russian norwegian oil & gas industry cooperation in the ... · being a part of the official...

Russian – Norwegian Oil & Gas industry

cooperation in the High North

Floating and Fixed Installations

31st of October 2014

The Core Team:

ii RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

Introduction by INTSOK To develop the High North as a new energy province, we must have the necessary technology to

operate in vulnerable Arctic areas. The Russian – Norwegian oil and gas industry cooperation in the

High North project (RU-NO Barents Project) is the largest project INTSOK has ever undertaken in

any market worldwide. The scope of the RU-NO Barents project, as a strategic project for both

countries, is illustrated by the participation of both government and industry from both countries, thus

being a part of the official Norwegian – Russian Energy Dialogue. The main objective of the RU-NO

Barents Project is, through industry cooperation and knowledge of Arctic technology needs, to

contribute to the growth of the Russian and Norwegian industry participation in future petroleum

endeavours in the High North. Acting on this objective, INTSOK has mobilized the industry to:

Assess common technology challenges Russia and Norway face in the development of the

High North

Analyse existing technologies, methods and best practice Russian and Norwegian industry can

offer for the High North today

Based on the above: Visualize the need for innovation and technology development the

industry in our two countries needs to overcome

Promote stronger industrial links between our two countries

It is envisaged that the RU-NO Barents project will benefit the industry, supporting their strategic

decisions/direction for increased participation in field developments in the High North. The RU-NO

Barents Project will be an important arena to promote and ascertain their level of commitment given to

innovation and technology development, forging stronger industry links and partnerships across the

border to face our common oil and gas technology challenges of the High North. The project shall also

prepare the industry to meet and overcome these challenges.

The RU-NO Barents Project focuses on five major areas, which are all crucial to the development of

an offshore oil and gas field.

1) Logistics and Transport

2) Drilling, Well Operations and Equipment

3) Environmental Protection, Monitoring Systems and Oil Spill Contingency

4) Pipelines and Subsea Installations

5) Floating and Fixed Installations (this report)

The RU-NO Barents Project could never have been undertaken without the guidance, support and

financing from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and

Energy, Innovation Norway, Finnmark, Troms, Nordland, Rogaland and Akershus County

Municipalities, the Barents Secretariat, Rosneft, ConocoPhillips Scandinavia AS, A/S Norske Shell,

GDF Suez E&P Norge, Chevron Norge AS, Statoil ASA, Total E&P Norway, Eni Norge AS,

ExxonMobil Production & Exploration Norway A/S, Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA, North Energy,

FMC Technologies, GE Oil & Gas, the Norwegian Oil & Gas Association, Federation of Norwegian

Industries, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, Petroarctic, Gazprom, Lukoil Overseas

North Shelf AS, Krylov State Research Centre, Rubin Design Bureau for Marine Engineering , Union

of oil & gas industrialists of Russia, Sozvezdye, Murmanshelf, as well as the University of

Nordland/High North Center of Business and Governance, the Gubkin Russian State University of Oil

& Gas, OG21 (Norwegian Oil & Gas Technology Strategy) , Marintek/Sintef , Greater Stavanger

Economic Development and Det Norske Veritas (DNV GL).

The RU-NO Barents project adds industrial weight to Norwegian – Russian energy cooperation in the

wake of the maritime delimitation treaty. In addition it facilitates increased petroleum activity in the

High North and focus is placed on carrying out the activity in a sustainable and responsible manner,

with the petroleum industry taking the lead.

iii RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

I specifically would like to extend my sincere appreciation for the work undertaken by John Adlam

and the Task Force Core Team for developing this report within the floating and fixed installations

focus area.

Stavanger, 31.October 2014

Thor Christian Andvik

Project Director Barents Region

INTSOK/RU-NO Barents Project

iv RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

Foreword The purpose of this report is to present the work carried out by the Floating and Fixed Installations

Task Force of the RU-NO Barents Project. The Task Force was established with the goal of generating

Industry input around the specific challenges facing oil and gas developments in the High North .This

input and discussion was intended to define the current state of readiness along with the technology

gaps identified in the process.

It was also intended that the work would help to increase cooperation between, and knowledge of the

capabilities of the Russian and Norwegian companies interested in the development of the High North.

In addition to several Task Force meetings two open Industry Workshops were held, one in St

Petersburg and the other in Stavanger, in order to engage with as many industry actors as possible.

The whole process has been characterized by a positive willingness of the participants to share views

and experience.

Being the fifth and last Task Force in the RU –NO Project to carry out our work we gained

significantly from the efforts and experiences of the proceeding four groups .We have incorporated

their findings into our own report where relevant.

In random order we would like to thank the following organizations for their participation and

contribution to the Workshops: Giprospetsgaz, Gazpromneft, Monolith Central Design Bureau,

Vyborg Shipyard JSC, Ferguson Norge AS, Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Krylov

State Research Centre, Valcom, Weatherford-Polytechnic Research center, The Academician of

Engineering Academy, Gazprom, Innovation Norway, KM Tech LLC, Shtokman Development AG,

Rosneft, Rubin Design Bureau, Multiconsult, Autronica Fire & Security, FMC Technologies, Det

norske oljeselskap, Technip Norge AS, Barentssekretariatet, Aker Solutions, Murmanshelf, Lukoil,

Marine Navigation Systems, Kvaerner Concrete Solutions AS, Roxar Software Solutions AS, ABB,

Restec Exhibition Company, Maersk Drilling Norway, Dr.techn. Olav Olsen, Marine Arctic

Geological Expedition, Rubin Design Bureau, Shell Global Solutions, Sevan Marine, Eaton Hernis

Scan Systems AS, AS Norske Shell E&P, Østebø I&R AS, Moss Maritime AS, Tschudi Shipping

Company AS, Gazprombank, DNV GL, Arctic And Antarctic Research Institute (AARI), Light

Structures AS, Center of Corporate Medicine, Monolith Central Design Bureau, Statoil, Lloyd's

Register Consulting, The Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, University of Nordland,

Multiconsult Analyse & Strategi, North-West 1 Alliance Bank, ICD Industries, Force Technology

Norway AS, Morspb, Force Technology Russia, Raahe Region Technology Centre, Lukoil Overseas

North Shelf AS, Russian Maritime Register Of Shipping, INTSOK, ENI Norge AS, TOTAL E&P

Norge AS, MARINTEK, Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, Aker Engineering & Technology AS, GDF

SUEZ E&P Norge AS, Scientific Instruments, GSE-Giprokauchuk, Wilhelmsen Technical Solutions,

Chevron Norge AS, IOS Intermoor AS, Acona AS, Petroleum Safety Authority of Norway, Scana

Offshore Vestby AS, GMC Electro, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, VD Consult,

This report is the product of the efforts of the Floating and Fixed Installations Core Team, to which the

following personnel have participated: Ivan Shestakov (Consultant), Konstantin Megretsky (Rubin

Design Bureau), Andrey R. Gintovt (Rubin Design Bureau), Alexander D. Zimin (Krylov State

Research Centre), Sergey Verbitski (Krylov State Research Centre), Oddgeir Johansen (Total E&P

Norge), Roald Johansen (Total E&P Norge), Svein Ole Strømme (Kværner), Pavel Liferov (Statoil),

Vladimir Legostaev (Giprospetsgaz), Arnor Jenson (Multiconsult), Frank Lange (Shell), Erik B. Holm

(Dr. Techn. Olav Olsen), Henrik Hannus (Aker Solutions), Nadia Handeland (Sevan Marine) Pavel

Lopaschev (Krylov State Research Centre), Olga Schinkarenko (Krylov State Research Centre), Karl

Magnus Eger (Multiconsult Analyse & Strategi).

It is the hope of this team, and INTSOK, that this report will provide input and inspiration to further

work, and cross border cooperation, to develop the necessary technologies and infrastructures required

for oil and gas developments in the High North.

v RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

Sandnes, 27. October 2014

John Adlam

Task Force Manager

RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations

vi RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

Executive summary In this report we examine how floating and fixed installations can be used in developing oil and gas in

the High North. The geographical scope includes six regions spanning from the coast of Finnmark to

the waters east of Franz Josef Land. The six areas represent different physical and operational

challenges. Expanding operations into the High North, oil and gas companies will encounter a

spectrum of water depths from only a few meters in the river estuaries of the north-east Russian

coastline reaching from only 30 meters in the shallowest parts of the Kara Sea to deep water areas with

depths down to 600 meters in the northern parts of the Barents Sea. Combined with seabed soil

conditions changing from solid permafrost to soft muddy sediments and waters being, occasionally,

heavily infested with sea ice, these parameters will require further development of the current fixed

and floating installation concepts.

This report is a composite of the industry´s own views and considerations on technology challenges,

best practices and technology development requirements relevant to the use of floating and fixed

installations in the High North. The report emphasizes the importance of designating an operation

philosophy and then designing and constructing installations that are able to withstand the loads

imposed by sea ice, icebergs, heavy waves and extremely low temperatures while providing a safe and

sustainable working environment. Moreover, the report contains a comparison of the regulatory

framework in Norway and Russia, while also highlighting technology challenges, best practice and

need for technology development with relevance to marine operations and operation philosophy.

Regulatory framework

A potential obstacle to Russian and Norwegian cooperation in developing technologies and solutions

as well as carrying out bilateral operations is differences in the regulatory approach. This can be

overcome by developing Project Specific Technical Specifications, but this is an ineffective and

expensive way of working. The Russian regulation system is strictly normative and is based on state

authority supervision. Norwegian regulations, on the other hand, are mostly based on ISO standards

and NORSOK (with risk acceptance criteria) with minimum obligatory standards requirements with

maximum flexibility of implementation of any applicable norms and a company’s safety declaration.

State authority supervision exists, but is not as systematic as in Russia.

With most offshore operations in Russia having involved fixed installations, Russian regulations are

not fully developed when considering floating installations. In general, the existing Russian practice is

to classify all offshore installations as ships under a flag, even if the installation is fixed. The main

reasons for this are property registration, amortization, custom and frontier formalities.

Current Russian offshore regulations are relatively uncoordinated and unaligned with international

regulations, although this is now being addressed by Russian involvement in IOS/TC67 work. An

absence of coordination of the, at least, fifteen public authorities with legal competence in matters

(licences, permissions and supervision) concerning fixed and floating installations renders the Russian

regulatory landscape somewhat uneven. Efforts have been made to modernize and simplify regulations

and to bring regulations more in line with international offshore development practice. Implementation

is, however, hampered by a lack of technical standards and unclear split of responsibility between

several Russian organizations in this area.

In Norway, regulations are enforced by the Norwegian Petroleum Agency (PSA). For each regulation,

guidelines and interpretations are provided by PSA. In addition, specific working environment

regulations, EU-regulations (Machine Directive, Pressure Directive, MED conformity etc.) may apply.

The regulations point, to a large extent, to Norwegian NORSOK-requirements for design application

purposes and additional international standards such as ISO-standards for specific requirements.

Standards Norway, the Norwegian member of CEN and ISO, is responsible for all standardization

areas except electro technology and tele communication. Standards Norway adopts and publishes

some 1500 new Norwegian Standards (NS) annually. NS are adopted by Standards Norway based on

national, European and International standards.

vii RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

Design specifications and ice actions

Implementation of ice actions in engineering should, in principle, be assumed to follow guidelines and

design standards (such as ISO 19906) developed over time by and for the offshore oil and gas

industry. However, a combination of scientific immaturity, operational complexity and inexperience,

particularly from year around operations in ice will affect best practice in the design of floating

installations.

The main impediment to designing safe and cost effective installations for use in the High North is

immaturity of knowledge and data on the loading effects of sea ice in various forms, especially in

combination with other environmental loadings (waves, wind etc.) and structural movements. Scaled

ice model testing provides an excellent understanding of the physical process of ice interaction with

installations. Challenges remain, however, related to replica of the full scale ice environment,

including the ability to scale all physical parameters simultaneously and to account for different ice

features. Results from ice basin testing and numerical simulations and calculations of ice loads also

display a high degree of cross study inconsistency.

Fixed installations Placed against the potential impact of first-year ice up to 2,5 meters thick, drifting icebergs as well as

ice ridges (Stamukhi), designing and constructing fixed installations suitable for operations in the High

North entail determining how ice loads are affecting the strength and fatigue resistance of the

platform, both global and local. Furthermore, with most platforms being gravity based structures

(GBS), soil conditions and soil movement effects on the gravity base or on piles must be accounted for

when designing and constructing fixed installations for use in the High North.

Large parts of the areas north of Russia consist of shallow water .These shallow water areas do

generally have soft sediments seabed. In combination with large ice loads and ice ridges potentially

reaching the seabed floor, operating in these shallow waters might be even more challenging for fixed

structures than the deeper areas where the soil conditions have a tendency to be more solid and the ice

loads better defined. To overcome these challenges, a solution has so far been to install skirts

underneath the structure penetrating into the soil to reach a more competent level with higher shear

capacity. Alternatives include using piles/dowel to “nail” the structure to the sea bottom, to remove the

top weak soil and install the structure in a “pit” (alternatively back-fill with a material/gravel giving a

higher soil capacity) and construction of artificial islands, which without disregarding the environment

impact, has the advantage of allowing onshore equipment to be used.

When designing fixed installations, ISO 19906 is currently the basis when calculating ice loads for a

structure, both local and global. However, the standard is open to interpretations on how to utilize the

ISO standard and which factors to use for the calculations. A guideline on how to apply the standards

in a consistent and accurate manner has been produced by DNV GL. This guideline has to be

acknowledged by the authorities and the industry in both countries to become a unified base for

designing installations that are able to withstand ice loads. The understanding of the various ice

loading conditions and combinations of environmental loading is a key area for further research and

development.

Floating installations

For deeper water fields floating installations are more likely to be economical and for these, in

addition to the consideration of ice and environmental loadings, there are specific technological

challenges.

Many of the challenges relevant to fixed installations also apply to floating installations. This includes,

among other things, challenges related to ice loads, Ice Management, winterization of topside

equipment, processing facilities and living quarters, and design and operating procedures that enhance

personnel safety and minimize the environmental impact. In addition to these general issues, there are

viii RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

technology challenges which are specific to floating installation such as hull design, station keeping,

quick disconnection and reconnection requirements, thruster and mooring systems, and material

selection.

Similar to substructures on fixed installations, the hull of floating installations must be designed and

constructed to withstand the loads of first year sea ice and, potentially, hits by drifting icebergs. Hull

designs currently being used in ice covered waters include the two FPSOs operating in Newfoundland,

Canada and the circular hull used by the now demobilized drilling platform Kulluk in Alaska.

Floating installations will require a mooring system for station keeping within the needed watch circle

to maintain an allowable riser angle. Mooring systems of a floating installation must be capable of

efficiently carrying out planned as well as emergency disconnect and reconnect from the moorings and

well. Currently, a turret based system is believed to be the most viable alternative for most

applications, though project specific requirements may lead to an alternative choice. Efficient

disconnect/reconnect systems for mooring and riser needs be developed to provide operational

flexibility in areas where operations are occasionally disrupted by severe ice conditions, both in open

water and areas of pack ice.

Materials

Steel and reinforced concrete both have a track record as materials used for Arctic conditions. More

exotic composite materials, or alloys like aluminium and titanium imply a longer qualification process,

(although some challenges can be met by looking at unconventional selections of materials). The

challenges related to use of steel materials are mainly linked to long term use. That is corrosive erosive

wear for periods longer than the docking intervals specified for classified units. Impact of ice, low

temperature, salinity, electric fields all increase the vulnerability of such wear, and must be taken into

account when deciding thickness, material quality and corrosion protection systems. Due reference

should be made to experience from Russian icebreakers and early field activities by units like the

formerly known as Kulluk.

Reinforced concrete is possessing favorable durability properties against corrosion, fatigue and harsh

environment. There is a long record of accomplishment of Arctic application in ice covered waters.

The phenomenon of abrasion is a challenge for the reinforced concrete, calling for larger cover, proper

concrete mix and careful follow up of fabrication. Protection/cover plating is sometimes used in the

most susceptible zones. Local fabrication may be easier to obtain, as qualification of work force is

more similar to conventional industry.

Marine operations

Just as platforms and vessels used in exploration and production of oil and gas resources, so too must

vessels used in transportation and installation operations be designed and constructed to withstand the

operating conditions encountered in the High North. The design and construction of these vessels as

well as the planning of marine operations will depend on an assessment of the type and area of

operation, while also taking into account the time of the year and logistics requirements. Challenges to

be considered in these assessments include winterization, Ice Management, remoteness, escape,

evacuation and rescue (EER), navigation, communication, monitoring, search and rescue (SAR) and

crew training.

While technology and guidance exist that address these challenges, there is still need for innovation

and technology development, particularly within areas such as EER, remote sensing and monitoring

and ice loads modelling. Marine installation operations in the High North may have to rely on a

restricted operating window approach. The ISO 19901-6 provides guidance on operational limits, but

it only addresses the Arctic aspects to a limited degree. Vessels used for Marine Operations may be

designed based on design levels such as 10-year or 1-year return periods. For transports this is a valid

approach, but for a large number of installation operations this is not a cost effective and practicable

approach. Hence, it is required to define restricted marine operations and associated working windows

ix RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

taking into account the combination of wind, wave, current and ice conditions (if possible combined

with Ice Management).

Operation philosophy

The operation philosophy that will be needed to run, supply and maintain both the physical production

facilities and the human force required to man them in a safe and economical manner may prove to be

the major challenge to developments as we move away from the relatively benign southern part of the

Barents sea and into the more extreme regions. The operation philosophy chosen to meet the

environmental and geographical situation of the field location will form part of the basis of design for

any installation effecting as it will the size and configuration of the facility.

Implementation of project specific Ice Management systems, the provision of reliable communication,

production with zero discharge, acceptable working conditions, realistic evacuation systems the

provision of practical safe havens for the evacuated personnel, along with supply logistics for

installations that are located beyond reasonable reach from the mainland, all require technological

development to meet Arctic conditions.

Currently two offshore developments are under way in the Norwegian part of Barents Sea and the

Prirazlomnaya in the Russian Pechora Sea has recently started production so as such little Arctic

experience is yet available in the Barents region, but not generally in the Arctic or Sub-Arctic.

Considerable experience has been gained with Ice Management for both fixed and floating

installations in Canadian waters and operating with fixed platforms in half year sheet ice in Russia’s

Sakhalin development.

The production facilities, along with all areas on the installation which cater for personnel will have to

be enclosed and otherwise “winterized” to allow for a safe and effective working area for man and

machine. Reduced reasoning for humans starts at temperatures below 10 °C. In production facilities 70

to 90% of failures are due to human or organizational malfunction rather than technical reasons.

The requirement to provide enough enclosure for working environment requirements on the topside

structure while at the same time for release of any flammable gases must be met. These considerations

have been incorporated into the design of the Barents Sea platforms and special Arctic drilling vessels.

All walkways, escape routes and lifeboat stations must be enclosed and heated to ensure their

accessibility under extreme weather conditions. However the combination of wind chill factor and

very low temperatures may require a prohibitive amount of electrical power.

Evacuation of the platform using traditional free fall lifeboats is restricted in free water areas where ice

may be present and impossible in sheet ice. The design of evacuation systems for installations in all

but the mildest Arctic waters is currently not available. The Sakhalin platforms have acceptable

evacuation systems for their specific environment. Having evacuated personnel from a facility some

form of transport must be made available to reach the nearest safe haven. The provision of such

transport systems and safe havens for facilities inaccessible by helicopter and large distance from any

land mass triggers a discussion on area development and the provisions of logistic “hubs” strategically

placed in the High North.

Accidental pollution of the environment in the High North will be unacceptable so a no harmful

discharge philosophy will be enforced. Regulations and technology to enable this to be achieved need

to be developed. The need to train personnel working in the High North to achieve these

environmental goals will be just one of many special and focused skills such personnel will require.

