Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SHIP/INSTALLATION
COLLISION AVOIDANCE
ISSUE 1
FEBRUARY 2003
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication,
neither UKOOA, nor any of its members will assume liability for any use made thereof.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission of the publishers.
Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majestys
Stationery Office.
London Office:
2nd Floor, 232-242 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London, SW1V 1AU.
Tel: 020 7802 2400 Fax: 020 7802 2401
Aberdeen Office:
9, Albyn Terrace, Aberdeen, AB10 1YP
Tel: 01224 626652 Fax: 01224 626503
Email: info@ukooa.co.uk
Website: www.oilandgas.org.uk
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
CONTENTS
Page No
INTRODUCTION iii
Purpose and Scope iii
Contributing Organisations iv
ABBREVIATIONS vii
3 PASSING VESSELS 17
3.1 Introduction 17
3.2 Assessing the Potential for Collision 18
3.3 Minimising the Probability of Collision 20
3.4 Collision Avoidance Measures 21
4 ATTENDANT VESSELS 26
4.1 Introduction 26
4.2 Assessing the Potential for Collision 27
4.3 Minimising the Probability of Collision 28
4.4 Collision Avoidance Measures 31
5 OFFTAKE TANKERS 35
5.1 Introduction 35
5.2 Assessing the Potential for Collision 35
5.3 Minimising the Probability of Collision 36
5.4 Collision Avoidance Measures 39
Figures
Figure 1 Key Elements of Successful Health and Safety Management 2
Addendum
1 Glossary of Terms
3 Systems Audits
5 Field Checklist
11 Contacts
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
This document gives guidance to Dutyholders on reducing the probability
of collisions between vessels and offshore Installations. It has been developed
by United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA), supported by
the Health and Safety Executive and with the assistance of other stakeholders.
Various accident types involving serious injury or loss of life, or which have the
potential to do so, are defined as major accidents under the Safety Case
Regulations (SCRs). SCRs define major accidents as:
d. The failure of life support systems for diving operations in connection with
the Installation, the detachment of a diving bell used for such operations or
the trapping of a diver in a diving bell or other subsea chamber used for
such operations.
e. Any other event arising from work activity involving death or serious
personal injury to five or more persons on the Installation or engaged in an
activity in connection with it.
Regulations 8(1) (c) and (d) of SCR requires that a Dutyholder demonstrates in
their Safety Case that all hazards with the potential to cause a major accident
have been identified, that the risks have been evaluated and that measures have
been or will be taken to reduce the risk to people to As Low As Reasonably
Practicable (ALARP).
The major accident definition (b) in the above Regulations includes impacts
from both infield (attendant) and passing vessels as events likely to involve
major damage to the structure of the Installation. Consequently, all types of
vessels with the potential to impact the Installation must be considered as a
Major Accident Hazard (MAH) under SCR.
Hence, the guidance draws together and summarises current best practice on
avoiding collisions between vessels and Installations. For convenience it
addresses separately:
Contributing Organisations
The following organisations have been consulted in developing this guide:
Chamber of Shipping
Intertanko
ABBREVIATIONS
AHTS Anchor Handling Tug Supply
AIS Automatic Identification of Ships (IMO Resolution 22/9
Annex II)
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practical
ARCS Admiralty Raster Charting Service
UK United Kingdom
UKCS United Kingdom Contential Shelf
UKHO United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
UKOOA United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association
1.2 Responsibilities
Overall responsibility for safe operations within the Safety Zone of any offshore
Installation lies with the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM). The Dutyholder
and the Installation management are responsible for implementing and
maintaining a CRM system appropriate to the Installation and its particular
location. This system should include:
Clear policies
If applicable, the Dutyholder must ensure that any offtake tankers are suitable
for the particular operation and that crews are both adequate and competent for
the peculiarities of the operations at that particular field. Offtake operations
should be covered by field/vessel-specific Joint Operating Procedures (JOPs).
Masters of passing vessels are responsible for the safe operation of their vessels
and for collision avoidance. They are excluded from Installation Safety Zones
but Dutyholders have limited ability to enforce this.
Policy
Organising
Measuring
Performance
Reviewing
Performance
Therefore the Dutyholder should have in place a CRM system as outlined in the
following paragraphs.
1. Procedures for ensuring that the vessels and their critical systems are
fit-for-purpose.
