View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives

Faculty of Science and Technology

MASTER’S THESIS

Study program/ Specialization:

Spring semester, 2012
Master’s Degree Program in Offshore
Technology
Specialization: Industrial Asset Management Open

Writer:
Alexander Iversen …………………………………………
(Writer’s signature)
Faculty supervisor: Tore Markeset (UiS)

External supervisor(s): Atle Kvamme (Sub Sea Services)

Title of thesis:

Identifying and Evaluating High Risk Areas and Challenges on Marine Drilling Riser System
in Relation to Deepwater Problems.

Credits (ECTS): 30

Key words:
Pages: 51
- Marine Drilling Riser System
- Deepwater Problems + Enclosure: 2
- High risk areas
- Riser integrity
Stavanger, 15/06-2012
Date/year
 Alexander Iversen

959335

University of Stavanger
2012

Master Thesis for MSc. Offshore Technology

Industrial Asset Management

Front Page
Thesis Title:
Identifying and Evaluating High Risk Areas and Challenges on Marine
Drilling Riser System in Relation to Deepwater Problems.
Preface
This thesis is written as a final closure for my master degree program in Offshore
Technology; Industrial Asset Management. The thesis was conducted during the spring, from
January to June, 2012 at the University of Stavanger. The thesis is an individual assignment,
and is about the integrity problems regarding marine drilling riser system.

There are several people I would like to thank. First of all I will start to thank my girlfriend,
Tonje G. Strand, for the support and understanding during this assignment. Second I will like
to thank my friend Anders Eliesen for motivation and several good advices.

I would also like to thank my supervisors at UiS Tore Markeset and at Sub Sea Services Atle
Kvamme.

This assignment has brought me a broader understanding drilling operations and deepwater
development, and enlightened the need for further technical development and maintenance
handling.

______________________________________

Alexander Iversen

ii
Summary
The main concerns during drilling operations are riser integrity and maintaining well control.
This thesis has mainly been focusing on the problems and challenges faced with the marine
riser system to illuminate high risk areas related to riser integrity.

A marine riser system consists generally of four main elements; the upper marine riser
package, riser joints, lower marine riser package, and the blowout preventer, each playing an
important part in the marine riser system. The marine riser function is to supports and guide
the auxiliary lines used to control the well, and connect and provide for fluid communication
between the drilling vessel and the wellhead.

Failure to the marine riser is related to technical problems associated with old design and lack
of correct operating procedure and maintenance method. Elements like the telescopic joint
haven’t change the design since the 1960’s and are exposed to problems like unplanned
discharge caused of premature war to the packer element. Problems with the telescopic joint
are not unique there are also experienced failure with tensioner system, flex joint and blowout
preventer. Studies show that blowout preventer failure cases the longest downtime and most
expensive repairs. Over 50% of blowout preventer failures are related to the control system
and are caused by failure to the hydraulic components.

Exploration activity forces the drilling contractor further out and into deeper water depths,
like the Gulf of Mexico or outside the Coast of Brazil. Greater water depths challenge the
riser system on many places. Deepwater operations means harsher environment and problems
in the forms of large waves, strong currents and increased pressure from the water column, all
affecting the operations and riser pipe in several ways. The environmental issues causes the
riser to fail due to increased tensile load, vortex induced vibrations, environmentally induced
cracks and increased corrosion attacks. The increased tensile load on the riser pipe place
importance on the top tension capacity of the rig and the riser pipe wall thickness. Moving
into deeper ground, many rigs reach their tension capacity and must use buoyancy modules to
provide sufficient tension to the riser.

Many of the problems could be addressed using simple solution, like implementing correct
maintenance program or address the issues in the design phase. But economical impetus holds
the development back. Solutions like redesign of the telescopic joint and blowout preventer is
advised by operators, but some of the solution are proven to be economical unprofitable.

iii
Table of Contents
Front Page ................................................................................................................................................ i
Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... ii
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ iii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 1
List of tables and figures ......................................................................................................................... 3
Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 3
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Project scope and task ................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Background ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 7
2. Concept................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Drilling Riser System .................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Deepwater...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Norwegian continental shelf ................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Gulf of Mexico ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Coast of Brazil ........................................................................................................................ 9
3. Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Upper Marine Riser Package (UMRP) ........................................................................................ 10
3.1.1 Diverter Assembly ................................................................................................................ 11
3.1.2 Upper flex/ball Joint ............................................................................................................. 11
3.1.3 Riser Rotation Bearing Joint ................................................................................................ 11
3.1.4 Telescopic joint .................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Riser Joints .................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Riser Pipes ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.2.2 Tension System .................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) ........................................................................................ 14
3.3.1 Lower Riser Adapter ............................................................................................................ 14
3.3.2 Flex/Ball joint bypass lines .................................................................................................. 14
3.3.3 Lower flex/ball joint ............................................................................................................. 15
3.4 Blowout Preventer ....................................................................................................................... 15

1
 3.4.1 Annular Blowout Preventer .................................................................................................. 15
3.4.2 Ram Blowout Preventer ....................................................................................................... 16
3.4.3 BOP control system .............................................................................................................. 17
4. Challenges ......................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Upper Marine Riser Package ....................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Telescopic Joint .................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Riser Pipes and Tension system .................................................................................................. 21
4.2.1 Tension System .................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2 Riser pipes ............................................................................................................................ 22
4.3 Lower Marine Riser Package ...................................................................................................... 26
4.3.1 Lower Flex/ball Joints .......................................................................................................... 26
4.4 BOP ............................................................................................................................................. 27
4.4.1 BOP control system .............................................................................................................. 29
4.5 Deepwater.................................................................................................................................... 31
4.5.1 Technical .............................................................................................................................. 32
4.5.2 Environmental ...................................................................................................................... 33
5. Solutions ............................................................................................................................................ 36
6. Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 39
7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 41
8. References ......................................................................................................................................... 43
9. Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 47
9.1 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 47

2
List of tables and figures
Tables
Table 1 List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2 Overview of BOP failures [Holand, P., 2001].......................................................................... 28

Figures
Figure 1 Offshore oil platform 'Gullfaks C' stands up to a fierce, North Sea storm [Husmo, A., 2012.] 9
Figure 2 Marine Drilling Riser System and Associated Equipment [API 16F, 2004] .......................... 10
Figure 3 Drilling Riser Buoyancy Module [Floating Technologies, 2012]........................................... 14
Figure 4 A Blowout Preventer, Credit: Cameron-Nautronix [The Encyclopedia of Earth, 2012] ........ 15
Figure 5 Blowout Preventer diagram showing different types of rams. (a) Blind ram (b) Pipe ram and
(c) Shear ram. [Wikipedia, 2012] .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6 Eccentric wear to the packer element [Upton, T.L., 2009] ..................................................... 19
Figure 7 Detail of Failed Bolt [Upton, T.L., 2009] ............................................................................... 19
Figure 8 Riser tensioner system [Furlow. W., 2012]............................................................................. 21
Figure 9 Heavy pitting and general wall loss [Hatton, S., 2010, HTHP] .............................................. 24
Figure 10 H2S Corrosion crack and pressure build up [Hatton, S., 2010, HTHP] ................................ 25
Figure 11 A riser failure assessment [Sonawane, M., Koska, R., and Campbell, M., 2012] ................ 26
Figure 12 Control systems are where the majority of subsea BOP failures occur, according to an
industry study. [Drilling Contractor, 2009] ........................................................................................... 29
Figure 13 Global drilling map. Map of the world showing deepwater drilling and development. [BBC
News: US & Canada, 2012] .................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 14 Regression line for BOP/LMRP running and pulling times vs. water depth. [Holand, P.,
2001]...................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 15 BOP/LMRP running and pulling times sorted on water depths [Holand, P., 2001] ............ 34

3
List of Abbreviations

UMRP Upper Marine Riser Package

LMRP Lower Marine Riser Package
BOP Blowout Preventer
SPE Society of Petroleum Engineers
IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors
E&P Exploration and Production
FPSO Floating, Production, Storing and Offloading
API American Petroleum Institute
GPS Global Position System
BCRT Buoyancy Can Riser Tensioner
TTR Top Tension Riser
TLP Tension Leg Platform
O2 Dioxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
H2CO3 Carbon Acid
SCC Stress Corrosion Cracking
SINTEF Scientific and Industrial Research at the Norwegian Inst. of Technology
BSR Blind Shear Ram
JIP Joint Industry Project
MUX Multiplex
VIV Vortex Induced Vibrations
FIFO Flow In, Flow Out
MRS Mud Recovery System
ISO International Organization of Standardizations
Table 1 List of abbreviations

4
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this thesis is to show which areas of the marine drilling riser system
that need to be looked into to enhance performance and keep the integrity of the drilling riser
system. It also takes a brief look at deepwater challenges in relation to marine drilling risers.

This thesis is divided into nine chapters. Chapter one is the introduction and contains the
introduction, project scope and task, the background, and methodology of the thesis. In
chapter two we take a look at the concept of the two main elements of this thesis, marine
drilling riser and deepwater operations. Chapter three is dedicated to and overview of the
marine drilling riser system. Here we will go into detail about the main components of a
marine riser system, and their individual parts and functions. In chapter four the thesis brings
up the challenges and problems faced with selected parts and main components of the marine
drilling riser system. Deepwater challenges will also be addressed in this chapter. Chapter five
is dedicated to examples on solution to the problems identified in chapter four. In chapter six
there will be a discussion about the identified problems and the evaluation of them. At the end
come the conclusion, reference and appendixes.

1.2 Project scope and task

Main Objective: Identifying and evaluating high risk areas and challenges on marine
drilling riser system, in relation to deepwater problems.

This is a theoretical thesis where the marine drilling riser system is evaluated and high risk
areas are identified. Deepwater issues are addressed and evaluated in relation and its effect on
the riser system.

This thesis is limited to the system of marine drilling risers and operation of deepwater
drilling. The main object of this thesis is to identify some of the main challenges and problem
related to the marine drilling riser system. The secondary part of the thesis is to identify
challenges related to deepwater operations, with connection to marine drilling risers.

