Fixed and Floating Offshore Structures: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Chiemela Victor Amaechi
,
Ahmed Reda
,
Harrison Obed Butler
,
Idris Ahmed Ja’e
,
Chen An

Diverse forms of offshore oil and gas structures are utilized for a wide range of purposes and in varying water depths. They are designed for unique environments and water depths around the world. The applications of these offshore structures require different activities for proper equipment selection, design of platform types, and drilling/production methods. There are advances made in ocean engineering which include a variety of innovative offshore structure designs, ranging from fixed platforms to floating platforms. Some of these structures include the deep-water semisubmersible platforms, jack-up rigs, floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs), FPS (floating production systems) units.

  • offshore structure
  • offshore platform
  • fixed platform
  • floating platform
  • oil and gas platform
  • production platform
  • drilling platform rig
  • coastal structure
  • marine structure
  • offshore facilities and subsea systems
  • review
  • offshore

1. Introduction

With the increase in the need for more energy sources, fossil fuel has recently had huge competition as a non-renewable energy source with other renewable energy sources. However, some of these newer platforms have extended technologies that stem from the existing offshore platforms used in oil and gas exploration. Currently, there are advances made in ocean engineering which include a variety of innovative offshore structure designs, ranging from fixed platforms to floating platforms [1][2][3][4][5]. Some of these structures include the deep-water semisubmersible platforms, jack-up rigs, floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs), FPS (floating production systems) units, floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) units, FSO (floating storage and offloading) units, FSU (floating storage units), FPU (floating production units), FDPSO (floating drilling production storage and offloading), MODU (mobile offshore production unit) and FLNG (floating liquid natural gas vessel) [6][7][8][9][10]. However, there are other applications for offshore platforms, such as dynamic positioning, exploratory activities, drilling/production, navigation, (un)loading ships, fluid transport, and bridge support [11][12][13][14][15][16]. Offshore petroleum structures are utilized for a wide range of purposes and in a wide range of sea depths and environments around the world, hence they need supporting attachments such as drilling marine risers [17][18][19][20][21][22][23], composite production risers [24][25][26][27][28][29][30], marine hoses [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] and mooring lines [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. 
Offshore platforms could be used as artificial reefs for many years, as they have also been used in a variety of aquatic environments. As a result, their design and upkeep are extremely difficult. Hence, it is pertinent that the design and maintenance of offshore structures are well considered, to prevent early decommissioning, high risks of corrosion, oil spillage, and other irreversible environmental damages. The applications of these offshore structures require different activities for proper equipment selection [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57], design of platform types [58][59][60][61][62][63][64], engineering management of well bores [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] and other drilling/production methods [74][75][76][77][78][79][80]. Offshore oil production is one of the most visible of these applications, and it provides a significant task to the product designer or offshore engineer [81][82][83]. The design considerations include environmental loadings [84][85][86][87][88], hydrodynamics [89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96], hydroelasticity [97], corrosion [98], failure analysis [99], ocean wave mechanics [100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108], fluid content loadings [109][110][111][112][113][114][115], fatigue limits [116][117][118][119][120], reliability [121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128], etc. Therefore, the designer must ensure that there is safety, stability, high fatigue resistance with a long service life. The design with that is safe, but cost must be considered; hence the designer should make it economical for the client. Generally, these offshore assets must operate safely for at least twenty-five (25) years (depending on the purpose of the offshore structure), because they are exposed to extremely severe marine environments and varying sea depths. Hence the designs are conducted by using peak loads provided during the platform design life by the hurricane wind and waves. Environmental conditions are also important in designing different offshore structures [129][130][131][132][133][134][135]. Also, there are more developments made in oceanography and environmental sciences that reflect in different designs of offshore structures [136][137][138][139][140][141][142]. The fatigue loads caused by waves over the platform’s lifetime and platform motion are all critical design issues considered in standards elaboration such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) [136][137][138][139][140][141], and Det Norske Veritas (DNV) [142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152]. Over time, these developed API standards have been revised to include hurricane conditions in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), adaptable in other seas [153][154][155][156][157]. Strong currents can sometimes hit the platforms, putting strain on the entire system’s integrity. Another challenge that oil corporations face is the project scheduling involving the length of time for the design and construction of these offshore assets. Furthermore, the size of these offshore structures is a consideration in designing their stability and hydrodynamics. 
Another consideration factored in the design is the material density. Most offshore platforms are fabricated in shipyards using massive steel, or in-situ using concrete, as seen in gravity-based structures. These offshore structures- both fixed and floating structures are mostly used for energy generation or oil production. Offshore constructions are meant to be installed thousands of kilometers from shorelines in the open sea, lakes, gulfs, and other bodies of water. Steel, reinforced concrete, or a combination of the two, may be used to construct these buildings. Most oil and gas platforms are produced from a variety of steel grades. These range from mild steel to high-strength steel, despite some earlier structures being made of reinforced concrete called the Concrete Gravity Based Structures (CGBS). Steel platforms come in different sizes and shapes, based on their intended function and, most importantly, the water depth in which they will operate [29][30][31][32][33][34]. However, proper failure analysis and reliability studies have to be carried out on these offshore structures. Offshore platforms are extremely hefty and among the world’s tallest man-made structures. Floating structures have been classified, based on water depths, such as shallow water (91–120 m and lesser than 91 m), mid water (121–305 m), deep water (306–1219.50 m) and ultra-deep water (1220.50–2285.69 m and greater than 2285.69 m). These offshore structures are available at different locations, from Offshore West Africa (OWA) to the Baltic Sea, the Persian Sea, the North Sea (NS) and the Gulf of Mexico (GoM). These seas have different oil companies and energy operators involved in offshore operations across different geographical locations. Presently, different oil companies have high impact oil wells as seen in some operators of various offshore platforms. 

