1. Introduction
With the increase in the need for more energy sources, fossil fuel has recently had huge competition as a non-renewable energy source with other renewable energy sources. However, some of these newer platforms have extended technologies that stem from the existing offshore platforms used in oil and gas exploration. Currently, there are advances made in ocean engineering which include a variety of innovative offshore structure designs, ranging from fixed platforms to floating platforms [1,2,3,4,5]. Some of these structures include the deep-water semisubmersible platforms, jack-up rigs, floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs), FPS (floating production systems) units, floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) units, FSO (floating storage and offloading) units, FSU (floating storage units), FPU (floating production units), FDPSO (floating drilling production storage and offloading), MODU (mobile offshore production unit) and FLNG (floating liquid natural gas vessel) [6,7,8,9,10]. However, there are other applications for offshore platforms, such as dynamic positioning, exploratory activities, drilling/production, navigation, (un)loading ships, fluid transport, and bridge support [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Offshore petroleum structures are utilized for a wide range of purposes and in a wide range of sea depths and environments around the world, hence they need supporting attachments such as drilling marine risers [17,18,19,20,21,22,23], composite production risers [24,25,26,27,28,29,30], marine hoses [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40] and mooring lines [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Figure 1 shows different fixed and floating offshore platforms operating in varying water depths (see details in the caption).
Offshore platforms could be used as artificial reefs for many years, as they have also been used in a variety of aquatic environments. As a result, their design and upkeep are extremely difficult. Hence, it is pertinent that the design and maintenance of offshore structures are well considered, to prevent early decommissioning, high risks of corrosion, oil spillage, and other irreversible environmental damages. The applications of these offshore structures require different activities for proper equipment selection [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57], design of platform types [58,59,60,61,62,63,64], engineering management of well bores [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73] and other drilling/production methods [74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. Offshore oil production is one of the most visible of these applications, and it provides a significant task to the product designer or offshore engineer [81,82,83]. The design considerations include environmental loadings [84,85,86,87,88], hydrodynamics [89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96], hydroelasticity [97], corrosion [98], failure analysis [99], ocean wave mechanics [100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108], fluid content loadings [109,110,111,112,113,114,115], fatigue limits [116,117,118,119,120], reliability [121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128], etc. Therefore, the designer must ensure that there is safety, stability, high fatigue resistance with a long service life. The design with that is safe, but cost must be considered; hence the designer should make it economical for the client. Generally, these offshore assets must operate safely for at least twenty-five (25) years (depending on the purpose of the offshore structure), because they are exposed to extremely severe marine environments and varying sea depths. Hence the designs are conducted by using peak loads provided during the platform design life by the hurricane wind and waves. Environmental conditions are also important in designing different offshore structures [129,130,131,132,133,134,135]. Also, there are more developments made in oceanography and environmental sciences that reflect in different designs of offshore structures [136,137,138,139,140,141,142]. The fatigue loads caused by waves over the platform’s lifetime and platform motion are all critical design issues considered in standards elaboration such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) [136,137,138,139,140,141], and Det Norske Veritas (DNV) [142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152]. Over time, these developed API standards have been revised to include hurricane conditions in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), adaptable in other seas [153,154,155,156,157]. Strong currents can sometimes hit the platforms, putting strain on the entire system’s integrity. Another challenge that oil corporations face is the project scheduling involving the length of time for the design and construction of these offshore assets. Furthermore, the size of these offshore structures is a consideration in designing their stability and hydrodynamics. Figure 2 shows the number of global deep water drilling activities across five (5) continents. Although it reflects a decrease in oil drilling/exploration activities due to the decline in oil price globally in 2016, it is evident that the highest drilling activities were recorded in South America in the time range from 2010 to 2021. Due to the recent COVID19 pandemic in 2020/2021, the exploration also had a decrease in oil well exploration; however, it was seen to pick up in 2021/2022.
Another consideration factored in the design is the material density. Most offshore platforms are fabricated in shipyards using massive steel, or in-situ using concrete, as seen in gravity-based structures. These offshore structures- both fixed and floating structures are mostly used for energy generation or oil production. Offshore constructions are meant to be installed thousands of kilometers from shorelines in the open sea, lakes, gulfs, and other bodies of water. Steel, reinforced concrete, or a combination of the two, may be used to construct these buildings. Most oil and gas platforms are produced from a variety of steel grades. These range from mild steel to high-strength steel, despite some earlier structures being made of reinforced concrete called the Concrete Gravity Based Structures (CGBS). Steel platforms come in different sizes and shapes, based on their intended function and, most importantly, the water depth in which they will operate [29,30,31,32,33,34]. However, proper failure analysis and reliability studies have to be carried out on these offshore structures. Offshore platforms are extremely hefty and among the world’s tallest man-made structures. Floating structures have been classified, based on water depths, such as shallow water (91–120 m and lesser than 91 m), mid water (121–305 m), deep water (306–1219.50 m) and ultra-deep water (1220.50–2285.69 m and greater than 2285.69 m). These offshore structures are available at different locations, from Offshore West Africa (OWA) to the Baltic Sea, the Persian Sea, the North Sea (NS) and the Gulf of Mexico (GoM). These seas have different oil companies and energy operators involved in offshore operations across different geographical locations. Presently, different oil companies have high impact oil wells as seen in some operators of various offshore platforms. These oil operators range from Exxon, Total, Petronas, CNOOC, Equinor, Qatar Energy, BP, Petrobras, Pemex, Hess, Aker BP, Lukoil and Lundin, as seen in the high impact drilling represented in Figure 3.
Part I of the review is conducted on different types of fixed and floating offshore structures. Details of the sustainable design approaches and project management for these offshore structures are given in Part II [5]. In this review, Section 2 provides an overview of sustainable drilling/production operations, the platform classifications and applications. Section 3 presents different types of offshore structures. Section 4 discusses various applications, advantages and disadvantages of various offshore structures. Section 5 presents the conclusions and recommendations for future research. This review helps designers in understanding existing structures and their uniqueness and helps to serve as a reference data source for designing new offshore platforms and other related structures.
2. Overview of Platform Installations
The historical development of different offshore platforms differ over varying timelines, as seen in designs, inventions and patents. This section presents the historical backgrounds of certain offshore structures, depending on the classification of the structure. In addition, these platform installations have evolved with different standards. In addition, various standard bodies have also evolved in the general design of offshore structures such as the following: API [158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170], DNV [171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181], Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL) [182,183,184,185,186] the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) [187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198] and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) [199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211]. Historically, most of the earlier offshore constructions had standards as bulletins, and they were developed over time. These standards ensure that the design of the offshore structure, including its attachments (such as the marine risers and the mooring system), as well as different dynamic effects (such as vortex shedding) are specified [212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219]. Today, there are more standards that are used for the design and analysis of offshore structures, oil and gas exploration, and production and extraction activities [220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231]. Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3, Figure A4, Figure A5 and Figure A6 of Appendix A show the variety of offshore platforms deployed in deep waters. Table 1 shows an inventory of deep-water offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM).
Statistically, the number of offshore platforms is not as high as that of land buildings such as high-rise buildings or sky-scrapers. However, some of these offshore platforms are taller than the tallest structures (such as high-rise buildings), although some of their lengths are underneath the sea, as seen in Appendix A. From the image illustrated in Figure A1 of Appendix A, the tallest Truss SPARs (Perdido SPAR in GoM and Aasta Hansteen in Norway) has been compared along the tallest structures in the world such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) and the One Twin Towers in New York, United States of America (U.S.A.), NICOM House in Lagos, Nigeria, and ONE Shell Plaza in Houston, U.S.A. These structures were found to be tall but not quite as much as the depth of these offshore structures, as most of the structural length of the offshore structures lie under water. However, the illustration in Appendix A also showed that, compared to other offshore structures such as semisubmersibles and the Tension Leg Platforms, the Truss SPARs are very tall.
By function characterization, the fixed structures are fixed while the floating structures float [232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241]. Generally, a platform can be physically anchored to the sea floor in shallow water in some cases which is referred to as a fixed platform setup. The ‘legs,’ which extend down from the platform and are secured to the bottom with piles, are made of concrete or steel. The weight of the legs and seafloor platform on some concrete constructions is so vast that they do not need to be physically anchored to the seafloor and can just rest on their mass. These fixed, permanent platforms can be designed in a variety of ways. The main advantages of these platforms are their stability and minimal vulnerability to movement due to wind and waves because they are anchored to the sea floor [242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250]. However, these platforms cannot be used in ultra-deep water since the cost of construction columns (or legs) that are very lengthy is not economically viable. For ultra-deep waters, specific offshore platforms are designed and deployed in such cases. Although offshore platforms could be fixed or floating structures used, the size of an offshore platform can differ as well as the type of the platform and the water depth where it will be operating [251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261]. Various types of offshore floating platforms operating in varying water depths are illustrated in Figure A2 of Appendix A and Section 3.
Based on platform classification, the selection of offshore platforms for any specific site is determined by the environmental and operational water depth where the oil and gas deposits are discovered. Hence, the following alternatives for the offshore fields were presented by Sadeghi [83], based on the environment and seawater depths:
(a). Jack-up rig or Tender rig for extraction of oil/gas, drilling and templates (jackets) in water depths up to 150 m;
(b). A semi-submersible drilling rig with a template (jacket) platform for extraction of oil/gas, at sea depths of 150 to 300 m;
(c). A semi-submersible drilling rig with guyed-tower platforms for oil/gas extraction at depths of 300 to 400 m;
(d). Semi-submersible drilling rig with tension leg platform or semi-submersible oil/gas extraction platform for water depths of 400 m to 1800 m;
(e). Drillship rig with tension leg, subsea system, or spar platforms for oil/gas extraction in depths greater than 1800 m;
(f). Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) are found operating in water depths ranging from 200 m to more than 3000 m [260] and depending on the environmental condition, they are maintained in position using either a spread or turret mooring system.
2.1. Floating Production Systems
Floating production systems are similar to semi-submersible drilling rigs, but they also include petroleum production equipment in addition to drilling equipment. Ships can potentially be utilized as floating manufacturing platforms. Large, heavy anchors or the dynamic positioning mechanism utilized by drillships can be used to keep the platforms in place. With a floating production system, the wellhead is attached to the seafloor rather than the platform once the drilling is completed. The extracted petroleum is delivered by risers from the wellhead to the semi-submersible platform’s production facilities. These production devices can work in up to 6000 feet of water.
2.2. Fixed Offshore Platform Design
Fixed Offshore Platforms such as the template type platforms made of steel are the most often used offshore platforms in the U.S.A.’s Gulf of Mexico, California shorelines, Niger Delta regions of Nigeria, and the Persian Gulf for oil/gas exploration and production [14,83]. These offshore constructions must be designed and analyzed in compliance with the American Petroleum Institute (API)’s recommendations. There are four different types of fixed offshore platforms, which are conventional fixed platforms, compliant towers, junction platforms and bridged platforms (or complexes, as seen in Figure 4).
2.3. Subsea System
Wells on the sea floor, rather than at the surface, are used in subsea production systems. Petroleum is extracted at the seafloor, similar to a floating production system, and then ‘tied-back’ to an existing production platform. The well can be drilled with a mobile rig, and instead of constructing a production platform for that well, the recovered oil and natural gas can be delivered to a nearby production platform through a riser or even an undersea pipeline. This enables a single strategically located production platform to service a large number of wells across a vast area. Subsea systems can be installed in both shallow waters and deep waters. They are normally utilized at depths of 2100 m (6890 feet) or more, and they can only extract and transfer, not drill. Subsea systems are typically those systems whereby their wells have the wellhead mounted upon the floor of the seabed after drilling operations from the wells, by any of the drilling platforms deployed. Recent advances made in sea systems can be seen in the realization of Statoil’s Subsea Factory [232,233,234], as seen in Figure 5. The targeted ambition for such subsea systems is summarized in Table 2.
3. Types of Offshore Platforms
Different types of offshore oil rigs and platforms are utilized depending on the water depth and location of the offshore oil/gas field. To drill wells and produce oil and gas, rigs are employed, and platforms are set up in the field. To achieve fossil fuels from oil products, drilling and production activities must be carried out using oil rigs and platforms. Drilling can be used for obtaining natural gas and oil offshore, offshore. Most of the oil deposits are far from the closest mainland, which involves a series of obstacles not encountered when drilling onshore. When drilling at sea (i.e., offshore), the sea floor could be many meters below sea level. As a result, while onshore drilling uses the land as a platform, drilling at sea necessitates the construction of an artificial drilling platform. Since there are different types of offshore structures as depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 6, a comparative analysis of offshore structures is necessary.
3.1. Moveable Offshore Drilling Platforms
Offshore drilling rigs/platforms are divided into two categories. The first is a mobile offshore drilling rig that can be moved from one location to another, while the second is a stationary offshore drilling rig. Historically, the first submersible mobile drilling equipment to drill offshore in 1954 was called Mr. Charlie [261]. Over the years, newer developments have been made on moveable platforms. Offshore drilling platforms (and drilling rigs) are those platforms that can be moved from one drilling location to another or even higher application in the industry, as seen in recent leases. A mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) or unit is a ship that can conduct drilling operations to explore for petrochemical minerals or exploit resources such as liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, sulfur or salt that are present beneath the seabed. MODU can be jack-up, semi-submersible, barge-type or ship-shaped. For offshore oil and gas drilling, rigid platforms are necessary for drilling operations. They can be moved and retained in place by their own azimuth thrusters with dynamic positioning or hauled into place by a tugboat and moored. A recognized design and operational standard for semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling units (MODU) is the IMO’s MODU Code.
3.2. Drilling Barges
Drilling barges are commonly used for shallow-water inland drilling. Drilling barges are massive floating platforms that require tugs to transport from one location to another. Canals, lakes, rivers, marshes, and other bodies of water are frequent areas for this to occur. Drilling barges are only suitable for still, shallow waterways and cannot survive the water movement found in vast open sea conditions. Figure 7 shows some drilling barges used in earlier oil explorations.
3.3. Jackup Drilling Platforms/Rigs
With one difference, jackup rigs are identical to drilling barges. After a jack-up rig is towed to the drilling location, three or four ‘legs’ are lowered until they land on the seafloor. Unlike a floating barge, the working platform can be raised above the water’s surface. Jackup rigs, on the other hand, are only suitable for shallower seas due to the impossibility of extending these legs too far. This rig can only operate in waters up to 500 feet deep. These rigs are usually safer to operate than drilling barges since their working platform is elevated above the sea level [262]. In addition to exploration operations, jack-ups are utilized for drilling operations and wind farms service. Figure 8 shows a Jack-up platform in operation and a labelled projection.
3.4. Offshore Wind Turbine Platforms
The global concern about the emission of greenhouse gases has provided a line of research into alternative renewable and clean energy. In this regard, wind power is one of the fastest-growing alternative technologies. However, this technology could help power a clean energy transition only if it can overcome hurdles of cost, design and opposition from fishing. More so, the application of offshore structures in renewable energy has taken more interests on breakwater devices, water energy converters, and wind turbines (such as FOWTs). The scale of wind turbines are larger and more adaptable forms of offshore structures are seen today. Offshore wind turbines may either be fixed-bottom or floating types [263]. The fixed-bottom platform is quite common in off the coast of Denmark, consisting of 91 wind turbines [264]. By design, offshore wind turbines, which are anchored to the seabed with monopile or jacket foundations, can only operate in waters less than 50 m deep. This eliminates sites with the greatest winds and, in many cases, easy access to large markets. However, there are exceptions as the application of Fixed-bottom wind turbines is more economical as it operates in shallow water depths of 50 or 60 m [265]. On the other hand, the floating wind turbines are anchored to the seabed using mooring lines, thus, are suitable for deeper water locations and areas with the soft seabed. Floating wind turbines have been used in water depths of up to 700 m [264,265]. Different concepts have been identified in on FOWTs projects with different platform types. The projects include DeepCWind, HyWind, WindFloat, NRMI, DTU and MARINTEK wind turbines. The ability to install FOWTs in deeper waters has an open huge amount of the oceans for the generation of renewable wind power. Table 3 shows some existing wind turbines with details.
Although, the floating wind energy is still in its early stage of utilization, close to 80% of the wind power potential is found in deeper water. However, only about 80 megawatts of a total of about 32 GW (0.25%) of the installed offshore wind capacity is from floating wind turbines [265]. This narrative may change in the near future with the US government under USA’s President Joe Biden pledging to build more than 30 GW of offshore wind turbines by the year 2030, worth more than $100 m [265]. Hence, this might bring the assertions of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to reality, which suggests that the floating turbine projects could achieve cost parity with the fixed turbines by the year 2030.
By classification, there are four main types of floating platforms, namely the spar-buoy, the tension leg platform, the semi-submersible and the Pontoon-type (Barge-type) floating wind turbines. However, there are other types and design concepts because these are the most common platform already installed and adapted for various planned projects, such as the Semi-submersible platforms which are expected to be used in about 50% to 75% of projects. Figure 9 shows four (4) types of offshore wind turbines.
3.5. Semisubmersible Platform
Semisubmersible platforms are offshore oil rigs with floating drill units that incorporates pontoons and columns that, if flooded, will sink to a predetermined depth. The most common type of offshore drilling rig is a semi-submersible rig, which combines the advantages of submersible rigs with the ability to drill in deep water. Historically, the first semi-submersible was BlueWater Rig 1 in 1961 [64]. Semisubmersible rigs are similar to submersible rigs in that the lower hull ‘inflates’ and ‘deflates.’ Despite being partly underwater, the rig floats over the drill site. The rig is stabilized while drilling by the lower hull, which is filled with water. Semi-submersible rigs are held in place by massive anchors weighing up to 10 tons each. The platform is sturdy and safe to use in turbulent offshore waters thanks to these anchors and the rig’s submerged component.
Semisubmersible drilling rigs are also floating production systems. It is made up of drilling and petroleum production equipment that is simultaneously positioned on the system. This mechanism is properly grounded at the seabed’s bottom. In small oil storage facilities, this type of technique is more effective. Based on the system working described, it can be utilized from 1500 to 6000 feet. In general, these systems are less stable when subjected to high wave stress. Submersible rigs, such as jackup rigs, are ideal for shallow water and come into contact with the ocean or lake floor. Platforms with two hulls stacked on top of one another make up these rigs. The living accommodations for the crew, as well as the actual drilling platform, are located in the upper hull. The lower hull functions similarly to a submarine’s outer hull: when the platform is moved from one location to another, the lower hull is filled with air, making the entire rig buoyant. The air is released out of the lower hull when the rig is positioned over the drill location, and the rig submerges to the sea or lake floor. This style of rig has the benefit of being mobile in the water, but it can only be used in shallow water.
By classification, there are three types of semisubmersibles: ship-shaped semisubmersibles, column-stabilized semisubmersibles and bottle-type semisubmersibles. These three types of semisubmersibles are classified by the method of rig submergence in water. While the ship shaped semisubmersibles can be designed as ships, as the name implies, they are also one of the most often used hull systems for the design and construction of offshore deep water drilling and production platforms, followed by the column stabilized semisubmersible platform [56,58,219,252,253]. The bottle-type semisubmersible platform, on the other hand, is made up of bottle-shaped hulls that are positioned beneath the drilling deck and can be submerged by filling them with water. Bottle-type semisubmersibles, the first manifestation of this type of drilling rig, were designed as submersible rigs. The bottles below the rig were totally submerged due to this design consideration for the submersible, which rests on the ocean floor. Furthermore, the rig of the bottle-type semisubmersible provided remarkable drilling stability. It also provides stability for rolling, as well as reducing pitching caused by waves and wind. This type of semisubmersible needs to be studied because of the various environmental conditions. Some drilling sites are always difficult, with turbulent waves and occasional weather concerns such as hurricanes, storms, cyclones, high tides, and strong winds. As a result, it is necessary to dig into deeper and more turbulent seas. Semi-submersibles have recently opened up a new path for exploration and development operations. However, as time went on, naval architects understood that if the bottles were only partially submerged, the rig would keep its stability when drilling in deeper seas. The semisubmersibles are moored using mooring lines, and the anchors are the only connection the rig has with the seafloor. These bottle-type rigs were eventually designed to only be used as semisubmersibles. Bottle-type semisubmersibles’ configuration and design have a different impact on their hydrodynamic behavior in rough weather situations, and hence on their use and functionality in ocean engineering. The semisubmersibles can have other classifications based on evolution such as sixth generation semisubmersibles, and by design, such as the Dry-Tree Semisubmersible (DTS). Since the construction of drilling rigs have traditionally taken place during economic booms, different “batches” of drilling rigs have been constructed. Depending on the year of construction and water depth capability, offshore drilling rigs have been roughly categorized into nominal “generations”. Table 4 gives different generations for classifying semisubmersibles.
