crew boat что это
crew boat
Смотреть что такое «crew boat» в других словарях:
Boat building — Boat building, one of the oldest branches of engineering, is concerned with constructing the hulls of boats and, for sailboats, the masts, spars and rigging.Parts* Bow the front and generally sharp end of the hull. It is designed to reduce the… … Wikipedia
Crew — (kr[udd]), n. [From older accrue accession, reenforcement, hence, company, crew; the first syllable being misunderstood as the indefinite article. See
crew — [1] ► NOUN (treated as sing. or pl. ) 1) a group of people who work on and operate a ship, boat, aircraft, or train. 2) such a group other than the officers. 3) informal, often derogatory a group of people. ► VERB 1) provide with a crew. 2) … English terms dictionary
crew’man — noun A member of the crew of a boat, aircraft, etc • • • Main Entry: ↑crew … Useful english dictionary
crew — (n.) mid 15c., group of soldiers, from M.Fr. crue (O.Fr. creue) an increase, recruit, military reinforcement, from fem. pp. of creistre grow, from L. crescere arise, grow (see CRESCENT (Cf. crescent)). Meaning people acting or working together is … Etymology dictionary
boat|swain — «BOH suhn; rarely BOHT SWAYN», noun. 1. a ship s officer in charge of the anchors, ropes, and rigging. He directs some of the work of the crew. Also, bo s n, bosun. 2. = tropic bird. (Cf. ↑tropic bird) ╂[Old English bātswegen < bāt boat +… … Useful english dictionary
crew cut — ► NOUN ▪ a very short haircut for men and boys. ORIGIN apparently first adopted by boat crews of Harvard and Yale universities … English terms dictionary
Boat rigging (sport rowing) — Boats used in the sport of rowing may be adjusted in many different ways according to the needs of the crew, the type of racing, and anticipated rowing conditions. The primary objective of rigging a boat is to accommodate the different physiques… … Wikipedia
crew — I UK [kruː] / US [kru] noun Word forms crew : singular crew plural crews *** 1) a) [countable] the people who work on a ship, aircraft etc: can be followed by a singular or plural verb The jet crashed soon after takeoff, killing all the… … English dictionary
crew boat
Смотреть что такое «crew boat» в других словарях:
Boat building — Boat building, one of the oldest branches of engineering, is concerned with constructing the hulls of boats and, for sailboats, the masts, spars and rigging.Parts* Bow the front and generally sharp end of the hull. It is designed to reduce the… … Wikipedia
Crew — (kr[udd]), n. [From older accrue accession, reenforcement, hence, company, crew; the first syllable being misunderstood as the indefinite article. See
crew — [1] ► NOUN (treated as sing. or pl. ) 1) a group of people who work on and operate a ship, boat, aircraft, or train. 2) such a group other than the officers. 3) informal, often derogatory a group of people. ► VERB 1) provide with a crew. 2) … English terms dictionary
crew’man — noun A member of the crew of a boat, aircraft, etc • • • Main Entry: ↑crew … Useful english dictionary
crew — (n.) mid 15c., group of soldiers, from M.Fr. crue (O.Fr. creue) an increase, recruit, military reinforcement, from fem. pp. of creistre grow, from L. crescere arise, grow (see CRESCENT (Cf. crescent)). Meaning people acting or working together is … Etymology dictionary
boat|swain — «BOH suhn; rarely BOHT SWAYN», noun. 1. a ship s officer in charge of the anchors, ropes, and rigging. He directs some of the work of the crew. Also, bo s n, bosun. 2. = tropic bird. (Cf. ↑tropic bird) ╂[Old English bātswegen < bāt boat +… … Useful english dictionary
crew cut — ► NOUN ▪ a very short haircut for men and boys. ORIGIN apparently first adopted by boat crews of Harvard and Yale universities … English terms dictionary
Boat rigging (sport rowing) — Boats used in the sport of rowing may be adjusted in many different ways according to the needs of the crew, the type of racing, and anticipated rowing conditions. The primary objective of rigging a boat is to accommodate the different physiques… … Wikipedia
crew — I UK [kruː] / US [kru] noun Word forms crew : singular crew plural crews *** 1) a) [countable] the people who work on a ship, aircraft etc: can be followed by a singular or plural verb The jet crashed soon after takeoff, killing all the… … English dictionary
crew boat
1 crew boat
2 crew boat
3 crew boat
4 crew boat
5 crew boat
6 crew boat
7 разъездной катер
См. также в других словарях:
Boat building — Boat building, one of the oldest branches of engineering, is concerned with constructing the hulls of boats and, for sailboats, the masts, spars and rigging.Parts* Bow the front and generally sharp end of the hull. It is designed to reduce the… … Wikipedia
