0.833 0.662 0.811 0.706 0.811 0.750 0.829 0.769 0.814 0.761 0.799 0.680 0.789 0.663
104 67 95.8 58 87 52 81.6 62 108.2 38 76.8 28 62.9 22 55.2 14.6 43.4 14.6 48.4 14.6 49.2
25 28 25 24.5 25 21.7 25 21.7 25 13.3 25 9.1 25 5.9 25 7.8 25 5 25 4 25
11,403 15,790 10,933 15,839 10,577 14,285 9,205 9,809 5,684 12,540 6,458 13,587 6,389 12,213 5,201 15,755 5,624 11,678 3,776 7,795 2,489
140.1 96.4 133 87.6 127 82.2 124.8 109 164.2 77.6 138.2 63.7 132.4 56 131.3 44.2 130.3 49 129.9 49.8 130.6
50.7 57.0 52.9 56.9 56.9 57.4 61.1 67.4 67.8 72.4 82.8 77.1 95.1 81.6 105.8 102.2 132.4 110.9 133.0 112.8 134.8
1.35 1.44 1.39 1.51 1.46 1.58 1.53 1.76 1.52 2.04 1.80 2.28 2.10 2.55 2.38 3.03 3.00 3.36 2.68 3.41 2.65
o 74 MW of electrical power offshore to drive two electric motor compressor trains. This available power enables a lower inlet pressure to be utilised in early field life. This design
n Sm3/d, using a decreasing inlet pressure from 70 bar(a) to a minimum of 14.6 bar(a).
d power from shore power generation and resultant reduced CO2 emissions. See Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 Sensitivity 3 Design Conditions

2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2034
0.0 53,900,000.0 47,200,000.0 41,200,000.0 37,000,000.0 26,600,000.0 21,500,000.0 15,400,000.0 10,200,000.0 4,900,000.0 3,300,000.0
8.8 60,813,119.6 47,627,483.5 41,760,112.1 33,136,521.7 26,725,949.5 21,653,633.2 15,469,145.7 13,153,014.6 9,847,934.6 6,597,316.4
17.35 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.32 17.32 17.31 17.31
0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.809 0.839 0.818 0.845 0.828 0.850 0.825 0.833 0.666 0.810 0.710 0.794 0.753 0.824 0.769 0.810 0.762 0.799 0.680 0.789 0.663
95.6 65 90.2 55 80.8 50 76.6 62 108 35 73.8 25 58.5 20 52.1 14.6 43.4 14.6 48.4 14.6 49.2
25 28 25 24.5 25 21.7 25 21.7 25 13.3 25 9.1 25 5.9 25 7.8 25 5 25 4 25
11,799 17,538 12,512 16,044 10,939 15,329 10,118 9,809 5,694 13,615 6,721 15,217 6,869 13,435 5,510 15,755 5,624 11,678 3,776 7,795 2,489
140.1 90.8 133 81.4 127 77.2 124.8 108.8 164.2 74.5 138.2 59.3 132.4 52.9 131.3 44.1 130.3 49 129.9 49.8 130.6
56.5 54.7 56.7 55.4 61.8 55.6 65.0 67.3 67.7 76.2 86.7 82.7 102.5 85.6 112.0 102.5 132.2 110.9 133.0 112.8 134.8
1.47 1.40 1.47 1.48 1.57 1.54 1.63 1.75 1.52 2.13 1.87 2.37 2.26 2.65 2.52 3.02 3.00 3.36 2.68 3.41 2.65
mpressors, with power from shore.
power from shore.

ons for Sensitivity Case 2 and Sensitivity Case 3 will be used.
d to be uneconomic; therefore a 2 x 50% unspared compression trains have been selected as the optimum configuration for the floater concept. Refer to document 37-1Y-NS-M15-
on & Driver Selection Study (Ref: 94) for further details.
d using the design conditions detailed in Sensitivity Case 2 and Sensitivity Case 3. Vendor information and internal design tools have been used to define the compressor designs.
e and has been selected as per DEP 31.29.40.10-Gen (Ref: 4).

lopment is a two stage, single casing centrifugal compressor. A centrifugal compressor was selected as the suction volume flow rate is estimated to between 16,881 and 2,489 Am3/h
tion range.
working pressure (greater than 50 bar(g)) requires the compressor casing to be a vertically split casing.
Platform Compression Configuration & Driver Selection Study (Ref: 94) for further details.
driven options are radial barrel type (vertical split), single casing design two stage back-to-back centrifugal compressor designs, suitable for up to eight impellers. An illustration of a
or design is detailed below in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1 Vertically Split Back-to-Back Centrifugal Compressor Design

nominal diameter impeller, but also impellers and diffusers one size smaller as well as one size larger than nominal.
comply with National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) MR0175 as no H2S is anticipated to be present in the gas.
n the DEP 31.29.40.10 guidelines (Ref: 4); therefore no mechanical design issues are anticipated. The flow coefficients are on the lower range, which will mean reduced polytropic
Table 3-5 GT Driven Compressor Mechanical Design Details
2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2034
3 4 5 5b 6 8 10 12 14 17
413 56,435,306 49,584,777 41,200,000 37,000,000 26,600,000 21,500,000 15,400,000 10,200,000 4,900,000 3,300,000
104 67 95.8 58 87 52 81.6 62 108.2 38 76.8 28 62.9 22 55.2 14.6 43.4 14.6 48.4 14.6 49.2
25 28 25 24.5 25 21.7 25 21.7 25 13.3 25 9.1 25 5.9 25 7.8 25 5 25 4 25
140.1 96.4 133 87.6 127 82.2 124.8 109 164.2 77.6 138.2 63.7 132.4 56 131.3 44.2 130.3 49 129.9 49.8 130.6
50.7 57.0 52.9 56.9 56.9 57.4 61.1 67.4 67.8 72.4 82.8 77.1 95.1 81.6 105.8 102.2 132.4 110.9 133.0 112.8 134.8
1.35 1.44 1.39 1.51 1.46 1.58 1.53 1.76 1.52 2.04 1.80 2.28 2.10 2.55 2.38 3.03 3.00 3.36 2.68 3.41 2.65
39 48 43 54 50 60 56 75 56 95 81 109 104 124 123 152 161 167 145 170 144
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
520 560 520 560 520 560 520 620 620 620 620 620 620 620 620 620 620 575 575 575 575
7,679 7,888 7,888 8,251 8,251 8,532 8,532 5,755 5,755 6,719 6,719 7,548 7,548 7,450 7,450 8,507 8,507 9,905 9,905 9,293 9,293
19 24 21 27 25 30 28 19 14 24 20 27 26 31 31 38 40 42 36 42 36
0.44 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.48 0.52 0.54 0.40 0.50 0.42 0.45 0.43 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.53 0.47 0.41 0.54 0.46
0.056 0.060 0.052 0.058 0.048 0.051 0.041 0.038 0.022 0.042 0.021 0.040 0.019 0.036 0.016 0.041 0.015 0.033 0.011 0.023 0.007
209 231 215 242 225 250 232 187 187 218 218 245 245 242 242 276 276 298 298 280 280
0.53 0.59 0.55 0.62 0.57 0.64 0.59 0.48 0.48 0.57 0.56 0.64 0.62 0.64 0.62 0.73 0.70 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.71
Table 3-6 Electric Motor Driven Compressor Mechanical Design Details

2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2034
8.8 60,813,119.6 47,627,483.5 41,760,112.1 33,136,521.7 26,725,949.5 21,653,633.2 15,469,145.7 13,153,014.6 9,847,934.6 6,597,316.4
95.6 65 90.2 55 80.8 50 76.6 62 108 35 73.8 25 58.5 20 52.1 14.6 43.4 14.6 48.4 14.6 49.2
25 28 25 24.5 25 21.7 25 21.7 25 13.3 25 9.1 25 5.9 25 7.8 25 5 25 4 25
140.1 90.8 133 81.4 127 77.2 124.8 108.8 164.2 74.5 138.2 59.3 132.4 52.9 131.3 44.1 130.3 49 129.9 49.8 130.6
56.5 54.7 56.7 55.4 61.8 55.6 65.0 67.3 67.7 76.2 86.7 82.7 102.5 85.6 112.0 102.5 132.2 110.9 133.0 112.8 134.8
1.47 1.40 1.47 1.48 1.57 1.54 1.63 1.75 1.52 2.13 1.87 2.37 2.26 2.65 2.52 3.02 3.00 3.36 2.68 3.41 2.65
50 44 51 52 60 57 65 75 56 101 86 115 115 130 132 151 161 167 145 170 144
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
560 560 560 560 560 560 560 620 620 620 620 620 620 620 620 620 620 575 575 575 575
7,793 7,775 7,775 8,298 8,298 8,521 8,521 8,520 8,520 7,003 7,003 7,643 7,643 7,734 7,734 8,504 8,504 9,905 9,905 9,293 9,293
25 22 26 26 30 28 33 19 14 25 22 29 29 32 33 38 40 42 36 42 36
0.48 0.42 0.49 0.44 0.51 0.46 0.52 BELOW LIMIT BELOW LIMIT 0.49 0.42 0.47 0.47 0.51 0.52 0.50 0.53 0.47 0.41 0.54 0.46
0.046 0.068 0.049 0.058 0.040 0.054 0.036 0.026 0.015 0.043 0.021 0.044 0.020 0.039 0.016 0.041 0.015 0.033 0.011 0.023 0.007
229 228 228 243 243 250 250 277 277 227 227 248 248 251 251 276 276 298 298 280 280
0.58 0.58 0.58 0.62 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.71 0.70 0.59 0.58 0.65 0.63 0.66 0.64 0.73 0.70 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.71
-Gen (Ref: 4). Design margins are applied to the compressor shaft power. A standard 2% for a gearbox, an API margin of 4% and a DEP margin of 10% are applied to calculate the
e 3-8 for further details.
Table 3-7 GT Driven Centrifugal Compressor Shaft Power Design

9 2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2034
3 4 5 5b 6 8 10 12 14 17
413 56,435,306 49,584,777 41,200,000 37,000,000 26,600,000 21,500,000 15,400,000 10,200,000 4,900,000 3,300,000
17.35 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.32 17.32 17.31 17.31
0.767 0.843 0.781 0.850 0.792 0.854 0.791 0.833 0.662 0.811 0.706 0.811 0.750 0.829 0.769 0.814 0.761 0.799 0.680 0.789 0.663
104 67 95.8 58 87 52 81.6 62 108.2 38 76.8 28 62.9 22 55.2 14.6 43.4 14.6 48.4 14.6 49.2
25 28 25 24.5 25 21.7 25 21.7 25 13.3 25 9.1 25 5.9 25 7.8 25 5 25 4 25
140.1 96.4 133 87.6 127 82.2 124.8 109 164.2 77.6 138.2 63.7 132.4 56 131.3 44.2 130.3 49 129.9 49.8 130.6
50.7 57.0 52.9 56.9 56.9 57.4 61.1 67.4 67.8 72.4 82.8 77.1 95.1 81.6 105.8 102.2 132.4 110.9 133.0 112.8 134.8
13,798 13,738 13,223 13,488 13,291 12,121 12,280 12,730 11,913 13,256 12,973 12,363 12,757 9,832 10,503 10,431 11,862 8,760 8,933 6,028 6,083
1 26,960 26,779 24,402 24,643 26,229 25,121 20,336 22,293 17,693 12,111
539 536 488 493 525 502 407 446 354 242
5 27,500 27,315 24,890 25,135 26,753 25,623 20,742 22,738 18,047 12,353
2 1,100 1,093 996 1,005 1,070 1,025 830 910 722 494
0 2,750 2,731 2,489 2,514 2,675 2,562 2,074 2,274 1,805 1,235
2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2034
8.8 60,813,119.6 47,627,483.5 41,760,112.1 33,136,521.7 26,725,949.5 21,653,633.2 15,469,145.7 13,153,014.6 9,847,934.6 6,597,316.4
17.35 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.33 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.32 17.32 17.31 17.31
0.809 0.839 0.818 0.845 0.828 0.850 0.825 0.833 0.666 0.810 0.710 0.794 0.753 0.824 0.769 0.810 0.762 0.799 0.680 0.789 0.663
95.6 65 90.2 55 80.8 50 76.6 62 108 35 73.8 25 58.5 20 52.1 14.6 43.4 14.6 48.4 14.6 49.2
25 28 25 24.5 25 21.7 25 21.7 25 13.3 25 9.1 25 5.9 25 7.8 25 5 25 4 25
140.1 90.8 133 81.4 127 77.2 124.8 108.8 164.2 74.5 138.2 59.3 132.4 52.9 131.3 44.1 130.3 49 129.9 49.8 130.6
56.5 54.7 56.7 55.4 61.8 55.6 65.0 67.3 67.7 76.2 86.7 82.7 102.5 85.6 112.0 102.5 132.2 110.9 133.0 112.8 134.8
16,105 13,617 16,197 12,362 14,707 11,887 14,039 12,685 11,892 14,124 13,853 13,379 14,087 10,359 11,297 10,465 11,844 8,760 8,933 6,028 6,083
29,814 27,069 25,926 24,578 27,977 27,466 21,657 22,309 17,693 12,111
596 541 519 492 560 549 433 446 354 242
30,411 27,611 26,445 25,069 28,536 28,015 22,090 22,755 18,047 12,353
1,216 1,104 1,058 1,003 1,141 1,121 884 910 722 494
3,041 2,761 2,644 2,507 2,854 2,802 2,209 2,276 1,805 1,235
34,668 31,476 30,147 28,579 32,531 31,938 25,182 25,941 20,573 14,083
ssor design and has no further performance limitations.
ve an identical operation strategy. Two compressor trains are required from years 2018 to 2029 and one train from 2031 onwards.
Figure 3-2 Compressor Operation Strategy over field life1
he compressor requires to be re-bundled twice over the field life, increasing the number of impellers from two per stage to four per stage. The compressor is a single casing back to
and eight impellers respectively. The compressor wheel diameters also increase in years 2022.5 to 2029 In years 2031 to 2034 the impeller wheel diameters are again reduced to
Figure 3-3 Compressor Re-wheeling timescales over field life2
The compressor and gearbox are both the same configurations in years 2018 to 2029. In years 2031 and 2034
the gearbox is required to be changed to increase the speed of the compressor. An additional re-bundle and
speed change is used to reduce the compressor recycling, this would also be an alternative operation mode if
the third re-bundle was not completed.
3.13.1. Nozzle velocities sensitivity 2
At a 64 million Sm3/d flow rate, 75 bar(a) inlet, utilising a 2 x 50% compressor system design, the compressor
nozzles velocities are detailed below in Table 3-9 over the field life.
GT
POINT Section Vin Vout
S1 32 32
2018
S2 27 28
S1 32 32
2019
S2 26.8 28.1
S1 32 31.6
2020
S2 26.5 27
S1 32.3 30.8
2021
S2 25.9 25.3
S1 31.6 29.11
2022
S2 24.5 23.12
S1 27.5 21.8
2023
S2 16 14
S1 30.4 27
2025
S2 17 13.1
S1 27.7 18
2027
S2 14.3 10
S1 36 21
2029
S2 15.9 9.2
S1 21 17
2022.5
S2 14.1 14.1
S1 27 15.7
2031
S2 11.45 6.85
S1 17.6 10.86
2034
S2 8 4.6
Table 3-9 Nozzle velocity details - Sensitivity 2 – 64 million Sm3/d Compressor design
The maximum nozzle velocity acceptable for a GE centrifugal gas compressor is 38 m/s.
3.13.2. Nozzle velocities sensitivity 3
At a 60 million Sm3/d flow rate, 70 bar(a) inlet, utilising a 2 x 50% compressor system design, the compressor
nozzles velocities are detailed below in Table 3-10 over the field life.

VSDS
POINT Section Vin Vout
S1 34.5 35.4
2018
S2 29.6 29.2
S1 34.6 35.2
2019
S2 29.6 29.17
S1 33.2 33.4
2020
S2 28.4 26.5
S1 34.36 33
2021
S2 28.2 26
S1 33 30.9
2022
S2 26.4 24
S1 30 22.5
2023
S2 17.7 15
S1 34.3 23.5
2025
S2 18.45 13.4
S1 30.7 19.3
2027
S2 15.6 10.11
S1 36 21
2029
S2 15.8 9.2
S1 22.2 18.8
2022.5
S2 15 14.3
S1 27 15.7
2031
S2 11.45 6.85
S1 17.6 10.86
2034
S2 8 4.6
Table 3-10 Nozzle velocity details - Sensitivity 3 – 60 million Sm3/d Compressor design
The maximum nozzle velocity acceptable for a GE centrifugal gas compressor is 38 m/s.
3.13.3. Gas turbine driven option centrifugal compressor design details
The gas compressor has been designed as per DEP 31.29.40.30-Gen (Ref: 5) to operate over the production
profile provided for the Ormen Lange floater. See Table 3-3 for further details.
The compressor is capable of turning down from plateau production of 64 million Sm3/d to 3.3 million Sm3/d
utilising two compression stages.
The compressor inlet pressure has been determined by the Integrated Production System Model (IPSM)
reservoir model, which has been used to predict each year of reservoir production. Using the flow rates
predicted by IPSM the discharge pressures have been determined from the resultant back pressure on the flow
lines.
In early field life the inlet pressures have been optimised at 75 bar(a) to fully utilise the available driver shaft
power. After year 2023, the available driver shaft power has not been optimised, as a minimum inlet pressure
of 14.6 bar(a) has been provided as a minimum.
The first stage inlet gas is not trimmed cooled by inlet coolers, the gas temperature is reduced by the distance
of the risers and flow lines the gas travels on the seabed. The seabed temperature is approximately -2°C,
therefore natural cooling occurs. As a result in early field life the gas inlet temperature is predicted to be 31°C,
reducing to 4°C in late life.
The second stage of compression is trimmed cooled by direct seawater cooling to 25°C constantly over the
field life.
Year 2023.5 is a high pipeline pressure scenario which may occur if a single flow line philosophy is used from
2023 onwards. This case will be determined in future studies.
This compressor design also requires a high polytropic efficiency of greater than 80% up to year 2023 to
enable the flow rate to be maintained by the selected drivers, therefore the compressor vendor design with the
highest polytropic efficiency has been chosen. The chosen compressor design operates at speeds between
9,905 rpm and 5,755 rpm to maintain a high polytropic efficiency, therefore a speed increasing gearbox is
required.

3.13.4. Emotor driven (PfS) option centrifugal compressor design details

The gas compressor has been designed as per DEP 31.29.40.30-Gen (Ref: 5) to operate over the production
profile provided for the Ormen Lange floater. See Table 3-6 for further details.
The compressor is capable of turning down from plateau production of 60 million Sm3/d to 3.3 million Sm3/d
utilising two compression stages.
The compressor inlet pressure has been determined by the IPSM reservoir model, which has been used to
predict each year of reservoir production. Using the flow rates predicted by IPSM the discharge pressures have
been determined from the resultant back pressure on the flow lines.
In early field life the inlet pressures have been optimised at 70 bar(a) to fully utilise the available driver shaft
power. After year 2023, the available driver shaft power has not been optimised as a minimum inlet pressure
of 14.6 bar(a) has been provided as a minimum.
The first stage inlet gas is not trimmed cooled by inlet coolers, the gas temperature is reduced by the distance
of the risers and flow lines the gas travels on the seabed. The seabed temperature is approximately -2°C,
therefore natural cooling occurs. As a result in early field life the gas inlet temperature is predicted to be 31°C,
reducing to 4°C in late life.
The second stage of compression is trimmed cooled by direct seawater cooling to 25°C constantly over the
field life.
Year 2023.5 is a high pipeline pressure scenario which may occur if a single flowline philosophy is used from
2023 onwards. This case will be determined in future studies.
This compressor design also requires a high polytropic efficiency of greater than 80% up to year 2023 to
enable the flowrate to be maintained by the selected drivers, therefore the compressor vendor design with the
highest polytropic efficiency has been chosen. The chosen compressor design operates at speeds between
9,905 rpm and 7,775 rpm to maintain a high polytropic efficiency, therefore a speed increasing gearbox is
required.
3.14. Compressor driver selection

No decision has been made on the driver selection at this phase, however this will not influence the
compressor configuration. The options have been narrowed down to either:
1. Gas Turbine Driver option - (Sensitivity Case 2)
2. Variable Speed Electric motors, with Power from Shore - (Sensitivity Case 3).
The production availability benefits from a 2 x 50% Electric Motor Driven Compression system powered
from shore is approximately 1% increased uptime compared to a 2 x 50% Gas Turbine Driven compression
system. (Sensitivity option 2 vs. Sensitivity option 3). Factors such as CAPEX, OPEX and Hull size are similar
for both driver options. The main economic and technological influences present for this decisions are:
1. Cost of CO2 over the field life – this is lower with a Power from Shore system
2. Power from Shore cable – technology qualification ongoing at present
3. Driver power capability - the electric motor drivers are larger (36 MW vs. 33 MW GTs) therefore
operate with a lower inlet pressure of 70 bar(a), maintaining a peak production plateau for longer.
3.15. Gas turbine compressor driver design

The selected gas turbine driver for the export compressors are GE LM2500+G4 jet derivative gas turbine
(34.3 MW International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) rating) engine core complete with a
PGT25+G4 heavy duty N2 stages power turbine.
3.15.1. Gas turbine site rating
The site rating conditions used for the gas turbine sizing are detailed below. At this phase the “Norm” details
have used as the driver site rating basis.

Table 3-11 Gas Turbine Site rating details
The Gas Turbine design has been completed to DEP 31.29.40.30-Gen (Ref: 5). Norsok R-001 (Ref: 118) has
also been consulted for the gas turbine design and has no further performance limitations. In summary the gas
Turbine DEP design margins are:
Gas Turbine Inlet Loss 2%
Gas Turbine Exhaust Loss 2%
Gas Turbine Waste Heat Recovery Units (WHRU) Loss 2%
Gas Turbine Unrecoverable Loss 5%
Using the information above, the DEP site rated GE LM2500/PGT25+G4 is site rated at approximately:
- 31,355 kW “New and Clean”
- 29,161 kW. “Time Degraded”.
Refer to Table 3-12 for further details. Information has been provided by GE detailing the
LM2500/PGT25+G4 to be capable of greater than 33,000 kW, however this calculation is not to a full DEP
specification, therefore has not been fully utilised in this stage of the design.
Table 3-12 Compressor Gas Turbine Driver Selection

Site Data New & Clean Site Performance
Temperature °C 12 Adjustment to Site Ratings (additional to amb. temp) %
Elevation (± sea level) m 54 Power Heat Rate
Inlet Losses Inch H2O 4 Elevation 0.59 0.00
Inch H2O 4.00 Inlet Losses 2.00 1.00
mbar 9.96 Exhaust Losses 4.00 4.00
Exhaust Losses Inch H2O 16 Total 6.59 5.00
Inch H2O 16.00
mbar 39.85 Time Degraded Performance
Compressor Shaft Power kW 28,032 Adjustment to New & Clean %
Gearbox margin 561 2 % Power Heat Rate
API 617 power margin 1,121 4 % Irrecoverable 5.0 1.0
Design margin 2,803 10 % Recoverable 2.0 1.0
Required GT Power kW 32,517 16.0 % Total 7.0 2.0
Manufacturer Model ISO Performance New & Clean Performance Time Degraded
Power Heat Rate Efficiency Power Heat Rate Efficiency Power Heat Rate Efficiency PT Speed
kW kJ/ kWh % kW kJ/ kWh % kW kJ/ kWh % (rpm)
GE Oil & Gas PGT 25+G4/ DLE 34,302 8,719 41.3 31,355 9,392 38.3 29,161 9,580 37.6 6,100

3.15.2. Gas turbine shaft power vs. production profile

For Sensitivity Case 2, the LM2500+G4/PGT25 gas turbine as a driver will operate over the field life in a
2 x 50% compression configuration as per Table 3-13 below. There is sufficient margin available for this gas
turbine design to operate on a sensitivity case 2 profile as the compressor design margins will be reduced.
Table 3-13 LM2500+G4 operating margin
Total GE LM2500+G4
Compressor site "New &
shaft power Clean"
Requirement Shaft Power Number of Power
2x50% trains Available Trains Margin
Case / Year kW 2x50% trains kW required Available %
2018 65,768 62,710 2 105%

2019 65,768 62,710 2 105%
2020 59,800 62,710 2 95%
2021 59,409 62,710 2 95%
2022 56,409 62,710 2 90%
2022.5 57,309 62,710 2 91%
2023 60,998 62,710 2 97%
2025 58,420 62,710 2 93%
2027 47,292 62,710 2 75%
2029 51,843 62,710 2 83%
2031 20,537 31,355 1 65%
2034 14,083 31,355 1 45%
3.15.3. Emotor shaft power vs. production profile

For Sensitivity Case 3, the Electric Motor driver will operate over the field life in a 2 x 50% compression
configuration, as per Table 3-14 below. There is sufficient margin available for this Emotor design to operate
on a sensitivity 3 case profile as the compressor design margins will be reduced.

Table 3-14 Emotor driver operating margin

Total
Compressor Total Emotor
shaft power Shaft Power
Requirement Available Number of Power
2x50% trains 2x50% trains Trains Margin
Case / Year kW kW required Available %
2018 69,936 70,000 2 100%

2019 69,936 70,000 2 100%
2020 69,336 70,000 2 99%
2021 62,952 70,000 2 90%
2022 60,294 70,000 2 86%
2022.5 57,158 70,000 2 82%
2023 65,062 70,000 2 93%
2025 63,876 70,000 2 91%
2027 50,364 70,000 2 72%
2029 51,882 70,000 2 74%
2031 20,537 35,000 1 59%
2034 14,083 35,000 1 40%
3.16. Offshore power generation

The remaining platform base power requirements were derived from the electrical load list, with the total
electrical load requirement being 9.340 kW. (The electrical loading includes a 40% margin as per Norsok
E-001).
Table 3-15 Estimated Electrical Load list for Offshore PowerGen

Ormen Lange Compression Platform Upstream Major Projects GT Driven Option
Electrical Load List 37-1Y-NS-E19-00001-01 Rev03 Based on M EL Rev 07
Tag No. Service Duty/ SWBD Output Installed Effici- Pow er Em ergency Norm al production Rem arks
St.By. Pow er Pow er ency Factor Mode Mode
kW kW % pf Div. kW kVAr Div. kW kVAr
3,000 kW 6,919 kW
Conceptual study factor 1.35-1.4 (Norsok E-001) x 1.4 4,049 kW 9,340 kW
3.16.1. Offshore powergen gas turbine site rating

The site rating conditions used for the gas turbine sizing are detailed below. At this phase the “Norm” details
have used as the driver site rating basis.
Table 3-16 PowerGen Gas Turbine Site rating details
The Gas Turbine design has been completed to DEP 31.29.40.30-Gen (Ref: 5). Norsok R-001 (Ref: 118) has
also been consulted for the gas turbine design and has no further performance limitations. In summary the gas
Turbine DEP design margins are:

Gas Turbine Inlet Loss 2%

Gas Turbine Exhaust Loss 2%
Gas Turbine WHRU Loass 2%
Gas Turbine Unrecoverable Loss 5%
Power Margin 10%
Using the information in Table 3-16 and DEP guidelines, the Solar Mars 100 is site rated at approximately:
(see Table 3-17 for further details)
- 10,153 kW “New and Clean”
- 9,443 kW “Time Degraded”.
Table 3-17 Power Generation Gas Turbine Driver Selection

Site Data New & Clean Site Performance
Temperature °C 12 Adjustment to Site Ratings (additional to amb. temp) %
Elevation (± sea level) m 54 Power Heat Rate
Inlet Losses Inch H2O 4 Elevation 0.59 0.00
Inch H2O 4.00 Inlet Losses 2.00 1.00
mbar 9.96 Exhaust Losses 4.00 4.00
Exhaust Losses Inch H2O 16 Total 6.59 5.00
Inch H2O 16.00 Time Degraded Performance
mbar 39.85 Adjustment to New & Clean %
Site Power req' d kW 9,340 Power Heat Rate
No. of units 1 Irrecoverable 5.0 1.0
Required Unit Power kW 9,340 Recoverable 2.0 1.0
Design margin 934 10 % Total 7.0 2.0
Required Genset Power kW 10,274
Manufacturer Model ISO Performance New & Clean Performance Time Degraded Performance
Power Heat Rate Efficiency Power Heat Rate Efficiency Power Heat Rate Efficiency
kWe kJ/ kWh % kW kJ/ kWh % kWe kJ/ kWh %
Solar Turbines Mars 100 10,664 11,090 32.5 10,153 11,598 31.0 9,443 11,830 30.4
The Solar Mars 100 at a “New and Clean ” condition currently does not meet the 2 x 100% power generation
train requirements, however after removing the 10% power margin the driver is suitable. A 2 x 100% power
generation system has been selected to meet the DEP N&1 sparing requirements.
The power generation gas turbines have been designed to operate on gas only and not on diesel to reduce the
NOX emissions and diesel consumption. Submain and emergency diesel engines are currently being used for
black start and normal operations restarts.
3.17. Compression system availability

An availability study has been carried out into a number of design cases for future offshore compression on
the Ormen Lange gas field. The study was carried out for varying gas throughput in the period 2018 to 2034.
The options considered are shown in Table 3-18.

Table 3-18 Availability Study Configuration Cases
Table 3-19 shows the average through-life measures for system reliability, system availability and system
production efficiency.

Table 3-19 Reliability, Availability and Production Efficiency results
It can be seen that for all Cases 1 (motor drives) the system reliability is 98.26% and for all Cases 2 (gas turbine
drives) it is 98.00%. Therefore based on the expected equipment performance the motor driven compressors
are 0.26% more reliable than gas turbine driven compressors.
The system availability for all Cases 1 is 96.72% and for all Cases 2 it is 94.94%. The difference of 1.78%
comprises the 0.26% reliability difference from above, and the balance of 1.52% due to the higher
maintenance requirement for the gas turbine driven compressors.
Once the available feedstock is taken into account (as expressed by production efficiency, PE%) there is an
improvement in moving from 2 x 50% to 3 x 33% and to 4 x 25%. This is because as the feedstock reduces
below the design capacity the remaining trains can replace some of the capacity lost by the train suffering an
outage. In effect the 2 x 50% nominal trains are 2 x 50+% trains. The effect is more marked for the gas
turbine driven compressors than the motor driven compressors as there is more lost capacity to recover.
The results for Case SC1, where heat is recovered from the exhausts of the 2 x 50% gas turbine compressor
drives and converted to power using an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC), are no different from those for Case
2A (2 x 50% gas turbine drives), as the heat recovery unit and ORC unit have no effect on the performance of
the gas turbines.
In Case SC2 where the gas turbine compressor design capacity is nominally 2 x 32 million Sm3/d, at the very
outset an outage of one compressor results in the remaining compressor operating at effectively 53.3%. This
gives a small increase in reliability and availability performance over Case 2A (2 x 50% [30 million Sm3/d]).
However, there is a quite large increase in the Production Efficiency (PE) of 0.61%.
In sensitivity Case SC3 (2 x 50% motor drives with Power from Shore, assuming no submarine cable failures)
the electrical supply is more reliable than using offshore based power generation and so the reliability and
availability are higher than for Case 1A. It is to be expected that the PE would also be slightly higher than Case
1A, but it is shown to be better than Case 1C (4 x 25% motor drives). This stems from the power of the
motors drives being 35 MW for Case SC3 compared to 30 MW for Case SC3 resulting in a higher capacity for
Case SC3.