This is exclusively a theoretical thesis. Written based on information collected from different
sources and systemized. The scope of this thesis is only to illuminate different problems areas
connected with marine drilling riser system and deepwater operations.

5
1.3 Background
Since the first discovery of oil in the North Sea sea-soil, in 1969, the oil and gas
reservoir have had a huge impact on the Norwegian wealth and economy. Since the
beginning, petroleum production on the shelf has added more than NOK 9000 billion to the
country’s GDP. [Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 2012] Statistics shows that the oil and gas
industry in Norway contributed in 2011 with a value creation of approximately 610 billion
NOK to the government, and employment of approximately 220 000 people divided all over
the country. Norway is the world fourth largest oil exporter, and the third largest exporter of
gas. The earnings from the oil and gas industry contribute to one third of the government
incomes, and are the corner stone of Norwegian economy.

Oil and gas is Norway most important industry, and contributes the most to the Norwegian
economy. The petroleum sector contributes with 26% of the state’s revenue. This is way it is
in the highest interest for the Norwegian, as people and government, and oil companies to
deliver operations that are cost efficiency and with high performance, to avoid accidents and
deliver on time.

The offshore drilling and oil companies highly depends on the drilling system and equipment
to operate and keep on drilling under any circumstances, when exploring for oil and gas
reservoir in the North Sea. Drill companies will always be looking for new solution or new
equipment to keep the downtime low or to improve their performance. Identifying high risk
areas and develop new systems or perform preventive maintenance will be of high
significance the next decades. As the oil and gas industry worldwide is changing due to the
introduction of new technology as well as exploitation in deeper water depths. The industry is
always striving to exploit reservoir the best way, and to reduce the economical and capital
expenses in new development.

One important part of the drilling operation system is the marine riser, connecting the vessel
or rig to the sea bottom and wellhead. The marine riser system is highly exposed to load
stress, currents, salt, waves and motion from the vessel. Oil companies will always try to
improve their performance, and to achieve this, oil companies need to avoid downtime and
high maintenance cost of the riser system. A failure on the Blowout preventer is one of the
most expensive, and leads to the longest downtime one the drilling riser system.

6
Exploration wells are one of the main activities in the North Sea, and are a necessary action to
find oil or gas reservoir. During the start of 2012 is has already been drilled 9 exploration
wells and 36 production wells. Increased drilling activity in the North Sea, and combined with
new development, high complexity, and large investment makes up the need for more
efficient and safe drilling system. The main concern during exploratory drilling is maintaining
well control. From the standpoint of maintaining well control is the integrity of the riser very
important. This thesis is based on the need to have efficient drilling operations, improved
performance and riser integrity for marine drilling risers.

During a study, conducted in 2003 for Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and
International Association of Drilling Contractor (IADC) on dropped BOP stacks, they revived
and evaluated 32 total incidents of dropped objects and near misses. The study showed that
over a third of all problems could be categorized as riser system problems. [Sattler, J.P., 2003]

1.4 Methodology
The methodology used in this thesis is strictly theoretical. I have used literature as
reports, published papers, experienced, companies, and friends to collect and systemize the
information. The information is used to underlie the theory and be the reason for the
conclusion.

7
2. Concept
2.1 Drilling Riser System
Offshore drilling is the process where a wellbore is drilled through the seabed and into
a reservoir for production of hydrocarbons. The drilling riser system houses the drill string
and the returning drilling mud, and also connects the Blowout Preventer (BOP) with the
drilling vessel or drill rig. The BOP is generally placed on top of the wellhead on the seabed,
but in some few cases the BOP is also placed up on the drill deck on the vessel. There are
mainly two types of drilling risers system; full-bore drilling riser and marine drilling risers.
Marine drilling riser generally has a small diameter pipe and includes external choke and kill,
booster and auxiliary lines. The full-bore riser does not feature any external lines. A marine
drilling riser system, which this thesis is limited to, generally consists of four main segments;
Upper Marine Riser Package, The Riser Joints, Lower Marine Riser Package, and The
Blowout Preventer. All segments consist of many other different individuals part, which all
have specified and unique functions. Further down in this thesis we will go in to closer detail
of each part.

2.2 Deepwater
Deepwater drilling is by definition the process of oil and gas exploration and
production in water depths from 300 meters (984 feet) to 1,500 meters (4921 feet). Wells
located in water depths higher than 1,500 meters are classified as ultra deepwater wells.
[Rocha, P. et al, 2003] Deepwater drilling operations are mainly conducted in the Gulf of
Mexico or the coast of Brazil. Very few wells on the Norwegian continental shelf are
deepwater wells. This is because The North Sea is very shallow water, with the mean depth of
approximately 100 meter (328 feet). The exception is the Norwegian trench, in the northern
part of the North Sea. Here there is experienced a maximum water depth of 725 meters (2379
feet) and will be classified as deepwater drilling. Technologies used in shallow water are no
longer adequate for water depths over 1000 meters (3280 feet). [Armstrong, L.J., et al, 2002]
The environmental consequences for some of the newer deepwater technologies are not well
understood. This has required the standard assessment of drilling system to be revisited.

2.2.1 Norwegian continental shelf

The Norwegian continental shelf is the sea-bed and sea-soil outside the Norwegian
coastline. It reaches all the way alongside the Norwegian coast line and stretches 200 nautical
mil out in the ocean. Above the sea-bed, the Norwegian continental shelf is divided into three

8
main seas; North Sea, Norwegian Sea, and Barents Sea. Even though the water depth in the
North Sea is relatively shallow the drilling condition is very hard. Rough weather, high sea
and strong currents are to affect the drilling
condition. During the winter the average air
temperature is between 0 to 4 degrees Celsius, and
gales and storms frequently appears. When
drilling in the Norwegian trench with a maximum
depth of 700 meter, drilling operators reach the
Figure 1 Offshore oil platform 'Gullfaks C' definition of deepwater drilling. This makes the
stands up to a fierce, North Sea storm [Husmo,
A., 2012.] drilling even harder.

2.2.2 Gulf of Mexico

The Gulf of Mexico is a sea located in the southeastern corner of North America. The gulf
measure approximately 1,600 kilometer from east to west, and 900 kilometers from north to
south. This gives the Gulf of Mexico a surface of 1.5 billion square kilometers. Deep and
ultra-deep water represent approximately 40% of the gulf. It is estimated that 1.4 to 7.2x108
barrels of petroleum and 4.4 to 22.3x1010 cubic meters of natural gas are present beneath the
seafloor. [Gulfbase, 2012]

2.2.3 Coast of Brazil

The Coast of Brazil is together with the Gulf of Mexico one of the world largest deepwater
development locations. In 2009 Brazil was the 9th largest oil producer in the world. But
exploration and drilling outside the coast of Brazil is more technological challenging than
other places. 72% of all exploration and production (E&P) activities involves depths of 1000
meters and further, and the distance from shore and the demands for special transport care
makes. Due to the long distance from the coast the main type of platform used in the Brazilian
deep oil fields is the Floating, Production, Storing and Offloading (FPSO). Petrobras,
Brazilian state company, is the largest FPSO operator in the world.

9
3. Overview
The marine drilling riser system connects the vessel or rig to the Blowout Preventer,
mounted on top of the wellhead on the sea-bed. The riser system has many different functions.
The primary function for the marine riser system is to houses the drilling bore and the
returning mud from the well. It also functions as a guide for tools in the well, and supports the
kill and choke, booster, and auxiliary lines used to control the well. Generally a drilling riser
consists of five main elements, the Upper Marine Riser Package (UMRP), Riser Joints, Lower
Marine Riser Package (LMRP), and the Blowout Preventer (BOP). Each main element is
made up from other smaller parts which will be discussed in greater detail further down in this
chapter.

Figure 2 Marine Drilling Riser System and Associated Equipment [API 16F, 2004]

3.1 Upper Marine Riser Package (UMRP)

The upper marine riser package (UMRP) is the upper portion of the riser string, including
the riser tensioner system.

The upper marine riser package includes:

- Diverter assembly
- Upper flex joint
- Riser rotation bearing joint
- Self-tensioned slip joint (telescopic joint)

10
3.1.1 Diverter Assembly
The diverter assembly is mounted on top of the upper marine riser package, but is not
according to API 16F considered to be a part of the marine drilling riser system. Typically the
diverter assembly includes an annular sealing device and control system. [API RP 16Q, 1993]
The diverter system provides for safety for the personnel and equipment by providing low
pressure well-flow control system. The well-flow control system directs controlled or
uncontrolled wellbore fluids from the well away from the immediate drilling area. [Lim, J.S.,
and Pfeifler, J.R., 1986] The diverter assembly is often used when drilling top hole without
casing and BOP.

3.1.2 Upper flex/ball Joint

The upper flex/ball joint is positioned typically between the diverter system and
telescopic joint in the UMRP. The UPMR can either use a flex joint or a ball joint. Flex/ball
joint permits the angular movement of a riser element, and permits the riser to accommodate
roll, pitch, and offset of the vessel. [API 16F, 2004] The rotational stiffness of flex-joint
makes them more effective than ball-joints in controlling riser angles. Typical rotational
stiffness for a flex-joint, ranges from 10,000 to 30,000 foot-pounds per degree angle. [API RP
16Q, 1993] In the UMRP the loads is transferred through the upper flex/ball joint from the
telescopic joint too the diverter. [Lim, J.S., and Pfeifler, J.R., 1986]

3.1.3 Riser Rotation Bearing Joint

The rotation bearing joint allows the vessel to rotate about the riser vertical axis. The
bearing joint is mounted on the bottom of the telescopic joint. A typically bearing element
consists of roller bearing system, built in locking device, and hydraulic motors. The roller
bearing system minimizes the torque transferred from the riser to the telescopic joint. The
hydraulic motors and the built in locking device is used for precise rotational control and
preventing inappropriate rotation of the riser. [Lim, J.S., and Pfeifler, J.R., 1986]

3.1.4 Telescopic joint

The telescopic joint, also called Slip Joint, is a part of the upper marine riser package.
A telescopic joint generally consist of an inner and outer barrel, packer system, seals and
tension ring. The outer barrel is typically used to connect with the upper riser joint, and the
inner barrel connects with the flex joint at the base of the surface diverter.

