London (Subsea7 Host) - UMSIRE

© OTM Consulting Ltd, 2014. The information contained in this document is believed to be accurate, but no representation or warranty, express or

implied, is made by OTM Consulting Limited as to the completeness, accuracy or fairness of any information contained in this document, and we do

not accept any responsibility in relation to such information whether fact, opinion or conclusion that the addressee may draw.

1

UMSIRE JIP

London

(Subsea7 Host)

24th September 2014

Agenda

2

Wednesday 24th September 2014

Arrival with Tea & Coffee 09:00-09:15

1 Introductions, agenda & safety Chetan Laddha, OTM

Richard Hughes, Subsea7 09:15:-09:20

2 Last meeting – minutes, actions & conclusions Chetan Laddha, OTM 09:20 – 09:30

3 TR10 discussion – Current status and review major changes ALL 09:30 – 10:00

4 TR9 discussion – Current status ALL 10:00– 10:30

Tea/ Coffee 10:30 – 10:45

5 TR9 discussion – Decision tree ALL 10:45 – 12:30

Lunch 12:30 – 13:30

6 TR9 discussion – Risk model development ALL 13:30 – 14:45

Tea/ Coffee 14:45 – 15:00

7 Conclusions and assign actions for next meeting ALL 15:00 – 16:00

Close of Meeting 16:00

Safety

Minutes will be circulated after the meeting with the attendee list

Welcome

3

14th Meeting of UMSIRE JIP

Name

Company

Area of expertise

Particular areas of interest relevant to the technical scope of this JIP

Objectives for the meeting

Introduction

4

One trend that has emerged in recent years in the design of umbilical systems is the progressive increase of the size and weight of end terminations

Driven by the need to integrate functions normally found on manifolds, this emerging trend poses extremely severe challenges to installers and appears to be compounded by the differing requirements of parties in the supply chain (FEED contractors, termination designers, operators and manufacturers)

Why UMSIRE?

5

The problem

2000 2012

Why UMSIRE?

6

The consequences

Following an Umbilical Manufacturers’ Federation initiative, several major umbilical installation contractors and OTM Consulting collaborated towards the launch of a JIP for the development of a TR (technical report).

The document would address the need to optimise the shape, design and weight of UTAs

UMSIRE JIP objective: to reduce the size of umbilical terminations through increased understanding of the key issues associated to their design, manufacturing and installation and the development of a TR

Why UMSIRE?

7

The solution

17TR10: Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Design Recommendations

Design recommendations to reduce the size of UTAs

17TR9: Subsea Umbilical Termination (SUT) Selection and Sizing Recommendations

Provide guidance on the installation implications of decisions made early-on in the field design and umbilical specification stages

UMSIRE – TR documents

8

Seismic imaging

EM/ MT/ Gravmag

Res Characterisation

Petrophysics

IOR/ EOR

Extended reach drilling

Advanced drilling systems

Intelligent wells

I-fields

Subsea systems/ processing

Subsea processing

Multiphase flow

FPSO/ floating systems

GTL/ LNG

Condition monitoring

Nanotechnology

Gas hydrates

Composites/

novel materials

Fibre optics

Environmental (flaring/ oil

spills)

Deepwater

Heavy oil/ oil sands

Tight & shale oil/ gas

HPHT

Sour gas

Arctic

CCS

Examples of application areas

Decide which

technologies to

invest in, and how...

