Dry mooring line monitoring for floating production systems. JIP Proposal. MARIN project No. : Date : April 21, 2015 Version : 3.

Transcription

1 Dry mooring line monitoring for floating production systems JIP Proposal MARIN project No. : Date : April 21, 2015 Version : 3.0 M A R I N P.O. Box AA Wageningen The Netherlands T F E info@marin.nl I

2 LifeLine version Joint Industry Project Proposal - LifeLine MARIN reference: Date: April 21, 2015 Prepared by: Contact: Ir. Pieter Aalberts, Senior Project Manager, Hydro-Structural Services Ir. Remco Hageman, Project Engineer, Hydro-Structural Services Ir. Arjan Voogt, Manager MARIN Houston Ir. Willemijn Pauw, Project Manager, Offshore Ir. Pieter Aalberts Senior Project Manager Hydro-Structural Services T F E p.j.aalberts@marin.nl

3 LifeLine version CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT OBJECTIVES SCOPE OF WORK Screening study and guidelines (Phase A) Environmental conditions to be obtained Accuracy of environmental information Sources of environmental information Methodology development (Phase B) Software development (Phase B) Software verification and validation (Phase B) DELIVERABLES Screening study and guidelines (Phase A) Methodology development (Phase B) Software development (Phase B) Software verification and validation (Phase B) PROJECT ORGANIZATION COST AND INCOME Costs Income Participation agreement REFERENCES... 19

4 LifeLine version INTRODUCTION Floating Production Systems (FPS) stay at fixed positions year after year without regular dry docking. To ensure station keeping, these units are equipped with mooring systems which must be able to withstand harsh weather loadings. Mooring systems are exposed to a wide variety of environmental conditions. Deterioration of the mooring lines over time will result in a lower resistance against breakage. Moreover, failure mechanisms that were not anticipated during design, such as Out-of-Plane Bending and MIC corrosion, result in higher loads than were predicted resulting in a reduced mooring line reliability. As a result, mooring incidents have been occurring at high rate during the past decade. Mooring line failure In fact, the reliability level set out by guidance codes and standards is not achieved in reality [1]. More than twenty incidents have happened to production vessels that are moored on-site for prolonged duration. Some of these incidents were of high consequence, such as causing the vessel to drift a short distance, riser ruptures and production shutdown [2]. These incidents are raising concerns for owners and operators especially considering the fact that several of the existing floating production are approaching their design life or in some cases exceeding the original design duration. With around 400 floating production systems currently in service and an expected growth of 50% in the coming five years, the industry is facing a challenge in the future. Alarm systems Given the safety critical nature of mooring lines one might expect that they would be instrumented with automatic alarms which would go off in case of line failure. In practice though there are many floating production systems that have no means of knowing whether their mooring system is intact. As an example, 78% of the production units in the North Sea do not have line failure alarms [3]. On an external turret mooring system a line failure can be checked by visual observation. If a mooring line is broken, it will hang straight down or at least with a much steeper angle. On systems where visual observations cannot be directly performed, like for internal turrets or spread moored vessels with below water fairleads, a line failure is much harder to notice and therefore an alarm system is required. Floating production systems which do have alarm systems often face technical challenges as the equipment is installed subsea, e.g. on the mooring lines. A major concern with subsea equipment is the reliability and the robustness of the equipment [4]. As a result the equipment often leads to failure and false alarms in the long term. Replacement and maintenance of these systems is often not possible or very expensive. Dry alarm monitoring What is required is a robust, reliable and easy to install alarm system for new built as well as existing production system. It is difficult to install subsea equipment during production on the mooring lines of existing production systems. Therefore the alarm system that is required should comprise of components without subsea parts (dry mooring failure alarm system). LifeLine JIP In this document a new joint industry project between research institutes and industry is described. The project is called LifeLine. The project seeks to develop a methodology and specifications of a dry mooring failure alarm system based on offset monitoring which includes the effect of the environmental conditions. The methodology will be

5 LifeLine version implemented in an onboard software tool which processes the measurements onboard and provides an alarm in case a mooring failure is suspected. The development will be accompanied by in service tests onboard of two floating production systems. Guidelines for the operator will be provided to advice on the position monitoring for various floating production systems and offshore fields. The new initiative has been presented at the FPSO research forum in Monaco in March 2014 and during the LifeLine open meeting in Busan (October 2014) and Delft (March 2015). In addition one to one meetings were held in the United States (Modec, SBM, ABS, Shell, Hess and ExxonMobil) and Europe (Total, Bluewater). Feedback obtained during the LifeLine meetings and one to one meetings have been included in this project proposal. The project will start in October 2015.