The telescopic joint function is to compensate for the heave and offset to the drilling vessel
achieved by sea motion, by continuously adapt the riser length. This way it’s allowing the

11
riser system to compress and extend and the movement is achieved through constant stroking
movement of the inner and outer barrel. The secondary functions of the telescopic joint are to
serve as a transmitter for the mud/fluid as it returns from the well. The packer system is under
severe stress most of time and functions as a seal between the inner and outer barrel,
preventing mud and fluid leakage from the telescopic joint.

3.2 Riser Joints

The riser joint is positioned between the telescopic joint and the lower marine riser
package. The riser joint has no other function than extend the riser system to the sea floor, and
guide the kill and choke, booster, and auxiliary lines down to the lower marine riser package
and BOP.

3.2.1 Riser Pipes

The riser joint is basically an assembly of many riser pipes. Each riser pipe has a
flange attached at both ends. The marine riser joint also have kill and choke, booster and
hydraulic lines mounted on the outside of the riser, supported by brackets or other guiding
devices. The riser pipe houses the drill string and the returning mud from the wellhead. The
flange on each end of the riser joint makes up the joining point and is where the riser joints
are connected with each other. There exist many different riser connection system on the
market, some more reliable than other. The lines mounted on the outside of the riser body, is
joint together with simple pin-box construction.

3.2.2 Tension System

All floating drill rigs use tension devices to keep the rigs steady and in position. A
floating drill rig can be connected to the sea floor through pipes or cables called tension legs,
or they can float freely and be maintained in location by a global positioning system (GPS). A
drilling platform connected with tension legs can keep stability through a ballast system. The
ballast system uses ballast tanks filled with air and water to keep stability. But the ballast
system cannot keep control of the riser pipe tension. Tension in the riser pipe is
developed through tensile load from underlying riser joint and BOP stack. To prevent the riser
from buckling and collapse special tension system are being used. Tension systems are used
to provide continuous, reliable axial tension to the marine riser pipe during drilling operations.
Typical tension systems are Wire Line Tension System and Buoyancy Can Riser Tension
System (BCRT). The wire line, or hydro-pneumatic, tension system is the most common, but
for deepwater development are BCTR typically used.

12
3.2.2.1 Wire line Tension system.
Riser tension is maintained through tensioners applying tension at or near the top of
the marine drilling riser. Tensioners are connected by wire rope over sheave to a tension ring
attached to the slip joint. Through large piston/cylinder arrangements tension is applied to
prevent the riser from buckling. The flexibility of the rope minimizes the effects of yaw that
would otherwise be transmitted to the riser.

A wire line riser tension system usually consists of:

- Tension cylinders and sheave assembly

- Hydro pneumatic accumulators/air pressure vessel
- Control panel and Mani folding

A riser tension system is basically multiple hydraulic cylinders with wire lines sheaves.
The wire line is reeved around the sheaves with one end and attached to the outer barrel of the
riser telescopic joint. The tension on the wire lines is directly proportional to the pressure of
stored air. The design principle behind the tension system is that when a rig heave upwards,
fluid is forced out of the hydraulic cylinders, compressing the air. As the rig heaves
downwards, the hydraulic cylinder is allowed to stroke the opposite direction, forced by the
compressed air. [NOV, 2012] These tensions ensure that the lines remain fully taut, even
under the most severe rig motion condition. The tension must respond to the maximum
velocity of rig heave, not the average speed. [NOV, 2012]

3.2.2.2 Buoyancy Can Riser Tension system

Buoyancy equipment may be attached to the riser joints to reduce top tension
requirements by decreasing the submerge weight of riser joint, typically used on deepwater
operations. Buoyancy Can Riser Tension System (BCTR) is one design solution for buoyancy
equipment. The BCRT is designed to give tension for the marine drilling risers, as well on
drilling-vessels using Top Tension Risers (TTR). A TTR is vertical flexible risers that
terminates directly below the facility and are fixed at the seafloor. The TTR keeps the drilling
vessel steady and only allows for vertical displacement. The BCRT system is mounted on the
outside of the riser giving tension to the riser using the buoyancy principle.

13
The BCTR is a passive tensioning system and are designed to transfer
horizontal loads at hull connections. The BCTR system consists of three
main segments; upper stem, buoyancy can, and lower stem.

The buoyancy can section is composed of many individual chambers

filled with air or nitrogen gas. The BCTR system is installed at the top
of the riser system and experiences the same elevation change as the
riser. This way when the BCTR moves, the buoyancy provided by each
buoyancy-can chamber, changes. This way the buoyancy can provide
the tension required by the riser system to prevent buckling and
instability.
Figure 3 Drilling Riser
Buoyancy Module [Floating
The upper stem mounted on the top of the buoyancy can transfers the Technologies, 2012]
tension provided by the BCTR to the riser. Attached to the bottom of the
buoyancy can, the lower stem shields the riser from hydrodynamics forces. [Karayaka, M.,
2003]

3.3 Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP)

The lower marine riser package is an assembly located at the bottom of the drilling riser,
but above the BOP. The LMRP provides releasable interface between the riser and BOP
stack.

Typical component in a LMRP are:

- Lower Riser Adapter

- Flex/ball joint bypass lines
- Lower flex/ball joint
- Hydraulic connectors for mating the riser to the BOP stack

[API 16F, 2004]

3.3.1 Lower Riser Adapter

The lower riser adapter is the connection between the lower most riser joint and the
lower flex/ball joint mounted on the lower marine riser package. [API 16F, 2004]

3.3.2 Flex/Ball joint bypass lines

The bypass lines are mounted on kick outs on the riser adapter. They bypass the
flex/ball joint and terminate in the BOP. [API 16F, 2004]
14
3.3.3 Lower flex/ball joint
See Flex/ball joint for UMRP. The lower flex/ball joint is the same as the upper. It
permits angular displacement for the riser.

3.4 Blowout Preventer

The Blowout Preventer (BOP) is the last and largest element attached to the riser
system, and is in many ways the most important equipment in the drilling riser system. The
BOP sits on top of the wellhead and is basically a specialized valve used to control and
monitor the oil and gas flow from the well. There exist many different types and variations of
BOP’s, but very often several different blowouts preventer are installed on top of each other
on top of the wellhead.

The goal of a exploration drilling operation is to find reservoir of oil and natural gas. On top
of the reservoir, water and rock creates an enormous pressure inside making the oil and gas to
burst out once the reservoir is punctured. To prevent the oil
and gas from bursting out drilling mud is being used to
stabilize the pressure. The drilling mud is a natural part of the
drilling operation and is always circulating under pressure
inside the riser pipe. This pressure opposes the pressure of
the oil that wants to come out.

Sometimes the pressure in the reservoir is too high and the

pressure can blow all the mud right back up the well,
commonly known as “kick” or “blowout”. In case of these
situations the blowout preventer is there to handle the
situation and prevent the “kick”. The Blowout preventer has Figure 4 A Blowout Preventer,
Credit: Cameron-Nautronix [The
many different approaches to these situations. The typical Encyclopedia of Earth, 2012]

selection between BOP systems is annular BOP and Ram

BOP.

3.4.1 Annular Blowout Preventer

The annular BOP closes around the drill string and seals it of at the top of the BOP. If
no part of the drill stem is in the hole, the annular blowout preventer closes around the open
hole, and uses the principle of a wedge to shut in the wellbore and seal it. This type of system
requires that the drill string is out of the well. For other situations operators can use ram BOP
system.
15
3.4.2 Ram Blowout Preventer
A ram BOP has the same principle as a gate valve. The difference is that the BOP uses
a pair of opposing steel plungers. The ram BOP function as a extension from each side
towards the center of the wellbore, to prevent mud-flow returning from the well. The rams, or
ram blocks, comes in four different types; pipes, blind, shear, and blind shear, all with special
abilities.

The pipe rams [Figure 5, b] closes around the drill pipe, preventing flow in the annulus,
between the drill pipe and wellbore. The pipe rams do not obstruct the flow within the drill
pipe.

Blind rams [Figure 5, a] have no opening for the drill pipe and can close well that does not
contain a drill string by moving towards the center and seal it. A blind shear ram can cut
through the drill pipe and seal the well.

The shear ram [Figure 5, c] can cut through the drill pipe with hardened steel shears.

Figure 5 Blowout Preventer diagram showing different types of

rams. (a) Blind ram (b) Pipe ram and (c) Shear ram.
[Wikipedia, 2012]

16
3.4.3 BOP control system
The BOP control system talks with the BOP. It basically sends a signal down to the
BOP subsea control system where the signal is decoded and performed. A BOP control
system consist generally of two elements; electrical and hydraulic elements. The BOP system
is controlled from a two completed control pods. Each pod is capable of performing all
necessary function on the BOP. [Shanks, E., et al, 2003]

17
4. Challenges
After the identification and overview of the main- and sub-elements of the marine
drilling riser system, will this thesis focus on identifying the challenges and problems faced
with some of the selected elements and systems. The elements that is most exposed and
chosen to be evaluated for the identification of high risk areas is the telescopic joint, riser
pipes, tension system, lower flex/ball joint, and the Blowout Preventer with the control
system.

4.1 Upper Marine Riser Package

4.1.1 Telescopic Joint
The design of the telescopic joint is old and has not been changed significantly since
the introduction in the early 1960`s. [Upton, T.L., 2009] Fifty year old design combined with
increased number of deepwater wells, new technology and harsher weather condition makes
the telescopic joint exposed. The telescopic joint is associated with several problems-areas,
and are known to adversely affect the well cost and well control. Discharging events attended
with the packer system is a common problem, but there are also recorded incidents of packer
housing bolts failed, new telescopic joints to fail, cracks developed at welds, and inner barrel
shoe that could not support weight of riser and stack. [Sattler, J.P., 2003]

During the period of 2000 to 2008 there was conducted a review of discharge incidents
that occurred during offshore operations, and the review related that on average
approximately 2.5 unplanned fluid discharges or near miss events had occurred each year. All
events where associated with marine riser slip joint packing-elements leaks. [Upton, T.L.,
2009]

68% of telescopic joint failures were the result of failure of the primary packer element.
[Upton, T.L., 2009] The remaining failures were the result of either insufficient air pressure or
the total loss of air pressure required to activate the secondary packer element. Packer-wear
was the main failure event causing the element to fail, but corrosion pitting on the surface of
the inner barrel was a highly contributing factor.