Crew — (kr[udd]), n. [From older accrue accession, reenforcement, hence, company, crew; the first syllable being misunderstood as the indefinite article. See
crew — [1] ► NOUN (treated as sing. or pl. ) 1) a group of people who work on and operate a ship, boat, aircraft, or train. 2) such a group other than the officers. 3) informal, often derogatory a group of people. ► VERB 1) provide with a crew. 2) … English terms dictionary
crew’man — noun A member of the crew of a boat, aircraft, etc • • • Main Entry: ↑crew … Useful english dictionary
crew — (n.) mid 15c., group of soldiers, from M.Fr. crue (O.Fr. creue) an increase, recruit, military reinforcement, from fem. pp. of creistre grow, from L. crescere arise, grow (see CRESCENT (Cf. crescent)). Meaning people acting or working together is … Etymology dictionary
boat|swain — «BOH suhn; rarely BOHT SWAYN», noun. 1. a ship s officer in charge of the anchors, ropes, and rigging. He directs some of the work of the crew. Also, bo s n, bosun. 2. = tropic bird. (Cf. ↑tropic bird) ╂[Old English bātswegen < bāt boat +… … Useful english dictionary
crew cut — ► NOUN ▪ a very short haircut for men and boys. ORIGIN apparently first adopted by boat crews of Harvard and Yale universities … English terms dictionary
Boat rigging (sport rowing) — Boats used in the sport of rowing may be adjusted in many different ways according to the needs of the crew, the type of racing, and anticipated rowing conditions. The primary objective of rigging a boat is to accommodate the different physiques… … Wikipedia
crew — I UK [kruː] / US [kru] noun Word forms crew : singular crew plural crews *** 1) a) [countable] the people who work on a ship, aircraft etc: can be followed by a singular or plural verb The jet crashed soon after takeoff, killing all the… … English dictionary
boat crew
1 boat crew
2 boat crew
3 boat’s crew
4 boat’s crew
См. также в других словарях:
Navy boat crew — Most Navy boats have permanently assigned crews. Crew size varies depending on the type of boat, but typically consists of the coxswain, engineer, and bowhook and sometimes a sternhook and boat officer. All must be qualified swimmers. The boat… … Wikipedia
Boat ambulance — The boat ambulance is a boat used for emergency medical care in island areas as the city of Venice in Italy or Norway fjords.Venice boat ambulance serviceVenetian boat ambulances, which are part of the Venetian Emergency Medical Service ( Venezia … Wikipedia
Boat building — Boat building, one of the oldest branches of engineering, is concerned with constructing the hulls of boats and, for sailboats, the masts, spars and rigging.Parts* Bow the front and generally sharp end of the hull. It is designed to reduce the… … Wikipedia
Crew — (kr[udd]), n. [From older accrue accession, reenforcement, hence, company, crew; the first syllable being misunderstood as the indefinite article. See
crew — [1] ► NOUN (treated as sing. or pl. ) 1) a group of people who work on and operate a ship, boat, aircraft, or train. 2) such a group other than the officers. 3) informal, often derogatory a group of people. ► VERB 1) provide with a crew. 2) … English terms dictionary
crew’man — noun A member of the crew of a boat, aircraft, etc • • • Main Entry: ↑crew … Useful english dictionary
crew — (n.) mid 15c., group of soldiers, from M.Fr. crue (O.Fr. creue) an increase, recruit, military reinforcement, from fem. pp. of creistre grow, from L. crescere arise, grow (see CRESCENT (Cf. crescent)). Meaning people acting or working together is … Etymology dictionary
boat|swain — «BOH suhn; rarely BOHT SWAYN», noun. 1. a ship s officer in charge of the anchors, ropes, and rigging. He directs some of the work of the crew. Also, bo s n, bosun. 2. = tropic bird. (Cf. ↑tropic bird) ╂[Old English bātswegen < bāt boat +… … Useful english dictionary
crew cut — ► NOUN ▪ a very short haircut for men and boys. ORIGIN apparently first adopted by boat crews of Harvard and Yale universities … English terms dictionary
Boat rigging (sport rowing) — Boats used in the sport of rowing may be adjusted in many different ways according to the needs of the crew, the type of racing, and anticipated rowing conditions. The primary objective of rigging a boat is to accommodate the different physiques… … Wikipedia
Crew Boat
Crew boats are very important to the shipping industry as they provide the connection between a base onshore and offshore installations, such as drilling rigs, or designated anchorages which serve hundreds of ships at a time.