3. Well practiced procedures for dealing with the consequences and providing
a good prospect of rescue and recovery.
4. A system for recording incidents and near misses, identifying trends and
feeding back to the CRM system.
Management
Commitment
Clear Policies
Risk Assessment
Installation Design,
Impact Resistance
Promulgation of
Location
Collision Avoidance
Procedures
Support Vessel
Selection Management
Contingency Plans
Including Evacuation,
Escape and
Recovery (EER)
Consequences Planning
Reporting, Implementation,
Measuring and Reviewing
Performance
Audit
Assess Collision
Probability
Installation Installation
Vulnerability Location
Contingency
Plans
Near Miss
Reporting
Analysis and
Follow-up
Communications
Near Miss
Incident/collision
Prosecution
Closeout
The database prompted the Health and Safety Executive to commission a study
Effective Collision Risk Management (OTO 1999 052) which reviewed and
summarised collision data for the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS).
By its nature the offshore oil and gas industry requires marine support, hence it
is necessary for vessels to approach and work in close proximity to the
Installation. The increasing use of floating production/storage systems and
tanker offtake, introduces close proximity work with large vessels carrying
hazardous cargoes. Many of the UKs oil and gas fields are in busy traffic areas
and virtually all experience some passing marine traffic, albeit rare in more
remote regions. Under the Safety Case Regulations (SCR), ship collision is
considered a Major Accident Hazard (MAH).
Controls include:
Vessel vetting
Effective procedures
For passing vessels the Installation management has fewer options. The risks
can be assessed according to volume and type of marine traffic. When a
relatively high probability of collision exists, then risk reduction measures will
concentrate on promulgating the location widely in the shipping community,
on effective detection, intervention by the emergency rescue and response
provider or vessel and on good communications. Awareness, procedures and
effective escape and rescue provisions will mitigate the consequences.
Appropriate siting and protection of vulnerable areas such as risers and
accommodation and resilience of the overall structure can also mitigate
the effects.
The report estimates that, based upon 1997 frequencies, 30 of the approximately
200 Installations in the UK sector were likely to experience a collision each
year. Although 83% of attendant vessel collisions caused only minor damage,
3% had severe consequences. With the steady progress to larger and more
powerful support vessels, the potential impact energy and resultant seriousness
of the collision increases.
In the North Sea, offshore crude oil offtake has increased from 36% of total
production in 1995 to 47% in 2000. United Kingdom Offshore Operators
Association (UKOOA) estimate United Kingdom (UK) floating production and
offtake at around 1.5 million bpd in 2010 and 1.0 million bpd in 2020. Some
240 developments are likely to come forward in the UK sector for approval in
the next 25 years, the majority of which will use this method for exporting
produced crude oil.
156 incidents were analysed over the period from 1979 to 1998
The 12 collisions involved DP offtakers, but the non-DP set includes several
instances of very high hawser tension (effectively a near miss)
DP operator errors
2.6.1 General
Each Installation will have emergency procedures for actions in the case of a
major accident. This guide is concerned principally with avoiding
vessel/Installation collisions and with the immediate actions following of any
such collision. Emergency procedures will contain actions in case of a vessel
collision and should reflect the very short notice which may be available for
actions and evacuation.
The decision points and actions for a controlled shutdown and evacuation in
the case of drifting vessel threat
Abort parameters
Offtaker specific plans should be held by both units and confirmed by checklist
before each operation. Elements of the plan should be exercised periodically
with dedicated offtakers.
Rapid decisions on muster points away from the likely point of impact
Making sure that lifejackets and/or immersion suits are readily available to
personnel at all times
Evacuation, Escape and Rescue (EER) guidance in the SCR (SI 1992/2885)
Risk assessment techniques can predict the likely collision frequency but a
structured incident and near miss reporting system will identify trends and allow
further controls to be implemented. There is no sector-wide system in place but
Health and Safety Executive collate both collision reports and available near
miss data as part of the vessel/Installation Collision Risk Database.
The reporting and analysis system should be simple to use, be accepted as useful
by personnel rather than a chore. It shall also provide feedback to organisations,
management and front-line personnel and have demonstrated management
support and be non-punitive. Hence on the latter point, published analyses
should be anonymous. The regulatory agencys approach to such a system is
critical to its success but vessel and Installation operators must demonstrate
similar commitment.