Generally, semisubmersibles are multi-legged offshore floating structures consisting of a large deck, with several legs interconnected at the bottom underwater with horizontal buoyant members referred to as pontoons. The semisubmersibles are one of the preferred floating offshore platforms alternatives due to their advantages, including, stability and motion. However, their natural frequencies vary inversely with the draft and length, the appropriate selection of the geometric shape constitutes an essential criterion in the design of semisubmersibles [266]. Semi-Submersible may be stationed using dynamic positioning systems or anchored using mooring systems. For example, in 2002, a semi moored was deployed using spread mooring lines at a water depth 1875 m in offshore Malaysia, while another installation using a dynamic positioning system in 2003 was deployed in Brazil operating at a water depth of 2890 m. In the same year, a semi operating in 2730 m water depth was also positioned in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) [267]. However, more recent developments have been made. Table 5 presents the list of some semisubmersible platforms used in recent developments. The most recent is the Appomattox semisubmersible platform operated by Shell in GoM, which was installed in 2019, as shown in Figure 10a. Figure 10b illustrates the parts of a semisubmersible.
3.6. Dynamic Positioned Drillships
Drillships are exactly what they sound like: ships that are used to conduct drilling operations. These boats are designed specifically to transport drilling platforms to deep-sea areas. A typical drillship will feature a drilling platform and derrick in the middle of its deck, in addition to all of the other equipment found on a huge ocean ship. Drillships also have a hole called a “moonpool” that runs the length of the ship and down through the hull, allowing the drill string to extend through the boat and into the water. This offshore oil rig is capable of drilling in extremely deep water. ‘Dynamic positioning’ systems are used by drillships. Drillships have electric motors mounted on the underside of the hull that can move the ship in any direction. These motors are incorporated into the ship’s computer system, which employs satellite positioning technology and sensors on the drilling template to guarantee that the ship is always directly over the drill site. Dynamic positioning can also be used to keep semi-submersible rigs in place. Drilling rigs that are Semi-submersible drilling rigs can drill in much deeper water than the rigs mentioned earlier. Deeper depths of up to 6000 feet (1800 m) may now be reached safely and quickly thanks to technological advancements. Figure 11 shows a drillship semisubmersible by Transocean.
3.7. SPAR Platforms
Spar platforms are among the most often used offshore platforms. The acronym SPAR stands for Single Point Anchor Reservoir. The SPAR platform is an offshore floating platform with a relatively large draft to diameter ratio (aspect ratio). Its deep draft made the natural periods outside the wave ranges thereby attributing to its wide acceptance for different operational scenarios, especially in deeper waters.
The Spar platform is the world’s largest oil extraction platform which can be employed at depths up to 10,000 feet. This platform is mainly comprised of a massive cylinder support system and a standard fixed rig platform. This large cylinder does not stretch all the way to the seabed. It is held together by large steel cables that are attached to the seabed. The extraction devices are mounted above this cylinder and will perform their duties. A big cylinder supports a standard fixed rig platform on these massive platforms. The cylinder, on the other hand, does not reach all the way to the seafloor and is instead held in place by several cables and wires. The big cylinder helps to keep the platform afloat while also allowing for mobility to absorb the energy of any impending hurricanes.
Currently, the Perdido platform, operated by Shell, is the tallest SPAR, and is comparatively one of the tallest structures in the world at 267 m, as depicted in Figure 12. However, the Perdido SPAR which operates in a water depth of 2450 m installed in 2010 has been overtaken by Stone FPSO operating in a water depth of 2925 m installed in 2016, and both are operating in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM).
In September of 1996, the first SPAR platform was placed in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) was commissioned. The platform’s cylinder was 770 feet long and 70 feet in diameter, and it functioned at a sea depth of 1930 feet (see details in Table 6). Unlike the semi-submersible, the spar platform consists of a single large diameter cylinder supporting a deck. The hull is normally maintained in position using a taut mooring system consisting of lines ranging from 6–20 [267]. Based on the design, spar platforms are available in three configurations, namely: Truss spar, cylindrical, and cell spar, as illustrated in Figure 13. Table 6 gives a list of some SPARs, while Figure A3 of Appendix A shows a list of different SPAR platforms that have evolved over the years.
3.8. Jacket Platforms
Jacket platforms are simply platforms for template (jacket) development. This steel-based fixed platform is commonly found along the shorelines of the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Mexico (GoM) USA, Niger Delta regions of Nigeria, etc. [14,83,87]. Jackets, decks, and heaps are the most common components of template platforms [116,119]. The Template (Jacket) type is used on different petroleum platforms and Seas like the Persian Gulf. Jack-Up platform is shallow water floating offshore structure used for exploration of offshore oil and gas. As the name implies, it has movable legs which can be retracted and extended vertically, that is, once in contact with the seabed the platform begins moving upwards and outside the water surface [268]. Jacket platforms are used for drilling and exploration operations. However, there are other platforms that are also used, based on the requirement of the drilling/production field [269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281]. Table 7 and Table 8 respectively show the list of some jacket platforms constructed, and some wellhead jacket platforms (WHP).
3.9. Compliant Towers (Tower Platforms)
Fixed platforms are similar to compliant towers. They are made up of a slender tower that is attached to a seafloor foundation and extends up to the platform. In contrast to the relatively hard legs of a permanent platform, the compliant tower is flexible [241]. Since it can ‘absorb’ most of the pressure placed on it by the wind and waves, it can function in much deeper water. The compliant tower system is sturdy enough to survive hurricane conditions despite its flexibility. A compliant tower (CT) is a fixed rig structure utilized for offshore oil and gas production. The rig is made up of compliant towers that are flexible, narrow, and made on a pile foundation that supports. This foundation holds the tower, its standard drilling and production deck. Compliant towers are utilized in water depths ranging from 450 to 900 m and are designed to withstand substantial lateral deflections and stresses (1500 to 3000 feet) [282,283,284,285,286]. These structures are self-contained, and free-standing but their media are given supports by water. They exhibit static stability but have a far higher degree of lateral deformation/flexibility (about 2.5%:0.5%) than land-based structures, and are partially supported by buoyancy. In the early 1980s, the commissioning of Exxon’s Lena oil platform led to the development of the first compliant tower. The Chevron’s Petronius compliant tower, which was 531 m and is now 623 m deep, is currently the deepest, as recorded in Figure 14 and detailed in Table 9.
The compliant towers are designed by considering the natural frequency of the structure. Resonance is minimized and wave forces are de-amplified when flex elements such as axial tubes and flex legs are used. This rig construction can be customized to fit existing fabrication and installation machinery [287,288,289]. Production risers are more traditional than floating systems such as tension-leg platforms and SPARs, and are subjected to less structural loads and bending. However, constructing compliant towers in water depths larger than 1000 m gets uneconomical. Even with the higher cost of anchorage (or moorings) and marine risers, it becomes most appropriate to use of a floating production system [290,291,292,293]. However, one good advantage of the compliant tower system is that it is quite sturdy enough to survive hurricane conditions, despite its flexibility [294,295,296,297,298,299]. Figure 15 shows different concepts of the compliant tower. It shows a cross-section of different concepts of compliant towers used in the oil and gas industry, showing: (a) “dumb” tower; (b) compliant piled tower; (c) compliant tower with ‘mass trap’; (d) buoyant tower with flex joint; (e) guyed tower with flex joint; and (f) articulated column [298].
3.10. Tension Leg Platform and Seastar Platform
The Tension Leg platform is a type of platforms that is held by tendons. The tension leg platform operates on the same principles as the SeaStar platform. Since there is no water chamber to oppose the lateral movement, such a construction is less stable than a SeaStar platform. The Seastar platform is a larger form of the Tension Leg platform. The platform’s long, flexible legs are anchored to the seafloor and run up to it. These legs, like the SeaStar platform, allow for a lot of side-to-side movement (up to 20 feet) but very limited vertical mobility. Tension leg platforms are capable of working at depths of up to 7000 feet. SeaStar platforms resemble tension leg platforms in size. The platform is made up of a floating rig, similar to the semi-submersible type (as mentioned in Section 3.5) [299]. When drilling, a lower hull is filled with water, increasing the platform’s stability against wind and sea movement. Seastar platforms, in addition to this semi-submersible rig, also include the tension leg system found on larger platforms. Long, hollow tendons that go from the seafloor to the floating platform are known as tension legs. These legs are kept under continual tension and prevent the platform from moving up or down. Their elasticity, on the other hand, allows for side-to-side movement, allowing the platform to endure the power of the ocean and the wind without breaking the legs. When it is not cost-effective to build a larger platform, Seastar platforms are often employed for smaller deep-water reservoirs. They can operate in up to 3500 feet of water.
A floating rig, a lower hull, and tension cables comprise the Seastar platform. A water-filled lower shell boosts the platform’s stability against wind and water movement. It also has a tensioned system in addition to the semi-submersible rig. The tension leg, which is made out of high-strength steel cables, is part of the tension system. Tension stress is not a problem with these wires. This construction is vulnerable to high wave and wind pressures, but the water-filled body will mitigate these effects, making the structure more stable. Figure 16 shows an illustration of typical TLP.
The Tension Leg Platform has been used in making notable historical developments in the oil and gas industry. The Heidrun Tension Leg Platform (TLP) was the first platform where a composite riser joint was deployed in 2002. It is also the first platform that composite riser joint was successfully deployed after extensive composite research. The TLP has 56 well slots on the subsea riser template. The Heidrun TLP has a total height of 109 m, a square pontoon having a box cross-section, a pontoon height of 110 m, a pontoon height of 13 m, and eight decks located near each of the four circular columns located at each corner. It is the first and biggest floating TLP with a concrete hull. It is the largest floating structure carrying the largest deck load ever, with a topside weight of 43,000 tons, and a total platform displacement of 288,200 tons. Conoco discovered the Heidrun field in 1985, which lies about 175 km off Norway’s coast and north of Kristiansund at a water depth of about 350 m. It produces 65,000 barrels of oil daily, 110,000 barrels of water daily, and 760 m3 of natural gas. The Heidrun TLP has produced over 944 million oil and gas barrels since October 1995, at 05:37 when the choke valve was opened to become operational. Figure 17 shows the Heidrun Tension Leg Platform (TLP), while Table 10 lists some tension leg platforms constructed with their details.
3.11. FPSO
The acronym FPSO stands for floating production storage and offloading. As the name implies, the FPSO is a production system equipped with processing equipment for the separation and treatment of crude oil and gas together with a large storage hull to store the treated oil for export [260,268,269,270]. With the continuous push of production activities into deeper waters, the FPSOs have over the years dominated the oil and gas industry mainly due to their attributed advantages which include large storage hulls, and their suitability for application in remote offshore areas [269,270]. The International Maritime Association (IMA) and World Energy Reports (WER) reveal a total of 175 FPSO units in operation as of November 2022, which is equivalent to 68% of the overall floating production systems.
Shuttle tankers are also classified as FPSOs used for offshore production activities, such as with loading and discharging fluid products using (un)loading marine hoses [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Depending on the environmental condition, FPSOs are either maintained in position using a spread or turret mooring system as illustrated in Figure 18. A spread of FPSOs located in different geological locations is presented in Table 11 and Figure A4 of Appendix A.
3.12. Concrete Gravity-Based Structure (GBS)
A support structure maintained in place by gravity is referred to as a “gravity-based structure,” most prominently offshore oil rigs. Due to their protected area and adequate depth, fjords are frequently used to build these structures. The basis of construction for the Concrete Gravity-Based Structure was the application of reinforced concrete. The base’s design incorporates vacuum spaces or caissons to provide the structure with natural buoyancy, allowing it to be floated to a field development site. Once on site, the blank spaces on the seabed are flooded, and the topside modules are hauled into place. The vacant holes were then filled with permanent iron ore ballast or utilized as crude oil storage compartments. Due to the sheer massive weight of concrete structures, foundation piles are not required, thus the name gravity base structure [299,300,301,302,303,304,305,306,307]. Figure 19 illustrates a typical GBS, showing Troll A concept.
An example of a concrete gravity-based structure is the Troll A platform (as shown in Figure 20), which exists off the west coast of Norway, in the Troll gas field. This offshore structure was built in 1996, and it is recorded as the largest structure ever moved and dropped into the ocean [301,307]. Table 12 and Figure A5 of Appendix A show different GBS platforms with their details.
4. Applications of Offshore Platforms
There are a variety of applications for offshore platforms, with the advantages presented in this section.
4.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Offshore Platforms
This study presented different fundamentals of the main types of offshore structures (fixed and floating) in Section 2 and Section 3. The design considerations have also shown that these offshore structures have unique capacities. Each offshore platform is designed for specific purpose, however some offshore platforms such as drilling submersibles could have general application for drilling different well sites. Hence, the applications of these concepts in the offshore platforms are dependent on the functionalities which lead to their advantages. Offshore platforms have a variety of uses in the marine industry. For example, oil or gas platforms might provide storage facilities for oil and gas before being transported to refineries. The advantages have been reported on a variety of offshore structures [299,300]. The design and development of these structures have been identified in a variety of literature on CGBS [300,301,302,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312], FPSOs [313,314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329], compliant platforms [330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344], fixed jacket platforms [345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359,360,361,362,363,364,365,366,367,368,369] and SPARS [370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,383,384,385,386,387,388,389]. Another well-known application of offshore platforms is for generating energy via offshore wind farms [390,391,392,393,394,395,396,397,398,399,400].
Although, offshore platforms are subjected to a variety of strong forces (such as ocean waves, wind, and currents), and the materials used to construct them must withstand these forces. Based on platform design, steel and concrete are the most common offshore construction materials, although most concrete based structures are not very popular in recent times due to their limitations. The advantages and disadvantages of different offshore platforms are summarized in Table 13. Figure A6 and Figure A7 of Appendix A show the location of most of the deep water offshore structures in the Gulf of Mexico.
4.2. Exploratory Application of Offshore Platforms
This study presented various exploratory applications of offshore structures (fixed and floating) used in the oil and gas industry. Due to the orientation of the superstructure, the foundation of this semi-submersible in deeper waters needs high payload integration for minimized motion responses across every degree of freedom (DoF). During production on the platform, the oil and gas are separated and transferred to shore via pipelines or tankers. To achieve these, proper planning must be conducted for the lifting, transportation, installation, design, fabrication, and commissioning of these offshore petroleum platforms. Among the exploratory applications are (un)loading hose applications via shuttle tankers (or FPSO) and single point mooring (SPM) buoys. Other applications are ocean monitoring buoys, breakwater and wave energy devices. However, larger exploratory applications are seen as presented in recent luxury semisubmersibles, semisubmersible crane vessels (SSCV), offshore support vessels (OSV), and rocket launch pads.
4.2.1. Luxury Cruise
Due to the obvious level of stability that semisubmersibles can provide through reconfiguration, deep-draft semisubmersibles are the wave of the future for ocean engineering. Various press publications, ranging from a Cable News Network (CNN) article to an exclusive Forbes article, New York Times, Huffington Post, The Sun News, and Yatch World review made reviewed this Kokomo Ailand [400,401,402,403,404,405,406,407]. These journalists published articles covering the event on a novel kind of luxury cruise that was fashioned after a mini-island in September of 2015 [390]. Migaloo Private Submersible Yachts designed the floating system by using he column stabilized semisubmersible concept to construct the hull of the floating mini island. This hull would have an exceptionally high level of stability in order to operate as a yacht or luxury cruise ship [254]. The type and extent of deck support integration were the main advantages it provided over traditional cruise ships [400,401,402,403,404,405,406,407]. Recent years have seen some rather bizarre ideas in yacht design, from Lego-inspired vessels to futuristic craft that resemble Concorde jets on water [400]. Different rendered views of the super yacht are given in Figure 21.
According to Migaloo [401], the Kokomo Ailand is a private floating habitat based on semi-submersible platforms with an overall length of 117 m, a beam of 78 m and a draft between 20.5 m to 9.7 m. However, it is still safe to say that nothing compares to Kokomo Ailand, an 80-m-tall private floating island with two beach clubs, a waterfall, and a shark feeding station. The fact that Kokomo is a real place is arguably the most amazing of all. In reality, the project’s designers, Migaloo, presented their ideas at the ‘Monaco Yacht Show’, and they already had “quite strong” expressions of interest from clients all around the world, at the time of its design [400]. The structure gives a better look at the stunning layout of a super yacht as well as a semisubmersible. The untrained eyes may mistake the ship for an upscale oil rig, despite the fact that it is much more opulent. The futuristic floating island has two elevators, a jacuzzi with a glass bottom, and a penthouse that is 80 m above sea level. However, to transport large, hefty vessels would require time and movement at a speed of eight knots using eight (8) Azipods [402]. It is simply a piece of floating land, yet it is designed like an island that was influenced by nature. It can be supported by specially made support vessels, which are currently popular in the yachting and shipping sectors. Thus, it functions as an offshore primary base or hideaway from which one may travel anyplace. However, the design is also inspired by owners demands and the need to evolve from conventional designs. In a recent article by Migaloo [401], it depicted the evolution of the floating structure (submersible yacht) as a result of the impact of sustaining technological changes with disruptive concepts using the model by Professor Christensen C.M. [408], as seen in Figure 22.
4.2.2. Offshore Rocket Launch and Landing Platform
Another application is an offshore rocket launch and landing platform. Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is investigating the potential use of modified semi-submersible oil drilling rigs for the launch and landing of their new completely reusable rocket Starship on a specific Starship offshore platform [409,410,411,412,413,414,415,416,417]. SpaceX has acquired two old offshore oil drilling rigs as the ENSCO/Valaris 8506 offshore model, which is a specified destination for the Starship spaceship. The two floating spaceports—Phobos and Deimos, were given them the names as the named after the moons of Mars. However, launch pads can also be used in other ways. A semi-submersible drilling rig called Ocean Odyssey has been modified to use as a rocket launcher. The drilling platforms were essentially identical when they were built and when Elon Musk, the owner of SpaceX, purchased them under the names ENSCO/Valaris 8500 and 8501, respectively. As part of a six-month effort, Phobos was relocated from the Port of Galveston to Pascagoula, Mississippi, in January 2021 to start the retrofit of the rig for Starship operations. The majority of the outdated equipment on the rig’s deck has been removed as of July 2021. Since one of the platforms was supposed to be substantially operational by the end of 2021 and that Starships would fly out to sea and land on the platform later in 2022 to be carried to the platforms, refitting had also started around January 2021 on Deimos at the Port of Brownsville, USA. At the time of this publication, the Deimos platform was still under development. Figure 23 shows Deimos ocean offshore spaceport which is an offshore launch platform.
4.2.3. Converted Offshore Structures
In recent times, the use of converted offshore structures has been seen to have increasing advantages in exploratory, drilling and production activities. For floating offshore units, there are eight (8) distinct hull types to choose from [418]. These converted offshore structures include Mobile offshore drilling units (MODU), Service Offshore Vessels (SOV), and Offshore support vessels (OSV). The ship-shaped monohull is the most prevalent kind of vessel, such as the use of the Floating Storage and Offloading unit (FSO) P-47 which was converted from a former Very Large Crude Cargo (VLCC).
The offshore energy market is subject to frequent fluctuations, which also affect the demand for installation tools, floating structures, and support vessels [419]. The cost of new construction is high, and it frequently takes too long to reap the benefits of an opportunity when it arises. Another option is to upgrade or convert an existing unit. There are different tiers of capability growth when converting or upgrading existing equipment. With each level come higher complexity, hazards, and rebuilding expenses. Options include extending the life and modernising an older ship, temporarily converting it, increasing its capacity, adding features, altering its current function, and finally, completely converting an older merchant cargo ship into a brand-new offshore unit. If a major vessel conversion project is properly planned and managed, it is possible for it to be competitive with newbuilding choices. There are a lot of excellent prospects for upgrades and conversions within the sizable pool of current commercial and offshore vessels, both ageing and new vessels. This new lease on life broadens their operational and financial horizons and assists the offshore industry in making extraordinary strides in the performance of transport, building, and installation [418,419,420,421,422].