Related terms:
The Shipping Industry
Special Services Ships: High Speed Crew Boats and Launches
Crew boats are very important to the shipping industry as they provide the connection between a base onshore and offshore installations, such as drilling rigs, or designated anchorages which serve hundreds of ships at a time.
Crew boats are designed with a passenger cabin capable of accommodating between 20 and 30 passengers, with the navigating bridge arranged immediately forward of this cabin.
There is usually a large open deck aft capable of carrying some cargo (2-3 tonnes). They are fast craft with a crew of 4-5, including the master. Some ports allow these crew boats to operate 24 h a day, whereas others only allow operations during daylight hours. The usual range of this craft is 40-50 miles from their shore-based head office ( Figure 12 ).
Activity-Based Costing
23.3.1 Marine Vessels
Vessel charters are either the product of direct negotiation or a competitive process that evaluates vessel capability and price. The day rate is the primary bid variable in contract negotiation and selection, but other factors such as safety record, history with the firm, and vessel specifications are also important.
Marine vessels are leased primarily on term or spot charters, although time and bareboat charters have also been used occasionally. Term charters are generally 3 months to 3 years in duration and are typical for drilling or production support. Spot charters are a short-term agreement (from one day up to three months) to provide offshore services. Spot charters are commonly employed for unscheduled or nonrecurring support, as in decommissioning, well work, or incident response. Under a time charter, the operator provides a vessel to a customer and is responsible for all operating expense including crew costs but typically excluding fuel. Under a bareboat charter, the operator provides a vessel to a customer, and the customer assumes responsibility for all operating expenses and associated risks.
Average monthly day rates for crew boats and offshore supply vessels (OSVs) in the GoM are published in WorkBoat Magazine based on contractor surveys and can be found on a consolidated annual (sometimes quarterly) basis in financial statements for public companies. Several consulting firms also provide marine vessel indexes. As a general proxy, market day rates and/or company data can often be used to infer fleet vessel rates because the ships and services are relatively homogeneous and commodity-like ( Kaiser, 2015 ), whilst other activity data are site- and location-specific. High levels of competition mean that day rates are unlikely to deviate significantly among operators unless differentiated by technology or vintage.
Example. Shallow-water vs. deepwater transportation charters
In December 2016, average day rates in the GoM for crew boats Fig. 23.2 ). Assuming 1 day per trip for OSVs and 6 h per trip for crew, 2-week on/off schedule for crew and a weekly OSV visit to the platform, an assumed 80% discount to the average OSV spot rates yields the annual cost estimate for crew and material transportation:
Structures in deepwater are farther from shore bases and require larger crew than shallow-water structures, which translate into higher labor, catering, transportation, and logistics cost.
Example. Shallow-water vs. deepwater labor and transportation cost
Fabrication and installation
5.10.6 Crew boats
Any company with a fleet of offshore structure platforms needs boats to transfer staff and operators to the platforms from onshore on a daily basis. These crew boats are used also for small constructions or minor modifications on the platform, and so they are used to transfer teams of workers with their tools. Therefore this crew boat must be able to work during any sea conditions, so long as this is carried out in a reasonable and practical manner. Special crew boats are used in the North Sea, as this sea has unpredictable weather conditions and there is a great distance between land and the platforms. Crew boats are used in the GoM and offshore southern California, and also in the Gulf of Suez. Economics dictate that the boat should have as high a speed as practicable. The rule of thumb for selecting a boat is that the required horsepower be proportional to the square of the velocity.
