Capping & Containment: Global Industry Response Group Recommendations

Global Industry Response Group recommendations
Report No. 464

May 2011
Capping &
Containment
Capping_ARTWORK:Layout 1 13/6/11 17:15 Page 1
OGP Vision, Mission
and Objectives
Vision
To work on behalf of the worlds oil and gas exploration and production (E&P)
companies to promote safe, responsible, and sustainable operations.
Mission
To facilitate continuous improvement in HSE, security, social responsibility, engineering
and operations.
To undertake special projects and develop industry positions on critical issues
affecting the industry.
To create alignment between oil & gas E&P companies and with relevant national
and international industry associations.
To advance the views and positions of oil & gas E&P companies to international regulators,
legislative bodies and other relevant stakeholders.
To provide a forum for sharing experiences, debating emerging issues and establishing
common ground to promote cooperation, consistency and effectiveness.
Objectives
To improve understanding of our industry by being a visible, accessible, reliable
and credible source of information.
To represent and advocate industry views by developing effective proposals based
on professionally established technical arguments in a societal context.
To improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on HSE and security
performance.
To develop and disseminate good practice in HSE, security, engineering and operations
continually improved by feedback from members, regulators and other stakeholders.
To promote awareness and good practice in social responsibility and sustainability.
To ensure that the membership is highly representative of our industry.
Capping_ARTWORK:Layout 1 13/6/11 17:15 Page ifc1
01 Capping & Containment
Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information
contained in this publication,neither the OGP nor any of its members past
present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless of its or their
negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made
thereof, which liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the
recipients own risk on the basis that any use by the recipient constitutes
agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform
any subsequent recipient of such terms.This document may provide guidance
supplemental to the requirements of local legislation. Nothing herein,
however, is intended to replace, amend, supersede or otherwise depart from
such requirements. In the event of any conflict or contradiction between the
provisions of this document and local legislation, applicable laws shall prevail.
Copyright notice
The contents of these pages are The International Association of Oil
& Gas Producers. Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole
or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii) the source are
acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the
prior written permission of the OGP.
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of England and Wales. Disputes arising
here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of
England and Wales.
2 Capping & Containment 02 Capping & Containment
Contents
Executive Summary 04
Capping and Containment for I/JDA Project 06
1.0 OGPS Global Industry Response Group(GIRG) 07
2.0 GIRGS Capping & Containment Team 09
3.0 Deepwater Regions outside the Gulf of Mexico 12
4.0 Global Technical Specifications & Response Time 14
5.0 Response Time 17
6.0 Capping and Subsea Dispersant Systems 20
7.0 Containment Systems 26
8.0 Organisational Models for Project Execution & Deployment Phases 33
9.0 Proposal 34
10.0 Conclusions & Proposals 37
Glossary 40
Executive Summary
The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP)
formed the Global Industry Response Group (GIRG) in July 2010
in the aftermath of the tragic accident in the Gulf of Mexico on
the Macondo prospect, Montara in Australia, and other similar
incidents. Previously, the oil and gas industry had drilled more than
14,000 deepwater wells around the world without major incident
but, this history notwithstanding, the Macondo and Montara
accidents were a reminder of the risks inherent in such operations.
GIRG
GIRG aimed to ensure that the lessons
learned from Macondo, Montara and
other accidents are applied around the
world. To do that, part of GIRG's remit
is to monitor and collate the outcomes
of the official Macondo and Montara
accident investigations. This process
is helping to identify and answer other
questions about Macondo, Montara
and other deepwater operations.
GIRG is working in three areas:
Prevention: developing better capabilities
and practice in well engineering design and
well operations management in order to
reduce the likelihood of future incidents
Intervention: improving well capping response
readiness (in the event of an incident) and
to study further the need for, and feasibility of,
global containment solutions
Response: delivering effective and fit-for-purpose
oil spill response preparedness and capability
OGP formed three teams of technical experts to
address these objectives: Well Engineering Design
and Equipment/Operating Procedures; Capping
and Containment; and Oil Spill Response. Each
team has prepared a report documenting its
work in support of GIRG's objectives. This report
documents the conclusions and recommendations
of the Capping and Containment Team.
Scope for the Capping
and Containment Team
The Capping and Containment Team was tasked
to determine whether a single, worldwide,
standardised capping and/or containment system
(outside the Gulf of Mexico) could and should
be designed and deployed with the support of
international and national associations, in
consultation with governments and regulators.
The work was performed by a full-time team,
called the GIRG Capping and Containment Team
(the Team), which included staff from BG Group,
BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ENI, ExxonMobil,
Petrobras, Shell, Statoil and Total. This report
summarises the work and recommendations of
the Team drawn up over a 14-week period
(September to mid-December 2010).
Results
The main conclusions and recommendations are:
Industry should further develop capping and
dispersant injection capability so that it is
available for global response to deepwater
well control incidents
Industry should study further the need for
and feasibility of containment solutions
Further work is required to understand the net
benefits and potential impact on risk of providing
containment in the different regions.
The Team recommends these actions be performed
by having the companies of the Management
Committee of OGP negotiate a Joint Development
Agreement (JDA) to execute the following main
activities:
Design a capping toolbox with a range of
equipment to allow wells to be closed in
Design additional hardware for the
subsea injection of dispersant
Study further the need for, and feasibility of,
a global containment system:
Advance the design of a Common Subsea
System (flowlines, jumpers and risers) that would
support a range of potential surface capture vessels
Assess the technical and commercial feasibility
of using Vessels of Opportunity (drillships, DP
FPSOs, DP well test vessels) employed from their
main functionality to improve their processing/
storage capacity
Review alternatives such as the use of purpose-
built containment vessels
Continue to assess the need for containment
systems on a worldwide basis
Develop organisation models for the storage,
maintenance, and potential deployment of
any equipment
Review requirement for procedures related to
equipment being designed under the JDA
Project for application in shallow water and for
producing subsea wells
The work to develop these capping, subsea
dispersant and possible containment systems
for use worldwide is anticipated to be performed
in stages with final investment decisions made for
different systems at different dates. Future
investments in capping and containment systems
would depend on the final decisions on the systems
to be developed and deployed, but could be in the
range of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Acting on the Team's recommendations, the eight
companies in the Management Committee of OGP
together with BG Group have signed an Interim
Joint Development Agreement (IJDA) with Shell
acting as the operator. This IJDA has no contractual
ties to OGP, but is an agreement between the
companies to provide the resources to carry out
the activities recommended by the Team to assess
further and develop international capping and
containment systems. A full JDA is expected to be
signed in the near future.
Capping & Containment
Phases for I/JDA Project
The long-term storage, maintenance
and operation of the equipment
developed under the I/JDA Project
could be managed by one
or more potential deployment
organisations, ranging from
commercial suppliers of equipment
and services to a (not-for-profit)
deployment organisation where all
companies of the oil and gas industry
can participate similar to the Marine
Well Containment Company (MWCC)
in the Gulf of Mexico, or Oil Spill
Response Ltd (OSRL).
The I/JDA Project could function up to the point
when commercial entities construct equipment,
provide services and/or a new company/
organisation is formed. The details of the
deployment organisation, the way in which
operating companies could access the
equipment and procedures, and its funding
mechanisms and fee structure, could be
developed during the I/JDA Project.
The planned work scope and the cooperation
of nine major oil and gas companies under an
I/JDA, demonstrates the oil and gas industrys
continued commitment to jointly take action.
Continued cooperation is being sought with
organisations like the MWCC and OSPRAG to:
avoid duplication of effort by taking
advantage of the work and learnings
from these other initiatives; and
encourage standardisation of emergency
response equipment.