6 LifeLine version PROJECT OBJECTIVES The LifeLine initiative seeks to develop a methodology and specifications of an dry mooring failure alarm system based on offset monitoring which includes the effect of the environmental conditions. The methodology will be implemented in an onboard software tool which processes the measurements onboard and provides an alarm in case a mooring failure is suspected. The performance of this tool will also be evaluated during the project via in-service measurements. Existing alarm systems Dry mooring failure alarm systems based on offset monitoring which does not include the effect of the environmental conditions already exist and comprise of GPS position with or without heading measurements [5]. In case of turret moored FPSO s, the turret is the location which is of interest to measure the position. An option is to install the GPS antenna near the turret itself. However, in this case the GPS antenna is located in an hazardous area and special safety precautions are required. A more practical solution, which was applied by MARIN in 2013 successfully for two FPSO, is to use a highly accurate long base dual antenna system and install it on the bridge wings of the wheelhouse outside the hazardous area. With readings of both position and heading the position can be determined at any location of the FPSO with an accuracy of 0.5 meter which is sufficient for the purpose of offset monitoring. The successful application of the dry mooring failure alarm system for one of the FPSO s is illustrated below. A mooring line failure has recently occurred on this FPSO [5]. Figure 1shows the position of the FPSO just before line failure and up to four minutes after the line failure. In red the corresponding positions of the external turret is shown. Figure 1 Mooring line failure measured by offset monitoring system This failure occurred during relatively benign environment in approximately 1000 m water depth. The mooring monitoring system provided an instant alarm to the bridge personnel. Following the failure, the measurement system was used to ensure the turret was restored to its original position. In heavy weather conditions the offset due to the environmental conditions may be larger than the offset resulting from a line breakage. This is especially the case for shallow water applications. In order to avoid false alarms, it is of importance to monitor the environmental conditions and determine the offset due to the actual environmental condition before evaluating the possible line failure.

7 LifeLine version Interfacing with environment by watch circles One way to include the environmental conditions is to establish watch circles showing the offset as a function of the sea state. An example for a 3 grouped single point mooring system is shown in Figure 2 [5]. This plot shows what offset can be anticipated for the intact mooring system for certain wave conditions. Similar plots can also be generated for the effect of wind and current or a combination of those. If a steady offset is observed beyond the anticipated offsets for the current environmental conditions, an alarm will go off North Hs = 8.0m Hs = 6.0m Hs = 4.0m Hs = 2.0m North-South Offset [m] East-West Offset [m] Figure 2 Offset capacity plot for selected sea states The disadvantage of this approach is that a considerable effort is asked from the crew to verify whether a mooring line may be broken. The environmental conditions comprise of wind, current and waves. First of all the readings of these environmental conditions shall be collected and analysed. Next the appropriate watch circle shall be selected to determine the anticipated offsets. With three different environmental loads and nonlinear stiffness characteristics of the mooring systems, the anticipated offset is not determined easily. It may not be possible to determine the offset unambiguously. What makes it even more complicated is that the offset is related to the loading condition of the floating production system. For example, in loaded condition the current loads can be twice as high as in ballast condition resulting in a different offset. Automatic analyses of environment Another approach is to calculate the offset due to the actual environmental conditions onboard the floating production system. This means that no intervention of the crew is needed. An onboard tool determines automatically the anticipated offset due to the actual environmental and loading conditions. The tool compares the calculated offset with the measured offset, considering uncertainties of the measurements and calculations, and gives an alarm in case the measured offset deviates from the calculated offset. This onboard tool will be developed and tested within the LifeLine project.

8 LifeLine version Monitoring of environmental conditions The typical wave, wind and current conditions varies per area. This means that also the offset originating from these conditions vary per area. In certain areas the current induced offset is dominating whereas in other areas the offset resulting from the wind is largest. It may even be the case that the offset due to one environmental parameter is negligible compared to the offset originating from a line breakage. This means that there is no need to measure this environmental parameter for the purpose of the alarm monitoring system. Operators considering to implement a dry mooring line failure alarm system would like to know what environmental parameters are to be measured. For this purpose, the project will provide guidelines. In case the offset of an environmental condition is considerable compared to the offset originating from a line breakage and therefore to be measured, the operator will ask how to obtain information of the actual environmental conditions. There are many monitoring systems on the market with different specifications and accuracies. However, these monitoring systems are costly and preferably the environmental data is obtained in a more simple way (e.g. by now cast). Whether this is feasible depends on the accuracy of the environmental conditions which is required for the application. The dry mooring failure alarm system which is developed in the project will be able to interface with both environmental monitoring systems and now cast systems. One way to measure the current and wave conditions is by using a buoy system. It is well known that the procurement and maintenance costs of a buoy system is considerable. Operators may be interested in alternative ways to measure the undisturbed wave and current conditions without the application of an expensive buoy system. In this project alternative ways to obtain the undisturbed wave and current conditions for the purpose of the dry mooring line failure alarm system will be investigated.