In general, the governing factor in boat safety is the metacentric height (GM) as discussed later. In the case of high metacentric (GM), the roll response shall be quick and this will be reflected in discomfort to passengers, and so the boat acceleration should be minimized for boats with low metacentric height for safety.
In the GoM and Gulf of Suez or similar conditions, in the case that the boat’s length exceeds the wavelength, the pitch response is reduced; however, this is not practical in the Pacific or North Atlantic, due to their larger waves.
In relatively low sea states, direct transfer can be made to a large derrick barge or pipe-laying barge by coming alongside the leeside or stern while heading into the sea, thus using the derrick barge as a floating breakwater.
Project Criteria
Offshore Access Systems
The first factor to determine is what you want to access; getting access to the vessel and to the turbine, after all, are two different issues. If you use a crew boat —assuming you are not using the installation vessel for O&M—you can access either the turbine with the crew or access the repair vessel from the crew vessel, again to deploy the crew.
The system requirements differ depending on whether it is the vessel or the turbine you need to get to. One involves vertical access (if you are accessing the turbine and the repair vessel from the crew boat), and the other involves horizontal access (if you are accessing the turbine foundation from the repair or installation vessel, which are both normally jacked up). Further, the jacked-up installation vessel gives steady access from the vessel to the turbine, whereas, in the case of the crew boat, stability depends on whether the vessel or the turbine is afloat. In the latter case, the requirement is higher.
For our purposes, we will look only at the parameters for accessing the turbine from a crew vessel. The crew boat will approach the access ladder on the foundation, and using the ladder, a Browing system, or other device, the crew members are deployed onto the foundation and can then use the ladder to climb onto the platform.
Certain regulations govern the types of ladders that can be used, and these come from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regulations in the specific country of deployment. The access tower or ladder is required to have resting platforms above 6 m in height and to provide one for every 6 m thereafter. This is important because crew members must be able to rest before climbing to a possible 25 m above sea level. Attempting to climb this in one go—outfitted in a survival suit—would be difficult and certainly uncomfortable.
Normally, Hs is between 0 and 2. The criteria are set by HSE authorities and should be followed to prevent injury of the crew or the vessel. The maximum required access criterion is 2.0 m. However, this is difficult to achieve, mainly owing to the movements of the crew boat. The 2.0 m Hs criterion is desired by wind farm owners because it will make it possible for them—in most cases anyway—to keep the turbine’s availability at around 95-97% of the potential production time. This is also necessary to make the wind farm cost-effective.
Generally speaking, the access system must be safe, easy to operate, and able to fit on the crew vessel on which it is deployed. Thus, no system should be deployed that is not failsafe or is too hard to operate in these conditions. Even though it is commonly said that weight and size do not matter offshore, it should be noted that the offshore vessels for crew transfer are usually under 24 m.
Using the large, complicated offshore systems, which alone weigh enough to sink the vessel, is probably not the right way to attempt to access a turbine. The numbers just don’t add up. If the crew vessel needs to be 50 m just to carry the access system, the cost is going to be more than €10,000 per day. This will impact the financial viability of the turbine because the vessel has to operate year-round for 20 years in the wind farm. The cost is just too high.
Further, the vessel can possibly carry 30 or 40 technicians, but it would take too long to deploy them in sets of two or three onto the turbines. This would be counterproductive to what everyone involved wants to achieve—namely, a high availability percentage for the wind farm.
Project Criteria
Offshore Access Systems
The first factor that must be determined is what you want to access; getting access to the vessel and to the turbine are two different issues. Why is this true? The reason is that if you use a crew boat —assuming you are not using the installation vessel for O&M—you can access either the turbine with the crew or access the repair vessel from the crew vessel, again to deploy the crew.
When the preceding situation is the case, the system requirements differ depending on whether it is the vessel or the turbine. One involves vertical access (in case of accessing the turbine and the repair vessel from the crew boat), and the other involves horizontal access (if accessing the turbine foundation from the repair or installation vessel, which are both normally jacked up). Further, the jacked-up installation vessel gives steady access from the vessel to the turbine, whereas in the case of the crew boat, it depends on whether the vessel or the turbine is afloat. In the latter case, the requirement is higher.