For Case SC3a (2 x 50% motor drives with Power from Shore, including submarine power cable failures) the
reliability and availability are the worst of all cases at 96.18% and 94.81% respectively. However, the PE is
better than for Case 2A (2 x 50% GT drive). It is suggested that because of the dramatic impact of the rare
cable failures due to the non-redundant submarine supply cable, that a thorough assessment be made to reduce
the impact either by introducing redundancy or managing the risk.
3.17.1. Production
Table 3-19 gives an appreciation of the relative performance of the various configurations. The final decision
on which configuration to adopt will need to be taken on the basis of a through-life economic assessment
(and, in relation to Case SC3, an assessment of the issues surrounding the integrity of the submarine power
supply). The input to the economic model should therefore be the expected production for each year of the
project. Figure 3-4 shows the through-life expected production for all cases. It can be seen that the results for
each case track each other closely and that by 2023 (the year after the first compressor re-wheel), the amount
of variation is reduced.
Figure 3-4 Through Life expected production for all configurations

The economic model will use a discounted cash flow methodology which gives more weight to early-life
production. It is therefore appropriate to examine the early-life portion of the production curves as shown in
Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5 Through Life expected production for all configurations years 2018-2020
Case 1C provides the best production (green dashed line, 4 x 25% motor drives). The second best is Case SC3
(red dotted line, 2 x 50% motor drives, PfS). However, this does not include for subsea power cable failures
and should be reconciled with Case SC3b (black dotted line, 2 x 50% PfS CF).
It is to be noted that the plots for Case 1A (2 x 50% motor drive, blue dashed line) and Case 1B (3 x 33%
motor drive, yellow dashed line) overlap each other. This is unexpected given the separation seen between the
Case 2 plots and it is therefore recommended that the bypass profiles be reviewed.
3.17.2. Through-life production efficiencies (PE%)

These plots are given to demonstrate and explain the variability of production efficiencies through-life.
Figure 3-6 shows the results for the electric drive sub-cases; the dashed lines represent Cases 1A, 1B and 1C.
The dotted lines represent the sensitivity Cases SC3 and SC3a. The sharp drops relate to the following:
2022 - Compressor Re-wheel
2024 - 25k Motor Inspection
2027 - Compressor Major Overhaul
2029 - Compressor Re-wheel

Figure 3-6 Production Efficiency % - Electric Drive Cases
As with the production plot, in early-life the best PE is exhibited by Case 1C (4 x 25% motor drive) followed
closely by Case SC3a (2 x 50% motor drive PfS). However, after the 2022 compressor re-wheel Case SC3a
performs better than Case 1C for a number of years. Otherwise with the exception of Case SC3a (which
includes cable failure for the subsea electrical supply case), the PEs for early years are very similar.
Figure 3-7 shows the results for the gas turbine drive Cases 2A, 2B and 2C and SC2. The sharp drops relate to
the following:
2022 Compressor Re-wheel
2024 50 k Gas Turbine Inspection
2027 Compressor Major Overhaul
2029 Compressor Re-wheel.

Figure 3-7 Production Efficiency % - Gas Turbine Drive Cases
Again the 4 x 25% configuration (Case 2C) shows the best PE and in the early years all other cases have a
similar PE. However, the plot for Case 2C in 2023 is inconsistent with the shape of the other plots; this
warrants a review of the bypass profiles.
It is to be noted that discounting Case SC3a (which includes cable failure for the subsea electrical supply case)
in the early years, the PEs for the electric drive cases do not go below 92.5% whereas the PEs for the gas
turbine drive cases do not go below 91.5%, a 1% difference.
3.17.3. Definitions
Reliability = (operation time + standby time) / (total time - prev. maint. time)
Reliability disregards preventive maintenance.
Availability = (operation time + standby time) / total time
Availability includes preventive maintenance. Both the above measures relate to system times only and do not
include the effect of changing feedstock.
Effective Capacity =  capacityi * (fraction of time spent at capacityi)
Effective capacity expresses the effect of the times the system is at various capacity levels on the available
feedstock.

Production Efficiency (PE) = Effective Capacity / Feedstock Capacity (also referred as Maximum
Capacity).
3.18. Fuel gas consumption and CO2 emissions

The total emission intensity for the Ormen Lange floating compression facility corresponds to 28 tonnes CO2
per thousand tonnes HC produced. The majority of the emissions originate from direct combustion for
offshore energy production. The largest energy consumers are the export compressors. The compressor
configuration and driver selection reflect the requirements throughout the field life, also ensuring optimisation
of fuel usage and minimising CO2 emissions.
3.18.1. Fuel efficiency
From the environmental analysis the use of gas turbines to drive compressors is more fuel-efficient compared
to a Power Generation plant driving electric motor driven compressors.
Waste heat recovery systems can be used to recover waste heat from the gas turbine exhausts for process
heating and or accommodation heating or converted into electricity. All the gas turbines have been site rated
with a WHRU system in the exhaust.
To calculate the fuel gas consumption, the following was used:
- Fuel Gas Turbine Shaft power requirements
- Fuel Gas Turbine thermal efficiency
- Fuel Gas Calorific valve, Compressibility and molecular weight.
The 2 x 50% export compressor gas turbines are estimated to require 0.3 million Sm3/d in fuel gas per day.
The 2 x 100% power generator gas turbines are estimated to require 0.06 million Sm3/d in fuel gas per day.
Refer to Table 3-20 and Table 3-21 for further information.

Table 3-20 2 x 50% Gas Turbine Driven Compressors Fuel Gas/CO2/NOX

GE LM2500+G4 2x50% 2x50% 64MSm3/ d
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
1 2 3 4 5 5b 6 7 8 9 10 11
Compressor Driver Load % 100 100 90 89 85 86 92 92 88 88 71 71 78 78 62 62 62 42
Calorific value LHV Gas (MJ/ Sm3) 35.922 35.922 35.922 35.922 35.922 35.922 35.922 36 35.922 36 35.922 36 35.922 36 35.922 36 36 35.922
Max rating kw 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200
Driver Rating kw 33.20 33.20 29.88 29.55 28.22 28.55 30.54 31 29.22 29 23.57 24 25.90 26 20.58 21 21 13.94
Load on turbine MW 33.20 33.20 29.88 29.55 28.22 28.55 30.54 31 29.22 29 23.57 24 25.90 26 20.58 21 21 13.94
Thermal Efficiency at load (est) % 39.62 39.62 37.16 36.91 35.92 36.16 37.65 38 36.66 37 32.41 32 34.17 34 30.14 30 30 25.04
Emisison Nox ppm 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25 25.00 25 25.00 25 25.00 25 25.00 25 25 25.00
Fuel Gas input MW 83.79 83.79 80.42 80.06 78.57 78.95 81.12 81 79.69 80 72.72 73 75.79 76 68.29 68 68 55.70
Flow rate scm/ s 2.33 2.33 2.24 2.23 2.19 2.20 2.26 2 2.22 2 2.02 2 2.11 2 1.90 2 2 1.55
Fuel mass/ molar flowrate, m kg/ h 5,395 5,395 5,178 5,155 5,060 5,084 5,224 5224 5,132 5132 4,683 4683 4,880 4880 4,398 4398 4398 3,586
kg/ h 5,395 5,395 5,178 5,155 5,060 5,084 5,224 5224 5,132 5132 4,683 4683 4,880 4880 4,398 4398 4398 3,586
tonnes/ yr 47,297 47,297 45,394 45,191 44,353 44,567 45,792 45792 44,985 44985 41,051 41051 42,781 42781 38,549 38549 38549 31,439
MMSCFD 5.25 5.25 5.18 5.16 5.06 5.09 5.23 5 5.14 5 4.69 5 4.88 5 4.40 4 4 3.59
Sm³/ h 6,265 6,265 6,184 6,157 6,043 6,072 6,239 6239 6,129 6129 5,593 5593 5,828 5828 5,252 5252 5252 4,283
MSm³/ d 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10
Molecular weight kg/ kmol 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17 17.34 17 17.34 17 17.34 17 17.34 17 17 17.34
Compressibility@ " std" conditions, Zstd 0.876 0.876 0.876 0.876 0.876 0.876 0.876 1 0.876 1 0.876 1 0.876 1 0.876 1 1 0.876
Fuel gas carbon content %(wt) 74.75 74.75 74.75 74.75 74.75 74.75 74.75 75 74.75 75 74.75 75 74.75 75 74.75 75 75 74.75
CO2 mass/ molar flowrate m x %Carbon x (44.01/ 12) kg/ h 14,791 14,791 14,196 14,133 13,871 13,938 14,321 14321 14,069 14069 12,838 12838 13,379 13379 12,056 12056 12056 9,832
tonnes/ yr 129,661 129,661 124,445 123,888 121,593 122,178 125,537 125537 123,325 123325 112,538 112538 117,281 117281 105,679 105679 105679 86,188
MMSCFD 5.25 5.25 5.18 5.16 5.06 5.09 5.23 5 5.14 5 4.69 5 4.88 5 4.40 4 4 3.59
Sm³/ h 6,265 6,265 6,184 6,157 6,043 6,072 6,239 6239 6,129 6129 5,593 5593 5,828 5828 5,252 5252 5252 4,283
MSm³/ d 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0 0.15 0 0.13 0 0.14 0 0.13 0 0 0.10
Nox Emisison 1.79 g per Kg of fuel 1.79 kg/ hr 9.66 9.66 9.27 9.23 9.06 9.10 9.35 9 9.19 9 8.38 8 8.74 9 7.87 8 8 6.42
tonnes/ yr 84.66 84.66 81.25 80.89 79.39 79.77 81.97 82 80.52 81 73.48 73 76.58 77 69.00 69 69 56.28
Fuel Gas tonnes/ yr 47,296.5 56.4 54.2 53.9 52.9 53.2 54.7 55 53.7 54 49.0 49 51.1 51 46.0 46 46 37.5
Total for GE LM2500 G4 Compressor Driver Nox tonnes/ yr 84.7 84.7 81.3 80.9 79.4 79.8 82.0 82 80.5 81 73.5 73 76.6 77 69.0 69 69 56.3
CO2 tonnes/ yr 129,661 129,661 124,445 123,888 121,593 122,178 125,537 125537 123,325 123325 112,538 112538 117,281 117281 105,679 105679 105679 86,188
No. of Trains 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Nox tonnes/ yr 2,495 Total over Field Life
CO2 tonnes/ yr 3,820,808 Total over Field Life

Table 3-21 1 x 100% PowerGen Gas Turbine Fuel Gas/CO2/NOX

2 x 100% Solar Mars 100 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
1 2 3 4 5 5b 6 7 8 9 10 11
Generation Driver Load (10MW ) KW 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340
Total Generation Driver Load (1oo2 10MW ) % 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Calorific value (existing OL Gas) LHV Gas (MJ/ Sm3) 35.922 35.922 35.922 35.922 35.922 35.922 35.922 36 35.922 36 35.922 36 35.922 36 35.922 36 36 35.922
Max rating kw 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482 10482
Driver Rating kw 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9.34 9 9.34 9 9.34 9 9.34 9 9.34 9 9 9.34
Load on turbine MW 10.15 10.15 10.15 10.15 10.15 10.15 10.15 10 10.15 10 10.15 10 10.15 10 10.15 10 10 10.15
Thermal Efficiency at load (est) % 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34 34.00 34 34.00 34 34.00 34 34.00 34 34 34.00
Fuel Gas input MW 27.47 27.47 27.47 27.47 27.47 27.47 27.47 27 27.47 27 27.47 27 27.47 27 27.47 27 27 27.47
Flow rate scm/ s 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 1 0.89 1 0.89 1 0.89 1 0.89 1 1 0.89
Fuel mass/ molar flowrate, m kg/ h 2,058 2,058 2,058 2,058 2,058 2,058 2,058 2058 2,058 2058 2,058 2058 2,058 2058 2,058 2058 2058 2,058
kg/ h 2,058 2,058 2,058 2,058 2,058 2,058 2,058 2058 2,058 2058 2,058 2058 2,058 2058 2,058 2058 2058 2,058
tonnes/ yr 18,041 18,041 18,041 18,041 18,041 18,041 18,041 18041 18,041 18041 18,041 18041 18,041 18041 18,041 18041 18041 18,041
MMSCFD 8,869.20 8,869.20 8,754.58 8,869.20 8,754.58 8,715.44 8,553.95 8554 8,595.09 8595 8,831.45 8831 8,675.82 8676 7,916.97 7917 7917 8,250.61
Sm³/ h 10,582,732 10,582,732 10,445,962 10,582,732 10,445,962 10,399,262 10,206,578 10206578 10,255,657 10255657 10,537,686 10537686 10,351,986 10351986 9,446,533 9446533 9446533 9,844,631
MSm³/ d 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Molecular weight kg/ kmol 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17.34 17 17.34 17 17.34 17 17.34 17 17.34 17 17 17.34
Compressibility@ " std" conditions, Zstd 0.876 0.876 0.876 0.876 0.876 0.876 0.876 1 0.876 1 0.876 1 0.876 1 0.876 1 1 0.876
Fuel gas carbon content %(wt) 74.75 74.75 74.75 74.75 74.75 74.75 74.75 75 74.75 75 74.75 75 74.75 75 74.75 75 75 74.75
CO2 mass/ molar flowrate m x %Carbon x (44.01/ 12) kg/ h 5,642 5,642 5,642 5,642 5,642 5,642 5,642 5642 5,642 5642 5,642 5642 5,642 5642 5,642 5642 5642 5,642
tonnes/ yr 49,458 49,458 49,458 49,458 49,458 49,458 49,458 49458 49,458 49458 49,458 49458 49,458 49458 49,458 49458 49458 49,458
MMSCFD 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2 2.06 2 2.06 2 2.06 2 2.06 2 2 2.06
Sm³/ h 10,582,732 10,582,732 10,445,962 10,582,732 10,445,962 10,399,262 10,206,578 10206578 10,255,657 10255657 10,537,686 10537686 10,351,986 10351986 9,446,533 9446533 9446533 9,844,631
MSm³/ d 253.99 253.99 250.70 253.99 250.70 249.58 244.96 245 246.14 246 252.90 253 248.45 248 226.72 227 227 236.27
Nox Emisison 1.79 g per Kg of fuel 1.79 kg/ hr 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 4 3.68 4 3.68 4 3.68 4 3.68 4 4 3.68
for 25ppm tonnes/ yr 32.29 32.29 32.29 32.29 32.29 32.29 32.29 32 32.29 32 32.29 32 32.29 32 32.29 32 32 32.29
Fuel Gas MSm³/ yr 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 22 21.5 22 21.5 22 21.5 22 21.5 22 22 21.5
Total for 1oo2 Existing Power Generation Nox tonnes/ yr 32.3 32.3 32.3 32.3 32.3 32.3 32.3 32 32.3 32 32.3 32 32.3 32 32.3 32 32 32.3
CO2 tonnes/ yr 49,458 49,458 49,458 49,458 49,458 49,458 49,458 49458 49,458 49458 49,458 49458 49,458 49458 49,458 49458 49458 49,458
CO2 tonnes 890,247 Total over Field Life

Nox tonnes 581 Total over Field Life
3.18.2. GT driver CO2 emissions

CO2 has been calculated using the Ormen Lange gas. A fuel gas flow rate has been calculated by establishing a fuel gas input using the gas turbine thermal efficiency
and the turbine load. The gas Lower Heating Value (LHV), molecular weight and compressibility factors are applied to determine the fuel gas mass flow. A Fuel
Gas carbon content factor for the Ormen Lange fuel gas has been has been used to calculate the CO2 emissions per year. Refer to Table 3-20 and Table 3-22.
Table 3-22 Power from Shore CO2 Emmissions

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2022.5 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Emotor Driver Power From Shore
1 2 3 4 5 5b 6 7 8 9 10 11
Compressor Power as requirement VSD Kw 74,828 70,362 71,480 64,899 62,158 58,926 67,075 67,075 65,851 65,851 51,923 51,923 53,487 53,487 21,210 21,210 21,210 14,518
Utilities Load 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340 9,340
Total kw 84,168 79,702 80,820 74,239 71,498 68,266 76,415 76,415 75,191 75,191 61,263 61,263 62,827 62,827 30,550 30,550 30,550 23,858
Grid CO2 emissions factor Co2/ kw/ hr 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043 0.000043
PFS CO2 Generated tonnes/ yr 31,704 30,022 30,443 27,964 26,932 25,714 28,784 28,784 28,323 28,323 23,077 23,077 23,666 23,666 11,508 11,508 11,508 8,987
Total CO2 tonnes/ yr 31,704 30,022 30,443 27,964 26,932 0 28,784 28,784 28,323 28,323 23,077 23,077 23,666 23,666 11,508 11,508 11,508 8,987
Total Over Field Life tonnes 366,272
Nox tonnes 0
The 2 x 50% export compressor gas turbines are estimated to produce 3.8 million tonnes of CO2 over the field life. The 2 x 100% power generation gas turbines are
estimated to produce 0.89 million tonnes of CO2 over the field life.

3.18.3. GT driver NOX emissions

NOX has been calculated using the Ormen Lange gas. A fuel gas flow rate is calculated by establishing a fuel gas input using the gas turbine thermal efficiency and
the turbine load. The gas LHV, molecular weight and compressibility factors are applied to determine the fuel gas mass flow. A NOX emission factor detailing
grams of NOX per kg of fuel has been applied for the combustion system in operation. Refer to Table 3-20 and Table 3-23 for further information.
The NOX emissions factor used for the GE LM2500+G4 and the Solar Mars 100 is 1.79 g per kg of fuel gas as they operate at 25 ppm.
Table 3-23 NOX Emission Factor Calculation

Emissions calculations - Ormen Lange Gas 25ppm
Not corrected for unburned components
Measured g/bhp-hr g/GJ mg/m3 mg/m3 g/kg Fuel Gas

(5% O2) 15% O2 Engine Efficiency 35 %
O2 % 15 Fuel Gas Molar Weight 17.34
CO2 % 4.2 Compressibility at standard 0.876
NO ppm 50 0.40705 53 180 67.00 Density 0.8372072 kg/sm3
NO2 ppm 0 0 0 0 - LHV 35.92 MJ/sm3
NOx ppm 25 0.31197 40.67 138 51.35 1.745090496 LHV /kg Fule Gas 42.904552 MJ/kg
CO ppm 77 0.584941 76 258 96.28
CH4 ppm 0 0 -
Lambda 3.115
Criteria
Oxygen % in air 20.94% 0,2094 nm^3/nm^3

Ro = Dry flue gas volume at stoichiometric combustion with air per nm^3 fuelgas
Ro = 8.070868
Hi = Lower Heating Value
Hi = 35.92 MJ/nm^3
Ro/Hi =Dry flue gas volume per MJ LHV
Ro/Hi = 0.22469 nm^3/MJ
Flue gas factor (Rgf)= Calculation factor for emissions (ppm) to a standard O2 vol.fraction.
For ppm --> g/GJ : O2 = 0; For ppm to mg/nm^3 (TA-Luft) O2=0.05
Rgf (g/GJ) = 3.525253
Rgf (5%O2) = 2.683502
Lo = Dry air requirement at stoichiometric combustion
Lo = 9.6372
Density kg/nm^3 CO NO NO2 NOx CH4 C2H4 C2H6
1.25 1.34 2.054 2.054 0.717 1.26 1.355
Lambda (n) = 1+ Ro/Lo*O2 measured / (O2air-O2 measured)
Emision calculation: g/GJ = ppm x 20,94/(20,94-O2) x density x Ro/Hi

mg/nm^3 (5%O2) = ppm x (20,94-5)/(20,94-O2) x density

The 2 x 50% export compressor gas turbines are estimated to produce 2,749 tonnes of NOX offshore over the
field life. The 2 x 100% power generation gas turbines are estimated to produce 581 tonnes of NOX offshore
over the field life.
3.18.4. GT driver SO2 emissions
As Ormen Lange gas has no H2S content no SO2 is anticipated to be produced as part of the combustion
process.
3.19. Onshore power generation (power from shore)

The compressor electrical power has been estimated at 37,433 kW per train, with an estimated 35,000 kW
motor maximum shaft power requirement. No Norsok E-001 electrical loading factor has been included for
the 2 x 50% compressor trains in the load list.
Table 3-24 Estimated Electrical Load list for Power from Shore
Ormen Lange Compression Platform Upstream Major Projects Power from Shore
Electrical Load List 37-1Y-NS-E19-00003 Rev02 Based on MEL Re v07
Tag No. Service Duty/ SWBD Output Installed Effici- Pow er Em ergency Norm al production Rem arks
St.By. Pow er Pow er ency Factor Mode Mode
kW kW % pf Div. kW kVAr Div. kW kVAr

P-2001A CONDENSATE EXPORT PUMP Duty 369.0 450.0 95 0.85 0 0 1 388 241 Freq. Converter RECEPTION FACILITIES
P-2001C CONDENSATE EXPORT PUMP Duty 369.0 450.0 95 0.85 0 0 1 388 241 Freq. Converter RECEPTION FACILITIES
K-2701 GAS COMPRESSOR VSDS Unit A Duty 35000.0 37433.0 93.5 0.962 0 0 1 37,433 10,699 COMPRESSION
K-2801 GAS COMPRESSOR VSDS Unit B Duty 35000.0 37433.0 93.5 0.962 0 0 1 37,433 10,699 COMPRESSION
P-5001A SEAWATER LIFT PUMP Duty 700.0 790.0 95 0.85 0 0 1 737 457 Utilities
P-5001C SEAWATER LIFT PUMP Duty 700.0 790.0 95 0.85 0 0 1 737 457 Utilities
P-5002A ESSENTIAL SEAWATER PUMP A Duty 200.0 225.0 95 0.85 1 211 130 1 211 130 Utilities
A-4401 MEG INJECTION SKID Duty 220.0 250.0 95 0.85 0.5 116 72 Utilities
K-6301A AIR COMPRESSOR SKID A Duty 255.0 300.0 95 0.85 1 268 166 1 268 166 Utilities
K-6301B AIR COMPRESSOR SKID B Duty 255.0 300.0 95 0.85 0 0 1 268 166 Utilities
Z-1003A ROV LAUNCH STRUCTURE St.By 400.0 400.0 95 0.85 0 0 0 0 SUBSEA SUPPORT
X-4001A SOUTH PEDESTAL CRANE St By 480.0 480.0 95 0.85 0 0 0 0.5 253 157 Mechanical Handling
X-4001B NORTH PEDESTAL CRANE St By 480.0 480.0 95 0.85 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mechanical Handling
SUBSEA CABLE LOSSES 4,800 Unitech report UPS-201074-R00 Sect. 9.1.2
LIGHTING AND SMALL POWER Duty 200.0 98 0.85 0 0 1 204 126

LIVING QUARTERS Duty 300.0 500.0 95 0.85 0.5 158 98 1 316 196
HEAT TRACING Duty 50.0 100 1 0 0 1 50 0
LIGHTING AND SMALL POWER Duty 100.0 98 0.85 1 102 63 1 102 63
UPS Duty 100.0 95 0.85 1 105 65 1 105 65
TELECOMS Duty 15.0 95 0.85 1 16 10 1 16 10
2,147 kW 85,237 kW
Conceptual study factor 1.35-1.4 (Norsok E-001) x 1.4 2,898 kW 88,867 kW Assumes comp load fixed
2146.8 1.4 only applied to load excluding compressors
3.19.1. Power from shore CO2 emissions

To calculate the CO2 emissions over the field life for a Power from Shore system, (Sensitivity 3 case), an
average grid emissions factor has been used. This is derived from the monthly grid factor at the Nyhamina
plant. This average CO2 grid emissions factor used for this study is 0.000043 tonnes of CO2 per kW/h.
The 2 x 50% Electric motor driven export compressors are estimated to produce 0.317 million tonnes of CO2
over the field life. The utility electrical requirements are estimated to be 9,340 kW, this will generate 0.049 m
tonnes of CO2 over the field life. Refer to Table 3-22 for further information.
3.20. Weights and dimensions

Weights and dimension of GT Driven Compressor Skid are:

Table 3-25 LM2500+G4 GT Driver and Compressor weights and dimensions

Weights and Dimensions LM2500+G4/PGT25 Gas Turbine/Compressor Skid
Length 21.0 m
Width 7.8 m
Height 18.0 m
Gas turbine and compressor weight (dry approx) 188,000 kg
Gas turbine and compressor weight (operating) 198,000 kg
Unit Control Panel (UCP) Inc
Mineral lube oil system Inc
Synthetic oil system Inc
Dry gas seal system/panel Inc
GT air intake system Inc
Exhaust system Inc
Ventilation system Inc
For further information refer to Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9.


Weights and dimension of a Gas Turbine Driven Power Generation Skid are:
Table 3-26 Solar Mars 100 GT Driver PowerGen weights and dimensions
Weights and Dimensions Solar Mars 100 Power Generation Skid
Length 14.6.0 m
Width 2.8 m
Height 11.5 m
Gas turbine power generator (dry approx) 120,000 kg
Gas turbine power generator (operating) 120,000 kg
GT air intake system Inc
Exhaust system Inc
Ventilation system Inc
UCP Inc
Synthetic oil system Inc
For further information refer to Figure 3-10.


Figure 3-10 Solar Mars 100 Power Generation Gas Turbine Driver GA
Weights and dimension of an Electric Motor Compression Skid are:
Table 3-27 Emotor Driven Compressor weights and dimensions

Weights and Dimensions Electric Motor Driven Compressor Skid
Length 15.0 m
Width 3m
Height 5.0 m
Motor, compressor and ancillaries weight (dry approx) 143,200 kg
Motor, compressor and ancillaries weight (operating) 160,000 kg
UCP Inc
Dry gas seal system/panel Inc
Transformer to Variable Speed Electric Drive Systems 80
(VSDS) compressor (operating)
VSDS 18
3.21. Condensate export pumps

3.21.1. Design conditions
The design requirement for the condensate export pumps is 1,018 m differential head, 809.5 kg/m3 fluid
density, 1.15 viscosity, 4.5 m NPSHa, at 112.9 m3/h with a 150 bar(g) maximum allowable working pressure.
The pump is also required to operate over the field life detailed below. Refer to Figure 3-11 for further
information.
Fluid Condensate
Flow 112.9 – 10.41 m3/h
Suction Pressure 14.5 – 85 bar(a)
Suction Temperature 1 to 32°C
Discharge Pressure 142 – 129 bar(a)
Temperature 1 to 32°C
Density 803.7 – 844.6 kg/m3
Viscosity 1.095 – 1.79 cP
Max Pressure 159 bar(g)
Net Positive Suction Head (NPSA) 4.5 m
Power Supply 440 v/ 3 Ph /50 Hz
Materials Duplex
• Double Mechanical Seal

• Base plate
• Drain / Seal piping
• Control Panel.

Table 3-28 Condensate Export Pump Design Conditions

Table 3-29 Condensate Export Pump Process Requirements
3.21.2. Condensate export pump specification

The export pump duty per separation train can be completed by an eleven stage multi stage pump. The pump efficiency is optimised to 69% approx by using a
variable speed driver. A speed-increasing gearbox is not required. A centrifugal pump is the preferred design.
The condensate pump design is a vertical split pump casing, suitable for an upset condition for a maximum pressure of 257 bar(g).
Due to the high design pressure requirements this limits the selection to vertical split casing pump design. A vertical split casing pump requires a minimum of 3.5 m
NPSHr, therefore the height of the separators require to be greater than 4.5 m above the deck.
An 11 stage pump has been selected for this application to eliminate the requirement of a booster pump. This is a deviation to the DEP and will require approval in
the later design stages.
When the flow rate reduce to 80 m3/h this is also an issue which restricts the design efficiency and results in the pump requiring to be re-bundled with and larger,
low flow impellers installed. Refer to Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13 for further information

Figure 3-12 Condensate Export Pump Curves – Part 1

Figure 3-13 Condensate Export Pump Curves – Part 2
As this is a production critical service, a common spare train has been has been selected (three pumps total).

3.21.3. Dimensions and weights
Table 3-30 Export Pump weights and dimensions

Weights and Dimensions of Export Pump
Length of pump and motor 4.6 m
Width of pump and motor 1.4 m
Pump and motor weight (dry approx) 8,400 kg
Pump and motor weight (operating) 9,400 kg
UCP (operating) 1,000 kg
Mineral lube oil console (operating) 3,000 kg
Seal panel (operating) 1,000 kg
VSDS 1,000 kg
Transformer 5,000 kg
3.22. Condensate recycle pumps

The condensate recycle pumps are intermittent operating pumps required to pump condensate from a gas
scrubber when the predetermined level is reached. The second stage scrubber does not require a pump due to
low flow rates.
As this is a production critical service and the gas export system has two separate trains a 2 x 100%
configuration has been selected per train (four pumps total).
The pumps are required to be suitable for an upset condition designed for a maximum pressure of 169 bar(g).
A centrifugal pump is the preferred pump type design.
The design conditions are currently estimated as:
Fluid Condensate
Flow 10 m3/h
Suction Pressure 65 bar(a)
Suction Temperature 20 to 50 °C
Discharge Pressure 70 bar(a)
Max Pressure 163 bar(a)
NPSA 10 m
Design Temperature 10/80 °C
Power Supply 440v/ 3 Ph /50 Hz
Materials Duplex
• Base plate
• Drain / Seal piping
• Control Panel

3.22.2. Condensate recycle pumps specification

The maximum achievable design pressure for the condensate recycle pumps is 150 bar(a) max. This is 9 bar(g)
less than the required design. To achieve this duty the plant design pressure is required to be decreased.
As the scrubbers are approximately 8 m above the deck level, there are no NPSH issues.
The pump specified is a centrifugal pump, however it does not meet DEP design approval. The operates with
a magnetic bearing and is also a high speed pump greater than DEP recommendations which will require
approval for use during further stages of the design. Refer to Figure 3-14 for further information.


Table 3-31 Condensate Recycle Pump weights and dimensions

Weights and Dimensions of Condensate Recycle Pump
Height of pump and motor 0.5 m
Pump and motor weight (dry approx) 600 kg
Pump and motor weight (operating) 600 kg
3.23. Seawater lift pumps (hazardous system)

The seawater lift pumps are required to supply seawater directly to the cooling medium coolers during normal
platform operations.
As this is a production critical service, therefore a 3 x 50% configuration has been selected.
Larger submersible pump motors are available which would reduce the configuration to 2 x 100%, however
there is poor reliability experience from Shell UIE installations with motor sizes > 1 MW approximately. The
larger submersible pump motors often are oil cooled and therefore require different maintenance and
operation requirements.
Line shaft driven pumps were discounted due to the additional weight, capital cost and reduced reliability.
3.23.1. Design Conditions and Scope of Supply
The design conditions for are currently estimated as the below:
Fluid Seawater
Flow 3,900 m3/h
Differential Head 110 m
Differential Pressure 10.9 bar(a)
Pump design pressure 19 bar(a)
Pump Location 23 metres above LAT
Power Supply 11,000 V/ 3 Ph /50 Hz
• Electro-submersible pump
• Submersible pump electric motor with cable
• Submersible pump non return valve
• Rising main
• Air vent valve/vacuum breaker
• Pump inlet screen
• Ion-exchange anti-marine fouling system
• Material of pump etc in contact with the seawater to be Super Duplex stainless steel.
3.23.2. Seawater lift pumps (hazardous system) specification

Three budget quotations were requested for the seawater lift pumps. The information below was submitted by
Flowserve, proposing their Pleuger QN282-6a + VN122-180-6 submersible pump. Specifications for a suitable
pump design with weights and dimensions are detailed below. Refer to Figure 3-15 for further information.

Table 3-32 Seawater Lift Pumps (Hazardous System) Specifications

Seawater Lift Pumps (Hazardous System) Specifications
Pump Pleuger QN282-6a + VN122-180-6
Rated speed 965 rpm
Flow rate 1,950 m3/h
Stages 3
Pumping temp 20
Density 1,030 kg/m3
Discharge pressure (centre line of nozzle) 8.36 bar(g)
Total head 110
NPSHr 6.5 m
% 80
Pump rating 771 kW
Pump materials Wetted Parts - UNS S32760
Motor rating 790 kW, 1,000 v, 50 Hz
Cable 50 m
Riding main dia (w/o cable) 0.5 m estimated
Cable supports Inc
NRV inc
Vent valve 2”
Anti fouling system Marin anti fouling system

Table 3-33 Hazardous System Seawater Lift Pump weights and dimensions
Weights and Dimensions of Hazardous System Seawater Lift Pump
Rising main / casson - length / width 30 / 0.75 m
Pump and motor weight (dry/ operating approx) 5,100 kg/ 7,000 kg
Cable/adapter/flap valve / anti fouling (dry approx) 500 kg
3.24. Essential seawater lift pumps (non hazardous system)

The essential seawater pumps are required to supply seawater to pressurise the fire ring main during normal
platform operation and supply seawater for use as a cooling medium to the non-hazardous equipment during
normal production.
As this is a safety critical and production critical service, a 2 x 100% configuration has been selected. The
estimated motor size is within a known duty, therefore no design issues are anticipated.
Line shaft driven pumps were discounted due to the additional weight, capital cost and reduced reliability.
3.24.1. Design conditions and scope of supply
Fluid Seawater
Flow 375 m3/h
Differential Head 110 m
Differential Pressure 10.9 bar(a)
Pump design pressure 19 bar(g)
Pump Location 23 metres above LAT
Power Supply 690 V/ 3Ph /50 Hz
• Electro-submersible pump
• Submersible pump electric motor with cable
• Submersible pump non return valve
• Rising main
• Air vent valve/vacuum breaker
• Ion-exchange anti-marine fouling system
• Material of pump etc in contact with the seawater to be Super Duplex stainless steel.
3.24.2. Essential seawater lift pumps (non hazardous system) specification

Three budget quotations were requested for the essential seawater lift pumps. The information below was
submitted by KSB, proposing their UPA 300-94/3 + UMA 250D 190/22 submersible pump. Specifications
for a suitable pump design with weights and dimensions are detailed below. Refer to Figure 3-16 for further
information.