Capping & Containment Phases for I/JDA
OGP GIRG
C&C Team
OGP GIRG
C&C Team
Deployment Organisation
Execution Organisation (JDA)
Capping & Dispersant Hardware
Pre-FEED/FEED
Possible next phases:
Detailed/Procure/Fabricate/Maintain/Store/Respond
Containment - Common System
Pre-FEED
Possible next phases: FEED/Detailed Design
/Procure/Fabricate/Maintain/Store/Respond
Containment - Surface Options
Further Feasibility
+ Alternatives
Interim JDA
Feb 2011
I/JDA/JDA
Q1/Q3 2011
Decision on possible further investment
commitments - Q3 2011 onwards
Possible next phases: Pre-FEED/FEED/Detailed Design
1.0 OGPS Global Industry
Response Group (GIRG)
OGP and GIRG
The International Association of Oil & Gas
Producers (OGP), announced the formation of
a Global Industry Response Group (GIRG) on
the 14th of July 2010. The overall objective
of the OGP GIRG was to discuss and devise
practices to:
(a) Improve drilling safety and reduce likelihood
of a well incident
(b) Decrease the time it takes to stop the
flow from an uncontrolled well
(c) Improve both subsurface and surface
response capabilities
GIRG did this by identifying and gathering
work being done by OGPs member companies
and associations, and national regulators,
in response to the Macondo and Montara
accidents and other well incidents.
After the announcement of the plan to develop
a Marine Well Containment System (MWCS)
for the Gulf of Mexico, other oil and gas
companies, governments and authorities raised
questions on the potential need for and desire
to have similar capability available in different
regions around the world.
Some individual initiatives had already
started among operators and national
associations, and some coordination was
needed between these initiatives to avoid
duplication and inconsistency.
GIRG was tasked to examine the industrys
capability to prevent and respond to a major
well incident and identify opportunities for
improvement.
Structure of GIRG and setup
of Sub-Groups
In order to achieve these objectives, three
separate GIRG sub-groups were established
to focus on Prevention (Well Engineering Design
& Equipment/Operating Procedures Team),
Intervention (Capping & Containment Team),
and Response (Oil Spill Response Team).
See Figure 1.1.
Prevention is the most effective way to reduce
the risks from well control events, and remains
a primary focus for the industry's work.
Improvements to oil spill response, and
capping and containment, could reduce
the consequences of an event.
Figure 1.1 Organisational structure of GIRG
Capping and
Containment
Team
GIRG
Co-ordination
Group
OGP
Management
Committee
Oil Spill
Response
Team
Well Engineering
Design & Equipment
/Operating
Procedures Team
OGPS Global Industry
Response Group (GIRG)
continued
Over the past 10 months more than 100
industry specialists have worked on these
three teams. These teams have established
cooperation with other existing industry efforts,
such as MWCC, API JITF, OSPRAG, OLF, IADC,
API, and specialist service providers (e.g. OSRL)
and continue to work closely with them to align
efforts and eliminate duplication where possible.
The Well Engineering Design &
Equipment/Operating Procedures Team is
looking into improvements in well design
and procedures and has brought forward
recommendations. It is likely that the most
significant reduction in the risk of deepwater
drilling will come from work in this area
The Capping & Containment Team was
tasked to determine whether a single
worldwide standardised capping and/or
containment system could and should be
designed and deployed with the support of
international and national associations, in
consultation with governments and regulators.
The Capping and Containment Team was
a full-time 12-person team that included
specialists from BG Group, BP, Chevron,
ENI, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, Shell, Statoil,
and Total
The overall purpose of the Oil Spill Response
(OSR) Team was to gather and share
information and conclusions on OSR
performance from members and member
associations in respect of Macondo, Montara
and similar accidents, distil learning points
and recommend possible improvements for
OGP/IPIECA action
OGP will continue to monitor developments
in this area and will continue to assess the
need for any additional activities that might
be required to assist in achieving the objectives
of GIRG.
This document summarises the conclusions
and recommendations of the Capping &
Containment Team. Separate documents have
been prepared that summarise the findings
and recommendations of the Well Engineering
Design & Equipment/Operating Procedures
Team and Oil Spill Response Team.
2.0 GIRGS Capping
& Containment Team
Capping and containment are only
parts of an incident response.
In the case of a loss of well control,
there are a number of actions
which need to be considered before
a containment system may become
necessary.
The primary focus during a response is to
be able to shut in the well stopping all
hydrocarbon flow to the environment. Many
methods could and would be taken to shut in
a well before a containment system could be
deployed at site, including using the BOP,
intervening downhole, capping, or using other
direct intervention means such as commencing
development of relief wells.
Methods that involve closing off the flow from
the wellbore at the mudline, rather than
downhole, are defined by OGP as capping
methods. In the rare case that the flow of
hydrocarbons from the well could not be
stopped, the use of a containment system could
reduce the flow of hydrocarbons to the
environment until a relief well or other method
stops the flow. A containment system could be
designed to capture well fluid to reduce
discharge to the environment and bring it to the
surface for processing, collection and export.
The equipment and facilities used to cap or
contain a well vary and increase if containment
is used. Figure 2.1 shows an overview of
potential systems and sub-systems, both subsea
and surface, considered by the Capping and
Containment Team as part of its analysis and
development of functional requirements. The
industry would benefit from a common definition
of capping and containment terminology. OGP
recommends that the terminology in Figure 2.1
be used by its members.
Definition of Capture Device
A capture device is a mechanism used to
enable either the shut-in of a subsea well or
the capture and collection of hydrocarbons
from an uncontrolled release and feed them
to a selected conduit for collection and
disposal. This can be capping stacks, top
hats, cofferdams, open water funnels, etc.
Definition of Capping
Capping is the act of putting a device on a
well with an uncontrolled flow of hydrocarbons.
The device has the capacity to close in the well,
if the cap itself and the equipment downhole in
the wellbore have integrity to withstand the
resulting shut-in pressures.
The cap would typically be placed on the
existing wellhead, subsea Blowout Preventer
(BOP) or Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP)
through which the well is blowing out.
The capping device could also have the ability
to connect with or include a diverter spool that
would enable containment of liquid
hydrocarbons if there were an inability to
shut in the well, such as with concern about
downhole integrity.
2.0 GIRGS Capping
& Containment Team
Capping and containment are only
parts of an incident response.
In the case of a loss of well control,
there are a number of actions
which need to be considered before
a containment system may become
necessary.
The primary focus during a response is to
be able to shut in the well stopping all
hydrocarbon flow to the environment. Many
methods could and would be taken to shut in
a well before a containment system could be
deployed at site, including using the BOP,
intervening downhole, capping, or using other
direct intervention means such as commencing
development of relief wells.
Methods that involve closing off the flow from
the wellbore at the mudline, rather than
downhole, are defined by OGP as capping
methods. In the rare case that the flow of
hydrocarbons from the well could not be
stopped, the use of a containment system could
reduce the flow of hydrocarbons to the
environment until a relief well or other method
stops the flow. A containment system could be
designed to capture well fluid to reduce
discharge to the environment and bring it to the
surface for processing, collection and export.
The equipment and facilities used to cap or
contain a well vary and increase if containment
is used. Figure 2.1 shows an overview of
potential systems and sub-systems, both subsea
and surface, considered by the Capping and
Containment Team as part of its analysis and
development of functional requirements. The
industry would benefit from a common definition
of capping and containment terminology. OGP
recommends that the terminology in Figure 2.1
be used by its members.
Definition of Capture Device
A capture device is a mechanism used to
enable either the shut-in of a subsea well or
the capture and collection of hydrocarbons
from an uncontrolled release and feed them
to a selected conduit for collection and
disposal. This can be capping stacks, top
hats, cofferdams, open water funnels, etc.
Definition of Capping
Capping is the act of putting a device on a
well with an uncontrolled flow of hydrocarbons.
The device has the capacity to close in the well,
if the cap itself and the equipment downhole in
the wellbore have integrity to withstand the
resulting shut-in pressures.
The cap would typically be placed on the
existing wellhead, subsea Blowout Preventer
(BOP) or Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP)
through which the well is blowing out.
The capping device could also have the ability
to connect with or include a diverter spool that
would enable containment of liquid
hydrocarbons if there were an inability to
shut in the well, such as with concern about
downhole integrity.
GIRGS Capping &
Containment Team
continued
The functional capabilities of the capping
device are affected by the well status (integrity
or damage to the wellhead) can be further
defined as:
Hard Seal Cap: provides a high-pressure
connection to an existing connector on
the wellhead, BOP or LMRP and may be
mechanically latched
Soft Seal Cap: provides a low pressure
seal (may be an elastomeric seal to an
element of the well or a seabed caisson
over the well with the capacity to prevent
seawater from mixing with well fluids.
