Summary.

This case summarizes

tension-leg platform (TLP) rigid riser
design considerations and presents
results of TLP riser analysis for a pro-
duction/injection riser in the North
Sea. Analysis methods, design cri-
teria, and design optimization are ad-
dressed. The riser is designed for
300-m water depth in compliance
with Norwegian regulations. Empha-
sis is placed on application of the
regulations and quantitative compar-
ison of alternative methods for
analysis of fatigue and extremes.
326
TLP Rigid Riser:
A Case Study
P.P. Rooney* and K.B. Engebretsen, Aker Engineering A/S,
and D.J. Pettersen, Saga Petroleum A/S
Introduction
This paper summarizes TLP rigid riser de-
sign considerations and presents results of
the TLP riser analysis. TLP functions in-
clude drilling, production/injection, and ex-
port through rigid risers. TLP design is most
sensitive to the many production/injection
risers. Such parameters as riser spacing, top
tension, stroke, and Pontoon clearance
strongly influence global dimensions and
deck spacing/layout.
Parameters used in this case study are
summarized in Table 1. Fig. 1 is a schemat-
ic of the TLP riser system. The design is
based on Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
regulations 1 and guidelines.
2
Criteria for
local design are summarized in Ref. 3.
Analysis Methods
Both frequency domain and time domain
analysis methods
4
,5 were used. Fatigue
analysis is primarily based on frequency do-
main and extremes on time domain. The
riser is a nonlinear dynamic system, and the
inaccuracy in using frequency domain (as-
suming constant top tension and using
stochastic linearization) is discussed below.
The approach adopted for extreme
responses is regular wave analysis. This
method was used to overcome uncertainty
in statistical extrapolation from an irregular
time simulation and, for efficiency, to enable
many design iterations.
Dynamic analysis was carried out without
introducing load factors. Load factors are
applied to responses when carrying out code
checks and when preparing design values for
component specifications (e.g., stroke
results).
Boundary conditions include TLP motion,
tensioner characteristics (see Stroke section)
and template/subsea wellhead interface (see
Components and Interfaces). The riser anal-
ysis included TLP offsets in the range cor-
responding to TLP extreme motions. 6
First-order response is included directly as
a transfer function in the riser analysis, and
all other TLP motion components are taken
into account by defming a range of riser
mean positions upon which the first-order
'Now with Conoco Norway Inc.
Copyright 1992 Offshore Technology Conference
response is superimposed. TLP setdown is
included at each timestep in the time domain
analysis.
Sensitivity and Optimization
As usual for deterministic design, an exten-
sive sensitivity study must be carried out.
The following were investigated: (1) wave
periods; (2) current velocity; (3) riser loca-
tion and geometric phase; (4) hydrodynamic
parameters, variation with depth, Reynold's
number,1, Keulegan-Carpenter's number, 1
and roughness; (5) annulus and tubing
fluids; (6) top tension and tensioner stiffness
characteristics; (7) TLP offset; (8) extent of
marine growth; and (9) TLP hull influence
on wave kinematics.
Quantitative sensitivity results vary widely
for the various responses along the riser, and
the resulting priority is influenced by those
responses that govern the design.
The rigid risers tend to be in conflict with
the overall TLP optimization on such param-
eters as top tension and riser spacing. Op-
timization, therefore, is an iterative process
carried out on the basis of the sensitivity re-
sults for both the risers and the TLP.
Handling and operational weather limita-
tions are most sensitive to riser spacing and
wellbay layout. These require early detailed
consideration because they are important to
TLP efficiency in service.
An alternative analytical approach to sen-
sitivity analysis and optimization with
probabilistic methods could be used where
quantitative sensitivity results are generated
directly in one analysis. This method has
been applied successfully to TLP tethers.
8
Extreme Stresses
Allowable tensile stresses in the riser wall
were checked against values in Ref. 2. The
Von Mises (combined) stresses were solved
with a minimum wall thickness, taking into
account corrosion/wear allowance and wall-
thickness tolerances. Ref. 9 is used for stress
calculations.
Compressive stresses also were checked
for load cases where axial stresses were low.
Local buckling checks did not lead to addi-
tional design requirements.
Extreme results vary considerably with
analysis method. An example is given for
March 1992 JPT
TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS USED IN OTC RISER CASE STUDY
Case study data
Mean sea level, m
Bottom of riser model. m
Riser spacing, center to center, m
Top of riser model, m
Pressure at top of riser, MPa