The pressures and requirements that will be placed on personnel living and working on production

facilities in the High North and the supporting marine fleet will need to be studied and understood so

that the necessary training institutes can provide the support in good time.

x RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

Table of contents

Introduction by INTSOK......................................................................................................................... ii

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ iv

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................ vi

Figures and tables .................................................................................................................................. 12

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 13

Overall considerations ........................................................................................................... 13 1.1

Outline of the report .............................................................................................................. 14 1.2

2. Physical characteristics of operating in the High North ................................................................ 15

Key characteristics of High North operations ....................................................................... 15 2.1

A step-by-step approach to operations in the High North ..................................................... 16 2.2

The Barents Sea ..................................................................................................................... 18 2.3

Meteorological and oceanographic conditions .............................................................. 18 2.3.1

Ice exposure and icing ................................................................................................... 19 2.3.2

Water depth and seabed topography .............................................................................. 20 2.3.3

The Pechora Sea .................................................................................................................... 20 2.4




The Kara Sea ......................................................................................................................... 22 2.5




Summary ............................................................................................................................... 24 2.6

3. Regulatory framework - international standards ........................................................................... 25

Fixed and floating installations applicable regulation and classification .............................. 25 3.1

Existing practice in Russia ............................................................................................ 25 3.1.1

Existing practice in Norway .......................................................................................... 27 3.1.2

4. Challenges, best practices and need for technology development ................................................ 30

Design specifications and ice actions standards .................................................................... 30 4.1

Fixed installations.................................................................................................................. 33 4.2

Arctic related design conditions .................................................................................... 33 4.2.1

Shallow water ................................................................................................................ 34 4.2.2

Artificial islands ............................................................................................................ 35 4.2.3

Deeper water limits of fixed versus floating ................................................................. 36 4.2.4

Execution and construction ........................................................................................... 39 4.2.5

Floating Installations ............................................................................................................. 40 4.3

Process facilities (winterization) ................................................................................... 40 4.3.1

Hull design (ice breaking features versus operability) .................................................. 41 4.3.2

xi RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

Station keeping (mooring, turret/ice vaning, Ice Management efficiency) ................... 44 4.3.3

Riser system (ice protection, offset) .............................................................................. 48 4.3.4

Materials ................................................................................................................................ 48 4.4

Steel ............................................................................................................................... 48 4.4.1

Concrete......................................................................................................................... 50 4.4.2

Marine operations .................................................................................................................. 51 4.5

Types of Arctic marine operations support ................................................................... 51 4.5.1

Fixed facility installation ............................................................................................... 54 4.5.2

Floating facility installation ........................................................................................... 55 4.5.3

Logistics/SAR/Crew training ........................................................................................ 56 4.5.4

Marine construction and operations support fleet ......................................................... 58 4.5.5

Restricted working window approach ........................................................................... 62 4.5.6

Operation philosophy ............................................................................................................ 65 4.6

Working environment .................................................................................................... 65 4.6.1

Escape, Evacuation and Rescue (EER) ......................................................................... 69 4.6.2

Ice Management ............................................................................................................ 71 4.6.3

Environmental aspects to be considered ........................................................................ 73 4.6.4

Area development considerations .................................................................................. 73 4.6.5

5. Innovation and technology development ....................................................................................... 74

6. Technology/solution providers ...................................................................................................... 78

7. References ..................................................................................................................................... 87

12 RU-NO Barents Project, Floating and Fixed Installations-Report, 31. October 2014

Figures and tables Figure 1: Geographical areas ................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2: Geographical areas of the High North ................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: Formation areas of polar lows 2000-2012 ............................................................................. 18 Figure 4: Yearly maximum ice extent 2001-2011 ................................................................................. 19 Figure 5: Various water depths of the Arctic Ocean (5625m at the deepest) ........................................ 20 Figure 6: Icebergs and glaciers of Novaya Zemlya .............................................................................. 21 Figure 7: Illustration of a diapir rising up through the sediments ......................................................... 21 Figure 8: Iceberg frozen into the ice in the Kara Sea, May 2013. ........................................................ 23 Figure 9: Left picture: Weather station at Novaya Zemlya. Right picture: Clouds during the storm on

August 9, 2012, above the Cape Opasny. .............................................................................................. 23 Figure 10: Illustration of water depths in the Barents -, Pechora - and Kara seas................................ 24 Figure 11: Artificial island .................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 12: Artificial Island with concrete caissons ............................................................................... 36 Figure 13: GBS for 150m water depth designed for ice load similar to north of Russia ...................... 37 Figure 14: GBS for 150 – 200m designed for ice berg ......................................................................... 38 Figure 15: Platform at Sakhalin installed in about 40m water depth .................................................... 38 Figure 16: Construction of a concrete GBS in Nakhodka, Far East Russia .......................................... 39 Figure 17: White Rose FPSO ................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 18: The Prirazlomnaya platform ................................................................................................ 40 Figure 19: Arctic cargo vessel/advancing stern first ............................................................................. 41 Figure 20: Azi-pod ice breaking propulsion .......................................................................................... 42 Figure 21: Kulluk Arctic drilling rig ..................................................................................................... 42 Figure 22: Dual waterline solution to allow the optimum hull shape for different ice loadings ........... 43 Figure 23: Stainless steel band water line ............................................................................................. 43 Figure 24: Ice berg tow ......................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 25: Quick disconnect turret ........................................................................................................ 46 Figure 26: Hydro acoustic rig anchor release ........................................................................................ 46 Figure 27: North Pole coring with Ice Management ............................................................................. 47 Figure 28: Ice belt made of plated steel and elements of electrochemical protection of the marine ice-

resistant fixed platform Prirazlomnaya (construction phase) ................................................................ 50 Figure 29: Arkatun-Dagi tow-out .......................................................................................................... 54 Figure 30: Yuri Korchagin FSU field development .............................................................................. 56 Figure 31: Ice simulation modelling...................................................................................................... 57 Figure 32: Baltic and Polar Class notations .......................................................................................... 59 Figure 33: Nordic Yards B109 MRV icebreaking multitask vessel ...................................................... 61 Figure 34: Icing on vessel ..................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 35: Physics – the effect of enclosing .......................................................................................... 68 Figure 36: Range of a Sikorsky S-92 .................................................................................................... 70 Figure 37: TIT-800 Archimedean Screw Tractor (AST) ...................................................................... 71 Figure 38: Iceberg Management zones and threat evaluation ............................................................... 72

Table 1: Time perspectives .................................................................................................................... 17 Table 2: MOU class societies ................................................................................................................ 29


1. Introduction In this report we examine how fixed and floating installations can be used in developing oil and gas in

the High North. Expanding operations into the High North, oil and gas companies will encounter

water depths reaching from only 30 meters in the shallowest parts of the Kara Sea to deep water areas

with depths down to 600 meters in the northern parts of the Barents Sea. Combined with seabed soil

conditions changing from solid permafrost to soft muddy sediments and waters, occasionally, heavily

infested with sea ice this strongly advocate that both fixed and floating installations will have to be

deployed in developing oil and gas resources in the High North.

For the purposes of this report the definition of deep water is any depth above 100 meters and shallow

water any depth below 100 meters.

This report is a composite of the industry´s own views and considerations on technology challenges,

best practices and technology development requirements relevant to the use of fixed and floating

installations in the High North. In contrast to operations carried out under more benign conditions, the

report emphasizes the importance of designing and constructing installations that are able to withstand

the loads imposed by sea ice and heavy waves and that can be operated in extremely low temperatures.

Moreover, the report contains a comparison of the regulatory framework in Norway and Russia, while

also highlighting technology challenges, best practice and need for technology development with

relevance to Marine Operations, personnel safety (evacuation and SAR) and operation philosophy.

The end result will identify current industry capabilities and technology gaps, promote stronger

industry links and indicate the need for future innovation and technology development through, e.g.

design of new/improved technology, need for research projects, need for Arctic technology standard

update and strengthening competitive industry links.

Overall considerations 1.1

Environmental loads

Structural design

Personnel transport

Zero discharge philosophy

Ice Management

EER SAR

Winterization

Supply logistics

International legislation

Government, Environmental policys

Economy of development

International standards

National legislation

Geographical location

Automation Water depths

Public opinion


This diagram illustrates some of the key issues which have to be considered and taken into account

during the complex process of arriving at the technical solution required for the Production facility at

any given field.

In this report bulk of these items are included for under the term “Operation Philosophy”. Such items

must clearly be defined and agreed upon before the final size and form of the Fixed or Floating

Installation can be arrived at.

Outline of the report 1.2

This report is comprised of six chapters, which are structured as following:

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the physical characteristics of the High North. The chapter focuses

on challenges related to meteorological, oceanographic and seabed conditions, as well as ice exposure

and icing in the Barents Sea, the Pechora Sea and the Kara Sea. The chapter also presents the timeline,

according to which oil and gas operations, based on the perceived technology development, are

expected to progress.

Chapter 3 offers a synopsis of regulations and standards with relevance to operations of fixed and

floating operations in the High North. The chapter also elaborate on the need for further

standardization of Russian and Norwegian standards as means to promote development of technology

and solutions relevant to operations in the High North.

Chapter 4 represents the main chapter of the report and contains a structured review of common

challenges, existing technologies and best practices and the need for technology development within

the areas of design specifications and ice actions standards, fixed installations, floating installations,

Marine Operations and operation philosophy. The chapter gives an extensive insight into some of the

most important issues being debated by leading actors in the fixed and floating installations segment

considering oil and gas production in the High North.

Chapter 5 highlights some the most notable projects and programmes recently and currently being

carried out to promote technology development. The chapter covers joint industry projects (JIP),

public initiatives, programs and academic research.

Chapter 6 contains a comprehensive matrix that displays technology and solution providers within

different services and product segments. The matrix is established by the Task Force Group based

upon input from various sources. It does not claim to provide the complete picture as the range of

technology, solutions and services within each segments may vary considerably. There might be

companies (not listed) providing relevant services.

In addition to the main report the appendices contain additional information and figures and tables of

relevance for floating and fixed installations.


2. Physical characteristics of operating in the High North This report aims to target fixed and floating installation challenges associated with oil and gas

activities in the Barents Sea (including the Pechora Sea) and the Kara Sea (including the Ob and

Yenisey river estuaries) (Figure 1). In this chapter, the key physical characteristics and challenges,

encountered by companies operating in these regions, are presented. Compared to the North Sea and

the Norwegian Sea, operations in the High North are characterized by harsher operating conditions.

Potential risk elements include low air temperatures, icing, remoteness, darkness, sea ice, polar lows

and fog.

Figure 1: Geographical areas

Source: Graphic Maps

Furthermore, the meteorological forecasts has a higher degree of uncertainty, which may result in

prolonged weather windows needed before starting critical operations. In general, there is a lack of

long term met ocean and ice data to develop a firm design base for ships and offshore units. A report

issued by the Research Council of Norway in 2011 concluded that met ocean design criteria are

missing in order to be able to design for worst case scenarios, i.e. wind, current, temperature, icing etc.

Key characteristics of High North operations 2.1

What makes the High North a true operational challenge is its distinct characteristics. Although the

intensity and combinations of these characteristics vary within the High North, the main natural,

physical challenges encountered by the oil and gas industry, when operations are expanded towards

the High North, could be described as follows:

Low temperatures Low temperatures are frequent throughout the High North during the winter season. Low temperatures

could cause cancellations or delayed operations, as installations and equipment need to be protected

and personnel are being prohibited from operating outdoor for longer periods. Low temperatures can

also cause damage to equipment when stored/operated in cold temperatures and possibly brittle failure

of metallic substances.

Icing

In cold temperatures, sea spray may freeze immediately on contact with a vessels or installations

providing significant challenges for marine operation and operational safety for personnel. The

combination of wind or wave induced icing with air temperature can lead to risk of stability of floating

Pechora Sea


installations, reduced operability, freezing mechanisms, slippery deck and ladders and also, in some

cases, shutting down communication and evacuation systems.

Remoteness

Large parts of the High North are located far from existing infrastructure increasing time of travel for

ships and helicopters. Combined with larger uncertainties related to weather forecasts it can be

difficult to plan operations.

Darkness

North of the polar circle, for longer periods of the year the sun will not rise above the horizon.

Through reduced visibility, darkness can cause prolonged operation times for certain activities, while

also representing a challenge to search and rescue (SAR) operations.

Sea ice1

The sea ice varies in shapes, thicknesses, ages and hardness. The ice conditions in the Barents -,

Pechora -, and the Kara seas are dynamic, leading to large annual, seasonal and regional variations

presenting different, however, challenges to vessels and installations operating in various parts of the

areas. This report highlights the differences of ice conditions in the geographical focus areas. In the

areas of the Ob and Yenisey river estuaries the sweet (low salt content) ice results in higher loading on

structures.

Polar lows

Polar lows occur when cold winds blow from the ice covered regions in the north over areas with

relatively warm sea. Typically, polar are formed quickly and are difficult to predict. Polar lows can

endure for a couple of weeks to some hours with strong winds and subsequent precipitation posing a

major safety risk and challenge to operations in the High North.

Visibility

Operations in ice covered waters include visual contact with ice, other vessels or installation essential

to ensure safety. Fog also represents a challenge in terms of helicopter operations. In the Marginal Ice

Zone fog is a phenomenon that occurs frequently. This may cause delays and limitations when

considering operations.

A step-by-step approach to operations in the High North 2.2

Present oil and gas offshore activities in the High North take place in the south-western part of the

Barents Sea South on the Norwegian side and in the Pechora Sea on the Russian continental Shelf.

When Russian operations expands into the northern parts of the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea and with

the Norwegian intention to further expand operations northward and eastward, oil and gas activities

become more challenging. This calls for a step-by step approach, where operational quality and

control must be demonstrated before moving into even more physically challenging areas.

In this respect, the development can to be linked to a timeline that covers the present situation as well

as the long term perspectives. Consequently, a timeline is described for the short term, medium term

and long term based on assumptions regarding when oil production is viable (Table 1).

Activity prospects and time perspective Geographical regions (areas)

Short term (until 2025):2 Barents Sea South (Area 1) and Pechora Sea (Area 2)

Medium term (2025-2050): Barents Sea North (Area 3) and Kara Sea South (Area 4)

Long term (after 2050): Barents Sea North (Area 5) and Kara Sea North (Area 6)

1 See Appendix 1 for description of various types of sea ice.

2 Development projects that are overviewed today, i.e. discoveries resulting from application rounds 22 and 23.


Table 1: Time perspectives3

The three perspectives represent three scenarios described by a high degree of uncertainty. Thus, a

careful step by step approach must be applied when preparing for more concrete activities on short and

medium term and on long term only for very long lead infrastructure investments, e.g. satellite

coverage to improve communication in the High North.

As a tool to describe the inter-dependencies between the time line and the expansion into more ice

covered waters (and larger distance from infrastructure and SAR response), the project area is divided

into six geographical areas, as illustrated in Figure 2.The six areas represent different challenges

regarding, for instance, ice, infrastructure, communications, emergency preparedness and SAR

response. The figure has been developed jointly by Russian and Norwegian parties to maintain the

views of both parties.

1. No significant sea ice (mostly within

SAR response)

2. Sea ice only part of the year (mostly

within SAR response)

3. Limited sea ice part of the year

(outside present SAR response)

4. Sea ice most of the year(outside

present SAR response)

5. Sea ice part of the year (far outside


6. Sea ice most of the year (far outside


Figure 2: Geographical areas of the High North

The oil and gas industry meets different physical challenges in the six areas listed in Figure 2. A main

distinction can be made between the concepts Arctic waters and Arctic ice covered waters.

Arctic waters include the ice free waters of the Barents Sea South (Area 1). In these waters ice bergs

and drifting ice normally do not represent a risk for maritime and offshore operations. However,

challenges and operational risks include: icing on vessels or installations due to low air temperatures,

visibility, polar lows and lack of infrastructure especially related to insufficient search and rescue

capabilities.

Seasonal ice covered waters include the ice covered waters in the Barents, the Pechora and the Kara

seas (Area 2,3,4,5 and 6). The same risks that applies for maritime operations in “Arctic waters”, are

also representative for vessels operating in ice covered waters, but in addition, sea ice constitute an

explicit risk for vessels and personnel.

The following sections will present the six development areas, also describing the distinct regional

challengers. 3 The various “area-numbers” refer to Figure 2.


The Barents Sea 2.3

Meteorological and oceanographic conditions 2.3.1

Data on environmental parameters in the Barents Sea are scarce and difficult to obtain. Most of the

reliable statistics are from land based meteorological stations located along the coast of Finnmark and

the Bear Island. There are also three Wavescan met ocean data collecting buoys offshore in the

Barents Sea. On the Russian side, considerable data is collected, with the Arctic and Antarctic

Research Institute (AARI) serving as gathering and analysis center.

For the Barents Sea, there is a lack of empirical meteorological data on temperatures, darkness, snow,

fog, icing, rapid weather changed caused by the large temperature gradients between the ice covered

and open water, surface winds and polar lows (Figure 3). Such conditions are currently difficult to

forecast due to their local formation and relatively small size. In light of current climate change trends,

we can expect a decrease of polar lows in the Barents Sea if the ice edge moves further north and east.

Figure 3: Formation areas of polar lows 2000-2012

Source: met.no

Considering visibility, for up to six months a year visibility can be below two km. This is partially

because of snowfall and partially because of fog, which may reduce visibility below one km. The lack

of daylight during polar nights has profound impact on the safety of vessel transport and operations,

thereby interrupting the service of the platforms as well as hindering emergency response operations.

Visibility measurements at different locations are provided by met.no.

The frequency of polar lows has increased in recent years, with significant numbers occurring in the

period between November and April. However, according to recent research the projection is that

warmer climate will result in reduced frequency of polar lows. Met ocean data has been collected and


analysed by the Norwegian Deepwater Program (NDP). These data is relevant for the western part of

the Barents Sea (From 400m water depth).4

NORSOK N-003 provides design of relevant data concerning the maximum significant wave for

different regions. Observations indicate a total average significant wave height of 2.35 m in the ice

free southern part of the Barents Sea.5 Seabed bathymetry is typically available for areas within

current traffic lanes and required to a large extent for the adjacent regions.

Ice exposure and icing 2.3.2

Since 1979, satellite observations monitoring sea ice extent has been available, thus providing data on

the extent of sea ice. These observations are also reflected in the maximum sea ice extent seen in the

past decade (Figure 4). However, design relevant knowledge concerning ice thickness, type of ice,

presence and size of ridges, pressure zones, short-term drift velocities and general physical

and mechanical ice properties is still strictly limited and unreliable. The presence of icebergs in the

southern Barents Sea is relatively rare, with the probability increasing toward the Barents Sea North

and the Kara Sea respectively.

Figure 4: Yearly maximum ice extent 2001-2011

Source: met.no

Temperatures can fall significantly below zero in the Barents Sea, causing additional challenges for

the design of vessels (i.e. material compliance) as well as equipment and systems and the operational

environment for humans. Furthermore, the effect of wind chill must be considered for humans

working in such cold climate as well as icing of the equipment. Thus, winterization of vessels and

technical infrastructure, especially heating and isolation, must be adequately addressed.

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, sea ice in the High North has declined relative to its 1979–

2000 mean extent. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), sea ice extent at the

most recent summer minimum (September 2009) and winter maximum (March 2010) was greater than

it had been in most recent years. This short-term gain does not, however, indicate a reversal of the

long-term decline.

4 Report, NDP – Needs and opportunities at the start of phase5 – strategy discussions in 2013 by H. J. Sætre 25.1

2014 5 Johannessen (2007)


Water depth and seabed topography 2.3.3

The Barents Sea has extremely variable and rugged bottom topography. Ice berg scours in the area is

the reason for this. The average shelf depth is about 250 m, and maximum depths reach 400–600 m.

The external margin of the shelf in the northern and western Barents Sea is situated at depths of 200–

350 m along banks to 400–600 m. For Area 5 and 6 the water depth reaches down to 600 m. Figure 5

illustrates the variations in water depth.

Figure 5: Various water depths of the Arctic Ocean (5625m at the deepest)

Source: Arctic Ocean Seafloor Features Map

The Pechora Sea 2.4


In the Pechora Sea, temperatures are decreasing when moving eastwards and northwards compared to

the Barents Sea South. The main sea currents are entering from the Barents Sea South along the

Norwegian coast, and from north along the coast of Novaya Zemlya. The difference in water

temperature from west to north is not substantial in the Pechora Sea. Thus, few occurrences of polar

lows have been observed. Low temperatures and wind during winter time will, however, complicate

working environment conditions for all types of operations. Tidal currents can be significant.