It may not be mechanically latched (but
could be) to the riser flange, BOP or
wellhead if directly over the well (e.g.
top hat). Some devices are designed to
allow the release of some of the
hydrocarbons (e.g. for pressure control)
No Seal Cap: provides no seal to the
seabed, BOP or wellhead, can freely
allow seawater to intermix with well fluids
and does not ensure capture of all
hydrocarbons (e.g. Cofferdam)
Definition of Containment
In the rare event that intervention in the well
or capping cannot shut-in a well, a containment
system could be used to bring leaking oil from
a subsea wellhead in a controlled way to the
surface for storage and disposal.
Figure 2.1 Overview of possible capping and containment elements
Dispersant
Options
Containment
Options
Capping
Options
GIRGS Capping &
Containment Team
continued
System Overview
An overview of a number of possible subsea
and surface elements, including possible vessels
to be used to capture and contain liquid
hydrocarbons, are provided in Figure 2.1.
System components range from capture devices
(hard seal, soft seal, or no seal) with diverter
spools that fit over a subsea well, the subsea
systems and relevant surface systems and/or
vessels for handling, flaring, storing, and
shipping to facilities that can effectively dispose
of the liquid hydrocarbons and associated
contaminated water.
Key activities performed by the
Capping & Containment Team
1. Mapping of the regions around the world
(outside the Gulf of Mexico) that have
offshore drilling, particularly in deep water,
and the establishment of regional metocean
and reservoir conditions such as maximum
discharge rates and fluid compositions.
2. Definition of the key global technical
specifications for capping and containment
system(s) based on the data received.
3. Estimation of potential response times that
could be achieved for each region.
4. Review and analysis of concepts (currently
known or newly developed) against a set
of acceptance criteria, taking the global
specifications into account.
5. Recommendation of global capping and
containment systems and identification of
concepts/options of subsea and surface
components that could be engineered and
constructed.
6. Definition of the activities to be performed
by industry through an I/JDA for the next
phase of work.
At a high level the following boundaries were
developed to define the work scope covered
by the Team:
Wells
1. Subsea Wellhead / BOP in Water
Depths up to 3000 metres
2. Oil and Condensate Exploration
and Development Wells
(note: Arctic wells are excluded)
Capping
3. Capping Devices (including gas wells)
Containment
4. Containment System (excluding gas wells)
5. Subsea systems and infrastructure
6. Riser systems and foundations
7. Riser-to-vessel connection system
8. Emergency disconnect systems
9. Surface or subsea processing system
10. Surface containment vessels
11. Shuttle tankers
General
12. Subsea power supplies
hydraulic and electric
13. Subsea controls
14. Subsea dispersant injection systems for
introduction into hydrocarbon flow
15. Installation vessels and support
16. Subsea exploration wells
17. Global (except Gulf of Mexico)
18. Cost and schedule to develop
19. Schedule to deploy after incident
20. Governance model
Based on informal discussions with regulators
and within the Team, a number of topics that
were not part of this initial work are
recommended to be included in the next phase
of work under the I/JDA Project. A full list of
recommendations and proposed actions is
found in Section 10 Conclusions and
Recommendations.
3.0 Deepwater Regions outside
the Gulf of Mexico
Figure 3.1 Overview of potential offshore basins with Subsea BOPs in the next 5 years
The map below (Figure 3.1) shows potential offshore basins in the world where
wells have been or could, in the next 5 years, be drilled using subsea BOPs.
In order to achieve an effective evaluation of concepts within the expected time frame, the Team
decided to narrow the near-term scope from a comprehensive global view to a review of selected
key regions and countries. The Team decided to focus the near-term efforts on the mature areas
shown in Figure 3.2. The seven mature regions are believed to be representative of all global
basins, but this view could be tested against specific requirements of other regions and countries
during the further work detailed in Section 9.
Figure 3.2 Overview of mature offshore basins (excluding Gulf of Mexico) with Subsea BOPs
Any single solution for response to a subsea uncontrolled hydrocarbon release occurring
anywhere in the world outside the US Gulf of Mexico would have to be able to operate within
the most demanding design and operating conditions to be seen anywhere around the globe
where wells are being or might be drilled with subsea BOPs.
NEAR TERM
FOCUS
4.0 Global Technical
Specifications & Response Time
A set of Global Technical Specifications
was established as the basis for
technical assessment of various
capping and containment system
options that were identified and/or
developed. The Team obtained
reservoir, metocean, technical and
operational data for representative
countries in the mature deepwater
regions.
The data enquiry focused on potential drilling
operations in water depths equal to or greater
than 300 metres as this is where developments
generally transition from fixed platforms to
floating production and/or subsea
development. The data collected does not
represent a complete data set of industry
activities, but is sufficient to allow the high-level
screening assessment presented in this report.
The key technical variables assessed were:
Worst Case Discharge
Shut-in wellhead pressure at the seabed
Metocean conditions
Water depth
Contaminants in the produced fluids
Global Technical Specification
The Worst Case Discharge rate (WCD) used
here is as defined by BOEMRE (the United
States Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement) and as clarified by
the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). The
analysis of the data showed (see Figure 4.1)
that most of the wells (85-90%) have a WCD
flow potential of 100 kbpd or less. It also
highlights that those wells that have a flow
potential of more than 100 kbpd have flow
potentials significantly higher. In other words a
step change in flow potential appears to occur
at around 100 kbpd.
Figure 4.1 Worst case discharge Rate
Distribution (excluding Gulf of Mexico)
Liquid Discharge Rate (kbpd)
W
e
l
l
s

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Global Technical Specifications
& Response Time
continued
On this basis, the proposal developed for
containment capacity for a global system was
set at a flow capacity of 100 kbpd. WCD rates
are unlikely to occur in cases where
containment would be required. In cases where
the well is fully unconstrained, normal access to
the wellbore should be possible and normal
killing operations could take place as is safe
and appropriate. If there are restrictions in the
wellbore that limit access to the wellbore, these
restrictions could likely reduce the flow
considerably compared to the WCD rate.
The shut-in wellhead pressure at the seabed is
shown in Figure 4.2. The vast majority of wells
outside of the Gulf of Mexico (85-90%) for
which information was provided have a shut-in
wellhead pressure of less than 10 kpsi. There
are some deeper wells, and some high potential
gas wells, which have the potential for higher
pressures which would require the provision of
a 15 kpsi capping system. The higher pressure
rating affects only the capping components of a
capping and containment system. Only those
components directly attached to the wellhead
would be exposed to the full wellhead shut-in
pressure. Containment systems components,
downstream of the capping system, would
be exposed only to a reduced pressure
determined by the setting of the pressure
control and relief system.
There are operational advantages to using the
lightest cap suitable for the pressure to be
contained, such as air transportability and the
ability to install using a range of offshore
vessels. Therefore the Team concluded that it is
reasonable and desirable to have both 10 kpsi
and 15 kpsi systems available in the capping
tool box, allowing selection of the most
appropriate one for coping with the specific
uncontrolled hydrocarbon release
characteristics.
Figure 4.2 Wellhead Pressure Distribution
(excluding Gulf of Mexico)
Pressure Rating (kpsi)
W
e
l
l
s

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Global Technical Specifications
& Response Time
continued
Other parameters of importance are:
Metocean conditions. Wind, wave, and
current conditions are an important design
consideration for offshore systems, as they
can define when a floating system has to
abandon location because of weather and
when offloading operations can be
performed. The magnitude and duration of
extreme conditions varies greatly between
regions. In general, there are three categories
of metocean regions:
Benign regions, such as West Africa,
where both the operating and extreme
conditions are moderate
Regions which experience occasional
severe (tropical) storms, but which have
moderate day-to-day operating conditions,
such as the Gulf of Mexico
Regions with extreme conditions and with
rough day-to-day operating conditions,
particularly in winter, such as Northwest
Europe (North Sea/West of Shetland)
and Eastern Canada
Water depth. The data collected by the Team
shows that 3000 metres is a reasonable
maximum depth to use at present for design
purposes when developing capping and
containment systems. If and when deeper
wells are drilled, available capping and
containment systems would have to be
reviewed for applicability in the greater
depths. In particular, the availability of
installation equipment (umbilicals, ROVs,
etc.), capable of operating in depths greater
than 3000 m should then be considered
Contaminants. The data include actual or
anticipated levels of Carbon Dioxide and
Hydrogen Sulphide, as these could affect the
metallurgy selection for a global capping and
containment system. Most wells have levels of
both contaminants well within the capabilities
of standard materials and, therefore, the
proposal for capping and containment
equipment is to select materials complying
with NACE MR-075 Zone 3.