Optimise

commercialisation

and deployment

Identify technology

opportunities & threats

for your business

Engage

with technology

practitioners

Market intelligence

Market demand and

trend analysis

Technology

landscape analysis

Competitor analysis

Emerging

technology transfer

Corporate technology

strategy development

Technology needs

analysis

Portfolio optimisation

Knowledge

management

Technology strategy

Planning/ roadmapping

Value analysis

IP monetisation

R&D management

Technology

qualification

Technology

commercialisation

Knowledge-share

networks

Industry knowledge-

sharing networks

Collaborative RP/

standards

development

Technology

knowledge-base

development

OTM Consulting

9

JIPs and networks managed by OTM

10

JIP / Knowledge sharing networks

1 AWES – Advanced Well Equipment Standardisation

2 DEA(e) – Drilling Engineering Association (Europe)

3 ETF – Expandable Tubular Forum

4 GMN – Geopressure Management Network

5 MDIS – MCS/ DCS Interface Standardisation Network

6 Oiltech – Oil and Gas Technology Investment Network

7 OPUS EOR

8 PEA – Production Engineering Association

9 PICT – Passive Inflow Control Technology

10 PWRI OPNet – Produced Water Re-Injection Operational Network

11 SAFEBUCK

12 SEAFOM™ – Subsea (& Downhole) Fibre Optic Monitoring

13 SEPS – Subsea Electrical Power Standardisation

14 SIIS – Subsea Instrumentation Interface Standardisation

15 SWiG – Subsea Wireless Group

16 TMN – Technology Management Network

17 UMSIRE - Umbilical Termination Assembly Size Reduction

OTM provides independent overall group activities management including:

Facilitate and assist development of TR document

Providing a single point of focus for queries

Preparation and facilitation of workshops

Promotion of UMSIRE and its activities

Widening UMSIRE membership

Resolving contractual membership issues with UMSIRE members

Role of OTM in UMSIRE JIP

11

Review and take actions on remaining comments in TR10 document

Review the structure of TR9 document

Review and discuss the Workflow for selection and sizing of the UTA

Risk model development

Objectives for the day

12

UMSIRE – Members

13

Apologies for this meeting

Guest for this meeting

UMSIRE – timeline

14

Dec

2014

Mar

2015

June

2015

Sept

2014

Finalise TR10

Complete the

structure of TR9

Send TR10 to

API

Finalise TR9 –

to be sent to API

in Jan 2015

Address

comments from

API on TR9

Submit updated

TR9 to API

Aug

2015

Publish TR9 and

TR10

Majority of the comments from API have been addressed. There are a few outstanding comments which we’ll be discussing today.

OTM will be making the formatting changes in coming weeks, to adhere to API guidelines.

We aim to send the document to API by end of October.

TR10 document

15

Outstanding comments in TR10 document

16

# Section Topic Comment

11 3.1.7 Flying Lead

(Jumper)

Explain the reason for comment 80

17 4 UTA configuration Review Chapter 4

21 4.6 UTA configuration Revisit comment 204

31 5.5 Structural design

considerations

Assign action for comment 388

38 7.1 STI Review the action on comment 384

53 10.6.1 Closed Tensioner

Vertical Lay

Systems (VLS)

Review table for available head room and relevant

height restrictions

Comments on TR10

17

80 Affirmati

ve

2.1.1 7th

Bullet

Editorial Although commonly used in the

controls world, the term "jumper"

should not normally be used as it

more commonly refers to a rigid

flowline spool.

Rewrite to avoid the use of the

word "jumper"

Disagree Explain why disagree...

204 Affirmati

ve

4.6 2nd para Technical The use of a large central steel tube

core (normally for chemical services)

is often a key system architecture

benefit and should not be discouraged

in this way. It will lead to umbilical

termination specific requirements

however.

Discuss large central chemical

core benefits in more detail.

Disagree add note / words in 1.

scope

384 Abstain Section/

Clause

4 Technical Foundation or manifold that interface

with the UTA/SUT to be included in

the description

Parking consideration, load

sharing, intervention etc.

Agree in

Principle

Could consider to

include a paragraph

about "Interface

between UTA and

manifold needs to be

managed". Parking etc

could be mentioned as

part of this.


Clause

5.5 Technical Load calculations based on

installation and in-situ to be

considered

Include description Agree in

Principle

Expand proposed text

and include in section

5.5, as well as to

consider project

specific requirements.

Introduction

Installers’ Handling Requirements

Workflow for selection and sizing of the UTA

Category Functionalities

UTA Categorization Method

Selection of Packing Reel/ Carousel

SUT Rigid Length

Selection of Installation Method

Vessel Requirements

Risk/ Cost/ Schedule Rating

Conclusion

Appendix – Responsibility matrix

TR9 document – structure

18

TR9 – Workflow for selection and sizing of the

UTA

19

• Category Functionalities

• UTA Categorization Method

• SUT Rigid Length

• Selection of Packing Reel/ Carousel

• Selection of Installation Method

• Vessel Requirements

• Risk/ Cost/ Schedule Rating

Umbilical specifications

Specific system requirements

Combine with UTA Categorization Method?