Eastern and southern heading winds and currents will provide ice covered waters during the winter

season. During summer, the ice will disappear. To operate during wintertime, ice classed vessels and

support vessels will be needed. In contrast to the Barents Sea South-East, ice bergs are hardly expected

in the Pechora Sea. However, according to Krylov State Research Center, the risk of ice bergs must be

taken into account in planning and construction. Icing due to lower temperatures and winds constitutes

a major challenge to all kinds of operations during winter time. Additional sea spray freezing in open

waters will create a major threat to vessels with respect to weight and balance.


Figure 6: Icebergs and glaciers of Novaya Zemlya

Source: Rosneft


The Pechora Sea is quite shallow (mostly in the range of 20-60 m). Water depth in the Pechora Sea is

less than 150 m increasing in North West in the transition zone with the Barents Sea to 300m.

The presence of permafrost sediments is the main source of engineering risks during the exploitation

of oil and gas deposits of the Pechora Sea. The available data on the shelf of the Pechora Sea also

suggest that there are subsurface overpressure zones with accumulations of gas and gas hydrates.

Studies have revealed numerous diapir-like uplifts made up of frozen ice grounds and related gas

accumulations with abnormally high formation pressure.6.

Figure 7: Illustration of a diapir rising up through the sediments

Source: NOAA Ocean Explorer Gallery

The figure above gives an illustration of a diapir rising up through the sediments. Faults that form

around the diapir can lead to the development of flow systems for gas and fluids, and some of these

fluids may nourish seafloor chemosynthetic communities. Pockmarks, or small depressions in the

seafloor, sometimes develop above these diapirs.

6 Russian Geology and Geophysics Vol.43, No. 7, pp. 587-598, 2002. Under permafrost accumulations of gas in

the upper part of the sedimentary cover of the Pechora Sea.V.N. Bondarev, S.I. Rokos, D.A. Kostin, A.G.

Dlugach and N.A. Polyakova


The Kara Sea 2.5


When moving into the Kara Sea the overall picture is growing more challenging. Cold winds and

currents are entering from north along the eastern coast of Novaya Zemlya into the Kara Sea South

basin more or less enclosed by Novaya Zemlya and the Yamal peninsula. Low temperatures and wind

during winter time will challenge working environment conditions for all types of operations.

Significant occurrences of polar lows are not expected.


Compared to the Pechora Sea, ice conditions in the Kara Sea are even more challenging. In the Kara

Sea South, the sea ice is present most of the year (normally 7-8 months), resulting in a narrow

maritime operational window. Due to northern currents and wind, the ice will pack up and multiyear

ice is present most of the year. In the Kara Sea North there will be frequent occurrences of ice bergs

drifting in with the currents mainly from the Western part of Franz Josephs Land. As water depths in

the ice berg origin areas are deep (more than 400 m) the ice bergs from Franz Josephs Land may be

similarly large with a deep draught. However, looking at the bathymetry towards Novaya Zemlya the

maximum possible ice berg draught is around 250 m both in the Kara Sea North and South. Such large

ice bergs may only enter the Kara Sea South along the Eastern coast of Novaya Zemlya, as the central

part of the Kara Sea is much shallower. In general, ice bergs are highly anticipated in the Kara Sea

North, while less so in the Kara Sea South. Low temperatures and wind in the Kara Sea will imply

heavy icing and challenging working environmental conditions in open or partly open waters during

winter time. In the estuaries of the Ob and Yenissei land fast ice can form and present a design

challenge.

Studies conducted (in 2012-2013) by Rosneft, Arctic Science and Design Center for Continental Shelf

Development (the Arctic Research Center) and AARI established that the most iceberg productive

glaciers on the eastern coast of Novaya Zemlya are the Moshny and Nansen glaciers (see Figure 6).

The glaciers are fractured by a network of cracks creating small icebergs, the majority of which

remain on the near-glacier shoal and disintegrate. A typical linear size of icebergs in the south-western

part of the Kara Sea is 40-60 m. Icebergs present a significant danger when operating in the open

waters of the Kara Sea. Due to the small size of icebergs it is difficult to track their movements

especially in low visibility conditions.

In May 2013 a large iceberg was discovered frozen into the ice, with the above water portion of 70 x

70 x 12 m and the underwater depth of up to 50 m (see Figure 8). When an iceberg freezes into the ice,

it becomes surrounded by a belt of ice ridges leading to a multiple increase in the mass of the ice

formation. This requires a special approach to design of gravity based structures (GBSs) for a year-

round hydrocarbon production.


Figure 8: Iceberg frozen into the ice in the Kara Sea, May 2013.

Source: Rosneft

In 2012, a strong gravity wind blowing from the mountainous coast of Novaya Zemlya towards the sea

was studied (Figure 9). In the night from 9 to 10 August 2012 the wind speed of 26 m/s was recorded,

the highest wind gust recorded was 55 m/s (about 200 km/h) (Figure 9). Since the duration of storm

development is between 3 and 4 hours, and is difficult to predict, it presents considerable danger for

offshore and helicopter operations near the coast of Novaya Zemlya. The registered extreme met

ocean parameters (including wind gusts) must be taken into account for future operations.

Figure 9: Left picture: Weather station at Novaya Zemlya. Right picture: Clouds during the storm on August 9, 2012, above the Cape Opasny.

Source: Rosneft


The average depth of the Kara Sea is 111 m and its area comprises 883 thousand km² with a maximum

depth (620 m) in the northern part of St Anna trough some 100 km east of Franz Josef Land (see

Figure 10).


In the eastern Barents Sea the water is transformed from warm saline water to cold, less saline

intermediate and bottom water. This transformation happens through mixture of cooled Atlantic Water

with cold brine-enriched shelf water generated west of Novaya Zemlya, and possibly also at the

Central Bank. The moderately cold, low salinity mixture continues to the Kara Sea without further

change.

Figure 10: Illustration of water depths in the Barents -, Pechora - and Kara seas

Source: Byrd Polar Research Center7

Summary 2.6

Compared to the North Sea, operations in the High North are characterized by harsher operating

conditions, especially during winter. This chapter has provided an outline of the physical

characteristics of the High North. Not exclusive to environmental protection and oil spill monitoring

and contingency, the chapter has focused on how meteorological and oceanographic conditions such

as low temperatures, sea ice, polar lows, darkness, remoteness and reduced visibility can impact

maritime and offshore operations.

While the challenges highlighted in this chapter may be considered generic to operations in the High

North, the chapter also demonstrates that there are signification variations across areas in Barents Sea,

the Pechora Sea and the Kara Sea. In particular, differences in the presence of sea ice is being

perceived as having the potential to significantly impact design requirements for vessels, installations

and equipment to be applied in operations in the High North. Based on the recognition that operating

conditions depend on the location, in which operations are carried out, the industry has deployed a

step-by-step approach where operational quality and control must be demonstrated before moving into

even more physically challenging areas.

Water depths and seabed topography display considerable variation in the geographical areas included

in this chapter. While much of the Pechora Sea is relatively shallow (20-60 m), the Barents Sea has an

average water depth of some 250 m. Permafrost sediments is considered the main source of

operational risk, with data also suggesting that subsurface pressure zones and the formation of diaper-

like uplifts create dynamics in the seabed topography.

7 Byrd Polar Research Center: https://bprc.osu.edu/geo/projects/foram/maps.htm

https://bprc.osu.edu/geo/projects/foram/maps.htm


3. Regulatory framework - international standards

Fixed and floating installations applicable regulation and classification 3.1

A potential obstacle to Russian-Norwegian cooperation in developing technologies and solutions as

well as carrying out bilateral operations is differences in the regulatory approach. Russian regulation

system is strictly normative and is based on state authority supervision. Norwegian regulations, on the

other hand, are mostly based on ISO standards and NORSOK (with risk acceptance criteria) with

minimum obligatory standards requirements with maximum flexibility of implementation of any

applicable norms and safety declaration. State authority supervision exists, but is not as systematic as

in Russia.

Current offshore Russian regulations are themselves relatively uncoordinated and furthermore they are

not aligned with international ones. An absence of coordination of the at least 14 Russian government

authorities with legal competence in matters (licences, permissions and supervision) relevant to fixed

and floating installations renders the Russian regulatory landscape somewhat uneven. With most

offshore operations in Russia having been carried out using fixed installations, so Russian regulations

are not fully developed when considering floating installations.

In Norway, the Norwegian Petroleum Agency (PSA) enforces regulations. For each regulation,

guidelines and interpretations are given by PSA. Additionally, specific working environment

regulations, EU-regulations (Machine Directive, Pressure Directive, MED conformity etc.) may apply.

The regulations point to a large extent to Norwegian NORSOK-requirements for design application

purposes and additional international standards such as ISO-standards for specific requirements.

Existing practice in Russia 3.1.1

Russian industry and authorities are experienced in onshore oil and gas projects, but as of yet have

little or no experience regarding offshore developments. The little experience gained in the Caspian

Sea and Sakhalin projects has been with fixed platforms. The only offshore project in the High North

that has started production in 2014 is the Prirazlomnaya development. This is a fixed platform based

on the reuse of a heavily renovated demobilized North Sea platform from the British sector.

Traditionally Russia has utilized a strict and detailed legislation system to permit and control onshore

developments. This has been implemented through a multi layered supervisory system utilizing a

multitude of certificates and licenses.

Historically this system has been attempted to be used for offshore projects design in spite of the

unsuitability of the imbedded technical standards. All activity on the continental shelf has been

considered as civil construction and regulated by the Russian Civil Construction Code.

There is also a lack of definition of the responsibilities of the various authorities regarding their roles

for the new area of offshore development. The organization of the various authorities’ roles and

interfaces is currently being revised so that final clarity is not yet achieved. Wide implementation of

the international standards theoretically is possible, but practically unrealistic fort the time being due

to complicated validation procedure and a lack of the required experience within the Russian system.

General hierarchy structure of Russian legislation is a follow:

Ratified International Law (conventions, agreements, etc.)

Federal Constitutional Laws

Federal Laws

Orders and Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation

Government Decrees and Bylaws

Bylaws of Ministries, Federal Agencies and Federal Services

Bylaws of Federal Agencies and Federal Services


Regions regulation

This hierarchy of legislative control creates a very complicated system of normative acts and

regulations that are often contradictory (Technical Regulations, GOSTs, OSTs, SNIPs, PBs, Orders,

RDs, Rules, Instructions, Manuals, etc.) and as such requires a large effort and a gap analyses to be

carried out by a developer in the early stages of a project in an effort to understand design

requirements and the expected approval process necessary to progress.

In an effort to modernize this situation and to bring it more in line with International Offshore

Development practice the Russian parliament passed a new Technical Regulations Law in 2009

followed by a New License System in 2010.

Under this Technical Regulations Law only the technical regulations (safety related to each discipline)

themselves are to be mandatory and all other documents (including all GOSTs, OSTs, SNIPs, PBs,

Orders, RDs, Rules, Instructions, Manuals, etc.) are for guidance only.

But the implementation of this new approach is proving a challenge as not enough relevant technical

regulations exist to cover the area of fixed and floating installations. For example, currently, only a

technical standard for ship-shape floating installations has been issued.8For all other areas the old mix

of existing normative documents remains obligatory.

Also a lack of clarity exists as to which of the authorities are responsible for producing specific

regulations.

From 2010 a new license system for offshore developments was introduced. The previous requirement

of having a State License for most of construction (project development) activities was scrapped and a

new philosophy of self-regulation (internal control) prescribed.

More than 500 new public bodies (SROs) for different activity categories have been established to

provide administration and guidance for this self-regulated system9, some of them have a limited

experience in the oil and gas offshore development. A company wishing to develop an offshore

installation will need to ally itself to a SRO, the majority of who are still only civil construction based

which is a weakness in the system.

However, this new technical self-regulation still requires that the developer seeks a multitude of

permits and approvals (Land Withdrawal, Ecological Expertize, Public Hearing, Glavgosexpertize,

etc.).

The current list of the Russian Government authorities involved in the approval for Offshore

Developments is as follows:

Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology (Rosnedra, Rosvodresorsu, Rosgidromet,

Rosprirodnadzor)

Ministry of Defense (Navy, Hydrographic service)

Ministry of Transport (Rostransnadzor, RS, Rosmorrefflot, Rosaviatia,

Gosmorspasslugba)

Ministry of Construction (Glavgosexpertize)

Russian Ministry of Civil Defense and Emergencies (EMERCOM)

Agricultural Ministry (Rosrybolovstvo)

Russian Ministry of communication

8

http://www.gost.ru/wps/portal/pages/directions?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/gost/gostru/directions/technicalr

egulation/technicalregulationses/tehnicheskii+reglament+o+bezopasnosti+obektov+morskogo+transporta, 9 https://sro.gosnadzor.ru/

http://www.gost.ru/wps/portal/pages/directions?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/gost/gostru/directions/technicalregulation/technicalregulationses/tehnicheskii+reglament+o+bezopasnosti+obektov+morskogo+transporta

http://www.gost.ru/wps/portal/pages/directions?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/gost/gostru/directions/technicalregulation/technicalregulationses/tehnicheskii+reglament+o+bezopasnosti+obektov+morskogo+transporta

https://sro.gosnadzor.ru/


Federal Security Service (Border Guard)

Federal Custom Service

Federal Tax Service

Federal Agency on Technical Regulation and Metrology (Rosstandart)

Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Protection of Consumer Rights and

Human Welfare

Rostekhnadzor

Rospotrebnadzor

In general, the existing Russian practice is to use classification for all offshore installations as ships

under a flag, even if the installation is fixed and not floating with registration in one of the shipping

registers and applicable regulation agreed for each specific project with the regulatory and supervisory

authorities in charge. The main reasons for that are property registration, amortization, custom and

frontier formalities.

Classification services for registration under Russian Flag are provided by the Russian Marine

Register of Shipping (RS) only (dual Class with RS is also applicable) which is a member of the

International Association of Classification Societies (IACS).

The Russian Marine of Shipping is also a subsidiary of the Ministry of Transport. But if Flag is not

concern, company is free in chose any IACS member.

The passing of the new Technical Regulation and SRO system in Russia should form a solid basis for

aligning the Russian Offshore Industry with International practices which would lead to more efficient

developments and ease International co-operation. The need for common internationally compatible

Technical Standards covering the entire spectrum of offshore requirements is imperative.

However there still seems to be a lack of clarity as to the implementation of these regulations,

provision of Standards, and the responsibilities of the various authorities involved.

Existing practice in Norway 3.1.2

Regulations

For Norwegian offshore activities, fixed and floating installation shall in general be built and run

according to the following 4 regulations, given under National Petroleum Law:

Framework HSE Regulation

Management Regulation

Facilities Regulation10

Activities Regulation

The regulations are enforced by the Norwegian Petroleum Agency, PSA.11

For each regulation,

guidelines and interpretations are given by PSA.

In addition, Specific Working Environment Regulations, EU-regulations (Machine Directive, Pressure

Directive, MED conformity etc.) may apply.

The regulations point to a large extent to Norwegian NORSOK-requirements for design application

purposes and additional international standards such as ISO-standards for specific requirements.12

10

http://www.psa.no/facilities/category405.html#p11 11

www.psa.no 12

A graphical is given in Appendix 6, taken from home page of Standards Norway,

http://www.standard.no/Global/bilder/Petroleum/NORSOK%20Plansje%202.pdf

http://www.psa.no/facilities/category405.html#p11

http://www.psa.no/

http://www.standard.no/Global/bilder/Petroleum/NORSOK%20Plansje%202.pdf


Standards Norway13

is responsible for all standardization areas except electro technology and tele

communication. Standards Norway adopts and publishes some 1500 new Norwegian Standards, NS,

annually. NS is adopted by Standards Norway based on national, European and International

standards. Standards Norway is the Norwegian member of CEN and ISO14

.)

The most important regulations for safety and working environment are: S-001 Technical Safety

S-002 Working Environment

For structural design in particular they are listed here

15:

N-001 Integrity of offshore structures

N-002 Collection of met ocean data

N-003 Action and Action effects

N-004 Design of steel structures

N-005 Condition monitoring of loadbearing structures

N-006 Assessment of structural integrity for existing offshore load-bearing structures

For design of offshore concrete structures, Eurocode 2, DNV-OS-C502 Offshore Concrete Structures,

ISO-19903 or other national or class regulations are applied and acknowledged. (ISO 19903 is under

revision, anticipated to be released in a couple of years).

It is worth mentioning that floating production facilities on the Norwegian shelf usually have no flag

or class. Sometimes a class society is involved in fabrication follow-up, and sometimes the unit is

flying a flag in transit, but the flag is stroked at arrival on the field.

AOC

Any mobile (floating or jack-up) offshore unit not run by the operators themselves needs an AOC16

,

Acknowledgement of Compliance in order to operate in Norwegian petroleum activities.

Note that this guideline is not setting out any requirements itself, but interpreting how the different

regulations can be put together in order to achieve the safety levels required by the regulations set out

by PSA.

The Alternative Maritime Approach

Recognizing that many mobile facilities wants to operate across shelf states, and that they are designed

and built according to maritime regulations, an alternative to NORSOK, often called the maritime

approval approach, has been established. This is laid out in Framework Regulation §3.

A unit flying an arbitrary flag and holding class and statutory certificates may be approved, but some

additional requirements.

The additional requirements, listed in AOC handbook, are taken from NMD, Norwegian Maritime

Directorate, flag state requirements.17

13

http://www.standard.no/en/toppvalg/about-us/standards-norway/#.VBq9i504XmQ 14

Chart of applicable ISO-standards given in Appendix 7, as laid out by Standards Norway,

http://www.standard.no/Global/PDF/Petroleum/ISO_OGP_StandardsIssued2013.pdf 15

http://www.standard.no/en/sectors/energi-og-klima/petroleum/norsok-standard-categories/n-structural/ 16

A guideline for obtaining such an AOC is given here:

http://www.norskoljeoggass.no/Global/Retningslinjer/Boring/065%20-

%20Handbook%20for%20application%20for%20acknowledgement%20of%20compliance%20(AOC).pdf 17

See http://www.sjofartsdir.no/en/ .

http://www.standard.no/en/toppvalg/about-us/standards-norway/#.VBq9i504XmQ

http://www.standard.no/Global/PDF/Petroleum/ISO_OGP_StandardsIssued2013.pdf

http://www.standard.no/en/sectors/energi-og-klima/petroleum/norsok-standard-categories/n-structural/

http://www.norskoljeoggass.no/Global/Retningslinjer/Boring/065%20-%20Handbook%20for%20application%20for%20acknowledgement%20of%20compliance%20(AOC).pdf

http://www.norskoljeoggass.no/Global/Retningslinjer/Boring/065%20-%20Handbook%20for%20application%20for%20acknowledgement%20of%20compliance%20(AOC).pdf

http://www.sjofartsdir.no/en/


In addition some specific requirements from DNV GL class rules apply. Selected mandatory safety

and working environment requirements from NORSOK must also be fulfilled, especially all aspects

related to hydrocarbons directly.

4 different combinations of flags and class are detailed on the handbook:

Alternative Flag Class

A Norwegian MOU Class*

B Norwegian Non-MOU Class*

C Non-Norwegian MOU Class*

D Non-Norwegian Non-MOU Class*

*) MOU Class is a classification society recognized by NMD as an Offshore Classification Society

Table 2: MOU class societies

Source: AOC Handbook

MOU-class societies referred above are DNV GL, ABS or LR. Fulfilling their requirement to

offshore units, with additional N-notation will then usually be sufficient, in addition the

mandatory SHE requirements.

DNV N-notation18

ABS N-notation19

For other class societies, the AOC-applicant must document that similar safety levels or functionalities

are ensured, by means of gap-analyses.

In addition, all statutory requirements from the flag state must be fulfilled. For smaller flag states (or

flags of convenience), the class society is usually approving statutory compliance on behalf of them.