In summary, most wells and operating regions
fit within:
100 kbd WCD flow potential
10 kpsi wellhead pressures
Flowing wellhead temperature < 150 deg C.
NACE MR-075 (ISO-15156) zone 3
metallurgy (study required to confirm
metallurgy)
300m 3000m water depths
Broad range of metocean conditions with
occasional severe storms
These criteria formed the foundation of the
design basis for the proposed capping and
containment system components. Although
most wells fit within a 10 kpsi shut-in wellhead
pressure, the Team concluded that it is
reasonable and desirable to have both 10 kpsi
and 15 kpsi systems available in the capping
tool box.
It is inevitable when design limits are selected
that some wells will fall outside the design
envelope. In the next phase of OGP work,
the Team recommends that the GIRG Well
Engineering Design & Equipment/Operating
Procedures Team reviews these wells to consider
how their design might be altered to provide
dedicated mitigations for well parameters that
fall outside the design envelope.
5.0 Response Time
Response time is an important
parameter when comparing
capping and containment system
configurations.
Response time (see Figure 5.1) is the time
needed to mobilise and deploy the system, from
the notification of the uncontrolled hydrocarbon
release, to the moment a cap or a full
containment system is connected to the well
and functioning.
All incidents are different, and all responses
will be specific to the incident. Figure 5.1 is
a generic chart that the Team used to assess
response times for the systems at locations it
studied. The figure is not intended as a tool for
planning specific well incident responses.
Immediately following an uncontrolled
hydrocarbon release there would be an initial
period during which response teams are
mobilised and the general situation is assessed.
This is the time needed to set up response teams
and determine requirements for people,
equipment and vessels.
Figure 5.1 Generic Response Activity Model
Mobilisation Well
Capped
Well
Contained
Well
Killed
Time
Immediate attempts
to close BOP
ROV mobilisation
and the site survey
Dispersant mobilisation
and site inspection
Debris clearance
and well access
Capping system
assembly
Capping system
deployment
Containment system
mobilisation
Relief Well Operations
Containment system
installation
Containment
operations
Well
Incident
Response Time
continued
Following a notification, detailed survey
operations would begin, and in parallel
mobilisation of a subsea dispersant injection
system, debris removal equipment, capping
equipment and containment systems would
commence simultaneously. Once the first survey
is done, the results are analysed and the first
assessment of the situation is updated, and
debris removal operations to get access to the
well (if needed) may be carried out. The survey
and debris clearance operations are very much
dependent upon the actual damage observed
and may range substantially.
Once the capping and containment system
(if used) components have arrived in country
and have been assembled, the actual
deployment which constitutes the load-out,
offshore installation and hook-up is carried
out prior to in-situ function testing.
It is impossible to estimate absolute response
times for installing a capping assembly or for
starting containment through a containment
system, because the actual time would be
dependent upon inter alia the type of the
uncontrolled release, the specific damage to
the well/BOP, storage location of equipment,
regional infrastructure and available
installation/support vessel spreads. The Team
used some of the Macondo activity durations
strictly for relative comparative purposes to
establish general ranges of minimum
response time.
Estimate of minimum response
time for Capping Equipment
Mobilisation by air and assembly of the
capping equipment is anticipated to be
completed during the survey and site clearing
operations. The components of a capping
assembly would likely be flown in from a global
storage location. Once arrived in country and
assembled, the actual deployment and offshore
installation of the cap is estimated to take a
minimum of 3-4 days, assuming the rig remains
operational and can install the cap and/or
another Vessel of Opportunity is available in
country to undertake that activity.
Figure 5.2 Example of possible response times
with assumed storage and load-out locations
Storage Base
Regional
loading point
Sites
6-7 weeks
4-6 weeks
6-8 weeks
7-10 weeks
Response Time
continued
As noted earlier, it is impossible to develop
a single response time value for a capping
assembly. The Team estimated a global
response time range of some 1-4 weeks for
capping based on the actual activity durations
experienced on Macondo once the required
equipment had been built and/or been
modified.
Estimate of minimum response
time for Containment System
Several issues make it difficult to estimate a
minimum response time for the containment
system. It may not be possible to transport all
components of a containment system by air.
The longer duration of the marine transportation
of those components needs to be taken into
account in the response time calculation.
Furthermore, if one centrally-stored, single
containment system is intended to serve all
regions in the world, then the distance between
the storage base location and the uncontrolled
hydrocarbon release location has a significant
effect on the response time, due to the need for
marine transportation.
The impact on response time is illustrated in
Figure 5.2, for an example where the
containment system is stored in a base along
the coast of West Africa. Since the offshore
installation of an entire containment system is
more complex than deployment of a cap,
another key input parameter is the availability
in the region of Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) to
install containment equipment and/or support
the overall operation, regardless of whether the
drilling rig is still intact and functioning.
Once equipment has arrived in the country, a
minimum of two additional weeks is estimated
to be needed to install the subsea, flowline
and riser components of a containment system
and to hook-up capture vessel(s), resulting in
a minimum containment response time range
of some minimum of 4-6 weeks (though it is
impossible to develop a single response time
value for a containment system). This range
applies to a scenario where the elements of a
containment system that cannot be transported
by air are stored in the deepwater region where
the uncontrolled hydrocarbon release occurred.
The team recommends that more work be
performed as part of the assessment of technical
and commercial feasibility of potential
containment solutions in the next phase of
work in the I/JDA Project. This work could
estimate response times for a range of possible
containment systems, considering the number
of systems used and outline the investments
required and changes in risk resulting from the
different assumptions.
6.0 Capping & Subsea
Dispersant Systems
The Team assessed the state-of-the art
equipment that could be used to cap
a subsea well and provide subsea
injection of dispersants into a flowing
subsea well. These systems are
described in this section and based on
the functional requirements outlined in
Section 4. The Team's recommendations
on capping and subsea dispersant
systems that could be pursued further
by industry are given in Section 10
Conclusions and Recommendations.
Capping Equipment
The Team reviewed existing, committed, and
proposed solutions for subsea well capping
systems. The capping configurations were
divided into three main groups;
hard seal capping devices
soft seal capping devices
no seal capping devices
Many groups have started development of
deepwater subsea capping equipment as
a result of the Macondo accident.
MWCS: interim response cap and longer-term
cap, each with diverting capabilities to allow
for containment in the Gulf of Mexico
OSPRAG: capping device for use in
UK waters
Helix Fast Response System: subsea shut off
device (SSOD) for use as a cap and diverter
with Helix's Gulf of Mexico-based
containment system
Wild Well Control: developing commercially-
available subsea capping devices
All the capping initiatives include a valve stack
with choking capability and several interfaces
to cover a variety of scenarios. Individual oil
companies are also performing work to develop
ways to cap a blowing well.
The major part of the cap configurations made
for use in the Macondo response will be part
of the response kit available for the Gulf of
Mexico, under the MWCC. Two of the soft-seal
capture devices are now part of the kit
prepared for the UK offshore sector.
Figure 6.1 Custom-made Capping Stacks (left Flange Stack
used on Macondo, Middle OSPRAG, Right MWCS)
Capping and Subsea
Dispersant Systems
continued
Hard Seal Capping Devices
Capping Stacks
Capping stacks are devices made explicitly
for capping subsea wells after an uncontrolled
hydrocarbon release. They can have a range
in the number of valves, which may be a
combination of gate valves and/or ram valves.
Design pressures and bore diameters can
vary, depending on the functional requirements.
A typical feature utilised for these types of
capping stacks is that they come with a number
of different connection interfaces.