Table 3-34 Essential Seawater Lift Pumps (Non Hazardous System) Specifications
Essential Seawater Lift Pumps (Non Hazardous System) Specifications
Pump UPA 300-94/3 + UMA 250D 190/22
Rated speed 2,920 rpm
Flow rate 375 m3/h
Stages 3
Pumping temp 20
Density 1,030 kg/m3
Discharge pressure (centre line of nozzle) 8.25 bar(g)
Total head 110
NPSHr 9.2 m
% 77
Pump rating 180 kW
Pump materials Wetted Parts - UNS S32760
Motor rating 180 kW, 690 v, 50 Hz
Cable 50 m
Riding main dia (w/o cable) 0.3 m estimated
Cable supports inc
NRV inc
Vent valve 2”
Anti fouling system Marin anti fouling system


Table 3-35 Essential Service Seawater Lift Pump weights and dimensions
Weights and Dimensions Essential Service Seawater Lift Pump
Rising main / casson - length / width 30 / 0.5 m
Pump and motor weight (dry/operating approx) 800 / 1,100 kg
Cable/adapter/flap valve/ antifouling (dry approx) 300 kg
3.25. Fire water pumps and drivers

The Fire pumps are required to pressurise the fire ring main during an emergency situation.
Due to the Norsok standard S-001 (Ref: 119) a 4 x 50% configuration has been used. Diesel engine drivers
have been selected due to the estimated drier size required for the duty. Electrical driven Electric Submersible
Pump (ESP) fire pump designs were discounted due to the large submersible motor sizes and the large
generator over rating required for fire pump duty.
3.25.1. Design conditions and scope of supply
Fluid Seawater
Flow 3,050 m3/h
Discharge pressure at the pump discharge flange 13.5 bar(g)
Pump design pressure 19 bar(g) @ 10°C
Pump Location 27.5 metres above LAT
Vertical shaft driven pump
• Rising main and discharge head

• Right angled gear
• Diesel engine driver
• Couplings and non-sparking Guards
• Electric starting system included two sets of batteries, suitable for six starts
• Hydraulic back-up starting system with engine driven pump
• Fire pump controller and separately mounted fire pump panel
• Diesel engine auxiliaries including lube system and self contained cooling system
• Engine radiator on the baseplate
• Engine mounted exhaust silencer and ducting between engine and silencer
• Ion exchange anti-marine fouling system
• Common baseplate for the diesel engine, right angled gear, discharge head and auxiliaries
• Material of pump etc in contact with the seawater to be Duplex SS.

3.25.2. Fire pump, gearbox and diesel engine specification
Table 3-36 Fire Pump, Gearbox and Diesel Engine Specifications

Fire Pump, Gearbox and Diesel Engine Specifications
Pump Sulzer BKN 420 030
Rated speed 1,450 rpm
Flow rate 1,537 m3/h
Stages 4
Pumping temp 10
Disch pressure 13.5 bar(g)
Diff head 135/ 164 m
Static head 28 m
Density 1,027 kg/m3
NPSHa 11.5 m
% 77
Pump design point 933.9 kW
Driver rating 1,193 kW
Materials Wetted Parts - UNS S32760
Gearbox Amarillo SL1500
Diesel engine Caterpillar or MTU engine
Couplings and non-sparking guards inc
Electric starting system inc
Hydraulic back-up starting system inc
Fire pump controller and fire pump panel inc
Engine auxiliaries, lube and cooling system inc
Engine heat exchanger inc
Ion exchange anti-marine fouling system inc
Pump inlet screen inc
Diesel day tank inc
Refer to Figure 3-17 for further information.


Table 3-37 Fire pump weights and dimensions
Weights and Dimensions of Diesel Driven Firepump Skid
Length of skid 13 m
Width of pump skid 3m
Height 4m
Engine, pump and gearbox weight(dry/ operating) 41,000/46,000 kg
Control panel (dry/ wet) 5,000/5,000 kg
Pump room cooler (dry/wet) 4,000/4,000 kg
Starting battery 720 kg
UCP 2,000 kg
Room cooler 4,000 kg
Diesel day tank (dry/operating) 1,500 kg/9,500 kg
3.26. Sub main / emergency generation

The sub main and emergency generation packages are required to provide electrical power during platform
production shutdown periods and during emergency shutdown periods. A black start system is required to be
installed on the emergency generation system.
In an attempt to reduce the NOX and SO2 emissions, two diesel engine-driven sub main generators have been
provided for use during production shutdowns to operate or restart the main process High Voltage (HV)
drivers. The emergency generator is required to operate the Low Voltage (LV) accommodation and life
support systems on a stand-alone basis.
All generator sizes are currently estimated and will be defined during later design stages.
The electrical load lists require to be fully developed when the operation philosophy is fully defined, however
the design conditions are currently estimated in the table below.
Table 3-38 Sub Main / Emergency Generation loads
Emergency mode 1,500 kW (including Norsok E-001 margin of 40%)
Production restart mode 5,000 kW (including Norsok E-001 margin of 35%)
3.26.2. Diesel engine and generator specification

Table 3-39 Sub Main / Emergency Generation Specification
Sub Main / Emergency Generation Specifications

Model Caterpillar C280-8
Engine rating (100% load) 2,710 kW
Speed (idle / rated) 350 / 1,000 rpm
Generator rating 2,600 eKW, 50 Hz @ 1,000 rpm
Bore 280 mm
Stroke 300 mm
Displacement 148 mm
Efficiency 44.7%
Fuel Diesel
Consumption 189 g/bkw-h

Sub Main / Emergency Generation Specifications

Emissions 11 g/bkw-h
Cooling Jacket water cooling system
Initial enquires have been made, mainly to establish an equipment weight, dimensions and cost, the CAT
C280-8 Marine Diesel Generator Set specifications.
The engine ratings provided by the vendor were completed under standard conditions and not “SITE” rated
for Ormen Lange. The engine performance will therefore increase when site rated. During the next design
phase this system will be defined in more detail. Refer to Figure 3-18 for further information.
Figure 3-18 Sub Main and Emergency Generation Diesel Engines


Weights and Dimensions of Submain/ Emergency Generation Set
Length of skid 12.5 m
Width of skid 1.9 m
Height 3.29
Generator weight (dry approx) 31,000 kg
Generator weight (operating approx) 41,000 kg
Starting battery 720 kg
UCP 1,000 kg
Table 3-40 Submain /Emergency Diesel Engine weights and dimensions
3.27. Pedestal cranes

The main platform-lifting requirement is to be completed by two pedestal cranes located on the North and
South sides of the platform.
3.27.1. Design Conditions
The estimated platform dimensions are 90 m x 90 m with an estimated 40 metric ton maximum lifting
required. The estimated maximum radius required onboard is approximately 60 m, however overboard the
maximum radius is estimated at 70 m due to the requirement to complete the majority of the lifting away from
a subsea riser connection zone, to reduce dropped object impact risk. The pedestal cranes are required to be
electric motor driven to reduce CO2 and NOX emissions. The wind velocity used in the design is 25 m/s.
Table 3-41 Pedestal Crane Design Conditions
Pedestal Crane Design Conditions

Hoisting Device Crane Lifting From SWH (m) Radius (m) SWL (t) Remarks
Main Hoist Onboard 60 40 10 year lift
60 10 Weekly lift
Main Hoist Supply Vessel Lifts 3 72 10 Weekly lift

2 30 40 10 year lift
3.27.2. Pedestal Crane Specification

Initial enquires have been made with Liebherr in Austria, who have experience of Shell offshore crane design
requirements, mainly to establish an equipment outline design, weight, dimensions and cost.
The crane design will be finalised during further phases of the project when the lifting philosophy has been
fully defined. An outline is detailed below. Refer to Figure 3-19 for further information.

Table 3-42 Pedestal Crane Specification

Pedestal Crane Specification
Model BOS 4200-50 Lithonic
Primer Mover Electric motor / hydraulic operated
Motor 2 x 240 kW
Base Power 58 kW
Main Hoist Reeving 1x2
Main Hoist Sea Water Lift (SWL) 50 (t)
Max SWH 3.0 m
Hook Velocity, empty hook, last layer 67.3 m/min
Hook Velocity, SWL, last layer 18.2 m/min
Luffing System Reeving 1 x 10
Luffing time, working range, empty hook 115 (s)
Luffing time, working range, full load 170 (s)
Min. Boom Angle 0°
Max. Boom Angle 82.9°
Max. used Rope layer 7
Slewing System – Gears 5
Speed with 0° inclination 0.52 rpm fast system
Speed with maximum load 0.28 rpm
Max / Min Boom Length 72/12.3 m
Outreach (Min Boom) Max / Min 50/35 t
Outreach (Max Boom) Max / Min 16.4/8.2 t
Max (SWL) 50 t
Min Boom (Max Lift) 50 t
Max Boom (Max Lift) 16.4 t

Table 3-44 Pedestal Crane weights and dimensions

Pedestal Crane Weights and Dimensions
Slewing Column 6.8 m
Width 8.5 m
Pedestal Adapter 3.4 m
Boom 72 m
Slewing Column 80,000 kg
Pedestal Adapter 15,000 kg
Boom 60,000 kg
Main Hoist 3,000 kg
Main Hoist Rope 3,167 kg
Luffing Rope 5,015 kg
Aux Hoist Rope 797 kg
Hook Swivel (Aux Hoist) 600 kg
3.28. MEG injection pump

An MEG injection system is required to assist startup of the process plant. Currently the flow lines MEG
requirements are estimates, however a pump skid suitable for 25 m3/h has been investigated. A diaphragm
pump system is required to be specified by the DEPs. The pump system would require to be a 2 x 100% pump
package.
3.28.1. MEG injection pump specification
Fluid MEG
Flow 25 m3/h
Discharge Pressure 140 bar(g)
Power 250 kW
Power Supply 690 V/ 3Ph /50 Hz
• Diaphragm Pump, Monoblock fixed stroke

• Sandwich diaphragm pump
• PTFE diaphragms
• Pressure guage and rupture indication
• Complete with skid and EEXDe zone 1 insulation F IP56 motors.
Refer to Figure 3-20 for further information.


Figure 3-20 MEG Injection Pump

MEG Injection Pump Weights and Dimensions
Length 6m
Width 3.5 m
Height 2.5 m
Dry weight 25,000 kg
Operating weight 28,000 kg
Table 3-45 MEG Injection Pump Skid weights and dimensions
3.29. Air compressor package

An air compression system is required to maintain the process and safety systems on the TLP, the volume
requirements are variable therefore not fully defined. Air compressor systems are normally packaged to the
required size.
The critical requirements at this stage are to define the number of units, number of driers and the compressor
type.
3.29.1. Air compressor package specification
The compressed air package selected consists of 3 x 100% ZT55-10-50 oil free variable speed screw
compressors and 2 x 100% desiccant dryers with associated pre and after filters. Oil free compressors have
been chosen in line with DEP specification and Shell experience, variable speed compressor drivers have been
chosen to optimise the energy efficiency. Typically due to the air system criticality a 3 x 100% system is
installed. With Variable Speed Drives (VSD) drivers, there is an opportunity to review this requirement. The
compressors and dryers are each provided with a self contained control system. Refer to Figure 3-21 for
further information.
Table 3-46 Air Compressor Package Specification
Air Compressor Package Specification
Compressor Atlas Copco ZT55-10/50 Pack
Rated speed 650 rpm
Flow rate 367 Nm3/r
Number of Compressors 3 x 100%
Discharge pressure 10 bar(a)
Inlet temp 30°C
Power 63.3 kW
Dryer CD250 Heatless Desiccant Dryer
c/w DD, PD and DDp filters inc
Number of Driers 2 x 100%
Inlet flow 734 Nm3/h
Average outlet flow 515 Nm3/h
Dewpoint -40°C
Discharge press drop 0.092 bar

Figure 3-21 Air Compressor Package


Table 3-47 Air Compressor package weight and dimensions
Air Compressor Package Weight and Dimensions
Compressor length 2.1 m
Width 1.4 m
Height 2.1 m
Dry weight 1,760 kg
Drier length 1.1 m
Width 0.9 m
Height 1.8 m
Dry weight 600 kg
Operating weight 600 kg
3.30. LP fuel gas booster compressor

The fuel gas during late operation for the GT Driver option will require to be boosted to enable the large gas
compressor turbine drivers to operate. This service would only be required during start up as a high pressure
line could be taken from the compressor first stage discharge. The introduction of a booster compressor is
only approximately required when the fuel gas pressure reduces to below approximately 35 bar(a), from
approximately 2023 onwards. As this service is intermittent it is not deemed to be critical a 1 x 100%
configuration has been selected.
3.30.1. Fuel gas booster compressor specification
The fuel gas booster compressor would be a two stage reciprocating compressor, due to the pressure ratios
required and the variable flow rate required over the field life. The compressor would be required to operate
from approximately 14 bar(g) to a 50 bar(g) discharge pressure with an estimated maximum flow rate of
5,322 kg/h. Refer to Figure 3-22 and Figure 3-23 for further information.
Table 3-48 Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Specification
Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Package Specification
Compressor Dresser Rand VIP 2
Rated speed 650 rpm
Flow rate 5,322 kg/h
Stages 2
Inlet pressure 14 bar(a)
Inlet temp 30
Gas MW 17.35
Discharge pressure 45 bar(g)
Isothermal % 60
Power 417 kW
Inlet / discharge pulsation dampeners Inc
Inlet scrubbers Inc
Discharge cooler Inc

Pr o ject s & Tech n o lo g y

Upstream Major Projects
PTM/ EDES ROTATING EQUIPMENT
Compressor Type Selection
Overall
Mass/ molar flowrate, m kg/ h 5395

kg/ h 5,395
MMSCFD 5.4
Sm³/ h 6,443
Molecular weight kg/ kmol 17.34
Compressibility@ " std" conditions, Zstd 0.876
Polytropic efficiency, ηP 0.7
n/ n-1 3.23
Suction pressure, Ps bar(a) 14
Suction temperature, Ts °C 30
Actual suction vol. flow, Q s m/ ρ s m³/ h 491
Discharge pressure, Pd bar(a) 45
Max discharge temp, Td MAX °C 120
Discharge volumetric flow, Q d m/ ρ d m³/ h 222 Possible Selections (Shell P226 Course Criteria)
Compression ratio, r TOTAL 3.21 Centrifugal FALSE
Max section ratio, r S MAX (Td MAX/ Ts) (n/ n-1) 2.31 Diaphragm FALSE
Theoretical no. of sections loge r TOTAL / loge r S MAX 1.39 Liquid Ring FALSE
Actual no. of sections 2 Screw (Oil Flooded) FALSE
Actual section ratio, r S ACT 1.79 Reciprocating TRUE
Isothermal efficiency, η iso 0.55 Isothermal basis used to avoid
Power (order of magnitude) p.Q.loge (r TOTAL) / η kW 405
iso
calculating head for each section
Figure 3-22 Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Outline Selection

Figure 3-23 Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Package Outline Details
Table 3-49 Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Package weights and dimensions
Fuel Gas Booster Compressor Package Weight and Dimensions
Skid length 5.1 m
Width 2.6 m
Height 3m
Dry weight 50,000 kg

Figure 3-24 Electric Motor Drive Compressor GA

4. Mechanical - Piping and Layouts

This section of the report covers the issues that affect platform layout and orientation.
4.1. General
• Layout developed in accordance with
o EP Projects Layout Development Procedure GEN-EPA-M18-00001-001-A02 (Ref: 15)
o PDMS Model Specification GEN-EPA-M19-00003-001-A01 (Ref: 20)
o Norsok standard L-002 Piping design, Layout and Stress Analysis (Edition 3) (Ref: 115)
o Norsok standard S-001 Technical Safety (Edition 4) (Ref: 119)
o Preliminary Process Flow Schemes – no issue date (Ref: 51)
o Preliminary Equipment List 60 million Sm3/d, Reference Case – GT Drive Option.
37-1Y-NS-C19-00001 Revision 07 (Ref: 68)
o Preliminary Equipment List 60 million Sm3/d, Reference Case – Power from Shore Option.
37-1Y-NS-C19-00002 Revision 07 (Ref: 69)
• Refer to Figure 4-1 below for general layouts of the TLP and modules.
Figure 4-1 General Layouts of the TLP and Modules

The size and layout of the hull has been developed and supplied by Rijswijk. The PDMS model is to be
updated following recent changes in the hull dimensions, which will also reduce the sizes of the
modules, but only by approximately 1 m in length. The topsides layout has developed from an
Integrated Deck arrangement to Modular in order to increase the potential number of construction yard
locations. The size and layout of the topsides modules have been developed based upon the size
restrictions dictated by the hull support locations. Minor local modifications have been carried out by
Exploration & Production (EP) Projects, such as local access/extension platforms, mezzanine deck in
the Utilities section, and support framework for separators.
The main platform modules are:
o RB – Riser Bay
o GC – Gas Compression
o HU – Hull
o LQ – Living Quarters
o PM – Power Module
o US – Utilities South
o UT – Utilities.
• The predominant wind and current direction determines the location of the LQ and gas compression
facilities. The LQ should be located upwind of the gas compression and power generation exhaust
stacks to reduce the impact of fumes and possible gas clouds affecting the LQ and the Temporary
Refuge (TR) within it. Any smoke/fumes or gas clouds would be blown away from the LQ/TR under
most wind conditions.

Figure 4-2 Winds (from) for all year
• The predominant current comes from the West, which influences the location of the platform cranes
and locations of supply boats. Should a supply boat loose power, the predominant waves would drive
the vessel along the side of the platform and then clear, rather than into the platform leading to damage
to the hull, or the risers.

Figure 4-3 Waves (from) for all year
• However, the lifeboats adjacent to the LQ, which will be accessed directly from the TR, must face
upwind to reduce the possibility of smoke affecting the personnel in the event of an evacuation. This
results in the lifeboats being launched into the predominant waves, which may lead them to being driven
back under the hull should their engines fail.
The type and size of lifeboats has not been finalised as yet, but only two suppliers are known to comply
with the Norsok requirements – Schatt Harding and Norsafe. A typical lifeboat with a compliment of
70 personnel has been included in the model to provide the required N+1. This is based upon
approximately 120-130 personnel being on-board during the commissioning phase.
Two further lifeboats are included on the East side of the platform to provide a means of evacuation
during normal operation for a crew working in the gas compression module. Two lifeboats are required
for the N+1 requirement, and 70 person lifeboats are required due to the drop height. Smaller capacity
lifeboats require a much lower drop height, which would result in them being located within the splash
zone.
Platform orientation has been determined to be true North. The factors affecting this orientation are the
wind and wave direction but also the seabed topography and available sites to install piles for the TLP,
and available routes for the subsea pipelines.
• The Piping layouts show only the large bore systems, based upon preliminary PFS. The layouts would
need to be developed in FEED, as the Process Engineering Flow Scheme (PEFS) becomes available, as
not all isolation valves are shown.

• Preliminary access and escape routes have been included in the model.
• The type and size of the cranes has yet to be finalised but a suitable crane has been included in the
model. The type, height, capacity and reach are adequate for the material handling requirements of the
platform, but a further review and a Mechanical Handling Study will be conducted during FEED.
• Cable trays and lighting systems have not been included in the model. Preliminary pipe racks for the
large bore production manifolds have been included but no other pipe racks are shown.
• All the seawater, firewater and service caissons are located on the outside of the columns as per the
latest guidance from Rijswijk. The caissons must be installed close to the columns of the platform in
order for supports to be provided, and so local extension platforms are required to reach firepumps and
allow access/maintenance, as these are located out with the main deck space. The depth of
drains/sewage caissons relative to firewater/seawater lift caissons is to be checked in FEED as no
guidance was found during Concept Select.
• All the equipment identified on the equipment list has been included, except for the hull systems that
are not part of topsides scope, and minor safety items such as hose reels, hydrants, safety showers and
miscellaneous fire fighting equipment cabinets. Ballast pumps/caissons have been included as these are
installed/accessed via the topsides.
• Stair towers are located at each corner of the TLP to allow access to all levels. The top of the Riser Bay
sits above the top deck of the surrounding modules and access has been provided at the North and
South ends of this module.
• Each module will have one fixed corner, with two that allow movement in one direction. The corner
opposing the fixed support will allow movement in two directions. The locations of the supports has
been determined by the Hull engineers, with the fixed support being located on the outside of the
columns so that maximum support is provided should a riser jet fire weaken the inside face of the
column.
There are two layout options, one with Power from Shore via an electric cable, and the second with
local power generation using two generators. The electric motors are replaced with GT drives for the
local power option.
4.2. Power from shore option

4.2.1. Utilities module (60.5 x 28 x 12 excluding LQ)
• For the Power from Shore option, the electric cable is routed around the platform to the South and is
supported from a cantilever on the West side of the Utilities module. The control umbilical for the
SSIVs is also supported from the same cantilever and is separated by 3 m. The cable must have a
clearance of 18 m from the nearest subsurface structure (column, tendon or pontoon) to ensure it does
not clash with the structure under extreme weather conditions.
• The drop height of lifeboats is still to be finalised. According to the Metocean Design data the
10,000 year wave height is 20 m, so it may be possible for boats to drop into a trough 20 m below LAT.
When the air gap is taken into account, it may be possible for a lifeboat to drop approximately 54 m (for
the TLP, lifeboat height above Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) is approximately 34 m.) Norsok and
the latest Det Norske Veritas (DNV) standards refer to drop height in relation to LAT but do not
specifically mention troughs in terms of allowable drop height.
• The helideck is to be located above the LQ but with an air gap of between 2 m and 5 m, as per the
Norsok standard C-004 Helicopter Deck on Offshore Installations (Ref: 110). However, Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) CAP 437 Offshore Helicopter Landing Areas – Guidance on Standards (Ref: 105),
states 3 m to 5 m. Therefore, the gap has been set at 3 m. Obstacle free areas are also defined in CAP
437 and lifeboats have been located beneath the helideck so that protection is provided should a
helicopter fall from above. This has been indicated by envelopes in the model beneath the helideck, and
by an exclusion zone where equipment should not be located.

• The Central Control Room will be integrated into the main deck of the Utilities module, allowing a
degree of pre-commissioning / commissioning activities to be completed prior to deck sail away from
the fabrication yard. The living quarters will be fabricated elsewhere by a specialist fabricator and
installed on top of the Utilities module later. The LQ sits on top of the CCR, and the stairway between
them will be sealed to allow personnel to move between the LQ and the CCR. This also provides a link
between the CCR and the Temporary Refuge area within the LQ for evacuation to the lifeboats if
required.
• A seascape is provided on the lower deck level near to the LQ for emergency evacuation, but would not
normally be deployed. The model shows this escape route down to the sea level and is for information
only.
• A Man Overboard Boat (MOB) is included, and is located above the workshop in the Utility area, as per
the Norsok requirements. This MOB must be visible from the crane cab.
• A goods lift is included in the Utilities Module through the workshop to allow transportation of smaller
items of equipment between decks without transferring to the deck edge where laydown areas will be
provided and serviced by the platform cranes.
• To save deck space and allow efficient layouts, storage tanks are located within the decks in the Utility
areas for non-hazardous services. This concept would need to be reviewed and agreed early in the
FEED process.
• A number of electrical equipment items are located in the module, along with battery rooms, HV&AC
and two of the four firepumps. The seawater filters for the cooling water system are within the Utilities
module, located on the lower deck. The battery rooms and local equipment rooms (LERs) are located
on the mezzanine deck, North of the CCR.
• A workshop is located between the LQ and the West blastwall, on the top deck. The goods lift passes
through this workshop to the roof, which can also be used as a laydown area for equipment. A jet fuel
package is located at one end of the roof, and must be protected from swinging objects. Jet fuel is
pumped to the top of the LQ where the dispensing package is located. The location and operation of
the jet fuel system is to be reviewed in FEED.
• One of the two firepumps at the SW column is located on a deck extension, with the caisson being
supported from this module. The module support arrangement has a sliding support at this location,
and so module displacements must be identified to ensure the firewater caisson is not subjected to
excessive lateral loads at the column guides.
• The NW corner would be fixed. However, there will need to be expansion loops in the pipework
crossing from the Utilities module to the Power Generation and the Utilities South, but as this pipework
will contain services and not process pipework, the design temperatures will be relatively low and
therefore the size of the expansion loops will be limited.
4.2.2. Gas Compression Module (65 x 28 x 12)
• The inlet manifolds are routed around the North edge of the East blastwall and tie-in to dedicated inlet
separators. Any slugs of liquid are dealt with in this vessel and the initial liquid separation is also carried
out at this point. Pumps are located beneath the separators on the lower level to pump any liquids back
into the export header.
The height of the Inlet Separator must provide 7 m NPSH to the condensate pumps, although details of
liquid levels are not available. A worst case scenario has been adopted where the lowest liquid elevation
is assumed to be at the bottom tan line of the vessel. The inlet nozzle height then falls within the deck
beams, which would result in the inlet pipework turning within the beams to align with the nozzle. As
spades will probably be required at the inlet nozzle for isolation purposes the inlet nozzle must be
located above the deck for access. The vessel is shown supported from support ring around the vessel,
which sits on the top deck. This allows the inlet pipework to be installed above the deck level and allows
access to inlet nozzle. The vessel protrudes through the deck and can be seen from the level below,

effectively hanging through the deck. Gas outlet nozzle deflections are minimised with this support
arrangement.
• The two electric driven gas compressors are located on the top deck of the module. Oil for the
compressor seals is routed to a storage tank and pump set which is to be gravity fed from the seals and
so must be located underneath the compressor. To avoid excessive pipe runs between decks, the seal
unit is hung beneath the top deck and is accessed via ladders from the top deck. The compressors are
located on the top deck as they are too large to fit in between decks, to ensure they are freely ventilated
to avoid a build up of gas should a leak occur, and to allow access by both platform cranes in case of
maintenance.
The two scrubbers associated with each train are located to the South of each compressor, with the two
discharge coolers located above. The Process requirements are for the outlet of the coolers to fall to the
scrubbers. The compressor second stage discharge is routed through the second cooler and then the two
headers runs back along the blast wall to the Riser Bay. At this point they join a common header but are
separated by a normally closed cross-over valve. This allows the discharge from one train to be routed
to one pipeline, and the other to the second pipeline, allowing different flow and pressures in each
pipeline.
• The MEG storage and injection skid is located in the Gas Compression module as a dedicated chemical
injection skid is not required for the TLP, and so the MEG is located in a hazardous area.
• The lower deck of the module contains all the pumps associated with the separators and scrubbers, and
the flare knock drum to ensure a fall in the flare pipework. The flare tower is located on the North end
of the module, with the ignition package beneath it.
The Flare height (105 m above the top deck to the tip) is based upon preliminary information, and it
may be possible to reduce the height with further work in FEED. This could reduce the crane height, as
a minimum distance will be required from the crane operator’s cab to the flare tip.
• In case of emergency, two additional lifeboats and a TR on a mezzanine deck have been included. If the
escape tunnel is not included in the final layout, these lifeboats will be the only means of escape if there
were an incident in the Riser Bay cutting off the escape route back to the TR in the Utilities module.
However, this results in the need for a full lifeboat crew to be stationed at the TR whenever personnel
are in the Gas Compression module. This is not a practical approach and so further work on the QRA is
required during FEED.
• Drains tanks and pumps are included in the lower deck beams.
• The NE corner of the module will be fixed, and so the manifold pipework that will run from between
the Riser Bay and the Compression modules may require expansion loops to accommodate the relative
displacements. The extent of these loops will be determined during FEED.
4.2.3. Riser bay module (45 x 40 x 19.5)
• The underside of the lower deck is to be 2.5 m above the top of column, and has been set by Rijswijk to
ensure the modules are not in the splash zone or subject to water damage from water run-up at the
columns. The deck beams are 1.5 m deep except for the centre sections of the Riser Bay which are 2 m
to accommodate the loads from the TTRs. As the underside of the deck is to be the same for all
modules, the top of steel for the lower deck level in the Riser Bay must be 500 mm above that of the
surrounding modules. This is not ideal when considering escape routes and movement of equipment as
walkways linking the Riser Bay to the other modules will be inclined.
Norsok (L-001, section 4.1) (Ref: 114) states that deck levels should be at the same elevation as far as
possible and that transportation routes should not contain steps or thresholds, section 4.3.4. Norsok
S-002, table B.1 (Ref: 120) advises that the maximum height difference in one step in access ways is
350 mm. At least two steps would be required for a 500 mm height difference, or the walkway would
need to be inclined at approximately 10°. ISO 14122-1 (Ref: 107) states that the preferred access is from
the same level, where this is not possible then a suitable ramp shall be used with an angle of pitch less

than 10° but with a maximum of 3° for handcarts and other manually wheeled vehicles, a maximum of
7° for motorised vehicles. (Maximum of 20° for walking but no tools or items are to be carried.) The
mechanical handling study should take into account the difference in deck height when considering the
movement of materials and equipment in and out of the Riser Bay. It may be that the platform crane is
required for each activity carried out in the Riser Bay, irrespective of the size/type of equipment to be
moved. A suitable laydown area at each end of the Bay is to be included in the layout.
As part of the Riser Bay review to reduce weight, the centre steelwork sections may be reduced to 1.5 m,
in which case the deck levels of all modules will become the same. Suitable access ways will be provided
and the need for additional laydown areas at the ends of the module will be reduced. This work is
currently on-going and deck levels will be determined prior to the start of FEED.
• Inlet production manifolds down each side of the Riser Bay are 24” 1500#, and combine to run in 30”
pipework on the North side of the Riser Bay Module, which may cause problems with procurement of
flanges. As a result, hubs are included in the PDMS model as these are more readily available than
flanges (dimensional details of flanges above 24” have been removed from the relevant standards as they
are not used, i.e. Magnetic Stainless Steel (MSS) SP-44). Hubs also offer reduced weight and space
advantages. Hub connections are also shown at the inlet separators and exchangers. Compact flanges are
available through the Ormen Lange (OL) onshore pipe specs, and are to Norsok standard L-005
(Ref: 116). All large bore connections would need to be reviewed in FEED to confirm the standard to
be used.
• The location of the blast walls has been determined by the layout of the Riser Bay equipment and
pipework, and the location of the main deck beams in the structure that will provide the support to the
blast walls.
• The risers for the Tension Leg Platform are located in the centre of the platform. The four Northern
risers and four Southern risers are inlet risers from the subsea templates, with the four central risers
being the export lines. This arrangement results in minimal line crossings subsea, reducing costs.
Installation of the rigid risers is via a rig located above the riser bay and is covered in another section of
this report.
The dimensions of the riser bay may be reduced to 40 m x 34 m, as a more compact layout is being
developed. This will assist with the installation of the module at the construction yard. The final
dimensions are determined by a number of factors but are limited by the design of the Upper Column
Frame (UCF) and hull. The Riser Bay is supported on a UCF which rests on the four columns of the
hull and has a knee brace at each leg.
The risers are spaced at 7 m in the E/W direction and 6 m in the N/S in the compact layout, which
allows a central truss to run along the length the module, providing the support.
The 16” flexible jumpers connect the riser to the inlet manifolds that run along each side of the riser
bay. These allow the displacement of the riser and isolation valves relative to the platform deck and the
fixed manifolds. Each riser is supported by six hydraulic cylinders that are then supported by stools
located on the main deck. This Top Tensioned Riser system (TTR) allows the platform to move around
the rigid risers. The jumpers have a minimum bend radius of 3.81 m (Wellstream flexible based upon a
quasi-static application 1.25 x Styrene-Butadiene Rubber (SBR)), and allow for a vertical displacement of
approximately 1.31 m up and 1.087 m down from the null position. The 16” flexible jumpers are
installed in a “U” shape and tie-in to inlet manifolds on each side of the bay.
Jumper replacement is not expected during the life of the platform, but sufficient space has been
allowed to assist in their removal and hatches will be retained in the top deck to allow jumper
replacement. The platform crane and local rigging will be required to install the jumpers in the first
instance, and change them out if required.
There will be two inlet sub-manifolds installed on each side of the riser bay as each riser is to be routed
to two main manifolds. These manifolds allow different pressure regimes to operate at the same time.
The two A sub-manifolds connect and are routed to one inlet separator, and the two B sub-manifolds
are routed to the second separator.