Top tension (including 1()()..kN surface wellhead and tree), kN
Tensioner stiffness (linear), kN/m
300
o
4
343
225
650
300
Material
X-S5 modified steel, yield, MPa
Density, kg/m
3
Production and injection tubing
00 (5
1
12 in.), m
ID,m
Riser joint and coupling
00 (9% in.), m:
ID,m
Joint length, m
500
7850
0.1397
0.1243
.. Coupling mass added ttl .standard joint, kg
0.2445
0.2205
12.5
60.0
Fluid properties
Annulus fiuid density, kg/m
3
Tubing fiuid density, kg/m
3
Riser coating and marine growth
Rubber coating (lO-mm) density, kg/rna
Everywhere
Copper-nickel (1 mm) denSity, kgim
3
Above elevation of 268 n\
Marine growth (20-mrn) density. kg/m
3
Below elevation of 268 m
HYdrodynamic parameters ...
Drag coefficient .
Below elevation of 280 m
Above
Inertia c o f f i c i ~ t
Everywhere
the bottom of the taper joint where fre-
quency domain, 3-hour extreme (extrapolo-
ation assumes a Rayleigh distribution) =481
kNm; time simulation, 30 minutes=772
kNm; and time domain, regular wave=
1044 kNm.
It is evident at this location that the fre-
quency domain results are seriously underes-
timating the response. This is mainly caused
by tension variations in the lower riser,
where the effective tension is of the same
order of magnitude as the tension increase
resulting from the tensioner stiffness.
Statistical extrapolation from the 30-min-
ute simulation result to a 3-hour maximum
based on a Rayleigh distribution gives a fac-
tor of 1.16 on the 772-kNm value. The fac-
tor found by comparison with the regular
wave result is 1.35. This is an indication of
the care necessary in using results from ir-
regular time domain analysis.
Fig. 2 shows the bending-moment enve-
lopes for the three analysis methods. The
above topics also are discussed later.
The extrapolation method used for water
particle velocity above mean water level is
an important factor. The regular wave analy-
sis result represents exponential extrapola-
tionS (considered very conservative),
whereas stretching method is used in the ir-
regular analysis. S Frequency domain re-
JPT March 1992
1025
10251600
1550
8300
0.5
,0.5
1.0
2.Q
suIts assume no wave loading above still-
water level.
Stroke
Table 2 is an example of stroke results and
use of load factors. The results are shown
for 300-kN/m linear tensioner stiffness and
top tension of 650 kN. The design load cases
included unlimited limit state (ULS) = 100-
year condition; progressive collapse limit
state (PLSi)= IO,OOO-year condition, riser
intact; and PLSdl = loo-year condition, one
of four tensioner cylinders out of action.
In addition to dynamic stroke, the follow-
ing effects are significant: tolerances/ space-
out, pressure range, and temperature range.
For this case study a combined value of
0.5 m is included to account for these effects
in the vertical-stroke requirement. For deck
height and layout, such additional factors as
Christmas tree height, tensioner size, neutral
position, and installation of tools on the riser
must be considered.
Two approaches to determining stroke-
range requirements are presented for this
case study.
First, if bottom-out and top-out are de-
fined as events whose probability of occur-
rence shall be less than 10 -4 per year, they
may be disregarded in local design. The cor-
responding stroke range for this case is 1.92
"Quantitative
sensitivity results vary
widely for the various
responses along the
riser, and the resulting
priority is Influenced by
those responses that
govern the design."
and is derived from load factors and analysis
results shown in Table 2.
Alternatively, a stroke range of 1.4 m may
be adopted on the basis of a combination of
serviceability and progressive collapse cri-
teria. The serviceability criterion is that bot-
tom-out and top-out are events whose prob
ility of occurrence shall be less than 10-
2
per year (100-year event or ULS results in
Table 2 without factors). The additional 10-
cal design criterion to prevent progressive
collapse in 10 -4 events is then a require-
ment for an energy absorption capacity on
the order of 0.25 MJ rather than the provi-
sion of the additional 0.5 m required above.
Fatigue AnalYSiS,
Frequency Domain
Fatigue analysis is a critical part of riser de-
sign ,and will set design requirements to top
tension, stress concentration factor (SCF) in
components, marine growth control, prein-
stallation inspection (quality control), and
material properties.
The target fatigue life is based on an
assumed service life and a design coefficient
of 10. The factor 10 is from Ref. 1 and cor-
responds to the riser being classified as hav-
ing major importance to structural integrity
and having no access for inspection. An ad-
ditional factor may be required, depending
327
Produclion Tre. _________ .
OTC INJECT. RISER,T=650 kN,
------- "
Of Is etc 20m, 100 yeor conditio.,45 deg
I I I I I I
)50
TLP Tr D ..... --------'==tR hf='----
TLP Service D.c" --==:C::J
f-
U
; r

l-
I/
-

-

'"
2
..
c:
2,.
0
..
,.