The considerations for the selection of offshore platforms are very important also for converting offshore structures from one purpose to another [419]. Purpose-built production semi-submersible platforms were created when the oil industry expanded into harsher regions and deeper waters. ‘Deepsea Saga’ was converted on Agyll oil field, as Agyll FPF semi-submersible which was later converted to Deepsea Pioneer. The Transworld 58 was the first purpose-built semi-submersible production platform used on the Balmoral field in the UK North Sea, was built in 1986 and later converted. There were various platforms that were converted, though [235,423,424,425,426,427,428,429,430,431,432]. The Spirit of Columbus drilling rig was converted into Petrobras 36, which sank in 2001. Another offshore vessel that was renovated as part of a joint venture between BP and BHP was the Atlantis PQ. However, the largest converted semi-submersible platform for Production-Drilling-Quarters purpose is Thunder Horse PDQ with GVA40000 design.
Due to their excellent stability, wide deck areas, and variable deck load, semi-submersibles are particularly well suited for some operations which the offshore support vessel can perform [249,433,434,435,436,437,438,439,440,441,442]. Some vessels have two (2) build dates because the second one represents the date they were rebuilt. However, the latest dates are mostly considered, because it represents the current qualification class and classification for the vessel or offshore structure. These vessels include the offshore multiservice vessel Q4000 which was built in 2002 for Caldive. The Transocean Marianas which is a 1979-built Offshore Safety Support Vessel was later transformed into a drilling vessel. While Sedco/Phillips SS was the first vessel built in accordance with Red Adair’s suggestions, Iolair, an offshore safety support vessel, was built for BP in 1982. After being decommissioned, offshore production platforms have also been transformed into other offshore constructions [443,444,445,446,447,448,449,450,451,452,453]. Drilling semi-submersibles were modified for use as integrated drilling and production platforms when oil fields were initially created offshore. The Transworld 58 drilling semi-submersible was converted into the Argyll FPF, the first semi-submersible floating production platform, in 1975 for the Hamilton Brothers North Sea Argyll oil field. These vessels provided incredibly reliable and affordable platforms, such as the recent Norwind Breeze SOV converted by VARD for Norwind Offshore in 2022 [454,455,456]. Table 14 shows the list of some converted vessels and offshore platforms with conversion/delivery date.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research
The manuscript presents a comprehensive review on different offshore structures—fixed and floating offshore platforms to examine some sustainable design approaches. It gives very interesting data and provides a valuable tool in support the general understanding, design and management of these structures, certainly in accordance with the industry design guidelines. The manuscript includes an introduction with a description of the state-of-art of the different types of offshore facilities and their purpose, classification of different types of these applications, with their advantages and disadvantages. Part II of this review [5] presents an in-depth review on considerations of most relevant parameters influencing the design process, a section focused on considerations regarding the management of the offshore facilities and the need for future research.
In this paper, the comprehensive review included the state-of-the-art on various offshore platforms and achievements made in the industry. Suitable types of offshore platforms for various seawater depths are offered for long-term operations, high productivity, high serviceability and sustainability. From this review, it has been identified that these platforms are divided into numerous sorts based on their functionality, and application and the depths of water where they operate. Therefore, it is evident that each offshore platform is different, as this review shows their variabilities and unique applicability. Although these platforms are subjected to somewhat large changes as a result of widespread wave activity. These platforms also remain extremely robust in a severe ocean environment, with a large portion of their structure submerged. An example of such platforms is the semisubmersible, as different oil and gas corporations have taken notice of its adaptable but durable properties.
In general, this type of platform is favored due to its ability to produce oil and gas as well as its cost effectiveness. However, other types of offshore platforms are also utilized based on their respective unique applications. Drilling rigs and Semisubmersible platforms were found to be the most promising design in the review study, and they are a viable choice for offshore exploration and production. These designs are also carried out in a variety of geographic locations and environmental conditions. Fixed jacket platforms have been seen in the North Sea and Persian Sea, as these areas do not require offshore structures with ultra-deep drafts, and the weather are not very extreme as most locations in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, the efficient factors required to thoroughly improve the service life and failure patterns of these offshore structures should be considered. In more recent designs, there are exploratory applications of new concepts, production facilities and related devices such as wave energy and breakwater devices. Hence, new and sustainable design approaches have been applied as these techniques are more adaptable to these devices, and aid faster design of offshore structures. However, adequate validation to verify each design is recommended. In a nutshell, this review presents types of application, benefits and challenges of offshore structures. The solutions from these different technologies can aid in the design and construction of offshore structures by presenting a reference data source. This review also sheds more light towards the understanding of offshore structures to enable designers with more innovative concepts that are more resilient, efficient, durable and sustainable in the industry.
Conceptualization, C.V.A.; methodology, C.V.A. and A.R.; software, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J. and C.A.; validation, C.V.A. and A.R.; formal analysis, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J. and C.A.; investigation, C.V.A., A.R., H.O.B., I.A.J. and C.A.; resources, C.V.A. and A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, C.V.A.; writing—reviewing draft, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J. and C.A.; data curation, C.V.A. and A.R.; visualization, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J., H.O.B. and C.A.; supervision, C.V.A.; project administration, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J. and C.A.; funding acquisition, C.V.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data for this study is not shared as it is an aspect of an on-going study on this present research.
The authors also acknowledge the permissions of different publishers and industry firms on the images used in this publication. We acknowledge Christian Gumpold, CEO of Migaloo Private Submersible Yachts and Migaloo Submarines, for permission to use images of Migaloo’s Kokomo Ailand. The authors acknowledge the feedback and support of the reviewers.
The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| 2D | Two-Dimensional |
| 3D | Three-Dimensional |
| AISC | American Institute of Steel Construction |
| API | American Petroleum Institute |
| ASTM | American Society for Testing and Materials |
| BOEM | Bureau of Ocean Energy Management |
| BOP | Blowout Preventer |
| CFD | Computational Fluid Dynamics |
| CEV | Carbon Equivalent Value |
| CNN | Cable News Network |
| CPU | Central Processing Unit |
| CT | Compliant Tower |
| DD | Semi Deep Draft Semisubmersible |
| DDCV | Deep-Draft Caisson Vessel |
| DNV | Det Norske Veritas |
| DoF | Degree of Freedom |
| DTS | Dry-Tree Semisubmersible |
| FDPSO | Floating Drilling Production Storage and Offloading |
| FLNG | Floating Liquid Natural Gas |
| FOWT | Floating Offshore Wind Turbine |
| FPS | Floating Production Systems |
| FPSO | Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading |
| FPU | Floating Production Units |
| FSU | Floating Storage Units |
| FSO | Floating Storage and Offloading |
| GBS | Gravity Base Structure |
| GoM | Gulf of Mexico |
| IMA | International Maritime Association |
| MET-INT | Metocean Interim |
| MODU | mobile offshore drilling unit |
| MOPU | Mobile Offshore Production Unit |
| NOAA | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
| NREL | National Renewable Energy Laboratory |
| OSV | Offshore Support Vessel |
| PSV | Platform Service Vessel |
| RAO | Respond Amplitude Operator |
| RP | Recommended Practice |
| SCR | Steel Catenary Risers |
| SOV | Service Offshore Vessel |
| SpaceX | Space Exploration Technologies |
| SPAR | Single Point Anchor Reservoir |
| SPM | single point mooring |
| TLP | Tension Leg Platform |
| TTR | Top Tension Riser |
| U.A.E. | United Arab Emirates |
| U.S.A. | United States of America |
| VIV | Vortex Induced Vibration |
| VLCC | Very Large Crude Carrier |
| WEC | Wave Energy Converter |
| WER | World Energy Report |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Different types of deep-water offshore production facilities, showing (1,2) conventional fixed platforms{150–412 m}; (3) compliant tower {457–914 m}; (4,5) tension leg platform (TLP) {457–2134 m}; (5) mini tension leg platform (TLP); (6) Truss SPAR {610–3048 m}; (7,8) semisubmersibles {457–1920 m}; (9) floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) unit {1345–1500 m}; and (10) jacket platform {150–412 m}; and (11) subsea completion and tieback to a host facility, and (12) subsea manifold. (Adapted from public domain source, with permission obtained to re-use image; Courtesy: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA).
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Global deep water exploration wells drilled by region for 2010–2021 with forecast for 2016**–2021** using data from QuestOffshore (Image Courtesy: Author 1—C.V.A.).
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. High impact exploration drilling activities in 2021 by different oil companies (Courtesy: Westwood Global Energy Group).
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Typical platforms showing (a) conventional jacket platforms and (b) bridged fixed jacket platform on Zuluf oil field in Arabian Gulf, offshore northeast Saudi Arabian coast, with the water depth of about 40 m (Image (b) Courtesy: Saudi Aramco).
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Subsea Production Systems in the Statoil Subsea FactoryTM (Courtesy: Statoil).
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Typical Jack-up Structures showing (a) a jack-up in operation and (b) a labelled projection of the jack-up platform.
Enlarge this image.Figure 9. Different types of offshore wind turbines, showing (a) the spar-buoy, (b) the tension leg platform, (c) the semi-submersible and (d) the Pontoon-type (Barge-type) floating wind turbines (Original Illustration by Josh Bauer of NREL, Courtesy: NREL and DNV; Image adapted with permission from NREL and DNV, by Author 1—C.V.A.).
Enlarge this image.Figure 10. Semisubmersibles showing (a) Appomattox Semi-Submersible oil platform in GoM installed in 2019 (Courtesy: Shell), and (b) an illustration of part of a semisubmersible.
Enlarge this image.Figure 12. Perdido deep water SPAR platform in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), (Courtesy: Statoil).
Enlarge this image.Figure 14. Illustrations showing (a) the Five Compliant Tower Platforms in the World including those sanctioned, installed and operating platforms while (b) shows a labelled compliant tower. (Revised image (a), adapted from Offshore Magazine Poster, Courtesy: Wood Group Mustang).
Enlarge this image.Figure 15. Cross-section of different concepts of compliant towers used in the oil and gas industry, showing (a) “dumb” tower, (b) compliant piled tower, (c) compliant tower with ‘mass trap’, (d) buoyant tower with flex joint, (e) guyed tower with flex joint, and (f) articulated column.
Enlarge this image.Figure 16. Illustrations showing (a) the tension leg platform (TLP), and (b) a labelled TLP.
Enlarge this image.Figure 18. FPSO mooring system: (a) Internal turret (b) external turret, and (c) spread mooring system.
Enlarge this image.Figure 19. Illustrations showing (a) the concrete gravity base structure (GBS), and (b) a labelled GBS.
Enlarge this image.Figure 21. Views of the Mini Island Semisubmersible—Migaloo’s Kokomo Ailand, showing (a) isometric view and (b) front view (Adapted/Reused with permission from Christian Gumpold, CEO of Migaloo Private Submersible Yachts and Migaloo Submarines. Courtesy: Migaloo).
Enlarge this image.Figure 22. The impact of evolution and sustaining technological changes with disruptive concepts to meet market demands and product performance (Courtesy: Migaloo).
Enlarge this image.Figure 23. Rendering views of the Deimos rocket launch platform to be completed in 2022/2023, showing (a) the starship fueling up before liftoff on its offshore launch platform, and (b) the aerial view of ocean offshore spaceport Deimos (Courtesy: SpaceX).
Inventory of deep water platforms in GoM; (Courtesy: BOEM, data retrieved in 2016).
| Platform | Sidetrack Subsea Well | Sidetrack Dry Trees Well | Amount | Subsea Field |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FPSO | 1 (2) | 2 (0) | 1 | 1 (1) |
| Mobile offshore production units (MOPU) | 6 (13) | -- -- | 1 | -- (2) |
| Semisubmersible | 32 (28) | 22 (16) | 9 | 6 (18) |
| Mini TLP | 17 (17) | 11 (16) | 5 | 1 (6) |
| Tension Leg Platform (TLP) | 51 (60) | 123 (150) | 10 | 8 (14) |
| Single Point Anchor Reservoir (SPAR) | 34 (43) | 133 (129) | 16 | 13 (18) |
| Fixed Platform (FP) | 47 (49) | 630 (449) | 50 | 49 (30) |
| Compliant towers (CT) | 3 (1) | 76 (46) | 3 | 4 (2) |
| AGGREGATE | 191 (213) | 997 (806) | 95 | 82 (91) |
Targeted ambitions for subsea factory.
| Key Parameters | Heavy Oil Fields | Oil Fields | Gas/Condensate Fields |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colder (heavy/complex fluids) | Cold transport | Cold flow | Sour/Acid gas issues |
| Colder (arctic environment) | Harsh environment | Under ice | Under ice |
| Deep water (deeper environment) | 2000 m | 3000 m | 3000 m |
| Longer power | 50 MW | 20 MW | 100 MW |
| Longer transport | 50 km | 200 km | 250 km |
List of some offshore wind farms by capacity.
| Name | Installation Year | Diameter | Tower Height | Capacity | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hornsea 2 | 2002 | 167 m | 190 m | 1396 MW | Active |
| Burbo Bank Extension | 2017 | 164 m | 113 m | 800 MW | Active |
| Westermost Rough | 2014 | 154 m | 102 m | 600 MW | Active |
| Anholt | 2012 | 120 m | 82 m | 360 MW | Active |
| Horns Rev 2 | 2009 | 93 m | 68 m | 230 MW | Active |
| Nysted | 2003 | 82.4 m | 69 m | 230 MW | Active |
| Middelgrund | 2000 | 76 m | 64 m | 200 MW | Active |
| Vindeby | 1991 | 35 m | 35 m | 4.95 MW | Inactive |
Classification of semisubmersibles by generations.
| Generation | Timelines | Water Depth | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meters (m) | Feet (ft) | ||
| First | Early 1960s | 200 m | about 600 ft |
| Second | 1969–1974 | 300 m | about 1000 ft |
| Third | Early 1980s | 500 m | about 1500 ft |
| Fourth | 1990s | 1000 m | about 3000 ft |
| Fifth | 1998–2004 | 2500 m | about 7500 ft |
| Sixth | 2005–2012 | 3000 m | about 10,000 ft |
| Seventh | 2013–2022 | >3000 m | over 10,000 ft |
List of some semisubmersible platforms for deep water drilling and production.
| Platform | Water Depth (m) | Operator | Installation Year | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appomattox | 2195 m | Shell | 2019 | GoM, USA |
| Thunder Horse PDQ | 1841 m | BP & ExxonMobil | 2010 | GoM, USA |
| Na Kika | 1829 m | Shell & BP | 2003 | GoM, USA |
| Atlantis PQ | 2134 m | BP & BHP | 2007 | GoM, USA |
| Argos /Mad Dog Phase 2 | 1311 m | BP | 2022 | GoM, USA |
| Vito | 1189 m | Shell | 2022 | GoM, USA |
| Delta House | 1370 m | LLOG | 2015 | GoM, USA |
List of some SPAR platforms constructed.
| Platform | Water Depth (m) | Type | Length (ft) | Diameter (ft) | Operator | Installation Year | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neptune SPAR | 1935 ft | Classic | 705 ft | 72 ft | Noble Energy | 1996 | GoM, USA |
| Medusa SPAR | 2223 ft | Truss | 586 ft | 94 ft | Murphy E&P | 2003 | GoM, USA |
| Front Runner SPAR | 3350 ft (1021 m) | Truss | 587 ft | 94 ft | Murphy E&P | 2004 | GoM, USA |
| Mad dog SPAR | 4500 ft (1311 m) | Truss | 555 ft | 128 ft | BP | 2005 | GoM, USA |
| Perdido SPAR | 7817 ft (2450 m) | Truss | 555 ft | 118 ft | Shell | 2010 | GoM, USA |
| Genesis SPAR | 2590 ft | Classic | 705 ft | 122 ft | Chevron USA | 1998 | GoM, USA |
| Hoover Diana DDCV SPAR | 4825 ft | Classic | 705 ft | 122 ft | Exxon Mobil | 2000 | GoM, USA |
| Boomvang SPAR | 3450 ft | Truss | 543 ft | 90 ft | Anadarko | 2002 | GoM, USA |
| Nansen SPAR | 3680 ft | Truss | 543 ft | 90 ft | Anadarko | 2001 | GoM, USA |
| Horn Mountain | 5400 ft | Truss | 555 ft | 106 ft | Anadarko | 2002 | GoM, USA |
| Gunnison | 3122 ft | Truss | 549 ft | 3122 ft | Anadarko | 2003 | GoM, USA |
| Holstein | 4344 ft | Truss | 746 ft | 149.28 ft | Anadarko | 2004 | GoM, USA |
| Constitution SPAR | 5000 ft | Truss | 550 ft | 98 ft | Anadarko | 2005 | GoM, USA |
| Kikeh SPAR | 4364 ft | Truss | 465 ft | 106 ft | Murphy | 2007 | Malaysia |
| Tahiti SPAR | 4200 ft | Truss | 555 ft | 128 ft | Chevron USA | 2008 | GoM, USA |
| Lucius SPAR | 7000 ft | Truss | 605 ft | 110 ft | Anadarko | 2014 | GoM, USA |
| Devils Tower SPAR | 5610 ft | Truss | 586 ft | 94 ft | Eni US | 2004 | GoM, USA |
| Heidelberg SPAR | 5300 ft | Truss | 605 ft | 110 ft | Anadarko | 2016 | GoM, USA |
| Gulfstar SPAR | 4600 ft | Classic | 584 ft | 85 ft | Hess | 2014 | |
| Aasta Hansteen SPAR | 4265 ft | Truss | 643 ft | 164 ft | Equinor | 2019 | North Sea, Norway |
| Red Hawk SPAR | 5300 ft | Cell | 560 ft | 64 ft | Kerr McGee & Devon Energy | 2004 | GoM |
List of some jacket platforms constructed.
| Platform | Water Depth, m (ft) | Operator | Installation Year | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amberjack | 314 m (1100 ft) | BP | 1991 | USA |
| Pompano | 393 m (1290 ft) | BP/Stone Energy | 1994 | USA |
| Heritage | 326 m (1070 ft) | Exxon | 1993 | USA |
| Harmony | 366 m (1201 ft) | Exxon | 1993 | USA |
| Virgo | 344 m (1129 ft) | Elf/W & T Energy | 2000 | USA |
| Cyrus | 134 m (440 ft) | Chevron USA | 2002 | USA |
| Salsa | 211 m (693 ft) | Shell | 1998 | USA |
| Ligera | 282 m (924 ft) | Fieldwood SD | 1982 | USA |
| Tequila | 201 m (660 ft) | Fieldwood SD | 1984 | USA |
| Snapper | 263 m (863 ft) | Fieldwood SD | 1985 | USA |
| Tarantula | 148 m (484 ft) | Fieldwood Energy | 2004 | USA |
| Cerveza | 285 m (935 ft) | Fieldwood SD | 1981 | USA |
| Coelacanth | 361.5 m (1186 ft) | Water Oil & Gas | 2015 | USA |
| Simba | 203 m (667 ft) | Ankor Energy | 2005 | USA |
| Spirit | 220 m (722 ft) | Fieldwood Energy | 1998 | USA |
| Enchilada | 215 m (705 ft) | Shell | 1997 | USA |
| Spect. Bid | 165 m (541 ft) | Flextrend Development | 1995 | USA |
| Phar Lap | 205 m (673 ft) | Flextrend Development | 1995 | USA |
| Alabaster | 145 m (476 ft) | Energy XXI GOM | 1991 | USA |
| Corrla | 189 m (619 ft) | Eni US | 1992 | USA |
| Pimento | 219.8 m (721 ft) | Triton Gathering | 1993 | USA |
| Tick | 219.5 m (720 ft) | Chevron USA | 1991 | USA |
| Lobster | 236 m (775 ft) | EnVen Energy Ventures | 1994 | USA |
| Marquette | 184 m (604 ft) | MC Offshore Petroleum | 1989 | USA |
| Boxer | 229 m (750 ft) | Shell Oil | 1988 | USA |
| Boxer | 229 m (750 ft) | Whistler Energy II | 1986 | USA |
| Boubon | 130 m (428 ft) | Fieldwood Energy | 1978 | USA |
| East Belumut A | 73 m (240 ft) | Newfield | 2008 | Malaysia |
| Agbara | 70 m (230 ft) | Agip Energy | 2000 | Nigeria |
| Amenam | 40 m (131 ft) | TotalFinaElf | 2003 | Nigeria |
| Litchendjili | 30 m (98 ft) | Eni Congo | 2015 | Congo |
| Dong Fang 13-2 | 70 m (230 ft) | Offshore Oil Eng. Co. | China | |
| Lu Feng | 241 m (791 ft) | Offshore Oil Eng. Co. | 2021 | China |
| CaNgu Vang | 113 m (371 ft) | Hoan Vu Joint Oper. Co. (HVJOC) | 2008 | Vietnam |
| Annamaria B | 59 m (194 ft) | Eni E &P | Italy | |
| Erskine jacket | 90 m (295 ft) | Texaco NS UK | 1997 | UK |
| West Franklin | 90 m (295 ft) | Elf Exploration | 2011 | UK |
| Tiffany field | 126 m (413 ft) | Agip UK | 1993 | UK |
| Zuluf field | 40 m (131 ft) | Saudi Aramco | 2020 | Saudi Arabia |
List of some wellhead jacket platforms (WHP) constructed.