9 LifeLine version SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for the LifeLine project will be performed in two phases. The following tasks have been defined for the two phases: Phase A (1 year): Screening study and guidelines (see section 3.1) Phase B (2½ year): Methodology development (see section 3.2) Software development (see section 3.3) Software verification and validation (see section 3.4) The purpose of the two phases rather than one is to allow operators to make a thought out decision during a relatively small first phase with regard to joining the second larger phase of the project and with regard to possibly providing their FPS as a candidate for the project. A second purpose is to ensure that the candidate floaters selected for the full scale validation will be appropriate to reach the objectives of the project. 3.1 Screening study and guidelines (Phase A) Phase A of the project provides guidelines for operators considering to implement a dry mooring line failure alarm system for a specific floating production system and field. The following questions will be addressed in the guidelines Data of what environmental conditions shall be made available? What is the required accuracy of the environmental data? How to obtain the environmental data? Phase A also provides screening study results for maximum two floating production systems per operator. The results will help the project to select the most appropriate floating production system for Phase B of the project Environmental conditions to be obtained The environmental parameters which are to be obtained and fed into the dry mooring line failure alarm system is related to the field in which the floating production system is operating. In the North Sea for example the offset is dominated by wind and quite considerable in comparison with the offset originating from a line failure. Therefore it is of importance to obtain in that area the wind conditions. In other areas also current may provide considerable offsets in comparison with the line breakage induced offset. In that area current shall also be obtained. For the operator it is of interest to know what are the expected offsets on their floating production system due to the wind, current and wave drift forces and what offset is expected when a line fails. The offset as a result of a mooring line failure is related to the water depth, stiffness and type of mooring system. A line failure of a mooring system with 3 bundles of 3 mooring lines will result in a smaller offset than a line failure of a mooring system with 9 mooring lines equally spaced. Summarizing, the mooring line failure induced offset and the offset due to the typical environmental conditions in the field should be known to the operator in order to estimate what information of the environmental conditions are required for the purpose of the dry mooring line failure alarm system. Figure 3 shows the long term offset distributions of a floating production system in South Africa originating from the wind and waves conditions in that field. The results show for this floating production system the

10 LifeLine version offset in stormy conditions is in the same order as the offset due to a line failure. Therefore real time information of the wind and waves are required to provide a reliable line failure alarm for this application. The environmental parameters which are to be obtained and fed into the line failure alarm system of each specific unit depends on the field location. Figure 3 Offset distributions due to environmental conditions In the LifeLine project the expected loads and offsets due to the typical wave, wind and current conditions for the floating production systems the operators are considering to nominate for Phase B of the project will be established in combination with the line failure induced offset. The calculations will be done for maximum two FPSO s per operator. The calculations will be done for an FPSO in West Africa, GOM, Australia, Brasil and North Sea. Both a spread moored and turret moored FPSO will be considered. An overview of the calculations is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Offset distributions West Africa GOM Australia Brasil North Sea SM TM SM TM SM TM SM TM SM TM Current - - Wind - - Wave - - SM: Spread Moored TM: Turret Moored Accuracy of environmental information What is also of importance is the accuracy of the environmental data and the offset which is related to this accuracy. This shows whether the line failure offset can be distinguished from the current induced offset. The accuracy of the various sources of environmental data will be considered in the project. The guideline results will provide what the required accuracy is for the wind, current and wave height information Sources of environmental information Data of real time environmental conditions can be obtained from various sources including visual observations, now cast systems and measurements recorded with