zoo
- -
....
RI r CouplI". ------.... e
150 f-
-
B
................. u ...... J ,,.
-
....., hu . fI .... JI _h
-
....-..... ,..t.,,. ..... J ,,,
100
T._ Joift.
SO
I- -
Sub ... WOII ......
.-
A
o
I
_-._0
---
I
noo 1000 lOG 100 400 zoo 0 - 100
Bending lIoment in KNm
Fig. 1-TLP riser system schematic.
Fig. 2-Bendlng moment envelopes for various analysis
methods.
on the level of corrosion protection nec-
essary.
In this case study an SCF of 2.5 is as-
sumed for couplings even though values
under 2 can be achieved. An SCF of 1.3 is
used for reference should a weld-on cou-
pling be chosen. Standard S-N curves (a plot
of stress range vs. number of cycles to
failure) as given in Ref. 10 are used ('B' for
parent metal in the coupling and 'c' for the
weld; no cut-off/threshold is assumed). The
results for this case study are summarized
in Table 3. Fatigue components caused by
first-order wave response, low-frequency
TLP motion, and vortex shedding induced
vibrations are estimated. Table 3 is based
on analysis using all sea states in the scatter
diagram, a cosine
4
wave spreading, and
eight wave directions. One linearization sea
state (h
s
= 4.5 m, Tp = 10.5 seconds) is
used to generate the stress transfer function
at each location investigated along the riser.
Upstroke\ ni 0;25
Downstrokil,Jl1 -:-0.65
toadfactor 1.3'
ExPnslOn and;.spac&-OUti m _ ..
1 x 3 + 4 m "
2x 3= downstroke, m-O.85
Design strokli!,range, m ... O.83 to -1.09=1:92
TABLE 3-FATIGUE RESlJL TS (LINEARIZATION SEA STATE.
hs =4.5 m, Tp =10.5 seconds)
'attgue Damagtnn fS --;
;.\ . at$d Esti .; .
,. '; " Estim m.
. Elitimated ..
1
l\!litlmated . oamage, ..
LocalionConeept Damage,_ 'pamage, " Vortex. Life ..
."'.A ... 'o..,;ng:::.,......R-'"is... er ___ {SCF{Curve) rlf$t .Ordef! seoond'1ill'der ! (Yta,f:s)
iTaperbottom. 1.3JB "0:01610.0024,. ([0008 780;
Mldwater threaded
-c<lupling
Midwater c<lupling
.weld
Splash-lOne
threaded coupling
Splash-zone
; coupling weld
328
2.SlB
1.31C
2.5JB
1.81C

0.0054
...
0:0032
0.0000 0.0021'<
960-

0.0000 0.0008

2,541)
0.0000 0.0014 l.83Ir .

"I
0J)003
i
4.350'
Table 4 shows results from a different
linearization sea state (h
s
=6.8 m, Tp =
13.0 seconds). Comparisons of Tables 3 and
4 show that the higher linearization sea state
introduces more damping, which, in the
lower part of the riser, results in increased
fatigue life. In the splash zone, drag is an
excitation force and the fatigue life is re-
duced correspondingly in this area for
linearization in a higher sea state.
The choice of linearization sea state,
therefore, is important; and, as shown by
comparison of Fig. 3 (distribution of h
s
)
and Fig. 4 (damage distribution of h
s
), the
proper approach is to use multiple sea-state
linearization. A typical North Sea scatter di-
agram has around 100 sea states with sig-
nificant levels of occurrence. Linearization
in each sea state is possible, but around 10
representative linearization sea states pro-
vide reasonable accuracy. The choice of sea
states and appropriate "windowing" of the
wave scatter diagram is important and
should include results along the riser. Anal-
ysis with many windows can be used to
calibrate simplified methods during design
development.
Fatigue Analysis, Time Domain
Variations in axial tension occur in a TLP
rigid riser and have been considered for par-
ticular sea states using time domain analysis.
Tension variations lead to axial stress cycles,
but there also can be a significant variation
in the cable stiffness of the riser during the
passage of a wave.
To quantify the influence of this, damage
in a 3-hour sea state is solved with the fol-
lowing methods: (1) frequency domain anal-
ysis and assuming a Rayleigh distribution
March 1992 JPT
F AT I GUE DAMAGE va. SIGN. VA VEI- I GHT
SIGN. WAVEHEIGHT PROB.DISTR.
o
01 )
(f)