The survey revealed that there were some correlations between equipment maintenance
practice and packer elements failure. In all but one case, the seal failures were the result of
premature wear to the slip joint packer element. A typically packer-elements replace
frequency is between 1,800 and 3,600 operating ours. [Upton, T.L., 2009]

18
 But insufficient maintenance intervals and premature
wear had the packer elements failure occur in as few
as 750 operating hours in some cases.

Figure 6 Eccentric wear to the packer

element [Upton, T.L., 2009]

Failure with the packer element is the common failure with the telescopic joint, but
studies have shown that the telescopic joint packer housing bolts have failed during lifting
operation of the BOP stack. Closer examination revealed that worn threads and incorrect
operation procedure was the main reason for these kind off accidents. [Sattler, J.P., 2003]
The lack of preventing measures and correct operating and handling procedure have been
shown to lead to the development of crack growth in welds, telescopic joint adapter to fail due
to uncompleted welding procedure, and that the inner barrel shoe could not support the weight
of riser and stack. [Sattler, J.P., 2003]

Figure 7 Detail of Failed Bolt [Upton, T.L., 2009]

19
 The secondary function of the telescopic joint is to serve as a transmitter for the mud
and drilling fluid as it returns from the well. One of the main problems associated with the
telescopic joint concern the effect that it has on the return-flow of drilling mud. As the
telescopic joint reciprocates due to the heave motion, a change in internal volume of the
returning drilling mud will occur. The change in internal volume will causes the return mud-
flow to subject to considerable variations of flow rate. This phenomenon has a number of
adverse effects on well control. [Baker, R.J., 1991]

An influx of formation fluids, commonly known as “Kick”, has the potential to lead to
blowouts. Therefor it’s important to have early detections of influx of formation fluids in the
mud. The earliest detectable warning comes from accurately measuring the flow rate of the
returning mud stream in the telescopic joint, and detecting an increase. But due to the widely
fluctuating heave induced on floating drill rigs, it has been proven to be impossible to
accurately measure the returning mud flow rate. The telescopic joint have in this way an
adversely effect on the well control.

The widely fluctuating flow rate that appears in the telescopic joint could lead to increased
well cost. The fluctuating flow rate makes it hard to maintain efficient operations of the shale
shakers. To prevent liquid mud to be lost across the shakers scree, it becomes necessary to
install screens that are coarse enough to handle the maximum flow rate.

The Telescopic joint is an important part in the riser system. It plays an important role
for riser motion compensation and well control. But it is also highly exposed and vulnerable
for damage and problems. The problems known for the telescopic joint is overall related to
poor, insufficient and old design. The lack of renewal and upgrade makes the telescopic joint
a weak link in the riser system. Deepwater challenges are not really an issue for the telescopic
joint du the location, almost on the top of the riser system. Therefore the problems are more a
technical challenge that could have been solved on a much earlier stage.

20
4.2 Riser Pipes and Tension system
4.2.1 Tension System
The tension system should provide a constant force to the slip joint to prevent the riser
from buckling and instability, but real time motion of the slip joint due to vessel-motion
cause’s inertia and viscous effect. This means that tension system force will be time
dependent and directly a function of the slip joint motion. [Kozik, T.J., 1975] Because of this,
a study of load transmittal and variation in the riser tension system becomes an important and
necessary to the detailed analysis of riser string motion and stresses.

The hydro-pneumatic wire rope tension system is the most common system used to
maintain tension to the riser. The main concern regarding the wire rope tension system is the
wire line life time. The wire line life is a function of a
several parameters including sheave diameter, applied
tension, operating circumstances and rope construction.
But the common problem to the wire rope is that when
approaching greater depths the drill rigs reaches their
tension capacity. The solution to this is to use buoyancy
can riser tension system to provide for sufficient tension
to the riser.

Figure 8 Riser tensioner system

[Furlow. W., 2012]

The buoyancy can riser tension system (BCRT) is designed for Top Tension Risers
(TTR). TTR are often used on Tension Leg Platform (TLP) or Spars, and are completely
vertical riser system that terminates directly below the platform and are fixed to the seafloor.
Due to the fixed point on the seafloor will vertical displacement occur between the top of the
riser, and its connection point on the facility. [Rigzone, 2012] A typical solution to this issue
is buoyancy can deployed around the outside the riser, decreasing the submerge weight of the
riser.

For deepwater application there are some issues to address with the BCTR system. Typical
deepwater TTR issues are material, pressure, water depth and number of casings. Increases in
water depth and high reservoir pressure are primary parameters that influence the riser weight.
21
The increased riser weight have adversely influence on tension requirement for BCTR system.
[Walters, D., Thomas, D., and Hatton, S., 2004] Increased tension requirements means to
increase the hydro-pneumatic tension requirements, meaning larger air accumulator, and
buoyancy can size.

Larger aircan volume, achieved through increasing the length or diameter, will have several
adversely impact on the riser system. Increasing the aircan length will result in complex
hydrodynamic loading with increased susceptibility to fatigue of the aircan, riser and mooring
system. [Walters, D., Thomas, D., and Hatton, S., 2004] On deepwater will the aircan’s have
direct influence on the vortex induced vibrations, likely to lead to detrimental influence on the
riser.

The enlarged buoyancy will also have a direct impact on installation of the BCTR system and
vessel motion. Large aircan’s will result in larger drag loading on the spar, increasing the
vessel offset. Increased offset increases the bending loads on the lower joint at the base of the
riser. [Walters, D., Thomas, D., and Hatton, S., 2004] This affects the riser material and the
flex-angel on the lower flex joint.

The tensioner system provides stability for the riser. The tension requirements are no
problem when operating in shallow water. The wire lines are designed to be capable to
provide sufficient tension based upon the maximum rated water depth and maximum expected
mud weight. Exceeding these limitations exposes the wire line and reduces the life time. The
usage of enlarge buoyancy cans only add more adversely effects to the riser system.

4.2.2 Riser pipes

Over the last two decades, drilling activity has moved into deeper water. Deepwater
represents a wide variety of technical and environmental challenges that has resulted in more
stringent drilling riser design. Deepwater developments are typically characterized by
environmental waves, high currents and dynamic loading leading to accelerated fatigue
damage. [Hariharan, M. and Thethi, R., 2007]

The riser pipes are the “shell” protecting the drill string and houses the returning mud and
drilling fluid. Due to their position in the riser system, riser pipes are highly exposed to
several problems and challenges. The main challenges are corrosion, tension stress, currents,
waves, curvature and offset from the wellhead position due to vessel motion. To prevent or
minimize the possibility of riser downtime, the riser pipes must resist environmental wave and
22
current loading, and maintain small flex-joint angles. [Howells, Dr. H., and Bowman, J.,
1997] Riser pipe problems are mainly environmental, but they could be categorized into two
areas; technical, from tensile load and internal & external pressure, and second; corrosion,
both internal and external.

4.2.2.1 Technical
Heave motion from the vessel and improper functioning from the telescopic joint or
tension system could lead to high tension in the riser pipe. Tension is caused from underlying
riser joints and the BOP stack, and could leads to fatigue crack growth, Stress Corrosion
Cracking, in the riser pipe. [Howells, Dr. H., 2000] High tension and the growth of cracks on
the riser pipe place increased importance on wall thickness of the riser pipe.

Wall thickness is not only important for increased tension, but also for hoop stress resistance
from mud head and collapse resistance from water column. [Hariharan, M., and Thethi, R.,
2007] Normal wall thickness of a riser pipe is approximately 1 inch. The material the riser
pipe is made of generally has the material quality of min 80Kpsi. [Hariharan, M., and Thethi,
R., 2007] Minimum 80Kpsi gives minimum yield strength of 550 MPa. With a wall thickness
of 1 inch the riser pipe can tolerate a tensile load of 14940kN. A normal tensile load from the
riser joints, LMRP and the BOP stack are approximately 5500kN. [Appendix A]

Together with tensile load from the riser joints, LMRP and BOP, place internal pressure from
mud head an increased importance on wall thickness regarding hoop stress resistance. Using
the same dimension as before (previous section) we can check the maximum internal pressure
resistance by using the highest utilization of hoop stress in a riser pipe. Maximum hoop stress
is given by internal pressure of 38.8 MPa (5626 psi). The Normal working pressure from
drilling fluid and mud is 3.44 MPa (500 psi). [Appendix A]

Riser pipes are exposed for collapse due to external pressure from the water column. Collapse
resistance has great relation with wall thickness of the riser pipe. A riser pipe with wall
thickness of 1 inch and material minimum yield of 550 MPa can tolerate an external pressure
of theoretical 13.6 MPa before buckling. This is comparable to approximately 1300 meter
water depth. [Appendix A] Some of the internal pressure prevents the pipe from buckling, so
taking that into consideration, a theoretical water depth will be around 1600 meter. 1600
meter is also above the deepwater definition limit.

23
The riser pipe itself is fully dimensioned and resistance for deepwater application. But a fully
dimensioned riser pipe faces challenges regarding the weight. Heavy riser pipes increases the
tensile load on the cross-surface, meaning increased wear and top tension capacity on the rig.
These issues are addressed further in the deepwater section.