2. Overview of Platform Installations

The historical development of different offshore platforms differ over varying timelines, as seen in designs, inventions and patents. This section presents the historical backgrounds of certain offshore structures, depending on the classification of the structure. In addition, these platform installations have evolved with different standards. In addition, various standard bodies have also evolved in the general design of offshore structures such as the following: API [158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170], DNV [171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181], Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL) [182][183][184][185][186] the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) [187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198] and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) [199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211]. Historically, most of the earlier offshore constructions had standards as bulletins, and they were developed over time. These standards ensure that the design of the offshore structure, including its attachments (such as the marine risers and the mooring system), as well as different dynamic effects (such as vortex shedding) are specified [212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219]. Today, there are more standards that are used for the design and analysis of offshore structures, oil and gas exploration, and production and extraction activities [220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231]. Table 1 shows an inventory of deep-water offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM).
Table 1. Inventory of deep water platforms in GoM; (Courtesy: BOEM, data retrieved in 2016).
Platform Sidetrack Subsea Well Sidetrack Dry Trees Well Amount Subsea Field
FPSO 1 (2) 2 (0) 1 1 (1)
Mobile offshore production units (MOPU) 6 (13) -- -- 1 -- (2)
Semisubmersible 32 (28) 22 (16) 9 6 (18)
Mini TLP 17 (17) 11 (16) 5 1 (6)
Tension Leg Platform (TLP) 51 (60) 123 (150) 10 8 (14)
Single Point Anchor Reservoir (SPAR) 34 (43) 133 (129) 16 13 (18)
Fixed Platform (FP) 47 (49) 630 (449) 50 49 (30)
Compliant towers (CT) 3 (1) 76 (46) 3 4 (2)
AGGREGATE 191 (213) 997 (806) 95 82 (91)
Statistically, the number of offshore platforms is not as high as that of land buildings such as high-rise buildings or sky-scrapers. However, some of these offshore platforms are taller than the tallest structures (such as high-rise buildings), although some of their lengths are underneath the sea. From the image illustrated in Figure A1, the tallest Truss SPARs (Perdido SPAR in GoM and Aasta Hansteen in Norway) has been compared along the tallest structures in the world such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) and the One Twin Towers in New York, United States of America (U.S.A.), NICOM House in Lagos, Nigeria, and ONE Shell Plaza in Houston, U.S.A. These structures were found to be tall but not quite as much as the depth of these offshore structures, as most of the structural length of the offshore structures lie under water. 
By function characterization, the fixed structures are fixed while the floating structures float [232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241]. Generally, a platform can be physically anchored to the sea floor in shallow water in some cases which is referred to as a fixed platform setup. The ‘legs,’ which extend down from the platform and are secured to the bottom with piles, are made of concrete or steel. The weight of the legs and seafloor platform on some concrete constructions is so vast that they do not need to be physically anchored to the seafloor and can just rest on their mass. These fixed, permanent platforms can be designed in a variety of ways. The main advantages of these platforms are their stability and minimal vulnerability to movement due to wind and waves because they are anchored to the sea floor [242][243][244][245][246][247][248][249][250]. However, these platforms cannot be used in ultra-deep water since the cost of construction columns (or legs) that are very lengthy is not economically viable. For ultra-deep waters, specific offshore platforms are designed and deployed in such cases. Although offshore platforms could be fixed or floating structures used, the size of an offshore platform can differ as well as the type of the platform and the water depth where it will be operating [251][252][253][254][255][256][257][258][259][260][261]. 
Based on platform classification, the selection of offshore platforms for any specific site is determined by the environmental and operational water depth where the oil and gas deposits are discovered. Hence, the following alternatives for the offshore fields were presented by Sadeghi [83], based on the environment and seawater depths:
(a)
Jack-up rig or Tender rig for extraction of oil/gas, drilling and templates (jackets) in water depths up to 150 m;
(b)
A semi-submersible drilling rig with a template (jacket) platform for extraction of oil/gas, at sea depths of 150 to 300 m;
(c)
A semi-submersible drilling rig with guyed-tower platforms for oil/gas extraction at depths of 300 to 400 m;
(d)
Semi-submersible drilling rig with tension leg platform or semi-submersible oil/gas extraction platform for water depths of 400 m to 1800 m;
(e)
Drillship rig with tension leg, subsea system, or spar platforms for oil/gas extraction in depths greater than 1800 m;
(f)
Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) are found operating in water depths ranging from 200 m to more than 3000 m [260] and depending on the environmental condition, they are maintained in position using either a spread or turret mooring system.

2.1. Floating Production Systems

Floating production systems are similar to semi-submersible drilling rigs, but they also include petroleum production equipment in addition to drilling equipment. Ships can potentially be utilized as floating manufacturing platforms. Large, heavy anchors or the dynamic positioning mechanism utilized by drillships can be used to keep the platforms in place. With a floating production system, the wellhead is attached to the seafloor rather than the platform once the drilling is completed. The extracted petroleum is delivered by risers from the wellhead to the semi-submersible platform’s production facilities. These production devices can work in up to 6000 feet of water.

2.2. Fixed Offshore Platform Design

Fixed Offshore Platforms such as the template type platforms made of steel are the most often used offshore platforms in the U.S.A.’s Gulf of Mexico, California shorelines, Niger Delta regions of Nigeria, and the Persian Gulf for oil/gas exploration and production [14][83]. These offshore constructions must be designed and analyzed in compliance with the American Petroleum Institute (API)’s recommendations. There are four different types of fixed offshore platforms, which are conventional fixed platforms, compliant towers, junction platforms and bridged platforms (or complexes, as seen in Figure 1).
Figure 1. Typical platforms showing (a) conventional jacket platforms and (b) bridged fixed jacket platform on Zuluf oil field in Arabian Gulf, offshore northeast Saudi Arabian coast, with the water depth of about 40 m (Image (b) Courtesy: Saudi Aramco).

2.3. Subsea System

Wells on the sea floor, rather than at the surface, are used in subsea production systems. Petroleum is extracted at the seafloor, similar to a floating production system, and then ‘tied-back’ to an existing production platform. The well can be drilled with a mobile rig, and instead of constructing a production platform for that well, the recovered oil and natural gas can be delivered to a nearby production platform through a riser or even an undersea pipeline. This enables a single strategically located production platform to service a large number of wells across a vast area. Subsea systems can be installed in both shallow waters and deep waters. They are normally utilized at depths of 2100 m (6890 feet) or more, and they can only extract and transfer, not drill. Subsea systems are typically those systems whereby their wells have the wellhead mounted upon the floor of the seabed after drilling operations from the wells, by any of the drilling platforms deployed. Recent advances made in sea systems can be seen in the realization of Statoil’s Subsea Factory [232][233][234], as seen in Figure 2. The targeted ambition for such subsea systems is summarized in Table 2.
Jmse 10 01074 g005 550
Figure 2. Subsea Production Systems in the Statoil Subsea FactoryTM (Courtesy: Statoil).
Table 2. Targeted ambitions for subsea factory.
Key Parameters Heavy Oil Fields Oil Fields Gas/Condensate Fields
Colder (heavy/complex fluids) Cold transport Cold flow Sour/Acid gas issues
Colder (arctic environment) Harsh environment Under ice Under ice
Deep water (deeper environment) 2000 m 3000 m 3000 m
Longer power 50 MW 20 MW 100 MW
Longer transport 50 km 200 km 250 km

3. Types of Offshore Platforms

Different types of offshore oil rigs and platforms are utilized depending on the water depth and location of the offshore oil/gas field. To drill wells and produce oil and gas, rigs are employed, and platforms are set up in the field. To achieve fossil fuels from oil products, drilling and production activities must be carried out using oil rigs and platforms. Drilling can be used for obtaining natural gas and oil offshore, offshore. Most of the oil deposits are far from the closest mainland, which involves a series of obstacles not encountered when drilling onshore. When drilling at sea (i.e., offshore), the sea floor could be many meters below sea level. As a result, while onshore drilling uses the land as a platform, drilling at sea necessitates the construction of an artificial drilling platform. Since there are different types of offshore structures as depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 3, a comparative analysis of offshore structures is necessary.
Figure 3. Types of Drilling Rigs.

3.1. Moveable Offshore Drilling Platforms

Offshore drilling rigs/platforms are divided into two categories. The first is a mobile offshore drilling rig that can be moved from one location to another, while the second is a stationary offshore drilling rig. Historically, the first submersible mobile drilling equipment to drill offshore in 1954 was called Mr. Charlie [261]. Over the years, newer developments have been made on moveable platforms. Offshore drilling platforms (and drilling rigs) are those platforms that can be moved from one drilling location to another or even higher application in the industry, as seen in recent leases. A mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) or unit is a ship that can conduct drilling operations to explore for petrochemical minerals or exploit resources such as liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, sulfur or salt that are present beneath the seabed. MODU can be jack-up, semi-submersible, barge-type or ship-shaped. For offshore oil and gas drilling, rigid platforms are necessary for drilling operations. They can be moved and retained in place by their own azimuth thrusters with dynamic positioning or hauled into place by a tugboat and moored. A recognized design and operational standard for semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling units (MODU) is the IMO’s MODU Code.

3.2. Drilling Barges

Drilling barges are commonly used for shallow-water inland drilling. Drilling barges are massive floating platforms that require tugs to transport from one location to another. Canals, lakes, rivers, marshes, and other bodies of water are frequent areas for this to occur. Drilling barges are only suitable for still, shallow waterways and cannot survive the water movement found in vast open sea conditions. Figure 4 shows some drilling barges used in earlier oil explorations.
Jmse 10 01074 g007 550
Figure 4. Drilling barge.

3.3. Jackup Drilling Platforms/Rigs

With one difference, jackup rigs are identical to drilling barges. After a jack-up rig is towed to the drilling location, three or four ‘legs’ are lowered until they land on the seafloor. Unlike a floating barge, the working platform can be raised above the water’s surface. Jackup rigs, on the other hand, are only suitable for shallower seas due to the impossibility of extending these legs too far. This rig can only operate in waters up to 500 feet deep. These rigs are usually safer to operate than drilling barges since their working platform is elevated above the sea level [262]. In addition to exploration operations, jack-ups are utilized for drilling operations and wind farms service. Figure 5 shows a Jack-up platform in operation and a labelled projection.
Jmse 10 01074 g008 550
Figure 5. Typical Jack-up Structures showing (a) a jack-up in operation and (b) a labelled projection of the jack-up platform.

