Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 14
3
ENGINEERING AND COST OF PLATFORM REMOVAL
REMOVAL PROCEDURES
During the 38-year life of the offshore industry, about 350 struc-
tures have been removed in the Gulf of Mexico. In simplest terms, the
procedures for removing f ixed steel platforms are the reverse of the
installation procedure. The primary procedure has been to cut the
platform into sections and remove by lifting. The size of the com-
ponent to be lifted is determined by the capacity of the lifting
equipment. In some instances it has been possible to separate the
structure into its original components of deck and jacket. In others,
deck and j acket have had to be cut i nto smaller components because of
the limited size of the lifting equipment employed.
Occasionally, the procedure used has been to dismember the struc-
ture, separating it into small components or individual members that
can be picked up by a small floating crane. In a very few instances,
auxiliary flotation has been used. The jacket has been lifted of f the
bottom using temporary, clamped-on buoyancy tanks for it to go to
deeper water for ocean dumping, or, for one structure, to enable it to
be moved to another area to serve as a fishing reef. A few platforms
that were to be reused have been lifted or winched back onto launch
barges, then relaunched at another location. One platform, a struc-
ture located near Bermuda in about 200 feet of water, was dismantled
in place using explosives.
Before a platform is to be removed, miscellaneous equipment, such
as living quarters and generators, is returned to shore for scrap or
reuse. The deck section can then be cut into sections, lifted from
the platform, and placed on cargo barges for transportation. Removal
of the piles and jacket then follows. The piles and the jacket are
grouted together on many structures; skirt pi les are always grouted .
On the majority of structures, the piles and the jacket are connected
only at the top of the j acket by welding .
By removing the weld, the piles and the jacket can be handled
separately. A major difficulty has been cutting the piling below the
mud] ine . The eas test procedure has been to wash the soil out from
inside the piling and detonate a charge inside the pile to sever it.
However, this is not always satisfactory. Even when shaped charges
are used, this procedure tends to expand the pile where it was cut so
~4
OCR for page 15
15
that it cannot be lifted out of the jacket leg. Thus, it becomes
necessary to lift the piling and the jacket as a unit. when the
weight of the jacket in combination with the piles is too heavy for
the lifting equipment, other procedures to cut the piles are neces-
sary. The piles can be cut from the inside using procedures that do
not expand the pi les . The most frequent procedure has been to use
divers inside the piling, making the cut-off with a carbon arc.
Various mechanical cutters also have been used, such as a milling
machine, a liquid sand blast, or a drill string with expanding casing
cutter .
A major portion of the removal procedure, is the actual disposal or
scrapping of the components of offshore structures after they have
been returned to shore . Few components are sui table for reuse . (Thi s
will be discussed later in this study. ~ All items--eguipment,
modules, deck units, jackets, and piles--of significant size and
weight must be cut into components that are compatible with the off-
shore removal procedures and the capacity of the derrick barge. These
components must then be offloaded on shore. This can present a
problem, since the lifting capacity of land-based cranes is usually
much less than offshore derrick barges. It may be necessary for an
offshore derrick barge to accompany the salvaged components to shore
for offloading, or special skidding arrangements must be developed.
Onshore, the small equipment items and components can be transEerrad
directly to a commercial salvage yard. This is usually a no-cost item
s ince the salvage value of the components almost equals the transfer
cost .
This is not the case, however, for large structural units such an
jackets and deck sections. These must be cut into small sections ~
which can be handled by commercial salvage yards. This dismembering
process is slow, expensive, and far exceeds the commercial value of
the scrapped steel. Production equipment and piping that have con-
tained natural gas or crude oil must be purged and flushed before they
are safe to dismantle. They can then be processed by salvage yard
procedures similar to those used for automobile engines. Thus,
although not truly part of the marine removal, the onshore di sposal of
an offshore structure is a very complex and expensive operation to be
carefully considered.
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES AND NEEDS
To date, removal of offshore structures has not been a major indus-
try. The removal of structures has been occasional, which has not
promoted the development of more economical procedures. When the
removal of offshore structures grows into a significant market, the
technical prof ic iency in pl atform removal will improve. The industry
has shown continuing developments in two areas that will improve
removal capabili t i es . One i s the development of larger, more
weather-resistant crane barges. The other is the improved technology
OCR for page 16
16
in working under water with remotely operated vehicles and with
improved diving systems that allow deeper dives for a longer period of
time.