4.2.2.2 Corrosion
Riser pipes are not only influenced by problems like tension, internal and external
pressure. But the location, between the wellhead and vessel surrounded by seawater, makes
the riser pipes exposed to corrosion, both inside and outside. Internal and external corrosion is
the dominant integrity issues for riser pipes. Seawater penetration, CO2 and H2S corrosion
have the possibility of corrosion fatigue, metal loss and even stress corrosion cracking.
[Marsh, J., et al, 2009]

There exist many different types of internal corrosion, but the dominant corrosion issues,
where water are in contact with steel, are of electrochemical nature; O2, CO2 and H2S
corrosion. The crude oil and natural gas from the oil/gas reservoir usually contains some level
of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S).

During a study in the 1970’s on industrial failures, corrosion (all

types) was the mean cause of 33% of all failure, and the CO2 and
H2S was the most common type. [King, G.E., 2009] Most often the
corrosion pattern is in form of pits, craters or more uniform wall
thinning.

Figure 9 Heavy pitting and

general wall loss [Hatton, S.,
2010, HTHP]

Dioxide (O2) corrosion is the most damaging corrosion mechanism. Small amounts of
oxygen, water and chlorides can ruin a chrome tubing completion in a few months. O2
corrosion is most common where seawater is being used, for example injection wells. [King,
G.E., 2009]

When Carbone dioxide is dissolved in water it forms Carbon acid (H2CO3). Carbon acid is
highly corrosive to carbon steel or low alloy steel. The CO2 corrosion appears as pitting
24
 corrosion, holes in the metal, and has adversely effect on the wall thickness. CO2 corrosion
affect differently under varying condition of pressure, temperature, pH and oil water
fractioning.

Hydrogen sulfide naturally exists with oil and gas in well reservoir, and does like CO2
dissolve in water. When H2S dissolves in water it produces hydrogen H- ions. H- Ions are
relatively small and can diffuse through the grain boundaries or any defect openings in the
steel materials. When two H- atom combines and form H2 molecule, which is a gas, the
molecules accumulates and gets trapped inside the material. This could cause highly localized
pressure build up and initiate a crack.

Under the right condition the

H2S corrosion process can be
very rapid leading to structural
failure.

Figure 10 H2S Corrosion crack and pressure build up [Hatton, S., 2010,
HTHP]

The most common phenomenon below the water line is the electrochemical nature of
anode depletion, leading to external corrosion. [Marsh, J., et al, 2009] But in addition to metal
loss corrosion damage can also Environmentally Induced Cracking occur. These are typically
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC), Hydrogen Embritllement and fatigue corrosion. [Roche,
M., 2005] Environmentally induced cracking generally occur in the event of disbonded
coatings. Disbonded coating is with time the major threat encountered with riser corrosion.
External and internal corrosion impacts every aspect of a development from design, material
specification, manufacture, installation, and operation. [Hatton, S., 2010] Corrosion is known
as a key driver; it influences every aspect of a project.

The general dimension of a riser pipe does not face any menace regarding hoop stress,
tensile load, or internal and external pressure. The riser wall thickness is proven to be
sufficient enough. But in the case of corrosion attacks resulting in cracks and wall thinning
the riser, wall thickness is to be an issue. Corrosion attacks could be dangerous causing

25
damage fatigue, and are more likely to occur without an efficient corrosion prevention system.
Two common prevention systems are cathodic protection and surface coating.

4.3 Lower Marine Riser Package

4.3.1 Lower Flex/ball Joints
The lower and upper Flex/ball joint compensate for the vessel or drill rig offsets
relative to the wellhead location. During the late 70’s there was conducted a study to
determine the effect of water depth, vessel offset, mud weight, top tension and buoyancy
modules on the riser stresses lower and upper flex/ball joint [Azar, J.J., and Soltveit, R.E.,
1978]. The report concluded that the mud weight, vessel offset and buoyancy modules
affected the bending moment in the riser and the riser angel provided by the flex joint.

On the rig today, the most common is to use flexible joint with a flexible element. Some
flexible joint is based on the ball joint principle. Compared to the ball joint principle, failures
in the flexible joint is rare. Due to the observation of several failures of the ball joint in the
North Sea during the 1980’s, it can be concluded that flexible joint is more reliable than the
ball joint principle. A study conducted by SINTEF during the 80’s and the 90’s shows that
five of twenty-six rigs had ball joints. The drill rigs using the ball joint principle represented
18, 5% of the BOP’s-days in service. [Holand, P., 2001]. During the survey, flexible joint was
observed with a failure. But the failure was in flex joint using the ball joint principle. The
cause of the failure was an external leakage and not the flexible principle.

Large currents associated with deepwater drilling

operations, makes the vessel drive off and give the vessel
an offset in relation to on station position. Vessel offset
affects the flex joint rotation. For drilling operations the
flex joint rotation limit is mean 2 degrees, and max 4
degrees. Flex joint rotation near the max limit makes the
material to reach below the yield limit of 67%.
[Middleditch, B., 2011]

Figure 11 A riser failure assessment

[Sonawane, M., Koska, R., and Campbell,
M., 2012]

26
Drilling downtime is likely to be incurred if mean riser angle exceeds 2 degrees. [Westlake,
A.S., Uppu, K., 2007] Downtime in the marine drilling riser or BOP is one of the main
activities drilling contractor trying to prevent from happening. Limiting the mean drilling
angel to 1 degree is a more stringent requirement placed by the drilling contractors to prevent
downtime. This angular limitation is designed to reduce wear in the system, particularly in the
lower flex joint, and prevent riser downtime. The limitation is also designed to give the
needed free passage of the retrieval of tools with no damage. The limit on the lower flex-joint
angle fulfills the requirement that the rig must be maintained in a position where emergency
disconnect can be carried out. [Howells, Dr. H., and Bowman, J., 1997] The design also gives
some margin against wellhead not being perfectly vertical when installed.

The flex joint is together with the telescopic joint one of the most important element in
the marine riser system. They both compensate for vessel motion and allow displacement of
the riser. But their functions make them important in preventing failure and downtime. In
deepwater operations long risers are exposed for curvature and angular rotation. But research
shows that flexible joints are less exposed for failure than ball joint. This would make the flex
joint more poplar selection than the ball joint.

4.4 BOP
A reliable blowout preventer (BOP) is important for safe offshore drilling operations.
Unexpected BOP failure can lead to in worst case a blowout and loss of life, and in best case
significant downtime on drilling operations. In many countries regular scheduled BOP testing
is a regulatory requirement for the contractors. Drilling contractors rely on the BOP to
maintain its function and reliability. For offshore drilling operations the most expensive
downtime event is associated with having to pull and retrieve the marine riser and the BOP
because of a failure. To pull the BOP the result in cost will approximately be $1.00 MM per
event. [Shanks, E., et al, 2003]

Due to the need for high reliability on the BOP system there was during the 1980’s, to the late
1990’s, conducted several reliability studies on subsea BOP system on the behalf of various
oil companies. The studies where carried out of the Scientific and Industrial Research at the
Norwegian Inst. of Technology (SINTEF). The studies where based on data from the wells
drilled in the North Sea, Brazilian waters and the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf.

27
The survey reviled several problems area with the BOP system.

- Approx. 4% drilling time is lost due to BOP failure in deepwater drilling

- Problem with locking system; “fail to open”
- Opening of the LMRP connector
- Backup control system
- BOP testing and test time.

The increased downtime for deepwater vs. shallow water can be explained by the
increased handling time to repair each failure. Water depth seems to have no influence on the
occurrence and frequency of failure. [Holand, P., 2001] There was discovered that some new
design caused major problem with the locking system for new types of rams. The failure
mode was not observed in BOP studies with older equipment.

Because many well sections are drilled without riser margin the opening of the LMRP
connector is far more important during deepwater drilling. In the case of a non-functioning
LMRP connector the control of the BOP is lost. Another problem related to where well
sections are being drilled without riser margin is if the BOP accidentally disconnect. If an
unintentional disconnect happens there is very important for deepwater operations to have
backup of BOP control systems. On average a BOP test time consumes 5% of drilling time.
[Holand, P., 2001]

During the survey they identified several main failures to specified component of the
BOP system. Table 1 shows the number of failure and associated total downtime with BOP
component.

Table 2 Overview of BOP failures [Holand, P., 2001]

28
 From the table we can see that more than 50% of the failure was observed in the main
control system. The connector, annular preventers, ram preventers, choke and kill lines, and
choke and kill valves each represented 7 to 11 % of the failures.

On the annular preventer system the most common failure was leaks through the closed
annular. Another typical failure mode was “failed to fully open”, which seems to be a typical
failure on new equipment. This means that the annular system refuse to fully retract
preventing operators from pulling large-diameter tools through the annular preventer.

With Ram type preventer the most common failure is with the blind shear ram (BSR). Typical
failure observed with the BSR is “failed to close” and “failed to open”. This kind of failures is
hazards because an access to the wellbore is restricted.

All the failure observed with respect to the annual and ram preventing system was due
to internal leakage from shuttle valve. The various valves contained in a BOP control system
is a significant factor affecting the BOP reliability. Failures with the annular and ram
preventing system is time consuming to fix. During the survey from SINTEF all the observed
failures took approx. several hours to repair.

4.4.1 BOP control system

The more common causes for pulling the marine riser and subsea BOP is associated
with the BOP control system and not the BOP itself.