3.4. Offshore Wind Turbine Platforms

The global concern about the emission of greenhouse gases has provided a line of research into alternative renewable and clean energy. In this regard, wind power is one of the fastest-growing alternative technologies. However, this technology could help power a clean energy transition only if it can overcome hurdles of cost, design and opposition from fishing. More so, the application of offshore structures in renewable energy has taken more interests on breakwater devices, water energy converters, and wind turbines (such as FOWTs). The scale of wind turbines are larger and more adaptable forms of offshore structures are seen today. Offshore wind turbines may either be fixed-bottom or floating types [263]. The fixed-bottom platform is quite common in off the coast of Denmark, consisting of 91 wind turbines [264]. By design, offshore wind turbines, which are anchored to the seabed with monopile or jacket foundations, can only operate in waters less than 50 m deep. This eliminates sites with the greatest winds and, in many cases, easy access to large markets. However, there are exceptions as the application of Fixed-bottom wind turbines is more economical as it operates in shallow water depths of 50 or 60 m [265]. On the other hand, the floating wind turbines are anchored to the seabed using mooring lines, thus, are suitable for deeper water locations and areas with the soft seabed. Floating wind turbines have been used in water depths of up to 700 m [264][265]. Different concepts have been identified in on FOWTs projects with different platform types. The projects include DeepCWind, HyWind, WindFloat, NRMI, DTU and MARINTEK wind turbines. The ability to install FOWTs in deeper waters has an open huge amount of the oceans for the generation of renewable wind power. Table 3 shows some existing wind turbines with details.
Table 3. List of some offshore wind farms by capacity.
Name Installation Year Diameter Tower Height Capacity Status
Hornsea 2 2002 167 m 190 m 1396 MW Active
Burbo Bank Extension 2017 164 m 113 m 800 MW Active
Westermost Rough 2014 154 m 102 m 600 MW Active
Anholt 2012 120 m 82 m 360 MW Active
Horns Rev 2 2009 93 m 68 m 230 MW Active
Nysted 2003 82.4 m 69 m 230 MW Active
Middelgrund 2000 76 m 64 m 200 MW Active
Vindeby 1991 35 m 35 m 4.95 MW Inactive
Although, the floating wind energy is still in its early stage of utilization, close to 80% of the wind power potential is found in deeper water. However, only about 80 megawatts of a total of about 32 GW (0.25%) of the installed offshore wind capacity is from floating wind turbines [265]. This narrative may change in the near future with the US government under USA’s President Joe Biden pledging to build more than 30 GW of offshore wind turbines by the year 2030, worth more than $100 m [265]. Hence, this might bring the assertions of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to reality, which suggests that the floating turbine projects could achieve cost parity with the fixed turbines by the year 2030.
By classification, there are four main types of floating platforms, namely the spar-buoy, the tension leg platform, the semi-submersible and the Pontoon-type (Barge-type) floating wind turbines. However, there are other types and design concepts because these are the most common platform already installed and adapted for various planned projects, such as the Semi-submersible platforms which are expected to be used in about 50% to 75% of projects. Figure 6 shows four (4) types of offshore wind turbines.
Figure 6. Different types of offshore wind turbines, showing (a) the spar-buoy, (b) the tension leg platform, (c) the semi-submersible and (d) the Pontoon-type (Barge-type) floating wind turbines (Original Illustration by Josh Bauer of NREL, Courtesy: NREL and DNV; Image adapted with permission from NREL and DNV, by Author 1—C.V.A.).
Figure A1. Offshore oil platforms compared to tallest building structures [Credit: Author 1—C.V.A.].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jmse10081074