But they may have certain preferences, for instance whether SOLAS or MODU safety certificates

should be applied.

For some facilities under the maritime approach, specific requirements from PSA/NORSOK and

class/flag will contradict each other. Those cases should be dealt with, case by case.

For certain specific areas, authority for approval is delegated to other instances, such as certification of

helidecks.20

18

https://exchange.dnv.com/exchange/en/mainclass.html 19

https://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_windo

wLabel=newControllerPortlet_1&newControllerPortlet_1_actionOverride=%2Fexternalportal%2Fportlets%2Fn

ews%2FshowDetails&newControllerPortlet_1nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FNews+%26+Events%2FPres

s+Releases%2F2007%2F30Apr2007e&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_news_listings_page 20

HCA http://www.helidecks.org/ , "helsetilsynet" for drinking water etc.

https://exchange.dnv.com/exchange/en/mainclass.html

https://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=newControllerPortlet_1&newControllerPortlet_1_actionOverride=%2Fexternalportal%2Fportlets%2Fnews%2FshowDetails&newControllerPortlet_1nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FNews+%26+Events%2FPress+Releases%2F2007%2F30Apr2007e&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_news_listings_page




http://www.helidecks.org/


4. Challenges, best practices and need for technology development

Design specifications and ice actions standards 4.1

Existing technologies, methods and best practice Practical implementation of ice actions in engineering should, in principle, to follow recipes developed

in the offshore oil and gas industry for decades. However, the combination of complexity, general

inexperience and scientific immaturity influence the best practice in design. Complexity of ice actions

is addressed in the Appendix 8.

Experience with floating and fixed installations is somewhat mixed. There are a number of fixed

installations that have operated under action of ice, both offshore and exposed coastal areas (bridges).

Meanwhile, there is not much experience of operating floating structures operating year around in sea

ice. Ice breakers have been operating in heavy ice conditions for decades, and there are a lot of

experiences with such operations. Hence, from a structural design point of view they are a proven

technology. Here, it is important to highlight that design of geo-fixed structures will, in view of ice

breaker technology, be a step change and will, beside observations and detection of physical ice

conditions, and be of limited value in a reliability based design of offshore structures in ice.

The argument for such is that consequences of a global defined failure, where the structure/vessel fails

to break the ice and withstand global ice forces, the ice breaker, on one hand, stops and drifts along

with the ice, and this will have minor safety consequences (given that the vessel has a proper ice

class). Regarding the schematic presentation of ice loads found in Appendix 8, the ice going vessel

will define the limit force, while the ice actions on the geo-fixed structure will be limited by nature

(Upper bound; limit stress). The geo-fixed (moored) structure that suffers overloading may as a

consequence lead to everything from fatal total loss to failure of mooring and rupture of appendices,

risers and so on.

The icebreaking vessel/ice breaker may choose a route optimized for accessing through ice, i.e. low

impact and resistance in transit through ice will give optimum costs and low risk. The vessel may then

have a route selection scheme that secure the best alternative. The GEO-fixed structure, on the other

hand, has to face the ice at location at all time, if not chosen to disconnect.

The principles of defining ice actions on structures are:

Simplified methods and use of design standards, ISO 19906

Numerical simulations of structures in ice

Ice basin testing

There have been published results that indicate that calculation practice of ice actions among

engineering experts shows a high scatter. This is based on results where experts are given strictly

defined calculation cases and the results differ. Drawing a picture defining existing practice is not

possible, but it is believed that a high degree of conservatism is dominating the present design of

structures in ice.

The main impediment to designing safe and cost effective structures for use in the High North is the

lack of knowledge and data concerning the loading effects of ice in its several forms, and especially in

combination with other environmental loadings and structural movements.

Design Standards and best practice in engineering

Due what is believed to be lacking of knowledge the International Standards available provide limited

guidance. This statement seems to have increasing consensus among experienced designers.


The only existing Standard, ISO 19906 is in turn is based on;

American - API-RP-2N (1995)

Russian - SNIP 2.06.04-82 (1996)

Canadian - CAN/CSA-S471-04 (2004)

The ISO 19906 is divided in to a normative part, and an informative part. The normative part gives a

very good oral (written) overview of the topic of ice actions on structures, but it does not give any

recipes. Further the combinations schemes of design load actions are limited to different physical

phenomena, i.e. waves, current, ice and how to combine such. The standard does however not make

any recipes on how to combine the ice parameter, thus a statement of “everything can be combined

with everything” related to ice environment, and its complexity is plausible.

This Standard’s informative part is based on analytical models. The Standard is, nonetheless,

oversimplified as it does not cater for more complex ice loadings. One example of such is that the

formula for ice rubble action does not cover ice rubble surcharge.

The Standard focuses on fixed structures although there is a minor reference to floating structures.

This is a consequence of ice actions on fixed installations being a more mature topic.21

Best practice in engineering

Best practice for engineering is dependent on the ice severity, type of structures, operation content

etc., and is believed to be found in combination of several methods:

Simplified methods and use of design standards, ISO 19906

Numerical simulations of structures in ice

Ice basin testing

Simplified methods by use of standards, are discussed in Appendix 8 and is not considered as a “stand-

alone” method for mature design of structures in ice, however the normative part should be

incorporated as the basis for design of ice actions of structures.

Numerical simulations are not strictly covered by the ISO Standard, and are also considered a young

science, though there are a number of ongoing projects, and the application is increasing. There are

topics that are not straight forward to cover in numerical simulations, such as multi-legged structures,

and interaction scenarios highly dependent on boundary conditions.

ISO 19906 points at ice basin testing as a good approach for defining ice actions on structures. Model

testing introduces a number of additional challenges in scale replication of the natural environment but

provides an excellent understanding of the physical process of ice interaction with structures. Model

testing shows that rubble accumulation causes surcharge effects in ice ridge and rubble fields. This

causes significant load increases compared to the code (ISO 19906) calculations.

In design of floating structures, a combination of ice basin model testing, analytical calculations and

numerical modeling gives most confidence and constitutes current “best practice”.

Best practice of ice basin testing

Scaled ice model testing provides an excellent understanding of the physical process of ice interaction

with structures. Model testing does however have challenges in replication of the full scale ice

environment. Ice model testing is quite demanding compared to testing of fixed and floating structures

in wave basins. In practice, it is only possible to prepare a limited number of tests and the basis, or test

cases for design, will be much more limited than ideally needed.

21

The Barents 2020 and the DNV GL Ice Struct JIP Reports offer a very good overview of the technology gaps

and proposals for further research and development, leading to a more comprehensive ISO standard.


Technology used in ice basins for ice differ somewhat, and is based on saline water, urea or alcohol

content in the water. The properties of ice are adjusted by warming the ice to a temperature where the

physical properties meets its scaled values. This provides however some challenges, firstly all physical

parameters are not possible to scale at the same time, i.e. the flexural stress (bending failure) and the

crushing strength do not scale equally, thus one has to choose the failure mechanism that is to be

governing. Fixed and floating structures tend to include several failure mechanisms, Secondly,

introducing different ice features, like ridges, complicates the picture and the scientific basis for

testing, but a lot of work is done to overcome this. The picture on technology platform is also

somewhat mixed but, similar to full scale, the ice model testing is believed to be a much more mature

technology for vessels operating in ice than for fixed and floating moored structures.

Need for innovation and technology development The challenges and complexity of defining ice action on structure are outlined above. Meanwhile a

number of structures are designed for Arctic conditions and there are methods and basis that allow for

safe design of fixed and floating structures in ice.

Innovation should be discussed along different lines:

Design standards and gaps in the ISO 19906. This work should be taken in parallel to the other

topics. It is however believed that a revision is needed based on current practice and experience

with the standard. There is also ongoing work on recommended practice by i.e. DNV GL that

should be taken in to account (RP-series).

Design data and combination of such. Efficient design tools for engineering purposes that

incorporate design data (met ocean), ice actions and response of structure creating a

comprehensive design basis is needed. Furthermore, basis for establishing long-term design data

and rare loading conditions is lacking.

Fixed structures in ice have areas which are not fully understood. Ice induced vibrations and

multi-legged structures are areas that the technology level could be increased.

The general attitude in academia and specialist circles is that considerable work has to be done to

justify floating structures in ice.

Numerical simulations and methodology seem to be the area where the technology level needs to

be significantly lifted to meet the industry needs for safe and cost effective solutions. This covers

to some extent several of the above bullet points.

These innovations need to be addressed as:

Design specifications and design basis is the main driver for field development plans, concept

solutions and operational requirements

Ice actions/loads define the conceptual solutions in area with sea ice present

Arctic structures have been challenged by costs on one hand and complexity in technology on the

other. A more advanced engineering approach is needed to avoid an over conservative approach

and improve concept economy


Fixed installations 4.2

Arctic related design conditions 4.2.1

Common technology challenges When entering into High North a set of new design conditions will apply. One obvious new condition

is the environmental loads enforced by the severe weather conditions and the ice loads. The one year

level ice of up to 2.5 m thick as well as ice ridge/Stamukhi22

has to be accounted for (Area 2-6).

Another important element is the soil conditions or more the lack of information related to this. It is

known that large areas north of Russia are covered by deposits from the large rivers like Ob and

Yenisei. The challenge is that there is not much data available and the foundation design thus has to be

based on assumptions prior to taking on-site samples.

A general element is also the remoteness of the area and the implications this will have on the topside

size and weight which again will impact the substructure design.

Below is a more detailed description of the different aspect related to the Arctic design conditions:

Determination of environmental parameters, including ice (met ocean) conditions in the area

of facility installation

Short ice free period (down to less than 3 months for some area)

Determination of soil conditions

Determination of combinations of possible ice actions with other types of environmental

effects (design forces) on facility

Determination of global ice loads required for check of the overall strength of Platform,

gravitation base and piles (if applicable) elements

Determination and estimation current and soil movement effect on gravitation base or piles;

Determination of cyclic global ice loads to check the fatigue strength of Platform structure

components in the area where the Platform is installed

Determination of extreme local ice loads to check the local strength of Platform elements

interacting with ice

Determination of cyclic local ice loads to check local fatigue strength of Platform elements


Determination and estimation of the acceptable Platform structural vibration when the facility

is interacting with the ice

Determination of the Platform structure taking into account requirements to operate under

Arctic conditions providing the most efficient solution for the above design cases

Determination of the environmental parameters limits under the threat of the emergency ice

actions for evacuation of the facility

Determination of environmental parameters to ensure and confirm safety of the facility in case

of emergencies caused by iceberg impact

Taking into consideration the Ice Management in the design

Existing technologies, methods and best practice

For defining the ice loads an ISO standard has been issued, ISO 19906. This standard is the basis when

calculating the ice load for a structure, both local and global and it has included ice thicknesses to use

for the different areas.

Safe and adequate design activities shall be ensured by:

Accounting of actual ice conditions in the area of platform installation and peculiarities of

interaction of ice features and facility

22

See Appendix 1 for information about various types of sea ice


Selection of adequate methods of calculation of ice loads and effects on the basis of existing

experience and experiments

Calculation of standard values of ice effects with the pre-set return period and proper selection

of the design combinations and safety factors in compliance with regulatory documents

applicable for the project

Need for innovation and technology development

There are possibilities for interpretations of how to utilize the ISO standard and which factors to use

for the calculations. An activity has started to prepare a guideline of how to use the standard. This

guideline has to be acknowledged by the authorities and the industry in both countries to become a

unified way for designing for ice loads.

Shallow water 4.2.2

Common technology challenges

Large part of the sea areas north of Russia are 30m or less. This is specially related to the near cost

areas and areas like Ob Bay where the water depth typically could be about 10m.

The shallow water areas do generally have a very sediment based sea bottom. This kind of soil

conditions is a challenge in itself, in combination with large ice loads dominant in the same areas. The

shallow water areas might be even more of a challenge for the fixed structure than the deeper areas

where the soil conditions have a tendency to be better and the ice load is better defined.

Besides the obvious challenge to obtain sufficient draft for vessels and platforms the shallow water

areas often has an additional challenge; the ice building up to Stamukhi.23

These ice formations can

reach all the way to the bottom and thus increasing the risk of damage to bottom installed equipment

and pipelines/cables. In addition, the ice load to a fixed structure will increase as the entire water depth

area of the structure will be exposed to ice load.


The way to overcome the challenge has, for a large number of GBSs installed worldwide, been to

install skirts underneath the structure penetrating into the soil to reach a more competent level with

higher shear capacity. In some cases the skirts have been used to allow consolidation of the soft clay

by adding weight to the soil pressing out some of the water and by this improving the soil bearing and

shear capacity.

Alternatively piles/dowel has been used to “nail” the structure to the sea bottom. If piles are chosen as

the way to take the horizontal ice loads, the number of relatively large piles would be high. For this

solution the bottom part of the fixed structure has to be designed to allow for the caisson where the

piles shall be installed both from a structural integrity pint of view as well as to allow the space

required.

In addition an alternative is to remove the top weak soil and install the structure in a “pit” or

alternatively back-fill with a material/gravel giving a higher soil capacity.


Although the technology to install gravity based structures on weak soil is very well known there is

still a potential for further development of the methods. It is also important to clarify any limitations

for methods to be used included in the Russian laws and regulations.

23

See Appendix 1 for more information about various types of sea ice


Artificial islands 4.2.3

An artificial island or man-made island is an island that has been constructed by people rather than

formed by natural means.

Common technology challenges To build a traditional artificial island is a well-known technology and there is few technology

challenges to solve. However, the shallow water areas north Russia with soft soil and the short ice free

period will require some development and optimization of construction methods.


One of the solutions used for development in shallow Arctic water north of Alaska and Canada has

been to build artificial island and use on-shore equipment suitable for the climate. These artificial

island have typical been built up at water depth of up to 6-8m, for deeper water the volume of gravel

and/or sand required will be significant.

The main advantage is that there will, by practical means, no area limits and “standard” (and cost

effective) on-shore equipment suitable for the harsh environment can be used. One of the

disadvantages is of course the environmental impact for excavation of the filling material required to

build the island as well as for the removal after the filed has been shut in.

Within Russian authorities some groups have also considered a concrete GBS to be an artificial island

(especially those close to shore) and requested the corresponding regulations to apply.

Figure 11: Artificial island

Source: BP


Figure 12: Artificial Island with concrete caissons

Source: Dome Petroleum

Deeper water limits of fixed versus floating 4.2.4


For fixed structures in the High North the technology challenges are related to be able to design a

structure that can meet the environmental loads (waves and ice) in combination with the water depth

and the capacity to the loads from horizontal loads and overturning moments.


The limit of fixed versus floating installation is not a given figure. This will be dependent a number of

conditions both related to the environmental loads as well as operational and functional requirements.

Whilst fixed structure will have a maximum water depth a large floating structure will have a

minimum water depth to obtain functionality of the mooring system. There will be a water depth range

where both fixed and floating could be suitable typically from 80m to 150m (even 200m under given

conditions) from where the floating will be the structure to choose. It should be mentioned thought

that the Troll A GBS platform was installed in more than 300m on a very soft soil. There is no ice load

on Troll A but the wave load is in the range of 300MN which is correspondent to a one year ice load

for many areas. This just underline that there is no fixed limit for fixed versus floating structures

The selection of fixed versus floating will be determined by the below main factors:

Water depth

Environmental loads (ice and waves). Requirement for disconnection of a floater or not

Soil conditions

Topside weight (size of living quarter and winterization)

Oil storage volume required

Storage volume for consumables( fuel, drilling pipes and mud, and well casing)

Number of well slots


Cost

Schedule

For most projects the combination of multiple elements of those listed above will determine the

selection of a fixed versus a floating structure.

The experience form work performed so far is that the combination of ice load and soil condition will

be the driving elements. For the areas north of Russia with soft/weak soil (at least at the top layer) it

can be assumed that the practical limit for a fixed could be in the range of 80–100m. However, there

are some indications that the soil conditions improve with deeper water. If this can be confirmed

previous studies have confirmed that GBSs can be designed for up to 200m even with significant ice

load both from one year level ice, ice ridges and ice berg.

Figure 13: GBS for 150m water depth designed for ice load similar to north of Russia

Source: Kværner


Figure 14: GBS for 150 – 200m designed for ice berg

Source: Kværner

Figure 15: Platform at Sakhalin installed in about 40m water depth

Source: SEIC


A lot of work has been performed to develop fixed and relocatable structures for Arctic ice covered

waters the last years. However, there is still a lot of work left, especially the development could

benefit from testing of different types of structures in an ice basin to verify the calculated ice loads.


Execution and construction 4.2.5


One of the major challenges with Arctic platforms is the large size and complexity. This will limit the

companies/sites that have the resources and sites/location to perform the execution and construction of

the project.


Norway has built up a large experience in execution and construction of fixed structure suitable for the

conditions of the High North. The concrete GBS type fixed platform suitable for Arctic areas have

been engineered and constructed since the mid 1970’s.

For the fixed structures intended for north of Norway and Russia there is an opportunity to extend the

already existing co-operation between Norwegian and Russian companies. Russian engineering

companies and design institutes have co-operated with Norwegian companies in previous projects and

this co-operation is likely to increase in the future, meaning that a larger part of the activity will take

place in Russia.


One of the areas where there is possible to obtain a mutual advantage of an improved cooperation

between Russia and Norway is within construction of fixed offshore concrete structures. These fixed

structure can and most likely will be used in Russian waters and might also be used for the Norwegian

part of the Barents Sea. The establishment of a construction site for such structures in North West

Russia could due to its ideal location thus be used for structures intended for both countries.

The construction work to establish the site in Vosthosny Port shown below was mainly performed by

Russian companies.

Figure 16: Construction of a concrete GBS in Nakhodka, Far East Russia

Source: ExxonMobil


Floating Installations 4.3

Process facilities (winterization) 4.3.1

Common technology challenges The main differentiating elements for designing floating facilities for Arctic installation versus

existing facilities in harsh environment are the temperature and ice/snow loads.


The challenges are generally mitigated by differing levels of enclosure. The White Rose floating

facility off Newfoundland (see Figure 17) has modest winterization, whilst the Prirazlomnaya fixed

platform (see Figure 18) operates under more severe Arctic conditions and is heavily enclosed.

Figure 17: White Rose FPSO

Source: Husky Energy

Figure 18: The Prirazlomnaya platform

Source: RAO/CIS Offshore 2015

The benefits of the enclosure are the opportunity to use normal equipment inside (vs. low temperature

design requirements) and normal working environment for the operations personnel. Challenges are

the HVAC requirements and the accidental design requirements of increased explosion pressures.


The snow and ice loads are influencing the design as added weight as well as affecting safety systems,

such as walkways and evacuation means as well as helideck and loading/offloading.


The capability to design facilities for the High North has been proven by Sakhalin and Prirazlomnaya.

The concern relates to the cost efficiency and safety as function of level of enclosure and the

development of equipment capable of operating under ambient conditions. The safety and evacuation

systems are also of first generation, with potential for further development.

Hull design (ice breaking features versus operability) 4.3.2

Common technology challenge

The overriding challenges in the ice infested regions (area 2-6) are the ice effects. In case of ice bergs,

the Ice Management system may be able to deflect the ice bergs or the floating facilities will have to

disconnect and navigate/be towed to avoid impact and get back to reconnect after the event. In case of

sea ice, the facility will have to be designed to withstand the local ice loads. Icing from sea spray and

participation will also need to be considered.

Existing technologies, methods and best practice Off Newfoundland, there are two FPSOs that have been operating for a number of years, Terra Nova

and White Rose. The operability and the ice berg management system can therefore be regarded as

proven, provided there is no sea ice. The merchant ship traffic offers experience from operating in sea

ice. As an example, a merchant ship operating the Russian Arctic ports is shown in Figure 19 based on

the “stern first” Azi-pod ice breaking propulsion (see Figure 20).

Figure 19: Arctic cargo vessel/advancing stern first

Source: STX Finland


Figure 20: Azi-pod ice breaking propulsion

Source: Arctech Helsinki Shipyard

Another example of an ice resistant platform is the exploration drilling platform Kulluk,

commissioned already in the early 1980’s and now decommissioned (see Figure 21). The Kulluk was a

moored circular structure, with an ice breaking waterline. The Kulluk had been involved in the Shell

campaigns off Alaska. A drawback of the design was the poor performance in open seas (large wave

induced motions).