In the case of passing vessel incidents, the Dutyholder should take the initiative,
but regulatory agencys (Health and Safety Executive, Department of Industry
(DTI) and Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)) assistance will be required
to follow up with offenders. At the least Dutyholders concerns should be
conveyed to the vessel and its operating management. In extreme cases and for
Safety Zone infringements, prosecution may be possible, but a high standard of
proof is required (refer to the Safety Zone Infringement Report (Addendum 7
for guidance).
Periodically, Dutyholders should use available data to assess and update their
collision avoidance procedures.
2.9 Auditing
All personnel from management through to workers on the Installation need to
have confidence that the CRM system and collision avoidance procedures are
effective. Hence, audits at appropriate intervals are essential to provide
assurance that they are working as intended.
Audits can be carried out by operators personnel familiar with but not involved
in the operation. Alternatively, outside Auditors can be chosen for their
specialist knowledge. In either case it is essential that the Auditor is sufficiently
independent to take an objective view and that he/she reports directly to a senior
level of management.
Templates for system audits are given later in Addendum 3. In broad terms
those audits should review the following:
Contingency plans which address the risks to and rescue of vessel personnel
3 PASSING VESSELS
3.1 Introduction
As mentioned above in Paragraph 2.3, incidence of passing vessel collisions in
the UK sector is very low. To date no passing vessel collision on UKCS has
resulted in the total loss of a vessel or an offshore Installation, although some
have come close and catastrophic collisions involving passing vessels have been
experienced worldwide. Passing vessel collisions are a MAH and must be
addressed accordingly. The operator should have a system in place for
managing these risks.
Design loads which offshore Installations can absorb, are such that an
Installation may not survive impact from anything of greater mass than a large
fishing vessel or small coasting vessel at operating speed. But apart from
choosing the location, the operator has little or no influence over the potential
for passing vessel collisions (refer to Addendum 10).
Fishing activity, both en route to fishing grounds and fishing in the area
It is essential to identify regular traffic passing through the area and to consult
with their representatives. These regular users should then be informed of
subsequent developments.
Fixed Installations in low to medium traffic areas will become known and
even used as navigation reference points. Hence, navigators will be aware of
the Installations presence and take avoiding action. However, this can
increase the probability of collision if the Installation is used as a way point
and/or vessel navigation equipment is slightly inaccurate
Fishing vessels can foul their gear on underwater facilities in oil and gas fields.
In extreme cases this hazards the lives of the fishing vessel crew and can
damage the facilities. Good communications with representative fishing
organisations and effective promulgation will improve awareness and may
lower the frequency of fishing vessel incidents.
3.3.1 Design
During design, it may be possible to adjust the location, it may also be possible
to take advantage of natural features such as shallow water for protection.
In some cases DTLR may require adjustment.
Advance Promulgation
After Emplacement
Some or all of the following should be used depending upon local conditions
and risk assessment:
All Ships Safety Call by Digital Selective Calling (DSC) from Installation
or support vessel followed by Securite messages on Very High Frequency
(VHF) radio
AIS or Racon
Detection
Radar detection has the advantage that the approaching vessels movements can
be plotted and accurately assessed. On the ERRV the radar and visual data is
interpreted by skilled marine personnel. Such personnel may not be present on
an Installation. Tracks of vessels relevant to the Installation can be determined
by integrating radar data with an accurate positioning system such as Global
Positioning System (GPS).
The disadvantages of ERRV detection are that certain sectors may be masked by
the Installation itself (refer to SBV Guidelines Section 3.6.3 on Radar Watch
During Close Standby). If the ERRV covers more than one Installation,
procedures and responsibility for radar surveillance of the approaches to all the
Installations must be clearly understood on vessel and Installations.
Installation mounted radar systems have the advantage of a wider horizon and a
steady platform. Modern systems can transmit the data in real time to the SBV
hence, removing the need for marine specialists on the Installation. Refer to
Addendum 2 for discussion on appropriate detection systems.
In all cases the operator should ensure that detection methods are appropriate to
the probability of collision and potential consequences for the location and the
time required for effective response. They should also ensure that surveillance
data is interpreted by skilled marine personnel (also refer to SBV Guidelines
Section 3.2 on Errant Vessels.)
Communications
Be able to communicate with the OIM and hence alert him of the
approaching threat
Contact other vessels in the area to alert them to the threat and/or
seek assistance
Manning
Both the Installation and the vessel(s) with responsibility for detecting
approaching vessels should be competently manned to carry out their duties.
