© 2014 SMT

Deepwater Permanent Subsea Pressure Compensated Chemical Reservoir & Injection System

Safe Marine Transfer, LLC Stage 1 report-out presentationProject 11121-5302-01

June 10, 2015 - WednesdayRPSEA TAC meetingSugar Land, TX.

2© 2015 SMT

Presentation agenda

o Project summary• Team• Project drivers• Concept of design and operations

o Scope of Work (SoW) for Stage 1• Objectives• Overview• Customer input and report-outs• Results and deliverables

o Major systems, overview• Storage & injection unit (Stress)• Shuttle (ACMA)• Transportation, installation & recovery (Canyon / Helix)

o Conclusions

3© 2015 SMT

Team

Safe Marine Transfer, LLCContractors o Helix Canyon Offshore (Canyon) - Marine operations and planning

Dynamic Systems Analysis, Ltd. (DSA) - computational software for marine operations GRI Simulations, Inc. (GRI) - marine operations simulations & analysis

o Stress Engineering Services Inc. (SES)o Alan C. McClure & Associates (ACMA)

Costshareo DeepStar;

• 10302; DeepStar - Distribution of Inhibitors on the Seafloor; Executed by Technip• 11803; DeepStar Met-ocean Data Base; Executed by Woods Hole Group, Inc.

o Baker Hughes Inc.; chemical use, analysis and testingo Fugro; soils & topography data, analysis & reportso University of Houston; literature & patent search w/ reporto GRI Simulations, Inc.; casho Energy Valley, Inc.; cash

Guidance & reviewo SMT Advisory Committee o NETL - Project Manager; William Finchamo RPSEA

o Champion; Dr. Tom Gay o Technical input; James Pappas

4© 2015 SMT

TeamRPSEA 

ChampionTom Gay

SMTProject MgmtIntegrationRegulatory (USCG (ABS) & BSEE)Reporting

SCIUProcess Systems

Hardware Interface Mgmt

Sensors & LogicChemical injection

ControlsPower

Refill Nozzle

BakerHughesChemicalsMaterial Test & Qualification

Bladder Fabricator (TBD)Design

FabricationAnalysis & Modeling

Legal ‐Corporate & Transactional

Miller, Egan, Molter & Nelson, 

LLP

Legal ‐ IPOsha Liang

Alan McClure Assoc.

Naval ArchitectsCFD Modeling

Ballast & Buoyancy Systems

Structural design & Analysis

Seafloor Foundation Analysis

Back Office Services

Growth Force, LLP

Helix CanyonMarine 

OperationsOperational Simulations

DSADynamic 

Operational Simulation

GRISimulation Modeling 

and Analysis

Accounting / Tax

J. Reed Jordan, LLP

Finance / bankingChase JP Morgan 

SMTAdvisory 

Committee

Oil CompaniesWorking Project 

Group 

5© 2015 SMT

Project drivers

o Subsea wells are proliferating and tie-backs getting longer • Enabling technology required to produce extreme offsets

o Cost have been spiraling out of control while product prices have collapsed• Enhancing technology required to dramatically reduce costs• Safety and environmental expectations continue to rise• Risks must still be managed; technical, operational and commercial

o Long term; demand will continue to grow• Brownfield

Cost effective solutions will enable commercial viability of smaller offset (to Hub) fields Life extension of Hubs (with more tie-backs)

• Greenfield Cheaper solutions will enable commercial viability of smaller pockets of reserves

• Both SMT solution will enable more timely technical enhancements with short design life cycles

6© 2015 SMT

Business case

SMT systems based solution will meet industry’s needs with:

o New business model, chemical supply as a service at a lower overall costo Double barrier containment storage

• Inspected for quality and integrity and then loaded and ‘sealed’ at port• Separate storage bladders optimized for each type of chemical

o Safe and practical marine operations;• Installation;

Low cost vessels of opportunity Rapid deployment / recovery Yields; short weather-window exposure, better risk management, lower costs

• Inspection Maintenance & Repair, shore-based under controlled /lower cost conditionso COTS (Common Off The Shelf) components;

• Reduced technical risks• Sensor, detector, safety shut-down and alert systems• Simplified maintenance, repair, spare parts availability • Lower CAPEX and OPEX costs

7© 2015 SMT

Video out-put of computer modeling

Visit to view video output of math –driven simulation model;

http://youtu.be/Pz2GHHTV7ok

8© 2015 SMT

Potential uses include

o Supplement existing umbilical solutions which may be;• Undersized due to;

‘missed’ original estimates in well requirements, Changing reservoir production characteristics, Further field delineation

• Damaged / fouled / corroded / plugged o Enable development of smaller satellite fields that can not bear the complexity, cost

(OPEX & CAPEX) and associated operational & environmental risks associated with traditional system.

o All electric subsea systems that do not require hydraulic fluid for controls. o Early Production Systems whereby umbilical purchase and installation could be delayed

until full field assessment and /or development is complete. o Chemical support services for subsea construction, commissioning, & decommissioningo Use in well containment / spill response activities

9© 2015 SMT

Project objective

Develop a qualified design for a 3,000 bbl subsea chemical storage and injection system suitable for Gulf of Mexico applications.