11 LifeLine version monitoring systems. Another way is to use calculations to determine one environmental parameter from the other (e.g. waves from wind measurements). Visual observations Wave information can be obtained by visual observations and is probably the most cost effective. It however requires from the crew to make at regular intervals throughout the day recordings of the wave height. The accuracy of the measurements, especially observed during the night, may be questionable. Visual observations of current cannot be done. Visual observations of wind is not common (as most FPSO s are equipped with an anemometer). Monitoring systems Most FPSO s are equipped with a meteo system which includes an anemometer. An interface with the meteo system gives the dry mooring monitoring system access to real time wind information. Current and wave conditions can be obtained by a buoy system, e.g. wave scan buoy or directional wave rider buoy. The disadvantage of a buoy system is that the procurement and maintenance costs are high. The buoy systems requires a mooring system and maintenance visits to the floating production system are required including boat trips from the floating production system to the buoy. Preferably operators install monitoring systems on the floating production system which can be maintained by their own crew. Now cast systems Now cast systems provides wave and wind information. These systems are quite interesting for dry mooring monitoring systems. Now cast systems can be implemented rather easy and does not require expensive monitoring systems. It is evident that the accuracy of now cast system measurements are less than obtained from most monitoring systems and therefore the feasibility of a now cast system shall be investigated per application. Figure 4 shows a comparison between wave information obtained by now cast and obtained by a buoy monitoring system. The significant wave height compares rather well. The wave and swell periods are systematically underestimated by now cast. The application of a correction factor on the now cast data may be sufficient to obtain usable data for the purpose of the dry mooring monitoring system. Figure 4 Now cast wave versus measured wave

12 LifeLine version Calculations The wave drift forces are high for wind waves and only small for swell. The offset originating from the swell can be neglected. As the wind waves and wind velocity are related, an alternative way to estimate the wind wave height and wave drift forces is by using the wind measurements. In the project a model will be developed to estimate the wave drift loads from the wind measurements. Once the wind starts, the waves will slowly develop into a wind sea. A time dependency is therefore to be included in the model. Figure 5 shows the relation between the half hour statistics of the wind speed and the half hour statistics of the wind wave height measured at a West African FPSO. Clearly the relation between wind waves and wind speed can be noticed. The figure does not include the wave and wind direction neither does it include the effect of speed in which the wind velocity is increasing or decreasing. Figure 5 Wave height to wind speed relation Measurements from the FPSO equipped with both a wind sensor and a wave buoy system will be used to validate the model. 3.2 Methodology development (Phase B) The second phase (Phase B) of the project starts with the methodology development. In this task the LifeLine methodology will be developed for a dry mooring monitoring system for Floating Production Systems (FPS). This includes position estimation based on actual measured environmental and operational conditions. The methodology will be implemented in a software and tailor made for one spread moored FPS and one turret moored FPS. The FPSs will be selected by the participants upon completion of Phase A. The mean heading and position of the FPS will be calculated using wind and current coefficients and using mean drift forces. These coefficients will be obtained by tuning of the design coefficients using a couple of months of in-service measurements. The data set shall be large enough to ensure that measurements are available for each wave, current and wind direction with preferably only one environmental parameter dominating. As the wind, current and mean drift loads are also related to the draft of the FPS, the measurements addressed above shall be available for a number of loading conditions. In addition to the environmental conditions, also the heading will be measured. The heading is also calculated by the model. A comparison between the predicted and the measured heading over a limited period of time will be used to improve the calculated

13 LifeLine version wind and current coefficients and mean drift forces. The measured offset will be compared with the most accurate prediction of the offset. If an excessive offset is found, a warning will be issued to the crew. A block diagram of the methodology is shown in Figure 6. Measured and calculated offsets which are being compared to determine the integrity of the mooring lines, are typically based on successive short term measurements. A short term measurement should be sufficiently short to ensure the conditions (e.g. heading, waves) are not chancing throughout the measurement. It shall also not too short to ensure that the effect of the dynamic offset originating from the horizontal natural modes can be removed from the short term measurement. Measured Heading Measured Position Heading comparison Operator Feedback Wind, Wave current coefficients Measured Wind, Waves & Current Heading Calculation Position Calculation Measured Draft Figure 6 Block-diagram LifeLine methodology Short term measurements of half an hour are foreseen. The conditions to create an alarm may be that a number of short term measurements recorded successively indicate a mooring line incident. The most optimal duration of a short term measurement and the number of successive short term measurements indicating an alarm will be determined while analysing the data and configuring the system. For the calculations a quasi steady tool is used rather than a tool which is based on time domain simulations. Since only time averaged values rather than instantaneous values are required to determine whether a line is broken the latter is too time consuming. In preparation of the project, for a spread moored FPSO the wind, current and drift loads were calculated with a quasi static dedicated tool and by using time domain simulations from anysim. The results show that the differences are sufficiently small for the intended purpose of the tool anysim Script Current Force [kn] Wind Force [kn] Mean Drift Force [kn] Mean Total Force [kn] Figure 7 Comparison between results of quasi steady and time domain simulations