References

  1. Chakrabarti, S.K. Handbook of Offshore Engineering, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Plainfield, IL, USA, 2005; Volume 1.
  2. Haritos, N. Introduction to the analysis and design of offshore structures—An overview. Electron. J. Struct. Eng. (eJSE) 2007, 7, 55–65. Available online: https://ejsei.com/EJSE/article/download/65/64 (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  3. Söding, H.; Blok, J.J.; Chen, H.H.; Hagiwara, K.; Isaacson, M.; Jankowski, J.; Jefferys, E.R.; Mathisen, J.; Rask, I.; Richer, J.-P.; et al. Environmental forces of offshore structures: A state-of-the-art review. Mar. Struct. 1990, 3, 59–81.
  4. Amiri, N.; Shaterabadi, M.; Reza Kashyzadeh, K.; Chizari, M. A comprehensive review on design, monitoring, and failure in fixed offshore platforms. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1349.
  5. Amaechi, C.V.; Reda, A.; Butler, H.O.; Ja’e, I.A.; An, C. Review on fixed and floating offshore structures. Part II: Sustainable design approaches and project management. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 973.
  6. El-Reedy, M. Offshore Structures: Design, Construction and Maintenance; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: London, UK, 2012.
  7. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Engineering Handbook; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2010.
  8. Wilson, J. Dynamics of Offshore Structures, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022.
  9. Ladeira, I.; Márquez, L.; Echeverry, S.; Le Sourne, H.; Rigo, P. Review of methods to assess the structural response of offshore wind turbines subjected to ship impacts. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022. ahead-of-print.
  10. Jaculli, M.A.; Leira, B.J.; Sangesland, S.; Morooka, C.K.; Kiryu, P.O. Dynamic response of a novel heave-compensated floating platform: Design considerations and the effects of mooring. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022. ahead-of-print.
  11. Al-Sharif, A.A. Design, fabrication and installation of fixed offshore platforms in the Arabian Gulf. In Proceedings of the Fourth Saudi Engineering Conference, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 5–8 November 1995; pp. 99–105.
  12. Al-Yafei, E.F. Sustainable Design for Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: A Conceptual Framework for Topside Facilities Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure & Society, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 2018. Available online: https://www.ros.hw.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10399/3513/Al-YafeiE_0418_egis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  13. Kreidler, T.D. The Offshore Petroleum Industry: The Formative Years, 1945–1962. Ph.D. Thesis, History Department, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA, 1997. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.455.2343&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  14. Sadeghi, K. An overview on design, construction and installation of offshore template platforms suitable for Persian Gulf oil/gas fields. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Engineering, Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Kyrenia, Cyprus, 6–8 November 2013.
  15. Sadeghi, K. Significant guidance for design and construction of marine and offshore structures. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci. 2008, 4, 67–92. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250310894_Significant_Guidance_for_Design_and_Construction_of_Marine_and_Offshore_Structures (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  16. Sadeghi, K.; Dilek, H. An Introduction to the design of Offshore Structures. Acad. Res. Int. 2019, 10, 19–27. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.10(1)/ARInt.2019(10.1-03).pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  17. Bernitsas, M.M.; Kokarakis, J.E. Importance of nonlinearities in static riser analysis. Appl. Ocean. Res. 1988, 10, 2–9.
  18. Liao, M.; Wang, G.; Gao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Li, R. Mathematical modelling and dynamic analysis of an offshore drilling riser. Shock. Vib. 2020, 2020, 8834011.
  19. Bernitsas, M.M.; Kokarakis, J.E.; Imron, A. Large deformation three-dimensional static analysis of deep water marine risers. Appl. Ocean. Res. 1985, 7, 178–187.
  20. Patel, M.H.; Sarohia, S.; Ng, K.F. Finite-element analysis of the marine riser. Eng. Struct. 1984, 6, 175–184.
  21. Burke, B.G. An analysis of marine risers for deep water. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–2 May 1973.
  22. Bae, Y.; Bernitsas, M.M. Importance of nonlinearities in static and dynamic analyses of marine risers. In Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Hague, The Netherlands, 11–16 June 1995; Available online: https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE95/All-ISOPE95/ISOPE-I-95-125/23069 (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  23. Wang, Y.; Gao, D.; Fang, J. Coupled dynamic analysis of deepwater drilling riser under combined forcing and parametric excitation. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 27, 1739–1747.
  24. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Gillet, N.; Wang, C.; Ja’e, I.A.; Reda, A.; Odijie, A.C. Review of composite marine risers for deep-water applications: Design, development and mechanics. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 96.
  25. Toh, W.; Tan, L.B.; Jaiman, R.K.; Tay, T.E.; Tan, V.B.C. A comprehensive study on composite risers: Material solution, local end fitting design and global response. Mar. Struct. 2018, 61, 155–169.
  26. Amaechi, C.V.; Gillett, N.; Odijie, A.C.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Composite risers for deep waters using a numerical modelling approach. Compos. Struct. 2019, 210, 486–499.
  27. Amaechi, C.V. Local tailored design of deep water composite risers subjected to burst, collapse and tension loads. Ocean Eng. 2022, 250, 110196.
  28. Roberts, D.; Hatton, S.A. Development and qualification of end fittings for composite riser pipe. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013. Paper Number: OTC-23977-MS.
  29. Amaechi, C.V.; Gillet, N.; Ja’e, I.A.; Wang, C. Tailoring the local design of deep water composite risers to minimise structural weight. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 103.
  30. Pham, D.-C.; Sridhar, N.; Qian, X.; Sobey, A.J.; Achintha, M.; Shenoi, A. A review on design, manufacture and mechanics of composite risers. Ocean Eng. 2016, 112, 82–96.
  31. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Strength of submarine hoses in Chinese-lantern configuration from hydrodynamic loads on CALM buoy. Ocean Eng. 2019, 171, 429–442.
  32. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Numerical studies on CALM buoy motion responses and the effect of buoy geometry cum skirt dimensions with its hydrodynamic waves-current interactions. Ocean Eng. 2022, 244, 110378.
  33. Gao, Q.; Zhang, P.; Duan, M.; Yang, X.; Shi, W.; An, C.; Li, Z. Investigation on structural behavior of ring-stiffened composite offshore rubber hose under internal pressure. Appl. Ocean Res. 2018, 79, 7–19.
  34. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Review on the design and mechanics of bonded marine hoses for Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM) buoys. Ocean Eng. 2021, 242, 110062.
  35. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. An overview on bonded marine hoses for sustainable fluid transfer and (un)loading operations via Floating Offshore Structures (FOS). J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1236.
  36. Gao, P.; Gao, Q.; An, C.; Zeng, J. Analytical modeling for offshore composite rubber hose with spiral stiffeners under internal pressure. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2021, 40, 352–364.
  37. Tonatto, M.L.; Tita, V.; Araujo, R.T.; Forte, M.M.; Amico, S.C. Parametric analysis of an offloading hose under internal pressure via computational modeling. Mar. Struct. 2017, 51, 174–187.
  38. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Mathematical modelling of marine bonded hoses for single point mooring (SPM) systems, with catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM) buoy application—A review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1179.
  39. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ja’e, I.A.; Aboshio, A.; Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. A literature review on the technologies of bonded hoses for marine applications. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022. ahead-of-print.
  40. Wichers, I.J. Guide to Single Point Moorings; WMooring Inc.: Houston, TX, USA, 2013; Available online: http://www.wmooring.com/files/Guide_to_Single_Point_Moorings.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  41. Petrone, C.; Oliveto, N.D.; Sivaselvan, M.V. Dynamic analysis of mooring cables with application to floating offshore wind turbines. J. Eng. Mech. 2015, 142, 1–12.
  42. Mavrakos, S.A.; Papazoglou, V.J.; Triantafyllou, M.S.; Hatjigeorgiou, J. Deep-water mooring dynamics. Mar. Struct. 1996, 9, 181–209.
  43. Mavrakos, S.A.; Chatjigeorgiou, J. Dynamic behavior of deep-water mooring lines with submerged buoys. Comput. Struct. 1997, 64, 819–835.
  44. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Nizamani, Z.; Nakayama, A. Optimisation of mooring line parameters for offshore floating structures: A review paper. Ocean Eng. 2022, 247, 110644.
  45. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. Numerical investigation on mooring line configurations of a Paired Column Semisubmersible for its global performance in deep water condition. Ocean Eng. 2022, 250, 110572.
  46. Xu, S.; Ji, C.Y.; Soares, C.G. Experimental and numerical investigation a semi-submersible moored by hybrid mooring systems. Ocean. Eng. 2018, 163, 641–678.
  47. Xue, X.; Chen, N.Z.; Wu, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Guo, Y. Mooring system fatigue analysis for a semi-submersible. Ocean. Eng. 2018, 156, 550–563.
  48. Wang, K.; Er, G.K.; Iu, V.P. Nonlinear vibrations of offshore floating structures moored by cables. Ocean. Eng. 2018, 156, 479–488.
  49. Harnois, V.; Weller, S.D.; Johanning, L.; Thies, P.R.; Le Boulluec, M.; Le Roux, D.; Soule, V.; Ohana, J. Numerical model validation for mooring systems: Method and application for wave energy converters. Renew. Energy 2015, 75, 869–887.
  50. Wang, Z.; Bai, Y.; Wei, Q. Mechanical properties of glass fibre reinforced pipeline during the laying process. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022. ahead-of-print.
  51. Liu, W.; Bai, Y.; Gao, Y.; Song, X.; Han, Z. Analysis of the mechanical properties of a reinforced thermoplastic composite pipe joint. Ships Offshore Struct. 2021, 17, 1515–1521.
  52. Liu, W.; Gao, Y.; Shao, Q.; Cai, W.; Han, Z.; Chi, M. Design and analysis of joints in reinforced thermoplastic composite pipe under internal pressure. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022, 17, 1276–1285.