If detection and communication is the responsibility of a support vessel,
then sufficient watchkeepers with appropriate, verified skills and competence
should be provided. The Dutyholder must be satisfied of this, whether or not he
is directly responsible for providing the vessel (refer to Offshore Support Vessel
(OSV) Code Appendices 2 and 3).
Except in congested waters, the probability of collision is low. None the less
responsibilities in such an event must be clearly understood by both Installation
and support vessel personnel, regardless of the probability. Management must
ensure that responsible personnel are constantly alert. Procedures and
contingency plans should be exercised regularly to achieve this.
Equipment
In the case of a potential collision, the OIM will have to assess many things in a
short time, considerations will include:
What is the size of the vessel and hence potential impact energy?
Are other marine traffic or Installations in the area likely to affect vessels
course and actions?
Each Installation should have in place succinct procedures for action when a
passing vessel poses a collision risk. Contingency planning should include:
The decision points and actions for a controlled shutdown and evacuation in
the case of drifting vessel threat
Estimating the point of impact for given wind and tide conditions and its
effects on the evacuation plan
Actions of attendant vessels should not present hazards to the lives of crews,
increase the probability of collision by modifying the behaviour of the
approaching vessel or impair the attendant vessels ability to rescue personnel if
the collision should occur.
Dutyholder should determine the values (XX) as part of the Safety Case
risk assessment.
Refer also to the EER assessment guidance in the SCRs (SI 1992/2885)
and PFEER.
3.4.5 Follow-up
4 ATTENDANT VESSELS
4.1 Introduction
Cargo operations account for the largest number of recorded infield vessel
collisions in the UK sector, followed by standby vessels, anchor handlers,
diving vessels, and a few survey vessel incidents. Collisions involving the last
two groups were almost exclusively caused by mechanical failure.
Collisions between construction/accommodation vessels and Installations are
almost unknown but are none the less foreseeable. They would probably result
from mooring/mechanical failure or stress of weather.
These results are consistent with exposure. Supply vessels are required to work
very close to Installations in marginal weather conditions as there is an increase
in recorded incidents in late autumn and winter. EERVs although constantly in
the vicinity of UK Installations, only make a close approach to cover overside
working. Collision incidents increases during the summer maintenance season
when more close standby is required. Although diving vessels set up very close
to an Installation, they are less frequent visitors, have more sophisticated control
systems and skilled Bridge Teams familiar with the risks.
Among the more obvious and frequently reported causes of attendant vessel
collisions are:
Equipment failure
Personnel misjudgement
The potential consequences to the Installation of a collision vary with the speed,
size and type of vessel. The point of contact on the vessel is also a factor.
Although this document does not address consequences of collision in detail
following are some considerations:
A large supply vessel at near full speed colliding bow on would cause
severe damage
Anchor handlers are very stiff in the region of the stern roller and can cause
severe local damage even at relatively low speed
The Dutyholder must be satisfied that vessels visiting and/or working at their
Installations are suitable for the task. It is the owners responsibility to provide a
vessel which is fit-for-purpose, given an accurate scope of work.
Strong tides
Excessive overhang
When Dutyholders do not directly charter support vessels, they must still satisfy
themselves as to vessel suitability and capability. They should agree vetting
procedures with the operator or service company responsible for providing the
vessels. Refer to the Guidance for Health and Safety Management Systems
Interfacing issued by Step Change in Safety.
In general vessels should operate in line with the UKOOA OSV Code and/or the
Standby Vessel Operations and Survey Guidelines. Examples of industry
standard codes and inspection/audit formats are given in the Addendum 4.
The Dutyholder should also ensure that the vessel and its crew:
Hold the field/Installation data card (OSV Code Appendix 8 and Appendix E)
Aware of and in possession of any specific CRM procedures for the location
4.3.2 Manning
All field vessels must be manned by marine crews adequate and competent for:
Supply vessels are not normally manned for round the clock cargo operations,
hence if such operations are likely, sufficient bridge and deck personnel must be
carried to ensure adequate rest, including a night master or driving mate.
Similarly, standby vessels are not normally manned for extended round the
clock close standby. If such support is anticipated, then manning should
be adjusted.