14 LifeLine version Software development (Phase B) The methodology will be implemented in a tool which is applicable for onboard applications. This means that the tool shall be reliable, robust and user friendly. Measurement error handling shall be implemented to ensure no false alarms are provided. False alarms are reducing the alertness of the crew in case an alarm is occurring originating from an incident. An example of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) is shown below. Installation and operation manuals will be provided with the software. The software tool to be developed can be installed on multiple floating production systems and is not bound by licenses. LifeLineOnboard Dry mooring line failure alarm system MARIN v Offset North [m] Wave Direction Height Hs Period Tz deg m s Wind Direction Velocity deg kn Offset South [m] Current Direction Velocity deg kn Vessel draft Bow Stern m m Heading 42 deg Measured turret position Calculated turret position Calculated offset 8.8 m Measured offset 8.2 m Home :45:12 Offset overview Environment GPS heading ALARM Mooring loads History Log Configuration acknowledge Figure 8 Outline proposal of GUI dry mooring line failure alarm system (turret moored FPS) 3.4 Software verification and validation (Phase B) Within the project the application of the LifeLine monitoring system including onboard software tool will be installed and tested in an offshore environment onboard of two FPSO s, one spread moored FPSO and one turret moored FPSO. One year monitoring and data analyses will be part of the scope. Currently the implementation of a dry mooring monitoring system for the potential candidates are being discussed with the operators. The LifeLine monitoring system comprises as a minimum of one laptop system including interfacing to the existing DGPS system, existing loadmaster system and the existing environmental system (wind, waves and current). Hardware, installation and travelling costs will be paid for by the project. If the existing DGPS system is not sufficiently accurate, a DGPS system with correction signals will be installed onboard as part of the LifeLine project. The corresponding hardware and installation costs will be paid for by the project. The correction signals will be paid for by the FPSO operator. After the oneyear monitoring campaign, the monitoring system will become property of the FPSO operator. If the existing DGPS system is sufficiently accurate and can be used by the project, the operator will receive one year participation fee. At least one FPSO shall be accompanied by an environmental monitoring system comprising a wave/current buoy. The purpose of these measurements are to be able to validate the wind and current coefficients. Moreover, by comparing the measured and calculated offset in a consistent manner the accuracy of input parameters, such as the wind and current coefficients and the quadratic transfer functions for wave drift forces

15 LifeLine version can be verified. This will provide feedback to the FPSO designers and reduce the total uncertainties in the calculation.

16 LifeLine version DELIVERABLES The following deliverables will be provided during the project for the different tasks: 4.1 Screening study and guidelines (Phase A) Monitoring system guidelines will be provided showing for various areas (West Africa, GOM, Australia, Brasil and Northsea) the environmental conditions to be measured which allows to accurately determine of a spread and turret moored floating production system whether a line has been broken. It also shows the required accuracy of the environmental condition measurements and the various systems which can be chosen to monitor the environmental conditions. The report will discuss the pro and cons of different measurement systems, such as a wave buoy, wave radar and ADCP. 4.2 Methodology development (Phase B) The methodology will be described in a report. This report provides a summary of the analyses that will be conducted and how the results will be presented. The report will also address how wind and current coefficients and drift forces will be addressed and presented. This report will also show the general implementation of the separate calculation modules and verification of the system. 4.3 Software development (Phase B) A tool for onboard use, developed in Microlab program, will be provided including installation and operation manuals. The software does not have a license and can be installed on multiple FPSO s. One Microlab dongle (1,200 Euro) will be provided to each participant to run the software. 4.4 Software verification and validation (Phase B) During the project, two prototype systems will be developed. One system will be installed on a turret moored unit and one on a spread moored FPSO. For each of these measurement systems, an instrumentation report will be issued. During the measurement campaign, quarterly reports with measurement statistics will be provided adding up to a total of 8 measurement reports. Watch circle calculations will be performed for the two prototype systems. A report will be issued which describes the analyses for these systems. This report will show the expected effect of different loads (wind, waves and current) on the total loads on the mooring system. After the one year monitoring campaign, a report will be provided which includes a summary of the measurement statistics and discussion of the system performance. The system specific implementation of the general methodology will be discussed. This includes an overview of the available measurements and how they are processed. This report will also address the calculation of wind and current coefficients, mean drift force characteristics and correlation studies. On top of all deliverables, a report summarizing the achievements of the project will be provided.