Figure 21: Kulluk Arctic drilling rig

Source: Joe Alaska

Sevan Marine has developed a floater concept for operation in ice infested waters based on Sevan’s

proven cylindrical hull concept.

The cylindrically shaped hull is particularly suitable in drifting ice as it will face the ice with the same

shape in all directions. The unit is designed for obtaining good performance both in harsh open water

wave conditions as well as in drifting ice.

Goliat will be the first oil field to come on stream in the Barents Sea (although in an area where it is


not expected to be ice in the sea) and features a cylindrical FPSO operated by Eni. Off-the-shelf

systems are the exception in this project. Most are tailor-made and specially adapted to enable safe and

reliable oil production under harsh weather conditions.

Currently for ship shaped hulls there are international Polar Class rules that can be applied. These

Polar Class rules are developed for ship-shaped units.24

After clarification with DNV GL it has now

been accepted that polar class can be used for cylindrical hulls. The intention of the circular hull is that

ice breaking mode is in any direction, hence the bow requirements shall apply. The definition of upper

ice waterline is shown in the figure below.

Figure 22: Dual waterline solution to allow the optimum hull shape for different ice loadings

Source: Sevan Marine

For corrosion protection of the hull in the ice zone, the practice of stainless steel plating in the water

line used on ice breakers is relevant, as illustrated in Figure 23.

Figure 23: Stainless steel band water line

Source: Arctica


An icebreaker is a vessel where icebreaking is the main purpose and hence ramming is part of the

normal operation. Ships operating in Arctic ice covered waters (area 2-6) are normally designed and

built to break the sea ice and allowing the ice to flow under the ship is not acceptable for a floating

production platform, with risers underneath. A solution to it must be found.

24

See Chapter 4.5.5 for more information about Ice Class rules


The hull geometry has to assure that ice is kept away from the risers, while minimizing the ice loads.

Important parameters for the load are the hull angle to the water line and the effective width of the

hull. A waterline angle for breaking ice may induce large motions in waves. This may be counteracted

by differing drafts/geometries for ice and open water.

The ice loading on a hull is well known for ice breaker design, based on empirical data. Correlating

these data with previous tests allows for accurate resistance predictions by ice model testing. Different

geometries, including ship shape floating installations, have not had the same correlation. Therefore,

model tests offers less confidence. Analytical models for ice load prediction are again calibrated vs.

model tests and hence carry the same uncertainty in the base.

As the production facility will have to maintain position it has to be designed to take the full ice

loadings. In an attempt to reduce these ice loadings, an ice breaking management system could be

employed.

The Ice Management system can then detect and reduce the ice features, hence limiting the ice loads.

The requirements for and the efficiency of such an Ice Management system is yet to be validated.

Other features to be developed are the material, structural and marine systems to operate in ice

conditions without the regular docking necessary for merchant ships.

Station keeping (mooring, turret/ice vaning, Ice Management efficiency) 4.3.3

Common technology challenges.

For production systems, a mooring system is prudent for station keeping, rather than relying on

thruster positioning. Reliance on thrusters alone is not currently acceptable for long term station

keeping in the High North. In addition fuel costs and the emissions involved make such a solution

unattractive. However, using thrusters in addition to mooring lines is still beneficial for vaning in case

of ice drift direction change for navigating in case of disconnect and positioning for reconnect.

Additionally, the sea ice loading is generally significantly higher than the wave and wind loading of

lower latitudes.

Large size moorings are required and there is an uncertainty about extreme potential load, from ice

berg, or ice features within the sea ice (growlers, bergy bits, Stamukhi, ridge fields). The mooring

system is likely to require a quick disconnect and reconnect feature.

Figure 24: Ice berg tow

Source: Academic.evergreen.edu


Design steps for the floating installations with a mooring system, resistant to ice loads generally

include the following design activities:

Determination of environmental parameters, including ice (met ocean) conditions in the area

of facility installation

Determination of combinations of possible ice actions with other types of environmental

effects (design forces) on facility

Determination of global ice loads required for check of the overall strength of Platform and

mooring lines elements taking into account dynamics of the moored facility

Determination and estimation of the facility acceptable dynamic response (displacements,

velocities and accelerations)

Determination of cyclic global ice loads to check the fatigue strength of Platform structure

components in the area where the Platform is installed

Determination of extreme local ice loads to check the local strength of Platform elements


Determination of cyclic local ice loads to check local fatigue strength of Platform elements


Determination and estimation of the acceptable Platform structural vibration when the facility

is interacting with the ice

Determination of the Platform structure taking into account requirements to operate under

Arctic conditions providing the most efficient solution for the above design cases

Determination of the environmental parameters limits under the threat of the emergency ice

actions for disconnection of the floating facility

Determination of environmental parameters to ensure and confirm safety of the facility in case

of emergencies caused by:

o iceberg impact

o break of mooring lines or loss of bearing capacity of seabed anchors in case actual ice

loads exceed estimated values

o controlled disconnection of mooring lines

Taking into consideration the Ice Management in the design. Safe and adequate design

activities shall be ensured by:

o accounting of actual ice conditions in the area of platform installation and peculiarities

of interaction of ice features and facility

o selection of adequate methods of calculation of ice loads and effects on the basis of

existing experience and experiments

o calculation of standard values of ice effects with the preset return period and proper

selection of the design combinations and safety factors in compliance with regulatory

documents applicable for the project.


For the ice berg only areas, the Newfoundland FPSOs offer proven solutions. The Ice Management by

towing ice bergs away from the path to the FPSOs is working and the FPSOs have been disconnected

(not for emergency, but as part of scheduled maintenance). An illustration of the quick disconnect

system is shown in Figure 25.


_

Figure 25: Quick disconnect turret

Source: Offshore Magazine

An alternative means of disconnect is the hydro acoustic Rig Anchor Release used on Kulluk (see

Figure 28). This offers a simple disconnect, but challenging reconnect.

Figure 26: Hydro acoustic Rig Anchor Release

Source: Interocean Systems

Experience in Ice Management was gained in the early drilling with Kulluk (Gulf Oil & Dome

Petroleum) and in the North Pole coring expedition in 2003. Additionally, the loading/offloading on

Sakhalin and the Varandey offloading terminal offer similar Ice Management experience.


Figure 27: North Pole coring with Ice Management Source: NY Times

For disconnect features developed for Newfoundland give a good basis, however in areas of sea ice an

additional requirement may be disconnect under large horizontal load. This will add complexity.

Further, the Ice Management system efficiency and reliability in sea ice needs to be qualified.

For ship shape floating installations, the ice vaning capability as the ice drift direction changes also

needs qualification. A potentially beneficial feature is the assistance of thrusters to ease the vaning.

A turret type mooring concept can result in reducing ice loading, especially with the turret location

forward or aft part of the vessel.

As an aid in station keeping and load reduction on the moorings computer controlled thruster system

can be used. The low-frequency motion of a moored vessel can be automatically reduced by use of a

computer-controlled thruster system. The thruster system can also be used to actively reduce tension in

individual lines, or to assist the position mooring system winches in moving the vessel from one

position to another.

Main characteristics of the system are:

Automatically monitor the vessel's overall mooring pattern and the lengths and tensions of

individual anchor lines

Automatically monitor the vessel's position relative to a reference point established by a

position reference system

Automatically control the vessel's thruster systems to dampen vessel oscillations or to

maintain the vessel's position

Reduce the tension in individual anchor lines, or to actively assist the anchor winches in

moving the vessel to a new position

Perform analysis of the consequences of anchor line breaks or thruster failures according to

the operational situation

Detect and compensate for line failures

Position mooring system simulation

The position mooring system also incorporates extensive facilities for simulating a wide range of

scenarios, thus enabling operators to train and prepare for operational situations with widely varying

environmental conditions.


The ice induced loading on a floating platform has traditionally been estimated by testing in an ice

model basin. Recently, a number of analytical tools are offered by consultants. These tools offer the


advantage of quick assessment of design variations. The tools are calibrated by model testing. There is

however a gap in the calibration/verification of model test results towards real (full scale and sea ice)

conditions. Model tests have been empirically calibrated for ice breakers and ships navigating in ice,

but a moored production facility has different geometry and behavior.

The use of thrusters in ice is well established for ice breakers and ice going merchant vessels. These

vessels are in for regular docking. A production facility may potentially stay in the field for 20-50

years, without docking. There are currently no ice breaking thrusters that can be fully serviced or

replaced in the field, without docking.

The Ice Management system is an important part of a positioning system. The efficiency and function

has been demonstrated for ice berg management off Newfoundland and for drilling operations in the -

80ies in the Beaufort Sea. However the reliability in a continuous ice condition is not well understood,

in ration to ice drift speed and change of direction. This has a direct bearing on the loading on the

floating production vessel.

Riser system (ice protection, offset) 4.3.4


The riser systems25

for operating floating facilities in Arctic ice covered conditions (area 2-6) need

flexibility because of offset (the natural movement of the vessel in its mooring) and disconnection.

This will limit the options to flexible risers. A requirement is the protection of the risers from the ice,

both from broken sea ice and from ice berg when disconnected.


Again, the Newfoundland solutions are a good basis. They have large compliancy arranged in a high

lazy wave configuration. This will also be beneficial in case of large offset by sea ice.

Need for innovation and technology development The outstanding requirement is assurance of the risers not being contacted by the broken sea ice.

Alternative may be hull geometry to prevent ice getting underneath or protective features in the riser

area.

Materials 4.4

Steel 4.4.1


There is a lack of experience and knowledge of the behavior of steel structures placed in High North

conditions over a long period. Extreme low temperatures require the correct quality of steel and

welding to be used.


The practice shows that in spite of the detailed description in the Rules of Classification Societies the

selection of materials has a number of challenges:

Complex influence factors of corrosive-erosive wear exceed the norms specified in the Rules and incorporated in allowances for wear in the design and construction reasons.

The reasons are that these rules on depreciation rates are taken from the calculation of the regular

resurfacing at the dock. Compared to marine vessels floating installations do not have this possibility

of regular dock maintenance capability.

Impact of ice (annual or perennial - each has its own characteristics) on the shell plating, increases the

25

Riser systems are also discussed in the RU-NO Pipelines and Subsea-report.


rate of corrosion- erosion wear of metal.

These factors may lead to earlier thinning structural elements and problems with obtaining authority

to operate at the next classification societies.

The consequences of the wrong choice of category in its cold resistance of steel, together with

unfavorable circumstances could lead to a loss of strength properties of the structure, resulting in

embrittlement of the metal, and an emergency failure.

Current understanding of the processes causing erosion and corrosion wear:

The inter crystal line bands of sea ice contain concentrated salt brine of eutectic composition.

When first year ice and metal interact in winter conditions the brine is displaced from the ice

under pressure and the steel structure is like in a liquid with salinity much higher than the

equilibrium. This leads to pit corrosion and some shift of corrosion potential in the negative

direction from the steady state value.

Sea ice is of high hardness and it increases as the temperature decreases (comparable with

diamond hardness). Mechanical action of ice on the metal leads to its cleanup from corrosion

products, potential offset in negative direction and therefore to acceleration of the corrosion

process.

When ice breaks (from hull pressure) there occur strong electric fields, the intensity of which

in young winter ice reaches 50 kV/m2, which is accompanied by a number of physical

processes that significantly facilitate corrosion of metal in the contact zone such as spark

discharge and emission of high energy electrons.

In addition to uniform corrosion (roughness) there also occurs the pit corrosion. Factors contributing

to pit corrosion:

Presence of large amount of chlorides ( 19g/l CI-) in sea water

Steels with high manganese content

Welded joints (weld and heat affected zone) depending on the materials used and of welding

electrodes due to an inhomogeneity of the metal structure

Increase the speed of sea water intensifies corrosion of low-alloy steels in 3-5 times

If we compare working conditions of floating installations to ice breakers, it must be noted that in

accordance with the proposed operation conditions floating installations should not experience such

high erosive wear of the shell plating as experienced by icebreakers where the hull takes the ice

pressure produced by full propulsion. Consequently, the floating installations will have less erosion

wear component.

However the wear caused by galvanic corrosion from exposure to first- year ice with high salt content

will be comparable with the icebreaker conditions.

An important factor is the moderation of corrosion-and-erosion wear of icebreaker hull as a result of

recovery of epoxy coating during regular dry docking. Floating installations will not have such an

opportunity and the process of corrosion-and-erosion wear will go without interruption.

The determining factors for the thinning of the floating installations shell plating are as follows:

Duration of ice conditions

Severity of ice conditions (thickness and concentration of ice, speed of ice )

Therefore, with rare appearance of ice it is advisable to use steel of category E for FPSO ice belt. With

an annual period of ice conditions is advisable to use plated steel near FPSO ice belt. For FOP the

erosive effect on the hull during moving of ice floes and cables is comparable with corrosion-and-

erosion effects on the shell plating of the atomic icebreaker. This is why it is reasonable to use plated

steel in the ice belt for Prirazlomnaya offshore ice-resistant fixed platform.


Figure 28: Ice belt made of plated steel and elements of electrochemical protection of the marine ice-resistant fixed platform Prirazlomnaya (construction phase)

Source: Nexans


Further research to the reduction of corrosion and erosion effects is needed.

Concrete 4.4.2

In general, reinforced concrete is a proven material for use in Arctic conditions, both from a

fabrication, installation, strength and durability point of view. Several structures have been installed

(Hibernia, Hebron, Sakhalin) and operational merits are in place. The reinforced concrete composite

consists of water/cement chemical compound, aggregates, air-pores, steel reinforcement and pre-

stressing steel. The common challenges related to low temperature, aggressive environment and

difficult maintenance availability are listed and addressed below.

Low temperature

Concrete in general has good properties in low temperature. For extremely low temperatures (as for

LNG-containment), cryogenic reinforcement may be considered, but that is not considered necessary

for typical temperatures in the High North. Low-density concrete is, in general, more brittle than

ordinary densities, and, at some level, it may present a structural/operational challenge. Freeze-thaw

cycles are not considered a challenge, specifying the necessary air-pore quantity.

Abrasion

Abrasion has been shown to be a problem for conventional structures in sheet ice. More work needs to

be done to fully understand and describe this phenomena, although the rate of wear is more or less

known. Current mitigating measures consist of increased concrete cover, high-strength material

properties in the affected zone or external protection like steel sheet cover.

Maintenance

Reinforced concrete specified and fabricated properly are basically maintenance free, reference is

made to the merits of the GBS´s installed in the North Sea and Canada. Due attention should be made

to concrete mix, concrete cover and fabrication follow-up. Fatigue and corrosion is in general not an

issue for reinforced concrete structures, and the structural strength is improving with time.


Marine operations 4.5

Types of Arctic marine operations support 4.5.1

This chapter will address marine operations in support of the transportation and installation of fixed

and floating facilities in the High North as well as permanent platform operation.

Although a number of platforms in the Arctic have been constructed by creating an artificial island and

building up the facilities at site, it is expected that a large number of the future offshore platforms in

the High North will require construction at a yard outside the High North and transportation to and

installation/assembly at site. This is standard practice in the offshore industry and moving this practice

to the High North will require assessing how established practices can be retained, adapted or what

new approaches are required.

For standard transportation and installation of offshore facilities outside of the High North the

following types of marine vessels are required;

Transport (including e.g. barge tow, facility tow or self-propelled transport):

Supply vessels

Tug towed barges

Heavy lift vessels

Submersible heavy lift vessels

Installation (including e.g. seabed preparation, pipe laying, lifting, float-over, subsea installation):

Dredgers

Pipe layers

(Self-propelled) Barges

Crane vessels

Anchor Handling vessels

Diving support vessels

Apart from these vessels the conditions of the High North require ice breakers in order to support

transport and assist in Ice Management at field sites. This often involves at least two vessels to work in

combination to reduce the ice size of the flow towards the target area.26

Due to the often long distances to logistic bases or medical support and often the inability to support

with helicopters, the preparation of offshore operations in the High North require an addition of

evacuation and rescue vessels or systems.27

For permanent installation support the following marine vessels are required;

Supply vessels

Emergency Response and Rescue Vessels

The operational support requires year round access to the field and as such dedicated (ice

breaking) vessels

Common technology challenges The requirements to prepare for an offshore construction campaign in the High North depends on the

Arctic aspects involved. In order to establish whether a marine operation is standard (has been

performed before and considerable experience exists) or at the other end of the scale it requires

development of new methodologies depends on assessing the following aspects:

26

Ice Management will be discussed in detail in chapter 4.6.3 27

See also the RU-NO Transport and Logistics-report for more information about Multi Task Vessels and

Multipurpose Hubs


The type of operation involved as indicated above.

The areas involved (area 1-6)

The period in the year

The logistics (mobilization distance & available local support)

These aspects steer requirements for vessels and operations.

Area 1 developments can be executed with existing equipment and are similar in operational

preparation to Northern North Sea operations. New aspects, which will need to be considered, are the

long mobilization times, the logistic aspects given the distance to shore bases and that they will be

outside of normal helicopter range and due consideration needs to be taken to aspects such as low

temperatures, icing and polar lows. The winter months will cause additional challenges due to severe

weather and limited sea ice conditions.

At the other end of the scale an installation in an area 6 in winter requires considerable development,

innovation and experience before commencing these operations and/or defining relevant requirements.

From the workshops conducted for INTSOK a number of common technology challenges were

defined for Marine Operations in the High North and whether it was considered that there are gaps in

solving these challenges. These are summarized in the following points in order of perceived

importance and discussed further in the next chapters:

Escape, Evacuation and Rescue (EER). This is seen as one of the most important challenges

for Marine Operations in the High North.28

In particular when considering the areas 3, 4, 5 &

6, given the limited availability of infrastructure. The challenge becomes especially important

in the case of long distances to supporting platforms. Although a lot of experience has been

gained with shipping through Arctic areas, installation operations often require dedicated

vessels and have crews which are not traditionally geared to the Arctic circumstances and this

aspect is therefore seen as a challenge.

Remoteness.29

Is seen as an important challenge both in the sense of logistics as well as its

effect on personnel. It is seen as a challenge because common solutions are not available,

although they have been developed for a number of Marine Operations which have been

executed (seismic and drilling operations). Back up for crew transportation and potential

alternative evacuation needs to be considered. Helicopters will have to fly long distances in

darkness in the winter months which will affect crew confidence. If decision is taken to crew

change by boat, then this will affect shift rotations and time off as mobilization/demobilization

may take up to a week out of the rotation. Important other considerations are how one

organizes operational support and the involved logistics. Spare parts philosophy needs to be

geared to the remoteness.

Navigation & communication. The availability of satellite coverage and atmospheric

disturbances are a challenge but not so much a technical but a commercial. Nortel has

satellites almost ready to launch, but it is a case of justifying the costs with the small numbers

of users potentially using the system.30

Icing & ice loads. Moving into the more Arctic areas the exposure to ice and icing increases

and to remain functional under those circumstances is a challenge and a challenge given that

loadings in all circumstances have not been fully understood and therefore often

conservatively assumed.

28

Refer also to chapter 4.6.2 29

The remoteness aspect on logistics as well as the navigation and communications are discussed in the

INTSOK RU-NO Transport and Logistics report and again for marine installation operations these will require

dedicated engineered solutions. The effect on the personnel, requirements for personnel and training

requirements are discussed in chapter 4.5.4 30

This challenge has been discussed and reported in the INTSOK RU-NO Transport and Logistics report .Link

to the logistics report


Monitoring/sensing/forecasting. Is seen as a challenge where there is an increased need to

predict the loads on the platforms and identify the potential danger and subsequent (load

limiting) measures. The handling of icebergs and ice ridges as well as identification of blue ice

is crucial. Remote areas are much more difficult to forecast today, largely due to limited

available data. The uncertainty on when mobilization or demobilization should commence and

the cost of operations in ice influence the field developments.

Ice Management and associated design conditions. Key area of uncertainty and required

guidance is how much Ice Management can reduce the loading & fatigue of floating

installations and station keeping marine support. It is seen as a challenge but very much under

development.