For our purposes, we will only look at the parameters for accessing the turbine from a crew vessel. The crew boat will approach the access ladder on the foundation, and by means of it, a Browing system, or other device, the crew members are deployed onto the foundation and can then use the ladder to climb onto the platform.
Certain regulations govern the ladders used, and these come from the HSE regulations in the specific country of deployment. The access tower or ladder must have resting platforms above 6 m in height and for every 6 m thereafter. This is important because crew members must be able to rest before climbing to possibly 25 m above sea level. Doing this in one go in a survival suit is difficult and certainly a very uncomfortable experience.
Normally, Hs is between 0 and 2. The criteria are set by HSE authorities and should be adhered to so as not to inflict injury on the crew or the vessel. The maximum required access criteria is 2.0 m. However, this is difficult to achieve, mainly due to the movements of the crew boat. The 2.0 m Hs criteria is desired by wind farm owners, since it will make it possible for them—in most cases anyway—to keep the turbine’s availability at around 95 to 97 percent of the possible production time. This is also required in order to make the wind farm cost effective.
Generally speaking, the access system must be safe, easy to operate, and able to fit on the crew vessel on which it is deployed. Thus, no system should be deployed that is not failsafe and too hard to operate in these conditions. Even though it is commonly said that weight and size do not matter offshore, it should be noted that the offshore vessels for crew transfer are usually under 24 m.
So using the large, complicated offshore systems for access, which alone weigh enough to sink the vessel, is probably not the right way to go. Why do we say that? It’s very simply because the numbers just don’t add up! If the crew vessel needs to be 50 m to carry the access system, the cost is going to be north of 10,000 euro per day. This will impact the financial viability of the turbine because this vessel has to operate year round for 20 years in the wind farm. The cost is just too high.
Furthermore, the vessel can possibly carry 30 or 40 technicians, but it would take too long to deploy them in sets of 2 or 3 people onto the turbines. This is actually counterproductive to what we want to achieve—namely, a high availability percentage for the wind farm.
Oil Field Uses of Hydraulic Rigs
5.6.3.1 Transportation
Transport to and from the jobsite varies depending on whether the location is onshore, offshore, or inshore. Onshore transport is usually by vehicle over existing roads. Obviously, the shorter the ride to the crew quarters, the better. Crews are often fatigued after a full day’s work, so picking a local crew living at home or housing the crews near the worksite limits travel time and exposure. Accidents during road transport have been, and still are, the number one source of oil field fatalities.
Most Operators and regulatory agencies require special training to provide personnel with the skills necessary to escape a helicopter that goes down in water. This is known worldwide as Helicopter Underwater Escape (or Egress) Training (HUET). Another companion course is required for cold-water environments that involves survival training for immersion in frigid water. This cold-water survival training may not be required for tropical environments.
Sometimes, Operators ask crews to accompany the snubbing/HWO equipment on slow-moving supply boats or barges rather than spend the extra money on the faster and more expensive helicopter flight. This may require an extended transport time on a rolling deck, and crews are usually fatigued when they arrive to begin hoisting equipment onto the platform and rigging it up. This is the worst possible time to have a worn-out crew working on a well.
Transport back to the dock at the end of the job is also an area of concern. Once the job is over, crews are usually tired. A long boat ride to the dock, followed by off-loading equipment, followed by loading it onto trucks and securing it, followed by a long drive home, exposes crews to potential vehicular accidents with obvious negative consequences.
Deployment Strategies
Future Trends in the Service Vessel Industry
We have made our best effort to describe what the issues are regarding the offshore service vessel industry and its specifics; however, it should be noted that the trend is driven forward by market developments in the various departments of energy. Why is this so?
In Great Britain it is because Round 2 and Round 3 of the allocation of wind farm sites have moved the wind farms further offshore. Also, in Germany, the initial public perception was to keep them from being visible along the shoreline, so almost all offshore German wind farms are situated more than 20 km from the nearest beach.
This means that the daily deployment of technicians for maintenance becomes unrealistic in terms of the small service crew boats that sail at high speed to and from port. The sailing time to the nearest suitable port will often be more than 2-3 h away, and transport time is part of the working time for the technicians. Therefore, a transit time of 3 h in each direction will mean that 6 h of a maximum 12-h working day per technician will be lost in unproductive transport time.