  53. Ochoa, O.O.; Salama, M.M. Offshore composites: Transition barriers to an enabling technology. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2005, 65, 2588–2596.
  54. Langena, I.; Skjbtadb, O.; Haver, S. Measured and predicted dynamic behaviour of an offshore gravity platform. Appl. Ocean. Res. 1998, 20, 15–26.
  55. Chandrasekaran, S.; Uddin, S.A.; Wahab, M. Dynamic analysis of semi-submersible under the postulated failure of restraining system with buoy. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2020, 21, 118–131.
  56. Zhao, W.; Zou, L.; Wan, D.; Hu, Z. Numerical investigation of vortex-induced motions of a paired-column semi-submersible in currents. Ocean. Eng. 2018, 164, 272–283.
  57. Anastasiades, K.; Michels, S.; van Wuytswinkel, H.; Blom, J.; Audenaert, A. Barriers for the circular reuse of steel in the Belgian construction sector: An industry wide perspective. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Manag. Procure. Law 2022, 1–14.
  58. Odijie, A.C.; Quayle, S.; Ye, J. Wave induced stress profile on a paired column semisubmersible hull formation for column reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2017, 143, 77–90.
  59. Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. Effect of vortex induced vibration on a paired-column semisubmersible platform. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2015, 15, 1540019.
  60. Chandrasekaran, S.; Srivastava, G. Design Aids for Offshore Structures under Special Environmental Loads, Including Fire Resistance; Springer: Singapore, 2017; ISBN 978-981-322-10-7608-7.
  61. Barltrop, N.D.P.; Adams, A.J. Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures, 3rd ed.; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1991.
  62. Brebbia, C.A.; Walker, S. Dynamic Analysis of Offshore Structures, 1st ed.; Newnes-Butterworth & Co. Publishers Ltd.: London, UK, 1979.
  63. Chandrasekaran, S. Dynamic Analysis and Design of Offshore Structures, 2nd ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; ISBN 978-981-10-6089-2.
  64. Leffler, W.L.; Pattarozzi, R.; Sterling, G. Deepwater Petroleum Exploration & Production: A Nontechnical Guide; PennWell: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781593702533.
  65. Fang, H.; Duan, M. Offshore Operation Facilities; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2014.
  66. Aird, P. Deepwater Drilling: Well Planning, Design, Engineering, Operations, and Technology Application; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019.
  67. Joshi, S.D. Horizontal Well Technology; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1991.
  68. Stewart, G. Well Test Design and Analysis; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011.
  69. Azar, J.J.; Samuel, R. Drilling Engineering; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2007.
  70. Samie, N.N. Practical Engineering Management of Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016.
  71. Clews, R.J. Project Finance for the International Petroleum Industry; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-0-12-800158-5.
  72. Chandrasekaran, S.; Jain, A.K. Ocean Structures, Construction, Materials, and Operations; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-149-87-9742-9.
  73. Laik, S. Offshore Petroleum Drilling and Production, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
  74. Speight, J.G. Handbook of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2011.
  75. Grace, R.D. Blowout and Well Control Handbook; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
  76. Wan, R. Advanced Well Completion Engineering; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2011.
  77. Byrom, T.G. Casing and Liners for Drilling and Completion: Design and Application, 2nd ed.; A Volume in Gulf Drilling Guides; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015.
  78. Caenn, R.; Darley, H.C.H.; Gray, G.R. Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids, 7th ed.; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
  79. Devereux, S. Practical Well Planning and Drilling Manual; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1998.
  80. Veatch, R.W., Jr.; King, G.E.; Holditch, S.A. Essentials of Hydraulic Fracturing: Vertical and Horizontal Wellbores; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2017.
  81. Raymond, M.S.; Leffler, W.L. Oil & Gas Production in Nontechnical Language; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2017.
  82. Crumpton, H. Well Control for Completions and Interventions; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
  83. Sadeghi, K. An overview of design, analysis, construction and installation of offshore petroleum platforms suitable for Cyprus oil/gas fields. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci. 2007, 2, 1–16. Available online: https://cemtelecoms.iqpc.co.uk/media/6514/786.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  84. Yan, J.; Qiao, D.; Ou, J. Optimal design and hydrodynamic response analysis of deep-water mooring systems with submerged buoys. Ships Offshore Struct. 2018, 13, 476–487.
  85. Ormberg, H.; Larsen, K. Coupled analysis of floater motion and mooring dynamics for a turret-moored ship. Appl. Ocean Res. 1998, 20, 55–67.
  86. Qiao, D.; Ou, J. Global responses analysis of a semi-submersible platform with different mooring models in South China Sea. Ships Offshore Struct. 2012, 8, 441–456.
  87. Bargi, K.; Hosseini, S.R.; Tadayon, M.H.; Sharifian, H. Seismic response of a typical fixed jacket-type offshore platform (SPD1) under sea waves. Open J. Mar. Sci. 2011, 1, 36–42.
  88. Jang, J.; Jyh-Shinn, G. Analysis of maximum wind force for offshore structure design. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 1999, 7, 43–51.
  89. Thiagarajan, K.P.; Finch, S. An investigation into the effect of turret mooring location on the vertical motions of an FPSO vessel. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 1999, 121, 71–76.
  90. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Nizamani, Z.; Nakayama, A. Effect of various mooring materials on hydrodynamic responses of turret-moored FPSO with emphasis on intact and damaged conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 453.
  91. Sheng, W.; Tapoglou, E.; Ma, X.; Taylor, C.J.; Dorrell, R.M.; Parsons, D.R.; Aggidis, G. Hydrodynamic studies of floating structures: Comparison of wave-structure interaction modelling. Ocean Eng. 2022, 249, 110878.
  92. Hirdaris, S.E.; Bai, W.; Dessi, D.; Ergind, A.; Gu, X.; Hermundstad, O.A.; Huijsmans, R.; Iijima, K.; Nielsen, U.D.; Parunov, J.; et al. Loads for use in the design of ships and offshore structures. Ocean Eng. 2014, 78, 131–174.
  93. Lee, Y.; Incecik, A.; Chan, H.S. Prediction of global loads and structural response analysis on a multi-purpose semi-submersible. In Proceedings of the ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Halkidiki, Greece, 12–17 June 2005; American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. pp. 3–13.
  94. Newman, J.N. Marine Hydrodynamics; IT Press: London, UK, 1977; Reprint in 1999.
  95. Chakrabarti, S.K. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2001; Reprint.
  96. Faltinsen, O.M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
  97. Bishop, R.E.D.; Price, W.G. Hydroelasticity of Ships; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
  98. Singh, R. Corrosion Control for Offshore Structures; Imprint: Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015.
  99. Chandrasekaran, S.; Uddin, S.A. Postulated failure analyses of a spread-moored semi-submersible. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2020, 5, 1–16.
  100. Sarpkaya, T. Wave Forces on Offshore Structures, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  101. Clauss, G.; Lehmann, E.; Östergaard, C. Offshore Structures: Volume I: Conceptual Design and Hydromechanics, 1st ed.; English Translation; Springer: London, UK, 2012.
  102. McCormick, M.E. Ocean Engineering Mechanics with Applications; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  103. Holthuijsen, L.H. Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
  104. Dean, R.G.; Dalrymple, R.A. Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists-Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering; World Scientific: Singapore, 1991; Volume 2.
  105. Sorensen, R.M. Basic Coastal Engineering, 3rd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  106. Sorensen, R.M. Basic Wave Mechanics: For Coastal and Ocean Engineers; John Wiley and Sons: London, UK, 1993.
  107. Boccotti, P. Wave Mechanics and Wave Loads on Marine Structures; Elsevier B.V. & Butterworth-Heinemann: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015.
  108. Boccotti, P. Wave Mechanics for Ocean Engineering; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
  109. Seyed, F.B.; Patel, M.H. Mathematics of flexible risers including pressure and internal flow effects. Mar. Struct. 1992, 5, 121–150.
  110. Dareing, D.W. Mechanics of Drillstrings and Marine Risers; ASME Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; 396p, Available online: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.859995 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  111. Sparks, C. Fundamentals of Marine Riser Mechanics: Basic Principles and Simplified Analyses, 2nd ed.; PennWell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2018.
  112. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Pipelines and Risers, 1st ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2005; Reprint 2013.
  113. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q.; Ruan, W. Flexible Pipes: Advances in Pipes and Pipelines; Wiley Scrivener Publishing: Beverly, MA, USA, 2017.
  114. Sævik, S. On Stresses and Fatigue in Flexible Pipes. Ph.D. Thesis, Department Marine Structures, Norwegian Institute Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 1992. Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/442338 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  115. Amaechi, C.V. Novel Design, Hydrodynamics and Mechanics of Marine Hoses in Oil/Gas Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Engineering Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 2022.
  116. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Bashmal, S.; Iqbal, N.; Dai, W.; Bai, Y. Fatigue crack monitoring of T-type joints in steel offshore oil and gas jacket platform. Sensors 2021, 21, 3294.
  117. Paik, J.K.; Lee, D.H.; Park, D.K.; Ringsberg, J.W. Full-scale collapse testing of a steel stiffened plate structure under axial-compressive loading at a temperature of −80 °C. Ships Offshore Struct. 2021, 16, 255–270.
  118. He, K.; Kim, H.J.; Thomas, G.; Paik, J.K. Analysis of fire-induced progressive collapse for topside structures of a VLCC-class ship-shaped offshore installation. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022. ahead-of print.