Existing equipment. Is not really seen as a challenge, but existing construction technology

equipment is not always fully suitable while dedicated equipment for the High North is often

less suitable for other areas. This is more an investment challenge than a technological

challenge.

HR/ Training. Is not seen as a large challenge, but is seen as a common challenge. The

environment in the High North poses huge challenges on the personnel working in it in

particular when considering the methods of working in marine installation operations in e.g.

the North Sea.

Existing technologies, methods and best practice For a number of the challenges mentioned there is existing technology or technology under

development as well as guidance and standard development. The development mentioned for these

areas in this document can only give an indication of what capabilities are required and will have to be

updated as experience is gathered.

A number of Joint Industry Projects and ISO development are supporting the establishment of

guidance and standards for Marine Operations in the High North. Important to note are:

Barents202031

ISO TC67 SC8– Arctic Operations (currently under development)

Arctic Operations Handbook JIP – Report: Arctic Marine Operations Challenges &

Recommendations32

When considering EER, marine installation operations in the High North are engineered operations

and will have to address the EER aspect for the spread of vessels and for the specific location

involved. There are existing technologies for EER systems for platforms.33

It is furthermore proposed

to look into more hub concepts for the High North34

with supporting functions for surrounding field

developments. The development of fields is also helped by joint development of companies or through

a country supporting initiatives for infrastructure development.35

Development is ongoing to increase understanding of ice loads and icing loading. ISO TC67/SC7 ISO

19906 has set a standard in the calculation of ice forces with which Arctic fixed platforms have been

designed and it is being updated among others for floating structures which is relevant for Marine

Operations. Ice Management is involved to reduce the ice loads on the fixed facility, floating facility

or temporary moored marine vessels, and experience has been developed with this method.36

As part

of the requirement to better predict and handle ice loads development is also ongoing on the remote

sensing, monitoring and forecasting.37

31

http://www.dnv.com/binaries/Barents_2020_report_phase_4_tcm4-519595.pdf 32

http://www.arctic-operations-handbook.info/ 33

Discussed in chapter 4.6.2 34

See the INTSOK RU-NO Transport and Logistics-report 35

Barents 2020 report 4 provides guidance on EER and standards are being developed under ISO TC67/SC8. 36

Chapter 4.6.3 elaborates on the challenges and existing development. 37

This is discussed in more detail in chapter 4.5.6 Volume 5 (Marine Icing on Arctic Offshore Operations - Pilot

Project) of the Arctic Operations Handbook JIP report provides status on icing calculations.

http://www.dnv.com/binaries/Barents_2020_report_phase_4_tcm4-519595.pdf

http://www.arctic-operations-handbook.info/



The need for innovation is on the areas of improved EER specific to these Marine Operations and the

identified hub concepts. Furthermore innovation and technology development on remote sensing,

monitoring and forecasting is seen as important. Further understanding of ice and icing loads is

important as well as development of guidance for facility design and the use of Ice Management.

Fixed facility installation 4.5.2

The following fixed facilities can be considered relevant for installation in the High North:

Gravel Island structures

Jacket or Jack-up type structures

Gravity base structures

Common technology challenges In shallow waters (up to 20 m) considerable experience has been gained with the construction of

Artificial Island type structures, in particular in the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic. For the areas 1-6

this is a less valid fixed structure solution.

Although Jacket type (steel space frame) structures have been used in Arctic waters they are also

generally in shallower water and first year ice conditions. Often these types of structures are used as

offloading points.

Gravity Based Structures (GBS) have been applied a number of times in deeper water and provide a

good Arctic fixed platform concept due to the ability to pick up ice loads and large topsides carrying

capacity.

Installation of Gravity based structures requires the following operations:

Preparation of the seabed using dredgers and rock dumping

Tow-out and installation of the GBS using anchor handling tugs

Installation of topsides applying float-over or lifting. (if GBS is not floated out with topsides)

Potential pipeline or flow-line tie-in

These operations have been conducted in Arctic areas and in the High North, most often in open water

conditions. Dredging operations have been performed in conditions which have encountered ice flows

and icing of equipment. These are considerable challenges for the functioning of the equipment and

the Marine Operations.

Figure 29: Arkatun-Dagi tow-out

Source: Van Oord

Tow-out, GBS installation & float-over could be designed for more onerous conditions in the High

North, but if ice is seasonal then every opportunity should be taken to install in the ice free period. If

this is not possible, in future, it could involve the use of Ice Management and design of the systems to

much higher loads than normally encountered. Key aspects to evaluate are:


Ice loads (in particular accumulation of ice during operations)

Icing of the structures (relevant for stability and human operations)

Low temperature effects on winches and hydraulics.

The challenge when transporting and installing a GBS in waters with ice depends on the ice thickness

and is very similar to the issue of temporary mooring and Ice Management.

Pipeline installation in High North can become critical when scouring occurs in shallower water

depths. Pipelines will have to be trenched and buried in some times deep trenches. Depending on the

depth of the trenches (> 3 meters) this technology needs to be developed.38

Existing technologies, methods and best practice There is a number of existing GBS installation operations from which experience has been gained

such as the Sakhalin platforms, Arkutun-Dagi, Prirazlomnaya. These are aligned with existing

standards and guidelines. With the development of guidance on Ice Management methods can be

further developed for situations which involve limited and more severe ice coverage.


Key areas of development to enable GBS installation are:

Ice Management and its effect on loads on the (floating) structures need to be established in

order to define operational limits.

Icing effects need to be established. The loading caused by icing and the operational limits

associated with it need to be well defined. Methods to avoid extreme icing in particular on

large structures need to be further developed.

Installation methodologies which involve human operations on deck need to reconsidered and

made ready for use in the High North.

These developments will allow the extension of the open water season. It is not anticipated that GBS

installation will occur in winter conditions under the scope of this document.

Floating facility installation 4.5.3

The following floating facilities can be applied in the High North:

Semi

Spar

Ship shaped vessels

TLP

Cylindrical hull concept (i.e. Sevan type)


Key requirement for floating facility marine installation operations is the installation of anchor

systems and moorings as well as connection of the floater to the moorings. Mooring anchors have

been installed in Arctic areas and, given deep enough water (avoiding scouring ice), the operations are

quite similar to standard offshore operations. A difficulty arises in the soil conditions which may

include boulders or permafrost, but this is not an unknown issue to solve.

A challenge for the installation of mooring anchors and moorings is the ability of installation vessels

to work in the (extended) open water season. Similar to what was indicated in the previous chapter the

effect of encroaching ice on the operations or icing can severely impact the ability to perform

operations. Most of the dedicated current installation vessels are not suited to operate in conditions

with severe low temperatures or icing. In order to extend the season attention needs to be given to this

aspect and may require the adaptation of existing vessels or the development of new designs 38

Refer to the INTSOK Pipelines and Subsea Installations- report for further information.


Figure 30: Yuri Korchagin FSU field development

Source: McDermott39

Installing the risers will have to take account of complicated sea bed areas in the Barents Sea.

Existing technologies, methods and best practice A method which is used to reduce loads on the floater is the application of disconnectable systems,

supported by Ice Management. The Terra Nova floater is an example of such a solution. Research into

the design requirements for ice managed disconnectable floating facilities in ice conditions will benefit

how temporary moorings for installation vessels can be applied in managed ice conditions.40

The Barents 2020 report has proposed guidance specific for the determination of ice loads on floating

structures which is expected to be used for the updating of the ISO 19906 standard. This guidance can

be applied to (temporary moored) installation vessels.


Similar to the development indicated in the previous chapter 4.5.2 key areas of development are:

Ice Management

Icing effects

Installation methodologies

Installation equipment for laying of mooring lines (winch drums and tensioning equipment)

needs to be made ready for use in the High North.

Logistics/SAR/Crew training 4.5.4

This chapter will discuss logistics, Search and Rescue (SAR) and crew training aspects for the

installation of offshore facilities in the High North.


One of the main challenges for Marine Operations in the High North is the logistics involved in

supporting the operations. This involves the following aspects:

Getting the relevant vessels to the installation area. Mobilization will involve getting vessels

often from another offshore arena over large distance. Care should be taken on the

demobilization to ensure that the vessel does not get closed in by ice on its return journey.

Logistics to site of supplies. Logistic bases and supply routes need to be established.

Logistics of personnel and/or medivacs.

39

http://www.mcdermott.com/News/Publications/Yuri-Imperial.pdf 40

Refer also to Chapter 4.3.3

http://www.mcdermott.com/News/Publications/Yuri-Imperial.pdf


Given these aspects the vessels need to demonstrate to be:

Highly maneuverable and capable of location keeping even in first year ice conditions or be

accompanied by sufficient ice breaking support

With sufficient endurance for the duty performed but also for the return to port in case of an

emergency

Exchangeable, each unit can take over another basic safety related duties. This requires a plan

for the fleet of vessels mobilizing for an installation campaign

Fuel efficient

Prepared for EER operations in the mobilization, installation and demobilization areas

Have the ability to retain all MARPOL related wastes (i.e. oily water/garbage) onboard for the

duration of the voyage in the Arctic, alternatively provision should be made to transfer such

wastes to another vessel to take out of the Arctic. The vessels should also be equipped with

sewage treatment plants in accordance with MARPOL/Polar Code provisions.

Within the plan for the installation fleet, vessels should be equipped to perform stand by and

emergency response. As an indication, each vessel should have:

Two Fast Rescue Crafts (FRC) for immediate rescue of MOB in open water. Each FRC has a

rescue capacity of 15 people and is fitted with water jet propulsion system which is harmless

for persons which need to be rescued. Note however that the use in the Arctic needs to be

reviewed with respect to blockage by slush ice

Firefighting equipment (FIFI 1, excluding ERRV – FIFI 2)

Suitable clear space on the aft deck for gangway connection installation

Equipment to safely transfer personnel/life crafts onboard and tow life crafts if necessary

Existing technologies, methods and best practice Given the increased number of operations in the High North, it is expected to be a challenge to get all

staff, operating on board vessels in ice covered waters, have sufficient cold climate competence

experience and/or relevant training. Krylov State Research Centre and SMSC in Trondheim have a

simulator for training marine personnel in Ice conditions, but more facilities may be needed.

Figure 31: Ice simulation modelling

Source: SMSC

In the Barents 2020 project a lot of attention was given to crew training requirements and it is

recommended to have personnel well trained for circumstances in the High North as well as ensure

that personnel is fit to work in prolonged isolated conditions. The Barents2020 phase four report

indicates on training:

“Personnel working offshore in the Barents Sea should be trained in the special aspects of working in

an Arctic environment. This training should address an individual’s own health and safety as well as

that of their co-workers.


Proposed standard – All individuals on an offshore installation in the Barents Sea shall receive

appropriate training on cold weather health, safety and stress management. The following subjects

shall be included, as a minimum:

The basics of body temperature and heat exchange, including wind chill

Effects of cold on movement, performance and judgment

Cold climate operations and safety, including company procedures for approving work

outdoors in cold

Hazards related to sunlight, carbon monoxide poisoning and alcohol in cold weather

Preventive practices

Clothing requirements, including how to properly wear and use cold climate clothing and

personal protective equipment

The importance of proper nutrition

Recognition of hypothermia, cold-related symptoms and cold-stress effects

First aid procedures for cold-related injuries illness, or concern of adverse effects of the cold

The potential for other illness to affect tolerance to cold

Acclimatization

Health, fatigue and stress management in an Arctic environment

Initial training should take place prior to an individual’s arrival at the installation or operation in the

Barents Sea. Refresher training should be conducted at suitable intervals.”41

An important publication in this area is the IPIECA report Health aspects of work in extreme climates.


Given the large amount of support vessels required to meet some of the development scenarios in the

High North the question of the availability of trained crews could become critical. There is a need to

develop common Norwegian/Russian regulations when it comes to training and education of mariners

operating in ice covered waters in the High North. For vessels working in ice covered areas in the

High North, the aspect of EER for Marine Operations needs to be thoroughly investigated and possibly

innovative approaches developed.

Marine construction and operations support fleet 4.5.5

Marine vessels intended for operation in ice covered waters will normally be built with an additional

ice class notation and winterization class. Specification of an ice class notation the actual ice class will

depend on type and area of operation. The different ice classes include requirements to strengthening

of hull, rudder and the propulsion system. In addition to an ice class, the vessel can be assigned an

Icebreaker notation, used when a vessel is capable of continuous ramming of ice rather than occasional

ramming. For areas with more heavy ice conditions (areas 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) the Polar Class notations,

or their analog from others class societies, will normally be applied. The system is developed to

designate differing levels of capability for vessels operating in Arctic ice covered waters. Seven Polar

Classes are listed, based on sea ice conditions. Polar Class 7 is the least capable, limited to vessels

operating in summer/autumn in thin first year ice (with old ice inclusions), whereas ships of Polar

Class 1 are to be capable of operating year-round in all Arctic ice covered waters.

41

Direct quote from the Barents 2020 report


Polar Class

PC 1 Year-round operation in all Polar waters

PC 2 Year-round operation in all Polar waters

PC 3 Year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multiyear ice inclusions.

PC 4 Year-round operation in thick first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions

PC 5 Year-round operation in medium first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions

PC 6 Summer/autumn operation in medium first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions

PC 7 Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions

PC 1 to PC 6 may be assigned additional notation icebreaker

Figure 32: Baltic and Polar Class notations

Source: IMO

Marine construction vessels have to be reviewed with respect to their ability to perform operations in

ice covered waters in the High North (In particular areas 2-6). A number of vessels have limited (or

no) Ice class and may need to be checked with respect to their ability to work in Arctic waters. The

design (or reassessed) requirement depends on the type of operation to be performed, the season of the

operation and the weather conditions during mobilization and demobilization. Some vessels are well

suited to perform installation operations in an open water season with no ice, taking due account of

low temperature effects. At the other end of the scale, vessels may need to be designed to cope with

the harsh environmental conditions in the High North and will as such be dedicated to operations in

the High North. For the Marine Operations support fleet for a permanent platform it is evident that

these vessels will require a measure of ice class depending on the area.

As required for the operations and depending on the working period and weather conditions, vessels

shall be designed or demonstrate to be:

Capable to operate in harsh Arctic conditions (wind, waves, low temperature, and visibility)

Able to perform their duties in ice conditions

Designed to limit exposure to crew in harsh weather conditions

Include environment protection features (reduced risk/amount of pollution)

The vessel spread for an offshore installation campaign in the High North can include the following

vessel types;

Dredger, as required for the operation

Installation vessel, pipe layer, crane vessel or float-over barge.

Platform supply vessels (PSV), should include contingency vessel

Anchor handling tugs (AHTS)

Primary ice breaker - Multi Role Vessel with moonpool (MRV)

Dedicated Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel (ERRV) – performs role of Sentinel

icebreaker

Scouting icebreaker

Additional heavy icebreaker (equivalent to scouting) to support MRV in its role of primary

icebreaker (during extremely severe ice conditions (approximately once in 10 years for a

period of 3 months)

Possible addition is an intermediate helicopter ship for fields where helicopters cannot reach

in one leg and there is no intervening land for a heliport and refueling facility

The vessel spread for platform support in the High North can include the following vessel types;

Platform Supply Vessels (PSV), should include contingency vessel


Primary ice breaker - Multi Role Vessel with moonpool (MRV)

Dedicated ERRV – performs role of sentinel icebreaker

Scouting icebreaker

Additional heavy icebreaker (equivalent to scouting) to support MRV in its role of primary

icebreaker (during extremely severe ice conditions (approximately once in 10 years for a

period of 3 months)

Dredger The dredger can be of various types such as Cutter Suction Dredger, Trailing suction hopper dredger

or backhoe dredger. The key challenge for these vessels working in the High North is the ability to

have the equipment work under low temperature conditions as well as to have the personnel working

safely on board. Icing and Ice Management are important considerations.

Installation vessels There is a wide range of potential installation vessels, but not all are suitable for working in cold

climate conditions. A large number of these vessels are self-propelled using DP. Furthermore, there is

often sufficient personnel space on board although the requirements for Arctic conditions will need to

be checked. Only few of these have Arctic polar class notation. For a number of the areas this is not

required but it is required that the vessels (steel) can accommodate low temperatures. This needs to be

evaluated when a vessel needs to be mobilized to an Arctic region. Apart from this the mission

equipment (cranes, pipe lay equipment, winches) are often not suited for low temperature conditions

and need to be assessed. If the vessel and the equipment are made suitable and sufficient Ice

Management is in place existing vessels may be made suitable for circumstances in the High North.

Platform Supply Vessels (PSV) The main duty for the PSV (Platform Supply Vessel) is to deliver supplies to the offshore installation

in the field (Drilling Rigs and platforms). The vessel may have a rescue capacity for about 200 persons

and may also be used as stand by vessel. As there will be no winch installed on the deck, the vessel

cannot be used for iceberg towing in open water.

The vessel may carry cargo on and in some cases below deck. Deck cargo shall be containerized in

offshore CCU (Cargo Carrying Unit) and can also consist of tubular material of different sizes in

bundles. Bulk & Bunker cargo will consist of: dry products (Cement, Barite, Bentonite), liquid mud,

brine, MEG, (Mono Ethylene Glycol), TEG (Tri Ethylene Glycol), fuel oil, fresh water and ballast.

Special locking devices for liquid container attachment/securing may be required.

As far as the bulk liquid products are concerned tank cleaning will be necessary if/when the same

vessel is used for Installation vessel, Drilling Rig and Permanent facility waste transport since the

liquid products to transport in tanks are different. PSV will support Sentinel icebreaker depending

upon the need and depending on whether it has a sufficiently high ice class to take place in aggressive

icebreaking operations.

Anchor Handling Tug Supply vessels (AHTS)

The primary duty of the AHTS is to ensure anchor handling work and towing during installation

operations. AHTS is the assistance vessel for installation vessels for mooring and towing. Winches for

anchor handling generally have a pulling capacity of 250 tons and break load of 400 tons. When

floating facilities are in place it should not be required to handle anchors any longer. It could be

decided to keep an AHTS at the location for an emergency and as such it should be prepared to

perform immediate assistance i.e. with a clear back working deck.

AHTS should be also used to perform stand by safety duty at location with rescue capacity equal to the

supported vessel maximum POB, and ice watch and ice berg tow/deflection if required. The vessel

shall be able to break some level ice if necessary (ARC5 / DNV 10) but is not expected to be engaged


in ramming due to ice operating restrictions (even though it will have icebreaker class as all other fleet

vessels).

One AHTS per installation vessel should be required to ensure safety stand by duty and installation

requirement. Even though a platform, once in location, does not require anchor handling operation,

this type of vessel should always be available at the field location. The vessel may also be able to carry

cargo on and below the deck and ensure delivery of supplies to the Installation vessels.

Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel (ERRV) The ERRV is designed to be the permanent stand by vessel mobilized upon arrival of the platform on

location. An ERRV shall be the first mean of evacuation in case of emergency and will have a rescue

capacity of maximum platform persons (maximum design allowed POB for production with the

exception of heavy maintenance work). For installation vessels one needs to decide which vessel can

act as ERRV.

The ERRV shall have all common safety/rescue/oil spill equipment with addition of daughter craft

which can be deployed in advance if necessary. Seeking and accepting survivors commensurate with

the philosophy, operation and outfitting assigned to the definition of Stand by-Safety Vessel (ref:

UKOOA Group B ERRVA) vessel. The vessel will not carry any specific cargo but may serve

temporarily as a warehouse if needed, carrying fuel/water/spare parts, providing that this role does not

influence her emergency response and rescue duty. The vessel must be situated close enough to the

platform that all personnel can be evacuated onboard within the Temporary Refuge (TR) time.

Other than ice surveillance, the vessel should not be involved in regular Ice Management in ice (non-

spring) season when icebreaker vessels are in the field. ERRV will perform a role of Sentinel

icebreaker. ERRV will have DNV 10 icebreaker class or equivalent, must be able to stay in the field in

all operational ice condition with icebreaker assistance (pre-broken ice).