Certain other technical developments could assist platform removal
capabilities. For example, pile cutters, which can sever the pile
below the mudline without using divers or without expanding the pile
diameter, can be improved. Also, the ability to cut jacket members,
legs and braces within the structure using a remotely operated vehicle
and cutter not requiring divers would be very advantageous. Also
possibly of benefit would be the development of temporary buoyancy
systems with a positive means of attaching to the~jacket legs to
assist in lifting the larger sections by flotation.
For the typical Gulf of Mexico structure, the development of
removal procedures is not ~ normal part of the original design
effort. For most of the structures designed to date, the removal
procedure has been cons idered primarily a reverse of the installation
procedure. If the structure had been designed for installation by
lifting, then the same or larger equipment could remove it. If the
structure had been designed to float before installation on bottom,
the jacket could likely be refloated by capping the legs and blowing
out the water. No detailed analysis of platform removal procedures is
normally performed other than to ensure in the design of the structure
that adequate buoyancy is available. However, for deeper water depth
structures that are likely to be cut into several sections' a more
detailed analysis of a removal procedure is sometimes performed to
ensure that removal is possible and to obtain a rough estimate of the
removal cost.
Actually a detailed removal procedure cannot be developed until the
condition and ultimate disposition of the structure are known. For
example, a different procedure would be used if the jacket is to be
cut off below the waterline and the upper sections floated with
auxiliary buoyancy to deep water for ocean dumping. Unless the final
disposition of the structure is known when the structure is designed,
the development of a detailed removal procedure during the design and
approval phase of a project is probably a waste of effort. Moreover,
since any removal procedure is necessarily based on equipment
available at the time, and since it is impossible to establish, say,
in 1985 what capacity crane barges will be available in 2010, the
effort spent would probably be wasted. Consider, for example, a
removal prognos i s wri then in 1960, when 2SO-ton crane barges were the
largest available That prognosis would be of little value today, 25
years later, when barges wi th 2, OOO-ton plus capac i ty are avai fable .
There are some enhancements, however, that could be included in the
orig inal des ign that might make removal eas ier no matter what pro-
cedure i s used . For example, the des igner could ensure that adequate
buoyancy is available for removal and allow for a certain loss of
buoyancy because of leakage through the years, as well as take into
account buoyancy that would be lost from normal installation
flooding. Lugs could be welded on legs of structures to allow a
OCR for page 17
17
positive connection for bolt-on clamps for auxiliary or temporary
buoyancy. In all probability the very large structures will have to
be cut into sections for removal. It is not likely that a definite
weak link such as a bolted or other easy-to-remove joint on the jacket
legs would ever be acceptable since the weak link could weaken the
overall structure. However, it might be possible to include planned
separation points that would allow cutting fewer structural members.
In any case, special care must be exercised to ensure that in-place
integrity is not compromised.
The removal of offshore structures is not a standard construction
procedure. Because of modest weight and size, removal of the majority
of structures will be relatively straightforward. As the structures
become heavier and more complex, removal requires more detailed and
sophisticated engineering. The removal of the largest structures will
require state-of-the-art engineering, planning, and execution. Only
the most experienced marine contractors are likely to have the
engineering, technical, and logistical resources necessary to execute
the largest jobs safely.
REUSE OF P=TFO=S
The reuse of the platform is an ideal concept, but not often prac-
tical (Lawlor, 1975). An important aspect in considering reuse is
that the offshore industry has been in operation for less than 40
years and is relet ively young compared to most other types of con-
struction. The design and construction of offshore platforms has been
a rapidly advanc ing technology. Des igns have improved as a result of
increased knowledge of the marine environment and consequent enhanced
understanding of des ign loads . Platforms have become stronger and
heavier, and able to withstand more substantial storm forces. Many
older platforms that met the design criteria in effect at the time
they were built do not measure up to current design criteria. The
historical service experience does not suggest actual inadequacy of
existing platforms. However, any significant departure from current
design criteria would likely make operators and regulators reluctant
to accept reuse of many older platforms.
A major concern in removing offshore structures is the disposal of
equipment and the structural sections of the platform that have been
removed. Individual i tems of deck equipment, such as cranes, genera-
tors, living quarters, buildings, and heliports can be refurbished and
reused with little difficulty. The same is true for individual pro-
duction skids . Production piping, built into deck sections, and
purpose~built deck modules have less chance of being reused. The
drilling rig itself is not a part of the platform--it is moved to the
next platform once all wells are completed.