There are two isolation valves on the riser, an isolation valve at the topsides tie-in and a further valve at
each of the manifold connections. This allows double valve isolation for each jumper should it require
replacing, and allows the platform to remain producing should any jumper or riser require isolation.
• The tensioner ring is to be accessible in all weather conditions except the 10,000 year storm case. As a
result, the elevation of the tensioner cassette is relatively high and requires a substantial support
structure to accommodate the loads imposed upon it. Installation heights (riser flooded) and nominal
positions have been checked and the maximum displacements modelled to ensure the lower of two
valve access platforms, connected to the riser, will not clash with the tensioner cassette during extreme
movement. (This arrangement includes a 0.61 m installation tolerance for the risers.) Access will be
required to this platform, which may be in the form of ladders that will protrude passed the cassette
support frame. Permanent ladders will provide access to the top of the fixed cassette, and between the
two access platforms, but personnel would need to step from the static ladder on the stool to the
“moving” valve access platform. This would need to be reviewed in FEED as there are Safety issues
with transferring between moving equipment items. Access ladders have been included within the
PDMS model to indicate the potential layout.
As the platform moves under extreme weather conditions, the rigid risers will move relative to the
platform deck. The risers will rotate approximately 6° from vertical (from the centralising cassette) when
viewed from the deck of the TLP and the layouts have been reviewed to ensure there are no clashes due
to this movement. Lateral displacements at the jumper connection have been confirmed as +/-1.03 m in
the North/South direction, and +/-0.82 m in the East/West direction.
• The SSIVs on the subsea template beneath the TLP are located at the skid edge, and sufficient space is
available within the Riser Bay to install skid beams and winches to allow removal of the valves and
actuators from the topsides.
4.2.4. Power Module (58 x 18.5 x 12)
• A number of the transformers associated with the power cable are located in this module, as are
electrical LERs and transformers, not essential to LQ operation.
• The North platform crane is supported from this module and additional laydown area has been
allocated on the top deck. The lower deck includes deck extensions for Remote Operated Vehicle
(ROV) containers and control equipment that may be used during installation of the risers.
• One of the two firepumps at the NW column is also located on a deck extension. The caisson will be
supported from the extension platform. The module support arrangement has a sliding support at this
location, and so module displacements must be identified to ensure the firewater caisson is not
subjected to excessive lateral loads at the column guides.
• The diesel treatment and storage system is located on the lower level, with the storage tanks located
within the lower deck.
• A hose loading station is located on the lower deck level.
• The flare metering and oxygen analyser packages are located on the top deck to the East end the
module, local to the flare tower.
• The NE corner will be fixed.
4.2.5. Utilities South Module (58 x 18.5 x 12)
• This module contains the escape tunnel that connects the Gas Compression module to the Utilities
module and the Temporary Refuge. A QRA has shown that the escape tunnel and two lifeboats are not
required, but the final decision on which system should be employed has not been made and so the
layout carries both options. Access to the escape tunnel can be made from each of the three modules it
runs through, and will be installed with full lighting, HV&AC and public announcement (PA) systems.

• The South platform crane is supported from this module and additional laydown area has been allocated
on the top deck. A paint store is located to the West side of the top deck. The lower deck includes deck
extensions for ROV containers and control equipment that may be used during installation of the risers.
• One of the two firepumps at the SW column is also located on a deck extension. The caisson will be
supported from the extension platform. The module support arrangement has a fixed support at this
location and so lateral displacements between the hull and the topsides module is not a concern.
• However, the supports at corners of this module and the Gas Compression are sliding and as there will
be process cooling and firewater lines crossing between them, there is the potential for expansion loops
in this area.
• The non-hazardous drains sump and pumps are located in this module, within the lower deck structure.
As mentioned above, the bottom of steel for all the lower deck must be the same elevation and no
equipment is to protrude beyond this level. As such, the type of pumps and sump arrangement will need
to be reviewed in FEED to ensure this solution is acceptable.
• Potable water storage tanks and pumps are located within the lower deck structure. The
electro-chlorination package is situated near to the potable water tanks.
• The nitrogen generation package, air compressors and receivers, and air driers are all located on the
lower level of this module.
• A hose loading station is located on the lower deck.
4.2.6. Nyhamna modifications
• Additional electrical equipment is required at Nyhamna, and following a review of the site drawings an
area to the North of the plant has been identified as a possible location for this equipment. The area was
used for the pipeline construction and testing, and is adjacent to the existing pipelines. The electrical
cable could be run alongside these pipelines as the route has already been surveyed.
Access to the new equipment would be via the existing roads, and equipment could be brought to site
by either road or boat, and offloaded on the construction jetty. Figure 4-4, Figure 4-5, Figure 4-6 and
Figure 4-7 below show the location of the new equipment.
Figure 4-4 Area L56 North

Figure 4-5 Electrical General Layout
Figure 4-6 Electrical Plot Plan


4.2.7. Grating/plated areas

The Gas Compression Module would be plated to provide protection from a riser jet fire. The Utilities section
would be enclosed (not shown) to provide weather protection and a convenient working environment. Decks
would be plated in the Utility area.
The Power Module would be open deck on the lower level outside of LERs and plated on the top deck to
allow the area to be utilised for laydown. A similar philosophy would be used for the Utilities South module.
The Riser Bay lower deck would be open grating, as would be the top deck to allow gas dispersal. However, a
dropped object study is to be undertaken to determine if the top deck should be plated. All escape and
material handling routes will be plated.
4.3. GT drive option

There are three modules that are affected by the use of local power – Utilities, Power Module and Gas
Compression. Refer to Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9 below for layouts indicating the major equipment changes.
Figure 4-8 Local Power Generation

Figure 4-9 Power from Shore

4.3.1. Utilities Module
• The platform extension supporting the power cable and umbilical is no longer required, although an
alternative location for the umbilical must be confirmed during FEED. One option under consideration
is to install the umbilical in a j-tube down the NW column.
• The transformers for the power cable and the VSDs for the electric motors of the gas compressors are
removed.
4.3.2. Power Module
• Turbines are now included on the West end of the Power Module. These two generators will provide all
the platform power, and are single fuel (gas) only.
• A fuel gas skid is also required to ensure the gas is supplied at sufficient pressure to both the power
generation and the GT drives for the compressors. This is located to the East end of the Power Module,
within the hazardous area adjacent to the Gas Compression module.
4.3.3. Gas Compression Module
The electric motors driving the gas compressors are removed and GT drives are used in their place. The intake
for the drives are located to the East and ensure clean air is taken from the side of the platform. The exhaust
from the drives is routed vertically away from the compressors. The access platform around the top of the
drives will also support the two coolers.

5. Mechanical - Static Engineering

This section of the report discusses the various items of Mech-Static equipment required for the Ormen Lange
Floating Compression Platform. The findings are based on data / information contained within the various
technical information notes issued by Process, the preliminary equipment lists for the 60 million Sm3m3/d
reference case for both GT Drive and Power from Shore options together with information received from
Vendors.
It is not intended to reiterate the process duties associated with the equipment which is covered within Process
Section 2 and in the equipment lists along with their dimensions and estimated weights.
For equipment not listed within this section no process data or sizing criteria was provided and the
dimensions, weights, duties, etc. have been carried over from the original Aker Kvaerner equipment list.
5.1. Inlet separators (V-2001A/B) and compressor suction scrubbers (V-2701/V2801)

The design pressure of the inlet separators and compressor suction scrubbers is 144 bar(g) at a design
temperature of -46/+80°C for the separators and -46/+120°C for the scrubbers. Both vessels are vertically
orientated.
5.1.2. Materials
The vessels will be manufactured from a base carbon steel material plus 5 mm of alloy cladding or weld
overlay. The two base materials investigated were a carbon steel ASTM A516 Gr.70 and a high strength
quenched and tempered (QT) steel, ASTM A533 Class 2 which is equivalent to EN10028-6 P500QL2. For the
high strength quenched and tempered steel, the supplier’s recommended forging material for the nozzles is
ASTM A508 Gr.4N which has a higher Ni content to meet the low temperature range requirements.
Preliminary wall thicknesses were calculated for each material option based on the above and the vessel
weights for each option were estimated. A summary of the values are tabulated below.
Table 5-1 Inlet Separator and First Stage Suction Scrubber - Summary Details and Weights
Inlet Separators Compressor Suction Scrubbers
Carbon Steel QT Steel Carbon Steel QT Steel
Internal Diameter (mm) 3,400 3,400 3,200 3,200
T/T Length (mm) 9,000 9,000 5,300 5,300
ASTM Material Grade A516 Gr. 70 A533 Cl.2 A516 Gr. 70 A533 Cl.2
Design Stress (N/mm2) 170 252 155 252
Wall Thickness (mm) (1) 155 105 170 105
Dry Weight (tonne) 187 136 137 90
Op Weight (tonne) 236 185 158 112
Test Weight (tonne) 270 222 182 138
Note 1: Wall Thickness includes a 5% allowance for re-inforcement around nozzles and 5 mm allowance
for the alloy cladding.

5.1.3. Discussion
The calculated wall thicknesses for the original design conditions were approaching the limit of what can be
manufactured and several specialist vessel fabricators and a material supplier were approached to determine
whether fabricating the vessels was feasible.
The main area of concern was the ability of the fabricators to guarantee the toughness properties of the plate
and forging material at the minimum design temperature. The forging material outlined above has a high
Nickel content and is not suitable for sour service due to the NACE limitation on Nickel.
Although the vessel thicknesses have reduced with the lower design pressure, there are several areas that
require resolution during FEED to ensure that no major issues arise during the Execute phase. These include
Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) effects on material strength and cladding; stainless steel cladding
specification and method (explosive bonding, weld overlay, weld technique etc); manufacture of heads (one
piece, crown and petal, avoidance of intersecting nozzle welds on heads);
The design conditions need to be confirmed to allow the vessel thicknesses and material selection to be
finalised. The current material selection is at the upper limit of thickness for high strength quenched and
tempered material. A small increase in the design pressure and/or vessel diameter may require a change to
carbon manganese steel which would result in a significant increase in the wall thickness and weight for the
vessels. The minimum design temperature has a significant influence on the permissible material thickness as
achieving the required impact properties in thicker sections of plate is more difficult.
The following table details the fabricators who have been approached together with their responses.
Table 5-2 Inlet Separator and First Stage Suction Scrubber - Vessel Fabricators’ Responses
Vessel Fabricator Response
The enquiries were based Dimensions ID = 3.2 m, T/T=10 m,
on the earlier vessels design
criteria Design Pressure = 200 bar(g), Temperature = -46/+100°C
Material: ASTM A533 Gr.2 or equivalent with clad/overlay.
Estimated wall thickness = 140 mm (based on allow. stress 252 N/mm2)
ATB Riva Calzoni ATB had initial concerns regarding the minimum design temperature and
Location: Italy plate thickness, but did seek advice from their plate supplier (Industeel).
Contact: Salvatore ATB has since provided a budget quotation for supplying all four vessels
Poddighe fabricated in high strength QT steel. The proposed shell thickness is
Tel: +39 030 2581236 120 mm(1) based on a design stress of 263.8 N/mm2.
E-Mail: salvatore.poddighe An e-mail was issued to ATB on 16/04/09 with several queries relating to
@atbrivacalzoni.com design temperature, proposed plate supplier, PWHT, cladding technique, etc.
Response outstanding.
Belleli Declined to offer a budget quotation. Equipment deemed too small for
Location: Italy them.
GE Oil and Gas Declined to offer a budget quotation. This type of fabrication process is not
Location: Italy included within their product range, which is mainly focused on heavy wall
reactors manufactured by forged rings.
Hans Leffer Hans Leffer claim to be very experienced in manufacturing high strength
Location: Germany QT steel vessels, but recommend limiting the maximum material thickness
Contact: Peter Nicklaus to 100 mm. They have proposed a design stress of 247 N/mm2.
Tel: +49 6897 793302 It is worth noting that Leffer has previously supplied vessels at 121 mm Wall

Vessel Fabricator Response

E-Mail: info@leffer.de Thickness (WT) and -55°C, but this was using a previous edition of PD5500.
Leffer has been unwilling to provide a detailed explanation as to why the
wall thickness should be limited to 100 mm.
Leffer has provided a budget quotation for supplying all four vessels
fabricated in carbon steel. The proposed shell thickness is 188 mm(1) based
on a design stress of 170 N/mm2. The shell will be manufactured from
forgings due to the forming ratio for plates, although they have refused to
provide specific reasoning.
MAN DWE MAN DWE declared a late interest in assisting the Ormen Lange Floating
Location: Germany Compression Platform study. This will be taken up during the FEED phase.
Contact: Bernhard Buchner
Tel: +49 991 381111
E-Mail: Bernhard.Buchner
@man.eu
Mangiarotti Mangiarotti had initial concerns regarding the minimum design temperature
Location: Italy and plate thickness. However, they have liaised closely with their plate
Contact: Massimo Polo suppliers (Industeel and Voest Alpine) in an effort to minimise the risks.
Tel: +39 0432 918825 Industeel has confirmed that suitable plate can be supplied in both high
E-Mail: polo.Massimo strength QT steel (up to 140 mm WT) and carbon steel (up to 215 mm WT).
PWHT, Carbon Equivalent (Ceq) and Charpy V-Notch (CVN) limits have
@mangiarotti.it
been specified and agreed between Mangiarotti and Industeel.
Mangiarotti also confirmed that suitable forgings can be supplied.
Mangiarotti has provided a budget quotation for supplying all four vessels
fabricated in high strength QT steel. The proposed shell thickness is
120 mm(1), while the vessel heads are 60 mm thick hemispherical items. A
design stress of 259 N/mm2 has been used. Mangiarotti also confirmed that
the vessels could be manufactured using carbon steel.
Note: Mangiarotti do not recommend using elliptical heads at these
thicknesses and diameters. They state that hemispherical heads are more
cost-effective due to higher fabrication efficiencies.
Note 1: The budget enquiries submitted by the fabricators were based on all four vessels having an
internal diameter of 3,200 mm. However, the ID of the two inlet separators has increased to
3,400 mm and the design pressure for all vessels reduced to 144 bar(g). Fabricators were not
asked to refresh their budget quotes.
Table 5-3 Inlet Separator and First Stage Suction Scrubber - Plate Supplier Responses
Plate Supplier Response
Industeel Industeel has confirmed that both steel grades can be supplied as follows:
Location: France
Contact: ASTM A516 Gr.70 Carbon steel delivered quenched and tempered;
Cedric Chauvy Maximum thickness = 215 mm
Tel: +33 477 832560 Ceq = 0.45%;
E-Mail:

Plate Supplier Response

cedric.chauvy PWHT = 610°C +/-10°C for 8 hours
@arcelormittal.com CVN = 40J/28J @ -46°C
ASTM A533 Gr.C Class 2 High strength quenched and tempered steel:
Maximum thickness = 140 mm
PWHT = max 600°C for 9 hours
CVN = 40J/28J @ -46°C
5.1.4. Conclusion
The inlet separators and compressor suction scrubbers can be manufactured from carbon steel (ASTM A516
Gr.70) or high strength quenched and tempered steel (A533 Class 2).
Based on discussions with the material suppliers and vessel fabricators, the following selection criteria was
identified in the Technical Information Note (TIN) and adopted earlier in the project for the vessel material:
a. High strength quenched and tempered (QT) steel where the calculated wall thickness is less than or equal
to 100 mm.
b. Carbon steel (up to a maximum thickness of 215 mm) where the calculated wall thickness for high
strength QT steel exceeds 100 mm.
However the criteria is based on the feedback of one fabricator which has not been substantiated and the plate
supplier and other fabricators have guaranteed the material properties up to a thickness of 140 mm limit.
Vendor feedback suggests that the cost differential between the two material options is small which leaves
weight as the deciding factor. The vessel wall thicknesses are at the current material selection criteria limit but
it’s recommended that the inlet separators and suction scrubbers are manufactured from High strength
Quenched and Tempered steel to minimise the vessels’ weight.
The following equipment weights have been used within the master equipment list:
Table 5-4 Inlet Separator and First Stage Suction Scrubber - Equipment List Weights
Inlet Separators Compressor Suction
Scrubbers
Dry Weight (tonne) 139 93
Op Weight (tonne) 188 115
During FEED, the material selection for the vessels and associated metallurgical issues need to be fully
resolved to guarantee the plate and forging material and mechanical properties and identify acceptable vendors
for plate supply and vessel fabrication.
5.2. Gas compressor aftercoolers (E-2701/E-2702 and E-2801/E-2802)

As already discussed within Section 2.6 of this report, the recommended cooling system for the floating
compression platform is direct seawater cooling, which limits the exchanger selection to either a printed circuit
heat exchanger (PCHE) or shell and tube heat exchanger.
Both options have been considered, however Shell Global Solutions advised that PCHEs should only be
specified in direct seawater service at facilities with a proven track record of reliable operation regarding
strainers and biocide dosing and where maintenance can simply be duplicated and supported. As Shell have no
experience of PCHEs operating in direct seawater service and therefore no proven track record of reliable

operation, shell and tube heat exchangers have been selected for these coolers. A secondary consideration was
that if problems were experienced with operation of the compact PCHEs, installing replacement shell and tube
exchangers would be cost prohibitive, if not impossible due to the lack of available space.
The shell and tube exchanger proposed by Hans Leffer is a fixed tube sheet design which offers the most
economic solution with numerous exchangers of this type operating satisfactorily in the North Sea. However,
to maintain the option to change exchanger type in the future, a withdrawal volume has been included in the
PDMS model at present. The exchanger type needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the seawater treatment
facilities and filtration before the final selection is made.
The design pressure and temperature of the gas compressor aftercoolers are:
Table 5-5 Gas Compressor Aftercooler - Design Conditions

Tubeside Shellside
First Stage Cooler (E-2701/E-2801) 149 bar(g) @ -46/+180oC 19.5 bar(g) @-46/+80oC
Second Stage Cooler (E-2702/E-2802) 240 bar(g) @ -46/+180oC 19.5 bar(g) @ -46/+80oC
5.2.2. Materials
Titanium has been selected for all seawater wetted parts (shell, tubes and tubesheet(s)). Carbon steel is suitable
for the channel end(s).
Only one budget quotation was received for the gas compressor aftercoolers. This was submitted by Hans
Leffer who proposed a BEM fixed tube exchanger (details shown below).
Figure 5-1 Gas Compressor Aftercooler - Preliminary Dimensions

Table 5-6 Gas Compressor Aftercooler - Summary Details and Weights

Gas Compressor Aftercooler
(per exchanger)
Duty (MW) 37
Length (mm) 10,700
Width (mm) ~1,500
Height (mm) 2,200
Bundle Withdrawal (mm) N/A (Ref comment above)
Dry Weight (tonne) 41.5
Op Weight (tonne) ~45.7
5.3. HP flare knock out drum (V-4301)

For the purpose of obtaining budgetary information the HP flare gas knock out drum design pressure and
temperature was assumed as 10 bar(g) @ -101/+180oC.
The vessel shall be horizontal with the following dimensions and corresponding weights:
Table 5-7 HP Flare KO Drum - Summary Details and Weights
HP Flare Knock Out Drum, V-4301
Dimensions (mm) Weights (tonne)

Tan/Tan 13,750 Dry ~82.0
I.D. 5,500 Operating ~82.5
The HP flare knock out drum shall be fabricated from 316L stainless steel. Preliminary calculations show a
vessel wall thickness of approximately 30 mm.
5.4. Fuel gas system

The fuel gas package is required to treat 20 million scf/d of gas. It is recommended that the fuel gas
conditioning train is supplied fully spared i.e. 2 x 100% trains each containing fuel gas heater, pressure let
down valve, scrubber and super-heater. This will be reviewed during FEED when the availability of the
individual equipment items is assessed in detail.
The dimensions and weights of each skid (train) are as follows:
Table 5-8 Fuel Gas Package - Summary Details and Weights
Fuel Gas System Package, A-4501
Dimensions (mm) Weights (tonne) Power (kW)

Length 10,000 Dry 25.0 ~800
Width 4,000 Operating 25.5
Height 4,500
In addition, four off thyristor control panels are required for controlling the heaters / super-heaters. No
dimensions or weights have been received for these items. They will be located remote from the skid within a
local equipment room.

5.5. Seawater filters (S-5001 and S-5002)

The platform will be provided with two separate seawater systems; one for hazardous users and one for non-
hazardous users. Each system shall be provided with a dedicated 25% Cr Super Duplex seawater filter
complete with a backwashing facility.
The dimensions, weights and power requirements of each filter are as follows:
Table 5-9 Seawater Filters - Summary Details and Weights
Seawater Filter, S-5001 (Hazardous)

I.D. 1,000 Dry 1.4 0.37
Tan/Tan 3,500 Operating 4.4
Seawater Filter, S-5002 (Non-Hazardous)

I.D. 700 Dry 0.4 0.37
5.6. Fresh water maker skid (A-5301)

There are several available options for producing the 24 m3/day of fresh water required on-board the Ormen
Lange Floating Compression Platform.
The equipment list details the vapour vacuum compression (VVC) method proposed within the Aker
Kvaerner study and is based on information supplied by Alfa Laval.
Another option is to utilise reverse osmosis membrane technology, which is becoming significantly less
maintenance intensive.
The following table provides a brief comparison between the two options:
Note this is based on a 50 m3/day requirement.
Table 5-10 Fresh Water Maker Package - Summary Details and Weights
Alfa Laval Vapour Vacuum Compression (VVC)

Length 3,000 Dry 8.0 75
Height 3,000
Reverse Osmosis

Length ~4,500 Dry ~4.75 <50
Width ~2,000 Operating ~8.00
Height ~2,500

5.7. Diesel treatment

Diesel treatment comprises of a raw diesel inlet strainer and a diesel coalescer skid (comprising two off
coalescer pre-filters and two off diesel coalescers).
The dimensions and weights of the equipment are as follows:
Table 5-11 Diesel Treatment Equipment - Summary Details and Weights
Raw Diesel Inlet Strainer, S-6201

Diameter 400 Dry 0.05
Height 1,000 Operating 0.12
Diesel Coalescer Skid, A-6201

Length 2,500 Dry 2.5
Height 3,100
5.8. Compressed air system

The compressed air system shall comprise three off air compressors, one off wet air receiver, two off air drier
packages and one off air receiver.
In accordance with DEP 31.37.00.11-Gen (Ref: 6) the air compressors shall be oil free machines. Air-cooled
units have been selected.
Each air drier package shall be supplied with two drying towers (one operating and one in
regeneration/standby mode).
The dimensions, weights and power requirements of the equipment are as follows:

Table 5-12 Air Compression Equipment - Summary Details and Weights
Air Compressors, K-6301A/B/C
Dimensions per Weights per machine Power per

machine (mm) (tonne) machine
(kW)
Length 5,100 Dry 5.4 220
Height 2,100
Wet Air Receiver, V-6302

I.D. 1,300 Dry 5.0
Air Drier Packages, D-6301 A/B
Dimensions per package (mm) Weights per package (tonne)

Height 2,400
Dry Air Receiver, V-6301

I.D. 2,600 Dry 12.0
5.9. Nitrogen gas generation

The nitrogen gas generation package is required to supply 350 Sm3/h of 97% pure nitrogen. Package
dimensions, weights and power requirements are as follows:
Table 5-13 Nitrogen Generation Package - Summary Details and Weights
Nitrogen Gas Generation Package, A6401

Length 5,000 Dry 4.0 15
Height 2,500
5.10. Jet fuel system

The jet fuel system shall comprise one off jet fuel supply package and one off jet fuel dispensing package. Only
a high level assessment of this equipment has been carried out.

Dimensions and weights of the fuel gas dispending package have been taken from the equivalent package
located on Shearwater, which can supply up to 13.7 m3 of aviation fuel per hour.
The Shearwater platform is located 200 km East of Aberdeen, while the Ormen Lange field is located 130 km
West of Kristiansund. The jet fuel supply package located on Shearwater can accommodate four off tote tanks
each containing 2.7 m3 of aviation fuel. The Ormen Lange package has been down-sized to accommodate
three off tote tanks, which takes account of the shorter distance.
The dimensions, weights and power requirements of the packages are as follows:
Table 5-14 Jet Fuel System - Summary Details and Weights
Jet Fuel Supply Package, A-6101
Dimensions Weights (tonne) Power (kW)

(mm)
Length 8,600 Dry 5.3 <10
Height 2,300
Jet Fuel Dispensing Package, A-6102

Height 1,500
5.11. Power from onshore

Supplying electrical power from onshore will negate the requirement for offshore power generation. As such,
the fuel gas conditioning skids detailed within Section 5.4 will no longer be required. The requirement for all
other Mech-Static items of equipment will be unaffected, although there may be a change in the process duty.

6. Topsides Structure
6.1. Structural arrangement
The earlier conceptual study work recommended that an integrated deck was the preferred option for the TLP
floating compression solution. Further to this, it was suggested that consideration should be given to an
alternative modular deck arrangement as used on Shell’s recent Gulf of Mexico (GOM) TLPs such as Mars B.
Further structural work was thus undertaken to assist in identifying the technical implications of such an
arrangement on the Ormen Lange platform concept.
Based on the existing dimensions for the proposed TLP hull, an alternative arrangement of five modules that
could be supported by the hull was developed to allow the layout engineers to develop a suitable equipment
layout. This arrangement utilises a central module to support the risers, manifolds and installation rig while
four perimeter modules support the process and utilities equipment, and the living quarters.
The potential switch from an integrated to a modular deck requires that an upper column frame (UCF) be
incorporated into the hull to carry the squeezing/prying forces between the column tops. This frame includes
four vertical diagonal braces down to the TLP legs to carry the weight of the central module and riser tension
forces.
There are various advantages and disadvantages to the modular option relative to the integrated deck, both
technical and commercial, but only the technical matters are discussed in this section.
Advantages:
• The squeeze/pry forces from the hull are carried by the UCF. This potentially reduces the structural
weight of the deck modules and allows the design to be performed independently.
• The use of the UCF provides strength and support to the columns during the temporary and transport
conditions prior to deck installation reducing the need for temporary strengthening.
• Reduced ballasting capability since float-over installation avoided.
Disadvantages:
• The separate modules are more reliant on their individual support points leading to a less robust design
in the event of loss of local hull strength due to a jet fire.
• Heavy lift crane vessel required for module installation.
The relative merits of the two options were discussed in more detail in the key decision document
(SPh3-Fl-04-08 (Ref: 54)) that recommended the adoption of a modular deck arrangement.
6.2. Weight comparisons

In order to allow a realistic cost comparison between the integrated and modular deck options, weight
estimates of the total topsides payload for both arrangements were made. These estimates were made
assuming the same equipment for both arrangements using the equipment list for the offshore power (Gas
Turbine) option.
From the itemised weights in the equipment list, an estimate of the total equipment weight was made using
bulk factor norms from historical North Sea projects. The overall dimensions and volumes for the deck were
obtained from the hull design and equipment layout arrangements.
The structural weights for the two deck configurations were then estimated using an algorithm developed by
Shell in Houston based on the weights of previous TLPs in the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this
comparison the weight of the UCF was included in the structural weight of the deck for the modular deck
concept. This information was all collated and along with the riser tension forces was put together to produce
estimates of the total deck payload for the two options. The payload estimates used in the KDL that selected
the modular deck arrangement are listed below.

Figure 6-1 Weight Estimates from Equip List 09b TLP Onshore Power: TLP Modular Algorithm
Algo and TLP Integrated Algo
It was concluded that weight in itself was not a considerable driver in selecting between the two deck
concepts.
6.3. Not-to-exceed payload and vertical centre of gravity (CoG)

Section 6.2 discussed how weight and payload estimates were prepared to assist in the selection of the
integrated or modular deck concept. For the modular concept, these estimates have been developed further to
set not-to-exceed (NTE) values for the topsides weight and payload as input to the hull design. The horizontal
and vertical location of the CoG has also been estimated as these are also critical to the hydrodynamic
performance of the hull. The estimates discussed relate only to the modular concept after the recommendation
to adopt this as the preferred solution.
The key difference between payload and weight is that the payload includes the live loads acting on the deck,
primarily from the risers and umbilicals. The topsides operating weight estimate includes an allowance for
loads on the crane laydown areas as well as the equipment contents.
As part of refining the weight estimates the weights for the primary structural steel have been based on
structural analyses (see Section 6.4) of the main modules.
The Not-to-exceed (NTE) payload for the modular deck was set in KDL SPh3-Fl-04-01 (Ref: 29) at
31,000 tonnes. Limits on the movement of the centre of gravity have been defined relative to its location when
the NTE was first set. The ongoing monitoring of the weight/payload and the CoG will be conducted against
these figures as these are the basis used for the hull design.
The latest weight and payload estimates are discussed in more detail in the weight report
(37-1Y-NS-S15-00011 (Ref: 95)) with only a summary discussion presented here. Separate estimates have been
prepared for both the “Power from Shore” and “Local GT Power” options. These estimates are based on the
latest revision (07) of the equipment lists. The weight report tracks the weight/payload with reference to the

NTE and the CoG limits previously defined. The trends of the estimated payloads are included in the
following figures.
Figure 6-2 Payload Estimate Trend - Local Power Figure 6-3 Power from Shore
Currently the Local GT power payload estimate is 30,980 tonnes and the Power from Shore option estimate is
30,881 tonnes, compared to the NTE of 31,000 tonnes. The location of the CoG is also within the current
limits as indicated in the figures below, although for the Power from Shore option it is approaching its
Western limit.
Figure 6-4 Horizontal Movement of CoG Figure 6-5 Variation in Vertical CoG
6.4. Modular deck structural analyses

It was recognised that one of the large uncertainties in the weight estimate was for the structural weight of the
modular concept, particularly as this accounts for approximately half the total deck weight. Structural analyses
of the main modules were thus performed to develop a structural arrangement particular to Ormen Lange and
allow a more reliable estimate of the primary structural steel weight. The analysis work is described in some
detail in the analysis report (37-1Y-NS-S15-00026 (Ref: 96)) with only the main highlights described here.
Four of the five main modules have been analysed. The North and South modules are very similar in both
arrangement and loading so only the heavier of the two was analysed at this stage. To allow for the preliminary
and generalised nature of the loading applied to the modules they were generally designed for a target
utilisation of 0.8 rather than 1.0.
In addition to the dead loads applied to represent the total weight of the modules an allowance of several
hundred tonnes of live load was applied to each module. Environmental forces due to the 100 year wind and
lateral accelerations of 0.22 g were also applied.