As part of the vessel vetting process, manning standards and procedures should
be verified. These should include:
Adequate crew for anchor handling, including round the clock working if
required
Refer to OSV Code Appendices 1 and 2 on Manning and Training and the
International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) CMID.
During field operations the master and Installation personnel should continually
review prevailing conditions and actual operation as an ongoing risk
assessment, factors to be reviewed include:
Human factors, for example likely duration of task, fatigue and rest periods
Obtain permission from the Installation before entering the Safety Zone
Before final approach, set-up the vessel minimum 50m from the proposed
working location in order to assess the actual environmental conditions,
motion and behaviour of the vessel
Do not retain vessel with hoses connected for extended periods when not
transferring cargo
Move outside the Safety Zone when not required in close proximity to the
Installation
Floating production storage and offtake units and drill ships involve particular
marine hazards different from fixed platforms, jack-ups and anchored semi-
submersibles. The peculiarities below may increase the potential for collision with
attendant vessels.
2. Most are moored to a single point and to some extent free to rotate and
align with wind/current/tide.
5. Supply vessels may have problems adopting a weather kindly heading when
working cargo with these Installations.
Generally, such Installations are straight sided, their motion is unpredictable and
may involve unexpected thrusters wash.
Prior to setting up, vessel and Installation personnel should discuss and
understand the particular hazards of the operation
Contingency plans, including a safe escape route for the vessel, in the event
of a rapid change in the situation
Refer to the Evacuation, Escape and Rescue Assessment guidance in the Safety
Case Regulations (SI 1992/2885). Also refer to Paragraph 2.6 of this guide.
4.6 Follow-up
Every incident or potential incident should be reported and followed up.
Only by so doing can the potential for collision be properly assessed
(refer to Paragraph 2.8). In all cases, lessons and outcome should be fed back to
Installation and vessel personnel and managements.
5 OFFTAKE TANKERS
5.1 Introduction
In a few cases, offtake tankers load from fixed platforms but are more are often
associated with FPSO/Floating Storage Units (FSUs), transhipping and
transporting the produced crude oil to shore terminals. Transhipment may take
place via a separate loading buoy or directly from the FPSO/FSU. Having two
large vessels loaded with hazardous cargo in close proximity for extended
periods introduces obvious hazards. Any collision, even at low speed may cause
significant damage with major consequences to life, the environment and the
business of the operator.
Precautions and controls are given in detail in the UKOOA Tandem Loading
Guidelines. Further expert guidance is given in the Oil Companies International
Marine Form (OCIMF) Offshore Safety Loading Guidelines.
Whether support vessels are used for mooring and towing assistance either
for alignment or maintaining tension
Use of heavy fuel in some non-DP tankers again with potential for
power failure
Differences between tanker trade and offshore DP practice; this may affect
bridge and engine room manning practices and DP tanker bridge
management for example a tanker master normally retains control, whereas
in diving vessels dedicated DP operators man the consol; engine room
controls must be manned during offtake to allow for immediate response to
problems
Thruster failure modes as above some are known to fail at full pitch
These factors, the capability of the offtaker together with the operating
standards and procedures should be the subject of risk assessment for each
combination of field and offtaker.
That operating methods and procedures both for the tanker and the offtake
operation are appropriate to the identified hazards of that particular location
The various responsibilities should be set out in the JOPs as should the means of
implementing them.
Overall the vessel equipment and manning should be confirmed as suitable for
and capable of carrying out the transhipment operation in the worst conditions
anticipated.
Detailed guidance has been developed by OCIMF, Intertanko, IMCA and the
UKOOA FPSO Committee. This guidance is listed in Addendum 7 of this
document.
5.3.2 Equipment
Thrusters should normally fail to zero pitch or at last order; where thrusters
fail to full pitch, then procedures for promptly regaining control should be in
force
The offtake tanker should undergo an annual DP trial in the IMCA format
or similar.
5.3.3 Manning
5.3.4 Vetting
5.3.5 FMEA
Communications provisions
Where field operations require use of a TAV, this should be covered in the
procedures. Refer to UKOOA Tandem Loading Guidelines Volume 2.
Each field in which offtake operations take place should have a standard
contingency plan which can be adapted to individual offtakers in consultation
with the master.
Contingency plans for regular offtakers should be included in the JOPs. At the
least, standard and specific plans should address:
Abort parameters
It is only by accurate reporting of all incidents, near misses and close quarters
events that the industries and individual operators can properly assess the level
of risk. When collated and analysed these reports will aid implementation of
further risk reduction and control measures, where they are needed.
