Tanker Offtake System for Arctic: Experience and Challenges
Alex Iyerusalimskiy, Marine Engineering Lead
The United States Association for Energy Economics Conference (28 – 31 July 2013)
Cautionary Statement
The following presentation includes forward-looking statements. These
statements relate to future events, such as anticipated revenues, earnings,
business strategies, competitive position or other aspects of our operations or
operating results. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what
is expressed or forecast in such forward-looking statements. These statements
are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks,
uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict such as oil and gas
prices; refining and marketing margins; operational hazards and drilling risks;
potential failure to achieve, and potential delays in achieving expected
reserves or production levels from existing and future oil and gas development
projects; unsuccessful exploratory activities; unexpected cost increases or
technical difficulties in constructing, maintaining or modifying company
facilities; international monetary conditions and exchange controls; potential
liability for remedial actions under existing or future environmental
regulations or from pending or future litigation; limited access to capital or
significantly higher cost of capital related to illiquidity or uncertainty in the
domestic or international financial markets; general domestic and
international economic and political conditions, as well as changes in tax,
environmental and other laws applicable to ConocoPhillips’ business and
other economic, business, competitive and/or regulatory factors affecting
ConocoPhillips’ business generally as set forth in ConocoPhillips’ filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
2
Introduction
 Two strong trends in world maritime trade can be
highlighted over several decades:
 Seaborne oil trade is steadily growing (might imply increased risk)
 Oil spills are continue to decline (encouraging)
1970’s
146 bbl/mbbl
3
2012
0.4 bbl/mbbl
Introduction Continued
4
4
A Success Story
Varandey Year-Round Arctic Marine Crude Oil Offtake System
The following technical presentation is only intended to provide an example of ConocoPhillips' past experience in Russia.
5
Varandey Project Overview
LUKOIL and ConocoPhillips Joint Venture NaryanMarNefteGaz (NMNG)*
Approximate
seasonal ice
boundary
Open Water Tankers
to Market
Transshipment Point
Murmansk
Varandey
Source: Design Challenges for Large Arctic Crude Oil Tanker by A. Iyerusalimskiy and P. Noble. ICETECH 2010
*ConocoPhillips is no longer a partner in NMNG Joint Venture
6
Varandey Project Overview: Key Components
Arctic Shuttle Tanker
BLS
7
FOIROT
FSO
Icebreaker Shuttle Tanker: Key Project Element
 Design Basis
 Environment conditions
 Dynamic area of first-year pack ice in the extreme years up to 1.5 m
 The ridge thickness may reach 9 – 10 m
 Ice drift of various directions at FOIROT up to 1.5 – 2.0 knots
 Air temperature as low as -40oC with -45oC as extreme value
 Wave height at loading point may exceed 4.2 m
 The ice transit distance may exceed 250 nautical miles
 Reliable and safe ice transit to ice-free Murmansk year-round
 No icebreaker support on transit route
 Reliable and safe operations at the FOIROT year-round
 Ice management and tug assistance at the FOIROT are provided
8
Arctic Design Challenges
 Common design issues to be addressed for any vessel intended for
Arctic operations
Design
Basis
Technical
Requirements,
Specification
Arctic Features
Ice
performance
Icebreaking concept and
propulsion system
Hull form, Resistance
and Powering
Winterization
Ice Class and hull strengthening
9
Varandey-Specific Arctic Design Challenges
Maneuverability
Ice
pressure
Backing
performance
There was no
precedent
for an icebreaking
crude oil tanker
of this size
No icebreaker
support
Design
Work on
schedule
10
No
trafficability
data
No full-scale
performance
data
Very limited
full-scale
Ice loads data
Ice Performance and Hull Form
11
Load case
Design
Ballast
Comments
Ahead
2.8 knots
3 knots
Astern
2.95 knots
3.4 knots
1.5 m level
ice + 20 cm
of snow
Propulsion and Power
ARC 6 Required
• 23 MW+
12
Initial Ice Model
Test
• 17 MW
Specified and Class
Approved Power
