J Mar Sci Technol (2002) 7:5970

Review article
FPSO/FSO: State of the art
Yoshihide Shimamura
MODEC Inc., 4-2-8 Kohinata, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0006, Japan

Abstract Floating productions systems have been utilized in

remote offshore areas without a pipeline infrastructure for
many years. However, they have become even more important with the push by the offshore industry into ever deeper
waters. Floating production, storage, and offloading/floating
storage and offloading (FPSO/FSO) systems have now become one of most commercially viable concepts for remote or
deep-water oilfield developments. In this article, the advantages of FPSO systems are explained, and their present status
of maturity and utilization around the world is reviewed. Recent trends in mooring systems, hull construction, safety, and
operational issues are summarized from a technical viewpoint.
Finally, the technical challenges and future prospects of two
significant growth areas, i.e., gas-field development and deepwater development, are discussed.
Key words FPSO Oilfield development Mooring system
Deep water

1 Introduction
1.1 What is an FPSO system?
In recent years, offshore oilfield developments have
been moving toward deeper water and more remote
areas, and now these fields are located in water depths
of over 5000 feet, which were once thought impracticable to develop economically. In addition, the fast
diminishing rate of discovery of new giant fields, the
so-called big elephants, necessitates the development of
the smaller oil fields. The FPSO system is one concept
that can lower the minimum economic field size, and
make possible the development of these small or remote oil fields in deeper water.

Address correspondence to: Y. Shimamura

(shimamura@modec.co.jp)
Received: June 24, 2002 / Accepted: July 17, 2002

As the abbreviation shows, the FPSO system has

the functions of (Floating) Production, Storage, and
Offloading, and Fig. 1 shows a typical layout of an FPSO
system.
The FPSO system receives the fluid from the undersea oil reservoir via flexible risers through a turretmounted swivel, and the fluid is then separated to oil,
gas, and water by the process equipment, and usually
packaged into modules and secured on the deck of
the vessel (production function). The separated oil is
stowed in the vessels tanks (storage function) for periodic offloading to a shuttle tanker (offloading function)
using a floating hose arrangement. An FPSO system has
production facilities on deck and large storage tanks in
the hull, as shown in Fig. 1.
In addition to these functions, the FPSO system has
other functional components to ensure that the unit can
be operated safely offshore. These components are the
mooring system and turret that are required to keep on
station, the riser system and swivel that are required to
receive the fluid, and the safety and utility systems to
support continuous operation offshore.

1.2 Why an FPSO system?

FPSO systems have several features that offer advantages in the development of a marginal oilfield, and
these are itemized below.
Adaptability for water depth. Inherence in the nature
of floating structures is their adaptability for a wide
range of water depths. The concept of an FPSO system
was introduced in 1974 in a water depth of 43 m, while
today FPSO systems have been installed in water depths
of 1400 m. The cost increase for mooring an FPSO system in ultra-deep water (1500 m3000 m) is less than
that for conventional fixed structures or tension leg
platforms (TLPs).

60

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a floating

production, storage, and offloading (FPSO)
system

Early deployment. The construction of FPSO systems,

including the integration of process facilities, is carried
out in shipyards, and is completed prior to leaving the
shipyard. This approach minimizes the construction
time since the fabrication of facilities is done in parallel
with, and independently from, the construction or
conversion of the vessel. If proper attention is paid to
precommissioning, this also minimizes the commissioning phase at the offshore installation site. Therefore, the
project cycle time (the period from project sanction to
the first oil) is much shorter, and there is less risk of not
keeping to the schedule than with fixed structures and
with some TLPs that have to be mated near the shore or
offshore.
Self-contained. As FPSO systems have an inbuilt storage capability in the cargo tanks, it is not necessary to
build long, expensive pipelines to an existing infrastructure. Therefore, a remote oilfield, where there is no
nearby pipeline network, can be developed by an FPSO
system with minimum capital expenditure (CAPEX)
and an enhanced project cycle time.
Movable and relocatable. Once an oil reservoir is
depleted, an FPSO system can easily be relocated to
another field at less cost. This will only require disconnection of the riser and mooring systems. After minor
modifications and/or dry-dock overhaul, the FPSO system can be installed in the next oilfield by connecting a
newly installed mooring system. This feature gives a
major financial advantage to the operator, as the capital
cost of the vessel and its facilities can be allocated to