U
Z

ex:
:::>
u
u
0
o
"-
CD !!!
ri
>- 0
o
0
Z

4.1,
1.1 "'lINEAAISATOI
N1 !:!
z
... 5,
6 5 LlNEARISATION
ex:
.Ii SASTATE
o
SEASTATE
w
m 8.5
to.'
1:
10.5
12.5
0

o
Taper-bottom Midwater
Fig. 3-Design field significant wave height distribution. Fig. 4-Fatlgue damage as a function of significant wave height.
of stress cycles, (2) irregular time domain
analysis with variable tension and a rain-
flow stress cycle counting method, 11 (3) as
Method 2 and stress cycle counting assum-
ing the stress peaks are mirrored about the
mean, and (4) as Method 2 and stress cycle
counting assuming the negative stress peaks
are mirrored about the mean.
Significant differences in results occur be-
cause of (1) different resulting standard
deviations in time domain vs. frequency do-
main (Tables 5 and 6), (2) different zero-
crossing periods (Tables 5 and 6), (3) non-
symmetry of the response (Figs. 5 and 6),
and (4) non-Rayleigh probability distribu-
tion of stress cycles (Figs. 5 and 6).
Table 5 shows significant differences un-
der Items 1 and 2 above when comparing
time vs. frequency domain. Item 3 is also
seen in Figs. 5 and 6 to be a significant fac-
tor contributing to this difference. The in-
fluence of Item 4 is less significant except
in the splash zone, as seen by comparing re-
sults from Methods 2 through 4.
Table 6 is for a higher sea state where
hs = 6.5 and Tp = 13.0 seconds. In this case
Items 1 and 2 are in good agreement. How-
ever, the resulting damage is reduced in the
time domain in this case, thus reversing the
trend in Table 4.
The comparisons reported here are incon-
clusive. However, the main point is to high-
light the possibility of using time domain
methods for calibration of frequency domain
results. Time domain is not a practical de-
sign tool for fatigue analysis because of
computer-time requirements.
It is interesting to note in the time domain
that rain-flow cycle counting is close to
Methods 3 and 4 away from the splash zone
and consistently gives less fatigue damage.
"Negative stress peaks symmetric"
(Method 4) is consistently worse.
Interference
Interference is an important factor to con-
sider for riser spacing and layout. Inter-
ference places restrictions on dynamic
similarity between risers. The drilling riser
JPT March 1992
and the production/injection risers should
have similar natural frequencies to minimize
relative motion. Results for intact risers,
therefore, are sensitive to top tension.
Spacings of 3 to 5 m are feasible depend-
ing on the concept and location; however,
margins to export risers should be greater
to minimize progressive damage potential
in the event of tensioner failure. The spacing
to the pontoons also should be greater.
Weather limitations for riser running also
is an important consideration and is much
improved with increased spacing.
Frequency domain analysis is used to car-
ry out interference analysis. The critiera are
no impact in the lOO-year storm (i.e., most
probable maximum relative motion in 3
hours does not allow contact) and no pro-
gressive collapse for the maximum impact
velocity solved in PLSi or PLSdl conditions
as defined previously.
"The choice of sea
states and appropriate
'windowing' of the
wave scatter diagram
Is important and should
Include results along
the riser."
Should impact occur, post-impact analysis
is necessary to evaluate progressive col-
lapse. The relative motion of the risers is
assumed to be a Gaussian process and the
impact velocity is estimated from
V max =u
v
.J2 In N-(Z/uZ)2, ..... (1)
where V max = most probable maximum im-
pact velocity, u v = standard deviation of
TABLE 4-FATIGUE RESULTS (LINEARIZATION SEA STATE.
hs =6.8 m, Tp = 13.0 seconds) .
Patfgue Damage in 15 Years .
Estimated
Estimated Estimated Damage,
location Concept Damage, Damage, Vortex
Along Riser . (scflCurve) First Order Second Order Shedding
Taper bottom 1.3/6 0.0086 0.0024 0.0008
Midwater threaded
coupling 2.5/B 0.0084 0,0000 0.0002
Mldwater coupling
weld .1.3IC 0.0036 0.0000 0.0006
Splash-zone
threaded coupling 2.51B 0.0114 0.0000 0.0014
Splash-zone cou-
piing weld 1.3/C 0.0047 0.0000 0.0003
Estimated
Fatigue
Life
{Years)
1,270
1,435
3,615
1,180
3,000
329
Taper-bottom Bend.Strs UPa
Global Maxima 30 min
Toper-bottom Bend.Strs MPo
Clobol Minima 30 min ToI.Obs.23I,Hsa . 5111.T,aIO.5s
_
:: r-----"r------r=r-::---..... ----r-----r-,----.
c: ...
..
"" ...
-
...
.Q ...
..
.0 ..
.. ...
.
CL ...
..
...
...
...
...
-
.....
'.5
..
C> ..
"'a.0 '.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.' 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.' Number Of Standard Oeviotio.,
Number Of Standard Deyiations
Fig. 5-Stress peak distribution at taper bottom, hs =4.5 m,
T p = 10.5 seconds.
Fig. 6-Stress negative peak distribution at taper bottom,
h s = 6.8 m, T p = 13.0 seconds.
relative velocity, N = number of zero cross-
ings for the relative velocity in 3 hours,
Z=mean separation in interference analysis,
and az=standard deviation of relative dis-
placement.
sign is very sensitive to tensioner-stiffness
characteristics; in addition, the worst-case
loading varies along the component. There-
fore, this is a component that requires much
optimization effort and restrictions will be
placed on characteristics of other compo-
nents in doing so (e.g., tensioner stiffness).
"Should impact occur,
postimpact analysis is
necessary to evaluate
progressive collapse."
Components and Interfaces
Interface data are critical for design of the
deck and template/subsea wellhead and,
therefore, are very important. The subsea
interface data may be required up to 3 years
before the riser is installed on projects where
predrilling is maximized and, therefore,
should include an appropriate contingency.
Riser coupling types for this size include
integrated threaded, weld-on threaded, and
bolted flanges.
All options are feasible, and preferences
will depend on specific project require-
ments. Integrated threaded couplings are ec-
onomically attractive; however, fabrication
limits on the thickness and length of the up-
set can make this solution marginal in some
applications. Detail design considerations
for threaded couplings are given in Ref. 12.
Flanges should be of a special design (e.g.,
compact flange type) optimized for this ap-
plication.
Taper bottom
Midwater
Splash zone
Taper bottom
Midwater
Splash zone
330
A taper joint is included in the production!
injection riser to minimize the stress ampli-
tudes in the production tubing. The length
is limited by handling and fabrication con-
siderations, with a reasonable limit around
18 m.
The profile requires design iterations con-
sidering both fatigue and extremes. The de-
Ref. 3 is recommended for further details
of components and for local design criteria.
TABLE 5-FREQUENCY/TIME DOMAIN FATIGUE COMPARISION, hs = 4.5 m, T p = 10.5 seconds
DAMAGE DURING 3-HOUR EXPOSURE (1.0/B) FACTORED BY 1 x 10
8
Frequency Domain
Standard Deviation Zero Crossing
Bend (MPa) Period
8.72 7.93
5.00 7.29
4.02 6.78
Damage
Rayleigh
76.1
11.6
5.2
Time Domain
Damage Calculation Method
Standard Deviation tero Crossing Rain-Flow Peak Positive Peak Negative
Bend (MPa) Period Counting Symmetric Symmetric
9.34 7.80 91.8 97.1 100.3
6.47 7.35 25.9 25.6 26.4
4.54 6.41 10.2 8.0 15.6
TABLE 6-FREQUENCY/TIME DOMAIN FATIGUE COM PARISI ON, hs = 6.8 m, T p = 13.0 seconds
DAMAGE DURING 3-HOUR EXPOSURE (1.0/B) FACTORED BY 1 x 10
8
Frequency Domain
Standard Deviation Zero
Bend (MPa) Period
11.58 9.67
5.41 7.89
5.48 7.58
Damage
Rayleigh
251.2
14.7
16.1
Time' Domain
'Damage Calculation Method
Standard Deviation Zero Crossing Rain-FIOV/ Peak Positive Peak Negative
Bend (MPa) Period Counting Symmetric Symmetric
11.64 9.53 166.2 169.6 182.4
5.61 8.08 13.3 14.4 13.8.
5.52 7.04 22.8 ..
March 1992 JPT
Conclusions
1. Riser interfaces are fabricated at an ear-
ly stage in a TLP project, so early progress
of the rigid riser design requires high pri-
ority to maintain economic options.
2. Time domain analysis is necessary for
analysis of extreme events.
3. Progressive collapse criteria signifi-
cantly affect the design.
4. Simplified analysis methods optimize
the number of design cycles. Maximization
of design cycles is important.
5. A TLP rigid riser system is sensitive
to many parameters, and, in addition, such
components as the tensioner and taper joint
are interactive.
6. Allowances for deviations from base-
case-riser assumptions should be maxi-
mized, as such will occur during detail de-
sign of components.
Nomenclature
h
s
= significant wave height
Tp = wave spectrum peak. period
References
1. "Regulation for Structural Design of Load-
Bearing Structures Intended for Exploitation
of Petroleum Resources," Norwegian Petro-
leum Directorate (Oct. 1984).
2. "Draft Guidelines for Design, Fabrication
and Installation of Submarine Pipelines and
Risers," Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(1988).
3. Alstad, O. eta!.: "SnorreRiserand Well Sys-
tems," paperOTC 6624 presented at the 1991
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
May 6-9.
4. FREECOM Program Manuals, Marine Com-
putation Services Inti., Galway, Ireland
(1988).
5. FLEXCOM Program Manuals, Marine Com-
putation Services Inti. , Galway, Ireland
(1988).
JPT March 1992
6. Martinsen, T.: "Hydrodynamics in TLP De-
sign," OMAE (1989).
7. "Rules for the Design, Construction and In-
spection of Submarine Pipelines and Pipeline
Risers," Det norske Veritas (1981) 64.
8. Rooney, P., Lereim, J., and Madsen, H.O.:
"Application of Probabilistic Methods for
Verification and Calibration of a TLP Tether
System Design Based on Partial Coeffi-
cients," OMAE (1989).
9. Sparks, e.S.: "The Influence of Tension,
Pressure and Weight on Pipe and Riser Defor-
mation and Stresses," ASME (1984) 106.
10. "Fatigue Strength Analysis of Mobile Off-
shore Units," Classification Note No. 30.2,
Det norske Veritas (Aug. 1984) 64.
11. de Jonge, J.B.: "The Monitoring of Fatigue
Loads," NatI. Aerospace Laboratory (NLR
MPOO7U) , The Netherlands, ICAS-paper
70-71.
12. Kirkemo, F. and Hessen, G.: "Structural De-
sign of Threaded Couplings for Potential Use
on Rigid Risers," OMAE (1990).
51 Metric Conversion Factors
bar X LO-
ft X 3.048-
Ibm/U.S. gal x 1.198264
quad x 1.055 056
psi x 6.894 757
U.S. tonf x 9.964 016
U.S. tonf-ft x 2.711636
'Conversion factor is exact.
Provenance
E-Ol = MPa
E-Ol = m
E+02 = Kg/m'
E+12 = MJ
E+OO = kPa
E+OO = kN
E+OO = kNm
Original SPE manuscript, TLP Rigid Riser:
A Case Study, received for review May 7,
1990. Revised manuscript received Jan. 3,
1992. Paper accepted for publication Jan.
8, 1992. Paper (SPE 20869) first presented
at the 1990 Offshore Technology Confer-
ence held in Houston, May 7-10.
JPT
Rooney Engebretsen
Phe"m p. Rooney holds a BE degree
from Unlve ... lty C. in Galway,lreland,
and an MS degree lrom Cranfield In$t.
01 TechnolOgy, U.K. He was seconded
to Saga Petroleum AJS, has worked with
the Snorrerlgld rise,. $Ince 1988, and
recently begalil workllil9 at Conoco Nor-
way.Knllt e .......... t .. nholds aBS
degree In mechanICal elil9lneerllil9 from
of Utah and MS degree$ln me-
chanICal and ocean e:nglneerllil9 from
the MusachuMtts lnat. of Technology.
He: is discipline supervisor for Troll
Phase 2, Basic Englneer11i19 for SUb-
atructure(Concrete Floater) atNor.
weglan COntracto .... Aker Engineering.
Dee ""'ell .ett-:een earned an MS
degree from the Norwegian Inet. of
Trondhelm. At Saga Petro-
leu", he Is responsible for suCh are&$ ..
global TLP enalysls,rlHr analy8l$, and
modelltestllil9forthe Snorre ProJect:
unavailable.) .
331