  119. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Iqbal, N.; Bashmal, S.; Hameed, H.; Bai, Y. An experimental study of damage detection on typical joints of jackets platform based on electro-mechanical impedance technique. Materials 2021, 14, 7168.
  120. Zhang, X.; Ni, W.; Sun, L. Fatigue analysis of the oil offloading lines in FPSO system under wave and current loads. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 225.
  121. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Reliability of maintained ship hulls subjected to corrosion. J. Ship Res. 1996, 40, 235–243.
  122. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Fatigue reliability of the ship hull girder accounting for inspection and repair. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1996, 51, 341–351.
  123. Hussein, A.; Soares, C.G. Reliability and residual strength of double hull tankers designed according to the new IACS common structural rules. Ocean Eng. 2009, 36, 1446–1459.
  124. Soares, C.; Garbatov, Y. Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates subjected to non-linear corrosion and compressive loads. Mar. Struct. 1999, 12, 425–445.
  125. Teixeira, A.P.; Soares, C.G.; Netto, T.A.; Estefen, S.F. Reliability of pipelines with corrosion defects. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2008, 85, 228–237.
  126. Aboshio, A.; Uche, A.O.; Akagwu, P.; Ye, J. Reliability-based design assessment of offshore inflatable barrier structures made of fibre-reinforced composites. Ocean Eng. 2021, 233, 109016.
  127. Chojaczyk, A.A.; Teixeira, A.P.; Neves, L.C.; Cardoso, J.B.; Soares, C.G. Review and application of Artificial Neural Networks models in reliability analysis of steel structures. Struct. Saf. 2015, 52, 78–89.
  128. Gaspar, B.; Teixeira, A.P.; Soares, C.G. Assessment of the efficiency of Kriging surrogate models for structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 2014, 37, 24–34.
  129. Santala, M.J. API RP-2MET Metocean 2nd edition; Updates to the Gulf of Mexico regional annex. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2018.
  130. Stear, J.B. Development of API RP2 Met: The new path for Metocean. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 2008.
  131. Stear, J. Use of RP 2MET annex Gulf Metocean conditions with 2A and 2SIM. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012.
  132. Stear, J. SS: New API codes: Updates, new suite of standards/“RP 2MET: An API standard for Metocean”. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010.
  133. Puskar, F.; Robert, S. SS: New API codes: Updates, new suite of standards—API bulletin 2HINS—Guidance for post-hurricane structural inspection of offshore structures. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010.
  134. Zwerneman, F.; Digre, K.A. SS: New API codes: Updates, new suite of standards: API RP 2A-WSD, the 23rd edition. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010.
  135. O’Connor, P.E.; Versowsky, P.; Day, M.; Westlake, H.; Bucknell, J. Platform assessment: Recent Section 17 updates and future API/industry developments. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2005.
  136. Versowski, P.; Rodenbusch, G.; O’Connor, P.; Prins, M. Hurricane impact reviewed through API. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006.
  137. Balint, S.W.; Orange, D. Panel discussion: Future of the Gulf of Mexico after Katrina and Rita. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006.
  138. Maxwell, P.; Verret, S.M.; Haugland, T. Fixed platform performance during recent hurricanes: Comparison to design standards. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007.
  139. Westlake, H.S.; Puskar, F.J.; O’Connor, P.E.; Bucknell, J.R. The development of a recommended practice for Structural Integrity Management (SIM) of fixed offshore platforms. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006.
  140. Wisch, D.J.; Mangiavacchi, A. Alignment of API offshore structures standards with ISO 19900 series and usage of the API suite. In Proceedings of the Off-Shore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012.
  141. Wisch, D.J.; Puskar, F.J.; Laurendine, T.T.; O’Connor, P.E.; Versowsky, P.E.; Bucknell, J. An update on API RP 2A section 17 for the assessment of existing platforms. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2004.
  142. Lotsberg, I. Background for revision of DNV-RP-C203 fatigue analysis of offshore steel structure. In Proceedings of the ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Halkidiki, Greece, 12–17 June 2005; Volume 3, pp. 297–306.
  143. Horn, A.M.; Lotsberg, I.; Orjaseater, O. The rationale for update of S-N curves for single sided girth welds for risers and pipelines in DNV GL RP C-203 based on fatigue performance of more than 1700 full scale fatigue test results. In Proceedings of the ASME 2018 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 17–22 June 2018. Volume 4: Materials Technology, Paper No. V004T03A024.
  144. Lotsberg, I. Development of fatigue design standards for marine structures. In Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June 2017. Volume 9: Offshore Geotechnics; Torgeir Moan Honoring Symposium, Paper No. V009T12A005.
  145. Lotsberg, I. Fatigue design recommendations for conical connections in tubular structures. In Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June 2017. Volume 4: Materials Technology, Paper No. V004T03A026.
  146. Echtermeyer, A.T.; Osnes, H.; Ronold, K.O.; Moe, E.T. Recommended practice for composite risers. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2002.
  147. Echtermeyer, A.; Steuten, B. Thermoplastic composite riser guidance note. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013.
  148. Echtermeyer, A.T.; Sund, O.E.; Ronold, K.O.; Moslemian, R.; Moe, E.T. A new recommended practice for thermoplastic composite pipes. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Composite Materials, Xi’an, China, 20–25 August 2017; Available online: http://iccm-central.org/Proceedings/ICCM21proceedings/papers/3393.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2022).
  149. Lotsberg, I.; Fjeldstad, A.; Ronold, K.O. Background for revision of DNVGL-RP-C203 fatigue design of offshore steel structures in 2016. In Proceedings of the ASME 2016 35th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Busan, Korea, 19–24 June 2016. Volume 4: Materials Technology, Paper No. V004T03A015.
  150. Lotsberg, I.; Sigurdsson, G. A new recommended practice for inspection planning of fatigue cracks in offshore structures based on probabilistic methods. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014. Volume 5: Materials Technology; Petroleum Technology, Paper No. V005T03A005.
  151. Lotsberg, I. Background for new revision of DNV-RP-C203 fatigue design of offshore steel structures. In Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010; Volume 6, pp. 125–134.
  152. Lotsberg, I.; Skjelby, T.; Vareide, K.; Amundsgård, O.; Landet, E. A new DNV recommended practice for fatigue analysis of offshore ships. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 4–9 June 2006; pp. 573–580, Volume 3: Safety and Reliability; Materials Technology; Douglas Faulkner Symposium on Reliability and Ultimate Strength of Marine Structures.
  153. API RP 2MET; Derivation of Metocean Design and Operating Conditions. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  154. American Petroleum Institute (API). API 2INT-MET Interim Guidance on Hurricane Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico; Bulletin 2INT-MET; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Available online: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/api.2int-met.2007.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  155. American Petroleum Institute (API). Interim Guidance for Design of Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions; API Bulletin 2INT-DG; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  156. American Petroleum Institute (API). Interim Guidance for Assessment of Existing Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions; API Bulletin 2INT-EX; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  157. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 95F, Gulf of Mexico MODU Mooring Practices for the 2007 Hurricane Season—Interim Recommendations, 2nd ed.; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  158. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 2SM, Recommended Practice for Design, Manufacture, Installation, and Maintenance of Synthetic Fiber Ropes for Offshore Mooring, 1st ed.; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2001; Addendum in 2007.
  159. American Petroleum Institute (API). API-RP-2AWSD, Recommended Practice for Planning Designing and Construction Fixed Offshore Structure—Working Stress Design, 21st ed.; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  160. American Petroleum Institute (API). API-RP-2SK, API Recommended Practice 2SK, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures, 3rd ed.; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  161. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 2SK, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures, 3rd ed.; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  162. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 2I, In-Service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating Structures, 3rd ed.; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  163. American Petroleum Institute (API). API RP 2Q, Recommended Practice for Design and Operation of Marine Drilling Riser Systems, 2nd ed.; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1984.
  164. American Petroleum Institute (API). Bulletin on Comparison of Marine Drilling Riser Analyses; API 16J Bulletin; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 1992.
  165. American Petroleum Institute (API). Recommended Practice 2RD: Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension-leg Platforms (TLPs); American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
  166. American Petroleum Institute (API). Design of Flat Plat Structure; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  167. American Petroleum Institute (API). Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service; API 579; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  168. American Petroleum Institute (API). Design, Selection, Operation and Maintenance of Marine Drilling Riser Systems; API RP 16Q; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  169. American Petroleum Institute (API). Qualification of Spoolable Reinforced Plastic Line Pipe; API 15S; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
  170. American Petroleum Institute (API). Specification for Unbonded Pipe; API 17J; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
  171. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Strength Analysis of Min Structures of Column Stabilized Units (Semisubmersible Platforms); DNV-CN-31; Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 1987.