Category Functionalities

20

Describe 4 categories of UTA

UTA Categorization Method

21

Selection of Packing – Reel/ Carousel

22

2 2 4

Couplings per plate 7 way 10 way 24 way

QTY ≤ 1/2" lines 5 6 12

QTY ≤ 3/4" lines 2 4 8

QTY ≤ 1" lines No No 4

Electrical / Optical connectors (max) 6 12 12

Electrical (max) 6 12 12

Optical (max) 2 6 6

Junction box (max) No 2 x 3 way 2 x 3 way

No No Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

3m 3m 3.5

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No

A B C D E F

0.5

0.6

0.7

MQC Plates (max)

Valves

Distribution

Max. UTA length (including the padeye)

ROV operable

CLOSED / OPEN OPEN

Not recommended

Combination of:

Combination of:

Large service lines

UTA Category (Table 1)

Tensioner Type (Figure 7)

VesselCarousel

InstallationReel

< 350 tonne > 350 tonne

≤ Length (X) > Length (X)

Special Case only

Yes No

A to D Umbilical Length

Check(Table 4)

Max STILength check

(Table 3)

E to F Umbilical Length

Check

Total System Weight

Check(350 to 500 tonne special case only

Vibor's input from here down?

Matrix / flowchart Process

1. Select required function (look up)

2. UTA category (result)

3. Tension type (result)

4. Total weight check (calculate)

5. STI length check (look up or calculate)

6. Category A to D Umbilical length capacity

check (calculate)

7. Category E to F Umbilical length capacity

check (calculate if required)

8. Input Vibor’s risk model (s)

9. Reel or carousel (result)

Notes:

The group needs to define the functions / sizes of

category's E & F

Table 1 & figure 7 ref: TR9 document

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


23

2 2 4


QTY ≤ 1/2" lines 5 6 12

QTY ≤ 3/4" lines 2 4 8




Optical (max) 2 6 6


No No Yes Yes


3m 3m 3.5


No No No

A B C D E F

0.5

0.6

0.7

MQC Plates (max)

Valves

Distribution


ROV operable

CLOSED / OPEN OPEN

Not recommended

Combination of:

Combination of:

Large service lines



VesselCarousel

InstallationReel



Special Case only

Yes No


Check(Table 4)

Max STILength check

(Table 3)


Check

Total System Weight




24

2 2 4


QTY ≤ 1/2" lines 5 6 12

QTY ≤ 3/4" lines 2 4 8




Optical (max) 2 6 6


No No Yes Yes


3m 3m 3.5


No No No

A B C D E F

0.5

0.6

0.7

MQC Plates (max)

Valves

Distribution


ROV operable

CLOSED / OPEN OPEN

Not recommended

Combination of:

Combination of:

Large service lines



VesselCarousel

InstallationReel



Special Case only

Yes No


Check(Table 4)

Max STILength check

(Table 3)


Check

Total System Weight




25


26

UTA Size Category

Reel (m) A B C D

ØRim ØBarrel k k k k

6 2 67.1 64.6 62.1 59.5

3 55.4 53.3 51.2 49.1

7 3 84.6 81.4 78.2 75.0

4 68.1 65.5 63.0 60.4

8.6 4 124.7 119.9 115.2 110.5

5 103.4 99.5 95.6 91.7

6 77.5 74.6 71.7 68.7

9.2 4 149.0 143.3 137.7 132.1

5 127.8 122.9 118.1 113.3

6 101.8 98.0 94.2 90.3

9.8 4 175.0 168.4 161.8 155.2

5 153.8 148.0 142.2 136.4

6 127.9 123.0 118.2 113.4

11.2 4 242.3 233.1 224.0 214.9

5 221.1 212.7 204.4 196.0

6 195.2 187.8 180.4 173.1

11.4 5 231.5 222.7 214.0 205.2

6 205.5 197.8 190.0 182.3

Calculation of SUT rigid length: UTA + STI + (BSR/3)

Construct a table similar to STI?

SUT Rigid Length

27

Basic horizontal tensioner and overboarding system

Horizontal tensioner with vertical overbearing system

Closed Vertical Lay System (VLS)

Open Vertical Lay System

Any specific points/ requirements/ limitations/ system parameters to highlight?

Selection of Installation Method

28

Indication of vessel availability pertaining the selection of UTA

Categorisation of installation vessels?