Typical configurations are the capping stacks
proposed by MWCS and OSPRAG. Two
capping stacks were designed and made for
Macondo. Chevron rented a 3-ram stack for
its drilling operations West of Shetland in
late 2010.
Work Over (WO), Light Well
Intervention (LWI) and Through
Tubing Rotary Drilling Systems (TTRD)
These systems exist and are in regular use.
They are designed to perform Work Over and
Light Well Interventions on subsea wells. A
through-tubing drilling system has also been
developed to connect to existing wells and
perform drilling through the production tubing.
These systems may be used as capping devices
due to their configuration with standard
connector systems and valve stacks able to
shut in against well pressure. A purpose-built
diverter system would have to be installed
together with these systems to be able to
connect to a flowing well.
Figure 6.2 WO System with Diverter (Left), TTRD (Middle),
LWI (Right) - Courtesy of FMC
Capping and Subsea
Dispersant Systems
continued
HXT and VXT systems
Valve trees for production and injection wells
may also be suitable as capping devices. These
are divided into two types, vertical (VXT) and
horizontal (HXT) trees. The main difference
between these two types used as a capping
device is that the VXT has a valve that allows
the vertical bore to be closed after installation,
while the HXT would need a plug or high pressure
cap in order to close the vertical bore access.
There are several systems from different vendors
in use in all the subsea regions. The technology
is proven in use and the systems contain many
of the same features as WO, LWI and TTRD
systems. However, few systems are kept in stock
as most of them are installed on production and
injection wells.
Most of the systems are 5 to 10 kpsi, only a
few are 15 kpsi.
BOP systems
A BOP could be used as a hard seal capping
device. BOPs provide full-bore access with
different rams to close in a well which is out of
control. A BOP is, however, large and heavy
and this may cause challenges if connecting to
a well head with integrity issues. It may also
cause installation challenges.
Special arrangements may be developed to
accommodate the requirements for a specific
scenario (such as using only a part of the BOP).
Figure 6.3 Typical Subsea Configuration
Figure 6.4 BOP Configurations - Small BOP
with RAMS (Left), Full Size BOP (Right)
Capping and Subsea
Dispersant Systems
continued
External tree caps/debris caps
External tree caps and debris caps have been
designed to be used as a second barrier on top
of production or injection trees. They have also
been used as a second barrier cap on
wellheads during drilling operations (in
between drilling and completion operations).
There may be an installation issue if a cap
like this is used on a flowing well as they do not
have vertical access (do not allow flow
through).
Internal capping devices
This sealing device may be used to seal inside
tubulars, BOPs or subsea trees. A development
and testing phase would be needed because
this technology is not proven in use.
There may be an installation issue because it
requires full access inside and through the BOP,
which cannot be assumed for all blowouts.
Soft Seal Capping Devices
Top hat configurations
The term "top hat" was used in the Macondo
response to describe several soft-seal caps that
were built and deployed during the response.
Some had an elastomer seal around a pipe or
flange and some had permanent vent openings
to the ocean. Only one was actually used to
collect hydrocarbons.
Caisson configurations
Entities have proposed seabed soft-seal caps
covering the BOP that use suction anchors or
weight to give a seal. As far as the Team know,
designs have not been completed for any of
these concepts.
Figure 6.5 Debris Cap for Production Tree (HXT)
Figure 6.6 Typical Top Hat Configuration
SEALING
GROMMET
DIAMOND
WIRE
SAW CUT
DIAMOND
WIRE
SAW CUT
METHANOL
LINE
SEALING
GROMMET
UNDER
COMPRESSION
METHANOL
LINE
Capping and Subsea
Dispersant Systems
continued
No-Seal Capping Devices
No-sealing devices would collect oil and water
from the open ocean or with large openings to
the ocean but could not cap a well. Although
several approaches have been proposed, only
two devices have actually been used in attempts
to collect hydrocarbons from flowing subsea
wells. A Sombrero was used by well control
experts to collect oil from the shallow water
IXTOC 1 in the Gulf of Mexico (1979) and a
Cofferdam was used on Macondo (2010).
The majority of the no-seal devices reviewed
by the Team require research and development
(R&D) to further enhance them.The Team
recommends that investigation of no-seal
capping devices be performed as separate
R&D work from the I/JDA that was formed to
work on capping and containment.
Subsea Dispersant Injection Systems
Deployment of dispersant to the oil at source
using a subsea system is a relatively new
approach. It was used in response to an oil
spill for the first time on Macondo, after field
testing, and pursuant to the authorisation of the
federal government. Whereas dispersant has
traditionally been applied to oil on the surface
of the water, a subsea system injects the
dispersant directly into the hydrocarbon source.
The primary purpose of dispersant is to break
up large volumes of oil into microscopic
droplets that can more easily disperse,
evaporate, or be remediated by naturally-
occurring bacteria. This can minimise the
amount of oil that reaches shore and reduces
environmental impact to marshes, wetlands,
and beaches. Another effect observed at the
sea surface above the Macondo well that is
relevant to future capping and containment
response as well as oil spill response efforts
was that the subsea application of dispersant
at Macondo caused a reduction in the
concentration of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in the air near the source area.
The Team concludes that this ability to create
a safer work environment for vessels and
personnel engaged in response activities has
the potential to enable access to work areas
above uncontrolled releases that might
otherwise be inaccessible. The team
recommends that industry continues to advance
equipment to allow dispersant to be deployed
subsea as soon as is safely possible after an
incident occurs. Industry should consider
developing or refining a subsea dispersant
system that can be safely set up to work as an
autonomous system in case of disconnection
due to weather conditions or other causes. In
normal operational mode, the system would
be operated from a vessel fit for the purpose.
The subsea system may consist of subsea
storage tanks, flowlines, a manifold, distribution
panels, subsea pumps and a control system.
A possible conceptual subsea dispersant
configuration is shown in Figure 6.7.
Engineering would be helpful to further develop
systems and enable a more efficient application
and injection. It is important to design the
dispersant system to interface efficiently with the
capping and possible containment systems and
to allow dispersant to be provided through a
variety of options. The MWCC plans to include
a subsea dispersant injection system. This
system is expected to be ready for use in the
Gulf of Mexico together with the rest of the
MWCS package.
The logistical demands of dispersant supply
merit further consideration.
Capping and Subsea
Dispersant Systems
continued
The Team has advised the GIRG OSR Team on the importance of subsea injection
of dispersant. The OSR Team will take the lead on behalf of OGP for advocacy
with regulators to pre-approve the use of subsea dispersants worldwide.
Figure 6.7 Conceptual Subsea Dispersant Injection System
Dispersant
Float System
7.0 Containment
Systems
This section presents the potential
containment systems that the Team
reviewed. The Teams recommendation
on systems to be pursued further by
industry is given in Section 10
Conclusions and Recommendations.
Functional Requirements
The following technical specifications from the
list discussed in Section 4 form the basis for
the assessment of global containment systems:
100 kbpd WCD flow potential
NACE MR-075 (ISO-15156) zone 3
metallurgy
300m 3000m water depths
Broad range of metocean conditions with
occasional severe storms
In addition, the Team suggests these key
functional requirements as the industry assesses
the technical and commercial feasibility of
possible containment systems:
All containment equipment should be
suitable for use or long-term storage for
at least 20 years
All containment equipment should be
designed for a six month operating life
during a response
Dispersant injection points should be
provided for any residual subsea
hydrocarbon flow to sea
In the case where well pressure integrity is not
assured, the pressure control and pressure
relief system should be capable of protecting
the well from high pressure
Flowlines should be sufficiently long to be
able to locate manifolds or riser bases a
significant distance (on the order of 1000 m)
away from the well
Quick disconnect and easy re-connect
capability of the surface capture vessel(s) to
manage possible adverse weather conditions
is recommended
Containment Solutions Reviewed
The Team reviewed existing, committed, and
proposed industry solutions for subsea oil
containment. The systems that were of most
interest during the evaluation were:
Marine Well Containment System (MWCS)
Helix Fast Response System (Helix FRS)
Below Water Separation System (BWS)
Use of existing surface vessel fleet such as
DP Drill ships, Well Test Vessels and FPSOs
Each is described in this section.