In the period 2000 - 2004 there was conducted a

joint industry project (JIP) where the goal was to
examine BOP equipment and reliability. The
study was conducted in the Gulf of Mexico, and
the results from the JIP identified that 63% of
BOP failure happened in the control system.
[Drilling Contractor, 2009]

Figure 12 Control systems are where the majority of

subsea BOP failures occur, according to an industry
study. [Drilling Contractor, 2009]

29
Historically the control systems hydraulic components have had the most problems that have
required the riser and BOP stack to be pulled, and the main cause have been hydraulic leaks..
The hydraulic components represented 45% of the control system failure, and Multiplex
(MUX) control accounted for 55% of the failures. [Drilling Contractor, 2009]

Transocean have conducted a survey for basic design and requirements for deepwater BOP
control system. [Shanks, E., et al, 2003] The scope of the survey was to study deepwater BOP
control system and take a look at reliability issues and determine period between
maintenance. BOP problems can be extremely expensive and unexpected problems or failure
can lead to significant downtime. Proper maintenance of rigs BOP is critical to ensure
reliability and safety of offshore drilling operations. [Chapman, F.M., and Brown, R.L., 2009]

Transocean found out that the best time to perform major maintenance on complicated BOP
control system was during the ship yard time. This means that the BOP has to function for a
five-year interval to prevent unnecessary pulling of the marine riser and cause major
downtime. Therefore it was necessary to have a look at some of the reliability issues
associated with the BOP control system

When reviewing the reliability issues relative to the BOP control system they revealed
that there was rarely any equipment performance requirement given by the vendors. The
system requirements where develop between contract engineers, operators, and vendors, and
reliability was assumed to be as good as the previous one. Or in the case of new design, it was
assumed better than before. [Shanks, E., et al, 2003] The survey also revealed that the
operating reliability was maintained through regular maintenance intervals, rather than
specifying reliability of a system or component to minimize maintenance. The solution was to
actively pursuing improvements in BOP reliability at all levels during the equipment life time,
including design stage.

Keeping the reliability and active pursuing improvements in all levels are important to
avoid failure and disaster. Consequences provided by BOP failure or well control problems
could be highly expensive and cause environmental catastrophe. Accidents like Ekofisk Bravo
blowout and Piper Alpha explosion are accidents operators trying to avoid. [Visser, R.C.,
2011] Therefore it is important to make BOP system that are reliable, and maintenance
program that achieve and maintain that level of reliability.

30
4.5 Deepwater
Deepwater drilling represents more challenges and problems than ever faced before.
Drilling in deepwater is associated with increased water depth, harsher environments and
larger currents affecting the riser system. In difference to the North Sea, exploring in the Gulf
of Mexico and offshore Brazil is moving into water depths of over 2000 meter (6561 feet).
The increased water depth and severe currents place more importance on design requirements
for the drilling riser system. The deepwater development faces two kinds of challenges; the
environmental and the technical, where the technical could be seen as a result of the
environmental challenges.

Figure 13 Global drilling map. Map of the world showing deepwater drilling and development. [BBC
News: US & Canada, 2012]

In 2002 deepwater drilling consist of 3% of overall production, 2007 – 6%, and today it is
10% of all drilling operations. By 2015 deepwater is the only sector likely to continue to
grow. [Hatton, S., 2010] From the global drilling map it could be stated that the Gulf of
Mexico and coast of Brazil is the most important development areas for the future.

31
4.5.1 Technical
Technical challenges are mainly design challenges faced when scaling a shallow water
riser to deepwater operations. The main focus is to identify the main difference between
deepwater and shallow water drilling operations, and evaluate how they affect the marine riser
system.

The main difference between deepwater and shallow water is:

- Increased tension
- Increased internal and external pressure
- Longer, heavier riser joints
- Exposure to severe currents
- Subjected to Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV)
- Large Curvature

[Howells, Dr. H., 2000]

This means that the design requirements for drilling risers are not applicable for
deepwater drilling, because they do not address the deepwater issues. The main different is to
make the riser system functional for higher top tension requirements, meaning that the rig
need to exceed their top tension capacity. When scaling a riser string for deepwater tension
capacity there is some series of items that need to be considered.

Increased water depth results in longer drill string, and several longer and heavier riser joints.
Longer and heavier riser joints lead to increase tension on the riser string. Increased tension
need to be compensated by increased top tension from the tensioner system in the riser. High
tension results in increased wear at the top of the riser and may accelerate fatigue crack
growth in the riser. [Howells, Dr. H., 2000] Fatigue damage and crack growth in riser pipe is
further mentioned in the riser pipe section in this thesis.

Longer riser joints natural increase the volume of drilling mud inside the riser pipe, which
increase the internal pressure from the mud on the riser wall. Increased internal pressure affect
the riser wall as consequence of increased hoop stress. Associated with greater water depth
development, higher external pressure, resulting from the water column, is expected. The
external pressure is increasing for every 10th meter below sea level. Meaning that riser pipe

32
should be design for operations on maximum water depth. Collapse of the riser wall is a
consequence of the external pressure on the riser pipe.

The combination of increased internal and external pressure place increased importance on
riser wall thickness. Wall thickness is like discussed earlier important for hoop load
resistance, dimensional tolerance and collapse resistance. These challenges should be
addressed during the design phase of the riser system, because changing the wall thickness
could be some difficult when installed on the rig.

High tension, increased external and internal pressure, and large mean flex-angles or riser
curvature are all contributing factor for increased wear at deepwater. Typical wear hotspots is
on the lower flex joint, upper flex joint and telescopic joint, making them weak point in the
riser system. Drilling in deepwater areas is generally associated with extended wear of the
equipment. To prevent increased wear during deepwater drilling, it is important to have god
wear control. Wear control could be achieved through controlling the triggering factor, like
minimizing the flex-joint angle limits to 1 degree, have water depths limits, and conducting
seasonal drilling. Limiting the drilling operations to seasonal drilling could be seen as an
extreme action, regarding revenue loss and continuous rig cost.

4.5.2 Environmental
Deepwater challenges are not only riser technical specified; there are also experienced
challenges with the environment, natural for deepwater areas. Increased water depth, higher
waves and larger current loading all have significant influence on riser system response.
Water depth has direct impact on the riser length, leading to increased curvature over the
entire length of the drilling riser. Large wave heights increases the loading on the telescopic
joint and UMRP, and vessel heave and pitch motions. Al together these issues have influences
on the running and retrieval operations, and resulting in reduced weather - window for well
testing and operations. [Howells, Dr. H., and Bowman, J., 1997]

Large currents leading to vortex induced vibrations (VIV) is common phenomenon in great
water depths. VIV is one of the main concerns with deepwater development regarding the
riser system. The concern is about the effect the currents have on riser joints. Large currents
speed typical for deepwater give rise to vortex induce vibrations. The in-line current causes
the bodies to vibrate at a natural frequency in the cross-flow direction. Constant vibration
from VIV causes stress cycling in the riser. VIV can generate high levels of fatigue damage

33
along the entire riser length, which can cause the raiser to fail. Typically riser failure from
increased VIV is fatigue damage, increased curvature and the possibility of crack growth in
the riser pipe. VIV generally requires more frequent inspection of the riser or use of a
suppression device. [Howells, Dr. H., 1998]

Other aspects of deepwater drilling are the effect from buoyancy equipment. It’s proven that
the buoyancy effectiveness is reduced at increased water depth. [Howells, Dr. H., 1998] Due
to reduced buoyancy effect, there is advisable that the lower part of deepwater riser should
use slick joints to maximize effective use of buoyancy and maintain satisfactory level of
tension during disconnect, hang-off and retrieval. [Howells, Dr. H., 1998]

There have been proven to be some relation between the water depth and the
downtime of BOP system, as we can see from Figure 14 and 15. The trend of higher
downtime in deeper water is caused by the BOP and LMRP handling time in deep water, and
not from failure rate. There is not proven any relation between water depth and BOP failure
rate. As mention before, risers used in deepwater are longer and heavier than those used in
shallow water. This results in longer running and retrieval time when faults occur.

Figure 15 BOP/LMRP running and pulling times sorted Figure 14 Regression line for BOP/LMRP running and
on water depths [Holand, P., 2001] pulling times vs. water depth. [Holand, P., 2001]

As the industry moves towards locations with greater water depth, will the always be
continuously development of new technologies. The drilling technologies are always
advancing to allow more efficient drilling operations. But going from shallow to deepwater
drilling has reviled some new environmental question. The question is regarding dispersion,
discharge of drill cuttings, drilling muds, storage, handling and discharge of chemicals and
drilling mud. [Armstrong, L.J., 2002]

34
The search for new and bigger oil and gas reservoir takes the exploration companies to deeper
water depths. Great water depths have a tendency to be located a long way from the shore.
Deepwater drilling results therefor in longer traveling distance from the coast to the drilling
vessel. This little detail has some impact on the vessel and drilling operations efficiency.

One major issue considering deepwater drilling is emergency response time due to unplanned
discharge and oil spill to the sea. Throughout the world, response time is a part of regulatory
framework for most countries, and almost every nation have national oil spill response plan in
place. [Armstrong, L.J., 2002] Reacting quickly and efficient to pollution is very important,
and the increasing distance to the shore can make this difficult in some cases. Long distance
from the shore could delay emergency response and consume considerable time traveling.
Where there is possible for shallow water operators to store anti-pollution on shore, deepwater
operators must have enough equipment on board the platform or vessel to react on a
discharging accident.

Oil weathering differs from shallow water to deepwater. Due to the difference in composition
will crude oil from deepwater fields have different weathering and buoyancy characteristic
than crude oil generated in shallow water. Consider deepwater drilling its possible for deep
leaks to never reach the surface, due to the formation of gas hydrates. Research shows that
some gas hydrates dissolve in the water column, preventing the plume to never reach the
surface.

35
5. Solutions
To improve the operating window and resist the effects of VIV’s, optimization of the
riser and wellhead system may be necessary. This chapter will give a short introduction to the
solution for some of the challenges addressed in chapter 4.

Maintain good well control and having a correct functioning telescopic joint is important. The
telescopic joint contributes to improper well control with the phenomenon of reciprocates
flow, due to the heave motion. Other relevant problems with the telescopic joint are the
packer housing bolts, and packer elements leakage leading to unwanted discharge.

To compensate for fluctuating flow many different methods have been investigated. One
method is the flow in, flow out (FIFO) principle. [Baker, R.J., 1991] The principle behind this
method is to install a pump below the telescopic joint allowing it to pump the returning mud
out of the marine riser. This then allows the returned mud to be accurately measured by flow
meters. Accurately measure will give correct feedback on the influx of formation fluids.