The structural portions of the jacket and deck are not as reusable
as the deck equipment. On relatively rare occasions, an almost new
platform needs to be relocated. In this instance, reuse presents
OCR for page 18
~8
1 i ttle di f f iculty, provided the new locat ion has approve imately the
same water depth . Naturally, new pi les wi 11 be necessary s ince most
of the original piles are left in the ground. Also, different soil
conditions will require different foundation design. In other
i ns lances, i t i s neces sary to return the j acket to shore, modi fy the
lower portion of the jacket to accommodate different water depth, and
return it offshore for installation.
Since most platforms are not suitable for reuse as platforms, they
must be scrapped on shore or at sea. If a structure i s to be emplaced
elsewhere in the marine environment, for use as an artificial reef for
example, then the smaller and lighter individual equipment items on
deck probably have to be removed. In addition, all tanks, piping, and
other vessels that have contained oil or gas have to be removed or
completely decontaminated. If the structure is returned to shore,
shorebased equipment can often be used to remove the material from the
barge and cut i t alp for scrap. If the structure i s relocated to a
marine site, the offloading has to be performed wi th higher cost
marine equipment. The length of the tow to the ultimate destination
is another consideration. While it is true that structures with
sufficient reserve buoyancy or with buoyancy tanks attached can be
towed to shore, to an ocean dump-site, or to an artificial reef site,
there is a definite risk of loss of buoyancy during the tow,
especially if the structure is old. Moreover, buoyancy tanks as well
as the entire towing operation are expensive (see discussion of cost
in next section).
COST OF PLATFORM REIlOVAL
With several thousand structures in existence, it is impractical
for a study of this type to analyze the cost of removing each offshore
structure. Rather, the structures were divided into five categories
on the basis of size and type. A removal estimate was performed for
each category and a total estimate was developed accordingly . These
estimates are based on current techniques and 1985 dollars not
adjusted for inflation. Allowances are made for techniques expected
to be developed in both design and removal technology, however, it is
not expected that these will substantially reduce costs.
Category T includes smaller structures, single-well caissons, well
protectors, and other items that can be removed using equipment with
lifting capacity not over 100 tons (jacket weighing less than 100
tons). Generally, these structures are in water depths of 20 feet or
less. However, some of the very old structures in deeper water (up to
50 feet) also fall into this category.
Category II corers typical eight-pile structures in water depths up
to 100 feet, with jackets weighing 500 to 700 tons . Until better
techniques become standard, these structures will also be removed by
lifting .
OCR for page 19
100,000:
so,ooo
10000
In ~
is
a
1 5,000
-
3
00
a
Or
500
. ^~
CaT. ,?
_ ~ _ _^
· T~'
CaT. , L/
m /
CAT ~ '
/
CAT.
CaT
rot
cat.
:~
0 200 400 600 800 I~0
WATER DEPTH—FEET
FIGURE 6 Comparison of jacket weight versus water depth.
Category III includes structures with jackets weighing from 1,200
to 1,500 tons. This encompasses typical present-day structures in
water depths of loo to 200 feet.
Category IV covers structures located generally in 200 to 400 feet
of water. The cost estimates are based on cutting the jacket into
sections, lifting the sections onto cargo barges, and returning them
to shore.
Category V includes all structures installed beyond the 400-foot
water depth. Generalizations about the most favored removal procedure
are not practical for structures of this size; each requires custom
development of removal procedures.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of jacket weight versus water depth for
typical Gulf of Mexico drilling-production structures. Figure 7
employs the platform population data and life expectancy estimates
presented in the previous chapter to estimate the number of structures
in each category to be removed each year. The number of structures to
be removed will gradually increase from about 30 a year, at present,
to well over 200 in the future. However, as is shown, the bulk of
these will be the small structures of Category I and Category II.
These are relatively inexpensive structures to remove. The real
OCR for page 20
20
250
.,, 200
L)
o
m
150 _
100
z
_C; CAT. V OVA R 400 '
,::::::::: ::: :: :::: ~AT. IV ~00' TO 400'
^~
/~ SAT .
17..'./ ~
1~ ' ' - : .................
elk ~ I , :, .... .