In July 2010, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell sanctioned the
design and construction of the essential equipment required to provide a capping
and containment system in the Gulf of Mexico for 100,000 barrels a day of
liquid handling with 200 mmscfd of associated gas flaring. BP has since joined
the Marine Well Containment Company. The system includes a subsea
containment assembly that comprises a diverter spool and sealing cap, flowlines,
manifolds, and two free-standing risers to carry the hydrocarbon liquids to two
modular capture vessels of 50,000 bpd of fluid and 100 mmscfd gas flaring
capacity each. Capture vessels are based on Dynamic Positioning (DP) tankers
used for alternative service and on well-test type separation facilities installed
during an incident. Export is by commercially available tankers.
Capping Systems
continued
Figure 7.1 Marine Well Containment System (MWCS)
Helix Energy Services is proposing a containment system based on existing
floating assets it has in the Gulf of Mexico that were used for containment
during the Macondo accident. The system will have a total capacity of 55,000
bpd and 95 mmscfd gas flaring in 8,000 feet of water and will be stationed
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Capping Systems
continued
Figure 7.2 Helix Fast Response System (Helix ESG Fast Response System)
The Below Water Separator System (BWS) is a concept based on a novel
combination of existing equipment to create a new system. Well production is
contained and collected at the base of a riser tower and transmitted to buoyancy
module / separator (below water) where high-pressure liquid and gas
separation takes place. Gas flow is sent to an oil/gas burner. Oil flow is sent
to a low-pressure separation package skid mounted on a support vessel of
opportunity (Floating Capture Facility, FCF) or to the flare system to be incinerated
during disconnect of the FCF. Feasibility of the system needs to be demonstrated
and it requires further design maturation, including prototype testing.
Capping Systems
continued
Figure 7.3 Below Water Separation System (BWS)
WELL HEAD MANIFOLD SUCTION PILE
ROV
HP RISER
BASE
FREE STANDING
RISER
Several DP drillships with well test capability and DP Extended Well Test
vessels exist. Other DP drillships could be upgraded to have well test capability,
adding to the fleet. In addition, there are a few DP FPSOs that could potentially
be mobilised. In the event of a uncontrolled hydrocarbon release, several of
these vessels could be contracted and connected in a response to achieve the
required 100 kbpd capacity. A Common Subsea System (see below) would
have to be deployed with multiple connection points to allow the connection
of multiple risers.
Capping Systems
continued
Figure 7.4 Use of existing surface vessel fleet such as DP Drill ships, Well Test Vessels
and Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Vessels (FPSOs)
All of the containment solutions considered share the need for subsea
infrastructure for collecting well hydrocarbons from the discharge location and
moving them to the capturing vessels or to the oil and gas flaring device on the
surface. Such a Common Subsea System, shown in Figure 7.5, could consist of
free-standing hybrid risers, top-tensioned risers, catenary risers, riser bases,
jumpers, flowlines and manifolds. These components should be compatible,
in terms of interfaces and connecting points, with different options of surface
facilities and capture vessels.
Capping Systems
continued
Figure 7.5 Common Subsea System
Capping Systems
continued
Evaluation of Containment
Systems for Use Globally
The focus of the evaluation of the surface
facilities has been to identify facilities that meet
the technical and functional specifications and
that could be deployed within similar response
times to each of the regions considered. As
explained in Section 5, the mobilisation of a
single system such as the MWCS or the Helix
system from one storage base would result in
a wide range in response times. The MWCS
has station-keeping limitations and would not
be able to work reliably in harsh environments
(like the North Sea or West of Shetlands)
without major upgrades to the vessels dynamic
positioning capability, which creates concerns
about costs and deliverability. The Helix system
has similar limitations and in addition does not
meet the technical specification of 100 kbpd
flow potential.
Review of available vessels in each of the
regions has concluded that even in the less-
prolific regions there are often at least a few
drill ships, extended well test vessels, DP FPSOs,
and multi-service vessels (MSV) that could be
used for containment response. If employed to
allow capture or disposal of oil, these vessels
and vessels operating in an adjacent region
could be mobilised to allow for rapid
deployment in the event of an uncontrolled
hydrocarbon release in the region. The Team
concluded that the advantages of this are:
The relatively large number of vessels
available that could be employed
The geographic spread of deployment
of those vessels and the resulting quick
response times
The capability of drillships to remain
on station in severe weather
And the fact that the vessels would be
in continuous use, rather than stacked
The team recommends that the technical and
commercial feasibility of using the existing
and upgraded fleet as containment vessels
should be studied.
Recognising that technical and commercial
feasibility have not yet been demonstrated and
that there is not yet a consensus that the
provision of containment around the world
gives a net benefit, the Team recommended that
the work under the JDA Project advance the
possible development and assessment of
alternative containment solutions during the
next phase of work.
The BWS has the potential to provide an
alternative approach to dealing with an
uncontrolled hydrocarbon release and the
possibility for a further reduced response time
and reduced safety risks (due to lower staffing
levels). The reduced response time is based
on the ability to locate the BWS in regional
centres. The BWS riser system could be
mobilised and operational whilst the vessels
of opportunity (described above) are brought
to location to capture and process the liquid
hydrocarbons.
8.0 Organisational Models for Project
Execution & Deployment Phases
The Capping and Containment Team
reviewed organisation models for
the Execution and Deployment Phases
of the international capping and
containment systems recommended
in Section 1. Figure 8.1 defines the
activities performed during the
Execution and Deployment Phases of
the capping and containment systems.
Project Phase
A Project Execution Phase model similar to that
of the MWCC is being adopted. The eight
companies in the Management Committee of
OGP together with BG Group signed an
IJDA in February 2011. The IJDA may progress
to a JDA, under which the following activities
may be performed:
(a) Cooperation in the selection and design of a
capping toolbox and dispersant hardware
(b) Study further the need for and feasibility
of a common containment system (including
fallback solutions and alternatives), and
(c) Further investigation of, and development
of solutions for, certain operational issues
related to capping and containment of
hydrocarbons released from a well.
Shell is the operator under the I/JDA. The I/JDA
Project has no contractual ties to the OGP,
but is a consortium of companies that wish to
support further development and assessment of
international capping and containment systems.
Deployment Phase
The Team does not make a recommendation
for a particular organisational model for the
Deployment Phase of international capping
and/or containment systems. The execution of
any work required to develop new equipment
and the long-term maintenance and operation
of that equipment could be managed by a
combination of a not-for-profit organisation
similar to the MWCC in the Gulf of Mexico or
Oil Spill Response Ltd (OSRL) and commercial
suppliers of goods and services.
The Team reviewed potential models for the
Deployment Phase and has included
development of the Deployment Phase
Organisation as part of the work recommended
to be performed by the I/JDA Project. The Team
recommends that the scope of the I/JDA Project
include work to:
Provide the mechanism for funding and
managing the activities agreed (see Section
9) by the participating companies until the
establishment of a deployment organisation
Determine the most appropriate permanent
deployment organisation (structure,
commercial and organisational models,
governance) for the operational phase
The Team suggests that these factors be considered
as the deployment organisation is developed:
Assigned scope
Equipment exclusive to response or
available for other jobs
Regional, multi-regional, or global
Commercial or not-for-profit
OPEX and CAPEX
Funding mechanism
Ownership of equipment
Figure 8.1 Capping and Containment Organisational Plan
OGP GIRG
C&C Team
OGP GIRG
C&C Team
Execution Organisation (I/JDA)
Project Phases
Maintain
Store
Respond
Handover to
Operations
Procure
Fabricate
Detailed
Design
Pre-FEED
FEED
Select
Concept
9.0 Proposal
The work to develop capping, subsea
dispersant, and containment systems for use
worldwide is anticipated to be performed in
stages with final investment decisions for
different systems at different dates.
Proposal regarding Capping
and Dispersant Systems
From the analysis undertaken, the Team
proposes the development of a capping
tool box rather than a capping tool, to
accommodate differences in the various
wellhead/BOP configurations which could
be found, as well as the various regional
requirements in terms of pressure rating.
The Team recommends that engineering of
systems for capping is pursued in the next
phase of work.