17 LifeLine version PROJECT ORGANIZATION Phase A and Phase B of the project will run for 1 and 2.5 years respectively. The proposed project schedule is shown in Table 2. The purpose of the two phases rather than one is to allow operators to make a thought out decision during Phase A with regard to joining the second larger Phase B of the project and with regard to possibly providing their FPSO as a candidate for the project. A second purpose is to ensure that the candidate FPSOs selected for the full scale validation will be appropriate to reach the objectives of the project. In Phase A of the project an analyses study will be performed for maximum two FPSO s for each operator joining Phase A of the project. There is no obligation for the operators to nominate their FPS, which has been analysed in phase A of the project, for the second phase of the project. Neither does participation of phase A oblige the operator to also participate in phase B of the project. Phase Task Activity Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Kick off meeting A 1 Screening study and guidelines Analyses Reporting B 2 Methodology development Methodology Design coefficients Reporting 3 Software development Software specification Software development Software installation onboard Reporting 4 Software verification and validation Table 2 Project schedule System design and procurement Monitoring system 1 Monitoring system 2 Measurement processing Wind and current force coefficients Reporting There are two project meetings per year which will be held during the FPSO JIP week ( at the beginning of Q2 and Q4 of each year. The final meeting will be during Q2 in 2019.

18 LifeLine version COST AND INCOME 6.1 Costs Table 3 and Table 4 show the envisaged cost for Phase A and Phase B of the project. Table 3 Project costs Phase A B Task Management Screening study and guidelines Management Methodology development Software development Software verification and validation Contingency Costs [keuro] Table 4 Sum project costs Phase A Phase B Total Total costs [keuro] Income The Phase A participation fee for oil companies, contractors and yards equals 10 keuro. The participation fee for classification societies, authorities and small sized companies equal 7.5 keuro. MARIN will pay 20.8 keuro for Phase A. An example of the project income for Phase A is shown in Table 5. Table 5 Project income Phase A # Company Fee [keuro] Number of companies Fee Phase A [keuro] 1 Oil companies, contractors and yards Classification societies and authorities MARIN % TKI subsidy 16.7 Total 110 The invoice for phase A will be sent in November Payment within 60 days to allow participants to pay only in The yearly participation for oil companies, contractors and yards for Phase B equals 15 keuro. The yearly participation fee for classification societies, authorities and small sized companies equal 7.5 keuro. MARIN will pay a yearly participation fee of 43.3 keuro. An example of the project income for Phase B is shown in Table 5.

19 LifeLine version Table 6 Project income Phase B # Company Yearly fee [keuro] Total fee [keuro] Number of companies Fee Phase B [keuro] 1 Oil companies, contractors and yards Classification societies and authorities MARIN % TKI subsidy 67.3 Total 490 Invoices for Phase B will be sent in November 2016, November 2017 and November The new initiative has been presented at the FPSO research forum in Monaco in March 2014 and during the LifeLine open meeting in Busan (October 2014) and Delft (March 2015). In addition one to one meetings were held in the United States (Modec, SBM, ABS, Shell, Hess and ExxonMobil) and Europe (Total, Bluewater). Feedback obtained during the LifeLine meetings and one to one meetings have been included in this project proposal. The project will start in October Participation agreement The MARIN JIP participation agreement will be used for this project. Each Participant signs this agreement with MARIN. At the end of Phase A, each Participant can terminate the agreement without any further obligation or payment for Phase B. Both Phase A and Phase B will be conducted when 80% of the required funding is confirmed.

20 LifeLine version REFERENCES [1] Industry Survey of Past Failures, Pre-emptive Replacements and Reported Degradations for Mooring Systems of Floating Production Units, Fontaine, Kilner, Carra, Washington, Ma, Phadke, Laskowski and Kusinski, OTC-25273, 2014 [2] A Historical Review on Integrity Issues of Permanent Mooring Systems, Ma, Duggal, Smedley, L Hostis and Shu, OTC-24025, 2013 [3] Report A JIP FPS mooring integrity [4]. Offshore monitoring: Real world data for design, engineering and operation, van den Boom, Koning and Aalberts, OTC [5] Deepwater Mooring System Monitoring with DGPS, Minnebo, Aalberts and Duggal, OMAE , 2014