.:.::# '::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::.:::::.:::.:.::::::: -AT. I I ~0 ' TO 100 '
I:: ~ I.::::::.::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: . :: :::::::
_ ~ _ I:-, 2] ~ · - 2 2. : ..... . .
I_: :,:: :::: ~ _ I. ::::::: ::i, `::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::: :::::::::::::::::: :::::::: :::::::
.~ :: ' 2 '.2 " 22,.~ ,.~ I''''''''' :::::::
'"2"""""""2'' " """2'' ~ I'::::.: :""? I- '- ...'
: 2, 2 ' .. 2. ' 2 2.'.22 ' .2'2""" ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' "I it" "" " ' "' ' ::' "'
" ~.2 . 2 . 2.2. . 2 . ." : ~ :- -:~: - - :.," ·
o I i I I I ! !
1985 1990 Is95 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
YE A R S
FIGURE 7 Estimated number of structures to be removed by
category--Gulf of Mexico.
Ire fool TO 200'
CAT. r o, TO 20'
problems will not begin until Category IV structures begin to be
removed somewhere in the 1995 to 2000 time-frame. Removal of the
deep-water Category V structures built in the past few years, an well
as others being contemplated, is not anticipated until around 2005.
With few exceptions, Category I and II structures will be com-
pletely removed and returned to shore. These are not difficult to
remove, and therefore can be removed cheaply when no longer useable.
Even if operators were allowed to leave structures in place, liability
considerations and maintenance costs would dictate the removal of the
bulk of these structures. Since the water depth of these structures
is also relatively shallow, they are not likely to be treated as
structures to be cut off at some point below the waterline with the
bottom section left in place. For purposes of preparing an overall
estimate, typical removal procedures ware developed for a structure of
this category. The normal removal cost of a Category T structure is
estimated to be in the range of $50,000 to $400,000. Larger equipment
and more time on location is required for Category TI. It is esti-
mated that the average removal cos t of these s true Lures wi ll range
from $600,000 to $1.3 million.
For this study, it was assumed that structures in Categories lIr,
IV, and V would also be removed completely and returned to shore.
Considering the additional SiZQ and complexity of these structures, it
is estimated that the removal of Category III structures by present
techniques would cost from $1 million to $2~5 million. For Category
IV structures, an average cost would be between $5 million and $15
million. Similar removal procedures would be used, except when the
weight of the jacket requires cutting into sections for convenient
lifting and transporting to shore on cargo barges. Onshore dismantl-
OCR for page 21
21
ing and disposal costs represent about 20 percent of the total removal
costs for Category I-IV structures.
For Category V, the very deep-water structures, the cost of removal
would begin at $15 million. An unpublished, detailed cost study,
prepared by an owner of one of these structures several years ago,
estimated the removal cost at over $70 million. At the present time,
this estimate would probably range from $90 million to $100 million.
Very special and specific procedures would be required for each struc-
ture in this category in order to make ~ satisfactory estimate.
Onshore disposal costs for Category V structures would range from S3
million to $6 million. The co~ittee's estimates of removal cost are
comparable to estimates prepared by the E&P Forum (E&P Forum, 1984).
Based on the number of structures shown in Figure 7, and using the
cost of the categories described, the total cost of removing the
platforms in the Gulf of Mexico has been projected, as shown in Table
2. Cumulative costs are shown in Figure 8. Assuming 1985 dollars,
the committee estimates that by the year 2005 about $2 billion will be
required to remove the structures; this cost will rise to about $7.5
billion by 2020. These estimates do not take into account structures
in Alaska and California, some of which will be expensive to remove.
The estimates do not address advanced platform concepts intended for
deeper water. Only one of these structures, a guyed tower, is in
place on the U.S. outer continental shelf. When Alaska and California
platforms are included (see Tables 3, 4A, and 4B), these costs
increase to an estimated $2.5 billion by 2005 and $8.5 billion by 2020.
soo
In
I_, 300
J
C)
`r 200
IS
too
v iSS I 990 1995 20=
Y E A R S
~ 1 7
~ ,
COST/YE
~ =~'
/ / C UM ULAT IVE
, ~
~
.
200s 2 oto 2 1 15
FIGURE 8 Total cost of removing Gulf of Mexico structures.
, 14000
_ 2
20 20
In
8000 o
J
6000 ~
o
W
>
4000 At
2000
*The estimates of costs shown in the tables and figures are based on
the committee's experience and judgment.