No analysis or design for the separate LQ module or for the flare tower has yet been performed.
6.5. Living quarters module

6.5.1. Manning level
At the commencement of this phase the required manning level for the platform had not yet been determined.
For the purpose of design development, the operational manning was based on a range between 50 to
60 persons. However, during the initial commissioning phase the requirement is projected to be a much higher
manning level - in the range of 125 to 150 persons. To accommodate the substantial reduction in manning
levels on completion of commissioning a number of alternative development options were considered.
A) To build a Permanent Living Quarters PLQ for 50/60 with a separate temporary facility for an extra
75/100 Accessory Living Quarters (ALQ).
B) To build a PLQ for 50/60 but to incorporate enlarged common facilities with the additional extension
consisting primarily of cabins (Temporary Living Quarters (TLQs)).
C) To build a PLQ for 125/150 that would eventually be partially mothballed to accommodate 50/60 or as
many as in practice were required.
The following summary outlines some of the implications of developing the LQ according to these three
options.
6.5.2. Alternative development options
Option A (a small PLQ with a separate temporary ALQ).
This approach would require considerable duplication of common facilities (e.g. the requirement for two
galleys), thereby introducing practical operational difficulties. The temporary facility (ALQ) would require to
be installed onshore during platform construction, but when no longer required would require to be either:
i) dismantled offshore, incurring high levels of offshore man hours during which time it cannot provide
any accommodation, or
ii) removed by single lift, incurring the high cost and risks of a Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV) operation. In
addition, the provision of a separate ALQ would result in an increase in the deck area required to
accommodate both the PLQ and the ALQ.
Common facilities such as lifeboats would still be required for the maximum complement. Their removal after
commissioning would be unlikely. It is also projected that the total duration for which the purpose-built ALQ
would be required on hire would offer little or no saving when compared to the capital cost of a single
integrated PLQ.
Option B (enlarged common facilities with the additional extension consisting primarily of cabins).
This option offers little advantage over option A as the cost of the enlarged public spaces still requires to be
incurred. The period of time that the cabins would be required, and the extent of customisation required,
would result in no significant saving in expenditure. The overall weight at loadout would be slightly lower than
option A, but still higher than option C. This option would however generate some weight saving once the
cabins are removed. In view of the restricted deck space, providing a location for temporary cabin modules
(TLQ) remains a problem.
Option C, installing a single LQ incorporating all the required facilities for 125/150 persons is considered to
be the most cost effective way of providing the required accommodation. It will also be the lowest total weight
at the time of loadout and would occupy the smallest overall footprint at the time of delivery. It has the
advantage that it is capable of accommodating extra personnel as and when required, and that the reduction in
manpower can be more progressive than either options A or B. It is proposed that the cabins in this option
would be a mix of one and two person rooms and, as the platform moves into operational mode, the
permanent staff would benefit from cabins converting to single person occupancy. The layout would require
to be developed in a way that would allow some corridors to be mothballed when not in use or allow surplus
cabins to be modified to alternative uses after the commissioning period is over.

The proposal as developed is based on option C. This allows all the common facilities to be incorporated in
the LQ building with no temporary duplication of plant or equipment, and requires the lowest initial footprint.
In practice it is envisaged that a compromise between B and C may prove to be the optimum solution.
6.5.3. LQ floor area
The total area required to accommodate the envisaged initial manning (for option C) is projected to be
approximately 4,000 m2, equating to just over 30 m2 per person. At this stage the Norsok CDS 101 table
entitled “Living Quarters Programme” has not been presented. The input data remains too fluid and requires
more clarity on manning levels and for the option development strategy to be agreed. The LQ weight estimate
is directly driven by the required floor area and volume. It is included within the overall weight estimate of the
platform.
6.5.4. LQ location
The overall location and external configuration of the LQ on the platform is already substantially determined
by high level requirements including crane and laydown locations, wind direction, helideck operational
requirements, optimum lifeboat locations, need for personnel protection, production risks, and blast
considerations. The LQ has not been designed to be located within the deck structure due to the shortage of
space within the utility module area.
6.5.5. LQ layout configuration
The current internal configuration provides justification of the required footprint, the required overall floor
area size and the overall weight estimate of the LQ. The layout demonstrates the relationship of the required
facilities and its external interfaces to facilities outside of the LQ module boundary; interfaces for personnel,
goods and services. These are, typically, the personnel entrances, the helideck, lifeboat locations, laydown
locations, crane access, stairtowers, and the location of services interfaces with the rest of the platform. The
layouts seek to present a viable configuration in the relationship of the LQ to the rest of the platform.
Within the boundary of the LQ itself, the location of the various facilities will be substantially dictated by the
external interfaces but with the option C layout there remains the flexibility to configure the functions to
different locations within that boundary. For the stated manning levels, the required size of the facilities will
not change much from the proposed areas allowing the optimum internal operational relationships to be
reconfigured or developed further in subsequent stages of the design.
Facilities provided outwith the LQ
For the purposes of clarity the following personnel areas are located outwith the LQ:
• Control Room: This is located directly below (along with some associated office space) and
accessible by the main stair and from the stair NE (dirty) stair.
• Escape Tunnel: In addition to the usual access routes to the LQ there is an escape tunnel, enclosed
within the deck, leading directly to the LQ NE Stair.
• Plant Room: The HV&AC air supply could come from an integrated common plant room with
the topsides HV&AC supply, with waste extract only located at the LQ.
Blast Wall
Although the Riser Bay will be enveloped on two faces with blast walls, the LQ itself will also have its own
defined level of blast resistance. The protection will extend upwards from the Control Room within the Utility
Deck below the LQ and across the exposed faces of the LQ above the weather deck level providing additional
blast protection to the TR.

Cabins
To keep the overall size and weight of the LQ down and to minimise the need when demanning for
mothballing some areas and for brownfield scope, one strategy is to incorporate a large number of two person
cabins that can, after commissioning, be used as one man cabins for the longer term.
Medical suite
The medical facilities are currently shown on Level 3. There are alternative views on the preferred operational
location but the facility can readily be located in Level 1 resulting in other facilities (such as recreation) moving
to an upper level. The allocated floor area remains largely the same irrespective of location.
6.5.6. Drawings
The following drawings have been prepared to illustrate the concept layout.

6.6. Areas to be addressed (in FEED)

Currently the riser bay module has been sized (40 m x 45 m) to accommodate two rows of six risers on a
7 m x 7 m spacing and a minimum bend radius of the jumper hoses of 6 m. Layout studies have identified the
possibility of reducing the bend radius to 3.8 m, relocating manifolds, and changing the spacing between risers
to a 7 m x 6 m layout, reducing the module to 34 m by 40 m. There is also the possibility of reducing the
number of risers to 10, further reducing the module size. These possibilities need to be confirmed during
FEED so that the riser bay module can be re-designed to the smaller size and reduce the weight. One impact
of the reduced module length will be the need to re-design the installation rig to sit on shorter skid rails. The
current installation rig was originally developed for the integrated deck that had longer, narrower riser bay
layout.
As part of this phase the hull design is being developed based on the 31,000 tonne NTE. Preliminary results
indicate that the hull dimensions will be changed from those on which the current deck layout and weights
were based. The layout and structural arrangements of the four perimeter module sizes will need to be adjusted
to cater for the new hull sizes.
For the Power from Shore option the plan location of the CoG is close to the acceptable limit for the design
of the hull and ballasting system. Some studies are required to investigate means of moving the CoG closer to
the centreline in the East/West direction for this option.
Further structural work will be required to develop the installation method for lifting the modules into place
on the hull. The riser module is currently too heavy for existing crane barges to lift directly to the final location
in the centre of the hull and a skidding arrangement will be required.
Although the perimeter modules are mounted on sliding bearings that limit the transfer of hull forces into the
module structures there will still be lateral dynamic forces at the supports due to motions induced by the
hydrodynamic forces. This raises the possibility of local fatigue damage at the supports that provide lateral
restraint. The riser bay will also experience cyclic loads from the riser tensions and so the entire lower deck as
well as the supports will be susceptible to fatigue. This has not yet been considered and so a preliminary
fatigue assessment of these areas should be performed to assess what increased strength is required.


7. Control and Automation

7.1. Introduction
This document describes the work carried out for the design to be implemented for the Safety and
Automation System (SAS) for Ormen Lange Floating Compression Project.
The main project areas addressed consisted of:
• The design of process control, emergency and process shutdown and fire and gas detection systems plus
all associated communications, field instrumentation, panels and equipment as required for the offshore
installation.
• Upgrade of the existing SAS at Nyhamna to incorporate changes required to provide onshore remote
control, monitoring and interface requirements associated with the offshore installation.
• Upgrading of the process simulator at Nyhamna to incorporate offshore simulation and interfacing
requirements.
• Integration and interfacing with the existing Asset Management Systems (AMS) at Nyhamna, to provide
maintenance support for onshore as required.
A simplified block diagram (Drawing No 37-1Y-NS-I73-00001 – Figure 7-1) provides simplified details of the
proposed configuration and interfacing of both the existing and proposed principal SAS components.


Brief descriptions of the process overview, telecommunications options, operations and maintenance
philosophies for Ormen Lange Phase 2 Floating Compression are provided within this document and their
impact on the SAS design is identified and these form the context in which this document has been developed.

7.2.1. Control and automation
The follow major design requirements were addressed in order to establish the minimum SAS requirements:
• The provision of system facilities designed to reduce manning and operator intervention to a minimum
during normal operating conditions. As part of this, a high degree of standardisation will be established
and the selection of the SAS supplier shall be in line with this philosophy. The SAS shall be designed as
a field-wide system and shall consist of existing onshore and new offshore nodes networked and time-
synchronised to enable fully transparent integrated operations. The SAS architecture and Information
Technology (IT) security arrangements shall be Data Acquisition and Control Architecture (DACA)
compliant as per DEP 32.01.20.10 (Ref: 7).
• The assurance of high system availability for remote operations by ensuring that the Process Control
System (PCS) shall include robustness by design, “one fail / no stop” philosophy and online condition
monitoring. As a minimum, features shall include continued operation in the case of single point sensor
failures (fail-over to trip sensors or virtual sensors) and the implementation of smart systems
management tools.
• As per the Shell corporate initiative, the use of Fieldbus technology for the PCS is recommended subject
to availability of vendor solutions to reap the benefits. However, the existing facilities do not have this
capability and, as there could be issues with multiple technologies within the same system, this is
addressed later in this document.
• The incorporation of automated sequences to facilitate start-ups and routine mode changes as part of
the standard SAS design. The PCS Human Machine Interface (HMI) design shall be consistent with the
existing HMI at Nyhamna and subject to rigorous Human Factors Engineering (HFE) analysis. The
systems network infrastructure shall incorporate facilities for remote diagnostics and maintenance
support from various parties onshore.
• The Emergency Shut Down (ESD), Process Shut Down (PSD) and Fire and Gas Sytem (FGS)
constitute the offshore SAS and these shall be able to function independently from the onshore SAS.
Screen operated (i.e. “soft”) equivalent of the offshore PSD and ESD pushbuttons shall be installed at
Nyhamna to enable remote activation of these from onshore if required. Survivability of the safety
systems for all considered fire and explosion scenarios shall be considered as a critical part of design.
• Field instrumentation shall be minimum by design but adequate as required to fully meet the
requirements for plant automation and condition based maintenance. Where applicable, Norske Shell’s
existing frame agreements and nominated makes for field instruments and cables shall be used to
provide a high degree of standardisation. The use of smart field devices with embedded diagnostics and
partial stroke testing capabilities shall be implemented to facilitate predictive maintenance.
• Metering shall be provided for flare gas and fuel gas as required for CO2 tax purposes and further details
of this are provided in document number 37-1B-NS-I15-00002 – Ormen Lange Floating Compression
Concept Select Study – C&A Metering Philosophy.
• Additional major factors in determining the SAS design are the requirements for operation of the
floating facilities with minimum manning and alignment with the existing onshore Nyhamna SAS
installation, which shall be extended to provide remote control of both the onshore and offshore
operations. The onshore training simulator shall also be extended to include training for the offshore
operations.

7.3. Telecoms infrastructure

A number of options to provide broadband communications links between the vessel and the control room at
Nyhamna have been studied and these are detailed in 37-1Y-NS-T15-00001 – Ormen Lange Broadband
Telecommunication Concept Study.
All of the considered network options will provide a communications link with a predicted availability
>99.99%, with each option being designed to provide a resilient connection based on a primary
communications link with a backup.
If power is provided from shore, a fibre optic cable embedded in the power cable is the preferred option.
Otherwise, the preferred option is a microwave radio link from the platform to the Norwegian mainland at
Gamlemsveten. In both cases, a satellite backup is possible.
Embedded fibre-optic cables are the most robust method of communication and provide constant interface
with the SAS. Alternatively, if a microwave link is chosen it should be noted that brief interruptions, e.g. due to
freak atmospheric conditions, are not uncommon. If a microwave link with satellite backup is selected, the
following issues need to be addressed.
• It is noted that signals from the well-head are directly linked to the SAS at Nyhamna via existing fibre
optic cable and retransmitted to the platform for monitoring. In the event of a data link failure, the
offshore SAS would be unable to monitor the status of the producing wells.
• A basic design premise is that on loss of network communications under normal operations, production
shall continue, at least for a minimum time, at last good setpoint. To ensure continued production (and
minimise impact on availability), the offshore SAS must be capable of autonomous control based only
on the available signals at that time e.g. inlet and outlet pressures and temperatures, etc.
• Another possible scenario is a fail-over from the primary microwave link to satellite. The SAS vendor’s
remote network design must be suitable for satellite communications which has inherent signal
propagation delays and possible bandwidth restrictions – otherwise, this could result in unacceptable
degradation in system performance (e.g. interactive response time, graphics update time).
7.4. Operational philosophy

A comprehensive Operations Philosophy for Ormen Lange Doc No 37-00-NS-J02-00001 has been developed
The philosophy is further expanded into Integrated Operations Strategy for Smart Fields, Remote Operations
/ C&A Capability for Platform Based Compressor Concepts Doc No 37-1Y-NS-J02-00001 and this includes
minimum intervention and minimum offshore manning strategies. These, in turn, form part of Norkse Shell’s
aspirations towards a second generation Integrated Operations Framework as outlined in the (draft)
Norwegian Oil Industry Organisation (OLF) guidelines on “Integrated Operations for New Projects”.
Key points from the above philosophies which will influence SAS design are:
1. A minimum manning concept will apply and shall be carefully balanced with technical and safety design
issues based on the philosophy of minimum exposure of personnel.
2. A combination of simple basic design, in conjunction with advanced automated control and decision
support systems, shall be implemented to assist in ensuring that low manning levels requirements are
met.
3. A high degree of remote operation monitoring, associated functionality and process control based on
online analysers shall be implemented. This shall include the provision of a collaborative electronic
working environment which is inter-actively linked to the centralised control system.
4. Facilities design shall be robust, to ensure optimal plant availability and hydrate management.
As part of the SAS design support for the above philosophies, and in line with DEP 30.00.06.15 – General
Human Machine Interface and Control Room Design (Ref: 3), the following areas in particular have been
addressed:

• Ergonomically designed (CCR) and HMI displays will be provided, including large screen presentations
of the process, safety status and alarms requiring immediate operator attention. These shall also provide
a detailed visual process overview and Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) information
• Advanced alarm management, online visualisation and decision support
• Fall-back mechanisms for single sensor failure to maximise production availability
7.5. Maintenance philosophy

A comprehensive maintenance philosophy - Ormen Lange Offshore / Onshore Design Basis – Doc No 37-
00-NH-X02-00003 - has been developed as part of the Phase 1 and has been adopted and developed for Phase
2, with the overall maintenance objective being to perform the right level of maintenance at the right time.
From this, support for the following aspects of maintenance philosophy shall be provided by the design of the
SAS design:
• Determination of the correct balance between effective control requirements and reduction in amount
of equipment required to align with this philosophy
• Reduction in the numbers of different systems and vendors to minimise stocking requirements and
specialised competence requirements
• Minimum intervention through extensive application of condition monitoring (condition based
maintenance)
In line with the above, the SAS design shall therefore incorporate the following:
• Advanced remote asset management and diagnostics from shore
• Use of proven equipment for maximum reliability
• Fall-back mechanisms for single sensor failure to reduce criticality of response times for corrective
maintenance
• Use of smart field devices to apply predictive maintenance
• Online card replacement capability for critical components
Remote engineering of the offshore facilities from onshore shall not be permitted.
7.6. Safety and automation system

7.6.1. General design principles
State-of-the-art-technology shall be used with standardisation and seamless integration with the onshore
control and automation system and other computer systems shall be an essential part of the overall automation
design philosophy.
A high degree of standardisation is required to meet the overall low manning concept and the selection of the
control and automation equipment for the platform shall be in line with this philosophy.
The SAS shall be designed as a plant-wide system consisting of onshore and offshore nodes which shall be
networked and time-synchronised to enable fully transparent integrated operations, as shown on the high level
systems block diagram.
A master clock based on Global Positioning System (GPS) reference source shall be utilised for time
synchronisation.
The SAS and infrastructure shall be designed to allow for temporary equipment required during fabrication
and commissioning phase e.g. temporary workstations, controllers for system simulation, etc.
The SAS network infrastructure shall allow for the possibility of remote access of vendors’ computer systems
(for diagnostic and maintenance support) from both the CCR at Nyhamna and externally (e.g. systems

vendor’s remote office) to assist in fault diagnosis, systems updates. etc. All remote access shall be secure,
auditable and comply with existing Norske Shell’s IT policy and DACA security arrangements.
The SAS architecture and IT security arrangements shall be DACA compliant as per DEP 32.01.20.10-Gen
and the diagram below.
DACA Internet
Access
Access
Manager
Manager
Asset Mgt Historian Clients
OFFICE NETWORK (GI)

Office Domain
PCAD
PCAD
Process Control Domain

PROCESS CONTROL NETWORK
Gateway CCR
PAS
CONTROL BUS
Fiscal Special *
HMI Control APPS Gateway IPF
Metering Monitoring
FIELD BUS
Version: 2.0
Figure 7-2 Typical DACA Layout

7.6.2. Design considerations for remote operations

The operations philosophy of minimum offshore operator manning and intervention during normal
operations shall be one of the principal considerations for the design of the SAS. High system availability is
also a key design requirement and shall be inherent in the systems design.
The “one fail / no stop” and “measurement validation” philosophy shall be applied to achieve robustness for
single point sensor failures (smart open/close valve position, use of trip transmitters upon control transmitter
failure, measurement validation etc.). Reference is made to the Groningen Long Term (GLT) project proven
implemented “one fail / no stop” solutions of the renovated Groningen clusters.
The level of automatic control shall be designed to assist operations by minimising operator’s routine work
and this shall include automated sequences for changes in operating states e.g. equipment start-up, shutdown
and routine mode changes etc. These will ensure consistent state transitions, which in turn assist in smooth
start-ups and operational mode changes.
For the onshore operator, the PCS HMI at Nyhamna will provide the main standard access to allow viewing
and limited control of both the onshore and offshore process and safety systems, including information from
the subsea wells. For the offshore operations, the offshore HMI will provide full information on the offshore
installation, again including data from the subsea wells, and limited information on the onshore installation. It
is therefore critical to the operational success of the project that advanced and consistent HMI design is fully
addressed during design.
It is also essential that the HMI design for offshore facilities be consistent with the existing HMI at Nyhamna,
including graphics hierarchy, navigation principles, symbols and colour coding. The number of screens
provided shall be sufficient to cover all operational modes including start-up and shutdown situations. Large
screen displays and input from the CCTV system shall be included in the design to complement the desktop
HMI to assist in operator situational awareness. A Collaborative Work Environment (CWE) room adjacent to
the CCR shall be provided to facilitate collaborative decision support from shore.
Alarm management covering all operating modes (normal, upset and shutdown) shall be implemented in
accordance with the existing alarm philosophy Doc 37-1A-AK-I02 – Alarm Philosophy. The use of different
audible tones within the control room to distinguish between offshore and onshore alarms shall be considered
as part of the systems design.
CCR ergonomics and HMI IT usability shall be demonstrated as part of HFE analysis and review activities
Doc 37-1Y-NS-F15-00008 for all offshore and associated onshore facilities.
For the manned floating compression installation, the system shall be designed such that both onshore and
offshore personnel are alerted to the loss of ESD network communications between offshore and Nyhamna.
An ESD of the offshore installation shall be automatically generated if these communications are not restored
within 10 minutes.
The onshore and offshore SAS shall exchange PSD and ESD status signals for monitoring purposes. The
onshore facility shall have the capability of remotely generating a full ESD of the offshore installation but
offshore shall not be able to generate any level of ESD at the onshore facility.
7.6.3. Process control systems
The primary objective of the process control system is to perform automatic process control and monitoring
functions. The PCS will also serve to integrate and display information from the various systems (e.g. safety
systems, equipment control panels, metering, marine and subsea systems) for monitoring and control in the
local and remote locations.
The degree of automation in the PCS shall be commensurate with the minimum manning/minimum
intervention concept and required functionality. This shall include design for robustness (fail-over to back-up
sensors, virtual sensors), condition monitoring (Measurement Validation and Comparison (MVC), smart
sensors) and decision support (alarm management, visualisation functions).
The PCS shall be capable of supporting advanced process control, requirements of which will be determined
during design.

Attachment 2 – Ormen Lange Floating Compression Flow Control Schematic provides an overview of the
proposed control scenario.
7.6.3.1. Application of Modern Technologies and Processes
It is a recognised that there are Shell initiatives which all future projects must comply with unless otherwise
approved.
The two examples of these applicable to this project are Foundation Fieldbus,(FF), which involves the
implementation of advanced digital technology within the PCS, and Main Automation Contractors (MAC)
agreements in which all SAS components (i.e. PCS, ESD and F&G systems) are supplied from a single
nominated vendor.
Both of these issues are addressed in 37-1Y-NS-I15-00003 – Control and Automation Philosophy and the
application of these will be further developed during the design phases of this project.
7.6.3.2. Interfaces With Other Systems
In line with the existing 37-1A-102-00001 - Ormen Lange Automation Philosophy the following
communication interfaces will be applied for as required data exchange between the SAS and other equipment
packages:
• Modbus (serial communication)
• Profibus (serial communication)
• OPC (ethernet communication)
Again, this issue is addressed in 37-1Y-NS-I15-00003 – Control and Automation Philosophy and development
and application of these will be determined during the design phases of this project.
7.6.4. Safety systems
The offshore SAS consists of the ESD, PSD and FGS systems, each of which shall be designed to function
independently from, but interact with, each of the others.
The onshore SAS shall be upgraded to reflect the offshore installation and all associated onshore
modifications. It shall operate independently from the offshore systems but shall have the capability to
generate offshore shutdowns. As part of this, screen operated equivalents of the offshore hardwired PSD and
ESD pushbuttons shall be available to enable remote activation from onshore when the SAS is in remote
operations mode.
Attachment 3 provides a brief outline of the Safeguarding Process Flow Schematic.
The principal objectives of the safety system are:
• Prevention of harm to personnel
• Prevention of harm to the environment
• Protection of facility and equipment
Norsok S-001 requires, at the highest level, a function to be available at the Critical Action Panel (CAP) to
disconnect power to the ESD logic solvers, allowing activation upon failure of programmable logic.
The standard also requires safety systems to be designed for survivability such that Dimensioning Accidental
Loads (DALs) shall not cause loss of safety systems functions or local escalation.
7.6.4.1. Emergency Shut Down (ESD) System
The purpose of the ESD system is to monitor nominated process parameters and react accordingly to prevent
escalation of abnormal conditions into a major hazardous event, thereby limiting the extent and duration of
any such events that do occur.

The ESD system shall be designed for automatic sensing of abnormal conditions and automatic reaction by
shutting down and/or isolating the platform, the pipeline and equipment and, where appropriate,
depressurising the installation in a timely manner.
All instrumented protective functions in the ESD system shall meet or exceed SILs assessed in accordance
with the (IPF) classification methodology prescribed in DEP 32.80.10.10 – Classification and Implementation
of Instrumented Protective Functions and Norsok Standard I-002 – Safety and Automation Systems (Ref: ).
The ESD functions shall be arranged in a tree-structured hierarchy, in that a high level of ESD shall initiate
lower levels including PSD. All interactions between ESD, PSD, F&G and PCS shall be clearly identified on
Cause and Effects diagrams which will be generated during design.
The ESD system shall operate independently of the control system, with the required interfaces to other
systems again being identified and addressed during design.
The ESD logic solver shall, as a minimum, be certified as a SIL 3 safety system by a reputable certifying body
in accordance to IEC 61508, with all ESD outputs being fail-safe.
The survivability of the platform ESD and field components for all considered fire and explosions scenarios
shall be addressed during design. The ESD system shall not be dependent on local equipment rooms with
locations less safe than the CCR.
7.6.4.2. Process shutdown (PSD) system
The PSD system shall be designed to automatically shut down the production facility, either partly or
completely, as required to prevent abnormal process states from developing into hazardous events.
The PSD shall be designed as a safety system independent from the control system. The system shall have
built-in redundancy, with online diagnostics and allow for online replacement of the Central Processor Unit
(CPU).
The PSD system shall meet or exceed SIL levels assessed in accordance with the IPF classification
methodology prescribed in DEP 32.80.10.10 Classification and Implementation of Instrumented Protective
Functions.
The logic solver (firmware) compliance with IEC 61508 shall be documented i.e. certified/type approved by a
reputable certifying body. The logic solver software shall be protected against illegal access from external
sources.
The logic solver and essential utilities of the PSD system shall be located in a protected area that withstands
systems dimensioning accidental loads.
7.6.4.3. Fire and gas system (FGS)
The FGS shall be designed to monitor all air spaces where a fire or hazardous accumulation of flammable
mixture or toxic gas may occur and to automatically detect these events, alert personnel and initiate timely
executive actions in order to prevent or minimise escalation of the event.
The fire and gas detection system shall comply with the detailed requirements specified in DEP 32.30.20.11 –
Fire, Gas and Smoke Detection Systems (Ref: 8) and Norsok Standard I-001 – Field Instrumentation
(Ref: 111). The FGS shall comply with the minimum SIL requirement as specified in OLF Publication 070 -
Application of IEC 61508 and IEC 61511 in the Norwegian Petroleum Industry and meet or exceed SIL
assessment requirements as prescribed by the DEP.
The number, type and location of detectors shall be optimised using Company approved Fire and Gas
detector mapping software in accordance with the above DEP.
Details of the final siting and location of detectors, fire areas and allocation of fire protection skids shall be
incorporated in the dedicated HMI graphics and displayed in the CCR
The survivability of the platform FGS and field components for all considered fire and explosions scenarios
shall be demonstrated. The FGS shall not be dependent on local equipment rooms in locations less safe than
the CCR.

7.6.5. Operational data server

The Operational Data Server (ODS) for the compression platform will be centrally located onshore to
minimise onshore/offshore network traffic and for ease of support and maintenance.
An offshore component of the ODS system is also required to ensure data is buffered in case of a
communication failure between offshore and onshore. The system shall automatically back-fill the buffered
data to the central server once communications are restored.
7.7. Field instrumentation

A basic design premise is that the field instrumentation should be minimum by design but sufficient and
necessary for the required level of automation and condition based maintenance.
Norske Shell’s existing frame agreement and nominated makes for field instruments and cables will be used to
ensure a high degree of standardisation.
All electrical instrumentation for hazardous areas shall be in accordance to Atpmospheres Explosibles (ATEX)
requirements.
For conventional instrumentation, as per Norsok I-001 recommendations, smart type instruments should be
used together with galvanic isolation barriers with full smart transmission capability.
With the advanced transmitter remote diagnostic and calibration facilities now available via both Highway
Addressable Remote Transmitter (HART) and Foundation Fieldbus on most control systems, direct access to
transmitters by locating these either at ground level or adjacent to dedicated access platforms is no longer
necessary. Close coupling of instrumentation to process lines significantly reduces the amount of stainless steel
tubing and compression fittings required, thereby reducing the number of possible leak paths. The use of
specialist manifolds and valves to enable this shall be fully considered as part of design.
Instrumentation shall be designed to minimise impact of equipment motion (caused by waves) on field
measurements e.g. level sensors.
7.8. Asset management systems (AMS)

In conjunction with smart instrumentation, use of the AMS allows detailed interrogation of field transmitters
and the implementation of advanced instrumentation functionality.
Smart instrument technology has been developed to provide useful functionality for operations to assist in
optimising uptime, minimising operator’s intervention and providing a useful tool to comply with the
predictive maintenance strategy.
The following, which are just some examples of smart instrument applications available, are currently proven
technology on several Shell facilities worldwide and have the ability to provide significant input to the project
predictive maintenance philosophy. They will operate on either HART or Foundation Fieldbus (FF)
communications systems although functionality will vary between the two systems with FF providing the
greater range of facilities.
• MVC provides continuous comparison between a trip transmitter and its associated process transmitter
for early detection of transmitter drift and / or failure.
• Operational Data Server (ODS) automatically retrieves process plant data from the PCS for
optimisation of plant operations.
• Partial Stroke Testing (PST) allows verification of the output electronics, cabling, Solenoid Valve (SOV)
(and positioned if feedback facilities are provided) of actuated valves. This leads to early identification of
faults and a reduction in the overall testing requirements. Note that this does not replace testing
requirements as required to meet SIL calculated test frequency.
The implementation of these in conjunction with condition monitoring systems can greatly assist in reducing
unplanned shutdowns with associated losses of production.

7.9. Actuated valves

On / off quarter-turn actuated valves (i.e. non-modulating control valves) shall be required for ESD isolation
and blowdown valves. The bodies shall fully comply with piping specifications and generally the actuators will
be air operated with specialist valves (e.g. Subsea Safety and Isolation Valves (SSIV) requiring hydraulics.
In addition to essential valves detailed above, and based on the reduced manning concept and safety concerns
associated with the high pressures and restricted access in some areas of the offshore installation, (e.g. the
wellbay module), automatically controlled actuated valves will be used as standard.
Detailed valve and actuator requirements shall be determined during the design phase
7.10. Metering
The need for metering of flare gas and fuel gas consumption has been identified as a result of CO2 tax
regulations. Norsok standard I-104 (Ref: 113) classifies flare gas and fuel gas measurement as Class C and
Class B metering systems with uncertainty limits of ± 5% and ± 1.8% of standard volume respectively.
Ultrasonic flow meters are recommended for these applications as they provide the necessary accuracy and
rangeability required.
A dedicated document 37-1B-NS-I15-0003 – C&A Metering Philosophy (Ref: 65) has been produced for
guidance during the design phase on all metering installations.
7.11. Onshore control centre

The existing CCR at Nyhamna will have to be modified and expanded to meet the requirements for an
onshore based remote control centre, as required to support the minimum manning concept for the offshore
compression facilities. This expanded CCR will also act as an operations coordination centre for both the
offshore and onshore production activities and systems.
The advantages of this include:
• Seamless integration between offshore and onshore to become a field-wide SAS. This would enable fully
transparent monitoring and control of the existing subsea wells from offshore, as may be required
during platform start-up.
• Close collaboration between onshore and offshore operations crew for managing an integrated
offshore/onshore production system.
• Single operations coordination and maintenance support centre.
Human Factors Engineering review would be required to ensure the extended CCR remain compliant with
NPD Regulations and DEP requirements.
7.12. Training simulator

In order to comply with the minimum downtime philosophy and robustness strategy, the existing simulator
shall be modified to incorporate all training requirements for the offshore installation and the interfaces
between existing and new facilities. Specific programs need to be developed for offshore/onshore operator
training. It is essential that ownership and trainer tasks are addressed.
The existing training simulator at Nyhamna was provided as part of the original ABB supply contract and this
shall be updated to include simulation and training needs for the offshore compression system plus any
updates for the existing facilities. Combined simulation of the offshore and onshore component processes as
well as pipeline multiphase flow to reflect an “Ormen Lange integrated production system“ shall be configured
into the simulator.

7.13. Subsea interfaces

The need for SSIVs at platform export lines has been identified within 37-1Y-NS-F15-00003 (Concept Select)
SSIV Quantitative Risk Assessment, which recommends that the SSIVs be activated manually or automatically
by the FGS on the platform. The need for automatic activation and fail-safe design requires a direct umbilical
connection from the SSIV to the platform and this shall be identified and incorporated into the design.
Further work in liaison with subsea discipline will be undertaken to fully determine the design requirements
and operating philosophy for the associated topside control panel.