Repeat the risk assessment and feedback the results to involved vessels,
vessel operators and field personnel
Addendum 1
Glossary of Terms
The following terms when used in this document have the meaning as
given below.
Damage Criteria
(Installation)
Glossary
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 1-1
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Major Accident
Hazard (MAH) A hazard with the potential for serious personal injury
resulting from: fire/explosion or the release of a
dangerous substance; major damage to the structure or
loss of stability; other hazard with the potential for five
or more casualties. A Major Accident Hazard (MAH) is
defined in the Safety Case Regulations (SCRs). The
principle hazards are summarised in the Purpose and
Scope of this document.
Glossary
Add 1-2 Issue 1 February 2003
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Offtake Tanker
(or Offtaker) A tanker used for exporting produced oil from offshore
fields via loading buoys, subsea connections or direct
from storage vessels. Normally specially modified
and equipped.
Safety Zone The 500m radius exclusion zone established around all
active surface Installations and some subsea Installations
in the UK sector. In the case of floating storage units, it
may be extended to include the swinging area of vessel
and any tandem moored offtaker.
Glossary
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 1-3
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Addendum 2
Promulgation and Detection Passing Vessels
Consider racon
Consider racon
Standard
markings
Consider racon
Note: Any detection systems required by the above should be properly maintained
hence reflecting their importance.
Addendum 3
Systems Audits
The Dutyholder should routinely and regularly audit the collision avoidance system.
Auditors, either internal or external should have sufficient independence to
objectively review working of the systems. They should report directly to the
appropriate level of management.
The formats which follow are intended as templates for auditing arrangements at
individual Installations and fields. They are not definitive and should be adapted to
local requirements.
3. Does Auditor report directly to nominated Manager Auditor should have direct
on effectiveness of collision avoidance system? access to appropriate
management level without
filtering by operations
management.
4. Has an agreed Policy Statement been developed and Should be endorsed by senior
issued to Line and Installation Managers? management.
5. Do Line and Installation Managers understand the Auditor should take samples of
purpose and principles of collision avoidance? level of understanding.
7. Are vessel operators and mobile unit operators fully Review with vessel operators
integrated into the system? Do they understand the and crew.
principles of collision avoidance?
Systems Audits
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 3-1
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
9. Have joint arrangements (eg for shared ERRV Who arranges and charters
coverage or when Dutyholder does not arrange ERRVs?
support vessels) been agreed? Are they understood by
line/Installation managers?
1. Are reporting lines to responsible Manager clear? There should be clear lines
from the Manager responsible
for implementing passing
vessel arrangements.
Systems Audits
Add 3-2 Issue 1 February 2003
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Systems Audits
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 3-3
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
8. Do the procedures address situations when sectors are Are the responsibilities clearly
obscured during close standby and when a single understood?
ERRV covers more than one Installation?
9. Are the procedures reviewed with the ERRV/guard Ensure that vessel personnel
vessel and other support vessels during routine visits? understand their
responsibilities.
10. Who will review the procedures during these visits? Include regular and spot
How does he/she report any concerns to management? /relief vessels.
15. Are contingency plans developed for responding Each Installation crew and
rapidly to the threat of collision? Are they each vessel crew should be
exercised regularly? exercised twice per year.
Systems Audits
Add 3-4 Issue 1 February 2003
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
1. Are reporting lines to responsible Manager clear? There should be clear lines of
reporting and responsibility.
2. Is there a robust system for ensuring the suitability of What are performance
support vessels for the Installation/location and the standards for inspections?
adequacy and competency of the crews?
Pool vessels
Relief vessels
Spot vessels
Systems Audits
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 3-5
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
15. Are support vessels released promptly on completion Check procedures and
of task and not kept standing by unnecessarily? actual activity.
2. Person responsible for auditing the system nominated? Auditor should report to
senior management.
3. Is there a robust system for ensuring the suitability of Procedures and performance
offtake tankers for the location and the adequacy and standards for vetting.
competency of the crews?
Systems Audits
Add 3-6 Issue 1 February 2003
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Crews
6. Who charters offtake tankers? Do they understand the What is the relationship with the
importance of vessel suitability and crew competence? Dutyholder?
21. Are incident and near misses lessons discussed with and
fed back to Installation and vessel personnel?