The packer system is based on an old design, and hasn’t change or renewed since the
1960’s. Drilling operators believe that an evaluation of the currently available slip joint
design is advisable to determine if new design would improve the sealing reliability. The
selection of new design should consider new materials, new technology or a complete
redesign of the sealing mechanism. One possible solution for the unplanned discharge from
the telescopic joint, due to improper packer system, is a Mud Recovery System (MRS). The
basic principle behind MRS is a mud-bucket mounted on the outer barrel, catching discharge
fluid from the telescopic joint and then reusing it by pumping it back to the well. The main
different between this and the FIFO principle is that with the mud-bucket the operators can
add different fluids into the returning mud, optimizing the well control.

It is proven that in environment with high currents, like in deepwater developments,

higher riser top tension is needed to reduce the curvature and limit the flex-joint angle
preventing the fatigue damage incurred in the riser. For water depths below 500 meter (1640
feet), many rigs are at their rig tensioning capacity, making it hard to provide the needed
tension for riser stability. The solution to this is buoyant joints used to increase the riser
tension by decrease the submerge riser weight. [Howells, Dr. H., and Bowman, J., 1997] But
increased tension and improved riser response are being reacted through the conductor,
leading to increased wellhead fatigue damage. Riser tension and buoyancy must therefore be

36
configured to meet a balance between riser and wellhead system fatigue damage preventing
damage to the conductor.

Using buoyancy can to address riser tension issues provides new challenges. Large aircans
could result in large drag loading, and have influence on the VIV. As a solution for top
tension riser issues regarding increased aircan volume, reduction in wall thickness is a
possible solution. Reduction in wall thickness lightens the riser joint, and has a corresponding
effect of reducing the top tension requirements. Reducing the wall thickness could on the
other side lead to other problems like hoop and collapse resistance, and corrosion resistance.
Other possible solution should be taken into consideration, like further savings could be
achieved through the uses of alternative material for the aircans [Walters, D., Thomas, D., and
Hatton, S., 2004]

Riser pipes used in deepwater applications are often longer and heavier. This results in
increased tension on the riser. To prevent the riser from buckling under the tension, the rig
needs to increase the top tension provided from the wire line tensioner system. Another
solution to minimize the tensile strength reacting on the riser is to increase the wall thickness,
creating a large cross-section area in the riser pipe. Larger wall thickness provides also for
hoop load and collapse resistance. The wall thickness plays an important role on riser pipes
addressing deepwater issues, especially corrosive attacks. Corrosion attacks may lead to crack
growth and wall thinning in the riser pipe.

To deal with the increased corrosion on risers and pipelines generally acceptance
requirements for the prevention of external an internal corrosion have been introduce in the
ISO 13623 and ISO TC67/SC2. But to have a complete and efficient corrosion prevention
policy, drilling operators need to have Corrosion Management. A Corrosion Management
policy is based on a few basic principles. [Roche, M., 2007]

The first principle is based on simple prevention actions. Operators can prevent corrosion by
effective implementing internal and external corrosion prevention systems, including material
selection, corrosion allowances, cathodic protection, external and internal coating, and
injections of chemicals. In corrosive environments, most steel structures can be saved by
coating and/or cathodic protection.

Cathodic protection and coating is the far most common corrosion prevention method being
used. Cathodic protection is most often achieved through using sacrificial aluminum anode-
37
bracelet. The principle is that the anode-bracelet is more easily corrode than the riser metal.
Cathodic protection can in some cases also protect against Stress Corrosion Cracking. Coating
is basically a covering applied to exposed surface on the riser to improve surface properties
for corrosion resistance.

Second principle is about Corrosion Monitoring. Operators have to ensure that the corrosion
prevention systems are actually applied correct and working sufficiently. The third principle is
the inspection operation. Inspection provides information about the condition with respect to
corrosion or mechanical damage.

Old equipment used in shallow water, water depth less than 300 meters (984 feet),
does not address deepwater issues. Deepwater issues like increased top tension, increased
internal and external riser pressure, longer and heavier riser joints, and increased VIV are
some problems not meet by the old rigs and old equipment. The solution to face new and
demanding condition are new larger capacity rigs. Rigs with larger tensioner system, to deal
with the problem of little tension capacity, and greater deck capacity to handle larger and
heavier riser joints are recommended.

Larger and heavier riser joints bring up the problem of increased VIV and fatigue damage.
Vortex induced vibrations is a major design issue for all deepwater riser system where severe
current can be expected. For top tensioned riser (TTR) increased top tension or suppression
devices are used to limit the fatigue damage induced by VIV. [Liam, Dr. F., and Howells, Dr.
H., 2000] There are mainly two type of suppression system that provides high level of
suppression and that are strakes and fairings. Both strakes and fairings could reduce VIV
fatigue damage by over 80%. [Howells, Dr. H., and Bowman, J., 1997] Problem with these
two systems is that they provide handling difficulties. But the handling difficulties could be
limited if the suppression devices could be implemented over a short length only.

38
6. Discussion
Moving drilling operations into deeper water like in the Gulf of Mexico, coast of
Brazil and some places in the North Sea means a complete new environment and challenging
drilling condition. The environmental condition varies between the different geographical
locations, and the technical challenges vary with them. Drilling in deepwater faces challenges
like low temperature, high salt level in seawater, large wave and currents, high corrosion
possibilities, increased pressure (internal & external), increased top tension, and
environmentally caused failures.

In this thesis we have identified several problems-areas and challenges faced with the marine
riser system overall, and in relation with deepwater problems. The search for the worlds
“next” large oil or gas reservoir forces drilling operators into new ground. Facing new
challenges and drilling conditions. This makes drilling contractors looking for new solutions,
new technology, and efficient development methods to keep up. There is no secret that most
oil companies, contractor, and operators are driven by the economic profit from the
exploitation of oil and gas. With today’s regulations, cost of labor and rig rate, drilling
equipment must be reliable, even under severe conditions. Operators need to avoid huge
maintenance cost, long downtime leading to huge loss of revenue, and in worst case
environmental disaster.

Keeping the riser integrity is the main concern for many drilling operators, and the marine
riser system is the most important part in any drilling operations using a riser system. The
equipment need to work and be reliable for maintaining and keeping an efficient operation
and well control. This thesis has revealed some main problems with several components in the
marine riser system. Most of them can be avoid by addressing the issues at an early stage, or
in the design face. But several component, although they are new, are based on old design,
and proven to be insufficient.

There are many ways to maintain reliability and riser integrity, but the key problem is to know
when to stop doing “fix when broken” maintenance, and start doing preventing maintenance
instead. Preventing maintenance is done by implementing a correct maintenance program
based on failure rate, cost, performance, efficiency and availability. Correct maintenance and
correct handling procedure can be the key solution to many problems, but in some cases will a
new and complete redesign of the equipment be necessary. The solution is to find the balance

39
between correct maintenance programs for existing equipment, or do a total redesign. The key
is to know what is most economical profitable in the long run for the operator.

Looking at the marine riser system the main risk lies with the BOP system. BOP failures
cause the drill contractor long downtime and huge expenses in repair and loss of revenue.
This is due to the long handling time related to running and retrieval of the BOP stack and
riser joints, especially on deepwater development. BOP is based on an old design, they are
heavy, hard to control, but they represent a key component in a drilling operation, necessary
to have and necessary to use. Why hasn’t the design of the BOP changed in the last decades,
as the operations have been more and more challenging and dangerous? The problem can be
looked at from two sides; from the user side, and from the manufacturer side. The user looks
at the cost of the component failing and being repaired or replaced versus the cost of doing a
new design of the BOP, designing for new reliability. From the manufacturer sides of view;
there are a few companies around the world providing the industry with BOP system. Are
they interested in changing the equipment and a functioning system that is making them a lot
of money in spare parts, the answer is probably no. It all comes down to what is most
economical profitable. It will also never be possible to

Including the BOP, are the lower and upper flex joint and telescopic joint a weak point in the
marine riser system. These are typical hotspots for increased wear fatigue when exposed to
waves and vessel offset, making the riser an angular displacement. Especially the lower flex
joint is exposed for increased bending moment due to huge offset from vessel motion. By
limiting the flex-angle to 1 degree, will the auto disconnect sequence activate when exceeding
the limit. The telescopic joint is an overall important part in the riser system for well control
and compensation for riser motion. Concerns for the telescopic joint is mainly technical and
could be avoided by updating the design or apply correct maintenance program, but
something needs to be done in order to keep risk as low as reasonable practicable and avoid
environmental damage.

40
7. Conclusion
Main Objective: Identifying and Evaluating High Risk areas and challenges on marine
drilling riser system, in relation to deepwater problems.

Based on the need for maintain riser integrity this thesis has identified and evaluated problem
areas on the marine drilling riser system and evaluated them in relations to deepwater
problem. Some problems and challenges are a direct consequence of deepwater environmental
problems; other problems are related to technical challenges associated with old design and
lack of correct operating procedure and maintenance method.

Identified high risk areas and challenges:

- Failure to packer element

- Old and unpractical design
- Packer housing bolt failed
- Lack of preventing measures and operating procedure
- Crack growth in riser pipe
- Adversely well control and well cost
- Fluctuating Flow-rate
- Reaching rigs tension capacity
- Increased focus on wall thickness
- Increased Corrosion attacks
- More registered failure to the ball joint principle than flex joint
- Increased flex-angel, limiting the flex-angle
- Several problems with the BOP and the BOP control system
o Hydraulic connectors
o Multiplex control
o Reliability issues with BOP

41
Identified deepwater problems:

- Increased tension
- Increased hoop load
- Increased internal and external pressure
- Longer and heavier riser joints
- Environmentally induced cracks
- Vortex induced vibrations
- Reduced buoyancy effect
- Severe currents
- Large curvature
- Increased emergency response
- Longer distance from shore
- Increase emergency response time

There have been identified several problem areas and issues regarding marine riser system
integrity in deepwater operations. Most of them are natural due to de fact that deepwater
drilling is longer and are more exposed to harsh condition. But others are problems cause by
wrong handling procedure, incorrect maintenance program and neglected design. There exist
several easy solutions to correct these problems, but many of them is still today proven to be
economical unprofitable. And economical profit margin is what drives today’s contractor and
operators.