-1001/2001 PA-20-1001/2001 A/B PA-27-1001/2001 A/B VG-27-1001/2001 KA-27-1001/2001 HG-27-1001/2001
SEPARATORS EXPORT CONDENSATE PUMPS CONDENSATE RECYCLE PUMPS SUCTION SCRUBBERS EXPORT COMPRESSORS AFTERCOOLERS
D=m
ENGTH =m
FUEL GAS
FUEL GAS
FLARE
FUEL GAS
FI
XIC XIC TIC
TIC PIC
HOLD 4 TIC
FT
FT
PdT FI
PdT
HG-27-HOLD
HG-27-2001
SC VG-27-HOLD
VG-27-2001
TEMPORARY PIG
LAUNCHER/RECEIVER
KA-27-HOLD
KA-27-1001
Kicker Line
Suction
LSLL
A-20-1001 Crossover
LSLL
Valve
LIC
FLARE
Discharge
Crossover
PA-27-2001A/B Valve
FIC FIC
PA-20-1001A/B
FI
Pigging bypass
valve
HG-27-HOLD
HG-27-2001
ESDV
VG-27-2001
VG-27-2001
MEG
KA-27-HOLD
KA-27-2001
A-20-2001
LSLL
LSLL
LIC
Riser
ESDV
FIC FIC
PA-20-2001A/B
FI
TO EXPORT PIPELINES
dle and pump cartridge change-out.
m rating and export pipeline (TBC with
in export riser. Set-point TBC in FEED.

D=m
ENGTH =m
HOLD
FLARE
FLARE
TYP COMPRESSOR TYP
TYP TYP RELIEF both trains
both trains
P both trains FLARE both trains 235 bara (HOLD 1, 2)
TYP FLARE FIRE
h trains FIRE
both trains 160 bara
BDV
80 145 bara
FLARE
145
BDV
FUEL 60
GAS RISER A
ESDV 80 2500# 1500# EXPORT PIPELINE 1
60 60
180 80
SP = 200
barg SP = 75 °C
SP = 130 barg
SP = 130 barg SP = HOLD ESDV
SP = 100 bara (Note 3) TSHH RISER B
PSHH
PSHH TSHH
PSHH EXPORT PIPELINE 1
PSHH
SP = 150 °C
SP = 150 °C HG-27-HOLD
HG-27-2001 TSHH
900# 1500# TSHH
110 110 160 130
110 130 150 160 180
60 60 241
VG-27-HOLD
VG-27-2001 150 180
80 120 2500# (HOLD 3)
130 25 160 60 TEMPORARY PIG
Increase to 180 120 LAUNCHER/RECEIVER
LSHH 241 80
160 bara? 110 KA-27-HOLD
80 KA-27-1001 900# 1500# 160
145 Kicker Line
25 25
Suction ESDV 25
60 80 120 LSLL
120
A-20-1001 Crossover
Valve 900# 1500# LSLL 120 80 110
60 60 145 160
80 80 120
145 900# 1500#
FLARE
80 150
145 Discharge
60 241 ESDV
ESDV Crossover
PA-27-2001A/B Valve
80
LSLL
60
Flexible
80
900# 1500# ESDV
150
80 FSLL
150 241
145 241 PSLL
1500#
ESDV
PA-20-1001A/B
ESDV
PSHH TSHH
PSHH Pigging bypass
PSHH TSHH
PSHH valve Flexible
HG-27-HOLD
HG-27-2001 TSHH
TSHH
Inboard
ESDV
VG-27-2001
VG-27-2001
MEG
LSHH
KA-27-HOLD
KA-27-2001
A-20-2001 ESDV
LSLL
60 160
LSLL
TO RISER B 80 241
(EXPORT PIPELINE 2)
Riser
ESDV
ESDV
ESDV
LSLL
ESDV
FSLL
PSLL
ESDV
PA-20-2001A/B
TO EXPORT PIPELINES
BYPASS LINE (TYPICAL BOTH TRAINS) 80 160

145 241
60 60
80 80
ndle and pump cartridge change-out.

on scrubber liquid outlets and in export pump discharge line.
r.
m rating and export pipeline (TBC with
in export riser. Set-point TBC in FEED.

8. Metering
8.1. Introduction
This section describes the work carried out to provide guidance on the selection of the most applicable
solutions for flow metering of the process streams, as identified in the attached metering Process Flow
Diagram (PFD).
In addition to the requirements to standard of equipment across both existing and new installations, the
recommendations contained within this section also take into account the project philosophy to construct the
offshore topsides in modular form at various different locations.
The intent of this document is to establish the requirements for flow measurement for each of the identified
process streams, determine the required accuracy for each installation and provide recommendations on the
appropriate applicable technologies. Each of the metering installations will be interfaced to the PCS for
monitoring and report generation. It is not intended that this all process streams are addressed but only the
major streams as identified in the attached PFD.
In addition to process requirements, metering shall be provided for flare gas and fuel gas as required for CO2
tax purposes. The existing onshore at Nyhamna shall be provided with access to all metering information via
the PCS communications network for remote comparison and report generation.

This document describes the Control and Automation (C&A) metering requirements for measurement of the
identified process fluids for the Ormen Lange floating compression project. The scope of this document
includes recommendations flow on measurement, interfaces to the PCS and information to be provided to the
on-shore installation at Nyhamna.
Final selection of the most suitable types of meter to suit each application will be determined during FEED
and design phases of the project and the following information is therefore presented as only basic guidelines
for this.
8.2.1. Measurement accuracy requirements table
The required accuracy of measurement is dependent upon the applicable duty and service and the tolerance
classes and accuracy figures listed below shall apply to this project.
Process Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance

Variable Class A Class B Class C Class D
Application Custody Enhanced Regular Coarse
Transfer. Monitoring and Monitoring and Monitoring and
Internal Control Control Control
Accounting
Flow Liquid – better Liquid – better Better than 6% Better than 10%
than 0.25% of than 2% of of reading of reading
reading reading
Gas – Better Gas – Better
than 0.5% of than 3% of
reading reading
Level Better than Better than Better than 5% Better than 10%
2 mm absolute 10 mm absolute of adjusted of adjusted span
span
Pressure Case by case Better than 2.5% Better than 1%
basis of adjusted span of adjusted
span
Temperature RTD - Class 1 RTD – Class 1 RTD - Class 1

Notes
1 The above accuracy figures do not apply to the installed sensor but to the overall “presented” result.
2 Whilst it is not anticipated that fiscal metering will be required for this installation, accuracy
requirements for this are included in the above table for clarity.
8.2.2. Typical Examples of In-Line Instruments
The following are some typical examples of instrumentation used for process fluids metering. Note that this is
a typical list only and meters will be selected during FEED based on application and requirements.
Measurement Types of Instrument

Flow Turbine, pressure differential (PD) meters with accessories, orifice and
restriction orifice plates, V-cone, venture, vortex flow meters, coriolis
mass flow meters, ultrasonic flow meters, magnetic flow meters, thermal
mass flow meters
Level Displacer type level gauges, capacitance level instruments, tank gauges,
radar, pressure transmitters
Quality Analysers for Base Sediment and Water (BS&W), salinity
Valves Control valves, including IPF, depressuring and deluge valves.
8.3. Background
Development of the process fluids metering recommendations has taken into account the process design and
operational requirements. All metering shall be interfaced to the PCS, with required data being transmitted to
the Nyhamna onshore PCS.
8.3.1. Process overview
From the Main Concept Select Report, which was produced by Process as part of the Main Concept Select
Study, the floating compression design is based on the optimised configuration of two arrival separators and
two compression trains. Combined with the design of the inlet manifold, this will allow flow from any riser to
be directed to either of the separators and thus different wells may be processed at different arrival pressures.
This is as shown in Figure 8-1 Overall Process Flow Scheme.
Each of the topsides trains is designed to control the import of combined well fluids, separate the liquid and
gas phases, followed by compression of the produced gas and boosting of the liquid pressure. The gas and
liquids are then recombined and transported via a multiphase pipeline to the Nyhamna onshore plant for
further processing. The incoming water will be treated with mono ethylene glycol (MEG) to suppress hydrate
formation in the infield pipelines and the combined water and MEG transported to onshore along with the gas
and liquid hydrocarbons.
Provision will be provided for future installation of gas recirculation facilities to each of the subsea templates
as gas lift may be required later in field life to maintain fluid velocities, although this facility is not presently
shown on the process flow schematic in Figure 8-1.

FUEL GAS
FLARE Note 1
FUEL GAS
A/S A/S TC
XC XC
PT TT TC PC TO EXPORT PIPELINE 1
HOLD 1 FT PT TT
PT TT PT TT TC
PC FT
FI Note 1
E-2702
E-2701
SC
TEMPORARY PIG
LAUNCHER/RECEIVER
V-2702 K-2701
V-2701
K-2701
2nd STG
1st STG
Gap Control Kicker Line
Gap Control
LC
2001A LC
Suction
Crossover
LC
Valve
FLARE
P-2701 A/B Discharge
Crossover
Valve
FC FC FI
XI
P-2001A
PI TI
Pigging bypass
valve XI
E-2802
ESDV
E-2801
Note 1
MEG
K-2801
K-2801 V-2802
V-2801 2nd STG
1st STG
PI
001B
Riser
ESDV
P-2801 A/B
P-2001B
FI
TO EXPORT PIPELINES

Design life for the floating compression system is 30 years and target availability is 97.5%. For flow assurance
purposes, facilities for the detection of produced formation water will also be provided at topsides.
8.3.2. Process Control
Pressure and temperature within the arrival separators will be controlled at 80 bar(g) and a maximum of 80°C
respectively, with bulk separation of gas and liquids taking place within these vessels. Note that the separators
will be elevated by approximately 5 m to provide the required NPSH to the condensate export pumps.
In normal operation, each separator will be lined up to a dedicated process train consisting of separator,
suction scrubbers, compressors, water and condensate handling, aftercoolers and associated ancillary
equipment.
Gas flows will be measured at the suction of the first and second stage gas export compressors K-2701 and
K-2801 for the provision of inputs to the compressor anti-surge controls. During operating modes where the
suction crossover line will be open, these inputs will also allow calculation of the flow through the crossover
line. Note that it has yet to be determined whether a dedicated anti-surge bypass control loop for each
compressor is optimal or a single combined loop around both compressor stages would be the best solution.
Process control of the process will be via the PCS with interfaces to the ESD, PSD and F&G systems as
required.
8.3.3. Metering applications
Based on the Measurements Accuracy Requirements Table in Section 8.3.1 above, most process control
measurement will be to Class C but for identified metering requirements as listed below, installations shall be
to Class B (i.e. Liquids better that 2% and gas better than 3%). Note that there are no identified requirements
for Class A (Fiscal Standards) for these installations. Each metering installation shall consist of instrumentation
as detailed in the Typical Examples of In-Line Instrumentation Table in Section 8.3.2 above.
The identified metering requirements are based on Figure 8-1, with the philosophy that the process fluids will
be measured at various stages of both their individual and co-mingled states as follows.
1. Subsea metering will be provided as part of the subsea scope using Roxar multiphase meters. These are
already installed on existing subsea templates A, B and D and will be fitted on template C when installed
as part of this project. These meters have proven very successful on the existing installations with an
accuracy of +/- 5%.
2. The following shall apply to each of the process trains:
• The combined produced liquids will be measured on the discharge of the arrival separators
VA-20-1001 / 2001 respectively, downstream of the export condensate pumps minimum flow
take-off point. As liquids from the compressor suction scrubbers are recycled through the arrival
separators, and the meter will be installed downstream off this, this will ensure that only the total
flow of liquid to the export header from each separator is measured and the recycled volumes will
not be included.
• An additional flow meter will be installed at the export pump discharge for minimum pump flow
protection. Whilst the export pumps will be VSD, the spillback facility will be useful during start-
up, and when operating at turn-down or under process upset conditions.
• Gas from the arrival separators (VA-20-1001 / 2001) will be measured prior to the suction
scrubbers to give total imported gas.
• Gas flows will again be measured at the suction of the first and second stage gas export
compressors (KAG-27-1001 / 2001) for the provision of inputs to the anti-surge controls. One of
the main advantages from this measurement is that when operating in process train load sharing
mode, which requires the suction crossover line to be open, the flow in this crossover line may be
calculated. Note that it has not yet been determined whether a dedicated anti-surge bypass control
loop for each machine is optimal or a single combined loop around both stages is preferable.

• Gas will be measured immediately upstream of where the gas and liquid are recombined. A
significant advantage of this measurement is that when operating in process train load sharing
mode, which requires the suction crossover to be open, the flow in this crossover line can be
calculated by difference. In addition, it will also monitor the export gas flow leaving each
compressor train.
3 During FEED, consideration will be given to a leak detection system by comparison of appropriate
inputs.
4 Provision will be provided for the future of metering of gas recirculation to each of the subsea
templates, as this may be required later in field life in order to maintain fluid velocities.
5 Detection of produced formation water will be provided by the installation of water in oil in conjunction
with Coriolis mass flow meters with density measurement for comparison purposes. Sampling facilities
will be provided at various locations on the process facilities to enable the source of this water to be
determined.
6 Wet gas flow metering will be provided in the main bypass lines around each of the compression trains.
7 The need for metering of flare gas and fuel gas consumption has been identified as a result of CO2 tax
regulations (Norsok standard I-104 (Ref: 113) classifies flare gas and fuel gas measurement as Class C
and Class B metering systems with uncertainty limits of ± 5% and ± 1.8% of standard volume
respectively. Thus total gas to flare will be metered at the flare gas header and fuel gas will be measured
and accumulated to give a record of total gas use as fuel.
The measurement of the recombined flows by the use of multiphase flow meters in the final discharge
headers, immediately before these enter the subsea pipelines, was considered but is not considered
necessary for this installation.
Review and update of the on-shore metering at Nyhamna associated with this and other future projects
is being addressed by others and is specifically outwith the scope of this project.
8.4. General recommendations on metering installations

Further to the identified process flow metering requirements, the following are the general recommendations
for the different fluid metering installations. Note that these will be reviewed during FEED and confirmed or
modified as required to provide the most effective measurement installations.
8.4.1. Gas Metering
All gas metering requirements are located downstream of the arrival separators (VA-20-1001 and 2001) and so
for the general process gas flow measurements the recommendation is that in-line, multi-path, ultrasonic flow
meters be installed. Pressure and temperature inputs for corrected volume or mass flows will be provided,
either from dedicated field transmitters or from process control instrumentation if installed in appropriate
locations, with the size and rating of each meter being determined during FEED. The output from these
meters will be 4 to 20 mA as standard and will be transmitted to the PCS for instantaneous and accumulated
flows and for transmitting to the Nyhamna onshore installation.
This selection particularly applies to specialist areas such as the flare gas and fuel gas headers where non-
intrusive devices are necessary and measurement is required for Norwegian standards and tax regulations.
8.4.2. Liquid metering
In is anticipated that the liquids produced in the early field life will be oil and condensate with water not being
expected to later in field life. In most cases the oil and condensate are combined prior to being metered and so
the recommendation is that orifice plates with high specification D.P. transmitters be installed with the
appropriate upstream and downstream straight piping lengths. Note that these orifice plates will be mounted
between orifice flanges and that carriers shall not be used. The size and rating of each individual orifice plate
will be determined during FEED.

Again, if required, pressure and temperature inputs for corrected volume or mass flows will be provided, either
from dedicated field transmitters or from process control instrumentation, if installed in appropriate locations.
8.4.3. Water in oil metering
For the detection of produced formation water within the hydrocarbon liquids, it is recommended that a
water-in-oil detector be installed, possibly in conjunction with a Coriolis mass flow meter with density
measurement for comparison purposes. Sampling facilities will be provided at various locations on the process
facilities to enable the source of this water to be determined.
8.4.4. Wet gas measurement
In order to allow measure production to proceed through either train in any cases where gas compression is
either not yet completed or is not operational, wet gas flow metering will be provided in the main bypass lines
around each of the compression trains. It is proposed that multi-phase flow meters be installed for these
applications with make and model being determined during FEED.
8.5. Onshore control centre

The onshore based remote control centre at Nyhamna will be required to support the minimum manning
concept for the offshore compression facilities. Dual-redundant communication links shall be used to transmit
data from the offshore floater to the onshore installation to support this.


9. Electrical – Power From Shore

9.1. Previous studies
Previous studies considered several cases of which a 70 MW floater, 2 x 50% compressor case was the largest.
For this particular case a High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) transmission system with a 145 kV rated
subsea cable of 3x1x400 mm2 with 145 kV insulation class was proposed with a recommended operating
voltage of 110 kV.
9.2. Design development

Desired compressor power has increased to two off 35 MW shaft power (two compressor trains). Together
with a 10 MW allowance for platform load and 5 MW allowance for losses the total floater load is now
approximately 85 MW. A new study was deemed necessary to prove the technical feasibility of this higher
configuration using HVAC. The study was carried out by Unitech Power Systems and also included a Level 1
(+40%/-25%) cost estimate. The study findings are summarised below.
9.3. Technical assessment

The following summarises the technical assessment of the status and requirements:
• Total power consumption is estimated as 85 MW.
• Previously with the 70 MW floater, an HVAC transmission system with a 145 kV cable of 3x1x400 mm2
with 145 kV insulation class was proposed with a recommended operating voltage of 110 kV. However,
with 85 MW, the recommended operating voltage is 120 kV. This will reduce cable losses by 0.8 MW at
full power compared to 110 kV operation. Depending on the operation profile of the compressor units
during the platform lifetime, this is probably a significant OPEX element.
• The subsea cable will be fed from a 110 MVA main step down transformer (132 kV/120 kV) with
automatic onload tap changer. Additional reactive compensation at the cable shore end is needed
comprising a ±25 MVar Static Var Compensation (SVC) and 2 x 37.5 Mvar reactors connected to a new
onshore 120 kV single bus Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS).
• The subsea cable will be split in one static (main) part and one dynamic part of approximately 1.5 km.
The latter cable will be tied in to the floater in a lazy wave configuration.
• Suggested platform topology comprises a 120 kV GIS single bus system feeding redundant stepdown
transformers, normally running in parallel, supplying an 11 kV main distribution for utility and
condensate pumps.
• The platform 120 kV/11 kV stepdown transformers are recommended with automatic onload tap
changer (OLTC: ±8 x 1.25% steps) and the 11 kV bus is split with bus-tie normally closed. Required
size is 12 MVA (AN) with Ek = 9%.
• Suggested platform topology comprises a 120 kV GIS single bus system feeding redundant stepdown
transformers, normally running in parallel, supplying an 11 kV main distribution for utility and
condensate pumps.
• The platform 120 kV/11 kV stepdown transformers are recommended with automatic onload tap
changer (OLTC: ±8 x 1.25% steps) and the 11 kV bus is split with bus-tie normally closed. Required
size is 12 MVA (AN) with Ek = 9%.
• Separate local generators (offshore) are recommended for emergency and essential power supply. One
essential generator (11 kV, approximately 5 MW) will be connected to the main 11 kV utility
switchboard. For the emergency generator (690 V, approximately 1.5 MW), a separate 690 V emergency
switchboard with a 2 MVA transformer connection to 11 kV utility is recommended.

9.4. Technical feasibility

Calculations carried out for an 85 MW offshore compression floater with 70 MW shaft compression power
show technical feasibility of an HVAC transmission system with 120 kV operating voltage.
Both 120 kV and 110 kV operating voltages have been assessed but 120 kV is the recommended operating
voltage.
Simulation results show voltage stability up to 97 MW with a weak grid onshore configuration. The voltage
stability margin to the targeted transmission power of 85 MW is acceptable (+15%).
Impact on the Nyhamna facility is acceptable:
• Harmonic distortion is within limits
• Voltage stability is maintained with one main grid transformer
• Reactive power is eliminated (power factor =1.0).
9.5. Transformer inrush

A simplified analysis has been performed to assess the voltage disturbance due to inrush currents for the
largest transformers on the floater.
For a 12 MVA utility transformer, a voltage dip of 9.3% is calculated. This value is acceptable.
However, inrush currents for a compressor drive with 45 MVA transformers have been calculated to cause a
voltage dip of 28%. This value is not acceptable and transformer pre-magnetisation is necessary.
Pre-magnetising by separate 120 kV feeder breaker and pre-magnetising transformer has been assumed. It is
recommended to consider optimising this solution by means of a low voltage feeder and series resistor
connected to a pilot winding of the main transformer in order to potentially remove the two additional 120 kV
feeders from the design.
9.6. Dynamic cable

Qualification of the dynamic part of the cable at the floater end is required.
9.7. Cost estimate

CAPEX for the transmission system is estimated at 1,373.5 MNOK (~$211.3 million using 6.5 as ex. rate).
This includes a 30% contingency and does not include project costs).
9.8. Further study recommendations (FEED and detailed phases)

9.8.1. FEED
During the feed phase a revision of this report is recommended. In terms of input data, the following
development is assumed:
• The offshore compressor drive concept is decided and vendor liaison will allow for more specific data
for this equipment. This will address the Variable Speed Drive (VSD) type (presumed type load-
commutated current source inverters (LCI) with 35 MW unit), harmonic current spectrum data, VSD
transformer design including phase shifts to mitigate harmonics and the voltage dependency considering
DC current limiting control features.
• Onshore compensation facility data are assumed further developed through vendor liaison and the
harmonic spectrum data provided.
• Utility systems on the floater are further developed and revised load schedules provided.
• Vendor liaison will provide revised subsea cable data.
Based on this a general report revision is recommended where following principal scope is considered:

• Update load flow analysis

• Update fault level analysis
• Update voltage stability analysis
• Update harmonic analysis. Here it is recommended to carry out a time domain simulation analyses in
addition to the harmonic load flow / current injection analyses to better represent the system relative to
resonant conditions.
• Update protection concept
• Update dynamic analyses, this includes a more detailed model of the onshore compensation SVC part
and its control equipment.
Further, a more detailed study is recommended to address energising strategy for the subsea transmission
system and the floater. This study should be based on EMTDC / PSCAD software. Models are already partly
developed as part of onshore facility studies and subsea compression studies carried out. The EMTDC study
should consider:
• Carry out study to determine an energising sequence for the onshore compensation and subsea
transmission systems. This need to consider the more detailed effects from energising the onshore
power transformer and its influence on the onshore facilities in operation. Saturation and remanence
voltage modelling is considered. The next step is energising the reactors and determining how to use the
SVC equipment during this process. It is foreseen that the main transformer OLTC is set at minimum
output voltage and the SVC used to counter act the reactor(s) to limit the reactive power balance with
the supply system prior to energising the subsea cable. When the subsea cable is energised a step change
of reactive power must be mitigated by the SVC going quickly from its capacitive range to inductive
range. The overall objectives of this study are to demonstrate feasible energising and sequence with the
intended equipment.
• The EMTDC study is further used to analyse the energising solution for the large floater VSD
transformers. From this study it is concluded that premagnetising is required. However, costs can be
saved by developing a low voltage energising solution and thus removing two 120 kV feeders from the
design. This should be analysed further in the FEED phase.
The study has so far considered 145 kV insulation class for the subsea cable. It can be considered to carry out
an optimising study to determine if 123 kV insulation class can be used. The CAPEX influence from this
optimisation may be significant.
9.9. Detailed engineering phase

This is not described in detail at this stage. However, a general development of the studies is required to
substitute assumed data with specific vendor data as contracts are set and these become available. Further,
during the detail engineering the full relay protection scope is developed and the specific settings are calculated
and determined. The relay protection report thus constitutes and important part of the detail engineering
phase work.
Finally the detail phase also needs to include a more fully developed insulation coordination study with
associated transient overvoltage analysis and determination of surge arrester requirements.
9.10. Equipment at Nyhamna

Subject to approval an area currently described as Temporary Pipeline Construction and Testing Facilities in
the Plant North East, close to Area F47, has been identified as a location to accommodate, switchgear,
transformer and reactive compensation equipment. This is nearby to the pipeline landfall point.
A 132 kV cable route from the Main Power Distribution Area, Area M22, Plant South West to the proposed
location is to be determined.
An extension to existing 132 kV switchgear (Switchboard EL-80-0010) is required to accommodate the subsea
transformer feeder.

Table 9-1 Electrical Load List – 60 million scm/d Reference Case – GT Driven
Compression/Generation


Table 9-2 Electrical Load List – 60 million scm/d Reference Case – Power from Shore (PfS)



10. Technical Safety

The purpose of this section is to [Shell EP Business HSSE Control Framework (Ref: 53), HSE Case
(Volume 3: HEMP Requirements, Tools and Techniques (Ref: 22)), EP2005-0310 (Ref: 15)]:
• Demonstrate that there has been a systematic application of the Hazards and Effects Management
Process (HEMP).
• Justification that the selected option shall present the lowest overall (Health, Safety and Environment
(HSE)) risk, or alternatively, the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) demonstration showing
that the cost/effort required to adopt the lowest risk concept is grossly disproportionate to the benefit
considering the risk profiles associated with each concept.
• Identify issues that may have an impact on the risk profile which need to be addressed during future
project phases.
10.1. Hazards and effects management process activities

The HEMP process identifies and assesses HSE hazards, implements control and recovery measures, and
maintains a documented demonstration that major HSE risks have been reduced to a level that is ALARP.
Figure 10-1 HEMP Process

The main project HEMP activities (including studies to input into project decisions) are listed in Table 10-1
and key findings summarised in the following sub-sections. For clarity they have been split into early concept
select (phase 1) and later concept select (phase 2).
Table 10-1 HEMP Activities
Phase HEMP Activity Reference

Phase 1 Preliminary HSE Design Philosophy 37-1Y-NS-F02-00001 (Ref: 79)
HAZID 37-1Y-NS-F15-00002 (Ref: 80)
Identification of Major Hazards 37-1Y-NS-F15-00012 (Ref: 89)
Hazards and Effects Register 37-1Y-NS-F15-00002 Appendix 1
(Ref: 81)
Semi Submersible Riser Location Review 37-1Y-NS-F15-00004 (Ref: 84)
Floater Quantified Risk Assessment 37-1Y-NS-F15-00009 (Ref: 86)
Riser Risk and SSIV Assessment 37-1Y-NS-F15-00003 (Ref: 83)
Design Accidental Loads & Safety Functions Report 37-1Y-NS-F15-00011 (Ref: 88)

Phase HEMP Activity Reference

Compact Process Facilities HSE Assessment 37-1Y-NS-F15-00010 (Ref: 87)
HSE Concept Select Report 37-1Y-NS-F15-66008 (Ref: 91)
Phase 2 Human Factors Engineering Screening Report not issued yet.
TLP Quantitative Risk Assessment 37-1Y-NS-F15-66010 (Ref: 92)
10.2. ALARP and risk tolerability

The QRA studies used the following risk tolerability criteria:
• Group Individual Risk (GIR)
• Individual Risk Per Annum (IRPA)
• Potential Loss of Life (PLL)
• Loss of Main Safety Function (MSF)
10.2.1. Group individual risk
The GIR shall not exceed 10-3 per year when at work. GIR shall be calculated for all defined groups, not just
the most exposed groups. The criterion is applicable to Shell employees and contractors. The ALARP region
for the GIR criteria is between 10-3 and 10-5 per year. The criteria apply to the operating phase offshore. The
personnel exposure relates to the total period spent offshore, including ordinary personnel transport to and
from the land terminal and all transport offshore. The criteria apply as the mean for each 12-month period.
The following groups are defined:
• CCR crew
• deck operator
• ballast operator
• maintenance/inspection
• crane operator
• domestic.
10.2.2. Main safety function
The probability of loss of defined main safety functions on the TLP shall be lower than 1 x 10-4 per year per
safety function and per accident category.
The main safety functions on the TLP have been selected based on PSA requirements [Ref: The Facilities
Regulations, Section 7 including guidelines]:
MSF1: Main load bearing structure and stability. Relevant time requirement is 60 minutes following the initial
accident. The requirement is based on the time until the facility has been evacuated, including the time
it takes to carry out search and rescue efforts.
MSF2: Safety critical rooms. Relevant time requirement is 40 minutes following an accident. The safety
critical rooms will be defined in the FEED phase but are generally rooms with the following
functions:
• CCR
• ESD, F&G, PSD, PA
• Fire pump room
• UPS/battery room
• Emergency generator.

MSF3: Escalation to other main area.

MSF4: Safe Haven (LQ incl. muster areas). The whole LQ is considered part of the safe haven and shall be
available for 60 minutes. The requirement is based on the time until the facility has been evacuated,
including the time it takes to carry out search and rescue efforts.
MSF5: Evacuation means (lifeboats). Lifeboats are the main evacuation means and sufficient capacity and
access to the lifeboats shall be available for use for 60 minutes following the initial accident.
Helicopters may be realistic evacuation means and although they are given credit as part of fatality
assessment they shall not be considered when quantifying loss of the safety function evacuation
means.
MSF6: Escape routes from areas outside the area of the initial event. At least one escape route from central
positions in the neighbouring main areas to an accident shall be available for escape in 20 minutes.
The time requirement is based on the time until the areas outside of the immediate vicinity of the
accident site have been evacuated, including the time it takes to carry out the search and rescue efforts
in these areas. Escape via the lifeboat station in the process area (East) is considered an acceptable
route for personnel in the process area in case of fire in the riser bay area.
For any/each of these safety functions the combined impairment frequency (for all areas) shall be less than
10-4 per year. The criterion applies per accident type. The following accident types with regards to main safety
functions are identified on the TLP:
• Fires
• Explosions
• Collisions
• Loss of Buoyancy/Stability
• Extreme weather
• Dropped objects
All time requirements should be verified when the design and operational philosophy is established in later
project phases.
10.3. HSE activity plan

An HSE Activity Plan was developed to document all activities and deliverables to be completed by the TLP
design team from this phase until the end of the project to satisfy DCAF, Shell Health, Safety, Security,
Environment and Social Performance (HSSE & SP) Control Framework and Norsok requirements. The
following assumptions were made:
1. All Environmental, Security and Social Development scope will be delivered by Norske Shell.
2. HSSE & SP Premises to be developed by Norske Shell.
10.4. Design HSE philosophy

This document established the Health, Safety, Security and Environmental (HSSE) principles that will guide
the design of the surface facilities for the Project, to ensure that residual HSSE risk is ALARP.
10.5. Hazard identification

A HAZID was carried out in 2009 an all floater concepts. 22 actions were raised for the TLP concept of
which nine were deemed to be of a technical/non HSE nature therefore were transferred to the project risk
register. Of the remaining 13 actions, 12 were closed and one remain open for close out during Define. All
actions were closed-out in accordance with EP Projects HSE Action Close Out Procedure [Shell Document
Number GEN-EPA-E13-00030-001, HSE Action Close Out Procedure, Revision A01, October 2005
(Ref: 18)].

The Shell HSSE & SP Control Framework defines a Major Hazard as those hazardous substances, activities,
operations or conditions which are assessed as having a Consequence Severity of five or risk ranking of High,
as defined in the Shell Control Framework “Risk Assessment Matrix” (RAM). Table 2 shows the Major
Hazards identified for the Floater options [Shell Document Number 37-1Y-NS-F15-00012, Major Hazards
Identification Report, Revision 02E, May 2009 (Ref: 89)]:
Table 10-2 Floater concepts Major Hazards
Description Applicable to
MH
SS TLP Hybrid
MH-1 Topside Process Facility (Gas & Condensate systems, Fuel Yes Yes No
Gas)
Hydrocarbon
under pressure Loss of topside hydrocarbon containment from
compressors, separator vessels, piping and manifold
systems, when ignited, results in fire/explosion.
MH-2 Riser System (Imports and Exports) Yes Yes No

Hydrocarbon Loss of hydrocarbon containment from risers or flowlines
under pressure at subsea or above sea location, when ignited, resulting in
fire/explosion.
MH-3 Stored flammables (jet fuel, diesel) Yes Yes Yes

Other Loss of containment leading to fire, engine room fire.
flammables
MH-4 Collision with third party vessel (supply, fishing, merchant Yes Yes Yes
vessels)
Ship Collision
MH-5 Incorrect ballast, loss of buoyancy, extreme weather, Yes Yes Yes
capsize, mooring failure, water leakage.
Loss of
Stability
MH-6 Earthquake, failure of load bearing members, extreme Yes Yes Yes
weather.
Structural
failure
In the management of MHs, further work will be required during subsequent project phases, e.g. bow-tie
analysis, finalisation of the physical effects modelling and the QRA, and finalisation of the performance
standards for the Safety Critical Elements.
As required by Norsok the following defined situation of hazard and accident (DSHA) have been identified
for the TLP [Shell Document Number 37-1Y-NS-F15-66010, TLP QRA, Revision 01R, February 2011
(Ref: 92)]:
DSHA 1 Hydrocarbon leak
1.1 Hydrocarbon leak in process areas
1.2 Leakage from risers and flow lines below/near TLP
DSHA 2 Acute oil leaks
2.1 Acute discharge of chemicals
DSHA 3 Fire or explosion

3.1 Fire in auxiliary systems/areas

3.2 Fire in living quarters
3.3 Fire in riser bay/process area
DSHA 4 Falling cargo
DSHA 5 Personnel injury or medical illness
DSHA 6 Man overboard
DSHA 7 Diving accident
DSHA 8 Loss of stability
DSHA 9 Accident with radioactive source
DSHA 10 Ship on collision course
DSHA 11 Helicopter accident
11.1 On platform
11.2 In sea
DSHA 12 Terror/state of alert situations
DSHA 13 Extreme weather conditions
13.1 Extreme weather
13.2 Slide/earthquake/sudden drop of the seabed
DSHA 14 Evacuation
14.1 Personnel in sea
10.6. Floater concept quantitative risk assessment

The Floater Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) [Shell Document Number 37-1Y-NS-F15-00009, Floater
QRA, Revision 02E, May 2009 (Ref: 86)] was undertaken to compare the risk levels of the four Ormen Lange
Future Compression Floater options during early Select phase. It was concluded that the TLP options were
lowest risk options and of the TLP with Top Tension Riser (TTR) was lowest risk of the TLP options.
10.7. Riser risk comparison

A sensitivity was conducted to evaluate potential riser risk mitigation for the Ormen Lange Floating
Compression TLP option by either adding riser valves to the TTR riser base or mounting riser valves and
flexible riser hang-offs on the TLP pontoons. It was concluded that there is no justification to change from a
TTR concept to a Flexible Lazywave Riser (FLR) concept with Pontoon ESDVs for the TLP.
10.8. Tension leg platform quantitative risk assessment

The basis for the TLP QRA was that SSIVs were installed on the export pipelines only. The methodology used
in the Ormen Lange TLP QRA is based on the work flow illustrated in Figure 10-2. The analysis follows
requirements put outlined in Norsok Z-013 (Ref: 121).

