The CHAIRMAN explained in his introductory remarks that the theme of the programme was exploitation of oil and gas in water depths of about 300 to 600 m under North Sea conditions.

The authors' presentations, which were made consecutively without intervening discussion, were followed by brief statements from each of the four panellists, an extensive round table discussion among the platform group and a shorter question-andanswer period in which the audience participated.

This summary will cover all statements and discussion following the authors' presentations.

PANELLISTS' STATEMENTS Mr. THORNTON (BP, UK) noted that the papers covered concepts that appeared applicable for smaller (semi-spar) to larger (fixed platform) fields. In spite of these differences, they all represented ‘front-end technology’ that would have to be seriously considered by operating companies. The companies were faced with smaller fields and tight economics and needed sound and simple technology at the right price. Considering these industry needs, Mr.

THORNTON posed these questions to the authors:

  1. How firmly-based was the technology?

  2. How reliable were their ideas on costs?

What ideas did they have on future development and improvement of their concepts? Mr. WENNESLAND (Statoil, Norway) had questions or comments on each paper. * For Dr. WEIDLER:

  1. Why were no concrete or steel gravity platforms included in his figure (Fig. 2) on various platforms?

  2. What were-the relative advantages of self4ìoaters vs. the barge-launched type covered in the paper?

* For Dr. MERCIER: Requested comment on a recent Ofshore magazine article stating that Conoc0 had developed and were proposing design code changes that would result in reducing the TLP weight by 40%. * For Mr. BENTLEY:

  1. The semi-spar concept in the paper appeared much different than the floating platform proposed by Shell for development of the large Troll Field in Norway. Was this because of field size?

  2. The semi-spar concept seemed extremely complicated. Was it a realistic concept for the rough North Sea environment?

It was stated in the paper that the platform would comply with the strictest guidelines currently proposed for North Sea application. What kind of safety analysis had been made? * For Mr. BERTI:

  1. The paper mentioned a maximum depth for diving of 200 m. In connection with their ‘Statpipe’ project, Statoil had developed diving techniques for water depths down to 300 m and were testing them for approval by authorities.

  2. Pipeline repair, a key to u

This content is only available via PDF.
You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.