Figure 33: Nordic Yards B109 MRV icebreaking multitask vessel

Source: Skipsfartforum42

The Multi Role Vessel (MRV) A Multi Role Vessel will have the capacity to perform the following primary duties:

ROV support

Ice Management in ice (spring) season

Offshore heavy lift for subsea equipment installation (Xmas tree)

As well as all regular safety functions shared with all fleet vessels such as stand by, MOB/SAR etc.

The vessel could store deck cargo and/or equipment on deck and has a moon pool to facilitate ROV

operations even in some ice conditions. MRV performs the role of Primary icebreaker and be designed

for that duty.

42 http://www.skipsfarts-forum.net/read.php?TID=10612

http://www.skipsfarts-forum.net/read.php?TID=10612


Scouting icebreaker The Scouting Icebreaker is a part of the Ice Management Vessels deployment The icebreaker ice

performance requirement is high, at least 2.3 m icebreaking capability at 2 knots depending on the

zone it is in (2.3m performance will not be required if in zones 1 and possibly 3) and the vessel plays

an essential role in Ice Management. She will perform a general surveillance of ice drifting or threat in

a zone located at 1-7 days sailing Assessment Zone if necessary. The vessel shall be equipped with

helideck and helicopter for ice surveillance and has endurance of at least two months. Typical vessels

satisfying speed requirements in ice condition (and all others) come from the Russian Nuclear fleet but

it is noted that these are highly committed.

Heavy icebreaker During extremely severe ice conditions (approximately once in 10 years for a period of 3 months) one

additional heavy icebreaker (equivalent to scouting) may be needed to support MRV in its role of

Primary Icebreaker.


Main challenge for the marine construction and operations support fleet is the availability of a

sufficient number of (ice class) suitable vessels which can operate in the low temperature

environment. This includes the existing fleet not specifically designed for the High North. It is also

important to consider contingency in the fleet in case of breakdown or ice damage.

Winterization is an important consideration for the Marine fleet. Special care should be taken to

provide a winterization level suitable for the intended operations in the environment of the High

North. Aft deck arrangement for on deck work, loading and offloading practices, cargo facilities,

lifesaving appliances (LSA) equipment and all mooring/docking devices should be designed for

minimum exposure of the crew to the weather including passageways around the aft work deck.

Suitable winterization level should lower or remove regulatory restrictions on outdoor work as much

as possible.

It has also been identified that there is trend of increasing insurance rates which ship/installation

owners must pay before operations are carried out. There is currently not enough data and statistics of

operations in the High North causing insurance companies difficulty in calculating the risk.

Existing technologies, methods and best practice Currently a large variety of class society rules are available for Arctic marine operations (DNV GL,

Lloyds, ABS, RS, etc.). There is a need to harmonize these class regulations and make a common

Arctic class notation. Work with the Polar Code is intended to provide this necessary harmonization

There is considerable experience in the design and operation of ice class vessels in Arctic shipping

from which best practice can be derived.


An important area of development is technology for winterization. Innovation is expected on suitable

vessels for operations in the High North which can combine functions.

Restricted working window approach 4.5.6


The ISO standard 19906 provides guidance for the design of (in particular) fixed offshore Arctic

structures. For marine (installation) operations ISO 19901-6 provides guidance but it only addresses

the Arctic aspects to a limited degree. It does provide high level guidance for the standard Marine

Operations, outside of Arctic areas for a number of the type of operations indicated above in chapter

4.4.1. In ISO 19901-6 as well as in DNV-GL OS-H101 Marine Operations guidance is provided on the

use of operational limits. Considerable experience has been gained on the use of these operational


limits in offshore operations but this is mainly related to wind, waves and current environmental

conditions.

For installation operations limitations due to cold temperatures and ice becomes more important once

operations move out of the open water period.

Marine operations may be designed based on levels such as 10-year or 1-year return periods. For

transports this is a valid approach but for a large number of installation operations this is not a cost-

effective and practicable approach. It is therefore required to define restricted Marine Operations and

associated working windows. The challenge is to combine wind, wave, currents and ice conditions (if

possible combined with Ice Management). This involves defining the operational duration which is the

time to carry out an operation, sometimes 12 hours but sometimes longer than 72 hours. Of key

importance in defining operational durations is the warning time required by operators to stop and

abandon operations, eventually leaving a site safely. This so-called T time should be accounted for in

the operational duration and procedures.

The ability to accurately assess and predict (forecast) the environmental conditions at site should be an

integral part of setting the operational limits. This practice is reflected in the alpha factor, defined in

DNV-GL codes and used to compare the required forecast (as well as monitored and used) operational

level with the designed operational level.

The weather forecast for offshore installation(s) and vessels can be provided by specialized contractors

with the previous experience in providing offshore weather forecast service in Arctic areas. The

information provided should include among others:

A chart of the region showing the general conditions (Lows and Highs)

A general description of the situation in the area (Beaufort rating)

Atmospheric conditions (atmospheric pressure in hPa, air temperature in °C, wind in direction

and speed in knots at 10 and 50 m above sea level, horizontal and vertical visibility in meters,

rain, snow, sleet, icing)

Sea state (Primary wave: direction, significant wave height (m) and period(s), Secondary

wave: direction, significant wave height (m) and period(s), Maximum wave height (m)) and if

possible spectra

Sea ice (extent, stage of development, floe size and concentration and deformation)

Current reversals and ice rivers

Permanent monitoring of genesis of polar lows during the season

Reliability of the forecasts

Synoptic of the offshore weather conditions may be provided at regular intervals such as 3 times a day

with the forecasts for next 24 hours and 5 consecutive days.

On site monitoring of wind, wave and ice conditions should be fed back to shore based facilities to

update and improve predictions. Optionally, same specialized contractors will provide ice and iceberg

surveillance services. A key development in his area is remote sensing where as an example (mini-)

satellites can assist in identifying and forecasting ice thicknesses (the Sentinel-3 satellite) or AUV’s

for under ice monitoring.

Existing technologies, methods and best practice There is considerable experience in weather forecasting and ice forecasting in particular for shipping.

Approaches for weather restricted operations have been used in a lot of offshore operations. These best

practices require application in the High North to take account of the reliability of the ice forecasting.



There is a need for improved remote sensing technology to enable monitoring, modelling and

forecasting of (local) ice & ice berg conditions. Next to this navigation and communications

technology needs to improve in the High North as it can be made more reliable, less influenced by

atmospheric conditions.


Operation philosophy 4.6

The Operation Philosophy that will be needed to run, supply and maintain both the physical

production facilities and the human force required to man them in a safe and economical manner may

prove to be the major challenge to developments as we move away from the relative benign southern

part of the Barents sea and into the more extreme regions.

The Operation Philosophy chosen to meet the environmental and geographical situation of the field

location will form part of the basis of design for any installation effecting as it will the size and

configuration of the facility.

Implementation of project specific Ice Management systems, the provision of reliable communication,

production with zero discharge, acceptable working conditions, realistic evacuation systems the

provision of practical safe havens for the evacuated personnel, along with supply logistics for

installations that are located beyond reasonable reach from the mainland, all require technological

development to meet conditions in the High North.

An Operation Philosophy will cover a host of considerations among which will be:

Project specific Ice Management system

Provision of reliable communications

No discharges to meet environmental requirements

Acceptable physical working conditions for the onboard personnel through “winterization”

Reduction of manning levels by the extensive application of automization

Provision of escape and evacuation systems compatible with geographical location and

extreme ice conditions

Supply logistics and maintenance systems suitable for the location

The choice of Operation Philosophy will help determine the size of and type of installation required.

The items above are addressed in the following sections

Working environment 4.6.1

Common challenges

The extreme conditions in the High North require that the facilities provided allow for acceptable

working conditions this is referred to as Winterization. These conditions are composed of43

:

Cold temperatures

Sea Spray icing. This depends on several parameters including;

o Wind speed

o Air temperature

o Sea Water temperature

o Wave height and period

o Geometry of structure (Sea spray icing is most relevant on the side of the installation

heading against the incoming wave and wind)

Atmospheric Icing. This is normally limited to a thickness of 10 mm but can cover all exposed

equipment structures, including importantly helideck and escape ways and is typically a result

of:

o Freezing rain or drizzle accumulation and refreezing of wet snow

o Direct phase transition from water vapour to ice

o In cloud icing caused by super cooled water droplets in clouds or fog

Heavy Snow Falls

Polar Lows. Sudden and unforeseen storms with high wind speeds

In winter long periods without daylight

43

See Chapter 2.1 for a description of the natural and physical characteristics related to operations in the High

North.


As can be understood, the working environment on the unit is challenging in the harsh environmental

conditions during the winter season. No daylight in combination with low temperatures and wind

results in environments not suitable for normal outdoor work.

The term “winterization” shall be understood as all type of specific facility, system and hull

requirements that must be prepared during the design phase for a facility to operate in the High North.

The experience in designing facilities for both harsh and Arctic environment is a challenge extending

the general design requirements for traditional North Sea facilities.

Figure 34: Icing on vessel

Source: Lloyds register

Existing technology, methods and best practice

The general NORSOK design standards and best practice developed over the years are based on

facility and hull requirements to suit conditions where environmental factors like ice, snow and wind

chill is of a nature that gives less impact on design compared to design requirements for the Barents

Sea environment.

Experience so far gained in Canadian waters, Sakhalin along with design of facilities yet to be

installed in the southern Norwegian Barents Sea. The only truly offshore production facility

experience so far has been the Prirazlomnaya field although valuable experience has been gained from

maritime and drilling activities in the High North although these by nature are of relatively short

duration.

Onshore facilities exist both in the Norwegian and Russian Arctic areas, but they are not exposed to

such a several combination of extreme factors.

In the last few years maritime activity has increased in the Arctic regions and the challenges regarding

the protection and working conditions of the crew members are similar.

The winterization design depends upon a multidiscipline understanding of the challenges and an

appreciation of the uncertainty in our understanding of the effect of Arctic conditions on the facility

and the crew manning it.

Consideration of the human factors must be integrated from the start of the design process and

selection of the basis of design for the installation. For the operation organization the selection and

training process of the crew will need to be geared to the specific environment of the High North.


The winterization design depends upon a multidiscipline understanding of the challenges and an

appreciation of the uncertainty in our understanding of the effect of the conditions in the High North

on the facility and the crew manning it.

Consideration of the human factors must be integrated from the start of the design process and

selection of the basis of design for the installation. For the Operation Organization the selection and

training process of the crew will need to be geared to the specific environment of the High North.

Current winterization strategy is based on general protection of equipment and working areas by use

of enclosed spaces and “open” areas protected by wind shielding panels (winterization panels). All

outdoor areas except for laydown and outdoor storage areas are proposed to be covered by a watertight

roof.

It is important to select winterization solutions that increase the safety level without introducing

negative side effects. An example of this could be that encapsulation of some type of equipment may

introduce need for special considerations regarding potential gas leakage and ventilation.

Special emphasis shall be made during design with respect to:

Protection of areas requiring significant operational intervention and maintenance

Protection of escape ways, walk ways, stairs, ladders, doors and hatches

Protection of safety equipment to secure access and integrity under all weather conditions

Protection from falling ice from structures and equipment

Ensure that working environment requirements are met for all weather conditions

This approach results in typical detailed principles as follows:

All safe areas that can be fully enclosed shall be fully enclosed

Workshop’s, electrical rooms, engine rooms and stores are located in fully enclosed spaces.

As far as practically possible, piping for liquids that can freeze shall be routed inside in areas

with temperature not less than five degrees. Piping in other areas shall be heat traced or kept

normally dry

Air changes in enclosed areas shall be kept to a minimum but in accordance with applicable

standards

Hazardous areas shall be ventilated in accordance with applicable standards.

Most material handling routes, escape routes, mustering area and walkways shall as far as

practically possible be fully or partly enclosed

Exposed escape routes shall be heat traced

Exposed lay down areas, transport routes etc. shall be temporarily covered / mechanically

cleared for snow and ice

If applicable lifeboats shall be kept within semi enclosed space and winterized as required.

Escape chutes with life rafts shall be winterized and stored in such a way that they will be

operable during any foreseeable climate condition

Equipment located in open or semi enclosed areas shall be functional and operable according

to site specific design temperatures and must be winterized accordingly. This can be by local

sheltering, heat tracing or equivalent

Equipment that which will face temperatures below the minimum operational temperature (i.e.

drilling equipment during restricted operation), shall be winterized to the extent necessary to

reduce the time required to start normal operations again, once the external temperature

increases above the minimum operational temperature

It should be noted that the need for heat tracing may require considerable source of electrical power

and that with current technology the combination of very low temperatures combined with high winds


may result in an unsustainable demands on the available platform power. More efficient ways of

providing ice free areas need to be developed.

The Process area on any installation will classified with respect to risk to exposure to hydro carbons.

Due to winterization requirements, it is shown that reduced reasoning starts at temperatures of minus

10 C, or less, and that 70-90% of failures are attributable to human error. This area must be enclosed

with a roof and walls. This enclosure will increase the risk of an accumulation of explosive gases in

the case of a leak. The effect of any explosion in a confined area will be increasingly damaging

Consequently a design balance between the need for natural ventilation and the need for weather

protection must be found.

Figure 35: Physics – the effect of enclosing

Source: Lloyds Register Consulting

Currently louvered walls, which allow for natural ventilation while reducing the wind speed, are being

employed for platforms to be installed in the Norwegian High North area along with plated roofs

designed to withstand high snow loading.

Should a helicopter deck be employed on an installation ways of keeping this ice and snow free and

hence operational need to be considered. Some form of heated hanger must be provided for protecting

any helicopter that uses the installation. A significant storage capacity for helicopter fuel will also

need to be provided.

Living accommodation must be designed with providing the best possible conditions for the personnel

on board, who will most likely have to endure long periods of work in constant winter darkness in a

remote location. The size of this manning will depend on the platform function, the ease or difficulty

of providing regular shift changes to and from the installation and the amount of automisation

designed into the equipment and not the least the authorities’ legislation concerning working

conditions. It is a likely scenario that the manning levels required will be higher than in southern North

Sea waters and result in the need for large living accommodation units.

A remote installation far from established infrastructure will need a more sophisticated onboard

hospital facility and level of medical services available. A high degree of self-sufficiency will need to

be established.


A more self-sufficient philosophy regarding the storage of provisions spares and bulk material will

also be required given the distance to land and the uncertain weather conditions which may interfere

with marine logistics for long periods. All these factors will increase the size of the fixed or floating

installation.


Further development work is required to establish the optimal winterization design for areas exposed

to explosion risks. Computer simulation models that reflect the conditions to be found in the High

North needs further development.

More energy effective methods of holding strategic exposed areas ice free need to be developed.

Development of a philosophy regarding realistic working condition legislation which be applied in the

High North environment.

Qualification programs for systems and equipment previously not used in the High North should be

developed (e.g. HP Flare Tip, Active Weather Panels, TEG/Meg systems etc.).

Escape, Evacuation and Rescue (EER) 4.6.2


In the High North the installations will be located a long way from land and most likely any

established infrastructure. The use of helicopters as a primary means of evacuation can be in most

instances forgotten due either to the distances involved and/or the likelihood of adverse weather

conditions stopping their use.

Finding an acceptable solution to the challenge of evacuating personnel and then providing a safe

haven for them for an installation in a remote ice infected area may prove to be the biggest technology

and logistical barrier to providing production installations in the High North.


To date only installations in the southern region of area 1 in the Barents Sea have been designed and

approved. In these cases the distance from land and the lack of serious ice conditions have allowed for

the application of helicopters and traditional free fall life boats. Although the platforms have been

provided with radar systems to prevent launching should ice be present in the drop zone and an

integrated heating system including engine heating to ensure safe operation in cold conditions. In

some cases (Shtokman) as a backup, davit launch life boats are also provided to provide flexibility in

ice conditions.

This subject has been investigated in the Barents 2020 from which the section below comes;

Challenges have been identified by the Barents 2020 project44

which offers an extensive evaluation of

existing guidance and provides recommendations. Main recommendations are focused on the update

of the ISO 19906 document. This recommendation has led to the set-up of ISO TC67 SC8, Arctic

Operations in which workgroup 2 is developing ISO 18819 on EER. Main risks as identified in the

Barents 2020 report are:

Traditional EER methods may not be appropriate for most of the year

The full range of ice conditions, including icebergs and sea ice, combined with cold weather,

wind and other weather conditions which may be encountered

The logistics systems that may be available to support any required evacuation from the

structure or vessel, including the presence of emergency response vessels

The long distances from the potential emergency site to the support bases and other facilities

44

The Barents 2020 end report


The shortage of duly equipped support vessels that may be called on for assistance, with

regards to their maneuvering and station-keeping abilities in ice

The accumulation of ice on external surfaces and its effect on equipment operation

The limited amount of time that is available to react to a particular emergency situation

The effect of cold temperatures on human physiology and psychology, equipment, materials

and supplies

The lack of experienced personnel and training facilities for the specific evacuation systems

which have been proposed for the Barents Sea

The effect of the polar night, with extended periods of darkness, on personnel activities in

Arctic conditions

Difficulties caused by communication due to magnetic conditions and high latitude, lack of

satellite coverage and language differences

The possible lack of qualified medical support

An in depth review of the existing lifeboat designs and the need for design development can read in a

Master Thesis by Kristian Nedrevåg entitled “Requirements and Concepts for Arctic Evacuation”45

.

To illustrate the remoteness and distances in the High North the map below shows the radius of the

range of an S-92 helicopter.46

A typical offshore support vessel, average speed 12-15 knots would take 24 hours to cover the same

distance. In ice waters the speed in could be significantly lower.

Figure 36: Range of a Sikorsky S-92

Source: Nedrevåg 2011

Need for innovation and technology development For areas where lifeboats could be used there is a need to develop technology to prevent icing on the

lifeboats, prevent damage to the lifeboat propulsion equipment when navigating in ice infested waters,

to improve maneuverability of the lifeboat in close pack ice. The suitability of using free fall-lifeboats

in the High North needs to be reconsidered.

45

Nedrevåg (2011), Requirements and concepts for arctic evacuation 46

See the RU-NO Transport and Logistics-Report for more information about SAR helicopter contingency


Generally speaking in areas 2,3,4,5 and 6 free fall lifeboats will not be able to be used for some if not

all parts of the year. Other forms of evacuation that allow for escape in ice infested waters must be

developed.

One of the potential primary evacuation means is Personnel Evacuation Bridge (PEB), such concepts

already implemented on several fixed installation for evacuate platform crew to SAR/support vessels,

but their operability is very limited in the storm and sea ice conditions, especially between two

floaters.

Concepts for providing safe havens with all the necessary medical support functions that will be

accessible to these evacuated personnel must be developed.

A large number of concepts have been developed for evacuation of personnel from Arctic platforms

and each have its merits for specific area conditions. As indicated in the Barents 2020 phase 4 report:

All solutions, whether in operation or under development, are very different due to the various

environments, facility designs and related hazards. Examples include 450-tonne H2S tolerant Ice

Breaking Emergency Evacuation Vessels (IBEEV), amphibious ARKTOS for climbing over ice and

through water, specially adapted lifeboats such as TEMPASC and Air Cushion Vehicles, even airboats

and sub-surface systems. Because the solutions can vary in principle and design the term Evacuation

Method is used.

Innovation can possibly offer ever better solutions in this field geared to specific requirements for the

harsher areas such as 5 and 6. But most of them still require additional qualification programs.

Figure 37: TIT-800 Archimedean Screw Tractor (AST)

Source: Barents 2020

Ice Management 4.6.3


Ice in some form and at some time of the year is present in all of the 6 geographical areas being

considered by this report. In region 1 the threat from ice is almost negligible through to areas 4, 5 and

6 where ice is present most of the year and presents multiple challenges.

For any floating and fixed installation the threat of interference from or damage by ice must be

managed throughout the life cycle of the facility that is from installation through to decommissioning

and removal. Any disconnection with the resultant loss of production will have significant economic

effect.

It is assumed that the responsibility for the administration of the Ice Management System throughout

the Operational life of the installation will rest with the onboard Offshore Installation Manager.

The type of Ice Management System to be employed will be an essential part of the installation basis

of design decided at the conceptual engineering phase, as it will affect the choice of technical solution

and ice strengthening to be employed at the specific field location.