| Platform | Water Depth (m) | Operator | Installation Year | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valhall flank West WHP | 70 m (230 ft) | BP | 1982 | Norway |
| Huldra Phase 1 WHP | 125 m (410 ft) | Statoil | 2001 | Norway |
| Eldfisk 2/4 B WHP | 70 m (230 ft) | ConocoPhillips | 1979 | Norway |
| Blacktip WHP | 50 m (164 ft) | Eni | 2006 | Australia |
| Elgin B WHP | 90 m (295 ft) | Elf Exploration | 2012 | UK |
Parameters of compliant towers showing the structural weights.
| Platform Parameters | Petronius | Lena Guyed Tower | Baldpate | Bullwinkle (Fixed) | Cognac | Benguela-Belize Lobito-Tomboco (BBLT) | Tombua-Landana |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | GoM | GoM | GoM | GoM | GoM | Angola | Angola |
| Installation Year | 1997 | 1983 | 1998 | 1988 | 1978 | 2006 | 2009 |
| Design Type | Type ‘b’ | Type ‘e’ | Type ‘a’ | Type ‘a’ | Type ‘a’ | Type ‘e’ | Type ‘e’ |
| Operator | Chevron | ExxonMobil | Hess | Shell | Shell | Chevron | Chevron |
| Natural Period (s) | 33 | 28 | ~30 | ~30 | ~30 | ~29 | ~28 |
| Wave height Hs (m) | 22.49 | 12.5 | 18.2 | 18.2 | 21.34 | 8.84 | 8.84 |
| Water Depth, (m) | 535 m | 305 m | 503 m | 413 m | 314 m | 390 m | 366 m |
| Topside weight, (tons) | 8800 | 9500 | 9000 | 2033 | 14,000 | 43,500 | 36,000 |
| Structure weight, (tons) | 43,000 | 23,400 | 28,900 | 49,375 | 59,000 | 49,800 | 56,400 |
| Well slot | 21 | 21 | 19 | 60 | 62 | 40 | 46 |
| Base Dimension (m) | 33.53 × 33.53 | 37 × 37 | 42.67 × 42.67 | 148 × 124 | 122 × 116 | 33.53 × 33.53 | 33.53 × 33.53 |
| Section | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Diameter of flex-leg | 2.13 m (84″) | 1.37 m (54″) | - | - | 2.1 m (83″) | 2.59 m (102″) | 2.59 m (102″) |
| No. of flex-legs | 12 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 24 | 12 | 12 |
| Diameter of foundation piles | 2.44 m (96″) | 1.83 m (72″) | 2.13 m (84″) | - | 2.4 m (96″) | 2.74 m (108″) | 2.74 m (108″) |
| No. of Foundation piles | 12 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 24 | 12 | 12 |
| Max. pile penetration (m) | 141.7 m | 167.6 m | 162 m | - | 137.2 m | 154.8 m | 160.8 m |
List of some tension leg platforms constructed.
| Platform | Water Depth (m) | Operator | Installation Year | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prince TLP | 454 m | EnVen Energy Corp. | 2001 | GoM, USA |
| Kizomba TLP | 1012 m | Esso Exploration | 2004 | Angola |
| Marlin TLP | 986 m | BP & Anadarko | 1999 | GoM, USA |
| Marco Polo TLP | 1311 m | Anadarko Petroleum Corp. | 2003 | GoM, USA |
| Ram-Powell TLP | 1000 m | Shell | 1997 | GoM, USA |
| Magnolia ETLP | 1420 m | ConocoPhillips | 2003 | GoM, USA |
| Heidrun TLP | 350 m | Conoco | 1995 | North Sea, Norway |
| Moho Nord TLP | 1200 m | Total Energies | 2015 | Congo |
| Stampede TLP | 1067 m | Hess Corporation | 2017 | GoM, USA |
| Shenzi TLP | 1333 m | BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc. | 2008 | GoM, USA |
| URSA TLP | 1204 m | Shell | 1999 | GoM, USA |
| Olympus /Mars B | 914 m | Shell | 2014 | GoM, USA |
| Mars TLP | 896 m | Shell | 1996 | GoM, USA |
| Auger TLP | 872 m | Shell | 1993 | GoM, USA |
| Jolliet TLP | 536 m | MC Offshore Petroleum & Conoco | 1989 | GoM, USA |
| Hutton TLP | 148 m | ConocoPhillips | 1984 | North Sea, UK |
| Snorre TLP | 310 m | Saga Petroleum | 1992 | North Sea, Norway |
| Oveng TLP | 271 m | Hess | 2006 | Equatorial Guinea |
| Okume/Ebano TLP | 503 m | Hess | 2006 | Equatorial Guinea |
| Brutus TLP | 910 m | Shell | 2001 | GoM, USA |
| Malikai TLP | 500 m | Shell | 2014 | Malaysia |
List of some FPSOs globally used on oil and gas facilities.
| FPSO | Water Depth (m) | Vessel Length (m) | Storage Capacity (Barrels) | Operator | Owner | Year | Fields |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stones (or Turritella FPSO) | 2914 m | 247 m | 800,000 | Shell | SBM Offshore | 2016 | GoM, USA |
| Bonga FPSO | ~1800 m | 295 m | 2,000,000 | Shell | Shell & NNPC | 2005 | Niger Delta, Nigeria |
| Agbami FPSO | ~1463 m | 319.99 m | 2,150,000 | Chevron | Chevron & NNPC | 2007 | Agbami, Nigeria |
| Parque das Conchas (BC-10) | ~1800 m | 330 m | 2,000,000 | Shell | Shell | 2010 | Brazil |
| Kikeh FPSO | ~1350 m | 337 m | 2,000,000 | MDPX Sdn Bhd | MDFT Labaun | 2007 | Malaysia |
| Peregrino FPSO | 100 m | 332.99 m | 1,600,000 | Statoil | Maersk | 2010 | Brazil |
| Sevan Piranema FPSO | 1100 m | 66 m (dia.) | 300,000 | Petrobras | Teekay | 2008 | Brazil |
| Goliat FPSO | 420 m | 112 m (dia) | 1000,000 | Eni & Statoil | Eni | 2015 | Barents Sea, Norway |
| Polvo FPSO | 160 m | 340.6 m | 1,266,000 | HRT | BW Offshore | 2007 | Brazil |
| Frade FPSO | 1128 m | 337.06 m | 1,550,000 | Chevron | SBM Offshore | 1976, 2009 | Brazil |
| Cidade de Vitoria FPSO | 1386 m | 337 m | 1,900,000 | Petrobras | Saipem | 2007 | Brazil |
| Marlim Sul FPSO | 1670 m | 342.99 m | 1,000,000 | Petrobras | SBM Offshore | 2004 | Brazil |
| Terra Nova FPSO | 100 m | 292.25 m | 960,000 | Suncor | Suncor | 2001 | Canada |
| Aquila FPSO | 1233 m | 700,000 | Eni | Eni | 2013 | Adriatic Sea, Italy | |
| Triton FPSO | 95 m | 244 m | 630,000 | Dana | Dana | 2000 | UK |
| Gryphon FPSO | 112 m | 257.6 m | 540,000 | Total Energies | Maersk | 1993 | UK |
| Äsgard A FPSO | 300 m | 276 m | 910,000 | Statoil & Eni | Statoil | 1998 | Norway |
| Alvheim FPSO (converted Odin) | 112 m | 285 m | 560,000 | Marathon & Det Norske | Statoil/Marathon | 2008 | North Sea, Norway |
| Firenze FPSO | 815 m | 268 m | 700,000 | Eni | Saipem | 2011 | Adriatic Sea, Italy |
Installation of different concrete gravity-based structures.
| Installation | Water Depth (m) | Type | Location | Year | Operator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Troll A | 303 m | Condeep, 4 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1995 | Norske Shell |
| Beryl A | 120 m | Condeep, 3 shafts | North Sea, UK | 1975 | Mobil |
| Brent B | 140 m | Condeep, 3 shafts | North Sea, UK | 1975 | Shell |
| Brent D | 140 m | Condeep, 3 shafts | North Sea, UK | 1976 | Shell |
| Frigg TCP2 | 104 m | Condeep, 3 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1977 | Elf |
| Stratfjord A | 146 m | Condeep, 3 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1977 | Mobil |
| Stratfjord B | 146 m | Condeep, 4 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1981 | Mobil |
| Stratfjord C | 146 m | Condeep, 4 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1984 | Mobil |
| Gullfaks A | 135 m | Condeep, 4 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1986 | Statoil |
| Gullfaks B | 142 m | Condeep, 3 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1987 | Statoil |
| Oseberg A | 109 m | Condeep, 4 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1988 | Norsk Hydro |
| Gullfaks C | 216 m | Condeep, 4 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1989 | Statoil |
| Draugen | 251 m | Condeep, 1 shaft | North Sea, Norway | 1993 | Shell |
| Sleipner A | 82 m | Condeep, 4 shafts | North Sea, Norway | 1993 | Statoil |
Advantages and Disadvantages of offshore platforms.
| Platform | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Jacket Platform |
|
|
| Gravity Platform |
|
|
| Compliant Tower |
|
|
| SPAR |
|
|
| TLP |
|
|
| Semisubmersible |
|
|
| FPSO |
|
|
List of some converted vessels and offshore platforms with conversion/delivery date.
| Conversion Name | Former Platform Name | Owner | Location | Conversion /Delivery Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantis PQ | Atlantis PQ | BP and BHP | GoM, USA | 2007 |
| Thunder Horse PDQ (Production, Drilling, Quarters) | Thunder Horse PDQ | BP and ExxonMobil | GoM, USA | 2005 |
| Transocean Marianas semi-submersible drilling unit | Tharos from 1979 to 1994, Polyportia from 1994 to 1996, and P. Portia from 1996 to 1998. | Chevron | GoM, USA; Offshore West Africa (OWA) | 1979 |
| Greater Stella FPF 1 | FPF1 (2017), AH001 (2012), Sedco/Phillips SS (1986) | Petrofac Facilities Management | Stella Field, North Sea | 2017 |
| Transworld 58 drilling semi-submersible | Transworld 58 Floating Production semisubmersible (1975), North Sea Pioneer, Norscot Producer, drilling semi-submersible, Duncan FPF semi-submersible (1985) | Hamilton Brothers Oil and Gas | North Sea | 1975 |
| Deepsea Pioneer FPF semi-submersible | ‘Deepsea Saga’-converted Agyll FPF semi-submersible (1971–1975), Deepsea Pioneer (1984) | Hamilton Brothers Oil and Gas | Agyll Field, North Sea | 1983 |
| Petrobras P-36 semi-submersible | Spirit of Columbus drilling rig (1984–1994), P-36 (1997–1999) | Petrobras | Roncador Oil Field, | 1995 |
| West Defender jack-up | Offshore Defender jack-up | Scorpion Offshore | - | 2007 |
| Mr. Demp jack-up | later Loosbrock Sun, Songa Sun, Achilles, RBF 192, THE 192, Blake 505, GPS Producer 1, Mopu Sepat | Marine Drilling | - | 1981 |
| Vanguard I jack-up | Later Dual Rig 41, Ensco 51, Deepsea Fossil | Huthnance Drilling | - | 1982 |
| Ulstein Service Operations Vessel (SOV) | Ulstein PX121 Platform Supply Vessels (PSV) | Ulstein | North Sea | 2022 |
| Norwind Breeze SOV (2022) | Skandi Responder Offshore Tug/Supply Ship (2015) | Norwind Offshore | North Sea | 2015/2022 |
| FSO Africa | Hellespont Metropolis (2002), TI Africa (2004), FSO Africa (2010) | - | Persian Gulf | 2010 |
| FSO Asia | Hellespont Alhambra (2002), TI Asia (2004), FSO Asia (2009) | - | Persian Gulf | 2010 |
| Transworld Rig 64 jack-up | Later Noble Rig 64, Johnnie Hoffman, Noble Johnnie Hoffman, Paragon 8301 | Transworld Drilling | - | 1976 |
| Pool Rig 53 | Later Well Services Rig 53 | Pool Company | - | 1982 |
| Zephyr I semi-submersible | Later Ocean Zephyr, now Atlantic Zephyr | Odeco | - | 1973 |
| Pat Rutherford Sr. | Later Dixilyn-Field 95, Sonat D-F 95, Boss Prithvi, Seadrill, Odin Neptune | Viking Offshore A/S | - | 1974 |
Appendix A
![View Image - Figure A1. Offshore oil platforms compared to tallest building structures [Credit: Author 1—C.V.A.].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/32/Rga1O?_a=ChgyMDI1MDQyNDA0NTYwODMwOTo1OTYxMzUSBzEzODMzMjMaCk9ORV9TRUFSQ0giDjE4LjIyMy4xNzIuMTQ5KgcyMDMyMzc3MgoyNzA2MjE5MDQxOgtJbmxpbmVJbWFnZUIBMFIGT25saW5lWgNJTEliBFRIVU1qCjIwMjIvMDEvMDFyCjIwMjIvMTIvMzF6AIIBIFAtMTAwMDA4NC0yMDEzOTUtU1RBRkYtbnVsbC1udWxskgEGT25saW5lygFnTW96aWxsYS81LjAgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNTM3LjM2IChLSFRNTCwgbGlrZSBHZWNrbzsgY29tcGF0aWJsZTsgQ2xhdWRlQm90LzEuMDsgK2NsYXVkZWJvdEBhbnRocm9waWMuY29tKdIBElNjaG9sYXJseSBKb3VybmFsc5oCB1ByZVBhaWSqAhtPUzpFTVMtRnVsbFRleHQtZ2V0RnVsbFRleHTKAg9BcnRpY2xlfEZlYXR1cmXiAgDyAgD6AgFZggMDV2ViigMcQ0lEOjIwMjUwNDI0MDQ1NjA4MzA5OjM3MDYxMQ%3D%3D&_s=Eyf6ZEPtZunTYPECmrc200SbW6E%3D "View Image - Figure A1. Offshore oil platforms compared to tallest building structures [Credit: Author 1—C.V.A.].")
Enlarge this image.Figure A1. Offshore oil platforms compared to tallest building structures [Credit: Author 1—C.V.A.].
![View Image - Figure A2. History of Offshore Deep water platforms showing different offshore platforms, their water depths and installation years [Image Credit: Author 1—C.V.A.].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/34/Rga1O?_a=ChgyMDI1MDQyNDA0NTYwODMwOTo1OTYxMzUSBzEzODMzMjMaCk9ORV9TRUFSQ0giDjE4LjIyMy4xNzIuMTQ5KgcyMDMyMzc3MgoyNzA2MjE5MDQxOgtJbmxpbmVJbWFnZUIBMFIGT25saW5lWgNJTEliBFRIVU1qCjIwMjIvMDEvMDFyCjIwMjIvMTIvMzF6AIIBIFAtMTAwMDA4NC0yMDEzOTUtU1RBRkYtbnVsbC1udWxskgEGT25saW5lygFnTW96aWxsYS81LjAgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNTM3LjM2IChLSFRNTCwgbGlrZSBHZWNrbzsgY29tcGF0aWJsZTsgQ2xhdWRlQm90LzEuMDsgK2NsYXVkZWJvdEBhbnRocm9waWMuY29tKdIBElNjaG9sYXJseSBKb3VybmFsc5oCB1ByZVBhaWSqAhtPUzpFTVMtRnVsbFRleHQtZ2V0RnVsbFRleHTKAg9BcnRpY2xlfEZlYXR1cmXiAgDyAgD6AgFZggMDV2ViigMcQ0lEOjIwMjUwNDI0MDQ1NjA4MzA5OjM3MDYxMQ%3D%3D&_s=GI%2B7cPC1mC6UxtSdZLu6olHGrdc%3D "View Image - Figure A2. History of Offshore Deep water platforms showing different offshore platforms, their water depths and installation years [Image Credit: Author 1—C.V.A.].")
Enlarge this image.Figure A2. History of Offshore Deep water platforms showing different offshore platforms, their water depths and installation years [Image Credit: Author 1—C.V.A.].
Enlarge this image.Figure A4. Worldwide distribution and location of floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels (Courtesy: Offshore magazine, Wood & EMA.).
Enlarge this image.Figure A5. Different Condeep concepts of gravity based structures in the North Sea (Courtesy: Dr.techn, OlavOlsen A.S).
Enlarge this image.Figure A6. Map of breakdown of Application envelopes for deep-water platforms in the Gulf of Mexico {Illustrated by: Author 1—C.V.A.}.
Enlarge this image.Figure A7. Map of Gulf of Mexico showing Deep water explorations as at 2020 (Courtesy: QuestOffshore and Offshore Magazine).
References
1. Chakrabarti, S.K. Handbook of Offshore Engineering; 1st ed. Elsevier: Plainfield, IL, USA, 2005; Volume 1.
2. Haritos, N. Introduction to the analysis and design of offshore structures—An overview. Electron. J. Struct. Eng. (eJSE); 2007; 7, pp. 55-65. Available online: https://ejsei.com/EJSE/article/download/65/64 (accessed on 12 February 2022).
3. Söding, H.; Blok, J.J.; Chen, H.H.; Hagiwara, K.; Isaacson, M.; Jankowski, J.; Jefferys, E.R.; Mathisen, J.; Rask, I.; Richer, J.-P. et al. Environmental forces of offshore structures: A state-of-the-art review. Mar. Struct.; 1990; 3, pp. 59-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8339(90)90021-I]
4. Amiri, N.; Shaterabadi, M.; Reza Kashyzadeh, K.; Chizari, M. A comprehensive review on design, monitoring, and failure in fixed offshore platforms. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 1349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9121349]
5. Amaechi, C.V.; Reda, A.; Butler, H.O.; Ja’e, I.A.; An, C. Review on fixed and floating offshore structures. Part II: Sustainable design approaches and project management. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2022; 10, 973. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse10070973]
6. El-Reedy, M. Offshore Structures: Design, Construction and Maintenance; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: London, UK, 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-65924-4]
7. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Engineering Handbook; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2010.
8. Wilson, J. Dynamics of Offshore Structures; 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022.
9. Ladeira, I.; Márquez, L.; Echeverry, S.; Le Sourne, H.; Rigo, P. Review of methods to assess the structural response of offshore wind turbines subjected to ship impacts. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2022.2072583]
10. Jaculli, M.A.; Leira, B.J.; Sangesland, S.; Morooka, C.K.; Kiryu, P.O. Dynamic response of a novel heave-compensated floating platform: Design considerations and the effects of mooring. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2022.2075647]
11. Al-Sharif, A.A. Design, fabrication and installation of fixed offshore platforms in the Arabian Gulf. Proceedings of the Fourth Saudi Engineering Conference; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 5–8 November 1995; pp. 99-105.
12. Al-Yafei, E.F. Sustainable Design for Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: A Conceptual Framework for Topside Facilities Projects. Ph.D. Thesis; School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure & Society, Heriot Watt University: Edinburgh, UK, 2018; Available online: https://www.ros.hw.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10399/3513/Al-YafeiE_0418_egis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 12 February 2022).