OCR for page 22
22
TABLE 2 Number of Structures to be Removed and Estimated Removal
Costs in the Gulf of Mexico
Time of Category Cos t
Removal I IT III TV V Total (millions )
1985 27 5 32 9
1986 3S 5 40 11
1987 26 21 41 24
1988 34 22 56 26
1989 48 18 66 25
1990 68 24 92 34
1991 92 34 1 127 49
1992 85 41 5 131 63
1993 68 36 2 106 49
994 86 50 12 148 83
1995 74 60 9 143 84
1996 IS 57 4 136 73
1997 7 7 62 5 144 80
1998 61 40 18 5 124 129
1999 54 26 19 11 110 1 77
2000 59 30 26 8 123 163
2001 56 46 25 3 130 125
2002 59 36 29 18 142 2 73
2003 59 29 23 9 120 167
2004 37 15 12 9 73 131
2005 63 24 18 23 128 295
2006 60 30 18 28 136 3 50
2001 44 46 20 17 1 128 294
2008 65 53 36 29 3 186 532
2009 103 4 7 28 20 1 1 99 3 5 1
2010 89 56 35 19 2 201 398
2011 7 9 68 3 7 1 2 2 1 98 340
2012 101 63 28 1 2 209 35 5
2013 132 67 14 8 2 223 271
2014 105 S3 16 5 2 181 226
201 S 105 53 14 7 1 180 203
2016 105 63 19 10 2 199 290
2017 105 65 25 13 4 212 412
2018 105 65 30 14 4 218 431
2019 105 65 30 20 4 224 491
2020 105 65 30 20 4 224 491
Totals 2, 746 1, 786 588 328 34 5, 482 $7, 505
Previ ous ly
removed 95 246 5 346
OCR for page 23
23
TABLE 3 Number of Structures to be Removed Off Alaska and Estimated
Removal Costs
.
Number Costa Costa
Time of Removal Removed (millions)
(millions)
1985-1990
1990-1995 2 50 36
1995-2000 6 150 108
2000-2005 6 150 108
2005-2010
2010-2015
2015-2020 3 75 S4
Total 17 $425 $306
NOTE: All structures located in about 100 feet of water.
aThis column assumes mobilization/demobilization of marine
equipment from California, and both deck and jacket removed, taken
to shore, and cut apart. Onshore dismantling and disposal costs
will be about $6 million per structure (included in above figures).
bThis column assumes mobilization/demobilization of marine
equipment from California, the deck taken to shore, and cut apart,
but the jacket removed and sunk in deep water.
TABLE 4A Number of Structures to be Removed Off California
and Estimated Removal Costs by Water Depth
Water Depth
Removal Costs (Millions)
<100' Sa 5b
100' - 200' 7a 7b
200' - 400' 21a 14b
>400' 25a lab
aThese costs assume complete removal and transportation
to shore to be cut apart. Onshore dismantling and
disposal costs represent about 20 percent of total removal
costs.
bThese costs assume complete removal and transportation
of j acket to a deep-water s i te for di sposal wi th the deck
taken to shore.
OCR for page 24
24
TABLE 4B Number of Structures to be Removed and Estimated Costs by
T ime of Removal
Time of Water Depth
Removal
Cost
400 ' (mi 11 i ons )
198S-1990 1 5 5
1990-1995 4 1 27 27
1995-2000 7 1 70 63
2000-2005
2005-2010 2 1 1 60 46
2010-201 S 1 4 89 61
2015-2020 10 10 460 320
Total 7 10 16 11 $71la $522b
Previ ous ly
removed 1
aThese costs assume complete removal and transportation to shore to
be cut apart . Onshore di smantl ing and di sposal costs represent about
20 percent of total removal costs.
bThese costs assume complete removal and transportation of jacket to
a deep-water s i te for di sposal wi th the deck taken to shore .