Risk Analysis Planning
System Definition
Hazard Identification
Risk Risk
Acceptance Criteria Reducing Measures
Frequency Consequence
Analysis Analysis
Risk Picture
Risk Analysis
Risk Estimation
Risk Evaluation
Risk Assessment
Further Risk Reducing Measures
Part of Safety Managem ent a nd Risk Control
Figure 10-2 Methodology - Ormen Lange TLP QRA
10.8.1. Group individual risk

The GIR values are estimated for all area on the TLP as shown in Table 10-3. Personnel will be exposed to
different risk levels dependent on where their daily work is performed.
GIR values for helicopter transportation (to/from shore) and occupational accidents apply to all personnel
and are presented in Table 10-4. The generic data allow for a differentiation of the GIR value for personnel
with different work tasks, i.e. deck operators are more exposed to occupational accidents than domestic staff.
This is explained in TN-8 Chapter 4.2, and the numbers area shown in Table 10-4.
Table 10-3 GIR per area - Major accidents originating at the TLP
Area GIR (per 10,000 yrs)

LQ 0.5
Utility area 0.9
Riser bay area 2.5
Process area 4.8

Table 10-4 GIR - Helicopter transport and occupational accidents
Accident type GIR (per 10,000 yrs)

Helicopter transport 0.9
Occupational CCR crew, ballast operator and domestic 0.3
accidents Deck operator, maintenance/inspection, crane
operator 1.1
Average 0.6
Combining the personnel distribution in the different areas with the GIR values per area gives the total GIR
for each group as presented in Table 10-5.
Table 10-5 GIR values for different groups

Group GIR (per 10,000 yrs) GIR risk acceptance
Major Helicopter Occupational Total criteria (per 10,000 yrs)
accidents transport accidents
CCR crew 0.5 0.9 0.3 1.7 10
Deck operator 1.9 0.9 1.1 3.9 10
Ballast operator 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.9 10
Maintenance/
inspection 1.9 0.9 1.1 3.9 10
Crane operator 1.2 0.9 1.1 3.2 10
Domestic 0.5 0.9 0.3 1.7 10
The results show that GIR values for all groups on the TLP are well below the criteria. GIR is however within
the ALARP region for all groups (10>GIR>0.1 per 10,000 yrs) and risk reducing measures should therefore
be identified.
The main contributors to the GIR values are helicopter transportation, occupational accidents and
fires/explosions resulting from process and riser leaks.
10.8.2. PLL and FAR values
The risk to personnel can also be expressed as PLL which is the annual number of fatalities and FAR which is
fatalities per 108 working hours. These risk measures represent the average fatality risk for all personnel for one
year of operation.
The average FAR for personnel on TLP is estimated to be 3.4. The contributions to the FAR value from
different accidents are presented in Table 10-6 and in Figure 10-3. The main contributors are the same as for
the GIR values.

Table 10-6 PLL and FAR - contribution from different accident categories
FAR per accident PLL (per year) FAR % of total FAR
Process accidents 2.3E-03 0.62 18 %
Riser accidents 2.0E-03 0.54 16 %
Ship collision 9.1E-04 0.25 7%
Ballast accidents 5.5E-04 0.15 4%
Occupational accidents 2.6E-03 0.70 21 %
Extreme weather 2.1E-04 0.06 2%
Dropped objects 1.1E-05 0.003 0.1 %
Helicopter collision3 4.6E-07 negl. -
Helicopter transportation4 3.8E-03 1.05 31 %
Total PLL and average FAR 1.2E-02 3.4 100 %
Figure 10-3 FAR - Contribution from different accident categories
The PLL and FAR values have also been estimated for each main area. The results are presented in Table 10-7
and Figure 10-4.
3 Risks associated with helicopter crash on the TLP

4 Risks associated with personnel transportation with helicopter to/from shore

Table 10-7 PLL and FAR per main area - major accidents originating at the TLP
Area PLL FAR

LQ 1.41E-03 0.6
Utility area 4.24E-04 1.1
Riser bay area 1.15E-03 3.2
Process area 2.93E-03 5.7
6.0
FAR per Area
5.0
4.0
FAR
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
LQ Utility AreaRiser Bay Area
Process Area TransportWork accidents Average
Figure 10-4 FAR per area

The area with the highest FAR value is the process area. This is caused by the relatively high fire and explosion
risk in the area. The high fire and explosion risk is due to the potential for HC leakage from process
equipment. FAR is also high in the riser bay area due to riser leaks. The FAR values are at an acceptable level.
10.8.3. Loss of main safety functions
The frequencies for loss of main safety functions on the TLP are presented in Table 10-8 and Figure 10-5.
Table 10-8 Frequency for loss of main safety functions for the Ormen Lange TLP 1)
(frequency per 10,000 years)
Main safety function Fires Explosions Collisions Ballast Extreme weather Dropped
failure objects
Main load bearing structure 0.66 0.06 0.44 0.26 0.10
Negl.
Safety critical rooms 0.69 0.08
Escalation to other main
0.69 0.95 0.01
area
Safe Haven (LQ) 0.69 0.08 Negl.
Negl. Negl. Negl.
Evacuation means 1.30 0.11 0.01
Escape from utility area 1.33 0.25 0.01
Escape from riser bay area 0.10 1.00 Negl.
Escape from process area 1.42 0.25 0.01
1) Negligible means less than 1·10-6 per year [Shell Document Number 37-00-NS-F15-66000, Risk Acceptance Criteria for
Ormen Lange, Revision 01, September 2009 (Ref: 90)]

Figure 10-5 Impairment frequency - Main safety functions

The results show that the acceptance criteria of 10-4 per year are fulfilled for all accident categories and main
safety functions except the following:
• Impairment of evacuation means (LQ) due to fires. The impairment frequency is 1.3 compared to an
acceptance criteria of 1.0 per 10,000 yrs.
• Impairment of escape route from the utility area due to fires. The impairment frequency is 1.3
compared to an acceptance criteria of 1.0 per 10,000 yrs.
• Impairment of escape route from the process area due to fires. The impairment frequency is 1.4
compared to an acceptance criteria of 1.0 per 10,000 yrs.
Violation of the criteria is due to riser fires exposing large parts of the TLP. A number of fire simulations have
been performed in KFX in order to analyse the extent of potential riser fires. Figure 10-6 is an example of
such a scenario; a jet fire with a leak rate of 50 kg/s. For a full set of KFX simulations, see TLP QRA TN-5,
Appendix C (Ref: 55).

Figure 10-6 Iso-radiation plot of 50 kg/s jet – 15 kW/m2 contour (case ID 24

in Table 5.1 in TLP QRA Appendix C, TN-5)
The most efficient risk-reducing measure identified in the QRA is to install SSIVs also on the import risers.
This will significantly reduce:
• the duration of riser leaks,
• the ignition probability (less likely to expose ignition sources to flammable gas), and
• the fire size (for example for the rupture case with SSIVs the fire is reduced to an insignificant jet length
after two minutes compared to a leak rate of 50 kg/s after 14 minutes with no SSIVs).
The impairment frequency for the main safety functions will also be reduced because less gas will participate in
the fire. Installing SSIVs on the import risers will reduce the impairment frequencies below the acceptance
criteria.
10.9. Design accidental loads and safety functions report

The design accidental loads (DAL) report completed in phase 1 established preliminary DALs and safety
functions early in Select phase. Much of its content is now superseded by information in the TLP QRA and
will be revised accordingly during Define phase.
10.10. Human factors engineering and working environment screening

An HFE/ Well Engineering (WE) Screening was carried out with a cross discipline team. The report is not yet
issued but the main points of the HFE Screening and Strategy report will be:
1. Main items which require HFE focus are: accommodation; accessibility – Ops & M, and the
Identification of Valves Analysis (IVA); the CCR and liaison with Nyhamna CCR; Operations and
Maintenance task analyses specifically around riser bay access requirements.
2. There are no items of exceptional HFE interest (in terms or hazard/risk potential) noted to date.
3. Much of the HFE-relevant design detail will be covered by existing Shell DEPs, Norsok Standard
S-002 (Ref: 120), and other regulatory, industry and operational standards.
4. The most significant HFE issue (in terms of “novelty” and potential to impact on the emerging design)
to emerge from the screening was that of accessibility in and around the riser access bay – an issue
requiring the previously mentioned task analyses.
5. HFE organisation competence requirements will be defined.

10.11. Risk reduction measures / issues for define phase

The following summarises risk reduction measures to be finalised or safety related issues to be determined in
the Define phase.
10.11.1. SSIV location
As noted above there is no measurable risk benefit between locating the SSIVs at the riser base or away from
the TLP and at 850 metres the risk to personnel from subsea releases is low also applies to the no SSIV case.
The risk contribution from dropped objects are therefore not very sensitive to the location of the riser SSIVs
(either at the riser base or ~ 600 metres downstream the riser base which is the base case for the QRA for the
export risers). Therefore the project must determine the best location for the SSIVs based on operations and
maintenance requirements.
10.11.2. Dropped objects
A Dropped Object study carried out for the subsea scope recommended various subsea protection measures
based on dropped object analyses resulting in annual failure frequencies that exceed acceptance criteria.
However, consequence evaluations performed in the QRA (TN-5, Chapter 7.3.2) indicate that the risk from
riser ruptures at 850 metres subsea is low. Therefore the need for protection of the risers and other subsea
equipment from dropped objects should be revisited during Define based on these evaluations.
10.11.3. Alternative escape/evacuation method
It is recognised that in the event of a riser fire in the riser bay area that escape routes to the temporary refuge
could be impaired so personnel in the process area could become muster fatalities. To mitigate against this
scenario the current base case is to provide both an escape tunnel and East side Totally Enclosed Motor
Propelled Safety Crafts (TEMPSCs).
The recommendation from the QRA is that provision of either an East TEMPSCs or escape tunnel is
sufficient to facilitate escape but not both. Therefore lifeboat configuration should be studied in more detail
during Define and an escape philosophy be established for personnel in the process area in case of a split
scenario (i.e. riser fires in the riser bay area) by provision of either of the following:
• Lifeboat stations on both West and East sides of the TLP including a temporary refuge. Trained lifeboat
crew has to be present in the process area at all times in order to define the East lifeboat station as a
primary means of evacuation (base case for the QRA).
• Escape tunnel from the process area through the riser bay area to safe area. If an escape tunnel is
chosen, the air supply to the tunnel should be from a safe location. Air intake under the platform is not
recommended because the escape tunnel shall protect against riser fires from below.
10.11.4. Ignition sources
The air intake for the generator unit is a potential ignition source for gas leaks. The present location of the
generator unit away from the process area is therefore inherently safe design as it keeps the ignition probability
in the process area low. Air intakes in the vicinity of a process area may increase the ignition probability by
approximately 10-20%. This should also be considered when the air intakes for compressor drives in local
power case are located.
10.11.5. Riser protection nets
Riser protection nets (RPN) have been installed on several operating TLPs, for example Auger and Heidrun,
installed in 1993 and 1995 respectively, to protect risers from impact by an errant supply vessel. Vendors
report a typical RPN being capable or arresting a 7,500 tonne deadweight supply vessel travelling at 2 m/s that
creates up to 22 MJ of energy.
[www.tensiontech.com/services/design/marine_systems.html]
Concerns were raised regarding the perceived maintenance burden (cost and risk to personnel) of RPNs and
that they may have been removed from TLPs for this reason. This was investigated during Select and the
following was confirmed by the Auger TLP team:

• RPNs are installed on the Forward and Aft side of the TLP. This is where the two main cranes are
located on this facility [Email from Errol Callais (Auger Offshore Installation Manager) to Victor Ojabo,
10/02/11 (Ref: 15)].
• A yearly preventative maintenance is performed on the nets both visual and by Remotely operated
underwater vehicle inspections [Email from Errol Callais (Auger Offshore Installation Manager) to
Victor Ojabo, 10/02/11 (Ref: 15)].
• RPNs are still in place and remain in good condition [Email from Ronald Entzel (Senior Operations
Readiness Engineer) to Victor Ojabo, 07/02/11 (Ref: 16)].
• There has been one reported incident in which a vessel lost Delivery Point (DP), drifted and “bumped”
gently into one of the nets with no damage to the TLP, vessel or nets [Email from Errol Callais (Auger
Offshore Installation Manager) to Victor Ojabo, 10/02/11 (Ref: 15)].
Based on the effectiveness against protecting the centrally exposed risers from errant vessels and operational
experience of them on other TLPs it is recommended that RPNs are base case for Ormen Lange TLP.
10.11.6. Storegga slide (landslide)
The risk for a major subsea mudslide is negligible based on results from a former study considering the Ormen
Lange field development. However, the slide risk assessment study [Lund J.K. et al: "Slide Risk Assessment in
the Ormen Lange Field Development Area", SPE 86703, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2004 (Ref: 122)]
reveals that the frequency for a shallow slide is in the area of 10-5 per year. This may represent a threat to the
stability of the platform. It is, therefore suggested to conduct further studies on the effect of shallow mud slide
on the anchoring system of the TLP.
10.11.7. Lifeboats
Project held meetings with two vendors concerning lifeboat design standards, both were carrying out a gap
analysis against DNV-OS-E406 [DNV Offshore Standard DNV-OS-E406, Design of Free Fall Lifeboats,
April 2010 (Ref: 106)] to ensure compliance against it.
The lifeboat drop height from the TLP is approximately 33 m, therefore the larger lifeboats must be used to
withstand the resultant impact energies from this drop height.
Maximum personnel on board will be 140 during commissioning. As Norsok requires N+1, three 70 capacity
lifeboats will be provided at the LQ. If Eastside lifeboats are provided the maximum foreseeable requirement
for escape from the process area would be during compressor maintenance work when there could be 12-
15 personnel in the process module. Therefore as N+1 must also be provided on the East side, two
70 capacity lifeboats would be provided.
Further work will be carried out on this during Define to ensure correct lifeboats are selected which comply
with DNV-OS-E406.
10.11.8. Explosion analysis
A detailed probabilistic explosion analysis in the process area including Computational Fluid Dynamics
simulations and equipment count on P&IDs will be conducted during Define to verify the explosion DAL
specifications made during Select.
10.11.9. Vessel collisions
The Petroleum Safety Authority Norway issued a note which stated they expect there to be reasonable
agreement between performed collision analyses and actual experienced collisions on the facilities on the
Norwegian shelf. To satisfy this requirement the QRA Visiting Ship Collision Assessment used a 7,500 tonnes
displacement supply vessel to reflect the fact that vessel size is continuously increasing.
The COAST database should be referenced during Define to identify the ship traffic in the Ormen Lange area,
and update the ship collision assessment if necessary.

10.12. ALARP summary

The requirement of this section is to confirm that either:
• The lowest risk/impact concept(s) have been actively sought and selected; or alternatively,
• Demonstrate that the cost and / or effort required to adopt the lowest risk/impact concept is grossly
disproportionate to the benefit, i.e. that the selected concept(s) risks are ALARP.
QRA work conducted in phase 1 demonstrated that the TLP with TTR was lowest risk of the floater options.
The TLP QRA results show that GIR values for all groups on the TLP are well below the criteria. GIR is
however within the ALARP region for all groups (10>GIR>0.1 per 10,000 yrs) and risk reducing measures
should therefore be identified.
Riser accidents dominate the risk on the TLP because of the following factors:
• High number of risers (12×)
• Large riser ID (16")
• All risers contain gas
• High riser pressure (120 bar for export risers and 80 bar for import risers)
It is recommended to install SSIVs also on the import risers in order to reduce the duration of riser fires, size
of riser fires and ignition probability and consequently meet the risk acceptance criteria.
There has been a systematic and rigorous application of HEMP and many aspect of the TLP design were
concerned with reducing risks, for example:
• TLP orientated so that predominant wind direction takes any gas releases from the process area away
from the temporary refuge.
• Maximising natural ventilation in modules.
• Plating the lower deck to protect deck areas from large riser fires.
Further risk reduction mechanisms and safety related issues to be addressed in the Define phase are noted in
Section 10.11.

11. Operations Readiness and Assurance

The Operations Readiness support for the floater compression option has been carried out in close
cooperation between EOXE team in Aberdeen and the Norske Shell Operations Readiness and Assurance
(OR&A) team.
This section contains a summary of the work completed to support the concept Select phase.
11.1. Operations philosophy

The proposed Operating Philosophy is documented fully in 37-00-NS-J02-00001: Operations Philosophy –
Ormen Lange (Ref: 58).
Two concepts were considered for the floating compression alternative; a semi-submersible platform (semi)
and a tension leg platform (TLP) with the TLP as preferred concept. On the topside facility of the platform
the gas and liquids will be separated, compressed/pumped and commingled before they are exported into the
2 x 30” pipeline to shore via another set of (risers and) flowlines. The Selected compressor train configuration
is a two stage 2 x 50% with no sparing and able to contribute to the delivery of the target production
availability of 95% for the floater. For power supply, both power generation offshore and power from the grid
onshore have been evaluated. The operating cost of the platform with power from shore is lower than when
power is generated offshore. This is mainly due to a reduction in maintenance requirements, manning level and
logistics cost.
Key operations requirements and assumptions as defined in the Operations Philosophy include:
• The facilities will be minimally manned, a high degree of remote operation functionality and process
control, based on online analysers and condition monitoring will be implemented.
• Use of latest technology to be considered to minimise Life-Cycle Cost (LLC), reduce
operations/maintenance interventions and improve design/construction.
• The Host Facilities and equipment will be designed per recognised oil and gas industry standards; will
comply with all acts and regulations relevant for such an installation on the Norwegian Continental
Shelf, other applicable in-country governmental requirements and Shell standards.
• Ergonomics will be given explicit consideration where relevant.
• Only equipment with proven availability/reliability will be installed on the facility. Where possible,
equipment should be used that is easily obtained “in country” and has in country maintenance support.
• Spare and stand-by equipment needs careful consideration to optimise cost/availability and uptime.
• Equipment vital to the safety of personnel present on the facility must always be spared, such that
unsafe working conditions cannot result from failure or shutdown for maintenance of that piece of
equipment.
• High priority shall be given to standardising equipment to ensure ease of maintenance and optimisation
of stock levels
• The facility will be designed to accommodate the determined “steady state” manning complement with
provision for extra personnel for activities such as start-up, training positions, specialised maintenance,
and shutdown crews.
• With the offshore power generation option, gas only turbines will be installed to reduce emission of
NOX and SOX. These gas turbines will only be generating power when gas from the Ormen Lange field
is available on the topside facility offshore. At other times (e.g during shutdowns), power will be
provided by diesel powered emergency generators.
Availability and reliability

The main drivers for availability and reliability are HSE (e.g. process safety and life-support ) and Value. The
value driver is determined by the amount of production loss and/or production deferment. Maximising Net

Present Value (NPV) is assisted by the use of an Availability / Reliability model, an Activity Based Cost Model
(ACBM) and Criticality considerations.
The RAM base case model for the TLP has predicted;
• 95.7% availability for the 2 x 50% Electric Motor (EM) driven compressors and offshore power
generation
• 95.9% availability for the 2 x 50% EM driven compressors and onshore power generation.
The summarised results contained in the RAM model report (Doc No. GS.09.51414 (Ref: 21)) also shows the
result for each compression configuration case and how it supports the selection of the 2 x 50% EM driven
compressor. The availability % represents the expected actual capacity of the TLP production system over the
19 years field life.
An integrated model for the Integrated Production System will consider the reliability requirements to meet
the contractual gas supply obligations from Ormen Lange and Norske Shell availability and reliability
aspirations. Additional sensitivities will be done during FEED and Detailed Design to confirm the predicted
reliability numbers. During FEED the system sensitivity in terms of incremental availability / reliability needs
to be assessed and offset against Life Cycle costs.
Capacity
Capacity and turndown requirements will primarily depend upon contract and market conditions, and
availability requirements. The floating compression platform option is required to provide uninterrupted gas
supply to the onshore gas treatment facility at Nyhamna. Each item of equipment should be studied for its
ability to handle as wide a range of operating conditions as possible in order to minimise equipment count and
maximise flexibility.
Turndown philosophy
In general, turndown should be possible down to 25% of normal maximum throughput, without loss of
functionality. The shutdown philosophy will incorporate equipment recycle where possible and warm-up and
blow down will be avoided where risk considerations permit.
Turndown will be considered for all main utilities including power – this should also take into consideration
the ability to systematically manage power/load shedding.
There should be some means of pressurising the facility after a complete shutdown to facilitate a rapid start up
(use of Nitrogen and/or backflow from export trunk line).
Control and automation
In order to achieve the ambition of a second generation Integrated Operations Framework as outlined in the
(draft) OLF guidelines on “Integrated Operations for new projects”, an integrated control and safeguarding
system (hull, topsides and onshore treatment facilities) shall be developed. This will help to realise Smart Fields
operation, centralised real-time measurement, monitoring, control and safeguarding for gas compression,
liquid handling, power generation, utilities system operations and development planning.
The process control system will be part of the SAS. This allows remote monitoring and remote set point
control capabilities of appropriate parameters of the hull, facilities and subsea wells systems from both
offshore CCR and the Onshore CCR at Nyhamna. These parameters and levels of authority will be further
defined as part of a Control and Monitoring Philosophy during FEED. The business case for the upgrade of
the existing Multi-Purpose Dynamic Simulator used by Norske Shell will be further developed during FEED.
Production measurement and surveillance
Metering is required to fulfil a number of functions driven by regulatory, industry and internal requirements.
The metering functions relate to process control, sales quantity, and hydrocarbon accounting. Consistent with
a need to simplify facilities, metering equipment will be minimised to that deemed necessary to effectively
manage the business:

• Metering devices, flow conditioning equipment and ancillaries designed to meet the necessary level of
accuracy only.
• Sensors provided for real time condition and performance monitoring of critical equipment (e.g.
compressors) and for process performance monitoring.
• Sampling points with appropriate connections must be provided at key points throughout the process,
utilities and export system.
• All hydrocarbon sample points will be equipped with connections to drains and/or flare.
Operability and maintainability
The principle of minimum manning/intervention applies, with routine activities carried out during daytime
only. Apart from the design requirement for automation and remote monitoring and control, the normal
approach to be adopted shall be towards:
• Lay-out and spacing with segregated modules/locations and the possibility for easy expansion if
required.
• Easy and Safe access and facilities (e.g. skid-beams) to allow for modular change-out of components (no
in-situ major repair and/or overhaul of major equipment).
• Use of equipment standard to the rest of the existing operation as much as possible. Operability and
Maintainability will be particularly critical during Start Up and Shut operations, taking also into
consideration any potential problems with flow-assurance.
The Project should aim to select as much as possible similar types and makes of equipment to those existing:
• Reduce the need for different types of spare parts and hence minimises stockholdings.
• Allow interchange ability of equipment.
• Realise contract management advantages in equipment procurement.
The sparing philosophy will be based on Reliability and Availability Modelling. This study will be used to
determine the most optimum-sparing configuration to achieve the required availability in order to meet the
requisite production targets. A spares policy, compatible with the availability requirements of the Ormen
Lange future compression and Norske Shell, shall be established. Analysis of the requirements will be based on
reliability centred maintenance techniques taking into consideration replacement time and lifecycle costing for
each of the components. This shall also be one of the primary selection criteria for major machinery and
equipment purchase.
11.2. Telecommunication infrastructure

A number of options to provide broadband communications links between the vessel and the control room at
Nyhamna have been considered. The communications link must be designed to provide a resilient connection
based on a main link with a backup.
All the broadband network options will provide a communications link with a predicted availability >99.99%.
Each option is based on a primary communications link with a backup. Three of the options considered are
based on the use of a backup satellite system whilst the remaining option provides diversity and backup via
alternatively routed fibre cable.
Four main options to provide broadband communications links from offshore to onshore are considered:
1. Use spare fibre optic cores in the existing umbilicals connected to templates A&B and extend these to
the compression platform located near to the template forming a resilient ring network. Backup is
included in the design.
2. Install a new fibre optic cable from Nyhamna to the platform, a distance of approx 120 km. Backup via
a satellite system.

3. Provide a Microwave radio link from the platform to the Norwegian mainland at Gamlemsveten as the
primary link with a Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) satellite system as backup.
4. A fibre optic cable embedded in a power cable providing power from onshore to the platform. Backup
will be provided via a satellite system.
The recommended solution to provide broadband communications links from the platform to the Nyhamna
control room is option three – a microwave radio primary link with satellite backup.
11.3. SMART facilities assessment

As part of the Ormen Lange Phase 1 field development, an Integrated Operations (IO) framework has been
established with related SMART-fields, Remote Operations and Process/Production optimisation capabilities.
For the Ormen Lange Phase 2 field development and its related project portfolio, it is imperative to build on
the existing Integrated Operations (IO) system in use and to explore opportunities for further alignment and
optimization of IO related technologies, tools and applications, commensurate with Norske Shell’s ambitions
towards a second generation IO framework.
For the future gas compression project, one key objective is to develop a floater platform concept which can
be operated with minimum intervention and minimum offshore manning. The IO technical capabilities, which
have been implemented as part of the Phase 1 development, are comprehensive and provide a sound basis for
the offshore platform based gas compression solution. Specific technical enablers will have to be further
explored as the development progresses during the Define phase.
11.4. NUI assessment

In the Identify and Asses phase of the Ormen Lange Future Compression project a base case of Power from
Shore and electrically driven compressor was used to propose a Not Normally Manned (NNM) or Normally
Unattended Installation (NUI) option as a possible operating mode for the Floater. A review of offshore host
facilities in operation has shown that though NUI had been considered in a number of development projects
around the world there was none found to have successfully operated an NUI status with compression and
offshore power generation as proposed in the floater option. A few examples had actually commenced NUI
operation but had to review operating mode and change to manned operation. Key issues raised include
frequent maintenance / intervention visits due to equipment type installed, selected equipment (rotating,
electrical, control and automation, etc) does not deliver on reliability requirement, proximity to existing
operations to serve as a hub, risk of frequent travel and operator productivity, flexibility and availability of
logistics support, choice of power source onshore / offshore, minimum availability requirement agreed in gas
sales contract etc.
A study of the marine system operation regulatory requirements for floating production facilities in Norway
and the GOM has shown that the Norwegian Maritime Directorate’s Regulation 9 May 2003 No. 687 (Ref: 1)
concerning qualification requirements and certification rights for personnel on Norwegian ships, fishing and
catching boats and mobile facilities has not explicitly specified that such facilities must be manned but has
defined specific competency requirements for the persons responsible for the operation of the marine system
(e.g. stability management, ballast operation and dynamic positioning operation). The US Coast Guard on the
other hand specifies that manning is required for Floating Offshore Installations (FOIs) with Active Ballast by
appropriately licensed and experienced personnel. This is required to be manned 24-hours a day, in order to
monitor the stability and mooring system for the FOI and make ballast adjustments as necessary. Tension Leg
Platforms (TLPs), Tension Leg Well Platforms (TLWPs) and Semi-Submersible Floating Production Systems
(FPSs) are normally considered to be Active Ballast FOIs. Marine intervention activities are mainly centred on
the operation and control of marine systems including stability management, ballast control and dynamic
positioning (if required). Since there is no known FOI with hydrocarbon processing and rotating equipment
where remote control and operation technology for marine systems has been successfully implemented, it is
considered unproven and therefore not recommended for the Ormen Lange floater platform. As a base case
assumption therefore it is assumed that manning of the platform is required to monitor the stability and
mooring system for the floater and make ballast adjustments as necessary. For a TLP the ballast system is far

less critical than for a Semi-sub as no active ballasting is required (to compensate for weather or sea state) once
the installation is permanently installed (except in circumstances such as damage conditions or during major
lifting operations). It might therefore be possible to make the case successfully that the marine systems could
be operated remotely during steady state operations but it is too early to conclude this and further work will be
required during the Define phase to fully assess this in consultation with the appropriate Norwegian
authorities.
The cost implication of the NUI mode of operation for the floater has been evaluated for additional
deferment per year, field personnel cost per year and logistics cost per year. The Unit Operating Cost (level 2
estimate +25 / -15%) for the floater operation in the NUI mode is estimated at 0.25$/Barrels Oil Equivalent
(BOE) compared to 0.42$/BOE for minimum manning of the facilities. This significant reduction is mainly
due to reduction in logistics (flights and vessels) cost and personnel cost.
The cost and manning changes to achieve NUI operating mode will have some positive and negative cost
implication. The overall impact is a savings of about US$2.15 million/yr at US$50/BOE. However a
sensitivity run shows a loss of about US$3.77 million/yr at US$70/BOE. The overall impact on availability of
unmanning the platform is a reduction of about 0.2% of the average availability calculation for the platform.
The overall conclusion for the comprehensive NUI assessment is:
a) Since there is no known FOI with hydrocarbon processing and rotating equipment where remote
control and operation technology for marine systems has been successfully implemented, it is
considered unproven and therefore not recommended for the Ormen Lange floater platform NUI.
b) Carryout a full facility RAM study for the selected floater configuration and demonstrate the sensitivity
for the Normally Unattended Installation operating mode.
c) Review the Ormen Lange floater facilities operation risk profile to include the impact of operating in a
Normally Unattended Installation mode.
d) The Unit Operating Cost (level 2 estimate +25 / -15%) for the floater operation in the NUI mode is
estimated at 0.25$/BOE compared to 0.42$/BOE for minimum manning of the facilities.
e) The cost and manning changes to achieve NUI operating mode will have some positive and negative
cost implications. The overall impact is a savings of about US$2.15 million/yr at US$50/BOE and loss
of about US$3.77 million/yr at US$70/BOE.
f) A review of offshore host facilities in operation has shown that though NUI had been considered in a
number of oil and gas development projects around the world there were none found to have
successfully operated a floater NUI facility with compression and offshore power generation as
proposed in the Ormen Lange Future Compression floater.
g) Since there is no known FOI with hydrocarbon processing and rotating equipment where remote
control and operation technology for marine systems has been successfully implemented, it is
considered unproven and therefore not recommended for the Ormen Lange floater at this stage in the
project development phase. This is however an opportunity that will be further explored in the Define
phase.
h) The overall impact on availability for unmanning the platform is a reduction of about 0.2% of the
average availability calculation for the platform.
11.5. Logistics
A full pre DG3 Logistics, Infrastructure and Resources Assessment (LIRA) report has been prepared as part
of the concept selection study. Logistics accounts for between 15% and 20% of Project costs. It is also
responsible for 50% of the HSE Risk. The Ormen Lange Gas Compression Floater Concept project
requirements are evaluated against existing facilities used for the Logistics and Infrastructure Operations in
Mid Norway. The experience, facilities and learnings from Draugen and Ormen Lange Drilling Support
activities will be fully exploited and built into the logistics strategy.