several projects, which greatly enhances the economics

of marginal fields.
Variable combinations with other facilities. An FPSO
or floating storage and offloading (FSO) system can be
used with or without combination with other facilities
such as a fixed wellhead platform, a subsea tree, TLPs,
floating production systems (FPS), etc. Therefore, the
FPSO system can be used for various field development
options. Figure 1 shows an example of oilfield development using an FPSO system with subsea trees and
manifolds.
Crude oil market expanded. With the use of FPSO
system, there is the distinct advantage of being able to
sell the crude oil to different markets, and thus being
able to realize the best possible price for each barrel in
current market conditions. The use of pipelines as the
offtake mechanism often dictates where the product
must be sold, and this is often at a lower price per barrel.
Segregated storage. The cargo tanks in the FPSO system allow segregated storage of different crude oils
from different oil wells on the same vessel, and thus
might avoid the problems and price penalties associated
with mixing crude of different quality. This is especially
important when dealing with third-party production
situations.

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

61

Fig. 2. Growth in the use of FPSO systems

Fig. 3. Changes in the water depth in which

FPSO systems are used

2 The FPSO/FSO system fleet around the world

2.1 Historical change
The first FPSO systems were installed in the Ardjuna oil
field in Indonesia in 1974, and the Castellon field in
Spain and the Garoupa field in Brazil in 1976. Since
then, the number of FPSO systems have increased, as
shown in Fig. 2, and now over 70 units are operating
worldwide.
During the 1980s and until the middle of the 1990s,
the increase in the number of FPSO installations was
slow, and the system was primarily used for temporary
early production purposes, until the permanent facilities were installed. The early use of FPSO systems was
limited to shallow water (less than 150 m) and milder
environments.
During the mid-1990s, the superior features and operating advantages of the FPSO system for deeper water
applications in more severe environments was recognized, and the number of FPSO systems began to grow

significantly. Figure 3 shows the pace of change of FPSO

system applications in increasing water depths. From
this figure, it is clear that the FPSO system could become the concept of choice for many deep-water oilfield developments. In addition, technical advances in
the areas described below supported the speed of this
change.
Mooring system design. The main progress in mooring system design is in the area of analysis tools, the
development of polyester mooring lines, and the development of various different types of anchor. Analysis
tools for mooring systems have advanced and been validated through model tests and field experience, and
now analysis packages are readily available and are
validated as for engineering tool. For mooring systems,
various configurations have been invented and adopted.
Although a few other configurations are still available,
the majority of recent developments are based on three
primary systems, i.e., the internal turret mooring sys-

62

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

Fig. 4. Geological locations of FPSO installations. FSO, floating storage and

offloading; TLP, tession leg platforms

tem, the external turret mooring system, and the conventional spread mooring system. The reasons for this
change will be discussed in a later section.
Riser system. For riser systems, the advance in analysis
tools is similar to that for mooring analysis tools. In
addition, the material and construction of flexible risers
is now more fully developed, and larger-diameter
products are available for ever-increasing water depths.
Also, various configurations of risers have been developed and used in order to accommodate different design considerations, such as the need for multiple risers,
and varying environmental conditions, such as shallow
or deep water, a harsh environment, etc.
Hull structure. The advance in hull structural analysis
is an application of site-specific design conditions. As
the FPSO system will be stationed on-site for several
years, it is reasonable to use site-specific environmental
criteria for hull structure design instead of applying
the traditional design criteria for conventional merchant vessels, which have typically been for the winter
season in the North Atlantic. For example, for benign
areas such as the South China Sea, the hull scantlings
can rationally be reduced by this site-specific design
approach. Classification societies are now accepting
this approach, which will be beneficial for design
optimization.
Drilling and production technology. The drilling and
production technology of the petroleum industry supports the deployment of FPSO systems. One technological advance has been in the design of the subsea
wellhead, which has improved reliability. In addition,
directional drilling and horizontal-well technology has