13. Kreidler, T.D. The Offshore Petroleum Industry: The Formative Years, 1945–1962. Ph.D. Thesis; History Department, Texas Tech University: Lubbock, TX, USA, 1997; Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.455.2343&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
14. Sadeghi, K. An overview on design, construction and installation of offshore template platforms suitable for Persian Gulf oil/gas fields. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Engineering, Artificial Intelligence and Applications; Kyrenia, Cyprus, 6–8 November 2013.
15. Sadeghi, K. Significant guidance for design and construction of marine and offshore structures. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci.; 2008; 4, pp. 67-92. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250310894_Significant_Guidance_for_Design_and_Construction_of_Marine_and_Offshore_Structures (accessed on 6 July 2022).
16. Sadeghi, K.; Dilek, H. An Introduction to the design of Offshore Structures. Acad. Res. Int.; 2019; 10, pp. 19-27. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.10(1)/ARInt.2019(10.1-03).pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
17. Bernitsas, M.M.; Kokarakis, J.E. Importance of nonlinearities in static riser analysis. Appl. Ocean. Res.; 1988; 10, pp. 2-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1187(88)80019-1]
18. Liao, M.; Wang, G.; Gao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Li, R. Mathematical modelling and dynamic analysis of an offshore drilling riser. Shock. Vib.; 2020; 2020, 8834011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8834011]
19. Bernitsas, M.M.; Kokarakis, J.E.; Imron, A. Large deformation three-dimensional static analysis of deep water marine risers. Appl. Ocean. Res.; 1985; 7, pp. 178-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-1187(85)90024-0]
20. Patel, M.H.; Sarohia, S.; Ng, K.F. Finite-element analysis of the marine riser. Eng. Struct.; 1984; 6, pp. 175-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(84)90045-2]
21. Burke, B.G. An analysis of marine risers for deep water. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–2 May 1973; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/4443-PA]
22. Bae, Y.; Bernitsas, M.M. Importance of nonlinearities in static and dynamic analyses of marine risers. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; Hague, The Netherlands, 11–16 June 1995; Available online: https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE95/All-ISOPE95/ISOPE-I-95-125/23069 (accessed on 6 July 2022).
23. Wang, Y.; Gao, D.; Fang, J. Coupled dynamic analysis of deepwater drilling riser under combined forcing and parametric excitation. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.; 2015; 27, pp. 1739-1747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.10.038]
24. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Gillet, N.; Wang, C.; Ja’e, I.A.; Reda, A.; Odijie, A.C. Review of composite marine risers for deep-water applications: Design, development and mechanics. J. Compos. Sci.; 2022; 6, 96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcs6030096]
25. Toh, W.; Tan, L.B.; Jaiman, R.K.; Tay, T.E.; Tan, V.B.C. A comprehensive study on composite risers: Material solution, local end fitting design and global response. Mar. Struct.; 2018; 61, pp. 155-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2018.05.005]
26. Amaechi, C.V.; Gillett, N.; Odijie, A.C.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Composite risers for deep waters using a numerical modelling approach. Compos. Struct.; 2019; 210, pp. 486-499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.057]
27. Amaechi, C.V. Local tailored design of deep water composite risers subjected to burst, collapse and tension loads. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 250, 110196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110196]
28. Roberts, D.; Hatton, S.A. Development and qualification of end fittings for composite riser pipe. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013; Paper Number: OTC-23977-MS [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/23977-MS]
29. Amaechi, C.V.; Gillet, N.; Ja’e, I.A.; Wang, C. Tailoring the local design of deep water composite risers to minimise structural weight. J. Compos. Sci.; 2022; 6, 103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcs6040103]
30. Pham, D.-C.; Sridhar, N.; Qian, X.; Sobey, A.J.; Achintha, M.; Shenoi, A. A review on design, manufacture and mechanics of composite risers. Ocean Eng.; 2016; 112, pp. 82-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.004]
31. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Strength of submarine hoses in Chinese-lantern configuration from hydrodynamic loads on CALM buoy. Ocean Eng.; 2019; 171, pp. 429-442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.11.010]
32. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Numerical studies on CALM buoy motion responses and the effect of buoy geometry cum skirt dimensions with its hydrodynamic waves-current interactions. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 244, 110378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110378]
33. Gao, Q.; Zhang, P.; Duan, M.; Yang, X.; Shi, W.; An, C.; Li, Z. Investigation on structural behavior of ring-stiffened composite offshore rubber hose under internal pressure. Appl. Ocean Res.; 2018; 79, pp. 7-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2018.07.007]
34. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Review on the design and mechanics of bonded marine hoses for Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM) buoys. Ocean Eng.; 2021; 242, 110062. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110062]
35. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. An overview on bonded marine hoses for sustainable fluid transfer and (un)loading operations via Floating Offshore Structures (FOS). J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 1236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9111236]
36. Gao, P.; Gao, Q.; An, C.; Zeng, J. Analytical modeling for offshore composite rubber hose with spiral stiffeners under internal pressure. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos.; 2021; 40, pp. 352-364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0731684420962577]
37. Tonatto, M.L.; Tita, V.; Araujo, R.T.; Forte, M.M.; Amico, S.C. Parametric analysis of an offloading hose under internal pressure via computational modeling. Mar. Struct.; 2017; 51, pp. 174-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.10.008]
38. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Mathematical modelling of marine bonded hoses for single point mooring (SPM) systems, with catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM) buoy application—A review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 1179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9111179]
39. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ja’e, I.A.; Aboshio, A.; Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. A literature review on the technologies of bonded hoses for marine applications. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2022.2027682]
40. Wichers, I.J. Guide to Single Point Moorings; WMooring Inc.: Houston, TX, USA, 2013; Available online: http://www.wmooring.com/files/Guide_to_Single_Point_Moorings.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
41. Petrone, C.; Oliveto, N.D.; Sivaselvan, M.V. Dynamic analysis of mooring cables with application to floating offshore wind turbines. J. Eng. Mech.; 2015; 142, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000999]
42. Mavrakos, S.A.; Papazoglou, V.J.; Triantafyllou, M.S.; Hatjigeorgiou, J. Deep-water mooring dynamics. Mar. Struct.; 1996; 9, pp. 181-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8339(94)00019-O]
43. Mavrakos, S.A.; Chatjigeorgiou, J. Dynamic behavior of deep-water mooring lines with submerged buoys. Comput. Struct.; 1997; 64, pp. 819-835. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(96)00169-1]
44. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Nizamani, Z.; Nakayama, A. Optimisation of mooring line parameters for offshore floating structures: A review paper. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 247, 110644. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.110644]
45. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. Numerical investigation on mooring line configurations of a Paired Column Semisubmersible for its global performance in deep water condition. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 250, 110572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.110572]
46. Xu, S.; Ji, C.Y.; Soares, C.G. Experimental and numerical investigation a semi-submersible moored by hybrid mooring systems. Ocean. Eng.; 2018; 163, pp. 641-678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.05.006]
47. Xue, X.; Chen, N.Z.; Wu, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Guo, Y. Mooring system fatigue analysis for a semi-submersible. Ocean. Eng.; 2018; 156, pp. 550-563. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.022]
48. Wang, K.; Er, G.K.; Iu, V.P. Nonlinear vibrations of offshore floating structures moored by cables. Ocean. Eng.; 2018; 156, pp. 479-488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.023]
49. Harnois, V.; Weller, S.D.; Johanning, L.; Thies, P.R.; Le Boulluec, M.; Le Roux, D.; Soule, V.; Ohana, J. Numerical model validation for mooring systems: Method and application for wave energy converters. Renew. Energy; 2015; 75, pp. 869-887. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.063]
50. Wang, Z.; Bai, Y.; Wei, Q. Mechanical properties of glass fibre reinforced pipeline during the laying process. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; ahead-of-print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2021.1971825]
51. Liu, W.; Bai, Y.; Gao, Y.; Song, X.; Han, Z. Analysis of the mechanical properties of a reinforced thermoplastic composite pipe joint. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2021; 17, pp. 1515-1521. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2021.1932024]
52. Liu, W.; Gao, Y.; Shao, Q.; Cai, W.; Han, Z.; Chi, M. Design and analysis of joints in reinforced thermoplastic composite pipe under internal pressure. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; 17, pp. 1276-1285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2021.1907065]
53. Ochoa, O.O.; Salama, M.M. Offshore composites: Transition barriers to an enabling technology. Compos. Sci. Technol.; 2005; 65, pp. 2588-2596. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.05.019]
54. Langena, I.; Skjbtadb, O.; Haver, S. Measured and predicted dynamic behaviour of an offshore gravity platform. Appl. Ocean. Res.; 1998; 20, pp. 15-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1187(98)00010-8]
55. Chandrasekaran, S.; Uddin, S.A.; Wahab, M. Dynamic analysis of semi-submersible under the postulated failure of restraining system with buoy. Int. J. Steel Struct.; 2020; 21, pp. 118-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13296-020-00420-7]
56. Zhao, W.; Zou, L.; Wan, D.; Hu, Z. Numerical investigation of vortex-induced motions of a paired-column semi-submersible in currents. Ocean. Eng.; 2018; 164, pp. 272-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.06.023]
57. Anastasiades, K.; Michels, S.; van Wuytswinkel, H.; Blom, J.; Audenaert, A. Barriers for the circular reuse of steel in the Belgian construction sector: An industry wide perspective. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Manag. Procure. Law; 2022; pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.21.00044]
58. Odijie, A.C.; Quayle, S.; Ye, J. Wave induced stress profile on a paired column semisubmersible hull formation for column reinforcement. Eng. Struct.; 2017; 143, pp. 77-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.04.013]
59. Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. Effect of vortex induced vibration on a paired-column semisubmersible platform. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn.; 2015; 15, 1540019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219455415400192]
60. Chandrasekaran, S.; Srivastava, G. Design Aids for Offshore Structures under Special Environmental Loads, Including Fire Resistance; Springer: Singapore, 2017; ISBN 978-981-322-10-7608-7
61. Barltrop, N.D.P.; Adams, A.J. Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures; 3rd ed. Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1991.
62. Brebbia, C.A.; Walker, S. Dynamic Analysis of Offshore Structures; 1st ed. Newnes-Butterworth & Co. Publishers Ltd.: London, UK, 1979.
63. Chandrasekaran, S. Dynamic Analysis and Design of Offshore Structures; 2nd ed. Springer: Singapore, 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6089-2] ISBN 978-981-10-6089-2
64. Leffler, W.L.; Pattarozzi, R.; Sterling, G. Deepwater Petroleum Exploration & Production: A Nontechnical Guide; PennWell: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781593702533
65. Fang, H.; Duan, M. Offshore Operation Facilities; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2014; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2011-0-07477-X]
66. Aird, P. Deepwater Drilling: Well Planning, Design, Engineering, Operations, and Technology Application; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-00499-0]
67. Joshi, S.D. Horizontal Well Technology; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1991.
68. Stewart, G. Well Test Design and Analysis; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011.
69. Azar, J.J.; Samuel, R. Drilling Engineering; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2007.
70. Samie, N.N. Practical Engineering Management of Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-04721-1]
71. Clews, R.J. Project Finance for the International Petroleum Industry; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-0-12-800158-5
72. Chandrasekaran, S.; Jain, A.K. Ocean Structures, Construction, Materials, and Operations; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-149-87-9742-9
73. Laik, S. Offshore Petroleum Drilling and Production; 1st ed. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
74. Speight, J.G. Handbook of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2011; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-19144-4]
75. Grace, R.D. Blowout and Well Control Handbook; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-03296-5]
76. Wan, R. Advanced Well Completion Engineering; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2011; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-66820-9]
77. Byrom, T.G. Casing and Liners for Drilling and Completion: Design and Application; 2nd ed. A Volume in Gulf Drilling Guides Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-18762-4]
78. Caenn, R.; Darley, H.C.H.; Gray, G.R. Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids; 7th ed. Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-04159-4]
79. Devereux, S. Practical Well Planning and Drilling Manual; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1998.
80. Veatch, R.W., Jr.; King, G.E.; Holditch, S.A. Essentials of Hydraulic Fracturing: Vertical and Horizontal Wellbores; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2017.
81. Raymond, M.S.; Leffler, W.L. Oil & Gas Production in Nontechnical Language; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2017.
82. Crumpton, H. Well Control for Completions and Interventions; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-00602-8]
83. Sadeghi, K. An overview of design, analysis, construction and installation of offshore petroleum platforms suitable for Cyprus oil/gas fields. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci.; 2007; 2, pp. 1-16. Available online: https://cemtelecoms.iqpc.co.uk/media/6514/786.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
84. Yan, J.; Qiao, D.; Ou, J. Optimal design and hydrodynamic response analysis of deep-water mooring systems with submerged buoys. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2018; 13, pp. 476-487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1426282]
85. Ormberg, H.; Larsen, K. Coupled analysis of floater motion and mooring dynamics for a turret-moored ship. Appl. Ocean Res.; 1998; 20, pp. 55-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1187(98)00012-1]
86. Qiao, D.; Ou, J. Global responses analysis of a semi-submersible platform with different mooring models in South China Sea. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2012; 8, pp. 441-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2012.718971]
87. Bargi, K.; Hosseini, S.R.; Tadayon, M.H.; Sharifian, H. Seismic response of a typical fixed jacket-type offshore platform (SPD1) under sea waves. Open J. Mar. Sci.; 2011; 1, pp. 36-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2011.12004]
88. Jang, J.; Jyh-Shinn, G. Analysis of maximum wind force for offshore structure design. J. Mar. Sci. Technol.; 1999; 7, pp. 43-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51400/2709-6998.2511]
89. Thiagarajan, K.P.; Finch, S. An investigation into the effect of turret mooring location on the vertical motions of an FPSO vessel. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.; 1999; 121, pp. 71-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2830080]
90. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Nizamani, Z.; Nakayama, A. Effect of various mooring materials on hydrodynamic responses of turret-moored FPSO with emphasis on intact and damaged conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2022; 10, 453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse10040453]
91. Sheng, W.; Tapoglou, E.; Ma, X.; Taylor, C.J.; Dorrell, R.M.; Parsons, D.R.; Aggidis, G. Hydrodynamic studies of floating structures: Comparison of wave-structure interaction modelling. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 249, 110878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.110878]
92. Hirdaris, S.E.; Bai, W.; Dessi, D.; Ergind, A.; Gu, X.; Hermundstad, O.A.; Huijsmans, R.; Iijima, K.; Nielsen, U.D.; Parunov, J. et al. Loads for use in the design of ships and offshore structures. Ocean Eng.; 2014; 78, pp. 131-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.09.012]
93. Lee, Y.; Incecik, A.; Chan, H.S. Prediction of global loads and structural response analysis on a multi-purpose semi-submersible. Proceedings of the ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; Halkidiki, Greece, 12–17 June 2005; American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection pp. 3-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2005-67003]
94. Newman, J.N. Marine Hydrodynamics; IT Press: London, UK, 1977; Reprint in 1999
95. Chakrabarti, S.K. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2001; Reprint
96. Faltinsen, O.M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
97. Bishop, R.E.D.; Price, W.G. Hydroelasticity of Ships; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
98. Singh, R. Corrosion Control for Offshore Structures; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2012-0-01231-8]
99. Chandrasekaran, S.; Uddin, S.A. Postulated failure analyses of a spread-moored semi-submersible. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.; 2020; 5, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-0284-2]
100. Sarpkaya, T. Wave Forces on Offshore Structures; 1st ed. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
101. Clauss, G.; Lehmann, E.; Östergaard, C. Offshore Structures: Volume I: Conceptual Design and Hydromechanics; 1st ed. English Translation; Springer: London, UK, 2012.
102. McCormick, M.E. Ocean Engineering Mechanics with Applications; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
103. Holthuijsen, L.H. Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters; 1st ed. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
104. Dean, R.G.; Dalrymple, R.A. Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists-Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering; World Scientific: Singapore, 1991; Volume 2.
105. Sorensen, R.M. Basic Coastal Engineering; 3rd ed. Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
106. Sorensen, R.M. Basic Wave Mechanics: For Coastal and Ocean Engineers; John Wiley and Sons: London, UK, 1993.
107. Boccotti, P. Wave Mechanics and Wave Loads on Marine Structures; Elsevier B.V. & Butterworth-Heinemann: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015.
108. Boccotti, P. Wave Mechanics for Ocean Engineering; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
109. Seyed, F.B.; Patel, M.H. Mathematics of flexible risers including pressure and internal flow effects. Mar. Struct.; 1992; 5, pp. 121-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8339(92)90025-K]
110. Dareing, D.W. Mechanics of Drillstrings and Marine Risers; ASME Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; 396p. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.859995 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
111. Sparks, C. Fundamentals of Marine Riser Mechanics: Basic Principles and Simplified Analyses; 2nd ed. PennWell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2018.
112. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Pipelines and Risers; 1st ed. Elsevier Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2005; Reprint 2013 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044566-3.X5000-3]
113. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q.; Ruan, W. Flexible Pipes: Advances in Pipes and Pipelines; Wiley Scrivener Publishing: Beverly, MA, USA, 2017.
114. Sævik, S. On Stresses and Fatigue in Flexible Pipes. Ph.D. Thesis; Department Marine Structures, Norwegian Institute Technology: Trondheim, Norway, 1992; Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/442338 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
115. Amaechi, C.V. Novel Design, Hydrodynamics and Mechanics of Marine Hoses in Oil/Gas Applications. Ph.D. Thesis; Engineering Department, Lancaster University: Lancaster, UK, 2022.
116. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Bashmal, S.; Iqbal, N.; Dai, W.; Bai, Y. Fatigue crack monitoring of T-type joints in steel offshore oil and gas jacket platform. Sensors; 2021; 21, 3294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21093294]
117. Paik, J.K.; Lee, D.H.; Park, D.K.; Ringsberg, J.W. Full-scale collapse testing of a steel stiffened plate structure under axial-compressive loading at a temperature of −80 °C. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2021; 16, pp. 255-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2020.1791685]
118. He, K.; Kim, H.J.; Thomas, G.; Paik, J.K. Analysis of fire-induced progressive collapse for topside structures of a VLCC-class ship-shaped offshore installation. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; ahead-of print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2022.2027681]
119. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Iqbal, N.; Bashmal, S.; Hameed, H.; Bai, Y. An experimental study of damage detection on typical joints of jackets platform based on electro-mechanical impedance technique. Materials; 2021; 14, 7168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14237168]
120. Zhang, X.; Ni, W.; Sun, L. Fatigue analysis of the oil offloading lines in FPSO system under wave and current loads. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2022; 10, 225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse10020225]
121. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Reliability of maintained ship hulls subjected to corrosion. J. Ship Res.; 1996; 40, pp. 235-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5957/jsr.1996.40.3.235]
122. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Fatigue reliability of the ship hull girder accounting for inspection and repair. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.; 1996; 51, pp. 341-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00123-9]
123. Hussein, A.; Soares, C.G. Reliability and residual strength of double hull tankers designed according to the new IACS common structural rules. Ocean Eng.; 2009; 36, pp. 1446-1459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.04.006]
124. Soares, C.; Garbatov, Y. Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates subjected to non-linear corrosion and compressive loads. Mar. Struct.; 1999; 12, pp. 425-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8339(99)00028-3]
125. Teixeira, A.P.; Soares, C.G.; Netto, T.A.; Estefen, S.F. Reliability of pipelines with corrosion defects. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip.; 2008; 85, pp. 228-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.09.002]
126. Aboshio, A.; Uche, A.O.; Akagwu, P.; Ye, J. Reliability-based design assessment of offshore inflatable barrier structures made of fibre-reinforced composites. Ocean Eng.; 2021; 233, 109016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109016]
127. Chojaczyk, A.A.; Teixeira, A.P.; Neves, L.C.; Cardoso, J.B.; Soares, C.G. Review and application of Artificial Neural Networks models in reliability analysis of steel structures. Struct. Saf.; 2015; 52, pp. 78-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.09.002]
128. Gaspar, B.; Teixeira, A.P.; Soares, C.G. Assessment of the efficiency of Kriging surrogate models for structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Eng. Mech.; 2014; 37, pp. 24-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2014.03.011]
129. Santala, M.J. API RP-2MET Metocean 2nd edition; Updates to the Gulf of Mexico regional annex. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/28665-MS]
130. Stear, J.B. Development of API RP2 Met: The new path for Metocean. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 2008; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/19602-MS]
131. Stear, J. Use of RP 2MET annex Gulf Metocean conditions with 2A and 2SIM. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/23459-MS]
132. Stear, J. SS: New API codes: Updates, new suite of standards/“RP 2MET: An API standard for Metocean”. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20693-MS]
133. Puskar, F.; Robert, S. SS: New API codes: Updates, new suite of standards—API bulletin 2HINS—Guidance for post-hurricane structural inspection of offshore structures. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20817-MS]
134. Zwerneman, F.; Digre, K.A. SS: New API codes: Updates, new suite of standards: API RP 2A-WSD, the 23rd edition. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20837-MS]
135. O’Connor, P.E.; Versowsky, P.; Day, M.; Westlake, H.; Bucknell, J. Platform assessment: Recent Section 17 updates and future API/industry developments. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2005; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/17699-MS]
136. Versowski, P.; Rodenbusch, G.; O’Connor, P.; Prins, M. Hurricane impact reviewed through API. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18417-MS]
137. Balint, S.W.; Orange, D. Panel discussion: Future of the Gulf of Mexico after Katrina and Rita. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18410-MS]
138. Maxwell, P.; Verret, S.M.; Haugland, T. Fixed platform performance during recent hurricanes: Comparison to design standards. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18989-MS]
139. Westlake, H.S.; Puskar, F.J.; O’Connor, P.E.; Bucknell, J.R. The development of a recommended practice for Structural Integrity Management (SIM) of fixed offshore platforms. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18332-MS]
140. Wisch, D.J.; Mangiavacchi, A. Alignment of API offshore structures standards with ISO 19900 series and usage of the API suite. Proceedings of the Off-Shore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/23443-MS]
141. Wisch, D.J.; Puskar, F.J.; Laurendine, T.T.; O’Connor, P.E.; Versowsky, P.E.; Bucknell, J. An update on API RP 2A section 17 for the assessment of existing platforms. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2004; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/16820-MS]
142. Lotsberg, I. Background for revision of DNV-RP-C203 fatigue analysis of offshore steel structure. Proceedings of the ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; Halkidiki, Greece, 12–17 June 2005; Volume 3, pp. 297-306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2005-67549]
143. Horn, A.M.; Lotsberg, I.; Orjaseater, O. The rationale for update of S-N curves for single sided girth welds for risers and pipelines in DNV GL RP C-203 based on fatigue performance of more than 1700 full scale fatigue test results. Proceedings of the ASME 2018 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; Madrid, Spain, 17–22 June 2018; Volume 4: Materials Technology, Paper No. V004T03A024 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2018-78408]
144. Lotsberg, I. Development of fatigue design standards for marine structures. Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June 2017; Volume 9: Offshore Geotechnics; Torgeir Moan Honoring Symposium, Paper No. V009T12A005 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2017-62516]
145. Lotsberg, I. Fatigue design recommendations for conical connections in tubular structures. Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June 2017; Volume 4: Materials Technology, Paper No. V004T03A026 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2017-61144]
146. Echtermeyer, A.T.; Osnes, H.; Ronold, K.O.; Moe, E.T. Recommended practice for composite risers. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2002; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/14022-MS]
147. Echtermeyer, A.; Steuten, B. Thermoplastic composite riser guidance note. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/24095-MS]
148. Echtermeyer, A.T.; Sund, O.E.; Ronold, K.O.; Moslemian, R.; Moe, E.T. A new recommended practice for thermoplastic composite pipes. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Composite Materials; Xi’an, China, 20–25 August 2017; Available online: http://iccm-central.org/Proceedings/ICCM21proceedings/papers/3393.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2022).
149. Lotsberg, I.; Fjeldstad, A.; Ronold, K.O. Background for revision of DNVGL-RP-C203 fatigue design of offshore steel structures in 2016. Proceedings of the ASME 2016 35th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; Busan, Korea, 19–24 June 2016; Volume 4: Materials Technology, Paper No. V004T03A015 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2016-54939]
150. Lotsberg, I.; Sigurdsson, G. A new recommended practice for inspection planning of fatigue cracks in offshore structures based on probabilistic methods. Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014; Volume 5: Materials Technology; Petroleum Technology, Paper No. V005T03A005 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2014-23188]
151. Lotsberg, I. Background for new revision of DNV-RP-C203 fatigue design of offshore steel structures. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010; Volume 6, pp. 125-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2010-20649]
152. Lotsberg, I.; Skjelby, T.; Vareide, K.; Amundsgård, O.; Landet, E. A new DNV recommended practice for fatigue analysis of offshore ships. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; Hamburg, Germany, 4–9 June 2006; pp. 573-580. Volume 3: Safety and Reliability; Materials Technology; Douglas Faulkner Symposium on Reliability and Ultimate Strength of Marine Structures [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2006-92370]
153.
154. American Petroleum Institute (API). API 2INT-MET Interim Guidance on Hurricane Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico; Bulletin 2INT-MET American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Available online: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/api.2int-met.2007.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
155. American Petroleum Institute (API). Interim Guidance for Design of Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions; API Bulletin 2INT-DG American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
156. American Petroleum Institute (API). Interim Guidance for Assessment of Existing Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions; API Bulletin 2INT-EX American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
157. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 95F, Gulf of Mexico MODU Mooring Practices for the 2007 Hurricane Season—Interim Recommendations; 2nd ed. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
158. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 2SM, Recommended Practice for Design, Manufacture, Installation, and Maintenance of Synthetic Fiber Ropes for Offshore Mooring; 1st ed. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2001; Addendum in 2007
159. American Petroleum Institute (API). API-RP-2AWSD, Recommended Practice for Planning Designing and Construction Fixed Offshore Structure—Working Stress Design; 21st ed. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
160. American Petroleum Institute (API). API-RP-2SK, API Recommended Practice 2SK, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures; 3rd ed. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
161. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 2SK, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures; 3rd ed. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
162. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 2I, In-Service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating Structures; 3rd ed. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
163. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 2Q, Recommended Practice for Design and Operation of Marine Drilling Riser Systems; 2nd ed. American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1984.
164. American Petroleum Institute (API). Bulletin on Comparison of Marine Drilling Riser Analyses; API 16J Bulletin American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 1992.
165. American Petroleum Institute (API). Recommended Practice 2RD: Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension-leg Platforms (TLPs); American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
166. American Petroleum Institute (API). Design of Flat Plat Structure; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
167. American Petroleum Institute (API). Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service; API 579 American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
168. American Petroleum Institute (API). Design, Selection, Operation and Maintenance of Marine Drilling Riser Systems; API RP 16Q American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
169. American Petroleum Institute (API). Qualification of Spoolable Reinforced Plastic Line Pipe; API 15S American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
170. American Petroleum Institute (API). Specification for Unbonded Pipe; API 17J American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
171. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Strength Analysis of Min Structures of Column Stabilized Units (Semisubmersible Platforms); DNV-CN-31 Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 1987.
172. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Steel Structures; DNV-RP-C203 Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, April 2010.
173. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Structural Design of Offshore Units (WSD Method); DNV-OS-C201 Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2011.
174. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Structural Design of Self-Elevating Units (LRFD Method); DNV-OS-C104 Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2012.
175. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Composite Risers: Recommended Practice; DNV-RP-F202 Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2010.
176. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Dynamic Risers: Recommended Practice; DNV-OS-F201 Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2010.
177. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Composite Components: Recommended Practice; DNV-OS-C501 Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2013.
178. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Riser Fatigue: Recommended Practice; DNV-RP-F204 Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2010.
179. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Design of Titanium Risers: Recommended Practice; DNV-RP-F201 Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2002.
180. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads: Recommended Practice; DNV-RP-C205 Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2007.
181. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Offshore Classification Projects—Testing and Commissioning: Class Guideline; DNVGL-CG-0170 Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2015.
182. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). Offshore Loading Buoys; DNVGL-OS-E403 Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL): Oslo, Norway, 2015.
183. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). DNVGL-CG-0128: Buckling. October 2015. Available online: https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNVGL/CG/2015-10/DNVGL-CG-0128.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2022).
184. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). Global Performance Analysis of Deepwater Floating Structures; DNVGL-RP-F205 Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL): Oslo, Norway, 2017.
185. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). Recommended Practice: Technology Qualification; DNVGL-RP-A203 Det Norske Veritas (DNVGL): Oslo, Norway, 2019.
186. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). Recommended Practice: Thermoplastic Composite Pipes; DNVGL-RP-F119 Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL): Oslo, Norway, 2015; Available online: https://www.dnvgl.com/oilgas/download/dnvgl-st-f119-thermoplastic-composite-pipes.html (accessed on 15 February 2022).
187. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Subsea Riser Systems: Guide for Building and Classing; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2017; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/123_guide_building_and_classing_subsea_riser_systems_2017/Riser_Guide_e-Mar18.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
188. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guide for Buckling and Ultimate Strength Assessment for Offshore Structures; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2004.
189. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing Marine Vessels 2022—Part 5D, Offshore Support Vessels for Specialized Services; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/other/1_marinevesselrules_2022/mvr-part-5d-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
190. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing Steel Barges 2022; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/special_service/10_barges_2022/barge-rules-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
191. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Certification of Cargo Containers 1998; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 1998; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/equipment_and_component_certification/13_certofcargocontainers/pub13_cargocontainers.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
192. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guide for the Certification of Offshore Mooring Chain; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2017; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/survey_and_inspection/39_certificationoffshoremooringchain_2017/Mooring_Chain_Guide_e-May17.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
193. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guide for Building and Classing Accommodation Barges 2021; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2021; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/special_service/48_accommbarges_2021/accommodation-barge-guide-dec21.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
194. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guide for the Classification of Drilling Systems 2021; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2021; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/57_Classification_of_Drilling_Systems_2021/cds-guide-feb21.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
195. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations 2022; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/63_facilities_2022/fac-rules-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
196. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations 2022; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/82_FPI_2022/fpi-rules-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
197. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guidance Notes on the Application of Fiber Rope for Offshore Mooring; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/90_fiberrope_2021/fiber-rope-gn-june21.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
198. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing High Speed Craft 2022—Part 3, Hull Construction and Equipment; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/special_service/61_highspeedcraft_2022/hsc-part-3-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212. Tahar, A.; Kim, M. Hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analysis and sensitivity study of a tanker-based FPSO. Appl. Ocean Res.; 2003; 25, pp. 367-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2003.02.001]
213. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A. Numerical Validation of Hydrodynamic Responses and Mooring Top Tension of a Turret Moored FPSO Using Simulation and Experimental Results. Advances in Civil Engineering Materials. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Awang, M.; Ling, L.; Emamian, S.S. Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 223, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8667-2_20]
214. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A. Numerical studies on the effects of mooring configuration and line diameter on the restoring behaviour of a turret-moored FPSO. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering; Virtual Conference, 12–14 November 2020; Available online: https://avestia.com/ICCSTE2020_Proceedings/files/paper/ICCSTE_321.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
215. Ali, M.O.A.; Ja’e, I.A.; Hwa, M.G.Z. Effects of water depth, mooring line diameter and hydrodynamic coefficients on the behaviour of deepwater FPSOs. Ain Shams Eng. J.; 2019; 11, pp. 727-739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.12.001]
216. Montasir, O.A.A.; Yenduri, A.; Kurian, V.J. Mooring system optimisation and effect of different line design variables on motions of truss spar platforms in intact and damaged conditions. China Ocean Eng.; 2019; 33, pp. 385-397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13344-019-0037-1]
217. Montasir, O.A.A. Numerical and Experimental Studies on the Slow Drift Motions and the Mooring Line Responses of Truss Spar Platform. Ph.D. Thesis; Universiti Teknologi Petronas: Seri Iskandar, Malaysia, 2012.
218. Otteren, A. A mathematical model for dynamic analysis of a flexible marine riser connected to a floating vessel. Model. Identif. Control; 1982; 3, pp. 187-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4173/mic.1982.4.1]
219. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Report 2019; BOEM 2021-005 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/about-boem/Deepwater-Gulf-of-Mexico-Report-2019.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2022).
220. Craig, J.; Gerali, F.; Macaulay, F.; Sorkhabi, R. The history of the European oil and gas industry (1600s–2000s). History of the European Oil and Gas Industry; Special Publications Geological Society: London, UK, 2018; Volume 465, pp. 1-24. Available online: https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/specpubgsl/early/2018/06/20/SP465.23.full.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP465.23]
221. Craig, J. Drilling: History of onshore drilling and technology. Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R. Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Clam, Switzerland, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02330-4_26-2]
222. Craig, J. History of oil: The premodern era (thirteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries). Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R. Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Clam, Switzerland, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02330-4_33-1]
223. Craig, J. History of oil: The birth of the modern oil industry (1859–1939). Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R. Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Clam, Switzerland, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02330-4_34-1]
224. Craig, J. History of oil: Regions and uses of petroleum in the Classical and Medieval periods. Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R. Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Clam, Switzerland, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02330-4_38-1]
225. Purcell, P. Oil and Gas Exploration in East Africa: A Brief History. GEO EXPRO Magazine, 1 September 2014. Available online: https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2014/09/oil-and-gas-exploration-in-east-africa-a-brief-history (accessed on 12 July 2022).
226. Glennie, K.W. History of exploration in the southern North Sea. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential; Ziegler, K.; Turner, P.; Daines, S.R. Special Publications 123 Geological Society: London, UK, 1997; pp. 5-16.
227. Macini, P.; Mesini, E. History of petroleum and petroleum engineering. Petroleum Engineering—Upstream, Vol IV; Eolss Publishers Co. Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2018.
228. Kontorovich, A.E.; Eder, L.V.; Filimonova, V.; Mishenin, M.V.; Nemov, V.Y. Oil industry of major historical centre of the Volga-Ural petroleum province: Past, current state, and long-run prospects. Russ. Geol. Geophys.; 2016; 57, pp. 1653-1667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rgg.2016.10.011]
229. Krzywiec, P. Birth of the oil industry in the northern Carpathians. In Proceeding of the Geological Society Conference on European Oil & Gas Industry History; London, UK, 3–4 March 2016; pp. 32-33.
230. Krzywiec, P. The birth and development of the oil and gas industry in the Northern Carpathians (up until 1939). History of the European Oil and Gas Industry; Craig, J.; Gerali, F.; MacAulay, F.; Sorkhabi, R. Special Publications The Geological Society: London, UK, 2018; Volume 465, pp. 165-190.
231. Spencer, A.M.; Chew, K. Petroleum exploration history: Discovery pattern versus manpower, technology and the development of exploration principles. First Break; 2009; 27, pp. 35-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2009018]
232. Zhang, G.; Qu, H.; Chen, G.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, F.; Yang, H.; Zhao, Z.; Ma, M. Giant discoveries of oil and gas fields in global deepwaters in the past 40 years and the prospect of exploration. J. Nat. Gas Geosci.; 2019; 4, pp. 1-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnggs.2019.03.002]
233. Clauss, G.; Lehmann, E.; Ostergaard, C. Offshore Structures; Volume I: Conceptual Design and Hydromechanics; Springer: London, UK, 1992; 64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3193-9]
234. Ahmad, O. An overview of design, construction, and installation of gravity offshore platforms. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl.; 2021; 3, pp. 27-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47346/ijaesa.v3i1.81]
235. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). An Overview of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities; Prepared by Hartley Anderson Limited for Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI): Aberdeen, UK, 2001; Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197799/SD_SEA2EandP.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
236. Chalke, A.; Nalawade, S.; Khadake, N. Review on analysis of offshore structure. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol.; 2020; 7, pp. 1241-1245. Available online: https://www.irjet.net/archives/V7/i8/IRJET-V7I8202.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
237. Sarhan, O.; Raslan, M. Offshore petroleum rig platforms—An overview of analysis, design, construction and installation. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl.; 2021; 2, pp. 7-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47346/ijaesa.v2i1.58]
238. Elrahim, M.K.A.; Husban, M. Analysis of the Lebanese oil and gas exploration in the Mediterranean Sea: An overview and analysis of offshore platforms. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl.; 2021; 2, pp. 25-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47346/ijaesa.v2i1.60]
239. Kharade, A.; Kapadiya, S. Offshore engineering: An overview of types and loadings on structures. Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res.; 2014; 3, pp. 16-28.
240. Sadeghi, K.; Bichi, A. Offshore tower platforms: An overview of design, analysis, construction and installation. Acad. Res. Int.; 2018; 9, pp. 62-70. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.9(1)/ARInt.2018(9.1-08).pdf (accessed on 6 July 2022).
241. Sadeghi, K.; Guvensoy, A. Compliant tower platforms: A general guidance for analysis, construction, and installation. Acad. Res. Int.; 2018; 8, pp. 37-56. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323706788_Compliant_tower_platforms_general_guidance_for_analysis_construction_and_installation (accessed on 6 July 2022).
242. Sadeghi, K.; Tozan, H. Tension leg platforms: An overview of planning, design, construction and installation. Acad. Res. Int.; 2018; 9, pp. 55-65. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.9(2)/ARInt.2018(9.2-06).pdf (accessed on 6 July 2022).
243. Sadeghi, K.; Al-koiy, K.; Nabi, K. General guidance for the design, fabrication and installation of jack-up platforms. Asian J. Nat. Appl. Sci.; 2017; 6, pp. 77-84. Available online: http://www.ajsc.leena-luna.co.jp/AJSCPDFs/Vol.6(4)/AJSC2017(6.4-08).pdf (accessed on 22 May 2022).
244. Esteban, M.D.; Couñago, B.; López-Gutiérrez, J.S.; Negro, V.; Vellisco, F. Gravity based support structures for offshore wind turbine generators: Review of the installation process. Ocean Eng.; 2015; 110, pp. 281-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.10.033]
245. Shell. Shell’s Deep Water Portfolio in the Gulf of Mexico. Available online: https://www.shell.us/energy-and-innovation/energy-from-deepwater/shell-deep-water-portfolio-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.html (accessed on 26 August 2020).
246. bp America. Our Platforms—Gulf of Mexico. Available online: https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/where-we-operate/gulf-of-mexico/our-platforms.html (accessed on 26 August 2020).
247. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). FAQS/How Many Platforms Are in the Gulf of Mexico?. Available online: https://www.bsee.gov/subject/decommissioning-faqs (accessed on 26 August 2020).
248. Chitwood, J.E.; McClure, A.C. Semisubmersible Drilling Tender Unit. SPE Drill. Eng.; 1987; 2, pp. 104-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13482-PA]
249. Lim, E.F.H.; Ronalds, B.F. Evolution of the production semisubmersible. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Dallas, TX, USA, 1–4 October 2000; Paper No. 63036-MS [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/63036-MS]
250. Ochoa, O.O. Composite Riser Experience and Design Guidance; MMS Project Number 490 Offshore Technology Research Center: Austin, TX, USA, 2006; Available online: https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/tap-technical-assessment-program//490aa.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2022).
251. Chandrasekaran, S.; Nagavinothini, R. Offshore triceratops under impact forces in ultra-deep arctic waters. Int. J. Steel Struct.; 2020; 20, pp. 464-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13296-019-00297-1]
252. Odijie, A.C. Design of Paired Column Semisubmersible Hull. Ph.D. Thesis; Engineering Department: Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17635/LANCASTER/THESIS/39]
253. Odijie, A.C.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. A review of floating semisubmersible hull systems: Column stabilized unit. Ocean Eng.; 2017; 144, pp. 191-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.08.020]
254. Yu, L.C.; King, L.S.; Hoon, A.T.C.; Yean, P.C.C. A review study of oil and gas facilities for fixed and floating offshore platforms. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol.; 2015; 10, pp. 672-679. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.10.2476]
255. Zhang, J.; Koh, C.G.; Trinh, T.N.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Z. Identification of jack-up spudcan fixity by an output-only substructural strategy. Mar. Struct.; 2012; 29, pp. 71-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2012.10.001]
256. Ronalds, B.F. Applicability ranges for offshore oil and gas production facilities. Mar. Struct.; 2005; 18, pp. 251-263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2005.06.001]
257. Reddy, D.; Swamidas, A. Essentials of Offshore Structures: Theory and Applications; 1st ed. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.