The total amount of activity increase for Ormen Lange floater is estimated at 15% over current support
activities for Draugen, and two Exploration/Development Rigs. The movements of materials, equipment, and
staff should be coordinated and optimised and where possible the existing pool of Vessels, Helicopters, Base
facilities and Contracts should be used based on synergies and economics. CAPEX vs. OPEX Tradeoffs
should be reviewed in line with expected activities and production over the life cycle cost of the project and
where required, permanent facilities should be constructed to last the project life.
A number of Risks and Opportunities were identified as part of the LIRA study and these are listed below.
This will form the basis for further work in the Define phase.
Main Logistics Contraints/Limitations:
• Adverse Winter working conditions (improve working conditions)
• Helicopter Crew Change Operations (increase in Helicopter Passenger Miles)
• Supply base facilities (immediate need for expansion)
• Contractor Support Facilities (review and tender for additional services)
• Large overseas imported items seek Norwegian Customs ruling on exemptions before placing the
orders for long lead items (i.e. vessels, equipment modules, gas turbines etc).
11.6. OPEX modelling

The reference floater base case life cycle OPEX has been estimated at a total of $91 million US Engineer’s
Data Model (EDM) 2010 for the project period of 17 years with an average Unit Operating Cost (UOC)
across the full life of $3.9 US / BOE. See Figure 11-1 below for breakdown of the OPEX cost by category.
The estimate had been established at 2010 cost level but updated in Q1 2011 and will be incremental to the
existing Ormen Lange field OPEX. The model is built using the base case build data. Sensitivities have been
run to show the differences in OPEX costs for the floater option. This project OPEX reporting will also
deliver Money of the Day (MOD) costs for the project for relief valve (RV), HV and SV market values
OPEX Cost
120,000,000 160,000,000
140,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
60,000,000 80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
20,000,000
0 0
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Contingency Faciltiy
Logistic Support Bases Overhead
Sub Sea TA and Core Maintenance
TAX Annual Production Prod (BOE)
Figure 11-1 Floater OPEX Model result
The scope of the OPEX estimate includes all direct and indirect expenditures related to the operation of the
assets for the floater base case option during the estimated operating period. The estimate does not include
any revenues, rejuvenation/abandonment costs and CAPEX to sustain gas production nor any OPEX
associated with pre-start activity. It should be noted that this is an incremental project, which extends the life
of an existing field with a well established support and management structure already in place.

All activities relevant to the OPEX estimate have been considered (See Figure 11-2 below). In addition to
Production and Maintenance (routine maintenance and plant turnarounds/offshore interventions) these
comprise HSE, IT, Human Resources (HR), Finance, Supply and Logistics, Marine and Business Management.
Assets Total Life OPEX Average Yearly OPEX

Floater 1,547,666,661 91,039,215
Contingency 300,191,240 17,658,308
Faciltiy 129,307,305 7,606,312
Logistic Support Bases 206,308,292 12,135,782
Overhead 580,104,656 34,123,803
Sub Sea 23,596,600 1,388,035
TA and Core Maintenance 1,011,467 59,498
TAX 307,147,100 18,067,476
Figure 11-2 Floater base Case OPEX Breakdown
As an additional facility to an existing venture, the support organisation is largely in place already. The model
will capture any incremental support manpower requirement that is directly linked to the new facility as well as
the increases due to the requirement for a facility operations crew. All staff will be assumed to be local
Norwegian staff with manning levels taken from the manning strategy developed for the base case of the
project. An initial manning level 30% higher will be used for the first two years with a reference date of 2018
where the manning will be as in the project plan then decreasing to 85% to simulate the mature operations
state. Additional manpower has been assumed for turnaround/ major shutdown periods.
Methodology
An Asset/Activity model was constructed using the Ope$t ® software to enable a systematic itemised build-up
of the estimate. All cost elements have been categorised as manpower, services, materials, tools or CAPEX.
Risk Areas
The following risks were identified during the case building.
• Alignment and scheduling of major shutdown events in line with availability studies and changes to
unplanned shutdown data.
• Project requirement to review and possibly change Technical, Economical, Commercial, Organisational
and Political (TECOP) review for contingency.
• Waste costs are based on an estimated total waste volume and should be updated as a higher degree of
certainty is gained.

• CO2 tax is based on Norwegian Rates for 2010/11 across the life of the operate phase. Therefore any
changes in the tax rate will affect the model estimate.
• NOX Tax is currently not included in the model as this may be better captured in the economics model
so that the tax rate can be more easily tracked.
• Power Tariff cost change in relation to gas price cannot be estimated across the life of the operate
phase, therefore presenting a risk to the estimate result.

12. Equipment Lists

For both the TLP concepts, equipment lists have been developed to define the equipment which would be
associated with each TLP design. Refer to Table 12-1 for information.
Each individual item of equipment is detailed to include the following information:
• Revision number
• Skid reference number
• Equipment tag number
• Discipline
• Process system
• Module
• Dimensions
• Weights (dry and operating)
• Equipment manufacturer/supplier reference
• Electrical power requirements
• Operating and design pressures/ temperature
• Materials of construction
• Estimated cost
• General information (cost reference).
12.1. Gas turbine driver equipment list

The TLP option with gas turbine compressor driver’s equipment list contains the sections below:
• Reception facilities
• Compression
• Utility
• Safety
• Electrical power generation and distribution
• Controls and automation
• Subsea support
• HVAC
• Risers
• Mechanical handling
• Hull systems.
The hull systems equipment are located in the TLP legs and are therefore are considered for final topsides
weight and cost estimates. The hull systems electrical requirements are taken into account in the electrical
loads.
Full details of the GT Driven TLP option equipment list is attached below:
37-1Y-NS-C19-00001
Equipment List 60MSm3d Reference Case GT Driven Option 2x50% Rev07m.xlsx
EXCEL FILE TO BE REPLACED BY LIVLINK HYPERLINK (HOLD)


LOCATION REVISION
ORMEN LANGE
07M
NORWEGIAN SEA, NORWAY
DOCUMENT NUMBER Date
37-1Y-NS-C19-00001 24/03/2011
Surface Area Materials of Design Capacity Cost Remarks

Dimensions Weight EI Duty Pressure Temperature (m²) Construction Code (USD)
Main L / TT W / ID H / TT Footprint Dry Operating Absorbed Installed Operating Design Operating Design
STEM Ref.
Area (m) (m) (m) (m²) (tonnes) (tonnes) (kW) (kW) (bara) (bara) (°C) (°C)
High Strength
duction GC 3.40 9.00 9.1 139.0 188.0 145 2000000 Mangiarotti quotation 10/04/09
Carbon steel
High Strength
duction GC 3.40 9.00 9.1 139.0 188.0 145 2000000 Mangiarotti quotation 10/04/09
Carbon steel
14 suction
Sulzer Quotation 03/12/10
duction GC 4.6 1.4 1.4 6.4 8.4 9.4 sulzer 369 450 143 150 10 - 60 -10 / 80 C6 112.9 m3/h 1,800,000
GSG 80-260 / 11 BB5
discharge
A summary topsides weight for the equipment used in the GT Driver TLP concept option is detailed below.
At present these are estimated design weights from vendor quotations or calculations. The final topsides
equipment weights will be determined in FEED and details design phases.
Table 12-2 GT Driver Equipment list weight

Weight Summary R 07M 12/04/2011 Weight Reduction & Costs
Summary 2 x 50% GT Driven Equipment List Weights

Dry Operating
Reception Facilites 312.2 419.2
Compression 818.9 932.7
Utility 377.4 854.1
Safety 516.4 575.2
Electrical Power Gen & Distribution 575.1 656.2
C&A 97.9 101.2
Riser 253.0 253.0
Subsea Support 28.0 28.0
Mechanical Handling 433.4 433.4
HVAC 70.0 70.0
Hull Systems 12.4 16.2
Total Tonnes 3494.8 4339.2
A summary of topsides CAPEX costs for the equipment used in the GT Driver TLP concept option is
detailed below. At present these are estimated design CAPEX costs. Some are derived from previous estimates
and some information is provided from quotations specifically for the project.
Outline inflation/ contingency to each section has been provided as an estimation to and would be removed
during the FEED phase or by the cost engineer.
This information is being provided as input only to assist the development of the final CAPEX cost report.
Table 12-3 GT Driver Equipment list cost estimate

R 07M 12/04/2011 Weight Reduction & Costs
Cost Summary (USD) 2 x 50% GT Driver option

USD $ Inflation % Total USD $
Reception Facilites 9,400,000 10 10,340,000
Compression 89,150,000 20 106,980,000
Utility 16,469,505 10 18,116,456
Safety 24,872,000 10 27,359,200
Electrical Power Gen & Distribution 24,526,000 10 26,978,600
C&A 8,500,000 10 9,350,000
Subsea Support 600,000 10 660,000
Risers 27,550,000 10 30,305,000
Mechanical Handling 7,870,000 10 8,657,000
HVAC 905,000 10 995,500
Hull Systems 1,000,000 10 1,100,000
Total 210,842,505 240,841,756
12.2. Power from shore equipment list

The TLP option with Power from Shore equipment list contains the sections below:

• Reception facilities
• Compression
• Utility
• Safety
• Electrical power generation and distribution
• Control and automation
• Subsea support
• HVAC
• Risers
• Mechanical handling
• Hull systems.
The hull systems equipment are located in the TLP legs and are therefore are considered for final topsides
weight and cost estimates. The hull systems electrical requirements are taken into account in the electrical
loads.
Full details of the Power from Shore TLP option equipment list is attached below:
37-1Y-NS-C19-00002
Equipment List 60MSm3d Reference Case Power from Shore Option 2x50% Rev07M.xlsx
EXCEL FILE TO BE REPLACED BY LIVLINK HYPERLINK (HOLD)
A summary topsides weight for the equipment used in the Power from Shore TLP concept option is detailed
below. At present these are estimated design weights from vendor quotations or calculations. The final
topsides equipment weights will be determined in FEED and details design phases.
Table 12-4 Power from Shore Equipment list weight

Weight Summary R 07M 12/04/2011 Weight Reduction & Costs
Summary 2 x 50% power from shore Equipment List Weights

Dry Operating
Reception Facilites 312.2 419.2
Compression 722.8 849.4
Utility 271.9 717.6
Safety 511.4 568.2
Electrical Power Gen & Distribution 619.9 734.9
C&A 92.9 96.2
Subsea Support 28.0 28.0
Risers 253.0 253.0
Mechanical Handling 433.4 433.4
HVAC 85.0 85.0
Hull Systems 12.4 16.2
Total (tonnes) 3343.0 4201.2
A summary of topsides CAPEX costs for the equipment used in the Power from Shore TLP concept option is
detailed below. At present these are estimated design CAPEX costs. Some are derived from previous
estimates, some information is provided from quotations specifically for the project.
Outline inflation/ contingency to each section has been provided as an estimation to and would be removed
during the FEED phase or by the cost engineer.

This information is being provided as input only to assist the development of the final CAPEX cost report.
Table 12-5 Power from Shore Equipment list cost estimate

R 07M 12/04/2011 Weight Reduction & Costs
Cost Summary (USD) 2 x 50% power from shore

USD $ Inflation % Total USD $
Reception Facilites 9,400,000 10 10,340,000
Compression 52,180,000 20 62,616,000
Utility 11,459,505 10 12,605,456
Safety 24,872,000 10 27,359,200
Electrical Power Gen & Distribution 13,621,000 10 14,983,100
C&A 8,500,000 10 9,350,000
Subsea Support 600,000 10 660,000
Risers 27,550,000 10 30,305,000
Mechanical Handling 7,870,000 10 8,657,000
HVAC 1,215,000 10 1,336,500
Hull Systems 1,000,000 10 1,100,000
Total ($) 158,267,505 179,312,256


13. Conclusion
The topside design for the TLP has evolved significantly since the last report was issued in late 2009. The key
changes to highlight are:
• The process design has been expanded to now include two stages of compression to cater for the
revised subsurface conditions and a desire to achieve lower abandonment pressure at the wells to
maximise UR.
• The topside layout has been re-configured into a modular arrangement to simplify the technical
interface with the Hull.
• Extensive reviews have been carried out to ensure that we have a robust equipment list and suitable
allowances and contingencies added to make sure we have a robust weight and CoG estimate for the
global analysis.
• The overall topside dimensions have been aligned with the latest Hull dimensions.
• Extensive IPSM studies have been performed to optimise the topside design in terms of flow and
compression power.
• Availability and reliability studies have been performed on the whole OL production system to optimise
the compressor configuration and inform the sparing philosophy.
• Detailed QRA studies have been performed to quantify the overall TLP risk picture and also identify
risk mitigation opportunities to be work further in the next phase.
• Operations personnel have been fully engaged in the development of the concept at all stages.
• The PDMS model has been developed to a high degree, including detailed modelling of the topside/hull
interfaces.
Overall the proposed topside concept is now at a relatively mature stage. The subsea and substructures
concepts are at a similar level of definition and the interfaces are well understood and documented.
There are still a number of concept optimisations to be performed between now and the start of FEED. Some
of this will be done as part of the BfD preparation in Q2 2011 and some might be left to early FEED
depending on the level of definition required to make the decision. One key decision still outstanding is the
selection of local power of PfS. This decision will need to be made prior to start of FEED.
The next step in the development of the topside design is the preparation of a BfD. This will be done
according to PG08 and is estimated to be complete by the end of Q2 2011. The focus will then shift to FEED
planning and this phase of work is currently planned to commence on the 1st Sept 2011.


14. Abbreviations
ACBM Activity Based Cost Model
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
ALQ Accessory Living Quarters
AMS Asset Management Systems
ASCV Anti-Surge Control Valve
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATEX Atmospheres Explosibles (EU directive)
BDP Basic Design Package
BEM TEMA Exchanger Nomenclature (“B” Bonnet (Integral Cover); “E” One Pass
Shell; “M” Fixed Tubesheet like “B” Stationary Head)
BOE Barrels Oil Equivalent
BS&W Base Sediment and Water
BTL Bottom Tan Line
C&A Control and Automation
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CAP Critical Action Panel
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCR Central Control Room
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
Ceq Carbon Equivalent
CITHP Closed in Tubing Head Pressure
CoG Centre of Gravity
CPU Central Processor Unit
CVN Charpy V-Notch
CWE Collaborative Work Environment

DACA Data Acquisition and Control Architecture
DAL Design Accidental Loads / Dimensioning Accidental Load
DEH Direct Electrical Heating
DEP Design and Engineering Practice
DNV Det Norske Veritas
DP Delivery Point
dP Differential Pressure
DSHA Defined Situation of Hazard and Accident
EDM Engineer’s Data Model
EM Electric Motor
Emotor Electric Motor
EOFL End of Field Life
EP Exploration and Production
ESD Emergency Shut Down
ESDV Emergency Shut Down Valve
ESP Electric Submersible Pump
FEED Front End Engineering and Design
FF Foundation Fieldbus
F&G Fire and Gas
FGS Fire and Gas System
FLET Flow Line End Termination
FLR Flexible Lazywave Riser
FOI Floating Offshore Installation
FPS Floating Production System
FRED Fire Radiation Explosion and Dispersion
FTHP Flowing Tubing Head Pressure

GC Gas Compression
GE General Electric
GIR Group Individual Risk
GOM Gulf of Mexico
GPS Global Positioning System
GT Gas Turbine
HART Highway Addressable Remote Transmitter
HC Hydrocarbon
HEMP Hazards and Effects Management Process
HFE Human Factors Engineering
HH High Integrity Temperature Trip
HIPPS High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems
HLV Heavy Lift Vehicle
HMI Human Machine Interface
HP High Pressure
HR Human Resources
HSE Health, Safety and Environment
HSSE & SP Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Social Performance
HU Hull
HV High Voltage
HV&AC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current
ID Internal Diameter
IO Integrated Operations
IPF Instrumented Protective Function
IPM Integrated Production Model

IPSM Integrated Production System Model
IRPA Individual Risk Per Annum
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
IT Information Technology
IVA Identification of Valves Analysis
KO Knockout
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
LCC Life-Cycle Cost
LCV Level Control Valve
LER Local Equipment Room
LHV Lower Heating Value
LIRA Logistics, Infrastructure and Resources Assessment
LP Low Pressure
LQ Living Quarters
LTCS Low Temperature Carbon Steel
LV Low Voltage
MAC Main Automation Contractor
MAWP Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
MEF Mechanical Equivalence Factors
MEG Mono Ethylene Glycol
MOB Man Overboard Boat
MOD Money of the Day
MoReS Reservoir simulation application
MSF Loss of Main Safety Function
MSL Mean Sea Level
MSS Martensitic Stainless Steel

MTBF Mean Time Between Failure
MVC Measurement Validation and Comparison
MWO Minimum Work Obligation
NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers
NNM Not Normally Manned
NPSA Net Positive Suction Head
NPSH Net Positive Suction Head
NPV Net Present Value
NRV Non-Return Valve
NTE Not-to-exceed
NUI Normally Unattended Installation
ODS Operational Data Server
OHD Open Hazardous Drain
OL Ormen Lange
OLF The Norwegian Oil Industry Organisation
OLGA Multiphase flow pipeline simulator
ONHD Open Non-Hazardous Drain
OPC OLE for Process Control (communications protocol)
OPEX Operating Expenditure
OR&A Operations Readiness and Assurance
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle (Gas Turbine Heat Recovery System)
ORP Opportunity Realisation Process
PA Public Announcement
PCHE Printed Circuit Heat Exchanger
PCS Process Control System
PCV Pressure Control Valve

PD Pressure Differential
PDMS Plant Design Management System
PDO Plan for Development and Operation
PDP Preliminary Development Plan
PE Production Efficiency
PEFS Process Engineering Flow Scheme
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PFP Passive Fire Protection
PfS Power from Shore
PFS Process Flow Scheme
PI&D Process and Instrumentation Diagram
PLEM Pipeline End Module
PLL Potential Loss of Life
PLQ Permanent Living Quarters
PLR Pig Launcher/Receiver
PM Power Module
PQ Pressure Flow
PSD Process Shutdown System
PWHT Post Weld Heat Treatment
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
QT Quenched and Tempered
RAM Reliability, Availability and Maintainability
RB Riser Bay
RFSU Ready for Start-Up
ROV Remote Operated Vehicle
RPN Riser Production Nets

RV Ranking Value
SAS Safety Automation System
SBR Styrene-Butadiene Rubber
SGSi Shell Global Solutions International
SIL Safety Integrity Level
SIMOPS Simultaneous Operations
SMS Schoepentoeter-mistmat-swirldeck
SMSM Schoepentoeter-mistmat-swirldeck-mistmat
SOV Solenoid Valve
SSIV Subsea Isolation Valve
SV Screening Value
SWL Sea Water Lift
TECOP Technical, Economical, Commercial, Organisational and Political
TEMPSC Totally Enclosed Motor Propelled Safety Craft
TIN Technical Information Note
TLP Tension Leg Platform
TLQ Temporary Living Quarters
TLWP Tension Leg Well Platform
TR Temporary Refuge
TSA Thermally Sprayed Aluminium
TSHH Temperature Switch High-High
T/T Tan to Tan
TTR Top Tensioned Riser
TVD True Vertical Depth
TVDss True Vertical Depth Subsea Level
UCF Upper Column Frame

UCP Unit Control Panel
UMP Upstream Major Projects
UOC Unit Operating Cost
UR Ultimate Recovery
UV Ultraviolet
VSAT Very Small Aperture Terminal
VSD Variable Speed Drives
VSDS Variable Speed Electric Drive Systems
VVC Vapour Vacuum Compression
WE Well Engineering
WEM Well Engineering Manager
WHRU Waste Heat Recovery Units
WT Wall Thickness

15. References
Regulations
1. Norwegian Maritime Directorate’s Regulation No. 687, 9 May 2003
2. Regulations relating to measurement of petroleum for fiscal purposes and for calculations of CO2 tax
(The measurement regulations), The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 1 Nov 2001.
Shell Design and Engineering Practices (DEP)

3. DEP 30.00.60.15-Gen, Human Machine Interface and Control Room Design
4. DEP 31.29.40.10-Gen
5. DEP 31.29.40.30-Gen
6. DEP 31.37.00.11-Gen
7. DEP 32.01.20.10, Data Acquisition and Control Architecture (DACA)
8. DEP 32.30.20.11, Fire, Gas and Smoke Detection Systems
9. DEP 32.80.10.10, Classification and Implementation of Instrumented Protective Functions
10. DEP 37.05.10.10-Gen, Design of Seawater Systems and Utility Heat Transfer Systems for Offshore
Installations, Sep 2002
11. DEP 37.14.10.10, Drain Systems for Offshore Installations.
Codes of Practice (EA), Engineering Procedures (EM) and Engineering Standards (ES)
12. EA/010, Engineering Reference Document, code of practice, Design of Utility Air Systems for
Offshore Installations
13. EA/013, Engineering Reference Document, code of practice, Design of Diesel Oil Systems for
Offshore Installations
14. EA/041, Engineering Reference Document, code of practice, Drainage systems for Offshore
Installations, Rev 1.
Miscellaneous
15. Email from Errol Callais (Auger Offshore Installation Manager) to Victor Ojabo, 10/02/11
16. Email from Ronald Entzel (Senior Operations Readiness Engineer) to Victor Ojabo, 07/02/11
17. EP2005-0310
18. GEN-EPA-E13-00030-001, HSE Action Close Out Procedure, Revision A01, October 2005
19. GEN-EPA-M18-00001-001-A02, EP Projects Layout Development Procedure
20. GEN-EPA-M19-00003-001-A01, PDMS Model Specification
21. GS.09.51414, RAM model report
22. HSE Case (Volume 3: HEMP Requirements, Tools and Techniques)
23. KDL OL-1,06.08.03.02, Materials Selection
24. KD SPh3-FE-04-04, Start-up Chemical Injection Storage on Facility
25. KDL SPh3-FI-01-05, Floater Inlet and Export Manifolding Configuration
26. KDL SPh3-FI-01-06

27. KDL SPh3-FI-01-08, Floating Compression Hydrate Remediation

28. KDL SPh3-FI-01-09, Floater End of Field Life (EOFL) Performance and Operability
29. KDL SPh3-Fl-04-01, TLP “Not To Exceed” (NTE) Payload
30. KDL SPh3-FI-04-02, Separator Configuration
31. KDL SPh3-FI-04-03, Single or Multi-stage Compression
32. KDL: SPh3-Fl-04-04, Start-Up Chemical Storage on Facility
33. KDL: SPh3-Fl-04-08, TLP Deck Configuration (Modular vs Integrated)
34. KDL SPh3-FI-06, Inlet Facilities Design Pressure
35. NHT-I52-00049, Safety and Automation Systems – Supplement to I-002
36. Ormen Lange Compression Concept Select Phase 2, Unitech Power Systems report
37. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00001
38. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00002
39. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00005
40. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00010
41. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00011
42. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00012
43. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00013
44. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00014
45. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00015
46. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00016
47. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00017
48. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00018
49. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00019
50. PFS 37-1Y-NS-C72-00020
51. Preliminary Process Flow Schemes – no issue date
52. RAM Study (HOLD)
53. Shell EP Business HSSE Control Framework
54. SPh3-Fl-04-08
55. TLP QRA TN-5, Appendix C
56. UPS-201074-R00, Ormen Lange Compression Concept Select Phase 2, Revision 3
57. 37-00-NH-X02-00003, Ormen Lange Offshore/Onshore Design Basis
58. 37-00-NS-J02-00001, Operations Philosophy – Ormen Lange
59. 37-00-NS-X15-66009, Technical Information Note, Flow Splitting, Rev 01, Nov 2010
60. 37-00-NS-X15-66011, MEG Storage Requirement at Floater for Transient Operations, Rev 01, Dec
2010
61. 37-1A-AK-I02-00001, Automation Philosophy
62. 37-1A-AK-I02-00003, Alarm Philosophy

63. 37-1B-NN-P15-00001 03M, Subsea Concept Selection Report

64. 37-1B-NN-X15-00001, Aker Kvaerner, Ormen Lange Compression Platform- Topside Study
65. 37-1B-NS-I15-00002, C&A Metering Philosophy, Rev 01, Nov 2011
66. 37-1Y-NS-I15-00003, Control and Automation Philosophy
67. 37-1Y-NS-C15-00005, Technical Information Note, Green House Gas Emissions and Energy
Efficiency Report, May 2009
68. 37-1Y-NS-C19-00001, Preliminary Equipment List 60 MSm3/d, Reference Case – GT Drive Option.
Revision 07
69. 37-1Y-NS-C19-00002, Preliminary Equipment List 60 MSm3/d, Reference Case – Power From Shore
Option. Revision 07
70. 37-1Y-NS-C72-00003/4
71. 37-1Y-NS-C85-00002, Technical Information Note, Fuel Gas System, Rev 01, Jan 2009
72. 37-1Y-NS-C85-00005, Technical Information Note, Cooling Systems, Rev 01, April 2009
73. 37-1Y-NS-C85-00007, Safeguarding Philosophy, Rev 01, Feb 2011
74. 37-1Y-NS-C85-00008, Technical Information Note, Topsides Design Pressure, Rev 02, Feb 2009
75. 37-1Y-NS-C85-00011, Technical Information Note, Suction Cooling Assessment, Rev 01, April 2009
76. 37-1Y-NS-C85-00012, Technical Information Note, Hydrate Formation Review / MEG Storage
Requirements, Rev 01, May 2009
77. 37-1Y-NS-C85-00016, Utility Systems Requirements, Rev 02, Dec 2010
78. 37-1Y-NS-E15-00003 Revision 02
79. 37-1Y-NS-F02-00001, Preliminary HSE Design Philosophy
80. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00002, HAZID
81. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00002 Appendix 1, Hazards and Effects Register
82. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00003, (Concept Select) SSIV Quantitative Risk Assessment
83. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00003, Riser Risk and SSIV Assessment
84. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00004, Semi Submersible Riser Location Review
85. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00008, Human Factors Engineering Screening
86. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00009, Floater Quantified Risk Assessment
87. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00010, Compact Process Facilities HSE Assessment
88. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00011, Design Accidental Loads and Safety Functions Report
89. 37-1Y-NS-F15-00012, Identification of Major Hazards
90. 37-00-NS-F15-66000, Risk Acceptance Criteria for Ormen Lange, Revision 01, September 2009
91. 37-1Y-NS-F15-66008, HSE Concept Select Report
92. 37-1Y-NS-F15-66010, TLP Quantitative Risk Assessment
93. 37-1Y-NS-J02-00001, Integrated Operations Strategy for Smart-Fields, Remote Operations/C&A
capability for platform based gas compression concept
94. 37-1Y-NS-M15-00001 Floating Compression Platform Compression Configuration & Driver Selection
Study

95. 37-1Y-NS-S15-00011, Floating Compression TLP Concept - Weight, Payload & CoG Estimates for
Topsides
96. 37-1Y-NS-S15-00026, Floating Compression TLP Concept - Modular Deck Structural Analysis Report
97. 37-1Y-NS-T15-00001-01, Ormen Lange Broadband Telecommunications Concept Study
98. 37-1Y-NS-X02-00008, Design Pressure Ormen Lange Future Compression Project Select Phase, Rev
05, August 2010
99. 37-1Y-NS-X15-00032, Ormen Lange Phase II, Floating Compression Select Phase, TLP Floating
Systems Concept Summary Report
100. 37-1Y-NS-X15-00012, Ormen Lange Floating Compression concept selection report, October 2009
101. 37-1YB-NN-P15-00001, Ormen Lange Compression TLP Subsea Report, Rev 02, Feb 2011.
Industry Standards
102. API 521
103. API RP 521
104. Application of IEC 61508 and IEC 61511 in the Norwegian Petroleum Industry, OLF Publication 070
105. CAA CAP 437, Offshore Helicopter Landing Areas – Guidance on Standards
106. DNV-OS-E406, DNV Offshore Standard, Design of Free Fall Lifeboats, April 2010
107. ISO 14122-1
108. ISO 23251
109. NHT-I52-00049, Safety and Automation Systems – Supplement to I-002
110. NORSOK standard C-004, Helicopter Deck on Offshore Installations
111. NORSOK standard I-001, Field Instrumentation
112. NORSOK standard I-002, Safety and Automation Systems
113. NORSOK standard I-104, Fiscal Measurement Systems for Hydrocarbon Gas
114. NORSOK standard L-001
115. NORSOK standard L-002, Piping Design, Layout and Stress Analysis (Edition 3)
116. NORSOK standard L-005
117. NORSOK standard P-100, Process Systems, Edition 3, Nov 2010
118. NORSOK standard R-001
119. NORSOK standard S-001 Technical Safety (Edition 4)
120. NORSOK standard S-002
121. NORSOK standard Z-013
122. SPE 86703, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Slide Risk Assessment in the Ormen Lange Field
Development Area, 2004.

16. Holds
PART 3 – PROCESS ENGINEERING
1. Section 2.3.1 Import risers and inlet manifold arrangement
2. Section 2.3.3 Compression
3. Section 2.4.2 Inlet separators and first stage suction scrubbers
4. Section 2.4.3 First stage compressor and inter-stage design pressure
5. Section 2.12.5 Inert Gas System
6. Section 2.12.8.1 MEG injection
7. Section 2.12.9.1 Capacity of the freshwater system design
PART 4 – MECHANICAL – ROTATING EQUIPMENT

8. Section 3.29.1 Air compressor package specification
PART 13 – EQUIPMENT LISTS

9. Section 12.1 Gas turbine driver equipment list
10. Section 12.2 Power from Shore equipment list
PART 15 - ABBREVIATIONS
PART 16 - REFERENCES

Concept Select Report - REFERENCE ONLY

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concept Select Report - REFERENCE ONLY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ormen Lange Phase II

Shell International Petroleum Company

Document Title Topside Concept Select Report

Document Number 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031

Document Status Issued for Review

Document type Other Report

Originator / Author Harald Traa

Security Classification Restricted

Issue Date 05-05-2011

Revision History is shown next page

Rev # Date of Issue Status Description Originator Checker Approver

01 18-04-2011 IFR – Issued for Review H. Traa H. Traa A. Dahle

02 05-05-2011 IFR – Issued for Review H. Traa H. Traa A. Dahle

Rev # Reason for Issue / Change

01 First Draft for Review.

02 Second Draft for Review – issued to Rijswijk team.

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 2 of 253

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 3 of 253

5. MECHANICAL - STATIC ENGINEERING 151

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 4 of 253

10.2. ALARP and risk tolerability 210

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 5 of 253

Table 3-20 2 x 50% Gas Turbine Driven Compressors Fuel Gas/CO2/NOX 83

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 6 of 253

Table 10-1 HEMP Activities 209

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 7 of 253

Figure 3-2 Compressor Operation Strategy over field life 68

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 8 of 253

Figure 7-3 Flow Control Schematic 191

QRA Appendix C, TN-5) 219

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 9 of 253

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 10 of 253

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 11 of 253

Figure 1-1 Floating Concept Key Features

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 12 of 253

2.1. Concept select design basis

Figure 2-1 Mid-Case Production Profile

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 13 of 253

Floater (77 MW, 90 Bar)

120 System In Pressure

100 Comp Suct Pressure

Figure 2-2 PQ Curve (Discharge pressures based on 90 bar(a) at Nyhamna)

Notes for Figure 2-2:

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 14 of 253

Mid Case: Pressure Profile

Figure 2-3 Mid Case – Production Rate vs. Pressure

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 15 of 253

Template Arrival Temperatures Mid-Case

Figure 2-4 In-field Flow line Arrival Temperatures vs. Time

Arrival Temperature Mid-Case

Figure 2-5 Blended Arrival Temperatures vs. Time

2.1.4. Gas export temperature

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 16 of 253

2.1.5. PVT properties and compositions

2.2. Subsea scope summary

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 17 of 253

Figure 2-6 Ormen Lange Template Positions

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 18 of 253

Figure 2-7 Existing installation of A and D Templates

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 19 of 253

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 20 of 253

Figure 2-8 Final Installation with TTR Template and Flowlines

Doc. no.: 37-1Y-NS-X15-00031 Page 21 of 253

2.3. Topside process description