“An Ice Management System is defined as the sum of all activities where the objective is to reduce, or

to avoid actions from any kind of ice features.47

”

Existing Technologies methods and best practice

As defined in the Barents 2020 report, “…Ice Management includes, but is not limited to:

Detection, tracking and forecasting

Physical management, such as ice breaking and iceberg towing

Threat evaluation and alerting

Furthermore considerations for Ice Management systems have been the subject for research and

practical application in Canadian waters for several years. In addition experienced has been gained

from the Russian Sakhalin projects and drilling operations in Arctic ice covered waters.

Ice detection, tracking and forecasting must be capable of identifying, tracking and predicting the drift

of all kinds of potentially hazardous ice features or ice situations. The devices, data collection and data

integration systems used for ice detection will include a suite of platforms that should provide

adequate and demonstrable ice detection capability for the expected ranges of environmental

conditions. Devices should also provide sufficient information to detect, characterize and track the

potential threat of ice features or situations, and take into consideration the risks of the potential ice

hazards, their probabilities of becoming a threat, and the appropriate operation specific reaction times.

Physical Ice Management includes resources in form of qualified personnel and appropriate vessels.

The resources must provide a demonstrated and adequate level of effectiveness and they must operate

at an efficiency level that is consistent with the reliability requirements of the overall Ice Management

system. Furthermore, they must be available on a fit-for-service basis when required and be designed

to operate under the anticipated range of physical environmental conditions. Threat evaluation means

identifying potentially adverse ice scenarios that could lead to pre-defined design or operating

parameters being exceeded (see Figure 35).

Figure 38: Iceberg Management zones and threat evaluation

Source: C-Core


The surveillance system (detection, tracking and forecasting) needs to be reliable. The current system

is rather basic and needs to be developed with new technology such as UAVs, upward looking sonars

etc.

Satellite imaging and ice radar systems which are used for detection and tracking have deficiencies

both in the coverage and details they can provide.

47

Reference is made to Kenneth Eik


Better systems are needed to detect and monitor the so called “blue ice”48

which is a form of ice berg

currently difficult to observe.

Better knowledge of the behavior of drift ice, for example changes in drift direction in some

geographical areas, is required, to improve forecasting and provide design data for installation

moorings etc.

As an Ice Management system is very complex and expensive, it will obviously an advantage if it can

be utilized over several geographically near field developments.

Environmental aspects to be considered 4.6.4

Given the relative untouched environment in the High North it is considered very vulnerable to

damage through human produced pollution. To allow oil and gas developments to be approved for

implementation the developers must show a commitment to a Zero Discharge Operation Philosophy.

This means that no liquid or solid discharge to sea will be allowed. As regards gaseous emissions it is

a likely scenario that electric power must be generated onshore and transmitted to the offshore

facilities.

Regarding the liquid containment it should be possible with today’s technology to design enclosed

systems that together with increased, relative to North Sea, onboard storage and more frequent liquid

transport logistics to shore provide a solution. This will, in turn, increase the size of the platform

facilities required and put a strain on the maritime transport system, especially in areas where ice

covered waters are common for the bulk of the year.

Should an installation include a drilling facility this challenge will be increased and should onboard

storage prove to insufficient at times then it must be equipped with a IMO IOPP compliant drilling

drains processing system such that overboard discharge can be accepted to an international standard if

onboard storage capacity is exceeded.

Area development considerations 4.6.5

Given an accumulation of challenges it would seem that an overall area development plan should be

considered for the High North sub area by sub area rather than rely on individual fields to be

developed in isolation from one another. Such considerations as:

Power transmission from shore

Provision of safe havens for emergency evacuation

Storage of spares, bulk and provisions within acceptable transport times

Offshore helicopter ”bases” or helicopter ships

Provision of hospital services within acceptable transport times

Logistic assistance for crew changes

Need for innovation and technology development It would appear that logistics/services centres providing the facilities above will be required on an

interconnected area infrastructure basis. These “hubs», either fixed structures or, especially during

construction phases, floating structures would be structures of considerable size.

The provision of such community hubs will require creative and co-operative solutions involving

developers, authorities and national governments.49

48

Blue ice can have a weight of up to several hundred tons and is barely visible on the sea surface. The ice is

drifting with wind, waves and currents and could cause damage to offshore installations. Blue ice is not easy to

detect with current satellite or radar systems (North Energy Perspektivstudie 2014). 49

See the INTSOK RU-NO Logistics and Transport-report


5. Innovation and technology development

Inventory of competence and projects

R&D institutions Supplier of goods & services Portals (cooperation, exchange of information) Governmental

Institution/ Programme

Affiliation Main Competence Projects (selected) Remarks

Akvaplan-Niva AS, Polar Environmental Center http://www.akvaplan.niva.no

One of northern Europe's largest independent companies providing services in environmental and aquaculture consultancy and research. Subsidiary in Russia http://www.akvaplan.ru/

Akvaplan-Niva provides consultancy, research and laboratory services to companies, authorities, NGOs and other customers worldwide. Services include environmental monitoring surveys, impact and risk assessments, Arctic environmental research, aquaculture design and management consultancy, R&D on new aquaculture species, and a number of accredited environmental and technical inspections

Involved in ArcticWeb Good relations to Russian scientific

institutions Established Arctic Environment Team

(AET)

AET plays a central role in decision-making for oil and energy activities in environmentally sensitive areas.

Company (and their leading scientist Salve Dahle) plays a central role in the annual Tromsø conference ‘Arctic Frontiers’.

Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute http://www.aari.nw.ru/main.php?lg=0

One of the oldest and largest Russian research institutes in the field of comprehensive studies of Arctic and Antarctica. It is located in Saint Petersburg.

http://www.aari.nw.ru/main.php?lg=0

Throughout its history, the AARI has organized more than a thousand Arctic expeditions, including dozens of high-latitude aerial expeditions, which transported 34(?) manned drifting ice stations Severniy Polyus ("Северный полюс", or North Pole) to Central Arctic. In 1955, the AARI participated in the organization of Antarctic research. In 1958, it began to organize and

Involved in BARENTS 2020 Good relations with international

scientific institutions

The AARI was founded on March 3, 1920 as the Northern Research and Trade Expedition (Северная научно-промысловая экспедиция) under the Scientific and Technical Department of the All-Union Council of State Economy. In 1925, the expedition was reorganized into the Institute of Northern Studies (Институт по изучению Севера) and five years later - into the All-Union Arctic Institute (Всесоюзный арктический институт). In 1932, the institute was integrated into the Chief Directorate of the Northern Sea

http://www.akvaplan.niva.no/

http://www.akvaplan.niva.no/

http://www.akvaplan.ru/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_and_Russian_manned_drifting_ice_stations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_and_Russian_manned_drifting_ice_stations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesenkha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesenkha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Directorate_of_the_Northern_Sea_Route


lead all of the Soviet Antarctic expeditions, which would later make many geographic discoveries. In 1968, the institute engaged in research of the areas of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous to the Arctic and Antarctica. The AARI has numerous departments, such as those of oceanography, glaciology, meteorology, hydrology or Arctic river mouths and water resources, geophysics, polar geography, and others. It also has its own computer center, ice research laboratory, experimental workshops, and a museum (the Arctic and Antarctic Museum).

Route (Главное управление Северного морского пути). In 1948, they established the Arctic Geology Research Institute (Научно-исследовательский институт геологии Арктики, or НИИГА) on the basis of the geology department of the All-Union Arctic Institute, which would subordinate to the Ministry of Geology of the USSR. In 1958, the All-Union Arctic Institute was renamed Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute. In 1963, the AARI was incorporated into the Chief Administration of the Hydrometeorological Service (Главное управление Гидрометеослужбы) under the Council of Ministers of the USSR (now Federal Service of Russia for Hydrometeorology and Monitoring of the Environment).

AMAP – Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program www.amap.no

Programme and Working Group in Arctic Council

Providing reliable and sufficient information on the status of, and threats to, the Arctic environment

Monitoring of levels of pollutants and their effects in the Arctic environment, including the atmospheric, terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments

Permanent secretariat located in Oslo

AMOS – Centre for

Autonomous Marine

Operations and Systems www.ntnu.edu/amos.no

Norwegian Centre of Excellence at NTNU with partners Sintef, Statoil, DNV-GL (+ foreign partners)

AMOS is organized as nine research projects, which one is: Autonomous Marine

Operations in extreme seas, violent water-structure interactions, deep waters and Arctic

ARCEx Arctic petroleum exploration www.arcex.no

National research centre for Arctic petroleum exploration, hosted at the Department of Geology at UiT the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø

Competence from the universities in Tromsø, Bergen, Oslo, Stavanger, Copenhagen, Trondheim (NTNU), Svalbard and NGU, IRIS, Akvaplan-Niva and NORUT

Regional geology and tectonic evolution in the Barents Sea

Basin development and petroleum systems

Petroleum potential and reduce exploration

National centre established in 2014 with support from NFR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_and_Antarctic_Museum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Directorate_of_the_Northern_Sea_Route

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Geology_of_the_USSR&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Administration_of_the_Hydrometeorological_Service&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Administration_of_the_Hydrometeorological_Service&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ministers_(Soviet_Union)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ministers_(Soviet_Union)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Service_of_Russia_for_Hydrometeorology_and_Monitoring_of_the_Environment&action=edit&redlink=1



http://www.amap.no/

http://www.ntnu.edu/amos/project-7





http://www.arcex.no/

http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/hjem?p_menu=42374&p_dimension_id=88137

http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/hjem?p_menu=42374&p_dimension_id=88137

http://www.uit.no/

http://www.uit.no/

http://www.uit.no/


Arctic Council (Arktisk Råd) www.Arctic-council.org

Intergovernmental organization to promote cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic states, with involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities

NA Oversee and coordinate

ACAP, Arctic Contaminations Action Program www.ac-acap.org

AMAP, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (see above)

CAFF, Conservation of Arctic Flora & Fauna (see AC web site)

PAME, Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment www.pame.is

SDWG, Sustainable Development Working Group www.portal.sdwg.org

Permanent secretariat located in Tromsø

ArcticWeb www.Arcticweb.com

Online network providing

open information Arctic Web is a joint-industry project aiming to make Arctic data accessible and searchable in one place. Currently information in the Barents Sea and on the Norwegian Continental Shelf is available. Information is provided by Key Data Holders, which are the main governmental bodies.

N/A Many similarities with BarentsWatch.

ARCTOS network (Arctic marine ecosystem research) www.arctosresearch,net

Network established by scientists in 2002 at College of Fishery Science (UiT), the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI), UNIS (Svalbard) and Akvaplan-Niva. Later, joined by Institute of Geology (UiT), the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) and Bodø University College.

Strong Arctic competence cluster by scientists at leading institutions

ICE-EDGE ecosystem

COPOL – contamination in polar ecosystem

LEVANS – long-term sea level variation

PEIOFF – environmental effects on bottom fauna of water-based drilling fluids and cuttings

ARCTOS is organized with a secretariat at UiT, and with part of its administrative activities localized at UNIS, Akvaplan-Niva and IMR

Scientists perform many NFR funded projects with strong Statoil commitments

Arktisk forskningsarena (Arctic Resarch Arena)

Research programme between Sintef, NTNU and NGU, and cooperation with UiB, UiO and UNIS.

Strong Arctic competence cluster at leading institutions working with technological challenges related to petroleum activities north of 74 oN.

Technology focusing on long distance from infrastructure in ice infested areas:

Multiphase flow

Supply of electricity

Environmental protection

Communication

Navigation

New research consortium under founding and invitations to seminars ongoing.

http://www.arctic-council.org/

http://www.ac-acap.org/

http://www.portal.sdwg.org/

http://www.arcticweb.com/

http://www.arctosresearch,net/


Barents 2020 www.dnvgl.com

Barents 2020 is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Meld. St. 2011-2012: Nordområdene – Visjon og virkemidler) to harmonize safety standards, cooperation and cross-border activities.

Programme managed by DNV

Started out as Norwegian-Russian cooperation

Latest objective: ‘Circumpolar knowledge sharing’ between Norway, Russia, Canada, USA and Greenland/Denmark with partners Gazprom, Statoil, Eni, Total, Shtokman, OGP, Rosneft and DNV

Recommendation of 130 offshore standards for the Barents Sea

Design of floating structures in ice

Risk management of marine hazards on Arctic areas

Escape, evaluation and rescue of people

Working environment

Ice Management

Operational emission and discharge

NORRUSS was also established within the same governmental framework

Barents Institute (BAI), Kirkenes www.barentsinstitute.org

BAI is engaged in several networks and joint research programs with universities in and outside the Barents region. MOUs with Murmansk State Pedagogical Univ., Kola Science Centre, Pomor State Univ., European Univ. at St. Petersburg, Murmansk Academy of Business Management and the Moscow State Institute of Intern. Relations.

Multidisciplinary research in social and political science, focusing on the natural and human environment on land and at sea in the Barents region

Advises and supports master students, from all over Norway and from Russia, to do studies on the Barents region based at their various home universities

Organizes conferences every year on the natural resources

The University of the Arctic www.uArctic.org

Barents Secretariat

One of many institutions working with cross-border Arctic issues Norway – Russia, e.g. resource management, regional development, geopolitics and cultural exchange. Note the Kirkenes affiliation.

ColdTech www.kaldtklima.net

ColdTech was initially founded by the industry. Now by the users

See NUC

See NORUT

Snow and ice loads on structure

UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) for the Arctic region

ColdTech is a signature project, which can be found on CCTRC’s web site.

http://www.kaldtklima.net/


6. Technology/solution providers

Nat

ion

alit

y

Technology/Solution Technology/ Solution Providers

ARCTIC DESIGN MATERIALS FIXED

INSTALLATIONS FLOATING INSTALLATIONS MARINE OPERATIONS

OPERATION PHILOSOPHY

Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g sy

stem

s

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n

N 4 subsea

N ABB

R Admiralteyski Verfi

N Aibel

N Akastor

AU - Australia F - France N - Norway SP - Singapore

C- Canada FI - Finland NL - Netherlands SW - Switzerland

CN - China G - Germany R - Russia UK - United Kingdom

DK - Denmark IT - Italy S - Sweden US - United States

ES - Spain J - Japan SK – South Korea

The company/institution is currently

a provider of the technology/solution


Nat

ion

alit

y Technology/Solution Technology/ Solution Providers




Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g sy

stem

s

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n

C AKAC

F Aker Arctic

N Aker Solutions

F Alcatel-Lucent

UK AMEC Group

US American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)

R Amur

N Anchor Contracting

N Apply

APL

R Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI)

UK Arup

ASPO

UK Atkins

R Atomflot


Nat

ion

alit





Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g sy

stem

s

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n

AU Aussenco (Sandwell)

N Aqualis

R Baltyisky

N Basstech

N Bergen Group

R B.E. Vedeneev VNIIG

NL Bluewater

N Bomek Consulting

NL Boskalis

F Boygues

F Bureau Veritas

US Cameron

C Canadian Hydraulic Centre

C C-core

CN China Harbour Engineering Company


Nat

ion

alit





Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g s

yste

ms

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n

R CNIICHERMET nm. Bardina, Moscow

R CRISM Prometey, St.Petersburg

IT Dallan

N Deep Ocean

N Deep Sea Mooring

N DNV GL

N DOF Subsea

F Doris engineering

ES Dragados

N Dr. techn. Olav Olsen

US DSME

N Fedem

N FireCo

US FloaTEC

N FMC


Nat

ion

alit





Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g sy

stem

s

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n

N Framo Engineering

R Gazflot

N GE Oil and Gas

R Giprospetsgas

N Global Maritime

N GMC Elektro

R Gningi

CN Guangzhou

NL GustoMSC

S GVA

US Halliburton

N Helgeland V&M

N HERNIS Sacn Systems AS - EATON

G Hamburg Ship Model Basin (HSVA)

SK Hyundai


Nat

ion

alit





Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g sy

stem

s

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n

N IKM

US Intecsea

N Inocean

N Kvaerner

N Rapp Bomek (Equipment)

DK Rambøll

N Reinertsen

UK Royal Boskalis Westminister

R Rubin

R Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RS)

N Safetec

IT Saipem

SK Samsung

NL SBM

N Scana Steel


Nat

ion

alit





Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g sy

stem

s

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n

N Scandpower (Lloyds)

N Scat-Harding

N Semar

N Semek (Equipment)

R Sevmash

N Sevan Marine

R Severnye Verfi

NL Seway HeavyLift

N SINTEF

S Skanska

C SNC Lavalin

Sofed

R Sovcomflot

SK STX

N StormGeo


R St.Petersburg Polytechnic University

N Subsea7

F Technip

R Technologya, Obinsk

C Teekay

SW Transocean

SP Transtel Engineering

N Trelleborg

F Thales

FI University of Helsinki

NL Van Oord

SW VSL

NL Verhoef

UK Vetco Gray

R Vicinay

Nat

ion

alit





Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g sy

stem

s

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n


N

atio

nal

ity

Technology/Solution Technology/ Solution Providers




Des

igne

rs &

sta

ndar

ds Ic

e Lo

ads

Arc

tic w

eath

er fo

reca

stin

g, p

olar

low

s, ic

ing

Mod

el te

stin

g Ic

e

Num

eric

al m

odel

ling

Ice

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Ste

el d

esig

ners

Ligh

wei

ght a

lloys

des

igne

rs

Des

igne

rs N

on-m

etal

lic m

ater

ials

Con

cret

e de

sign

ers

Qua

lific

atio

n/ T

ests

/Lab

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Mai

nten

ance

Des

ign

Con

stru

ctio

n

Mai

nten

ance

Tur

ret s

yste

ms

Offl

oadi

ng s

yste

ms

Moo

ring

syst

ems

Ris

er s

yste

ms

Art

ifici

al is

land

con

stru

ctio

n

GB

S In

stal

latio

ns

Sea

bed

prep

arat

ion

Tow

ing

Arc

tic m

arin

e su

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Anh

or a

nd m

oorin

g sy

stem

s

Aut

omat

ion

Eva

cuat

ion

syst

ems

Win

teriz

atio

n

R VNIIGAZ

R VolgogradNIPImorneft

R Vryhof

R Vyborg

US Wood Group Mustang

AU WorleyPasons

R Zvezda

87

7. References

INTSOK (2013) Russian – Norwegian Oil & Gas industry cooperation in the High North. Logistics

and Transport, Report.

INTSOK (2014) Russian – Norwegian Oil & Gas industry cooperation in the High North. Drilling,

well operations and equipment, Report.

INTSOK (2014) Russian – Norwegian Oil & Gas industry cooperation in the High North.

Environmental protection monitoring systems and oil spill contingency, Report.

INTSOK (2014) Russian – Norwegian Oil & Gas industry cooperation in the High North. Pipelines

and Subsea Installations, Report.

Johannessen, O.M, V.Y Alexandrov, I.Y. Frolov, S. Sandven, L. Pettersson, L.P. Bobylev, K. Kloster,

V.G. Smirnov, Y.U. Mironov and N.G. Babich (2007) Remote Sensing of Sea Ice in the Northern Sea

Route. Studies and Applications. Springer Verlag/PraxisPublishing: Berlin, Heidelberg, Chichester.

Sætre, H. J. (2014) “NDP – Needs and opportunities at the start of phase 5”. Strategy discussions

report in 2013.

V.N. Bondarev, S.I. Rokos, D.A. Kostin, A.G. Dlugach and N.A. Polyakova (2002) “Under

permafrost accumulations of gas in the upper part of the sedimentary cover of the Pechora Sea”,

Russian Geology and Geophysics,Vol.43, No. 7, pp. 587-598.

Østreng Willy, Karl Magnus Eger, Arnfinn Jørgensen-Dahl, Brit Fløistad, Lars Lothe, Morten

Mejlænder-Larsen and Tor Wergeland (2013) Shipping in Arctic Waters. A comparison of the

Northeast, Northwest and Trans Polar Passages. Springer Verlag/PraxisPublishing: Berlin,

Heidelberg, Chichester

russian norwegian oil & gas industry cooperation in the ... · being a part of the official...

Documents