Activity 1: Develop a Capping Toolbox
Enter into Pre-FEED and FEED phases for
capping equipment. The objective of this phase
of work is to provide a design that, if
constructed, would provide the industry with
a toolbox of capping equipment available
for a number of scenarios and circumstances
(e.g. different pressure regimes, varying
wellbore access, several adaptor spools).
As appropriate, the Team recommends that the
designs are developed in cooperation with
OSPRAG and the MWCC to maximise
interchange-ability and minimise design effort.
The Team acknowledges the substantial benefits
derived from the subsea application of
dispersant at Macondo. Specifically relevant to
capping and containment is the reduction in the
concentration of hydrocarbons, including
VOCs, at the sea surface. This has the potential
to make possible access to work areas above
uncontrolled releases that might otherwise be
inaccessible. The Team recommends that
Figure 9.1 Phases for work on Capping and Containment for I/JDA
OGP GIRG
C&C Team
OGP GIRG
C&C Team
Execution Organisation (I/JDA)
Capping & Dispersant Hardware
Pre-FEED/FEED
Possible next phases:
Detailed/Procure/Fabricate/Maintain/Store/Respond
Containment - Common System
Pre-FEED
Possible next phases: FEED/Detailed Design
Containment - Surface Options
Further Feasibility
+ Alternatives
Interim JDA
Feb 2011
IJDA/JDA
Q1/Q3 2011
Decision on possible further investment
commitments - Q3 2011 onwards
Possible next phases: Pre-FEED/FEED/Detailed Design
Proposal
continued
design, engineering and possible procurement
of enhanced systems for subsea application of
dispersant chemicals is pursued in the next
phase(s) of work.
Activity 2: Design Subsea Dispersant
Injection Hardware
Enter into Pre-FEED and FEED phases for
equipment/facilities to inject dispersant into the
flow of hydrocarbons at, or above, the seabed.
As appropriate, the Team recommends that the
designs be developed in cooperation with
OSPRAG and the MWCC to maximise
interchangeability and minimise design effort.
Proposal regarding Operational Issues
A recurring theme in the review of the Teams
work and regulators feedback was the request
to look into capping and containment issues
regarding operations in shallow water and for
existing producing subsea wells. As most of
the wells around the world are in water depths
shallower than the 300m cut-off used here, and
many producing subsea wells exist, the Team
recommends that further work is done in
response to these comments. For the hardware
being developed, the next phase should explore
issues and solutions with regards to installation
and operations in shallow water as well as
the applicability of those systems on current
producing subsea wells.
Activity 3: Work Operational Issues
related to Capping and Containment
Develop outstanding items of work that were
not included in the GIRG first phase but are
important to be included in the total project.
Installation of capping/capture/containment
devices developed under the I/JDA Project in
shallow water and operational procedures
related to this
Review of capping/containment capabilities
developed under the I/JDA Project for
producing subsea wells
The intent of this work is to understand the
applicability of the systems developed by the
I/JDA Project, and not to design new hardware
for use in shallow water or on producing
subsea wells.
Proposal regarding
Containment System
Containment system equipment can be split
into subsea and surface elements. The subsea
elements are relatively independent of the
surface elements and are termed the Common
Subsea System. The Common Subsea System
consists of subsea elements such as free
standing hybrid risers, top-tensioned risers,
catenary/lazy wave risers, riser bases, jumpers,
flowlines, and manifolds. The Team proposes
to start further work on pre-FEED and FEED of
the Common Subsea System.
The comparative analysis of the different
surface elements of the containment system has
concluded that several containment systems
largely meet the system and regional criteria.
Therefore, the differences in minimum response
time and cost became overriding for the
selection of the surface facilities solution. Further
work is recommended to assess the need for
containment worldwide and the technical and
commercial feasibility of, and potential
improvements to, surface handling capabilities
for hydrocarbons using currently available
dynamically-positioned
vessels/drillships/mobile testing units. The Team
recommends further assessment of alternatives
in case technical or commercial feasibility of the
vessel of opportunity solution is not proven.
Proposal
continued
Activity 4: Study further the need for and
feasibility of a Containment System
The design of the Containment System includes
both hardware and procedural elements. Key
activities potentially include:
Enter into Pre-FEED for subsea facilities
architecture, comprising manifolds, jumpers,
umbilicals, flow lines and risers, which are
intended to allow deployment of the Common
Subsea System and then connection to
surface handling infrastructure. Include studies
of critical elements and Pre-FEED of common
system: preliminary engineering design plus
development of key design, installation and
operating philosophies. The Team anticipates
that the design work will be done with an
appropriate contractor and that the I/JDA
Project will attempt to liaise with the MWCC
Develop operating procedures including
simultaneous operations, taking lessons
learned from accidents like Macondo and
Montara into account. Describe the scope
and limits of the equipment, procedures and
operations that would be provided by the
containment organisation and how that
interacts with the overall well response
activities. Develop logistics and operating
procedures (including simultaneous
operations) and command control procedures
to enable safe and efficient use of equipment
developed as part of the I/JDA Project.
Develop most appropriate models for
organisations that will assemble, own,
operate and maintain the equipment
Analyse capability and commercial
agreements required to use current
vessel/testing fleet as surface containment
vessels. Workscope includes preparation of
agreements and due diligence
(HAZID/HAZOP) of potential vessels to
estimate technical modifications/
enhancement requirements (storage and
offloading, flare capability). Existing testing
and operating equipment around the world
would be used rather than building purpose-
built/converted vessels
Work on alternatives and fall back solutions
for surface elements of the containment
systems. Investigate the drivers for cost and
schedule of such vessels and their operability
Continue to work with the member companies
of the I/JDA to assess whether global
containment provides a net benefit for the
reduction of the risks of well control incidents,
given the improvements in well control
and deployment of capping stacks proposed
by OGP
10.0 Conclusions
and Proposals
The Capping and Containment Team gathered
and assessed information that allowed it to
develop conclusions and recommendations
addressing the objectives it was given. It did its
work within the context of the overall objectives
of OGP GIRG to discuss and devise practices to:
(a) Improve drilling safety and reduce
the likelihood of a well incident
(b) Decrease the time it takes to stop the
flow from an uncontrolled well
(c) Improve both subsurface and
surface response capabilities
Conclusions
GIRG concludes that the most effective means
for reducing the risk of well control incidents is
through improvements to drilling safety that can
reduce the likelihood of incidents.
Capping
Capping equipment can be developed based
on existing technology to provide a hard seal
cap. The capping equipment can also divert
flow to a containment system or allow well kill
operations when set up with a diverter spool
equipped with side outlets and adequate
connectors to kill, choke and divert
It is reasonable and desirable to have both
10 kpsi and 15 kpsi caps available so that
the responding operator can select the most
appropriate one for coping with the specific
blowout characteristics. There are operational
advantages to using the lightest cap suitable
for the pressure to be contained
Reduced bore caps are judged to be
acceptable, providing work in next phase
confirms the preliminary results showing
installation forces are acceptable
Capping components are or can be designed
to be transportable by air
times to cap a well, as the actual time is
dependent upon the type of uncontrolled
hydrocarbon release, the actual damage to
the well/BOP, storage location of equipment,
regional infrastructure and available
installation/support vessel spread, and a host
of other environmental and human factors.
Installation of capping equipment requires
1-4 weeks best case, though this could be
considerably longer driven by site survey and
complicated debris clearance. Air transport
for capping components may reduce time
compared to marine transport
Subsea Dispersant
Application of dispersant subsea could be
helpful in a number of ways including
allowing safe access to work areas above an
uncontrolled release to carry out surveys,
wellbore intervention, capping, and
containment
Containment
The Team was asked to determine whether a
single worldwide standardised containment
system (outside the Gulf of Mexico) could and
should be designed and deployed. The Team
did not make a final conclusion on this, but
rather recommends that further work be done
to understand technical and commercial
solutions (the could part) and the net benefit
of providing containment (the should part).