A new business is therefore emerging where the technicians are kept offshore on hotel vessels in the near vicinity of the wind farm. In this way it is possible to use the small crew vessels as deployment vessels to the wind farm and host the technicians for a full week on board. This significantly increases productivity. The trend is also to use this type of vessel to house the technicians for the installation.
This method raises the bar for cost, however. Therefore small vessel operation is threatened in the coming years as bigger companies with the balance sheet to invest in and operate this type of vessel are entering the market. As always, only older, less expensive vessels will be available in the beginning, but as a consequence of the development of the industry, in the coming years there will be a new generation of offshore wind farm hotel vessels with high standards and abilities.
The Sea of Lost Opportunity: North Sea Oil and Gas, British Industry and the Offshore Supplies Office
2.3.1 The British Oil Companies
British oil interests had had early exposure to the offshore scene. Shell Oil was prominent in the GoM and in Venezuela’s Lake Maracaibo (where a British-built diesel electric drilling barge was introduced in 1952). As shown in Table 2.1 (see p. 34 ), it established itself as a leading offshore innovator, known for sharing its advances with the industry. By 1955, it had already drilled nearly 200 offshore wells in the GoM ( Howarth 1997, p. 244 ). Unfortunately, from the UK point of view, Shell Oil was at the time a U.S. quoted company and operated largely autonomously of its controlling European shareholders, the Anglo-Dutch joint venture Royal Dutch/Shell.
Shell had already completed its first marine well a mile from the Borneo coast in 1952. In 1954, it began drilling five miles offshore Qatar and the first marine well in the Niger delta came in the following year, by the end of which the Shell group had nearly 300 offshore wells world wide. In 1955, Shell struck oil 55 miles offshore both Borneo and Qatar (Howarth pp. 244–245, 265).
From the 1950s, much of Shell’s West European upstream interests (including the UK North Sea proper, but not other UKCS areas) were conducted through 50/50 joint ventures with Esso (now Exxon) of the USA. Although a Shell subsidiary, Shell UK Exploration and Production Limited (or Shell Expro) was the operating partner, Esso had an equal voice on major decisions.
BP’s first involvement as an offshore Operator came in 1953, with Abu Dhabi Marine Areas (ADMA) in the Persian Gulf. It held a two-thirds interest, the balance being held by Compagnie Française du Pétroles (CFP, later Total). Following successful exploration and development, production began in 1958.
BP Archive files show that an offshore drilling study group was formed in late 1954. Its aims included investigating wave and weather conditions, the feasibility of a local supply base and, in particular, existing experience in offshore drilling, leading to visits to Shell in Qatar, the NCB in Scotland and to the USA. Notable among the findings of the first USA visit were:
Forty-one drilling rigs supported by 500–600 vessels were operating in the GoM. The deepest production was in 67 feet of water. Most production wells were deviated drilled from multi-slot fixed platforms with tender support. Well productivities were low, typically only 100–200 barrels per day. Although most crew changes were by crew boat and crane-lift, as distances increased, the time and cost-saving advantages of using helicopters were becoming apparent;
While submersible rigs were satisfactory in up to 40 feet water depth and fixed platforms sometimes used for exploratory drilling, the need to explore further offshore and in deeper water was stimulating the development of a new generation of fully mobile self-elevating drilling rigs;
Steel jacketed platforms were the norm, commonly weighing about 200 tons without the deck. Installation was by crane barge, the maximum lift being about 250 tons. To reduce installation time and thus reduce weather exposure, it was desirable to use the biggest lift capacity available;
Though loading oil into barges at the platform still took place, the growth of production favoured an increasing reliance on underwater pipelines, following primary separation on the platform;
Overall, offshore costs were five times higher than onshore costs;
There was a heavy reliance on contractors for a wide range of services, including metocean studies, drilling, offshore structure design, construction and installation, casing and cementing services, support craft, and catering. Discussions were held with no less than 14 contractors (of which 12 were subsequently to ‘turn-up’ in the North Sea).
The study group recognised important differences between conditions in the GoM and ADMA. These included the latter’s lack of metocean data, the absence of local infrastructure and experienced labour and the higher individual well productivities anticipated. It considered that ADMA would require the newer fully mobile rigs (subject to reliability), as well as a greater reliance on helicopters.