Indicative cost

Applicability

Vessel Requirements

29

Assume a base case scenario

Consider four scenarios (for each category of UTA) – design permutations

Identify geometric specifications (weight, dimensions, STI, rigid length)

Consider a range of variables (sea state, umbilical length, wave period)

Assess the change in max allowable Hs with varying size and weight

Operational time

Analysis of Downtime Impact

Cost reduction

Risk/ Cost/ Schedule Rating

30

Reconstruct Vibor’s model?

Effect of Umbilical Head Size Install-ability A Case Study Vibor Paravic MSc CEng FIMechE

A statistical analysis of the effect termination design has on the perfomance of offshore installation vessels

Anybody Remember this?

UMF Meeting Aberdeen June 3rd 2009

Umbilical manufactures

Umbilical Designers

Installers

Hot topics

Reducing the size of subsea terminations

Lots of bad experiences shared

Matching installation vessel spreads to umbilical characteristics

Highlighted the chasm between installers and umbilical manufacturers.

Better understanding of umbilical internal behaviour

Extremely topical

Decommissioning issues still not understood

Standards and Specifications

Operator focus

Lessons Learned.

January 2010 meeting in Aberdeen S7 office

Way forward and JIP idea born.

Who was there?

32

5 years

3 ER visits

2 weddings

1 child

2 countries

2 companies

7 titles

33

Qualitative assesment of head size impact abounds

old wives tales

practical experinece

opinions

Quantitatvie assesment

Deck handling

Overboarding

Installtion

Abandoment

Comprehensive review of head size effect

SCOPE

34

SCOPE

Single Executed Project

Difficult head size

Not abnormal

Tricky installtion

100 – 100 case

100% weight

100% size

Vary weight and size

See effect on installtion

Vary installation location

See effect of head size

Statistical analysis

Case Name Corresponding Size

(% of Actual Size)

Corresponding Weight (% of Actual weight )

S300W100 300 100

S200W100 200 100

S100W100 100 100

S090W100 90 100

S080W100 80 100

S070W100 70 100

S060W080 60 80

S080W110 80 110

S080W090 80 90

S080W080 80 80

35

Instalaltion Vessel: Normand Cutter

Carousel

Overboarding Chute

36

Property Unit Value

Outer Diameter m 0.150

Nominal Mass (lines full of shipping fluid & interstices full of seawater)

kg/m 41.99

Nominal Weight in Air (lines full of shipping fluid & interstices empty)

kg/m 39.11

Nominal Weight in Seawater (lines full of shipping fluid & interstices full of seawater)

kg/m 23.95

Estimated Axial Stiffness MN 583.8

Estimated Bending Stiffness kNm2 15.5

Max Allowable Tension kN 256.0

Max Allowable Compression kN 5.0

Min Bend Radius during installation (@17 t tension) – LOAD CONTROLLED

m 6.96

Umbilical Properties

37

Property Unit Value

Spool Piece Length m 1.25

Flanged Termination Length m 0.32

Weight in Air kg 670.0

Submerged Weight kg 586.0

Allowable Bending Moment at Flange kNm 100.0

Allowable Axial Load kN 196.2

38

z

Property Unit Value

SDA-3 Dimensions (X x Y x Z) m 3.96 x 1.50 x 1.32

SDA-3 Weight in Air kg 4800.0

SDA-3 Submerged Weight kg 4185.0

CoG m 2.02, 0.75, 0.56

Drag Coefficient X-direction - 1.49

Drag Coefficient Y-direction - 2.57

Drag Coefficient Z-direction - 2.60

Added Mass Coefficient X-direction - 0.28

Added Mass Coefficient Y-direction - 0.88

Added Mass Coefficient Z-direction - 0.89

Photos of Termination

Handling of Termination

46

Design Permutations Analyzed

Pro

pert

ies

S300W

100

S200W

100

S100W

100

S090W

100

S080W

100

S070W

100

S060W

080

S080W

110

S080W

090

S080W

080

Length (m) 11.88 7.92 3.96 3.564 3.168 2.772 2.376 3.168 3.168 3.168

Width (m) 4.5 3 1.5 1.35 1.2 1.05 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2

Height (m) 3.96 2.64 1.32 1.19 1.06 0.93 0.79 1.06 1.06 1.06

Weight in air (kg) 4800 4800 4800 4800 4800 4800 3840 5280 4320 3840

Weight in water (kg) 4185 4185 4185 4185 4185 4185 3348 4604 3767 3348

Cd 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

Cm 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

47

Methodology

SZDC DNV Marine Ops RAO based motion 5-12 seconds 99.4% of weather

Lowering Not according to sketches but more

onerous

SZDC

Slack wire criterion SWL criterion DAF criterion < 2*static tension

Lowering Maximum umbilical tension <

allowable value Maximum umbilical compression <

allowable value umbilical MBR > allowable value

SDA-3 Size and

Weight

Corresponding to

Umbilical

Length (m)

Wave

Direction

(deg)

Hs (m)Wave

Period (s)

Total

Cases

All Size

Combinations

300, 350,

400, 450,

500, 550,

600

0, 45. 90,

135, 1802.5

5, 6, 7, 8,

9, 10, 11,

12

2800

48

Tabulated Results

Case

Max

Allowabl

e Hs (m)

Minimum

Tension

(te)

Maximum

Tension

(te)

Limiting

Factor

S300W100 0.08 0.23 16.06 Slack Sling

S200W100 0.15 0.01 8.95 Slack Sling

S100W100 1.33 0.03 9.18 Slack Sling

S090W100 1.62 0.01 9.23 Slack Sling

S080W100 1.95 0.01 9.28 Slack Sling

S070W100 2.35 0.01 9.35 Slack Sling

S060W080 2.49 0.01 7.47 Slack Sling

S080W110 2.08 0.03 10.24 Slack Sling

S080W090 1.8 0.01 8.29 Slack Sling

S080W080 1.64 0.02 7.31 Slack Sling

Case

Max

Allowable

Hs (m)

Minimum

Tension

(te)

Maximum

Tension

(te)

Limiting

Factor

S100W100 1.38 0.03 9.17 Slack Sling

S090W100 1.67 0.004 9.23 Slack Sling

S080W100 2 0.01 9.28 Slack Sling

S070W100 2.41 0.001 9.37 Slack Sling

15 deg Inclination

Case

Max

Allowable

Hs (m)

Minimum

Tension

(te)

Maximum

Tension

(te)

Limiting

Factor

S100W100 1.54 0.0001 9.18 Slack Sling

S090W100 1.82 0.02 9.21 Slack Sling

S080W100 2.16 0.02 9.28 Slack Sling

S070W100 2.59 0.0001 9.39 Slack Sling

30 deg Inclination

49

Effect of Inclination

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

S100W100 S090W100 S080W100 S070W100

Max A

llow

able

Hs (

m)

0deg

15 deg

30 deg

50

Effect of Size - Weight 100%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

300 200 100 90 80 70

Max A

llow

able

Hs (

m)

Effect of Weight - Size 80%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

100 110 90 80

Max A

llow

able

Hs (

m)

51

Weight Size Comaprison

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Max A

llow

able

Hs (

m)

Effect of Weight - Size 80%

Effect of Size - Weight 100%

52

But how much?

SIZE

MATTERS

53

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (h)

Hs (

m)

Stage Description Duration (hrs) HsDependent

Independent

Prep for Handling 6 2.50 I

SZDC 3 1.33 D

Lowernig 3 2.00 D

Initiation 3 2.00 D

Lay 36 2.50 D

Abandonment 3 2.00 D

54

STATISTICAL Analysis of Downtime Impact

4 World wide locations North Sea (Central)

Mediterranean

West Africa

Brazil

Weather data 30 year historical data

Weather Window Nominal duration

Min Max duration

Average duration

P20

55

Raw Results

Hours S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100 S80 S90 S100

Average 93 122 188 64 68 72 185 208 241 59 68 108

Minimum 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54

Maximum 726 948 2025 402 519 558 2115 2118 2379 294 504 1206

P20 132 177 273 57 63 75 255 297 345 54 60 150

Brazil Mediteranean North Sea West Africa


Average 50% 65% 100% 89% 94% 100% 77% 86% 100% 55% 63% 100%

Minimum 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Maximum 36% 47% 100% 72% 93% 100% 89% 89% 100% 24% 42% 100%

P20 48% 65% 100% 76% 84% 100% 74% 86% 100% 36% 40% 100%


56

Cost Downtime

Assume vessel cost/dayrate is $100,000

100


Average $ 388 $ 510 $ 782 $ 268 $ 282 $ 301 $ 769 $ 865 $1,004 $ 246 $ 283 $ 448

P20 $ 550 $ 738 $1,138 $ 238 $ 263 $ 313 $1,063 $1,238 $1,438 $ 225 $ 250 $ 625


$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

S80 S90 S100

Time (h)

Hs (

m)

Brazil

Mediteranean

North Sea

West Africa

57

Cost Summary

For a 20% decrease in size average savings on installation

per umbilical are:

Brazil $394k

Mediteranean $ 33k

North Sea $235k

West Africa $203k

Time is money

Size is money

58

ONE LAST THOUGHT

Termination should be the size of

Smarts not Hummers

TR9 – Workflow for selection and sizing of the

UTA

59

• Category Functionalities

• UTA Categorization Method

• SUT Rigid Length

• Selection of Packing Reel/ Carousel

• Selection of Installation Method

• Vessel Requirements

• Risk/ Cost/ Schedule Rating

Working groups

60

Working Group 1

Vic Morrell (Lead)

Charlie August

Karl Atle Stevenik

Richard Hughes

Gustav Jensen Kibsgaard

Working Group 2

Tor Erling Ruud (Lead)

Todd McKinney

Phil Ward

Sam Almerico

Jessica Wells

Working Group 3

Daniel Abicht (Lead)

David Graham

Thomas Senne

John Bess

Erik Johnsen

Comments on TR10

61

80 Affirmati

ve

2.1.1 7th

Bullet

Editorial Although commonly used in the

controls world, the term "jumper"

should not normally be used as it

more commonly refers to a rigid

flowline spool.

Rewrite to avoid the use of the

word "jumper"

Disagree Explain why disagree...

204 Affirmati

ve

4.6 2nd para Technical The use of a large central steel tube

core (normally for chemical services)

is often a key system architecture

benefit and should not be discouraged

in this way. It will lead to umbilical

termination specific requirements

however.

Discuss large central chemical

core benefits in more detail.

Disagree add note / words in 1.

scope


Clause

4 Technical Foundation or manifold that interface

with the UTA/SUT to be included in

the description

Parking consideration, load

sharing, intervention etc.

Agree in

Principle

Could consider to

include a paragraph

about "Interface

between UTA and

manifold needs to be

managed". Parking etc

could be mentioned as

part of this.


Clause

5.5 Technical Load calculations based on

installation and in-situ to be

considered

Include description Agree in

Principle

Expand proposed text

and include in section

5.5, as well as to

consider project

specific requirements.

'Umbilical thermoplastic hoses should be connected to the UTA internal pipework inside the UTA body (and not connect within the STI or transition spool as is often the case for steel tube umbilical connections).

Thermoplastic hoses frequently terminate to individual connectors or to a bulkhead plate within the UTA. The location of these connectors or bulkhead plate within the UTA should be toward the front (padeye end) of the UTA thus allowing the umbilical hoses adequate length and flexure for ease of routing inside the UTA. In practice adopting this approach frequently means that the hoses can be routed and terminated within the UTA without a requirement for a transition spool.

Note: Positioning the bulkhead plate toward the rear of the UTA (STI end) means that the hoses can be very short and rigid which makes access and termination difficult as there is no 'slack' to play with in the hose length - positioning the bulkhead plate at the rear of the UTA should be avoided. '

Discussion on large central chemical core

benefits

62

Any additional risks to be considered?

HSE

Weather window (e.g. North Sea)

Decommisioning

Risk

63

Combine all the steps above to make a decision tree?

Decision tree

64

Case studies

65

Could we add case studies (anonymous) to better explain the ‘risk’ component?

OneSubsea has kindly volunteered to host the next meeting in Celle, Germany

Next meeting

66

OTM Consulting Ltd

www.otmconsulting.com

Boston Cambridge London Houston Dubai

Sagentia Group OTM Consulting Ltd OTM Consulting Inc OTM Consulting Ltd

Harston Mill

Harston

Cambridge

CB22 7GG

UK

Tel: +44 1223 875200

www.sagentia.com

Friary Court

13-21 High Street

Guildford, Surrey

GU1 3DG

UK

Tel: +44 1483 598000

3040 Post Oak Blvd

Suite 1212

Houston

TX 77056

USA

Tel: +1 832 581 2438

Reef Tower

Sheikh Zyed Road

PO Box 115738

Dubai

UAE

Tel: +971 4448 7595

67

68

69

Documents

London (Subsea7 Host) - UMSIRE