Vision of Success:

o Low cost (opex & capex)• Low cost vessels of opportunity (vessels of opportunity to deploy / recover); anchor handlers / tugs• Short duration; minimize weather-window risks• “Redundancy” and safe-guards designed in

o High availability and reliability• COTS• Shorter design life; lower costs & simpler design• Systems approach; fleet of shuttles to service a region

o Safe• Dual barrier chemical containment• Order of magnitude lower number of installation days

10© 2015 SMT

System differentiators

o Large volume (3000 bbls) vs multiple small (30 ‐ 200 bbls) 

o Low‐cost vessels of opportunity vs massive derrick barge

o Safe & environmentally friendlyo SIGNIFICANTLY less marine opso Dual barrier containment

11© 2015 SMT

System differentiators

Most common offshore practiceo Chemicals carried in “Tote Tanks”, as deck cargo o Tote Tanks generally are 1 to 5 tons set up to be 

moved with fork lifts or lifted craneo Chemical stored on platformo Chemicals pumped via umbilical to point of use. 

SMT systemo Seal chemicals in a pressure compensated dual 

barrier bladder system at dockside o Deliver to point of use in re‐usable double hull 

shuttleo Eliminate need for expensive & complex 

chemical umbilicalo Re‐usable shuttle facilitates rigorous 

inspection, maintenance, repair and up‐grades to system on a routine & cost effective basis

12© 2015 SMT

Scope of Work (SoW)

Tasks:o Stage 1, Conceptual Design, Prototype Planning, Design and Development

• 12 months• $2.9 M• Stage-gate

o Stage 2, Detailed Design, Prototype Development & Validation Preparation• 10 months• $1.2M• Stage-gate

o Stage 3, Prototype / Validation Testing• 6 months• $1.4 M

13© 2015 SMT

Progress

 $‐

 $200,000

 $400,000

 $600,000

 $800,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Year 1 Period Baseline/Actual Comparison

Baseline

Actual

 $‐

 $1,000,000

 $2,000,000

 $3,000,000

 $4,000,000

 $5,000,000

 $6,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Year 1 Cumulative Baseline/Actual ComparisonStage 1 over‐run $211k or ~ 3% of total projectTotal project costs still anticipated on budget

ProjectCostBaseline

 $‐

 $200,000

 $400,000

 $600,000

 $800,000

 $1,000,000

 $1,200,000

 $1,400,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Year 1 Cost ShareBaseline (@ 38% costshare ‐ versus req'd 20%) /Actual(only $41,314  required to finish project over next year)

Baseline

Actual

 $‐

 $10,000

 $20,000

 $30,000

 $40,000

 $50,000

 $60,000

 $70,000

 $80,000

 $90,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Year 1 Technology TransferBaseline/Actual  Comparison

Baseline

Actual

14© 2015 SMT

Input & customer interaction

Input;o Reports; DeepStar, costshare reportso Identify, evaluate various options wrt storage and installation o Trade-off & risk analysiso Review and input from Advisory Committee, RPSEA WPG and Champion, major meetings + emails, telecoms, webexMeeting Date Participants / commentRPSEA project KO mtg 2014, 05‐27 RPSEA & SMTProject Design mtg 2014, 07‐22 RPSEA + 11 SME Project Design  mtg 2014, 08‐20 RPSEA + 13 SMERPSEA UDW conference 2014, 09‐03 ~ 150 participantsRPSEA TAC mtg 2014, 11‐05 RPSEA + 25 SMERPSEA Champion (Total) mtg 2014, 11‐18 RPSEA Champion + SMT & subsBureau of Safety & Environmental Enforcement – BSSE  (DoI) mtg

2014, 10‐23

2014, 11‐21

BSEE + SMT

BSSE + RPSEA + NETL + SMT & subsSouthwest Research Institute (SwRI)

2015, 01‐12 SwRI provided 3rd party validation of the SMT concept.