COMPARISON OF COST OF RETURN-TO-SHORE MID
OCEAN DISPOSAL OPTIONS
The discussion above of cost of removal has been based on existing
requirements for complete removal with disposal ashore. As has been
explained, to remove a Category III-V j acket completely and return i t
to shore, it is usually necessary to cut it into sections to be lifted
onto a barge for transportation. Then it must be offloaded and
further cut into sect ions for salvage . For the larger platforms
(Categories III-V), the cost of removal and disposition could be sub-
stantially reduced if other removal options were employed. For
example, a large jacket could be lifted off the ocean bottom with
auxiliary buoyancy or with a derrick barge after the piling has been
cut. The jacket could then be towed to deep water for dumping
(equipment and piping that had contained petroleum would be removed to
shore). A recent unpublished study of the removal of a Gulf of Mexico
eight-pile structure in over 3~)0 feet of water estimated that marine
operations would cost $3.9 million and an additional $1.3 million
would be required for offloading, dismantling, and disposal, for a
total cost of $5.2 million. It is estimated that the total cost
OCR for page 25
25
TABLE 5 Comparative Costs for Several Removal Options
Category
III
(millions)
Category
IV
(millions)
Category
(millions)
Option Aa 1.0 - 2.5 5 - 15 15 - 90
Option BE 0.8 - I.5 3 - S 6 - 12
Option cC 3 - 4 4 - 8
aJacket severed below mudline, everything taken to shore.
bracket severed below mudline, lifted off bottom, and transported to
nearby (~25-30 miles) deep-water s i te and dumped . Deck and
equi pment returned to shore .
CJacket in ~500-600 feet of water, severed at mudline, and toppled
in place. In waters deeper than 500-600 feet, only the top 200 feet
would be removed and set on bottom adjacent to portion of structure
remaining. Deck and equipment taken to shore.
estimate would be reduced to $3.2 million using a derrick barge to
transport the partially buoyant j acket to deep water .
This procedure may not be cost-effective for shallow water
structures (Category I and II), but total savings on the disposal of
deep-water structures (Category III-V) would be substantial. Ocean
dumping of Category III-V structures would reduce the total estimated
cost to remove all offshore structures through the year 2020 by about
S2.5 billion, or one-third. (This estimate is necessarily very
uncertain since each of the largest platforms will have to be treated
as a special case. ~ Estimated differences in costs for several
removal options are shown in Table 5. Tax implications to the owner
or the government are not included in Table S.~
ENGINEERING AND COST OF REMOVAL OF OTHER PLATFORM TYPES
As the industry moves into deeper water' other types of offshore
platforms may be the technology of choice as a result of performance
The extent of the government's financial interest in offshore
development can possibly influence the government's choice among
alternative platform dispositions. Where petroleum taxes are very
high or where the government owns a major share in the offshore
concessions, a least cost disposition could have a significant impact
on the federal treasury.
OCR for page 26
26
_ ~~~
....~. _
.--.. .
,.:
':: /,':, ,
Am/
W
! ~
Y- hi.. .. . - . .
:
, - _ . .. .
I.—. - -- PA I R LEADS
- . . . —. . .
a .....
. If .
. A....
~ . - ,. .. ..
~ \ A = ., ._ ..
\ \ ~
~~ \ - GUYLINES
FIGURE 9 Guyed tower (water depth 1,100 feet).
evaluations and cost estimates. These may include compliant
structures such as guyed towers or tension-leg platforms (see Figures
9 and 10), or subsea well completion structures coupled with floating
storage systems. One guyed tower is in place on the OCS of the United
States. Large concrete or steel gravity-base structures are also
likely to be used. A concrete and steel gravity-base structure is
already in use in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. One or more concrete
gravity-base structures, similar to those in the North Sea, could
possibly be chosen for use in the southern Bering Sea.
Removal of a guyed tower will be similar to the removal of a fixed
platform, possibly easier. The structure has fewer piles and
substantially more buoyancy, which may make the structure easier to
float on its own. The removal of other types of structures, however,
will be totally different from a fixed platform. For example, the
removal of the upper portion of a tension leg platform will be
substantially easier, since it will only be necessary to slacken and
remove the others and then tow the upper section away.
OCR for page 27
27
~ < !
~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ ~
~ -a TENSION ~E~BE~
.. .. .. . . .. . .
_ ~ '~ p~3
a_
FIGURE 10 Tension leg platform (aster depth 485 feet).
OCR for page 28
28
Removal of the lower portion or foundation uni t of this structure
on the ocean floor will be an entirely different and a more difficult
operation, Thi ~ on-bottom template foundation may protrude 5-10
meters above the seafloor ( see Figure 10) . ~ Complete removal will
involve procedures and techniques that are essentially a reverse of
the initial installation operations, with several notable additional
complications. Severing foundation piles below the mudline is similar
to well abandonment operations and can readily be accomplished by
floating deep-water drilling vessels. Rigging the structure for
lifting to the surface is likely to include reestablishing structure
buoyancy, ei ther by deballas t i ng or attach i ng buoyancy modules .