Systems Audits
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 3-7
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Systems Audits
Add 3-8 Issue 1 February 2003
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Addendum 4
Vessel Suitability and Inspection Formats
The format can be obtained from UKOOA or IMCA (refer to Addendum 11).
2 FITNESS-FOR-PURPOSE INSPECTION
When a vessel is chartered for a specific project or task then a
fitness-for-purpose inspection is recommended. This should cover at least:
Adequacy and redundancy of the vessel propulsion and control systems for
the project in anticipated operating conditions
The M139 format is available from IMCA, refer to Addendum 11 for contacts.
Addendum 5
Field Checklist
1 PRE-FIELD ENTRY
(OSV CODE APPENDIX 11)
1.1 Vessel
1. Weather conditions are suitable.
10. Notification has been given and received of any expected helicopter
movements.
1.2 Installation
1. The required working zone alongside is clear of other vessels.
2. All non-essential overside discharges in the working zone have been stopped.
Field Checklists
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 5-1
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
No Check Completed
Yes/No
2. FPSO to confirm its heading and that the heading will not alter or be altered
during supply vessel operations.
Field Checklists
Add 5-2 Issue 1 February 2003
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Field Checklists
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 5-3
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Arrival Checklist
Offtaker/Installation contingency
Up-to-date charts of largest scale in use
plans confirmed
Tidal and current data available and checked Deck crew to stations
Field Checklists
Add 5-4 Issue 1 February 2003
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Arrival Checklist
Master: Date:
Departure Checklist
Disconnect sequence and departure track agreed DP operators (if applicable) identified,
and advised to support vessel and control room responsibilities understood
Field Checklists
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 5-5
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Departure Checklist
Required lights/shapes
Tidal and current data available and checked
exhibited/available
Master: Date:
Field Checklists
Add 5-6 Issue 1 February 2003
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
No
Does the vessel have a projected CPA of <2nm?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Is radio contact made with vessel?
No
Monitor situation closely and continue attempts to contact vessel.
Inform OIM. Call off close standby. Initiate emergency response.
Attempt to intercept vessel and warn-off by all available means.
No
Does vessel still pose a collision risk?
Yes
Field Checklists
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 5-7
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
Addendum 6
Installation Data Cards
All offshore fields and Installations in the UK sector are required to produce a
data card which includes:
Location
Marine coordination
The Dutyholder is responsible for providing visiting vessels with the data card.
(refer to OSV Code Section 2.2).
Addendum 7
Incident and Near Miss Reporting Formats
Below are examples of such formats which should be consulted for possible
use where appropriate. Contact the individual organisation to access the format, refer
to Addendum 11.
Thruster-assisted vessels
DP vessels
Addendum 8
References Including Relevant Codes and Regulations
3 GENERAL
1. Task-based Risk Assessment Step Change in Safety.
4 PASSING VESSELS
1. Automatic identification of ships
5 ATTENDANT VESSELS
1. Guidelines for the Safe Management and Operation of Offshore Support
Vessels (UKOOA/CoS).
Background Report:
Volume 1:
Volume 2:
Addendum 9
Passing Vessel Ship Collision Assessment
1 ROUTE DATABASES
COAST gives the position of the shipping routes utilised by shipping in UK
waters and the North Sea, the volumes of traffic, the size and speed of vessels
using each route, and the width of the routes. It was developed by CorrOcean
Safetec for UK Health and Safety Executive, DTLR and UKOOA. The main
data sources used include:
Route waypoints
The programme may also be linked to a graphical output package that allows
the identified routes to be automatically plotted on Admiralty Raster Charting
Service (ARCS) hydrographic charts.
2 COLLISION MODELS
There are several commercial ship/Installation collision models that can be used
to calculate the frequency of a passing vessel colliding with an Installation.
Those currently available and the organisations which developed them include:
CRASH DNV
COLRISK Anatec
In part, the collision models use data contained in the shipping traffic database
to predict the frequency of a ship/Installation collisions. It is important that the
model uses traffic data which is accurate for the existing or proposed location of
the Installation under consideration.
The probability that the vessel fails to recover from its collision course
The probability that the Installation or ERRV fails to attract the vessels
attention in time to avoid collision
Addendum 10
Vessel Impacts Guidance on Loads and
Consequences
1 INTRODUCTION
This addendum gives a brief overview of impact energies to be used in
assessing consequences and directs the user to appropriate references to be used
in calculating the effects of vessel impact on the Installation. It also identifies
gaps in current knowledge in evaluating the effect of vessel impact on topside
equipment. The text applies to fixed as well as floating Installations.