minimized the number of wellheads needed. Therefore,

a widespread oil reservoir can be developed from a
central facility, i.e., the FPSO installation, without scattered wellheads.
2.2 Geological location
Figure 4 shows the geological distribution of floating
production systems throughout the world, including
TLPs, SPARs, and FPS and FSO systems, and a brief
overview of each area is given below.
In the Oceanic Area, which includes South East Asia,
China, and Australia, FPSO systems have been used
from the early days because of their geographic remoteness from the consumer country, and lack of infrastructures such as pipeline networks. The environmental
conditions of these areas are very suitable for FPSO
systems, with the exception of typhoon alley. There are
some disconnectable mooring systems in service in
Chinese and Australian waters so that evacuation is
possible in the event of an incoming typhoon or cyclone.
However, because of their mechanical complexity,
disconnectable mooring systems have become a less
preferred option.
In West Africa, also because of remoteness from
the major consumer country and lack of infrastructure,
FPSO systems are a very viable option. As there are no
pipeline networks in this area, it is essential to have
storage and offloading facilities for offshore oil-field
development. The environmental conditions are considered to be benign, and the predominant weather feature
is swell, which has clear directionality. Therefore, a relatively light mooring system, such as spread mooring, can
be used. Recently, there have been many newly discovered large oil reservoirs in deep water in this area, and

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

63

Fig. 5. Types of mooring systems

this will undoubtedly mean an increased demand for

FPSO systems in this region.
Brazil is in a similar situation to West Africa. It has
actively developed its offshore oilfields with FPSO
systems and subsea trees. In addition, there are many
semisub-based floating production systems as well as
the FPSO systems. This has been done in order to develop the fields in combination with subsea trees.
In the North Sea, many FPSO systems were installed
in the late 1990s. One of the main reasons was that the
merits of the FPSO system for oilfield development
were becoming well recognized by that time. Also, technical advances proved effective in providing reliable
mooring systems for harsh environmental conditions.
Another feature of this area is that there are short-term
chartered FPSO systems. This type of FPSO installation
stays in one field for several years, and is then relocated
to another field on completion of the charter contract.
The concept is especially suitable for small oilfield developments in mature regions. From a technical viewpoint, because of its harsh environment, only internal
turret mooring systems are being used for developments in this area. In addition, as the distance to the
main consumer ports is short, the required storage capacity is much smaller than in other areas.
In the Gulf of Mexico, approval of the United States
government (the Mineral Management Service, or
MMS) to introduce FPSO systems in their territorial
waters was only given on December 31, 2001, and that
was only for a generic development. Each specific development will have to produce its own environmental
impact study. There is no approval for an FPSO project
in this region as yet. Many TLPs and SPARs are being
used for deep-water development in the Gulf of
Mexico, but none have storage capacity, and therefore
these facilities use pipelines as their offtake method,
and are tied to existing pipeline networks.

3 Recent trends in FPSO/FSO systems

3.1 Mooring systems
Several different mooring systems have been invented
and used to date. Figure 5 shows some examples of
these.
In the early days, several mooring systems were introduced as the industry experimented to find the best
methods. Since then, FPSO systems have been used
in deeper water and harsher environments, and these
changes have driven the evolution and fine-tuning of
mooring systems for different applications.
Figure 6 is a chart of various mooring systems in
relation to water depth and wave height. For shallow
water less than 30 m, the tower-yoke type is preferable,
and for other water depths the external turret system is
preferable. Harsher and deeper environments usually
need an internal turret arrangement. The advantages of
the turret design are less mechanical complexity and a
minimum number of components. Figures 7 and 8 show
typical cross sections of internal and external turret
mooring systems.
Spread mooring is widely used in West Africa because of its low cost and the favorable environmental
conditions in this region. A swell with a long period is
the dominant wave condition, and this is highly directional. Therefore, spread mooring is the preferred
option. This is largely because of the small number of
mechanical components in such a mooring and riser
system. Since the vessels orientation will not vary, the
swivel can be eliminated. However, in the case of spread
mooring, the design of the offloading system is very
important owing to the interaction between the offtake
vessel and the anchor legs during an approach. England
et al.1 carried out a simple comparative study of some
typical applications of single-point mooring and spreadmooring systems in this region.
Disconnectable mooring systems were generally used
in typhoon alley, but recently, internal turret system

