1 / 37

Houston Marine Insurance Seminar September 17 th , 2007

Houston Marine Insurance Seminar September 17 th , 2007. T. T. “Tommy” Laurendine, P.E. Risk Engineer Liberty International Underwriters tommy.laurendine@libertyiu.com (713) 470 – 5823. Role Offshore Structural Engineering Plays in Understanding Risk.

kuri
Download Presentation

Houston Marine Insurance Seminar September 17 th , 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Houston Marine Insurance Seminar September 17th, 2007 T. T. “Tommy” Laurendine, P.E. Risk Engineer Liberty International Underwriters tommy.laurendine@libertyiu.com (713) 470 – 5823

  2. Role Offshore Structural Engineering Playsin Understanding Risk

  3. Gulf Of Mexico (GOM)RISK is from hurricane WAVES

  4. GOM National Treasure 4,000 platforms 35,000 miles of pipelines 15,000 wells 2 Million BOPD 12 Billion SCFD 2nd Largest Source of Income

  5. Platform Installations and Removals by Year Average Number of Platforms: Installed = 132 per year, Removed = 129 per year Data as of 04/17/07

  6. GOM Structures by Vintage andWater Depth(DATA AS OF JULY 1, 2007)

  7. Destroyed by Hurricane Ivan Wave-in-Deck Mudslide Wave-in-Deck Wave-in-Deck

  8. Storm Tracks and Extent of Hurricane Winds

  9. Moored SEMIS Adrift in RITA Before Rita

  10. Platform Destroyed by Drifting SEMI

  11. Tension-Leg Platform (TLP) Destroyed by Waves in Hurricane Rita

  12. Platforms Destroyed by Katrina / Rita

  13. Increased Cost of DecommissioningIncreased Demand on Resources

  14. GOM: Unique Challenge

  15. API Exposure Categories based on Life Safety and Environmental Pollution • High Consequence • Medium Consequence • Low Consequence

  16. Platform Characteristics • Deck Height • Orientation • Exposure Category • Framing • Original Design Criteria • Structure Type • Age • Water Depth • Number of Conductors • Location

  17. Deck Height vs. Air Gap Underside of Deck Deck Height Waterline

  18. Wave-in-Deck Damage

  19. Inadequate Deck Heightdue to Subsidence The seafloor at this location has subsided 10 feet. The (+)10 is at the waterline.

  20. Platform Orientation

  21. Platform Orientation 300O Platform North 360O True North API BULLETIN 2INT-MET Principal Wave Heading is 290O for this platform.

  22. AGE Pre RP 2A 7.6% Failed Early RP 2A 2% Failed Modern RP 2A 1.5% Failed

  23. Mitigation • Reduce Consequence of Failure • Reduce Load on Platform • Increase Strength of Platform Before After After 54’ 40’

  24. Why Mitigate? Driving force to mitigate was to reduce the chance of having to spend resources dealing with the expensive task of P&A wells on bottom.

  25. Contingent Business Interruption

  26. API HEAT WORK 290° 270° Principal Wave Heading varies from 270o to 345o by Longitude

  27. Five New Recommended Practices

  28. Maximum Wave Height by Return Period 130.0 120.0 110.0 10000 Year 100.0 2000 Year 90.0 1000 Year 80.0 200 Year Hmax (ft) 100 Year 70.0 50 Year 60.0 25 Year 50.0 10 Year 40.0 30.0 20.0 100 1000 Water Depth, MLLW (ft)

  29. Fixed Structure Wave Force = f(Hmax)2 28% increase in wave height = 64% increase in wave force Structures are typically designed to have a resistance 50 to 67% beyond the design load. 130.0 120.0 110.0 100.0 90.0 0.1% 80.0 Hmax (ft) 1% 70.0 28% 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 100 1000 Water Depth, MLLW (ft)

  30. Schedule Issues • Inconsistent Format • Field Name versus Area and Block • Naming • EC, East Cameron, East Cam, E. Cameron • Out of Date Information • Removed platform included in schedule • New Installations not included • Missing Data • Deck Height • Type of Structure • Incorrect Data • Lat/Long Wrong • Wrong Water Depth • Wrong Installation Year

  31. Standardize Schedule Format • OSTS Inspection Report • Required by CFR, Annually on Nov 1st • Since 1988 • Each Platform Documented • OSTS Assessment Report • Requested by NTL • Over 75% of platforms documented with the MMS in June 2004 voluntarily by Operators • Complex Id and Structure No. Unique

  32. OSTS Inspection Report

  33. OSTS Assessment Report

  34. Key Stakeholders Risk Manager Adjuster Broker Schedule & Data Risk Engineer Underwriter

  35. Benefits of Standardized Schedule • Consistent Format • More Timely Underwriter Response • More Accurate Insurance Policy • Reduce Burden on ALL Stakeholders • Greater Communication • Improve Our Business

More Related