42
8. References
1. American Petroleum Institute, 1993. API RP 16Q: Recommended practice for design,
selection, operation and maintenance of marine drilling riser systems. – 1st edition,
1993. America: API
2. American Petroleum Institute, 2004. API SPEC 16F: Specification for Marine Drilling
Riser Equipment, 2004. America: API.
3. Armstrong, L.J., et al, 2002, Deepwater Development Environmental Issues and
Challenges, SPE 73873; In: (SPE) Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE International
Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 20-22 March. Texas: SPE
4. ASME, 2007, Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Division 2; American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
5. Azar, J.J., and Soltveit, R.E., 1978, A Comprehensive Study of Marine Drilling Risers,
(SPE) Society of Petroleum Engineers, Unsolicited.
6. Baker, R.J., 1991, Improved Heave Compensation, SPE/IADC 21961: In: (SPE)
Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. Amsterdam,
Netherland 11-14 March. Texas: SPE.
7. Chapman, F.M., and Brown, R.L., 2009, Deepwater BOP Control Monitoring –
Improving BOP Preventive Maintenance With Control Function Monitoring, OTC
20059; In: OTC, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas 4-7 May 2009.
Houston: OTC
8. Drilling Contractor, 2009, Control system found to be leading cause of Downtime in
BOP study. [online] Available at:
<http://www.drillingcontractor.org/control_systems_found_to_be_leading_cause_of_d
owntime_in_bop_study-926> ]Accessed 07 June 2012]
9. ebme, 2012, Reliability Centered Maintenance. [online] Available at:
<www.ebme.co.uk/arts/rcm/index.htm> [Accessed 16 mars 2012]
10. Furlow. W., 2012, Concentric Risers Widen Formation, Fluid Pressure Margin.
[online] Offshore-mag. Available at: < http://www.offshore-
mag.com/articles/print/volume-58/issue-4/departments/drilling-production/concentric-
risers-widen-formation-fluid-pressure-margin.html> [Accessed 07 June 2012]
11. Gulfbase, 2012, General facts about the Gulf of Mexico. [online] Available at:
<http://www.gulfbase.org/facts.php> [Accessed 07 June 2012]

43
12. Hariharan, M., and Thethi, R., 2007, Drilling Riser Management In Deepwater
Environments, Houston: 2H Offshore Inc.
13. Hatton, S., 2010, HTHP – A Deepwater Perspective; In: 2H Offshore, Subsea
Communities – HPHT, September 2010. Houston: 2H Offshore.
14. Holand, P., 2001, Reliability of Deepwater Subsea Blowout Preventers, SPE 70129.
SPE Drilling & Completion 16 (1) Available through: OnePetro e-library [Accessed at
24 April 2012]. SINTEF Industrial Management.
15. Howells, Dr. H., 1998, Deepwater Drilling Riser Technology, VIV & Fatigue
Management; In: 2H Offshore Engineering Limited, Drilling Engineering Association
(Europe), 4 Quarter Meeting, Paris 1998. Houston: 2H Offshore Engineering Limited.
16. Howells, Dr. H., 2000, Guidelines for Drilling Riser Joint Integrity; In: Deepwater
Riser System Management Forum, Pennweell, League City, Texas, June 2000.
Houston: 2H Offshore Inc.
17. Howells, Dr. H., and Bowman, J., 1997, Drilling Riser/Well System Interaction in
Deepwater, Harsh Environments; In: 2H Offshore, Advances in Subsea Technology,
Aberdeen, UK January 1997. Houston: 2H Offshore.
18. Husmo, A. Offshore oil platform 'Gullfaks C' stands up to a fierce. [electronic print]
Available at: < http://www.husmo-foto.no/industri_land.html> [Accessed at 06. June
2012].
19. Karayaka, M., 2003, Fundamentals of Buoyancy Can Riser Tensioner Systems:
Performance Characterization and Redundancy Philosophy Development; In: OTC,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston Texas 5-8 May 2003. Houston: OTC
20. King, G.E., 2009, Corrosion Introduction, GEKEngineering.
21. Kozik, T.J., 1975, An Analysis of a Riser Joint Tensioner System, OTC 2329; In:
OTC, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas 5-8 May 1975. Houston:
OTC
22. Liam, Dr. F., and Howells, Dr. H., 2000, Deepwater Riser VIV, Fatigue and
Monitoring; In: 2H Offshore, Deepwater Pipeline & Riser Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas 6-9 March 2000. Surrey: 2H Offshore Engineering Limited
23. Lim, J.S., and Pfeifler, J.R., 1986, Upper Marine Riser Package, OTC 5166; In:
(OTC), Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas 5-8 May 1986. Houston:
OTC

44
24. Marsh, J., et al, 2009, Offshore Pipeline and Riser Integrity – The Big Issues, SPE
125060: In: (SPE) Society of Petroleum Engineers, Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, UK
8-11 September 2009, Houston: SPE.
25. Middleditch, B., 2011, Deepwater Drilling Riser Technical Challenges; In: 2H
Offshore, International Broadcasting Convention (IBC) Energy Offshore drilling
Conference, October 2011. Houston: 2H Offshore Inc.
26. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 2012, Facts 2012. [online] Available at:
<http://www.npd.no/en/Publications/Facts/Facts-2012/> [Accessed at 11 June 2012]
27. NOV, 2012, Tensioners. [online] Available at:
<http://www.nov.com/Drilling/Motion_Compensation/Tensioners.aspx> [Accessed 23
Mai 2012]
28. Petroleum Economist. Global drilling map. Map of the world showing deepwater
drilling and development. [electronic print] BBC News: US & Canada. Available at:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10298342> {Accessed at 07 June 2012]
29. Rigzone, 2012, How does risers work? [online] Available at
<http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=308&c_id=17> [Accessed
23 Mai 2012]
30. Rocha, P. et al, 2003, Overcoming Deep and Ultra Deepwater Drilling Challenges,
OTC 15233; In: OTC, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas 5-8 May
2003. Houston: OTC
31. Roche, M., 2005, External Corrosion of Pipelines: What Risk?, SPE 93600; In: (SPE)
Society of Petroleum Engineers, The 14th SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference, Bahrain, 12-15 March 2005. Houston: SPE
32. Roche, M., 2007, Corrosion Management: A Key Issue in Pipeline Integrity; In:
(IPTC) International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, U.A.E 4-6 December
2007. IPTC
33. Sattler, J.P., 2003, Dropped BOP Stacks: Understanding Causes to Improve
Prevention, SPE/IADC 79837; In: (SPE) Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference. Amsterdam, Netherland 19-21 February. Texas: SPE.
34. Shanks, E., et al, 2003, Deepwater BOP Control Systems – A Look at Reliability
Issues, OTC 15194; In: OTC, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas 5-8
May 2003. Houston: OTC

45
35. Sonawane, M., Koska, R., and Campbell, M., 2012, Riser failure study IDs well
control weak links. [Online] Drilling Contractor. Available at: <
http://www.drillingcontractor.org/riser-failure-study-ids-well-control-weak-links-
14604> [Accessed 06 June 2012]
36. Sunnda Corporations, 2009, Blowout Preventer BOP Control Systems Choke and Kill
Manifolds at competitive prices. [online] <http://www.blowout-preventers.com/>
[Accesses 23 Mai 2012]
37. Taylor, W.M., Turlak, R.J., and Schwegmann, J.B., 1986, Modular Marine BOP
Stack, IADC/SPE 14750; In: (SPE) Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas 9-12 February 1986. Dallas: SPE
38. Upton, T.L., 2009, Improving the Reliability of Slip Joint Packer System, SPE/IADC
119292; In: SPE/IADC, Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, Netherland
17-19 March 2009. Texas: SPE
39. Visser, R.C., 2011, Offshore Accidents, Regulations and Industry Standards, SPE
144011; In: (SPE) Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Western North American
Region Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska. Houston: SPE
40. Walters, D., Thomas, D., and Hatton, S., 2004, Design and Optimization of Top
Tension Risers for Ultra Deep Water; In: 2H Offshore, Floating Production System
2004 Conference, 2004. Houston: 2H Offshore Engineering Limited.
41. Westlake, A.K., and Uppu, K., 2007, Enabling Solutions for Deepwater Drilling Riser
Management – A Critical Evaluation; In: OTC, Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas 30 April – 3 May 2007. Houston: OTC
42. Wikipedia, 2012, Blowout Preventers. [online] Available at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_preventer> [Accessed at 11 June 2012]

46
9. Appendix

9.1 Appendix A

Calculations for Riser Pipes

1.0 Inndata

Material f  550MPa

Outer Diameter OD  533.4mm

Inner Diameter ID  482.6mm

Maximum material yield f1  0.67f

  368.5MPa


Internal Pressure pM  500psi

Ey  200GPa
Elestic Modulus

2.0 Checking Tensile Load Resistance

2 2
OD ID 2
Area: A1       0.041m
4 4

7
Maximum allowable Tensile Load F1  f1  A1  1.494 10  N

F1 is approximately 1500 tonn

3.0 Checking Hoop Resistance

OD  ID
Thickness: t3   25.4mm

2

ID
Inner radius: rI   241.3mm

2

OD
Outer radius: rO   266.7mm

2 47
 pM  rI
   32.75MPa

Hoop stress at 500psi: t3

f1  t3 3
Internal Pressure at Max Hoop stress pMmax   5.626 10  psi
rI

pM max  38.789 MPa

4.0 Checking Collapse Resistance

ref: ASME 2007 Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, section 4.4

Minimum Wall thickness t  25.4mm

Length L1  15240mm
Length of one Riser Pipe (50 feet)

L1
Mx   185.164
rO t

Ch  0.55 
t 
  0.026

OD 
1.6 Ch  Ey  t
Predicted Elastic Buckling Stress Fhe   399.093MPa

OD

 F 0.4 
 he 
Predicted Buckling Stress Fic  0.7 f1   266.312MPa

 0.4 
 f1 

 Fic
Design Factor FS  2.407  0.740   1.872
 f1 
Fic
Fha   142.245MPa

FS

Pa  2 Fha 
t 
Allowable External pressure   13.547MPa


OD 

Approximatley depth d = 1300 meter

48