After a second USA visit, it was decided to opt for a self-contained rig based on a DeLong drilling barge design, a decision that BP based upon DeLong’s successful operational experience and to which it remained loyal until the loss of Sea Gem in the North Sea a decade later. The rig, the ADMA Enterprise was built in West Germany, as no British yard could meet the required delivery date. The cost of the fully equipped barge was £1.928 million (about £39 million in 2008 terms). Although the drilling equipment itself (including logging and coring facilities) was USA designed, most of the other equipment was European and indeed mainly of British manufacture.
The BP Archive reveals only a modest British contractor role in the ADMA exploration phase. Thus in 1953, Frenchman Jacques Cousteau with the Calypso as the support vessel conducted an initial seabed survey; UK contractor George Wimpey (Wimpey) undertook subsequent seabed surveys. The Calypso also supported a gravity survey team supplied by Geophysical Prospecting Ltd. (Geoprosco), a British company, whose activities were followed by a marine seismic survey undertaken by a joint venture of Geophysical Services Inc. (GSI) and Geomarine Services Inc., both American, using a new seismic survey vessel, the Sonic. The UK’s Decca Navigator Company provided survey control. A UK firm supplied weather forecasts, although wave forecasts for platform design were sourced in the USA.
In 1956, Wimpey began the construction of the Das Island support base ( Figure 2.1 ) and by 1958 following a sequence of four successful exploration wells on the Um Shaif structure, an initial development plan based on seven to ten wells and production of 30,000–40,000 barrels per day was formulated. Wimpey received the contract for installing the well-head platforms.
Reproduced by permission of the Energy Institute.
By 1971, there were over 60 platforms in water depths of up to 80 feet. According to one of the BP engineers involved, the first platforms were designed by BP Engineering and fabricated in the UK to their specification by Tubewrights, with sections limited to an offshore lift of 20 tons (subsequently increased to 100 tons) for ‘flange bolting’ in location by divers; as demand for platforms increased, BP switched sourcing to Bahrain where Wimpey and B&R jointly operated a yard.
Material from the BP Archive shows that jack-up gathering platforms for the development of the Zakum field required DeLong design input. They were built in France by Hersent for fitting out in Bahrain by Wimpey. Subsequently that joint venture was also involved in both gathering and well-head platforms in the Um Shaif field. A French company (Entrepose pour les Travaux Pétroliers et Maritimes or ETPM) supplied and installed another gathering platform in the Zakum field. Many other suppliers of various nationalities also played a part. Well services were sourced from Schlumberger (USA/French), Flopetrol (French) and Halliburton (USA), loading facilities from SBM (Dutch), process engineering from Tarmac (UK) and tanks from a variety of British, American and European suppliers. Of particular interest is the provision of contract drilling services from the Offshore Company (USA), a relationship originally entered into several years previously.
ADMA’s capital expenditure budget for 1974 was disclosed as £361 million (over £2.8 billion in 2008 terms), showing the very great scale if the undertaking. The list of suppliers continued to grow. Among the new names appearing were Brush, Ferranti and Parsons (British suppliers of electrical equipment), Costain Process (British process engineer), Power Gas – Harris (UK/USA process engineering joint venture), John Brown Engineering (British gas turbine supplier), AEG (West German supplier of electrical equipment), Dorman Long (South African platform supplier), Bechtel (U.S. project manager), Black, Sivalls & Bryson (BSB) and Air Products (U.S. process plant suppliers), and Saipem (Italian installer of risers and pipelines and a platform supplier). In addition, there were also new suppliers from Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Japan, the Netherlands and Singapore.
BP Archive files record Wimpey was responsible for platform installation ( Figure 2.2 ), hook-up and maintenance, for which it initially employed DeLong civil engineering jack-ups. A new purpose built vessel the ADMA Constructor came into service in 1971. Wimpey, by now in a platform installation joint venture with B&R, was still operating two other work barges in 1974 while B&R was mainly responsible for riser and pipeline installation, an activity to which the joint venture did not extend. Between 1962 and 1966, B&R installed a major pipeline gathering system as well as the Das Island loading line (Pratt et al p. 110). It was thus ADMA that introduced BP to the capabilities of specialist offshore contractors in general and B&R in particular.