258. Tan, X.; Li, J.; Lu, C. Structural behaviour prediction for jack-up units during jacking operations. Comput. Struct.; 2003; 81, pp. 2409-2416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00299-2]
259. Hartman, L. Top 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Offshore Wind Energy; US Department of Energy (DOE), Wind Energy Technologies Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/top-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-offshore-wind-energy (accessed on 30 May 2022).
260. Murugaiah, S. A Review Study of Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (F.P.S.O.) Oil and Gas Platform. Bachelor’s Thesis; Department of Petrochemical Engineering, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman: Kampar, Malaysia, 2015; Available online: http://eprints.utar.edu.my/1759/1/A_Review_Study_of_Floating%2C_Production%2C_Storage_and_Offloading_(FPSO)_Oil_and_Gas_Platform.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2022).
261. Wells, B.A.; Wells, K.L. Mr. Charlie, First Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig; American Oil & Gas Historical Society (AOGHS): Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Available online: https://aoghs.org/offshore-history/mr-charlie-first-mobile-offshore-drilling-rig/ (accessed on 30 May 2022).
262. Menon, J. What Are Jack Up Barges? Marine Insight. 2021; Available online: https://www.marineinsight.com/offshore/jack-up-barges/ (accessed on 30 May 2022).
263. Wang, C.M.; Utsunomiya, T.; Wee, S.C.; Choo, Y.S. Research on floating wind turbines: A literature survey. IES J. Part A Civ. Struct. Eng.; 2010; 3, pp. 267-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2010.517395]
264. Renewable Energy Magazine (REM). Horns rev 2 offshore wind farm in Denmark topped 10 billion kWh. Renewable Energy Magazine, 5 February 2021. Available online: https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/horns-rev-2-offshore-wind-farm-in-20210205 (accessed on 30 May 2022).
265. Rosa-Aquino, P. Floating wind turbines could open up vast ocean tracts for renewable power. The Guardian, 29 August 2021. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/29/floating-wind-turbines-ocean-renewable-power (accessed on 30 May 2022).
266. Chanrasekaran, S. Design of Marine Risers with Functionally Graded Materials; Civil and Structural Engineering Series; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2021; Volume 1, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2020-0-00360-9]
267. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Engineering Handbook; 2nd ed. Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-03767-1]
268. Duggal, A.S.; Liu, Y.H.A.; Caspar, N.H. Global analysis of shallow water FPSOs. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2004; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/16720-MS]
269. Meng, H.; Kloul, L.; Rauzy, A. Production availability analysis of floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) systems. Appl. Ocean. Res.; 2018; 74, pp. 117-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2018.02.026]
270. McCaul, J. Market Reports: FPSO—Charting Path Ahead. Offshore Engineer, 15 February 2021. Available online: https://www.oedigital.com/news/485300-market-report-fpsos-charting-the-path-ahead (accessed on 30 May 2022).
271. Muyiwa, O.A.; Sadeghi, K. Construction planning of an offshore petroleum platform. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci.; 2007; 2, pp. 82-85. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242252099_Construction_Planning_of_an_Offshore_Petroleum_Platform (accessed on 30 May 2022).
272. Konispoliatis, D.N. Performance of an array of oscillating water column devices in front of a fixed vertical breakwater. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 8, 912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110912]
273. Mustapa, M.A.; Yaakob, O.B.; Ahmed, Y.M.; Rheem, C.-K.; Koh, K.K.; Adnan, F.A. Wave energy device and breakwater integration: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2017; 77, pp. 43-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.110]
274. Zhao, X.; Ning, D. Experimental investigation of breakwater-type WEC composed of both stationary and floating pontoons. Energy; 2018; 155, pp. 226-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.189]
275. He, F.; Huang, Z.; Law, A.W.-K. An experimental study of a floating breakwater with asymmetric pneumatic chambers for wave energy extraction. Appl. Energy; 2013; 106, pp. 222-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.01.013]
276. Mares-Nasarre, P.; Argente, G.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Armor damage of overtopped mound breakwaters in depth-limited breaking wave conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 952. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9090952]
277. Howe, D.; Nader, J.-R. OWC WEC integrated within a breakwater versus isolated: Experimental and numerical theoretical study. Int. J. Mar. Energy; 2017; 20, pp. 165-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2017.07.008]
278. Doyle, S.; Aggidis, G.A. Development of multi-oscillating water columns as wave energy converters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2019; 107, pp. 75-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.021]
279. Doyle, S.; Aggidis, G.A. Experimental investigation and performance comparison of a 1 single OWC, array and M-OWC. Renew. Energy; 2021; 168, pp. 365-374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.032]
280. Konispoliatis, D.N.; Mavrakos, S.A. Hydrodynamic efficiency of a wave energy converter in front of an orthogonal breakwater. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9010094]
281. Fern, D.T.; Waddell, J.W. A New Compliant Pile and Its Application to Compliant Towers. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 27–30 April 1987; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/5539-MS]
282. SkyscraperPage. Petronius Compliant Tower. 2020; Available online: https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=23522 (accessed on 11 June 2022).
283. Will, S.A. Compliant towers: The next generation. Offshore Magazine, 1 June 1999; Reprinted with revisions by PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, OK, USA. 2020; Available online: https://www.offshore-mag.com/business-briefs/equipment-engineering/article/16757589/compliant-towers-the-next-generation (accessed on 11 June 2022).
284. Will, S.A.; Edel, J.C.; Kallaby, J.; des Deserts, L.D. Design of the Baldplate compliant tower. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; Paper OTC No. 10915 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10915-MS]
285. Will, S.A.; Calkins, D.E.; Morrison, D.G. The compliant composite leg platform: A new configuration for deepwater fixed platforms and compliant towers. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 1988; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/5638-MS]
286. Simon, J.V.; Edel, J.C.; Melancon, C.H. An overview of the Baldplate project. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; Paper OTC No. 10914 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10914-MS]
287. Edel, J.C.; Thibodeaux, S.; Sezer, F.; Payne, J.D.; Willis, C.H. Fabrication of the Baldpate compliant tower. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10918-MS]
288. Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Ni, K.; Li, J. An overview of in-service deep-water compliant tower platforms worldwide. Proceedings of the 30th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference; Virtual, 11–16 October 2020; Available online: https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE20/All-ISOPE20/ISOPE-I-20-1321/446544 (accessed on 11 July 2022).
289. De Koeijer, D.; Renkema, D.; Edel, J.C.; Willis, C.H.; Payne, D. Installation of the Baldpate compliant tower. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10919-MS]
290. Des Deserts, L.; Cortez, A.J. The delta tower: A light, compliant tower for the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–10 May 1990; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/6351-MS]
291. Chang, B.C.; Peng, B.-F.; Edel, J.C.; Kallaby, J. Dynamic response of the Baldpate compliant tower platform to major hurricanes in Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/23045-MS]
292. Cho, H.-W.; Woo, W.-K.; Kim, J.-G.; Nam, H.-S.; Shin, Y.-K. An introduction to design, construction and installation of compliant piled tower in West Africa. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; San Francisco, CA, USA, 28 May–2 June 2006; Available online: https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE06/All-ISOPE06/ISOPE-I-06-047/9741 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
293. Daneshvaran, M.T.S.; Vickery, B.J. Dynamic response of a compliant tower in wind and waves. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 1995; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/7806-MS]
294. Moog, K.H.; Lou, J.Y.K. Parametric study and dynamic analysis of compliant piled towers. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 1991; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/6576-MS]
295. Chen, C.Y.; Suhendra, R. Design force envelopes for compliant towers. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–10 May 1990; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/6342-MS]
296. Li, J.; Ran, A.; Ling, J. Compliant piled tower technology and its application in South China Sea. Proceedings of the 30th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference; Virtual, 11–16 October 2020; Available online: https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE20/All-ISOPE20/ISOPE-I-20-1322/446582?redirectedFrom=PDF (accessed on 11 June 2022).
297. Steele, K.M.; Finn, L.D.; Lambrakos, K.F. Compliant tower response prediction procedures. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 1988; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/5783-MS]
298. Kurojjanawong, K. Compliant Tower Type in Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. Offshore Structural Corner, 13 March 2014. Available online: https://kkurojjanawong.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/compliant-tower-type-in-offshore-oil-and-gas-industry/ (accessed on 11 June 2022).
299. Shields, D.R.; Rajabi, F.; Ghosh, S.; Oran, C. Review Of Semisubmersible and Tension Leg Platform Analysis Techniques: Volume 1 Literature Survey; Brown and Root Development, Inc.: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 1985; Accession Number: AD1076298. Report Date: 1985-01-01 Available online: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1076298.pdf (accessed on 11 June 2022).
300. Norsk OljeMuseum (NOM). Oil and Gas Fields in Norway: Industrial Heritage Plan; Norsk OljeMuseum (NOM): Stavanger, Norway, 2016; 53794 NOM_KMP Book pp. 17-40. Available online: https://www.norskolje.museum.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/3467_841157c4653f48b7bf4003ca04f5c6c1.pdf (accessed on 11 June 2022).
301. Andenæs, E.; Skomedal, E.; Lindseth, S. Installation of the Troll Phase I Gravity Base Platform. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 1996; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8122-MS]
302. Dai, J.; Ang, K.K.; Jin, J.; Wang, C.M.; Hellan, Ø.; Watn, A. Large floating structure with free-floating, self-stabilizing tanks for hydrocarbon storage. Energies; 2019; 12, 3487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en12183487]
303. Galbraith, D.N. Beryl Alpha—Condeep GBS analysis. Proceedings of the SPE Offshore Europe Conference; Aberdeen, UK, 7–10 September 1993; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26689-MS]
304. Galbraith, D.N.; Hodgson, T. Beryl Alpha: Increase in deck-load capacity. Proceedings of the SPE Offshore Europe; Aberdeen, UK, 3–6 September 1991; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/23123-MS]
305. De Svano, G.; Skomedal, E.; Jostad, H.P.; Tjelta, T.I. Foundation behaviour of a giant gravity platform on soft soils as evidenced after ten years of monitoring. Proceedings of the Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics: Confronting New Challenges and Sharing Knowledge; London, UK, 11–13 September 2007; Available online: https://onepetro.org/SUTOSIG/proceedings-abstract/OSIG07/All-OSIG07/SUT-OSIG-07-237/3265 (accessed on 11 June 2022).
306. Knudsen, A.; Skjaeveland, H.; Lindseth, S.; Høklie, M. Record-breaking water depth for fixed concrete platforms. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 1994; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/7463-MS]
307. Olsen, T.O. Offshore concrete structures. Proceedings of the New Zealand Concrete Industry Conference 09; Rotorua, New Zealand, 8–10 October 2009; pp. 1-16. Available online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/concretenz.org.nz/resource/resmgr/docs/conf/2009/s1_p2_ole_olsen.pdf (accessed on 11 July 2022).
308. Olsen, T.O. Concrete, particularly for the oil and gas industry. Proceedings of the New Zealand Concrete Industry Conference 09; Rotorua, New Zealand, 8–10 October 2009; pp. 1-5. Available online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/concretenz.org.nz/resource/resmgr/docs/conf/2009/s5a_p3_ole_olsen.pdf (accessed on 11 July 2022).
309. Olsen, T.O. Concrete for marine structures. JPCI J. Pap.; 2009; pp. 1-10. Available online: http://www.jpci.or.jp/jpci-sympo2015-cd/pdf/toku01.pdf (accessed on 11 July 2022).
310. Olsen, T.O.; Weider, O.; Myhr, A. Large marine concrete structures: The Norwegian design experience. Large Floating Structures; Wang, C.M.; Wang, B.T. Springer: Singapore, 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-137-4]
311. Olsen, T.O. Concrete gravity platforms. Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118476406.emoe370]
312. Sadeghi, K.; Houseen, Q.A.H.; Alsel, S.A. Gravity platforms: Design and construction overview. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng.; 2017; 7, pp. 6-11. Available online: https://ijitee.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v7i3/C2480127317.pdf (accessed on 11 July 2022).
313. Olsen, T.O. Concrete Structures for Oil and Gas Fields in Hostile Marine Environments; State-of-Art Report Prepared by Task Group 1.5; CEB-FIP Bulletin 50 International Federation for Structural Concrete (FIB): Lausanne, Switzerland, 2009; Available online: https://docplayer.net/95916942-Concrete-structures-for-oil-and-gas-fields-in-hostile-marine-environments.html (accessed on 11 July 2022).
314. Otunyo, A.W. Design of offshore concrete gravity platforms. Niger. J. Technol.; 2011; 30, pp. 34-46. Available online: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/njt/article/view/123512/113044 (accessed on 11 July 2022).
315. Widianto,
316. Autin, D.B.; Tijani, A.; Boulais, H.; Montbarbon, S.; Underland, H. Erha and Erha North development: Setting the pace for Nigerian content. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18718-MS]
317. Bloomer, C. SS: Agbami field development: Agbami Project: People and partnerships delivering a world scale field development. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20249-MS]
318. Carrick, G.J.; Delong, I.; Ewida, A.A.; Knight, R.J. East Coast of Canada: An Industry Perspective on the Opportunities and Challenges. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2005; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/17575-MS]
319. Colby, C.; Matos, S.; Mony, S.K. Compliance for FPSO-Gulf of Mexico and speculative builds. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18649-MS]
320. Daughdrill, W.H.; Brown, M.J. The regulatory scheme applicable to floating production, storage, and offloading systems. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10702-MS]
321. Day, S.M.; Parker, G.J.; Barclay, P.; Boulais, H. Erha and Erha North Development: Erha floating production, storage, and offloading vessel. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18659-MS]
322. Ehondor, H.U. SS: Agbami field development: Agbami Nigerian content execution: Successes, challenges, and lessons learned. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20287-MS]
323. Ewida, A.; Kean, J.R. Terra Nova design challenges and operational integrity strategy. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; Stavanger, Norway, 17–22 June 2001.
324. Ganguly, P.; Mastrangelo, C.F.; Daniel, J. First floating, production, storage and offloading vessel in U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/24112-MS]
325. Grove, T.W.; Montaruli, B.C. Benefits of classification for new construction of floating offshore structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 1998; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8769-MS]
326. Lever, G.V. 5 floating production system design considerations for East Coast Canada. Proceedings of the 13th World Petroleum Congress; Buenos Aires, Argentina, 20–25 October 1991; Available online: https://onepetro.org/WPCONGRESS/proceedings-abstract/WPC13/All-WPC13/WPC-24142/202393 (accessed on 13 July 2022).
327. Lever, G.V.; Kean, J.R. Harsh environments FPSO development For Terra Nova. Proceedings of the Tenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; Seattle, WA, USA, 28 May–2 June 2000; Available online: https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE00/All-ISOPE00/ISOPE-I-00-001/6847 (accessed on 13 July 2022).
328. Lever, G.V.; Dunsmore, B.; Kean, J.R. Terra Nova development: Challenges and lessons learned. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2001; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/13025-MS]
329. Maretti, S.; Hoekstra, S.; Mitwally, H. Special session, AGBAMI field development—AGBAMI offloading system—Worldwide design and fabrication challenges. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20285-MS]
330. Mastrangelo, C.F.; Lan, C.M.; Smith, C.E. From tanker-ships to the first FPSO in the US GoM. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/29421-MS]
331. Moore, B.; Easton, A.; Cabrera, J.; Webb, C.; George, B. Stones development: Turritella FPSO—Design and fabrication of the world’s deepest producing unit. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/27663-MS]
332. Parker, W.J.; Grove, T.W. FPSO standards and recommended practices. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2001; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/13170-MS]
333. Robison, E.J.; Mullett, C. Regulatory compliance issues for the LLOG WHO DAT floating production unit. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/23120-MS]
334. Regg, J.B. Floating production, storage, and offloading systems in the Gulf of Mexico OCS: A regulatory perspective. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10701-MS]
335. Salem, A.G.; Connaulte, X.S.; Webb, C. The stones buoy turret mooring BTM: The evolution of design leading to the delivery of the largest buoy ever built. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/27852-MS]
336. Van Berkel, P. Managing design and construction of the Central North Sea FPSO. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 1996.
337. Duggal, A.S.; Heyl, C.N.; Vance, G.P. Global analysis of the Terra Nova FPSO turret mooring system. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2000; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/11914-MS]
338. Boening, D.E.; Howell, E.R. Lena Guyed Tower project overview. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–9 May 1984; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4649-MS]
339. Brown, C.P.; Fontenette, L.M.; Dove, P.G.S. Installation of guying system—Lena Guyed Tower. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–9 May 1984; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4682-MS]
340. Collipp, B.G.; Johnson, P.G. Marine equipment and procedures for the cognac platform installation. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 1979; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/3498-MS]
341. Dearing, B.W.; Lucas, M.W.; Snell, C.K. The design and development of loadout procedures for the Lena Guyed and Tower. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 1985; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/5046-MS]
342. Eaton, L.F.; Reinhardt, W.R.; Bennett, J.S. Liner hanger trapped annulus pressure issues at the Magnolia Deepwater Development. Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference; Miami, FL, USA, 21–23 February 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99188-MS]
343. Elliott, G.S.; Brockman, R.A.; Shivers, R.M. HPHT drilling and completion design for the Erskine field. Proceedings of the SPE Offshore Europe; Aberdeen, UK, 5–8 September 1995; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30364-MS]
344. Ferguson, N.; Zarate, H.; Kitani, T.; Inokoshi, O.; Masuda, S. An analytical study and systematic monitoring procedure developed for the load-out operation of the North Rankin Jacket ‘A’. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 1983; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4573-MS]
345. Finn, L.D.; Maus, L.D. lessons learned from the Lena Guyed Tower. Proceedings of the European Petroleum Conference; London, UK, 22–25 October 1984; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12977-MS]
346. Flood, J.K.; Pichini, P.O.; Danaczko, M.A.; Greiner, W.L. Side launch of the Lena Guyed Tower jacket. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–9 May 1984; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4652-MS]
347. Goolsby, D.G.; McGuke, D.P. Cathodic protection upgrade of the 1050 water depth cognac platform. Proceedings of the Corrosion97; New Orleans, LA, USA, 9–14 March 1997; Available online: https://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-abstract/CORR97/All-CORR97/NACE-97472/113515 (accessed on 13 July 2022).