RPSEA TAC mtg, SMT review 2015, 01‐20 MoM on SharePoint; SMT presentation & input from RPSEA TACSMT + GE technical mtg 2015, 01‐20 Project inputRPSEA WPG mtg 2015, 01‐22 MoM on SharePoint ; WPG + select oil companies, input to SMTRPSEA WPG mtg 2015, 01‐26 MoM on SharePoint ; RPSEA WPG + SMT + subs presentationRPSEA WPG mtg various MoM on SharePoint; several 1 on 1 SMT + Oil company meetingsNETL mtg 2015, 01‐30 NETL + SMTChevron / DeepStar mtg 2015, 02‐02 Project inputRPSEA mtg 2015, 02‐04 Project inputBHI mtg 2015, 02‐11 Project inputRPSEA WPG mtg 2015, 02‐19 MoM on SharePoint, RPSEA WPG + SMT + subs presentRPSEA WPG QRA (Shuttle & Marine ops) review mtg

2015, 03‐17 MoM on SharePoint; 25 SME participants; full review with no unmanageable risk identified and recommendation to proceed

RPSEA WPG QRA (Storage & SCIU) review mtg

2015, 04‐15 MoM on SharePoint; xx SME participants; full review with no unmanageable risk identified and recommendation to proceed

15© 2015 SMT

Results and deliverables

Results & major reports delivered:

o Standard RPSEA Deliverables; Project Mngt Plan, Tech Transfer Plan, Monthly reports, etc.o Philosophy of Design reporto Basis of Design report

• Identify / select – define chemicals, application and requirements • Define operational environment (MetOcean by DeepStar & Dr. Cort Cooper) • Define seafloor soils condition (Seafloor by Fugro)• Identify / select-define injection rates (Varies by chemical and application)

o Conceptual Design report• Innovate, create and develop systems (Storage, Injection, Shuttle, marine operations)• Identify / define interfaces/boundaries • Identify all relevant or applicable codes and standards that apply to system.

o Critical component identification, screening and analysis, modeling & testing (concept level)• Shuttle and deploy / operate / retrieve analysis & math-based computer modelling (ACMA & CAN)• Bladder materials & chemicals (SES)

o Qualitative Risk Assessment (QRA)• Shuttle & marine operations (3/17/15)• Storage & SCIU (4/15/15)

o Technology maturation plan (Stage 2/3)o Stage 1 report

16© 2015 SMT

Results (continued)

Patent applications 

Title Date filed  Application # Status

Large Volume Subsea Chemical Storage and Metering System 

2013, 04‐06 13/858,024 Issued

Large Subsea Package Deployment Methods and Devices

2013, 05‐05 14/203,635 Pending

A Multi‐Vessel Process to Install and Recover Subsea Equipment Packages

2014, 08‐27 62 / 042,565 Pending

Underwater Storage Tank 2015, 05‐05 62/156,952 Pending

17© 2015 SMT

Documentation / output of Stage 1 work

PMP Deliverable SMT ACMA Canyon Stress Others

5.2 Background ReportsDeepStar 10302 – Subsea storage & Injection

Dr. Cooper's MetOcean AnalysisDeepstar 10803 & 11803 – Met‐ocean data

1.0 Project Management Plan 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐08‐09‐2014

2.0 Technology Status Report 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐06‐14‐20143.0 Technology Transfer Plan 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐06‐18‐2014

Stage 1 Report (Task 5.0)

     5.3 Philosophy of Design 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐10‐29‐2014     5.4 Basis of Design Included with 5.3 Philosophy Report

     5.5 Conceptual Design 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐01‐06‐2015 B1228‐002‐00 TD‐3087‐447 RP 5401 Rev 3

     5.6 IMR Processes 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015 B1228‐002‐00 TD‐3087‐467 SP 5601 Rev C; SP 5602 Rev B

     5.7 Component Qualification 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015 TD‐3087‐468 SP 5701 Rev B; SP 5702 Rev B

Stage 1 Report (Task 6.0)     6.1 Qualitative Risk Assessment 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015 TD‐3087‐453 TD‐3087‐453 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐04‐31‐2015     6.2 Critial Component Testing Protocol 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015 SP 5702 Rev B     6.3 Verification Tests 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015     6.4 Material Screening (Lab Test Analysis)  11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015 RP 6402 Rev B

Baker Chemical Compatibility Testing Data

     6.5 Additional Qualification 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015Stage 1 Report (Task 7.0)     7.1 Detailed Conceptual Design 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015 B1228‐002‐00 TD‐3087‐485 RP 5401 Rev E     7.2 Hazid & HAZOPs included in Task 6.1 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015 TD‐3087‐453 TD‐3087‐453 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐04‐31‐2015     7.3 System Design Improvement 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015 B1228‐002‐00 TD‐3087‐488 11121‐5302‐01 SMT 04‐27‐2015     7.4 Stage 2 Preparations 11121‐5302‐01‐SMT‐05‐02‐2015

SMT Documentation Matrix

18© 2015 SMT

Example report; Conceptual design

Draft report issued including:

‐ operator input from 6 Oil companies‐ OEM / supplier / other input‐ 3rd party review & comment (storage) 