Beyond saturat ion diver depths, presently about 1 ,150 feet, these
operations will entail extensive use of remotely operated vehicles and
purpo s e -bu i 1 t equ i pmen t . L i f t i ng the s t rue t ure th rough the water
column, although straightforward in principle, will generally require
the use of purpose-built hea~ry-lift systems operating from large
surface support vessels outfitted to moor in deep water or dynamically
positioned. At the surface, the structure will either be loaded on
barges, most likely after disassembly into pieces of manageable size
and weight, or made seaworthy for surface transport by the addition of
buoyancy and towing appliances.
Although each of these tasks is technically feasible, they promise
to be expensive and burdened with engineering and logistical
difficulties, raising serious questions about the cost-effectiveness
of this approach. Alternatives to complete removal, beyond the
obvious approach of leaving the structure intact on the seafloor,
would include destruction in place by explosives, leaving structural
debris scattered over a small area. The dumping of rock or other fill
material to cover low profile bottom structures could also be
considered.
Since on-bottom template structures will probably be installed only
in deep water (greater than 1,000 feet) they will not interfere with
navigat ion . Leaving on-bottom template structures in place would
simplify salvage substantially. If total removal of these on-bottom
units is required, it will be very expensive, even with the use of
aux i 1 i ary buoyancy and dumpi ng at sea .
There are about 200 concrete structures, some gravi ty-base and some
pile supported, located in state waters in the Gulf of Mexico. These
shallow water structures will be comparatively easy to remove. Their
removal, in principle, consists only of removing topside facilities
and any ballast,breaking loose from the seafloor, and then towing away.
Removal of a large, North Sea-type, concrete, gravity-base platform
(Figure 11) would be much more difficult. Refloating the whole
structure may be impractical because of the sheer weight (some are
more than 500,000 tons), or much of the buoyancy available during
installation is lost, or, on some, tons of grout injected into the
Similar on-bottom templates may be used with subset production
systems and clusters of subsea wells.
OCR for page 29
29
FIGURE 11 Concrete gravi ty-base platform--North Sea (water depth 520
feet) .
OCR for page 30
30
spaces between the base of the structure and the supporting soil will
adhere to the underside of the structure.
Dismantling a concrete structure in place also has major problems.
The decks can be removed without too much difficulty and the columns
can be severed above the base, probably by explosives. It is the base
that presents the major removal problem, for reasons noted above. One
option would be to use explosives to reduce the base to rubble.
Off Norway where there are some IS huge concrete gravity-base
platforms, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate requires that for each
such platform, a complete Manual for Removal be developed, fully
engineered, and approved prior to issuance of a permit for construc-
tion. In all recent platforms, complete piping systems, disconnect
devices, etc., have been installed. Careful analyses have been made
of soil adhesion to skirts and dowels, and detailed deballasting
plans, stability analyses, etc., have been prepared. In these
instances, the same degree of engineering has been incorporated in
planning for removal as in planning for construction and installation.
Removal of conventional deep-water structures is difficult,
complex, and expensive. For other types of platforms, removal may
require even more thorough engineering and execution. The operas i ons
must be planned with the same degree of care as the original
installation ~ to avoid serious consequences .
REFERENCES
Lawlor, Frank James, III. 1975. "A Preliminary Technology
Assessment of Alternative Uses for Offshore Petroleum Platforms."
Unpublished master's thesis. Texas A&N University, College
Station, Texas.
E&P Forum. 1984. The Decommissioning of Offshore Installations--A
World-Wide Survey of Timing, Technology and Anticipated Costs.
London, U.K.: The Oil Industry International Exploration and
Production Forum. Report No. 10.S/108.
Shaped or block charges are used routinely to sever piles under-
water and for other demolition tasks. Demolition of a large concrete
gravi ty-base structure wi th explosives is technically fees ible, but
has never been tried. The use of explos ives underwater may ki 11 f i sh
in the area. The s ize of the f i sh ki 11 depends on the amount of
employ ives used and the f i sh populat i on in the area .
Representative terms from entire chapter:
removal costs