Reproduced by permission of the Energy Institute.
In 1954, the BP/CFP partnership later joined by Conoco, constituted Dubai Marine Areas. Drilling began in 1964, with the giant Fateh discovery following in 1966. Besides Abu Dhabi and Dubai, BP was also involved offshore Trinidad, another benign environment.
Hydraulic Rig Drilling
6.2.5.3 Inshore
Inshore hydraulic rig drilling differs from offshore work since most of the equipment spread is positioned on support vessels at the dock. The equipment is usually transported to the wellsite on the same vessel that will support it during the job. This vessel can be a lift boat, barge (keyway, posted, or semisubmersible), or similar vessel. Tugs or push boats push or tow vessels that are not self-propelled.
There may be more than one such floating vessel involved. Once arriving at the site, the vessels are lashed together to allow some movement. They are usually equipped with gangways providing access to each other and to support vessels, such as tugs. Other support vessels might include crew boats to transport workers back and forth to a dock at the end of a shift, unless there are crew quarters and messing facilities included on a floating vessel at the wellsite.
Again, the individual loads for an inshore hydraulic drilling spread must be transported over highways to get to the dock for onloading and securing. So, the loads must each be within the requirements dictated by highway regulations. A large crane may or may not be needed on the job.
Often, barges with permanently mounted cranes are selected since these barges are frequently used for construction work. Again, the crane must be sufficient in capacity and mast reach for rigging up the stack and snubbing/HWO unit. Because it is permanently installed, it usually assists in drilling operations and handling other loads during the job, essentially taking the place of a platform crane on an offshore site.
Rigging up the hydraulic drilling rig usually involves hoisting and assembling the BOP stack and the snubbing/HWO unit. All the other equipment items, such as tanks, pumps, lights, and other kits, are already installed and usually tack-welded in place on the barge deck. If more than one barge is involved, flexible hosing or other piping must be connected before drilling operations begin. Much of the preparatory work, such as laying lines on each barge, installing pump suction lines, and filling tanks with water, can take place during transport to the site.
Structure Classification
2.2 Manned Structures
A manned platform is defined as having personnel normally present 24 h a day, while on an unmanned platform or an 8 h manned facility, personnel are not normally present 24 h a day and must be transported off the structure to shore or a manned platform at night or be housed at a tender vessel.
All manned platforms have a helideck where the helicopter lands, which are usually located at the top of the structure and at maximum distance from the drilling rig, if present, and production equipment. Small structures can accommodate small helicopters, and larger platforms can accommodate both large and small helicopters. A few large structures have two heliports.
Production crew on a manned facility in the GoM can range from 4 to 100 or more. In shallow water, manned platforms typically serve as a hub from which staff manage and supervise regional operations, and shuttling to unmanned facilities via helicopter or crew boat is common. In deepwater, although the structure may serve as a regional hub for production, operating crews do not normally shuttle between facilities. All deepwater structures are manned 24 h, while only about a third of the shallow-water inventory is manned.
In shallow water, 811 manned structures have been installed and 208 have been removed through 2017, leaving an active inventory of 603 manned platforms in water depth Fig. 2.9 ). Most shallow-water manned structures are fixed platforms, and the few caissons and well protectors identified as manned are attached to manned complexes. According to BOEM structure naming convention, if a complex is manned, then all the structures in the complex are classified as manned.
About a third of manned platforms are auxiliary structures. Auxiliary structures do not have any wells boarding the structure. Auxiliary manned structures are used in field operations and pipeline transmission services and have been a very stable structure class over the past 30 years ( Fig. 2.9 ).
The number of manned platforms in shallow water peaked at about the same time as the total number of active structures but at one-third the level, and whereas decommissioning has depleted shallow-water inventories by about half from its peak (from 3974 structures in 2001 to 1908 structures circa 2017), the number of manned platforms—being some of the most important structures anchored to the largest reservoirs with the most processing capacity and interconnections across multiple pipeline networks—has not been significantly impacted declining by only a few dozen structures from its peak. Shallow-water manned structures supporting deepwater facilities and pipelines have been immune from the high pace of decommissioning that pervades the shallow water because they are not tied to declining shallow-water fields.