Describing the net risk benefit of providing
containment for deepwater drilling for
different regions requires a clear description
of the risks involved in deepwater drilling and
the resources required to develop containment
systems to reduce those risks. The Team
recommends that the following drivers be
considered as OGP and the I/JDA Project
assess the net benefit to risk of providing
containment:
Improved prevention can reduce the
likelihood of a well control event
Macondo showed that a hard-seal cap
can successfully stop the flow of oil to
the ocean
Macondo showed that a containment
system could reduce flow into the
environment
Containment may reduce the consequences
of other release scenarios (like damaged
top connections on a BOP)
Conclusions and Proposals
continued
times for a containment system, as the actual
time is dependent upon the type of
uncontrolled hydrocarbon release, the actual
damage to the well/BOP, storage location of
equipment, regional infrastructure and
available installation/support vessel spread.
Initiation of containment could require a
minimum of 4-6 weeks best case from initial
notification to first operation
Not all containment components could be
transportable by air. The marine
transportation time of containment
components and the mobilisation of
installation vessels required to install subsea
containment equipment drive the critical path
schedule, which affects the number of
locations at which containment equipment
might be stored. Some or all containment
equipment might be stored regionally
Sea conditions in certain areas of the world
(like the North Sea West of Shetlands, and
Eastern Canada) demand powerful DP
systems for station keeping, beyond the
current capability of ordinary DP tankers or
well test vessels
The high DP power demand of North
Sea/West of Shetland/Canada drives the
global solution towards including drillships,
which have high powered DP systems when
compared to other DP vessels. Drillships have
other advantages, including:
They carry their own riser systems for
connection to subsea infrastructure
Some have tanks which are (or could be)
capable of oil storage
They are in regular operation and
maintenance with trained and experienced
crews, hence availability is high
Dedicated DP FPSOs for collection would be
large and complex facilities. Unless used in
regular service, readiness and availability
would be a concern. The equipment required
to make them capable of regular service (gas
compression, water treatment, subsea control
systems, etc) would make the vessels even
more complex and costly
Collaboration with other initiatives
The capping, dispersant, and subsea
containment systems proposed by GIRG are
aligned with the MWCC
The capping system being developed by
OSPRAG is compatible with GIRG capping
toolbox.
Recommendations
The Team recommends that industry pursue
design of a capping toolbox and additional
subsea dispersant equipment. Designs should
be developed with OSPRAG and the MWC
Project to maximise interchange-ability and
minimise design effort
The Team recommends that the need for
global containment is further assessed.
Containment is needed only if the well
cannot be shut in using the BOP, downhole
interventions, or capping stacks. Well
incidents are extremely rare; those that cannot
be handled by BOP, downhole intervention or
capping are even rarer
The Team recommends that a JDA be
executed to establish an Execution Phase
organisation similar to that executing the
MWCC. That organisation should then carry
out the proposed scope of work defined in
the activities shown in Section 9
The Team recommends that a special
workshop be held to hand over the work of
the Team to the new JDA Project. During this
workshop a number of specific tasks can be
passed on to the JDA Project
Recognising that technical and commercial
feasibility have not yet been demonstrated
and that there is not yet a consensus that the
provision of containment around the world
gives a net benefit, the Team recommended
that the work under the I/JDA Project advance
the possible development and assessment of
alternative containment solutions during the
next phase of work
Conclusions and Proposals
continued
As most of the wells around the world are in
water depths shallower than the 300m cut-off
used here, and many producing subsea wells
exist, the Team recommends that further work
is done to look into capping and containment
issues regarding operations in shallow water
and for existing producing subsea wells
The Team recommends that a Joint Industry
Project is considered to develop further and
validate the Below Water Separation concept,
studying the structure stability, separation
design, pressure control and relief, and the
burning of hydrocarbons. This JIP could
develop a clear path forward comprising
further design maturation followed by
system integration, qualification testing,
and a field trial
Review of available vessels in each of the
regions has concluded that even in the less-
prolific regions there are often at least a few
drill ships, extended well test vessels, DP
FPSOs, and multi-service vessels (MSV) that
could be used for containment response. The
team recommends that the technical and
commercial feasibility of using the existing
and upgraded fleet as containment vessels
should be studied
The industry would benefit from a common
definition of capping and containment
terminology. The Team recommends that the
terminology in Figure 2.1 be used by its
members
The Team recommends that some of the work
that is identified should be considered by OGP
and should not be part of the JDA Project.
Specific tasks to be transferred to OGP are:
It is inevitable when design limits are selected
that some wells will fall outside the design
envelope. In the next phase of work, those
wells (i.e. wells which have extreme
characteristics outside the capability of any
industry-provided capping and containment
equipment) should be reviewed with the GIRG
Well Design Team to consider how the well
design might be altered to provide dedicated
mitigations for such wells
Decide on potential future work activities
with regards to
1. Arctic or Ice Prone Areas
2. No-Seal Capping Devices and Soft Seal
Devices for setting on interfaces with
a high incline
3. Operating procedures for capping devices
for production templates and cluster wells
The team recommends that industry develop
equipment to allow dispersant to be deployed
subsea as soon as is safely possible after an
incident occurs. Industry should consider
developing or refining a subsea dispersant
system that can be safely set up to work as an
autonomous system in case of disconnection
due to weather conditions or other causes.
In normal operational mode, the system
would be operated from a vessel
Further work is recommended to assess
the need for containment worldwide and the
technical and commercial feasibility of, and
potential improvements to, surface handling
capabilities for hydrocarbons using currently
available, DP vessels/drillships/mobile testing
units. The Team recommends further
assessment of alternatives in case the
technical or commercial viability of the vessel
of opportunity solution is not proven.
Glossary
API American Petroleum Institute
APPEA Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association
Bpd Barrels per day
BOP Blowout Preventer
BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
CMS Competency Management System
Containment System used to bring leaking oil from a subsea wellhead
in a controlled way to the surface for storage and disposal
Deepwater Greater than 300m
Ultra-deepwater Greater than 3000m
Deepwater Rig that operated on the Macondo prospect
Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico (see Macondo)
Dispersant A group of chemicals used to accelerate the process of natural dispersion of oil
(both at the surface and subsurface)
DP Dynamic Positioning
E&P Exploration & Production
FEED Front-End Engineering and Design
FPSO Floating, Production, Storage and Off-loading Vessel
GIRG Global Industry Response Group
GoM Gulf of Mexico
HWCG Helix Well Containment Group
IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors
IJDA Interim Joint Development Agreement
IMO International Maritime Organization
In Situ Burning The process of burning surface oil at sea,
at or close to the site of a spill
IPIECA International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association
IRF International Regulators Forum
ISO International Organization for Standardization
JDA Joint Development Agreement
JIP Joint Industry Project
JITF Joint Industry Task Force
Mmscfd Million standard cubic feet per day
MWCC Marine Well Containment Company
NOIA National Oil Industry Association
NOGEPA Netherlands Oil & Gas Exploration
& Production Association
NORSOK Norwegian Petroleum Industry Standards
OGP International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OLF Norwegian Oil Industry Association
OSPRAG Oil Spill Prevention and Response Advisory Group (UK)
OSRL Oil Spill Response Limited
OSRO Oil Spill Response Organisation
Macondo Oil and gas prospect in the Gulf of Mexico. Also used as shorthand for the
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig accident that took place on 20 April 2010
Montara Oil field in the Timor Sea off the northern coast of Western Australia.
Also used as shorthand for the blowout from the Montara wellhead
platform that took place on 21 August 2009
MWCS Marine Well Containment System
R&D Research & Development
TTRD Through Tubing Rotary Drilling
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VoO Vessels of Opportunity
WCD Worst Case Discharge Rate
WEC Wells Expert Committee
Well cap Device deployed to control a well incident at source
Well incident Uncontrolled event e.g. blowout
WO Workover
Glossary
continued
Images courtesy of:
Oljeindustriens Landsforening OLF
Shell International 2011
Chevron
Marc Roussel/Total
Dufour Marco/Total
Laurent Pasca/Total
OGP
London office
5th Floor
209-215 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NL
Tel: +44 (0)20 7633 0272
Brussels office
Boulevard du Souverain 165
4th Floor
B-1160 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)2 566 9150
Email: reception@ogp.org.uk

Capping & Containment: Global Industry Response Group Recommendations

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capping & Containment: Global Industry Response Group Recommendations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capping & Containment: Global Industry Response Group Recommendations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Industry Response Group recommendations

Report No. 464

You might also like