2 LOAD/IMPACT ENERGY
The following text applies to the impact of attendant vessels with fixed
platforms (such as jackets and jack-ups) and compliant Installations such as
articulated columns, semi-submersibles and Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs).
They do not apply to shuttle tanker collisions. Energies to be used in
FPSO/shuttle tanker collisions are discussed in Paragraph 3.3.
Since 1988, it has been standard practice to design for an impact energy
of 14MJ for sideways impact and 11MJ for bow or stern impact (References 3,
4, 11, 12, 15).
1 2
E =
2
(M + a ) v
Where: M = the displacement in tonnes
A = added mass of vessel (0.1M for bow or stern impact and 0.4 for
side impact) and
On impact, the vessel and platform will absorb part of the energy as they deform
elastically and plastically (and in fracture if there is such failure). The rest will
remain as kinetic energy when the vessel and part of the fixed platform move
together. At the end of the event the energy spent in elastic deformation will be
converted to kinetic as the vessel rebounds. The rebound is largely due to the
global bending of fixed platform. In the case of floating units, rebound is
less significant.
Plastic deformation and fracture can affect structural integrity and buoyancy/
stability in the case of floating units. They can also affect the integrity of
the equipment supported by the affected members or located behind them.
As the platform bends and then rebounds, the accelerations at deck level can be
significant and equipment can be affected. The following paragraphs briefly
consider the effects of vessel impact on structural integrity, equipment and
buoyancy/stability.
3 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
3.1 Fixed Structures
Assessment of structural damage due to impact is normally calculated using the
force indentation curves developed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV). They are
presented in References 4 and 5. A more recent set of curves are presented in
Reference 16. These references also provide guidance in using the curves. They
were developed for an impact of a 5000t vessel with infinitely stiff vertical
cylinders of 1.5 and 10m diameters. Even though the applicability of these
curves is limited, they are still being used widely. Unless it is certain that the
use of these of these curves and the analysis method used provides conservative
results, it is prudent to ensure that the energy absorbed by the Installation is not
less than 4MJ (Reference 11).
3.3 FPSOs
Analysis of recent collision incidents between shuttle tankers and FPSOs
indicate that impact energy of 40MJ is foreseeable. The curves presented in
References 4, 5 and 16 cannot be used in designing or checking for collision
damage.
4 CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Equipment which can be Damaged or Affected by Collision
Impacted directly:
Loss of power
Loss of control
Loss of stability/buoyancy
Accelerations significantly greater than 0.1g can cause problems for equipment.
There are no suitable guidelines available to assess the vulnerability of offshore
equipment to such accelerations.
1. When:
5 REFERENCES
1. Amdahl, Jorgen and Eberg, Ernst: Ship Collision with Offshore Structures,
Structural Dynamics-EURODYN93 Moan et al (eds) 1993 Balkema
Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410336 I.
10. EQE International Limited: Strong Vibration Working Group Phase II JIP:
Final Report, Report No 179-04 R-05 Issue 1 (25 May 2000).
13. Lloyds Register for Shipping: Boat Impact Study, Health and Safety
Executive (OTH 85 224).
17. Ronalds, B F: Vessel Impact Design for Steel Jackets (OTC 6384) 1990.
19. Visser, V (Pim): Ship Collision and Capacity of Brace Members of Fixed
Steel Offshore Platforms, Health and Safety Executive, OTO Report 2002.
Addendum 11
Contacts
www.oilandgas.org.uk
www.hse.gsi.gov.uk
www.mcga.gov.uk
Contacts
Issue 1 February 2003 Add 11-1
Ship/Installation Collision Avoidance
4 IMCA
International Marine Contractors Association
Carlyle House
235 Vauxhall Bridge Road
London SW1V 1EJ
UK
www.imca-int.com
www.errva.org.uk
www.witherbys.com
7 INTERTANKO
International Association of Independent Tanker Owners
Bogstadveien 27B
PO Box 5804 Majorstua
0308 OSLO Tel: +47 2212 2640
Norway Fax: +47 2212 2641
www.intertanko.com
Contacts
Add 11-2 Issue 1 February 2003