64

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

Fig. 6. Mooring systems and water

depth/wave height

Fig. 7. Internal turret mooring system

designs have been produced which are capable of remaining on-station during 100-year typhoon conditions.
Because disconnectable systems have a complex
mechanism for disconnection and reconnection, and
also because FPSO systems must maintained their
propulsion and navigation systems for sailing during
their operational period, CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) and OPEX (Operational Expenditure) become
very expensive. Therefore, new applications for discon-

nectable systems are currently limited to known iceberg

areas.
In relation to environmental data, it is now more
important to know its directionality. Anchor legs must
be arranged so as to maximize the effectiveness of the
mooring legs. For example, in the South China Sea,
northeast winds and waves are predominant in the
winter season, and southeast winds and waves in the
summer season. In this case, the mooring legs should be
arranged mainly in a northeast to southeast direction
instead of being equally spaced. The unequal grouping
of anchor legs was introduced to exploit this approach,
and Fig. 9 shows an example. The grouping arrangement is used not only to optimize the position of the
mooring legs, but also to provide a clear corridor for the
configuration of the risers. This arrangement is very
effective with multiple risers.
Stud chain had been used as anchor leg material
since the early days, but as FPSO systems moved into
deeper and rougher water, lightweight mooring legs
were required. The initial design was a combination of
wire, chain, and studless chain. For water depths of
more than 1000 m, synthetic fiber (polyester) rope was
introduced because of its superior strength to weight
ratio. To use synthetic fiber rope, a higher initial line
tension is applied and the restoring force is derived
from the elastic spring force of the synthetic fiber rope
rather than the catenary force (taut mooring system).
Figure 10 illustrates catenary mooring and taut mooring
systems. As a result of taut mooring, the anchor point
has an imposed vertical load. This has necessitated innovative new anchor-point designs such as the vertical
loading anchor (VLA) or the suction pile. These
anchoring systems have a much higher resistance to
vertical uplift force.

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

65

Fig. 8. External turret mooring system

Fig. 9. Arrangements of mooring legs

Fig. 10. Deep-sea mooring. VLA, vertical loading anchar

3.2 Newly built systems and conversions

As explained in Sect. 1, the FPSO system has a similar
function to that of trading tankers except for the process
(production) function. Therefore, many FPSO systems
have been, and still are, constructed by converting an
existing trading tanker.

A conversion has cost and schedule advantages. Although the purchase price of a tanker depends heavily
on the tanker market, there are several surplus fleets
available. A double-hull arrangement is not mandatory
for an FPSO system, except for some coastal areas, and
there are many single-hull tankers available because of
the recent requirement to phase out single-hull tankers.

66

In a conversion shipyard, extensive repair and lifeextension work can be carried out in parallel with
the integration of mooring and production facilities.
Redundant utility systems, such as the propulsion and
navigation system, can similarly be decommissioned.
The extent and schedule of conversion work will vary
depending on the field-specific design requirements. On
average, a conversion in a shipyard will take 1018
months, including commissioning activities.
Recent orders for FPSO systems require a lengthy,
continuous operating life at the field location, i.e., as
long as 15 years without dry-docking. In order to comply with this requirement, a thorough analysis of the
hull structure under specific environmental conditions
and a sustainable corrosion protection system are now
required. In addition, easy maintenance and rapid replacement of the utility systems is mandatory. In this
respect, a newly built FPSO system has advantages.
Although a newly built system requires a much higher
initial CAPEX and more time for the design and construction stages, it can be designed fit-for-purpose.
Further, the availability of shipyard space is another
consideration. Normal competent shipyards are busy
with traditional marine vessels, and dock availability is
limited depending on the state of the shipbuilding market. A newly built FPSO system will take about 1824
months for both design and construction.
To assess hull structures, classification societies have
developed sophisticated software for FPSO/FSO system
design assessment, based on site-specific environment
conditions. This has helped to rationalize structural designs for newly built systems. For conversions, an assessment of the existing structure is performed based on the
actual plate thickness, which is found by thickness gauging. To assess fatigue strength, the vessels accumulated
fatigue damage taken from its service records, is taken
into account. However, a thorough visual inspection by
experienced surveyors is very important, as localized
corrosion, pitting, and damage normally need to be
assessed.
The design of a corrosion protection system is a critical part of the structural design and integrity of FPSO
system. This is especially important for submerged
areas and tank linings. A failure in these areas caused
by corrosion will result in an extensive shut-down of the
FPSO system coupled with high repair costs. For the
submerged areas, the traditional corrosion protection
has been conventional coal tar epoxy-based paint systems. This has proved to be very effective. However,
there is a need to develop new paint systems which have
higher abrasion resistance and give more durable corrosion protection for the boot-top area. In addition,
ecofriendly and long-life antifouling paint needs to be
developed. For tank areas, coal tar epoxy-type paint
systems are generally used, and they work very effec-

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

tively. However, because of its dark color, and because

its main component is coal tar, which is a known carcinogen, coal tar epoxy-type paint is gradually being
replaced with modified epoxy-type paints in lighter colors. For this type of paint, special care needs to be taken
in surface preparation and paint application in order to
ensure a long life. In the case of conversions, thorough
removal of the existing paint and the application of a
new coating system with proper surface preparation and
coating application is essential in order to ensure the
performance of the anticorrosion coating. This will offset the cost and schedule advantages of a conversion,
but result in a longer operational period. Therefore, it is
necessary to develop reliable and sustainable coating
systems which are easy to apply.
3.3 Safety and environment study
Safety is a primary concern of all oil companies, and
it has taken on a much greater importance in recent
times. The requirements became more stringent after
the Piper Alpha incident in 1989, and subsequent recommendations by Lord Cullen in the Cullen Report.
Based on this report, the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published the Safety Case resum, which
announced a departure from prescriptive safety requirements to self-regulated safety requirements. The
operator is now required to identify, evaluate, and mitigate the risks of an offshore installation, and prepare a
safety management system. Application of the Safety
Case resum to FPSO systems has become mandatory
in several countries.
As part of Safety Case preparation, a formal safety
assessment (FSA) is conducted. The FSA starts with
hazardous identification (HAZID), and follows with a
coarse or qualitative risk assessment. Then a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is conducted using several
sets of statistical data on various possible types of
failure, such as leaks from flanges or vessel collisions.
Failure rates are multiplied by the consequences or
magnitude of the damage. The risk will then be assessed
according to the probability of failure and consequential damage. Normally, individual risk per annum
(IRPA) is used as the criteria for acceptance. If the
IRPA is less than 1 105, it will be considered to be
tolerable, but if it is higher than 1 103, it is then
considered not tolerable. In the case of intolerable risk,
mitigation measures are mandatory. If the IRPA is between 1 105 and 1 103, this region is called as low
as reasonably practicable (ALARP). In this case, mitigation measures are required, but if the cost of mitigation is excessively high, the mitigation measures are not
mandatory.
There are many high-risk areas is FPSO systems. One
of these is fire and explosion in the processing facilities

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

or cargo tanks. Figure 11 shows a sample QRA result.

This represents the potential loss of life (PLL) per year
and the contributing causes. In this case, the PLL was
calculated for all crew, including visitors. It can be seen
that a helicopter crash makes the highest contribution
to the PLL. Figure 12 shows the IRPA for each discipline. It is clear that there is a higher IRPA for marine
crew because of greater risks involved in small boat
operations. From these data, it is possible to identify
effective mitigation measures. The result of the QRA
will vary from one FPSO system to the other, and therefore the measures taken to mitigate risk will be different
in each case.

Fig. 11. Result of a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for

patential loss of life (PLL)

67

As a QRA depends heavily on the quality of the

statistical data, it is necessary to accumulate incident
records and provide a reliable database for future feedback into design and safety engineering.
3.4 Operation provider and technical integrity
Because of major downsizing by many oil companies,
outsourcing is becoming popular for every aspect of
their business. For FPSO/FSO systems, the outsourcing
of operations and maintenance is now a popular contractual option. The extent of service supply varies from
project to project. Examples of typical services can
range from supplying only catering or work-force-level
crew at one end of the scale, to being the service provider and supplying all staff and logistic services, in
addition to the lease of the FPSO system itself, at the
opposite end. The latter case is very similar to a time
charter for a merchant fleet. A lease contract of an
FPSO/FSO system without operations is another option, and this is similar to a bare boat charter for a
merchant fleet. There are pros and cons for each case,
and Yamada et al.2 describe the commercial and administrative aspects. Here, we review the technical aspects
of a time charter, i.e., the operations provider supplies
both the FPSO system and the operational staff.
The most important considerations for the operations
provider in this case are safety and ease of maintenance. Technical integrity is the key in these areas. Technical integrity means consistency throughout the entire
life of the FPSO system, i.e., the design, construction,
commissioning, and operational phases. It also means
consistency throughout the entire FPSO system.
For life-cycle technical integrity, the contractors normally design and construct the FPSO system to fulfill

Fig. 12. Result of a QRA for individual risk

per annum (IRPA). OIM, Offshore Installation Manager

68

the operators technical requirements. However, on delivery, the contractor and operator will part company
and sometimes the original design intent, or its basis,
will disappear. This kind of discontinuity can have a
crucial impact on overall safety and maintenance. Similarly, for the technical integrity of the entire FPSO system, if one part of the system is designed, constructed,
and operated without any consideration of the other
parts, these can again be serious repercussions.
To ensure technical integrity, several review sessions
are held during the project period with participants
from several disciplines. For example, during the design
phase, a design review meeting will be held with the
design engineers from both the operator and the contractor, and representatives from the construction supervisors and the operation team. The design review
meeting will identify the problems of safety, operability,
and maintainability prior to construction and operation.
During the construction phase, project review meetings
will be held to check the physical implementation of the
design and review any problems that have materialized.
This is also the right time to check operations and maintenance manuals against design intent, as well as the
competency and training programs for operational staff.
Although the Classification Society has a role as a third
party to ensure technical integrity, these sessions are
more oriented toward maintenance and operability.
In the case of a time charter contract, the contractor
will provide design, engineering, construction, commissioning, and operational services. This means that the
contractors engineering team is required to be heavily
involved in the eventual operations, as well as the operation team having input into the design and construction phases. Close communication is essential to ensure
eventual technical integrity. To support this technical
integrity program, a computerized database system
for document control is a valuable tool. As many
documents and drawings are generated and reviewed
throughout the project period, and all necessary information must be available during the eventual operations, the document control system is very important.
One successful method of document control is to compile the relevant information as part of a system-bysystem breakdown of the entire FPSO installation. This
means that each component or item of equipment of the
system will have a tag numbered, and its operation and
maintenance manuals, test reports, certificates, etc., will
be filed in a computerized database. Although one
bound hard copy needs to be delivered to the operations team as a back-up, the computerized system can
be accessed via the telecommunications network from
remote areas such as offshore and onshore bases. The
retrieval of essential information is very easy. As this
database will be generated and developed during the
project period, it will be helpful to communicate with

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

each discipline during the construction period, and it

should be kept running throughout the entire operational phase. It is important that this control system is
designed in, and operated from, the project phase with
the collaboration of both the engineering and the operational teams.

4 New frontiers in FPSO/FSO systems

4.1 Development of a gas field
As an alternative to crude oil, natural gas is expected
to be the next major energy source. Natural gas has
more recoverable reserves and is cleaner than crude oil.
However, for an offshore gas field development, the
transportation of the gas is the critical economical constraint. Gas cannot be stored in bulk at atmospheric
temperature and pressure. Where the gas field is located
close to the consumer, such as those in the Gulf of
Mexico, there are pipelines for tie-in and gas transportation. On the other hand, the development of remote
gas fields, such as those in Australia and West Africa, is
limited because of the lack of available pipelines. Current development schemes for offshore gas fields involve sending gas to an onshore liquefied natural gas
(LNG) plant, and transporting it to the eventual consumer by LNG carriers. However, as prospective gas
fields are found in deeper water and more remote areas,
the pipeline costs to an onshore facility becomes economically restrictive. Also, from an environmental
viewpoint, the emission of natural gas, or flaring, is now
prohibited. The eventual development of floating gasproduction systems is expected to be driven by these
restrictions.
As gas needs a large storage volume, it is necessary
to liquefy the gas in order to accommodate economic
volumes. There are several ways to liquefy gas, e.g.,
LNG, or transforming it from gas to liquid (GTL) or
methanol. There are many concepts for floating gasproduction system. One of these is the floating LNG
plant, which consists of LNG tanks and a liquefying
process plant on deck. Another concept is the floating
GTL or methanol system. In this system, an on-deck
plant transforms the gas into synthetic hydrocarbon
liquid or methanol, and the processed product is stored
in the tanks of the main hull structure.
There are several floating liquid petroleum gas
(LPG) storage systems, but these is no floating LNG
system or GTL system in production today. The major
issues to be resolved prior to the introduction of floating
gas production systems are explained below.
Safety. As the floating gas production system is a new
concept and involves handling a very dangerous prod-