348. Lamb, W.C.; Hibbard, H.C.; James, A.L.; Koerner, W.A.; Rothberg, R.H. Instrumentation for monitoring behavior of Lena Guyed Tower. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–9 May 1984; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4684-MS]
349. Lester, G.S.; Lanier, G.H.; Javanmardi, K.; Bernardi, T.; Halal, A.S. Ram/Powell tension-leg platform: Horizontal well-design and operational experience. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/11028-MS]
350. Maus, L.D.; Finn, L.D.; Turner, J.W. Development of the Guyed Tower: A case history. J. Pet. Technol.; 1985; 37, pp. 647-654. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/11998-PA]
351. Mayfield, J.G.; Arnold, P.; Eekman, M.M.; Wellink, J. Installation of the bullwinkle platform. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 1989; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/6054-MS]
352. Mayfield, J.G.; Strohbeck, E.E.; Olivier, J.C.; Wilkins, J.R. Installation of the pile foundation for the cognac platform. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 1979; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/3497-MS]
353. Parnell, R.E.; Houghton, R.J.; McClellan, J.D. Fabrication of the Lena Guyed Tower jacket. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–9 May 1984; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4651-MS]
354. Peterson, D.C. COGNAC positioning system. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 1979; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/3500-MS]
355. Piter, E.S.; Digre, K.A.; Tabone, A.M. Bullwinkle loadout analysis. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 1989; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/6095-MS]
356. Shivers, R.M.; Brubaker, J.P. Development planning for the HPHT Erskine field. Proceedings of the SPE Offshore Europe; Aberdeen, UK, 5–8 September 1995; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30370-MS]
357. Simpson, W.F. The instrumentation system for the cognac platform. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 1979; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/3499-MS]
358. Sircar, S.; Chandra, T.K.; Mills, T.R.J.; Roberson, W.P.; Schultz, A.R. Analytical predictions and field observations of the loadout operations of the’ Kilauea jacket. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–10 May 1990; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/6263-MS]
359. Smetak, E.C.; Lombardi, J.; Roussel, H.J.; Wozniak, T.C. Jacket, deck, and pipeline installation—Lena Guyed Tower. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–9 May 1984; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4683-MS]
360. Smith, P.L.; Hodges, S.B.; Digre, K.A.; Sarwono, B.A.; Schipper, H. Ursa TLP hull design, fabrication and transportation. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10754-MS]
361. Sterling, G.H.; Casbarian, A.O.P.; Dodge, N.L.; Godfrey, D.G. Construction of the cognac platform, 1025 feet of water, Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 1979; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/3493-MS]
362. Sterling, G.H.; Cox, B.E.; Warrington, R.M. Design of the COGNAC platform for 1025 feet water depth, Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 1979; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/3494-MS]
363. Sterling, G.H.; Krebs, J.E.; Dunn, F.P. The Bullwinkle Project: An overview. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 1989; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/6049-MS]
364. Stuart, C.R.; Digre, K.A.; Rodrique, M.J. The fabrication of the Bullwinkle platform. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 1989; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/6051-MS]
365. White, G.J.; Preston, S.; McKenzie, R.H. The Hutton TLP foundation installation. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 1985; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4949-MS]
366. Wu, F.; Alvarez, C.; Osterman, G.; Chen, C.-H.; Litton, R.W.; Apostolakis, G. Lena Guyed Tower decommissioning engineering. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Virtual and Houston; TX, USA, 16–19 August 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/31237-MS]
367. Ziems, L.D.; Kan, W.C.; Stidston, E.B.; Neudorfer, M.L. Dynamically positioned derrick barge and position measuring equipment for Lena Guyed Tower installation. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–9 May 1984; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4685-MS]
368. Antony, A.; Park, Y.-C.; Zou, J.; Jamnongpipatkul, A. Gulfstar—Naval architecture from design to hull installation. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/26052-MS]
369. Beattie, S.M.; Pyles, S.R.; McCandless, C.R.; Kuuri, J. Nansen/Boomvang field development—Construction and installation. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2002; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/14092-MS]
370. Bugg, D.L.; Vickers, D.T.; Dorchak, C.J. Mad Dog Project: Regulatory approval process for the new technology of synthetic (polyester) moorings in the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2004; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/16089-MS]
371. Cizek, M.; Godfrey, D.; Wright, L. Fabrication and installation of the Williams Gulfstar 1 FPS (GS1) classic spar hull. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/26057-MS]
372. Edelson, D.; Jegannathan, M.; Harris, T.; Theckumpurath, B.; Selstad, H.; Krokeide, B.; Person, M. Aasta Hansteen Spar Inshore Pre-Service Operations. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/29539-MS]
373. Kocaman, A.; Verdin, E. Neptune Project: Spar hull, mooring and topsides installation. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 1997; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8385-MS]
374. Korloo, J. Design and installation of a cost-effective spar buoy flare system. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1993; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/7177-MS]
375. Kuuri, J.; Lehtinen, T.; Miettinen, J. Neptune Project: Spar hull and mooring system design and fabrication. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 1997; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8384-MS]
376. Li, L.; Li, B.; Ou, J. Feasibility analysis on global motions of truss spar in Liwan 3-1 area of South China Sea. Proceedings of the Twentieth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; Beijing, China, 20–25 June 2010.
377. Maher, J.V.; Weaver, T.O.; Thomas, H.; Erdal, E.I.; Holland, S. Red hawk hull design and topsides interfaces. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2005; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/17428-MS]
378. Parker, W.J.; Ghosh, S.; Praught, M.W. Neptune Project: Regulatory and classification issues and requirements. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 1997; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8383-MS]
379. Perryman, S.; Gebara, J.; Botros, F.; Yu, A. Holstein truss spar and top tensioned riser system design challenges and innovations. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2005; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/17292-MS]
380. Perryman, S.R. Challenges encountered while constructing the world’s largest spar. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; Toulon, France, 23–24 May 2004.
381. Sablok, A.K.; Weaver, T.O.; Halkyard, J.E. The spar platform—Transforming deepwater development. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/30709-MS]
382. Sablok, A.; Kim, J.; Tallavajhula, S.; Wang, F.; Dalane, O.; Aronsen, K.H.; Kippenes, J. Aasta Hansteen spar FPSO substructure, mooring, riser and systems design. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/29555-MS]
383. Thibodeaux, C.J.; Vardeman, R.D.; Kindel, C.E. Nansen/Boomvang Projects: Overview and project management. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2002; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/14089-MS]
384. Tule, J. Lucius spar: Design to delivery. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/26024-MS]
385. Vatdeman, R.D.; Richardson, S.; McCandless, C.R. Neptune Project: Overview and project management. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 1997; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8381-MS]
386. Wu, S. Overview of design considerations for spars in the pre-service conditions. Proceedings of the SNAME 11th Offshore Symposium; Houston, TX, USA, 20 February 2002; Available online: https://onepetro.org/SNAMETOS/proceedings-abstract/TOS02/1-TOS02/D013S002R001/3750 (accessed on 11 July 2022).
387. Young, W.S.; May, B.C.; Varnado, B.R. Genesis development project—Overview. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10796-MS]
388. Yu, W.; Huang, W. A new concept of spar and its hydrodynamic analysis. Proceedings of the Twentieth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; Beijing, China, 20–25 June 2010.
389. Islam, A.B.M.S.; Jameel, M.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Shirazi, S.M.; Salman, F.A. Review of offshore energy in Malaysia and floating Spar platform for sustainable exploration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2012; 16, pp. 6268-6284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.07.012]
390. Pegalajar-Jurado, A.; Hansen, A.M.; Laugesen, R.; Mikkelsen, R.F.; Borg, M.; Kim, T.; Heilskov, N.F.; Bredmose, H. Experimental and numerical study of a 10MW TLP wind turbine in waves and wind. Phys. Conf. Ser.; 2016; 753, 092007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/753/9/092007]
391. Ramachandran, G.K.V.K. A numerical model for a floating TLP wind turbine. Ph.D. Thesis; Technical University of Denmark (DTU): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013.
392. Liu, Y.; Li, S.; Yi, Q.; Chen, D. Developments in semi-submersible floating foundations supporting wind turbines: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2016; 60, pp. 433-449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.109]
393. Otter, A.; Murphy, J.; Pakrashi, V.; Robertson, A.; Desmond, C. A review of modelling techniques for floating offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy; 2021; 25, pp. 831-857. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.2701]
394. Chen, J.; Kim, M.-H. Review of recent offshore wind turbine research and optimization methodologies in their design. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2022; 10, 28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse10010028]
395. Chen, P.; Chen, J.; Hu, Z. Review of experimental-numerical methodologies and challenges for floating offshore wind turbines. J. Mar. Sci. Appl.; 2020; 19, pp. 339-361. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11804-020-00165-z]
396. Asim, T.; Islam, S.Z.; Hemmati, A.; Khalid, M.S.U. A review of recent advancements in offshore wind turbine technology. Energies; 2022; 15, 579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15020579]
397. Stewart, G.; Muskulus, M. A Review and comparison of floating offshore wind turbine model experiments. Energy Procedia; 2016; 94, pp. 227-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.228]
398. Sauder, T.; Bachynski, E. MARINTEK Ocean Energy Review: Experimental Modelling of Wind Loads on Offshore Wind Turbines in Wave Tanks; Tech. Rep. 3 Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute (MARINTEK): Trondheim, Norway, 2014.
399. Jonkman, J.; Larsen, T.; Hansen, A.; Nygaard, T.; Maus, K.; Karimirad, M.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T.; Fylling, I. Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration within IEA Wind Task 23: Phase IV Results Regarding Floating Wind Turbine Modeling; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2010.
400. CNN. Monaco Yacht Show 2015: Forget the Boat, Here’s the Island You Can Sail. 2015; Available online: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/24/sport/gallery/migaloo-submersible-yacht-floating-island/index.html (accessed on 13 July 2022).
401. Migaloo. Kokomo Ailand—Private Floating Habitat, Migaloo Private Submersible Yachts, Graz, Austria. 2015; Available online: https://www.migaloo-submarines.com/kokomo-ailand/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
402. Migaloo. Kokomo Ailand by Migaloo Private Submersible Yachts. 2015; Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv2dS63Kzb8 (accessed on 13 July 2022).
403. Kussin, Z. Behold, your own private floating island. New York Post, 22 September 2015. Available online: https://nypost.com/2015/09/22/behold-your-own-private-floating-island/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
404. Strtner, S. You Never Thought You Needed a Mobile Private Island… Until Now. Huffington Post, 25 September 2015. Available online: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/migaloo-mobile-private-island_n_560580fce4b0af3706dc0ac6 (accessed on 13 July 2022).
405. Gizauskas, R. Float Your Boat? You Thought Migaloo’s Submarine Superyacht Was Amazing—Now Look at Their Floating Island You Can Drive. The Sun, 2 March 2018. Available online: https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/5700792/migaloo-are-selling-a-floating-island-that-you-can-drive-to-different-destinations/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
406. Ashton, P. Kokomo Ailand: A Go-Anywhere Private Island. SuperYacht World, 16 September 2015. Future Publishing Limited Quay House: Bath, UK, 2015. Available online: https://www.superyachtworld.com/yachts/kokomo-ailand-a-go-anywhere-private-island-8396 (accessed on 13 July 2022).
407. Dobson, J. Exclusive First Look at Kokomo Island: The World’s Only Island for Private Submarines. Forbes, 7 September 2015. Forbes: New York, NY, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2015/09/07/exclusive-first-look-at-kokomo-island-the-worlds-only-island-for-private-submarines/?sh=7213a95902a5 (accessed on 13 July 2022).
408. Christensen, C.M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail; 2nd ed. Harvard Business Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2013.
409. Sheetz, M. SpaceX bought two former valaris oil rigs to build floating launchpads for its starship rocket. CNBC, 19 January 2021. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/19/spacex-bought-former-valaris-oil-rigs-to-build-starship-launchpads.html (accessed on 13 July 2022).
410. Sheetz, M. Elon Musk says SpaceX’s starship rocket will launch hundreds of missions before flying people. CNBC, 2 September 2020. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html (accessed on 13 July 2022).
411. Mosher, D. Elon Musk: ‘SpaceX is building floating, superheavy-class spaceports’ for its starship rocket to reach the Moon, Mars, and fly passengers around Earth. Business Insider, 17 June 2020. Available online: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starship-ocean-spaceports-offshore-engineer-job-posting-2020-6?r=US&IR=T (accessed on 13 July 2022).
412. Arevalo, E. SpaceX is repurposing oil rigs to build a starship spaceport that could be in ‘limited operation’ this year. Tesmanian, 24 February 2021. Available online: https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spaceport-at-sea (accessed on 13 July 2022).
413. Kurkowski, S. Update on SpaceX’s Gulf coast fleet; A shortfall of gravitas droneship and phobos launch platform. Space Explored, 7 July 2021. Available online: https://spaceexplored.com/2021/07/07/update-on-spacexs-gulf-coast-fleet-a-shortfall-of-gravitas-droneship-and-phobos-launch-platform/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
414. Burghardt, T. SpaceX acquires former oil rigs to serve as floating starship spaceports. NASA SpaceFlight, 20 January 2021. Available online: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/01/spacex-rigs-starship-spaceports/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
415. Mooney, J.; Bergin, C. Musk outlines starship progress towards self-sustaining Mars City. NASA Spaceflight, 11 February 2022. Available online: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/02/starships-self-sustaining-city-mars/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
416. Ramirez, V.B. SpaceX acquires former oil rigs to serve as floating starship spaceports. Singularity Hub, 3 June 2021. Available online: https://singularityhub.com/2021/06/03/spacex-will-have-an-offshore-spaceport-ready-for-launches-as-soon-as-next-year/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
417. Wall, M. SpaceX wants to build an offshore spaceport near Texas for starship Mars Rocket. Space, 17 June 2020. Available online: https://www.space.com/spacex-mars-starship-offshore-launch-landing.html (accessed on 13 July 2022).
418. Fachetti, M.B.; Valério, C.G.P.; Loureiro, J.E.; Henídio, Q.J. The Conversion of Spirit of Columbus Semi-submersible into Petrobras 36. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2000; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/12140-MS]
419. Mentes, A.; Helvacioglu, I.H. An offshore platform selection approach for the Black Sea Region. Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering 2013; Nantes, France, 9–14 June 2013; Volume 1: Offshore Technology, Paper No. V001T01A063 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2013-11319]
420. D’Souza, R.B.; Delepine, Y.M.; Cordy, A.R. An Approach To The Design And Selection Of A Cost-Effective Floating Production Storage And Offloading System. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 1994; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/7443-MS]
421. Hewett, J. The Shape of These Monsters: From Fixed to Floating Offshore Oil and Gas Production, 1976–2006; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM): Washington, DC, USA, 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28698.90563]
422. USOC. Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling. Report to the President. US Oil Commission (USOC), National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, USA. January 2011. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-OILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2022).
423. Miorelli, J. Management Processes for a Large Passenger Ship Conversion. Proceedings of the SNAME Maritime Convention; Houston, TX, USA, 22–24 October 2014; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5957/SMC-2014-TR2]
424. Waterman, K.M.; Maxwell, N.E.; Matthew, T.V. Conversion of a Commercial Working Vessel to a Minelayer. Proceedings of the SNAME Maritime Convention; Providence, RI, USA, 27–29 October 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5957/SMC-2021-066]
425. Terpstra, T.; Schouten, G.; Ursini, L. Design and Conversion of FPSO Mystras. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2004; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/16198-MS]
426. Henriques, C.C.D.; Brandão, F.E.N. From P-34 to P-50: FPSO Evolution. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18681-MS]
427. Van Wijngaarden, A.M.; Daniels, N. Upgrading and Conversion Opportunities for Floating Offshore Units. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/29313-MS]
428. Neto, T.G.; de Souza Lima, H.A. Conversion of Tankers into FPSOs and FSOs: Practical Design Experiences. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2001; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/13209-MS]
429. Langrock, D.G.; Ogunlade, O.A.; Schuster, A.R. Offshore Platform Maintenance with a Specially Outfitted Vessel. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 1985; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/5064-MS]
430. Kokarakis, J.E.; Dimoulas, V.; Kariambas, E. Technical Challenges in Tanker Conversions. Proceedings of the SNAME Maritime Convention; Houston, TX, USA, 17–18 October 2008; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5957/SMC-2008-013]
431. Malahy, R.C. Installation of a DP System and Adaptation of the Reel Barge Chickasaw for Deep Water Pipelay. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 1995; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/7815-MS]
432. Machado, C.L.; Wu, J.; Huang, W. Classification Society Studies on FPSO Life Extension Requirements. Proceedings of the OTC Brasil, Rio de Janeiro; Brazil, 27–29 October 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/26202-MS]
433. Assayag, S.; Prallon, E.; Sartori, F. Improvements in Design of Converted FPSOs Regarding 20 Years Operation without Docking. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 1997; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8389-MS]
434. Daidola, J.C.; Behr, R.S.; Lynch, J.G.; Koehler, E.W. The T-AGS-39 Class Ocean Survey Ships and Their Conversion to Schoolships. Mar. Technol. SNAME News; 2002; 39, pp. 170-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5957/mt1.2002.39.3.170]
435. Zhao, C.; Wu, J.F.; Huang, K.; Shin, Y. Environment Severity Factors and Their Applications in FPSO Hull Strength Assessment. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2002; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/14231-MS]
436. Adamson, R.J.; Fitzgerald, M.J. Sedco Phillips S.S. (Semi-Submersible) Service Vessel. J. R. Nav. Med. Serv.; 1978; 64, pp. 194-197. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/739436]
437. Van Voorst, O.; deBaan, J.; van Loenhout, A.; van Krekel, M. Conversion of Existing Tanker to North Sea FPSO Use. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 1995; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/7724-MS]
438. Bryans, R.A. Conversion of the “Deepsea Pioneer”. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 1988; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/5692-MS]
439. Hammett, D.S.; Wilson, J.S. Semi-Submersible Utility Service Vessel. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 7–10 May 1978; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/3326-MS]
440. Serratella, C.; Spong, R. Understanding Through Experience—Key Findings From The FPSO Structural Performance Joint Industry Project. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2005; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/17543-MS]
441. Kerr, D.R.; Berglund, J. SS: Canadian: Atlantic Development-Conversion of a Fishing Vessel to a 3-D Seismic Vessel. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20263-MS]
442. Zu, Y.; Chiu, C.; Cho, C.; Wang, A.; Ruskin, A.; Qiu, X. DP Conversion for a Successful Float-over Installation. Proceedings of the 26th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference; Rhodes, Greece, 26 June–2 July 2016; Available online: https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE16/All-ISOPE16/ISOPE-I-16-167/17692 (accessed on 21 July 2022).
443. Franklin, D.; Reeve, H.; Hubbard, B. Converting Existing LNG Carriers for Floating LNG Applications (FLNG, FSRU, FSO). Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20683-MS]
444. Beveridge, A.J. Marine Operations For Platform Maintenance And Repair. Proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum Conference; London, UK, 24–27 October 1978; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8103-MS]
445. Manoudakis, C.P.; Williams, L.M.; Grecco, M.G. A Guide to Cost-Effective Tanker-Based Floating Production Systems. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 27–30 April 1987; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/5489-MS]
446. Al-Sharif, M.M.; Owen, T. Conceptualization, Conversion, Integration & Commissioning of Gulf of Mexico First Ship Shape DP FOI. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2011; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/21423-MS]
447. Biasotto, P.; Bonniol, V.; Cambos, P. Selection of Trading Tankers for FPSO Conversion Projects. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2005; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/17506-MS]
448. Wyllie, M.W.J.; Joynson, J. Recent Trends in FPSO Design and Project Execution Applied to Leased Vessels. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18061-MS]
449. Taylor, M.J.; McBee, H.E.; Edelblum, L.S.; Henderson, A.D.; Scovell, D.C. Garden Banks 388 Floating Production Vessel Selection & Conversion. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 1995; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/7846-MS]
450. Caruso, N.; Johnson, M.; Grove, T. A Structural Strength and Fatigue Assessment Methodology Applicable to Conversion-Type FPSO Designs. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 1998; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8772-MS]
451. Portella, R.B.; de Souza Lima, H.A. Cessão Onerosa FPSOs—Challenges and Achievements Conducting Four Simultaneous Hull Conversion Designs. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/26972-MS]
452. Mitchell, R.A.; York, S.D. Sakhalin II Conversion of the Molikpaq for Drilling/Production and Deeper Water. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1999; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/10819-MS]
453. Ambrose, B.D.; Randall, R.E.; Luke, J. Ocean Scout: Conversion to a Multi-Service Vessel. Mar. Technol. SNAME News; 1997; 34, pp. 136-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5957/mt1.1997.34.2.136]
454. Colton, T. Drilling Rigs Built in U.S. Shipyards. Ship Building History. 2021; Available online: http://shipbuildinghistory.com/shipssincewwii/3drillingrigs.htm (accessed on 21 July 2022).
455. Ulstein. PSV Conversion—Moving to a New Lease of Life as SOV or IMR Vessel. Ulstein Design & Solutions AS, Ulsteinvik, Norway. 2019; Available online: https://ulstein.com/news/psv-conversion-moving-to-a-new-lease-of-life-as-sov-or-imr-vessel (accessed on 21 July 2022).
456. MaritimeExecutive. Oil and Gas Platform Vessel Rebuilt as SOV for Offshore Wind Sector. The Maritime Executive. 2022; Available online: https://maritime-executive.com/article/oil-and-gas-platform-vessel-rebuilt-as-sov-for-offshore-wind-sector (accessed on 21 July 2022).
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Ahmed, Reda 2 ; Harrison Obed Butler 3 ; Idris Ahmed Ja’e 4 ; Chen, An 5 1 Department of Engineering, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YR, UK; Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), 52 Lome Crescent, Wuse Zone 7, Abuja 900287, Nigeria
2 School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
3 Department of Wind Energy, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (Technical University of Denmark), DTU, 2800 KGS Lyngby, Denmark
4 Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia; Department of Civil Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria 810107, Nigeria
5 College of Safety and Ocean Engineering, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing 102249, China