  172. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Steel Structures; DNV-RP-C203; Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, April 2010.
  173. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Structural Design of Offshore Units (WSD Method); DNV-OS-C201; Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2011.
  174. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Structural Design of Self-Elevating Units (LRFD Method); DNV-OS-C104; Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2012.
  175. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Composite Risers: Recommended Practice; DNV-RP-F202; Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2010.
  176. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Dynamic Risers: Recommended Practice; DNV-OS-F201; Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2010.
  177. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Composite Components: Recommended Practice; DNV-OS-C501; Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2013.
  178. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Riser Fatigue: Recommended Practice; DNV-RP-F204; Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2010.
  179. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Design of Titanium Risers: Recommended Practice; DNV-RP-F201; Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2002.
  180. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads: Recommended Practice; DNV-RP-C205; Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2007.
  181. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Offshore Classification Projects—Testing and Commissioning: Class Guideline; DNVGL-CG-0170; Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Oslo, Norway, 2015.
  182. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). Offshore Loading Buoys; DNVGL-OS-E403; Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL): Oslo, Norway, 2015.
  183. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). DNVGL-CG-0128: Buckling. October 2015. Available online: https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNVGL/CG/2015-10/DNVGL-CG-0128.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2022).
  184. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). Global Performance Analysis of Deepwater Floating Structures; DNVGL-RP-F205; Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL): Oslo, Norway, 2017.
  185. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). Recommended Practice: Technology Qualification; DNVGL-RP-A203; Det Norske Veritas (DNVGL): Oslo, Norway, 2019.
  186. Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL). Recommended Practice: Thermoplastic Composite Pipes; DNVGL-RP-F119; Det Norske Veritas & Germanischer Lloyd (DNVGL): Oslo, Norway, 2015; Available online: https://www.dnvgl.com/oilgas/download/dnvgl-st-f119-thermoplastic-composite-pipes.html (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  187. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Subsea Riser Systems: Guide for Building and Classing; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2017; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/123_guide_building_and_classing_subsea_riser_systems_2017/Riser_Guide_e-Mar18.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  188. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guide for Buckling and Ultimate Strength Assessment for Offshore Structures; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2004.
  189. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing Marine Vessels 2022—Part 5D, Offshore Support Vessels for Specialized Services; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/other/1_marinevesselrules_2022/mvr-part-5d-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  190. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing Steel Barges 2022; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/special_service/10_barges_2022/barge-rules-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  191. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Certification of Cargo Containers 1998; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 1998; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/equipment_and_component_certification/13_certofcargocontainers/pub13_cargocontainers.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  192. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guide for the Certification of Offshore Mooring Chain; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2017; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/survey_and_inspection/39_certificationoffshoremooringchain_2017/Mooring_Chain_Guide_e-May17.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  193. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guide for Building and Classing Accommodation Barges 2021; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2021; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/special_service/48_accommbarges_2021/accommodation-barge-guide-dec21.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  194. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guide for the Classification of Drilling Systems 2021; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2021; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/57_Classification_of_Drilling_Systems_2021/cds-guide-feb21.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  195. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations 2022; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/63_facilities_2022/fac-rules-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  196. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations 2022; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/82_FPI_2022/fpi-rules-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  197. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guidance Notes on the Application of Fiber Rope for Offshore Mooring; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/offshore/90_fiberrope_2021/fiber-rope-gn-june21.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  198. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Building and Classing High Speed Craft 2022—Part 3, Hull Construction and Equipment; American Bureau of Shipping (ABS): Houston, TX, USA, 2022; Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/special_service/61_highspeedcraft_2022/hsc-part-3-jan22.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  199. ISO 13624-1:2009; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Drilling and Production Equipment—Part 1: Design and Operation of Marine Drilling Riser Equipment. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  200. ISO/TR 13624-2:2009; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Drilling and Production Equipment—Part 2: Deepwater Drilling Riser Methodologies, Operations, and Integrity Technical Report. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  201. ISO 13625:2002; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Drilling and Production Equipment—Marine Drilling Riser Couplings. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
  202. ISO 13628-1:2005; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 1: General Requirements and Recommendations. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  203. 203. ISO 13628-2:2006; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 2: Unbonded Flexible Pipe Systems for Subsea and Marine Applications. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  204. ISO 13628-3:2000; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 3: Through Flowline (TFL) Systems. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
  205. ISO 13628-4:2010; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 4: Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  206. ISO 13628-5:2009; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 5: Subsea Umbilicals. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  207. ISO 13628-6:2006; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 6: Subsea Production Control Systems. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  208. ISO 13628-7:2005; Petroleum and natural gas industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 7: Completion/Workover Riser Systems. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  209. ISO 13628-8:2002; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 8: Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Interfaces on Subsea Production Systems. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
  210. ISO 13628-9:2000; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 9: Remotely Operated Tool (ROT) Intervention Systems. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
  211. ISO 13628-10:2005; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems—Part 10: Specification for Bonded Flexible Pipe. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  212. Tahar, A.; Kim, M. Hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analysis and sensitivity study of a tanker-based FPSO. Appl. Ocean Res. 2003, 25, 367–382.
  213. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A. Numerical Validation of Hydrodynamic Responses and Mooring Top Tension of a Turret Moored FPSO Using Simulation and Experimental Results. In Advances in Civil Engineering Materials. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Awang, M., Ling, L., Emamian, S.S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 223.
  214. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A. Numerical studies on the effects of mooring configuration and line diameter on the restoring behaviour of a turret-moored FPSO. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering, Virtual Conference, 12–14 November 2020; Available online: https://avestia.com/ICCSTE2020_Proceedings/files/paper/ICCSTE_321.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  215. Ali, M.O.A.; Ja’e, I.A.; Hwa, M.G.Z. Effects of water depth, mooring line diameter and hydrodynamic coefficients on the behaviour of deepwater FPSOs. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2019, 11, 727–739.
  216. Montasir, O.A.A.; Yenduri, A.; Kurian, V.J. Mooring system optimisation and effect of different line design variables on motions of truss spar platforms in intact and damaged conditions. China Ocean Eng. 2019, 33, 385–397.
  217. Montasir, O.A.A. Numerical and Experimental Studies on the Slow Drift Motions and the Mooring Line Responses of Truss Spar Platform. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia, 2012.
  218. Otteren, A. A mathematical model for dynamic analysis of a flexible marine riser connected to a floating vessel. Model. Identif. Control 1982, 3, 187–209.
  219. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Report 2019; BOEM 2021-005; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. Available online: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/about-boem/Deepwater-Gulf-of-Mexico-Report-2019.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2022).