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

uct, the entire system needs to be reviewed from a

safety viewpoint. Extensive safety studies must be carried out before and during the project to ensure technical integrity.
Isolation of storage tank. As with crude oil, natural gas
is highly in flammable and is also more difficult to contain. In the case of LNG, because of the low temperature needed, leakage in any tank boundary will cause a
serious safety problem, as with a trading LNG carrier.
Therefore, a strict evaluation of structural isolation is a
very important consideration.
Offloading system. For LNG, as the temperature of
the cargo is extremely low, special offloading hoses and
offloading systems are required. In addition, the receiving facility on the offtake tanker needs to be designed to
suit the specific offloading system being used.
Refinement of the processing facility. Current gas processing systems require considerable utility support,
such as electricity and cooling water. Processing equipment also occupies a large deck area. Therefore, the
design of a processing system requires special refinements in order to fit the marine operating environment.
4.2 Deep water
As many large reservoirs have been discovered in deep
water of over 1500 m, technical advances in deep-water
development are required. Currently, the technology is
available to develop systems in water depths in excess
of 1500 m, but such depths still present significant challenges. To develop systems in deeper water, the following issues need to be resolved.
Mooring system. The mooring system is a critical element of any permanently moored offshore installation.
There are tools for analysis, but the challenges lie
mainly with anchor-leg materials, anchors, and current
installation technology. Synthetic fibers will become
more widely used for anchor-leg material, and therefore
the fatigue life of synthetic rope needs to be improved
and verified. For the anchor, a VLA or suction pile will
be used in conjunction with synthetic mooring ropes.
The installation of anchors and anchor legs will be more
difficult in deep water. Technologies which include the
positioning, deployment, and installation of anchors
and anchor legs will be developed with advanced
remotely operated vehicles (ROV) and sophisticated
installation vessel.
Riser systems. Ensuring a reliable fluid path from the
seabed to the FPSO system is a very important consideration. The deepwater riser system will need to pro-

69

vide sufficient strength, flexibility, and insulation to

operate successfully. The conventional flexible riser has
limitations in deep-water applications because it might
collapse owing to the external pressure during installation, and sufficient length for production may not be
available. As an alternative to a conventional flexible
riser, and in order to overcome these disadvantages, the
steel catenary riser (SCR) is simple and is more easily
adapted to deep-water applications. However, in deep
water, insulation issues become more critical as the
length of the fluid path becomes longer and the fluid is
progressively cooled. Fluid flow problems can then
arise, such as the depositing of wax or the formation of
hydrates. This can be very serious after a prolonged
shutdown during operation. Therefore, the design and
construction of risers as well as the selection of materials are extremely important. A new concept which was
introduced in West Africa entailed combinations of
flexible and rigid risers. This system consists of a rigid
riser from the seabed to about 80 m below the water
sunface, and a flexible riser from this point to the surface. The lower rigid riser configuration is actually
a bundle of insulated rigid risers. These provide
better insulation and flexibility, and also improve the
maintainability.
Field development concept. A subsea wellhead is the
most popular current deepwater development, but the
maintenance and operation of the well are difficult. To
overcome the operational difficulties, a semisub-based
floating production system, TLP or SPAR, is used. The
latter two systems, TLP and SPAR, can accommodate
wellhead trees above the water surface because of their
minimal movement, but as they do not have any integral
storage capacity, they must be used in combination with
a pipeline or storage vessel for the transfer of the product. Therefore, any combination of FPSO, FSO, TLP,
SPAR, or semisub-based FPS systems will offer several
options to oil companies for the development of deepwater oil fields.

5 Conclusions
The current state of the art in FPSO system development has been reviewed, and new frontiers have briefly
been explained. As offshore oil and gas field developments are becoming more and more important, the
future of the FPSO system market is bright, with great
prospects for many new applications.
When I first worked on FPSO systems in 1983, there
were very few in existence and engineering knowhow was basically an extrapolation of existing tanker
and onshore-plant knowledge. Since then, the industry
has invented new technologies and accumulated the

70

necessary expertise to respond to the requests of the

oil companies. However, the technical challenges are
on-going, and it is still necessary to drive the industry
forward.
I hope that this article will help to increase current
understanding of the technical challenges facing FPSO
systems technology and the anticipated directions of
future developments.

Y. Shimamura: FPSO/FSO: State of the art

References
1. England LT, Duggal AS, Queen LA (2001) A comparison between
turret- and spread-moored F(P)SOs for deepwater field developments. Deep Offshore Technology Symposium 2001
2. Yamada K, Kawase M, Shimamura Y (1999) Marginal field
development by adopting FPSO lease contract. J Jpn Assoc Pet
Technology 64:527532