• 20 MW
• Ice Q = 1.5
bollard Q
Propulsion, Power and Rules
 Rules on ice class selection need to be validated for large ships
 Arc 6: Ramming is not allowed
 Arc 7: Ramming is allowed
 Eliminating the necessity of backing and ramming provides the
opportunity to lower the ice class from Arc 7 down to Arc 6 without
compromising safety, but rather increasing it
13
Ice Class and Hull Strengthening
 The azimuthing propulsion concept improves maneuverability and
provides good steering ability while going astern
 Increased use of backing and Icebreaking astern in ice
 Changed the icebreaking pattern around the hull
 Most classification societies have not yet fully adopted changes reflecting this
new icebreaking technique
Russ ian M aritim e Re giste r o f Shipp ing LU 6 Ice Clas s Re quirem ents
A c tiv e ic e b r e a k in g a n d h ig h lo a d s z o n e
Podded
C-I
B -I
B-II
A I-I
B-III
M ost
s tre n g th e n e d re g io n
A-I
AI-III
Specifi catio n Ice Stre ngthenin g Requ ireme nts
C o n v e n tio n a l
A-I
AI-I
AI -II I
14
B-I
AI-I
B -II
AI-III
B-III
A-I+
Least
s tre n g th e n e d re g io n
TU R N IN G D IR EC TIO N
Varandey Icebreaking Tanker: State of the Art




15
Double hull, twin screw icebreaker tanker is the largest vessel for Arctic today
Ice performance equal or exceeds most of modern non-nuclear icebreakers
Utilizes bi-directional concept: equal icebreaking ahead and astern
New Technology: AZIPODs; Ice Loads Monitoring System
Length Overall
257.0 m
Length b.p.
234.7 m
Beam
34.0 m
Design draft
14.0 m
Deadweight/Displacement
71254/92047 MT
Open water trial speed
15.8 knots at 15.7 MW shaft power
Icebreaking capability at 3 kn
1.5 m of ice + 20 cm of snow
Propulsion system
Diesel-electric, 2 X Azimuthal Units
Total installed power
27,300 kW
Propulsion power
2 X 10,000 kW
Cargo oil tank capabilities (approx.)
85,000 m3
RS Class
KM, *ARC6, 2AUT1 “OIL TANKER” (ESP)
Effective Ice Loads Monitoring System
 Purpose:
 Risk mitigation and safety of
ice navigation
 Potential operational cost
reductions
 Validation of the criteria and
requirements to be used for
new Arctic ship
 Validation of ice stress
monitoring system concept
 Ice loads statistics collection
and operational data analysis
System Bridge Monitor
 System developed by
 ConocoPhillips
 ABS
 Samsung Heavy Industry
16
Source: The Interim Results of Long-term Ice Loads
Monitoring on the Large Arctic Tanker by A. Iyerusalimskiy
at.al. POAC 2011
Ice Loads Monitoring System
Maximum Bow Pressure Area Curve and Force
10
Pressure_B123934
Pressure_B130813
Force_B224959
Force_B124524
Force_B123934
Force_B130813
Limiting Pressure
Max Force
Pressure (MPa)
2.536 MN Max Force
1
0.1
0.1
1
10
Area (m^2)
17
100
Varandey Experience and Learning
 Three 70,000 DWT Arctic tankers have been delivered by SHI
shipyard in 2008-2009 and chartered by NMNG
 First crude oil lifted on June 08, 2008 (five-year operation)
 Never missed the cargo (Some offloading delays at FOIROT)
 Over 500 crude oil lifts performed (over 250 MM bbl)
 No icebreaker escort ever required for transit, but ice management
is used at offloading terminal
 The vessel meets specification requirements, but operational
performance significantly exceed predictions
18
120
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Percentage of maximum
distance of the year, %
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
19
Jul
Speed, knots
Varandey Experience and Learning: Average Transit Speeds
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average winter
Severe winter
Speed, Severe winter
Speed, Actual. Laden
Speed Average winter
Varandey: Lessons Learned
 The challenges and the lessons of the Varandey project could be
projected on the design process and operations of other large ships
built for a similar purpose
 Several factors found crucial for Arctic Tanker Offtake System
development:
 Vessel concept should be developed at the early stage of the project
 State of the art icebreaker tanker requires advanced training of the ship drivers
and engineering crew
 Near real time ice information for transit planning greatly mitigates the risk and
improves the efficiency
 Learning ice regime, currents, tides and other local factors specific to offloading
locations is necessary
20
Conclusions and Thank You
21