19© 2015 SMT

Conceptual design report

20© 2015 SMT

Trade-off study report;Small (200 bbl) & modular (15 units)

vs Large ( single 3000 bbl) & re-usable shuttle configuration

Small (200 bbl) x 15 = 3000 bblo ‘conventional’ crane install – individually

and then manifold together subseao SCIU installed separately and then

integrated with Storage Units on the sea-floor

Large (3000 bbl) x 1 = 3000 bblo Requires a) derrick barge or b) ‘novel’ install o SCIU is ‘inclusive’, on-board, pre-wired & tested

as a systemo Smaller individual Storage Units may be placed

on deck to accommodate additional types of chemistry

Individual 200 bbl storage units

Individual jumpers, control & sensor connects

SCIU

Note:‐ Same SCIU kit would be required for any sized storage 

unit‐ Same storage system (can scale up & down for volume)

21© 2015 SMT

Trade-off study report;Single lift 3,000 bbl Storage Unit

vs. Shuttle delivery system

o A Single 3,000 bbl Storage Unit concept would be approximately 60’ x 60’ x 20’ (inclusive of structure) and require lifting  capacity of ~1, 500 MT.

o A massive crane vessel required (Balder shown below)o Single point lift‐line failure potential

Heavy lift vessel concept is not viable for brownfield applications:o mob/demob cost & availabilityo would require expensive in‐situ IMR.

Note:‐ Same SCIU kit would be required for either install method‐ Same storage system‐ Shuttle facilitates more frequent (if required) / rigorous 

inspection, maintenance, repair & system upgrades

22© 2015 SMT

Major systems

Storage

Chemical injection

Shuttle & marine ops

Courtesy of OceanWorks, Int’l

23© 2015 SMT

Storage systemsDifferent types of storage

Selection criteria:• Environmental;

• dual barrier? • Reduced risk compared to 

current injection systems

Selection criteria:• Storage volume• Installation / operations• Mechanical design

24© 2015 SMT

Storage systems alternatives

25© 2014 SMT

Bladder concept analysis

RelativeRanking

• Ranking Categories• Bladder multiples (minimum number preferred, i.e. 1 unit)• Dual Barrier Construction• Shape factor: Material Characteristics• Inspection• Maintenance and repair• Replacement• Abrasion of bladder and containment• Operational sensors/Instrumentation interfaces• Initial Construction and filling• API 17N TRL Rating

26

Bladder containment cell

Product Containment Design(Details in Stress Presentation)

• Product Bladder• Holds product to be dispensed• Shrinks as product is discharged

• Seawater Bladder• Equalizes with sea water as

product is discharged

• Outer Steel Tank• Annular space filled completely with Containment Fluid (treated Fresh Water)• Instrumentation to monitor for leakage from either bladder

Volume stays constantWeight will change due to density of cargo fluid

27© 2014 SMT

Bladder material qualificationChemical screening

• Chemical Screening tests are cost-effective for providing general compatibility data quickly for multiple materials in specific fluid environments.

• Chemical Screening Procedure:• Duration 30 days (Readings at 1, 7, 14, 30 days)• Temperature 58°C (136°F)1

• Autoclave Pressure 4400 psi• Fluids (tested individually) Methanol, LDHI + cocktail, Seawater• Properties: Biaxial Tensile Properties (SES Method)

Uniaxial Tensile Properties (ASTM D412/D638)Mass Change (ASTM D471)Volume Swell (ASTM D471)

1General compatibility can be assessed by screening at 10°C above the maximum application temperature.

Max. application Pressure per SMT

28© 2014 SMT

Bladder material qualificationChemical screening

29© 2014 SMT

Bladder material qualificationScreening fabric test coupons

30© 2014 SMT

Bladder material qualificationChemical screening, autoclaves in-service

31© 2014 SMT

Bladder material qualificationChemical screening

Chemical Screening Output:• Relative ranking of the bladder

materials• Weed out materials

grossly unsuitable for further evaluation

• Determine sensitivity of the bladder material to the fluids

• Assess property stability as a function of time

• Identify problematic fluid environments

• Determine potential failure modes to be cognizant of during long-term aging

• Refine long-term testing scope as necessary

32© 2014 SMT

Bladder material qualificationLong-term aging testing

• Long-Term Aging Testing• Methodology: Accelerate chemical effects on the bladder material to predict

long-term life performance:• Use Arrhenius temperature acceleration to extrapolate life characteristics.

• Samples are aged at three temperatures.• Samples are pulled and characterized at multiple time durations.