  220. Craig, J.; Gerali, F.; Macaulay, F.; Sorkhabi, R. (Eds.) The history of the European oil and gas industry (1600s–2000s). In History of the European Oil and Gas Industry; Special Publications; Geological Society: London, UK, 2018; Volume 465, pp. 1–24. Available online: https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/specpubgsl/early/2018/06/20/SP465.23.full.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  221. Craig, J. Drilling: History of onshore drilling and technology. In Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R., Ed.; Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Clam, Switzerland, 2021.
  222. Craig, J. History of oil: The premodern era (thirteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries). In Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R., Ed.; Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Clam, Switzerland, 2021.
  223. Craig, J. History of oil: The birth of the modern oil industry (1859–1939). In Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R., Ed.; Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Clam, Switzerland, 2021.
  224. Craig, J. History of oil: Regions and uses of petroleum in the Classical and Medieval periods. In Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R., Ed.; Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Clam, Switzerland, 2020.
  225. Purcell, P. Oil and Gas Exploration in East Africa: A Brief History. GEO EXPRO Magazine, 1 September 2014. Available online: https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2014/09/oil-and-gas-exploration-in-east-africa-a-brief-history (accessed on 12 July 2022).
  226. Glennie, K.W. History of exploration in the southern North Sea. In Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential; Ziegler, K., Turner, P., Daines, S.R., Eds.; Special Publications 123; Geological Society: London, UK, 1997; pp. 5–16.
  227. Macini, P.; Mesini, E. History of petroleum and petroleum engineering. In Petroleum Engineering—Upstream, Vol IV; Eolss Publishers Co. Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2018.
  228. Kontorovich, A.E.; Eder, L.V.; Filimonova, V.; Mishenin, M.V.; Nemov, V.Y. Oil industry of major historical centre of the Volga-Ural petroleum province: Past, current state, and long-run prospects. Russ. Geol. Geophys. 2016, 57, 1653–1667.
  229. Krzywiec, P. Birth of the oil industry in the northern Carpathians. In Proceeding of the Geological Society Conference on European Oil & Gas Industry History, London, UK, 3–4 March 2016; pp. 32–33.
  230. Krzywiec, P. The birth and development of the oil and gas industry in the Northern Carpathians (up until 1939). In History of the European Oil and Gas Industry; Craig, J., Gerali, F., MacAulay, F., Sorkhabi, R., Eds.; Special Publications; The Geological Society: London, UK, 2018; Volume 465, pp. 165–190.
  231. Spencer, A.M.; Chew, K. Petroleum exploration history: Discovery pattern versus manpower, technology and the development of exploration principles. First Break 2009, 27, 35–41.
  232. Zhang, G.; Qu, H.; Chen, G.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, F.; Yang, H.; Zhao, Z.; Ma, M. Giant discoveries of oil and gas fields in global deepwaters in the past 40 years and the prospect of exploration. J. Nat. Gas Geosci. 2019, 4, 1–28.
  233. Clauss, G.; Lehmann, E.; Ostergaard, C. Offshore Structures; Volume I: Conceptual Design and Hydromechanics; Springer: London, UK, 1992; p. 64.
  234. Ahmad, O. An overview of design, construction, and installation of gravity offshore platforms. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. 2021, 3, 27–32.
  235. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). An Overview of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities; Prepared by Hartley Anderson Limited for Department of Trade and Industry (DTI); Department of Trade and Industry (DTI): Aberdeen, UK, 2001. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197799/SD_SEA2EandP.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  236. Chalke, A.; Nalawade, S.; Khadake, N. Review on analysis of offshore structure. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2020, 7, 1241–1245. Available online: https://www.irjet.net/archives/V7/i8/IRJET-V7I8202.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  237. Sarhan, O.; Raslan, M. Offshore petroleum rig platforms—An overview of analysis, design, construction and installation. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. 2021, 2, 7–12.
  238. Elrahim, M.K.A.; Husban, M. Analysis of the Lebanese oil and gas exploration in the Mediterranean Sea: An overview and analysis of offshore platforms. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. 2021, 2, 25–29.
  239. Kharade, A.; Kapadiya, S. Offshore engineering: An overview of types and loadings on structures. Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 2014, 3, 16–28.
  240. Sadeghi, K.; Bichi, A. Offshore tower platforms: An overview of design, analysis, construction and installation. Acad. Res. Int. 2018, 9, 62–70. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.9(1)/ARInt.2018(9.1-08).pdf (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  241. Sadeghi, K.; Guvensoy, A. Compliant tower platforms: A general guidance for analysis, construction, and installation. Acad. Res. Int. 2018, 8, 37–56. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323706788_Compliant_tower_platforms_general_guidance_for_analysis_construction_and_installation (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  242. Sadeghi, K.; Tozan, H. Tension leg platforms: An overview of planning, design, construction and installation. Acad. Res. Int. 2018, 9, 55–65. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.9(2)/ARInt.2018(9.2-06).pdf (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  243. Sadeghi, K.; Al-koiy, K.; Nabi, K. General guidance for the design, fabrication and installation of jack-up platforms. Asian J. Nat. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 77–84. Available online: http://www.ajsc.leena-luna.co.jp/AJSCPDFs/Vol.6(4)/AJSC2017(6.4-08).pdf (accessed on 22 May 2022).
  244. Esteban, M.D.; Couñago, B.; López-Gutiérrez, J.S.; Negro, V.; Vellisco, F. Gravity based support structures for offshore wind turbine generators: Review of the installation process. Ocean Eng. 2015, 110, 281–291.
  245. Shell. Shell’s Deep Water Portfolio in the Gulf of Mexico. Available online: https://www.shell.us/energy-and-innovation/energy-from-deepwater/shell-deep-water-portfolio-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.html (accessed on 26 August 2020).
  246. bp America. Our Platforms—Gulf of Mexico. Available online: https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/where-we-operate/gulf-of-mexico/our-platforms.html (accessed on 26 August 2020).
  247. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). FAQS/How Many Platforms Are in the Gulf of Mexico? Available online: https://www.bsee.gov/subject/decommissioning-faqs (accessed on 26 August 2020).
  248. Chitwood, J.E.; McClure, A.C. Semisubmersible Drilling Tender Unit. SPE Drill. Eng. 1987, 2, 104–110.
  249. Lim, E.F.H.; Ronalds, B.F. Evolution of the production semisubmersible. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 1–4 October 2000. Paper No. 63036-MS.
  250. Ochoa, O.O. Composite Riser Experience and Design Guidance; MMS Project Number 490; Offshore Technology Research Center: Austin, TX, USA, 2006. Available online: https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/tap-technical-assessment-program//490aa.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2022).
  251. Chandrasekaran, S.; Nagavinothini, R. Offshore triceratops under impact forces in ultra-deep arctic waters. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2020, 20, 464–479.
  252. Odijie, A.C. Design of Paired Column Semisubmersible Hull. Ph.D. Thesis, Engineering Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 2016.
  253. Odijie, A.C.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. A review of floating semisubmersible hull systems: Column stabilized unit. Ocean Eng. 2017, 144, 191–202.
  254. Yu, L.C.; King, L.S.; Hoon, A.T.C.; Yean, P.C.C. A review study of oil and gas facilities for fixed and floating offshore platforms. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 10, 672–679.
  255. Zhang, J.; Koh, C.G.; Trinh, T.N.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Z. Identification of jack-up spudcan fixity by an output-only substructural strategy. Mar. Struct. 2012, 29, 71–88.
  256. Ronalds, B.F. Applicability ranges for offshore oil and gas production facilities. Mar. Struct. 2005, 18, 251–263.
  257. Reddy, D.; Swamidas, A. Essentials of Offshore Structures: Theory and Applications, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.
  258. Tan, X.; Li, J.; Lu, C. Structural behaviour prediction for jack-up units during jacking operations. Comput. Struct. 2003, 81, 2409–2416.
  259. Hartman, L. Top 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Offshore Wind Energy; US Department of Energy (DOE), Wind Energy Technologies Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/top-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-offshore-wind-energy (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  260. Murugaiah, S. A Review Study of Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (F.P.S.O.) Oil and Gas Platform. Bachelor’s Thesis, Department of Petrochemical Engineering, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia, 2015. Available online: http://eprints.utar.edu.my/1759/1/A_Review_Study_of_Floating%2C_Production%2C_Storage_and_Offloading_(FPSO)_Oil_and_Gas_Platform.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  261. Wells, B.A.; Wells, K.L. Mr. Charlie, First Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig; American Oil & Gas Historical Society (AOGHS): Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Available online: https://aoghs.org/offshore-history/mr-charlie-first-mobile-offshore-drilling-rig/ (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  262. Menon, J. What Are Jack Up Barges? Marine Insight. 2021. Available online: https://www.marineinsight.com/offshore/jack-up-barges/ (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  263. Wang, C.M.; Utsunomiya, T.; Wee, S.C.; Choo, Y.S. Research on floating wind turbines: A literature survey. IES J. Part A Civ. Struct. Eng. 2010, 3, 267–277.
  264. Renewable Energy Magazine (REM). Horns rev 2 offshore wind farm in Denmark topped 10 billion kWh. Renewable Energy Magazine, 5 February 2021. Available online: https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/horns-rev-2-offshore-wind-farm-in-20210205 (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  265. Rosa-Aquino, P. Floating wind turbines could open up vast ocean tracts for renewable power. The Guardian, 29 August 2021. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/29/floating-wind-turbines-ocean-renewable-power (accessed on 30 May 2022).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback