FLOATER RESPONSES: LIFE-CYCLE CONSIDERATIONS OFF WESTERN

AUSTRALIA
R. Nishanth & Kurian V. J., Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia
A. Whyte, Curtin University, Australia

ABSTRACT
Recent natural-gas discoveries off the coast of Western Australia, whilst complementing resources
opportunities in the state, require expert input to optimise life-cycle design of related offshore
infrastructure. Floating platforms, pivotal to exploitation, are stabilised by mooring-line seabed
connections but are subject to wave unpredictability and complex mooring-line behaviour which
complicate dynamic analyses. Current determination of floater responses and mooring line tensions,
seldom consider the full range of design loads, stiffness of mooring lines, and environmental conditions
across an expected 30-year cradle-to-grave life-cycle; facility maintenance considerations seldom extend
to encompass (essential) decommissioning. Determination of whole-life strategic floater responses data
in offshore locations is extremely desirable. Facility (mooring line) operation and maintenance
predictive-programmes towards proactive retrospective refit/repair, based upon accurate data-sets, can
save huge amounts of money and time; given-over currently to reactive remedy works. The work
presented here describes an early stage research project, and offers literature and secondary research
towards the development of an optimum (with respect to time, cost and accuracy) method for calculating
life-cycle dynamic floater responses/mooring line tensions off the coast of Western Australia.

1. INTRODUCTION decisions are taken based on effects in only one

Every offshore structure has a life, starting with
the planning, design or development of the
structure, followed by resource extraction,
production, use or consumption and finally end of
life activities including decommissioning or
conversion of structure while the oil field is nearly
exploited. The life-cycle costing method is an
economic evaluation technique which is well
suited to compare alternative designs with
different cost expenditures over the project life.
Generally, life cycle cost is defined as sum of all
costs over the full life span of a system, which
includes purchase price, installation cost,
operating costs, maintenance and upgrade costs,
and remaining value at the end of ownership or its
useful life. The changes made in one phase of life
cycle of an offshore structure can have a drastic
effect in the succeeding phases. For example,
reduction in initial cost of the structure may result
in higher maintenance cost or vice versa,
production cost of FPSO can be higher when
compared to the cost of oil available from the field
etc. Hence LCCA should be performed early in
the design process while there is still a chance to
refine the design to ensure a reduction in life cycle
costs. Design of each phase needs to be done
carefully and well planned as the safety of
structure is very important in this case. If
part of the life cycle, it may do more harm than
good. LCCA assists in choosing the conceptual
design which is best in both performance and
safety. Hence a thorough life cycle assessment of
the FPSO is required to have a safe and successful
oil production and consumption.
In order to have a sustainable development,
different tools and methods have to be developed
to ensure the minimal environmental impacts like
depletion of natural resources or environmental
pollution during the human activities for the
production of goods and services and in the
recycling of products at its end of life. During the
life of an FPSO, it can cause various
environmental impacts like the spilling of oil
during drilling or production stage, which can lead
to damage of life in sea and gas emitted from the
FPSO causing air pollution. There are various
other impacts which have to be taken care of
properly, which otherwise could lead to the
impairment of environment factors, such as
climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion,
tropospheric ozone creation, eutrophication,
acidification, toxicological stress on human health
and ecosystems, and the depletion of resources,
water use, land use, and noise among others.
Hence there exists an obvious reason to be
practical and to provide complimentary insights,
apart from current regulatory practices, to help
reduce such impacts [1]. So by conducting a Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA), the potential
environmental impacts that are linked to the use of
FPSO in oil production like the identification of
opportunities for pollution prevention and
reductions in resource consumption has to be
considered.
Some studies were conducted on the life cycle cost
computation of the offshore structures previously.
Woodward [2] defined the elements of life cycle
costing and gave a procedure for calculating the
basic life cycle cost of a structure. Turan et al [3]
studied the effect of change in structural weight of
ship due to optimization experiments on life cycle
cost. The relation between structural variables and
relevant cost/earning elements were explored.
Gratsos et al [4] investigates, through a
cost/benefit analysis, how the average annual cost
of ship transport varies with the corrosion
additions elected at the design stage. The results
of this study clearly indicated that ships built with
corrosion allowances dictated by experience,
adequate for the ships design life, when all factors
have been taken into account, have a lower Life
Cycle cost per annum (AAC) for the maintenance
of the integrity of their structure. Nam et al [5]
developed a new life cycle cost methodology with
the risk expenditure taken in to account for
comparative evaluation of offshore process
options at their conceptual design stage. The risk
expenditure consisted of the failure risk
expenditure and the accident risk expenditure.
The former accounted for the production loss and
the maintenance expense due to equipment
failures while the latter reflected the asset damage
and the fatality worth caused by disastrous
accidents such as fire and explosion. It was
demonstrated that the new LCC methodology was
capable of playing the role of a process selection
basis in choosing the best of the liquefaction
process options including the power generation
systems for a floating LNG (Liquefied natural gas)
production facility. Thalji et al [6] conducted a
case study on innovative vertical axis wind turbine
concept to generate a scalable and customer
oriented life cycle costing model for the same.
The cost analysis of the wind turbine concept
covers the whole life processes, manufacturing,
installation, operating and maintenance. Santos et
al [7] developed a theoretical methodology to
study the life cycle cost of floating offshore wind
farms. Six life cycle phases needed to install a
floating offshore wind farm was defined:
conception and definition, design and
development, manufacturing, installation,
exploitation and dismantling. They suggested that
the proposed methodology could be used to
calculate the real cost of constructing the floating
offshore wind farms. An economic analysis of
Liquified Natural Gas FPSO using probabilistic
approach was done by Edwin et al [8] with the key
sensitive parameters as LNG price and feed stock
price.
The different phases of life cycle assessment are
explained in the following studies and its
significance in the different stages of life cycle of
a structure. Rebitzer et al [1] introduced Life-
Cycle Analysis (LCA) frameworks and procedures,
and outlined how to define and model a products
life-cycle. Application of life-cycle analyses in
industry towards policy making was also
discussed. They concluded that modelling life
cycle inventories is a robust, and possibly unique,
approach to evaluating, together with the life cycle
impact assessment phase the environmental
impacts of products in a holistic wayas required
by sustainable development. Pennington et al [9]
discussed the phases of LCA as each step can
attribute different impacts on life such as
environmental pollution, associated wastes,
depletion of natural resources etc. Michihiro et al
[10] developed a software and database for LCI
analysis of a ship based on a detailed survey of
actual processes of shipbuilding and ship-
operation. The database includes process data
with respect to material processing in typical
shipbuilding processes. Averaged data of actual
operational conditions of typical ocean-going
cargo ships is provided; it includes the data of two
tankers, two bulk carriers and two container ships
with different sizes, and an LNG carrier. The
software analyzes environmental impacts of a ship
throughout the stages of shipbuilding, operating,
dismantling and recycling activities based on LCI
data. It also presents a list of kinds of materials to
be recycled and hazardous chemicals as well as
their quantities and locations in a ship. ISO 14040
[11] provide standard of practices adopted for
establishing principles and framework of LCA
while ISO 14041 [12] illustrates goal and scope
definition and inventory analysis. ISO 14042 [13]
provides standard of practice adopted for life cycle
impact assessment while ISO 14043 [14]
particularizes life cycle interpretation phase.
2. LIFE CYCLE OF FPSO
Every FPSO has a life , starting with the
conception and definition of FPSO,
design/development of the FPSO for serviceability,
produc-ability and safety, followed by extracting
the resources and delivering the FPSO by
conducting fabrication, installation of FPSO to the
offshore field, maintenance, inspection, repair,
support and modification of the FPSO or
equipment throughout its operational life and
finally after the design period of usually 30 years,
the FPSO is removed from the offshore field or
decommissioned or converted for other purpose.
All activities in the life cycle of the FPSO may
result in environmental impacts either due to
depletion of resources or emissions of substances
into the natural environment causing air pollution
and water pollution. This is studied under life
cycle assessment. Also changes made in one life
cycle influence other stages as well. Figure 1
shows the lifecycle of FPSO. Hence life cycle
cost analysis if performed early can assist in
refining the design of FPSO and reducing the life
cycle costs. So by conducting a Life Cycle
Analysis, the potential environmental impacts that
are linked to the use of FPSO in oil drilling like
the identification of opportunities for pollution
prevention and reductions in resource
consumption is considered while calculating the
entire product life cycle cost.
Figure 1. Life cycle of FPSO
3. METHODS/ TOOLS
In conducting the life cycle economic and
environmental assessment of the FPSO, the
following two methods are used: (i) Life Cycle
Costing (LCCA) analysis, a method for calculating
the economic value of FPSO throughout its life;
and (ii) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a method
for calculating the environmental impacts of FPSO
throughout its life.
a) Life Cycle Costing Analysis for FPSOs in WA
Life cycle costing is a process of economic
analysis to assess the life cycle cost of a product or
a project over its life cycle or a portion thereof.
The main objective of LCC analysis is to quantify
the total cost of ownership of a product or a
project throughout its full life cycle, which
includes research and development, construction,
operation and maintenance, and disposal or reuse.
Life cycle costing is a concept used for making
decisions between alternative options, optimizing
design, scheduling maintenance and revamping
project planning. The option identified with the
lowest total present value is the most economical
or least cost option/ approach [15]. The two major
factors that influence such options are scalability
and customizability and thus such new concepts
need powerful life cycle cost models that can cope
with the influence of scale and customer
requirements on the whole life cycle [6]. The
costs of materials and services will be collected
based on Australian standards and the whole life
costs of the FPSO will be computed.
The life cycle process for calculating the total life
cost is break down to conception and definition,
design and development, manufacturing,
installation, exploitation and dismantling/reuse.
The life cycle process for calculating the total life
cost of FPSO is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Life Cycle Phases for Cost Calculation
The whole life costs of FPSO are the sum of costs
of conception and definition (C1), cost of design
and development (C2), cost of manufacturing (C3),
cost of installation (C4), cost of exploitation (C5)
and cost of dismantling or reuse (C6) [7]. Hence
the total life cycle cost (LCC) can be calculated as
LCC = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 + C5 + C6
Each of these costs should be subdivided in
subcostal and should be analyzed separately and
there by LCC analysis can be applied for
Selection, evaluation and comparison of
alternative designs of FPSO
Selection, evaluation and comparison of
replacement options, life extension or disposal
of aging parts or equipment
ID of cost effective improvements in FPSO
Assessment of economic viability of project
Evaluation and comparison of alternative
strategies in maintenance, replacement of
components etc. in FPSO. [7]
b) Life Cycle Assessment of FPSOs in WA
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodological
framework for estimating and assessing the
environmental impacts attributable to the life cycle
of a product, such as climate change, stratospheric
ozone depletion, tropospheric ozone creation,
eutrophication, acidification, toxicological stress
on human health and ecosystems, the depletion of
resources, water use, land use, noise and others [1].
Proper life cycle assessment of FPSO will help in
minimizing the magnitude of pollution in the
Timor Sea, conserving its non- renewable
resources and ecological systems, developing and
utilizing cleaner technologies, maximizing
recycling of materials and waste and in applying
the most appropriate pollution prevention
techniques.
LCA should be used in the time of development of
a project, improvement of a project and
comparison of different projects to achieve same
purpose. Depending upon the problem in hand,
there are different approaches to conduct the life
cycle assessment depending on the perspectives
and requirements of the researcher or practitioner
[1]. In LCA, the emissions and the consumption
of resources, as well as other environmental
exchanges at every relevant stages in a products
life cycle from cradle to grave- including
conception and definition, design and
development, manufacturing, installation,
exploitation and dismantling/reuse is tabulated.
The complete life cycle together with its
associated material and energy flows is called
product system. After the compilation, tabulation
and preliminary analysis of all environmental
exchanges like emissions and resource
consumptions, called the life cycle inventory
(LCI), it is necessary to interpret the potential
impacts associated with such exchanges with the
natural environment which is called life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA) [1]. In order to
calculate the life cycle environmental impact of
the FPSO, the four step process described by ISO
14040 [11] is followed as mentioned in Figure 3.
The goal and scope definition of an LCA provides
a description of the product system in terms of the
system boundaries and a functional unit. The
functional unit is a quantitative description of the
service performance (the needs fulfilled) of the
investigated product system [1]. Life Cycle
Inventory Analysis is a methodology for
estimating the consumption of resources and the
quantities of waste flows and emissions caused by
or otherwise attributable to a products life cycle.
The processes within the life cycle and the
associated material and energy flows as well as
other exchanges are modelled to represent the
product system and its total inputs and outputs
from and to the natural environment, respectively.
This results in a product system model and an
inventory of environmental exchanges related to
the functional unit [1]
Figure 3. Phases and Applications of LCA [11]
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) provides
indicators and the basis for analysing the potential
contributions of the resource extractions and
waste/emissions in an inventory to a number of
potential impacts. The result of the LCIA is an
evaluation of a product life cycle, on a functional
unit basis, in terms of several impacts categories
such as climate change, toxicological stress, noise,
water use etc. and in some cases in an aggregated
way such as carcinogenic effects, noise etc. Life
cycle interpretation occurs at every stage in an
LCA. If two product alternatives are compared
and one alternative shows higher consumption of
each material and of each resource, an
interpretation purely based on the LCI can be
conclusive [1].
4. CONCLUSION & FUTURE WORKS
In order to develop a good performing FPSO, in
addition to the technical aspects of FPSO
including its motion and loads acting on it, a
thorough study of the economic and
environmental impacts should also be conducted.
The present work is aimed as a stepping stone in
the development of a full specification for a cost
effective, minimal environmental impact and
quality performance routine for FPSO. The work
is in the initial stage, developing a methodology
for calculating the optimum motion of FPSO and
the mooring system for the Australian deep waters
and the life cycle aspects of the FPSO is intended
to be studied in the method as described here.
REFERENCES
1. Rebitzer G., et al, Life cycle assessment Part 1,
No. 30, pp 701 - 720, 2004.
2. Woodward D. G., Life cycle costing- theory,
information acquisition and application,
International journal of Project Management,
Vol.15, No.6, pp 335-344, 1997.
3. Turan O., Olcer A. I., lazakis I., Rigo P.and
Caprace J. D., Maintenance/ repair and
production - oriented life cycle cost/ earning
model for ship structural optimisation during
conceptual design stage, ships and offshore
structures, pp 1 - 19, 2008.
4. Grastos G. A., Psaraftis H. N. and Zachariadis
P., Life Cycle Cost of Maintaining the
Effectiveness of a Ship's Structure and
Environmental Impact of Ship Design
Parameters, RINA Conference on the Design
and Operation of Bulk Carriers, Athens,
Greece, pp 1 - 16, 2009.
5. Nam K., Chang D., Chang K., Rhee T. and
Lee I. B., Methodology of Lifecycle Cost with
Risk Expenditure for Offshore Process at
Conceptual Design Stage, Energy, No. 36, pp
1554 - 1563, 2011.
6. Thalji I., Liyanage J. P. and Hjollo M.,
Scalable and Customer - Oriented Life Cycle
Costing Model: A Case Study of an Innovative
Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Concept (Case -
VAWT), Proceedings of the Twenty - second
ISOPE Conference, Rhodes, Greece, pp 423 -
425, 2012.
7. Santos L. C., Gareia G. P. and Casas V. D.,
Methodology to study the life cycle cost of
floating offshore wind farms, Energy Procedia,
pp 1- 8, 2013.
8. Edwin L. N. and Sunday I. S., Economic
Analysis of Liquefied Natural Gas Floating
Production Storage and Offloading Plant
(LNG FPSO) Using Probabilistic Approach,
Advances in Petroleum Exploration and
Development Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 42-50, 2013.
9. Pennington D. W., Potting J., Finnveden G.,
Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T. and Rebitzer
G, Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current
impact assessment practice, Environment
Internaional, No. 30, pp 721 - 739, 2004.
10. Michihiro K., Katsuhide H., Akio A, Takeshi
N. and Hiroaki T, Development of LCA
Software for Ships and LCI Analysis based on
Actual Shipbuilding and operation, National
Maritime Research Institute, Japan.
11. International Standard ISO 14040,
Environmental management systems -
requirements with guidance for use, 1996.
12. International Standard ISO 14041,
Environmental management - life cycle
assessment - goal and scope definition and
inventory analysis, 1998.
13. International Standard ISO 14042,
Environmental management - life cycle
assessment - life cycle impact assessment,
2000.
14. International Standard ISO 14043,
Environmental management - life cycle
assessment - life cycle interpretation, 2000.
15. Oeveran K. V. and Wilks M., Life cycle
costing qualification document - Rev 3, pp 1 -
7, 2009