• Selection of aging temperatures based on Thermogravimetric Analysis testing (including analysis of Ea – activation energy of thermal degradation)

• Must ensure “artificial” aging does not occur.• First order reaction vs. Second order reaction

33© 2014 SMT

Bladder material qualificationLong-term aging testing

• Long-Term Aging Testing• Test Temperature(s): Three, TBD• Test Duration: Up to 60 days• Test Fluids: Water, LDHI + cocktail, Methanol• Test Pressure: 4400 psi• Testing: Biaxial Tensile Properties SES Custom Method

Uniaxial Tensile Properties ASTM D412/D638Mass Change, Volume Swell ASTM D471Tearing Resistance ASTM D1004Permeation Testing API 17JFriction/Wear Testing Method TBD

- Fabric on Fabric- Fabric on Tank Wall

34© 2014 SMT

Bladder material selectionGeneral compatibility

Bladder Material Methanol LDHI +cocktail Seawater Score Relative 

Ranking

Polyamide/Polyurethane 3 1/2 1/2 6.0 5

Polyester/Ethylene Copolymer 1 1/2 1 3.5 2

Polyurethane (a) 3 1/2 1 5.5 4

Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 1/2 1 1 3.5 2

Neoprene (CR) 1 2/3 1 4.5 3

Fluoropolymer 1 1 1 3.0 1

Polyurethane (b) 3 1/2 1 5.5 4

PVC/Ethylene Copolymer 1 1/2 1 3.5 2

Polyurethane (c) 3 1/2 1 5.5 4

1 = Acceptable2 = Marginal3 = Not Recommended

Data Sources: Multiple

Primary Goal:One bladder for all possible chemicals. Ranking developed by adding the scores for each chemical. A rating of “1” indicates the class of materials is generally compatible.  A rating of “2” indicates compatibility depends on the specific grade of material or conditions. “3” indicates expected gross incompatibility. A rating of “1/2” is scored as 1.5.

35© 2014 SMT

Bladder material selectionOther considerations

Bladder Material Cost Size Limitations Stiffness Score Relative 

Ranking

Polyamide/Polyurethane 1/2 1/2 1 4.0 2

Polyester/Ethylene Copolymer 1/2 1/2 1 4.0 2

Polyurethane (a) 2 1 1 4.0 2

Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 1 1 1 3.0 1

Neoprene (CR) 1 1 1 3.0 1

Fluoropolymer 3 1/2 2/3 7.0 3

Polyurethane (b) 2 1 1 4.0 2

PVC/Ethylene Copolymer 1/2 1/2 1 4.0 2

Polyurethane (c) 2 1 1 4.0 2

1 = Acceptable2 = Marginal3 = Not Recommended

Data Sources: Multiple

Primary Goal:One bladder for all possible chemicals. Ranking developed by adding the scores for each chemical. A rating of “1” indicates the class of materials is generally acceptable.  A rating of “2” indicates depends on the specific design. “3” indicates costly or potential strong limitations in design. A rating of “1/2” is scored as 1.5.

36© 2014 SMT

Bladder material qualificationTest results – post 28 day aging

Vario

us m

aterials

37© 2015 SMT

SCIU - P&ID

38© 2015 SMT

SCIU – Layers of protection evaluation (example)

39

Chemical injection unitSummary of design work and reports (page 1 of 2)

PN

Discipline Doc Type Sequence

No. Rev. No. Sheet

No. Date

Issued yyyy-mmdd

Document Title/Description

Comment

Originator(s)

Reviewer(s)

1451130 SS BD 5401-01 B 1 2014-1023 Block Diagram Subsea Chemical Injection Unit Issued for Information Darrell Cotton Rod Hope 1451130 SS BD 5401-02 B 2 2014-1023 Block Diagram Subsea Chemical Injection Unit Issued for Information Darrell Cotton Rod Hope

1451130

SS

DR

0001

A

2015-0430 Decision Record Sheet SAFE MARINE TRANSFER, LLC / RPSEA CHEMICAL STORAGE BLADDER CONCEPT DESIGN CONFIGURATION MEHTODOLOGY AND PATH FORWARD

Transmitted with Master Work Book

John Macneill

1451130 SS

DR 0002

B 2015-0430

Decision Record Sheet SAFE MARINE TRANSFER, LLC / RPSEA CHEMICAL STORAGE BLADDER CONCEPT DESIGN CONFIGURATION OPTIMIZATION VIA QUANTITATIVE EVALUATIONS TO ACHIEVE DESIRED HIGH CONFIDENCE LEVEL

Transmitted with Master Work Book

John Macneill

1451130 SS DS 5501 B 2014-1022 Product Data Sheet: Subsea Chemical Injection Unit MEOH

Issued for Internal Review Rod Hope John Macneill

1451130 SS DS 5501 C 2014-1023Product Data Sheet: Subsea Chemical Injection Unit MEOH Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill

1451130

SS

DS

5501

D

2014-1119 Product Data Sheet: Subsea Chemical Injection Unit MEOH Issued for Information Rod Hope

John Macneill These documents are being re-transmitted because the “LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT” section has been added to all of them.

1451130 SS DS 5501 E 2015-0211 Product Data Sheet: Subsea Chemical Injection Unit MEOH Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill

1451130 SS DS 5501 F 2015-0325Product Data Sheet: Subsea Chemical Injection Unit MEOH Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill

1451130 SS DS 5501 G 2015-0407Product Data Sheet: Subsea Chemical Injection Unit MEOH Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill

Updated title on document to matchMDR.

1451130 SS DS 5502 B 2014-1022 Product Data Sheet SCIU LDHI Issued for Internal Review Rod Hope John Macneill1451130 SS DS 5502 C 2014-1023 Product Data Sheet SCIU LDHI Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill

1451130

SS

DS

5502

D

2014-1119

Product Data Sheet SCIU LDHI

Issued for Information

Rod Hope

John Macneill These documents are being re- transmitted because the “LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT” section has been added to all of them.

1451130 SS DS 5502 E 2015-0211 Product Data Sheet SCIU LDHI Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill1451130 SS DS 5502 F 2015-0325 Product Data Sheet SCIU LDHI Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill

1451130 SS DS 5502 G 2015-0407Product Data Sheet Subsea Chemical Injection Unit Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitor Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill

Updated title on document to matchMDR.

1451130

SS

DS

5503

A

Not Started Product Data Sheet SPCCR Methanol Not completed. Placeholder for Stage 2 once bladder vendor is selected. RH/MH

John Macneill Place holder

1451130

SS

DS

5504

A

Not Started Product Data Sheet SPCCR LDHI Not completed. Placeholder for Stage 2 once bladder vendor is selected. RH/MH

John Macneill Place holder 1451130 SS DW 5401 A 1 2014-1023

Concept Sketches T5.4 (DRS) Subsea Pressure Compensate Chemical Reservoir Packaging Options Issued for Information Elizabeth Bowlin Rod Hope

1451130 SS DW 5402 B 1 2015-0422 PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM, SUBSEA CHEMICAL INJECTION UNIT Issued for Information Ronnie Swindall John Macneill

1451130 SS MO 0001 A 2015-0504 Aging/Design and Prototype Development/Computational Analysis Issued for Internal Review Matt Heidecker John Macneill

1451130 SS PT 1003 B 2015-0430 Stress Presentation; Bladder - Chemistry Transmitted with Master Work Book

John Macneill Rod Hope 1451130 SS PT 1004 B 2015-0430

Subsea Chemical Storage and Injection System Stress Presentation

Transmitted with Master Work Book John Macneill Rod Hope

1451130 SS RP 1001 A 2014-1023 Project Execution and Communications Guidelines Stage 1 Issued for Internal Review John Macneill Rod Hope 1451130 SS RP 1001 B 2014-1023 Project Execution and Communications Guidelines Stage 1Issued for Information John Macneill Rod Hope

1451130

SS

RP

1001

C

2014-1119 Project Execution and Communications Guidelines Stage 1Issued for Information John Macneill

Rod Hope These documents are being re-transmitted because the “LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT” section has been added to all of them.

1451130 SS RP 1001 D 2015-0407 Project Execution and Communications Guidelines Stage 1 Issued for Information John Macneill Rod Hope Updated title on document to match MDR.

1451130

SS RP

1002 NA 11/1/2014

Preliminary RPSEA SES Master Work Book

Issued for Information

RH/MH

John Macneill

1451130

SS RP

1002 0

2015-0325 RPSEA SES Master Work Book

Issued for Information

RH/MH

John Macneill

1451130

SS RP

1002 1

2015-0422Safe Marine Transfer, LLC Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Master Work Book

Issued for Information

RH/MH

John Macneill

Updated title on document to match MDR.

1451130

SS RP

1002 2

2015-0430Safe Marine Transfer, LLC Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Master Work Book

Issued for Information

RH/MH

John Macneill

1451130 SS RP 1003 NA 2015-0430 SMT Subcontractor Monthly Reports (August 2014 - April 2015)

Transmitted with Master Work Book John Macneill Rod Hope

1451130 SS RP 5401 A 2014-1023Report SPCCR Concept Configuration Packaging Evaluation Issued for Internal Review Rod Hope John Macneill

1451130 SS RP 5401 B 2014-1028 Report SPCCR Concept Configuration Packaging Evaluation Issued for Information Rod Hope John Macneill

40

Transport shuttle

41

Transport shuttle concept design (based on regulatory approved ocean-going hazardous chemical barge)

Bladder Containment in single cell.

DimensionsLength 125 ft

Breadth 50 ft

Hull Depth 15 ft

Draft (transit) 11 ft

Air Draft 36 ft

Displacement 1100T

42

Shuttle systems

o Structural Framework – Barge Hull• Double-sided, double bottom tank barge configuration• Standard barge structure - dimensions suitable for Gulf Coast construction• All tanks floodable

o Product Bladder Containment Cell(s)• Provide double-barrier containment for product.

o Payload - Subsea Chemical Injection System• Modular for easy replacement. (Shuttle can handle a wide range of pay-loads)

o High-pressure (Hard) Buoyancy Tanks• Fixed-volume tanks, pre-pressured (air) for depth • Control stability of barge during submergence• Adapted use from DOT over-road CNG haul

o Low-pressure (Soft) Buoyancy Tanks• Compensate for increased weight after discharging light product.

o Ballast / Hull Buoyancy Tanks• Hull tanks to provide buoyancy when at the surface

o Chain Tether System for lowering and buoyancy control• De-couples dynamic motions of surface vessels from Shuttle

o Bottom Support Piling for locating and holding on bottom• Several options; primary is Shuttle is its own mud-mat• Steel barge hull with double-skin and vertical buoyancy towers

43© 2015 SMT

Foundation design

Fugro provided costshare included geotechnical inferred design profiles of submerged unit weight (SUW) & undrainedshear strength (Su) for eight areas with:• Inferred best estimate (BE), • low estimate (LE) and • high estimate (HE) profiles

These were developed based on information obtained in water depths ranging from 2,100 to 9,600 ft.

The information is only for SMT use with initial (conceptual) development planning for foundation design.

44

Shuttle operations – typical scenario

• Product loading and tow to Location• Dockside loading with chemicals• Transit down waterway to open Gulf & well site area

• Submergence and lowering to Seabed• Connect lowering rigging to DP vessels • Have ROV available to monitor lowering• Submerge to main deck and then up to top of columns. • Play-out chain & wire to lower shuttle to bottom

• Landing Barge on Seabed• Jumper connections allow barge to be located away from subsea connections. Landing need not be “exact”.

• Connection to subsea production or drilling facility• ROV operation.

• Recovering barge to surface• Same general procedure as lowering• Low pressure (soft) tanks in upper columns used to compensate for offloading weight increase • Final de-ballasting with air supplied from installation vessels

• Tow back to shore site for recharge & IMR

45

Composite cylinders Filled with air for buoyancy to 10,000

• Features• Light weight compared to steel and foam• 3600 psi working pressure• Type IV DOT rated with stringent testing and

inspection (for CNG)• Commercially available with production

increasing• Available in several stock sizes to suit 30 ft. and

40 ft. ISO containers• Inexpensive

• Dimensions• 42-in. diameter• 38 ft. length (normal production)

Cylinders are commercially availableCourtesy of Lincoln Composites.

Composite cylinders for buoyancy

Chemical storage bladder

46

Composite cylinders (Cont’d)

• Installation and Operation• Supportinsaddlesandringstoallow

compressionwithdepth• Installedthruhatchesafterhull

fabrication(nowelding)• Pre‐fillwithhighpressureairbeforeuse

– alwaysmaintainpositivedifferentialpressure

• Isolatingmanifoldwithpressurealarms

• Other Considerations• Possibilityofusingstoredpressurefor

bottomlandingballastadjustmentorforemergencyde‐ballasting

• Supportforcylinders• Classificationtestingfornewservice

Composite View

47© 2015 SMT

Applicable marine regulatory rules

• Emphasis is to stay within scope of existing rules• Shuttle barge to be “standard” chemical tank barge (USCG, Sub.0)• Fall within existing guidelines and class rules• Do not venture into areas that will require “new” rulemaking – it can take a

long time and be unpredictable

• Exploratory Meetings with ABS• Initial meetings successful• Will seek “Approval in Principle” in Phase II• ABS can act as advisory arm for USCG.

48© 2015 SMT

Marine ops

Engineering Supporto Conceptualize a safe, reliable,

and cost effective methodology

o Define and develop Operational Plans and Equipment Specs toenable deployment and recoveryof the subsea package

o Generate operational storyboards and concepts for review and selection of the preferred methodology

o Detail the ROV requirements, tasks, and specifications and interface scenarios

49© 2015 SMT

Deployment &Recovery Development

Single Down-line AnalysisInputs / Assumptions:o Deployment using single downlineo Deploying ~250T (weight in water)o Deploying ~2300T payload mass.o Sea State: 2m, 8sec. JONSWAP, head waveo Horizontal Shuttle Unit Orientationo 65m depth

Result:o 1124 short tons (1,019,675 kgf) line tension

50© 2015 SMT

Deployment &Recovery Development

Single 3000bbl Shuttle Unit ConceptHigh Level Concept Refinement:o Decouple the shuttle mass from topside vessel

movements

o Achieve better seabed positioning versus traditional single crane down-line

o Reduce topside vessel size requirements

o Reduce topside vessel crane size requirementsLarge crane required if traditional single down-line deployment utilized.

51© 2015 SMT

Deployment & Recovery DevelopmentDual catenary

Deploy and recover the shuttle payload through the use of a catenary connection method to a pair of topside vessels.

Catenary Benefitso Catenaries decouple deployment payload from topside handling vessel(s)o Reduces crane/winch & vessel size requirementso Provides more vessels of opportunity (VOO) and reduced vessel costs

52© 2015 SMT

AHTS Class

o Dynamic Position (DP) Anchor Handler Tug Supplyo Equipped with cable winch for stern cable deploymento Typical day rate of $40k-70k per day

53© 2015 SMT

SMT Project Real-time Analysis Application Screen Shots of SMT shuttle installation taken from Bird’s Eye View of VROV Simulation with integrated ProteusDS FEA.

Modeling & simulation

GRI Simulations Inc.o Subcontracted to build models and generate

simulator for analyzing future jobs

Dynamic Systems Analysiso DSA subcontracted to perform analysis

54

Conclusions

In the low product price environment of 2015,• Even greater need to develop & commercialize a game‐changing solution

Enabling aspect of the SMT solution. Current umbilicals cannot flow required volumes of high viscosity chemicals over significant off‐set distances & inject into HP subsea wells; 

Enhancing perspectiveSMT’s low cost solution will help ensure financial viability of development of offset reservoirs in a low product price environment.  

SMT have been executed SoW and  provided all Deliverables;• Conceptual design done, verified and documented via;

Material testing 2 QRAs w/ 50+ SME participants – recommend proceeding w/ no ‘un‐manageable 

risks identified 4 patents filed, 1 issued Summary report w/ over 2 dozen sub‐task reported  

• 50 SMEs will continue to participate w/ RPSEA Technical Champion Dr. Tom Gay. • Compelling technical need for last 2 stages of the project to be combined further 

supported by commercial / financial incentives & schedule requirements. 

55

Conclusions (cont’d)

Combining Stage 2 and 3:Will deliver more & better results within a shorter schedule and within budget.

Technical justification

• Activity scheduled for Stage 3 was planning and execution of a wave tank test.• The initial math-based simulation model has calculated stress well within the limits of system requirements. • SMT and contractors have learned a lot in the 1st stage - limitations of a wave tank test for validation. • Remaining design details best addressed via a Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) model

• SMT planned path forward is to construct model of the shuttle and run multiple iterations to address the scale issue and shuttle design optimization

• Albeit expensive to initially construct, CFD run cost are a manageable expense

• To achieve endpoint success of a validated final design we need to build CFD model now and use a number of runs to iterate to an optimum design with required validation. To accomplish this we must start this work immediately (versus waiting until Stage 3 per the current project plan) to stay within overall project schedule.

56

Conclusions (cont’d)

Combining Stage 2 and 3:Will deliver more & better results within a shorter schedule and lower budget.

Schedule• The initial / current project plan calls for Stage 2 interim report to be submitted for comments, revisions, re-

submission for acceptance and then a presentation of results. • Timing for various stage-gate review step alone will consume an incremental 4-6 weeks, minimum. With a

combined stage 2 and 3, ~2 month savings that should allow for a June 2016 completion in spite of the fact we are currently ~ 6 weeks behind schedule (assume NETL approval mid-May 2015). Considering the planned ‘sun-set’ of the RPSEA program summer of 2016, we believe schedule is also a compelling complement to the technical justification.

CostThe old adage, time is money is also a factor. Collapsing the schedule tends to save money by improving contractor efficiency and reducing the number of meetings and presentations (which as shown in table 2 were more than anticipated.)

57© 2015 SMT

Next Steps

o Authorization from NETL to combine Stages 2&3 – pendingo SMT 

• Incorporating NETL and RPSEA (WPG) comments into previously published draft Stage 1 report. 

• Developing draft Project Management Plan (PMP) for next Stage for review / comment by RPSEA (and their Working Project Group)

• Planning for Stage 2 Kick‐off meeting w/ NETL, RPSEA and SMTJune 30, 2015; 9 – 11am;  Helix corporate offices

• Finalizing Stage 2 contractor team

58© 2015 SMT

Next Steps

System Shuttle system Marine ops

Storage Unit (SU) & Subsea Chemical Injection Unit (SCIU)

Project integration, mngt & technical direction & regulatory 

Stage 1 ACMA Helix

+ subs GRI & DSA

Stress Safe Marine

Stage 2/3

Shuttle  Wave Tank

CFD 

Buoyancy SCIU SU –design details

SU ‐material / chemical long term testing

Project integration, mngt & technical direction & regulatory 

ACMA Composite mnfg*

Helix+ subs GRI & DSA

EPC / EPCI*

OEM* Bladder mnfg*

BHI and / or Bladder mnfg*

Safe Marine

59© 2015 SMT

Contacts

Co-PICommercial lead: Art J. Schroeder, Jr.Safe Marine Transfer, LLCart@SafeMarineTransfer.com713 681 1482

Co-PITechnical lead: Jim ChitwoodSafe Marine Transfer, LLCJimChitwood@SafeMarineTransfer.com832 725 8176

Project Manager : Bill FinchamNational Energy Technology Laboratory, NETLUS Department of EnergyWilliam.Fincham@NETL.DOE.GOV(304) 285-4268

RPSEA Working Project Group (WPG) Champion:Tom.A.Gay@gmail.com

Technical Coordinator: James PappasJpappas@RPSEA.org(281) 690-5511