OTC 17397

Hybrid Riser Towers from an Operator's Perspective

A. Sworn, BP Exploration Operating Co.
Copyright 2005, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, TX, U.S.A., 25 May 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The Hybrid Riser Tower (HRT) concept has been established
as a viable solution for deepwater developments, but only a
handful of systems exist; this is in contrast to the 25 or more
Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) based systems that exist, mostly in
the Gulf of Mexico and Campos Basin. Recent FPSO
developments offshore Nigeria are also being developed with
SCR systems.

So what are the drivers for using a HRT system, and will
the HRT concept offer a competitive solution for future
offshore developments? The key to answering this question is
to understand the characteristics of the system.

BP has actively studied the application of Hybrid Riser
Tower (HRT) systems in several very different offshore
development areas. The key characteristics are discussed in
this paper.

Hybrid Riser Tower Concept
The hybrid riser tower concept can be defined as; a
bundled, free-standing vertical riser with near surface flexible
connections, see figure 1. The hybrid description relates to
the partial use of steel lines and flexible lines within the
configuration. Typically a near surface cylindrical buoyancy
tank is used, but other configurations are also feasible.

Several tensioned hybrid bundled riser systems have
been operated using drilling rig tensioning systems, e.g. BP
Buchan in the North Sea, but it wasnt until the ground
breaking Placid Green Canyon 29 project [1] that the concept
came to full fruition as a free-standing version. Subsequently
the Girassol project [2] extended the concept to a deeper water
version, constructed onshore, towed to site, and upended. The
Rosa-Lirio field subsea tieback to Girassol FPSO will also be
developed with a hybrid riser tower design.

The concept has been almost universally configured with
the following elements from bottom up: seabed foundation,
flexible joint / flowline jumpers, bundle riser, buoyancy tank,
and flexible jumpers.
Floating
Production
System
Buoyancy
Tank
Flexible J umpers
and Umbilicals
Riser Bundle
Foundation
Flexible J oint

Figure 1 Hybrid Riser Tower Configuration

Two variations for the configuration of the buoyancy tank
have developed; the integral buoyancy tank with product lines
passing through it, versus a separate tethered buoyancy tank,
with the product lines emerging at the top of the bundle. Both
of these options have been successfully engineered and
implemented, and there is no reason to exclude either of these
configurations from future design studies. As always, the
2 OTC 17397
devil is in the detail, and a successful design will have to
address fundamental challenges with both approaches; the
integral option requires a high integrity stress joint; the
independent option requires a high integrity tether.

Field Layout
The use of a hybrid riser tower will typically allow a very
compact subsea layout of lines and umbilicals. The various
product lines must all converge to the base of the tower, but
from that point the subsea layout is not restricted by the riser
requirements, and lines can be routed directly to the subsea
infrastructure.

This is in contrast to SCR and flexible systems where the
lines must take very long, separated, straight paths to the touch
down location before routing towards the required subsea
destination. Where many subsea tieback lines are planned, the
hybrid tower system offers a very manageable subsea layout.

Where a very large diameter export line is required, the
present flexible riser maximum inner diameter of 19 inches
will mean that either a subsea manifold is required, or an
alternative riser design is used e.g. SCR.

The bundling of all riser lines into a tower will mean that
future riser options are either included in the bundle and left
unused, or slots left available on the Floating Production
System (FPS) for future use. Future riser additions will need to
be considered when deciding the subsea field layout.

Global Analysis
A fundamental characteristic of the hybrid riser tower is that it
is controlled by buoyancy forces rather than gravity forces. It
has been compared to an upside down pendulum. This may be
obvious, but it imparts some very different, almost contrary,
characteristics when compared with SCRs;

1. The amount and distribution of excess buoyancy in
the system is critical to global response.

2. Buoyancy becomes less efficient and higher cost
when positioned at increased depth.

3. Drag loading can induce large lateral offsets of the
tower, especially when acting near the upper end.

4. Vertical loads at the seabed are very significant, and
require a substantial foundation.

5. Loss of a critical level of buoyancy can lead to
instability, and possible catastrophic collapse of the
system.

A compromise is immediately obvious for the location of
buoyancy elements: near to surface for cost effectiveness;
deep enough below wave and current loadings. Locating the
buoyancy tank of the hybrid riser typically fifty meters or
more below sea level means that the wave loads and
consequently the dynamic wave induced motions are
significantly reduced. Thus the major loading on the hybrid
riser will be of a static or quasi-static nature. This means that
the global sizing analysis can be performed with sufficient
accuracy using quasi-static analysis techniques. The flexible
jumper lines will still require dynamic analysis of motions,
loads and clearances as these are much more dynamic in
nature.

Hybrid riser tower designs have been considered by BP
for a number of regions; Gulf of Mexico [3] [4], Atlantic
Margins, Norwegian Sea, and Angola. The very different
metocean conditions in these regions have a direct impact on
the design and installation of the riser systems.

The extreme metocean criteria for these regional projects
are summarized in Table 1. These values give an indication to
the level of extreme environmental loads that need to be
considered for the structural loading and extreme
displacements.



Norway GoM Angola
Water depth (m) 1500 2000 1300 2000
100 year Wave
height Hs (m)
16 12 5
100 year wave
period Tp (sec)
18 14 17
100 year surface
Current Velocity
(m/s)
1.4 2.3 1.3
Table 1 100 year metocean conditions

The 100 year design current profiles are presented in
figure 2. The profiles are very different in magnitude and
shape, and when applied as Morrison drag loads proportional
to velocity squared, the lateral loading can be very much
larger for instance, for the Norway application compared to
the Angolan one. The GoM loop current profile is large at
surface, but reduces quickly with depth, so a deeper riser top,
say 150 meters, will minimize current loading on a HRT
system.
-2000
-1800
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Current Velocity (m/s)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Norway
GoM Loop
Angola
Figure 2 100 year design current profiles
OTC 17397 3

The top end buoyancy tank serves three major purposes:

1. To carry any submerged weight of the bundle;
2. To carry the vertical component of the hang-off loads
from the flexible jumpers;
3. To contribute a sufficient restoring force to ensure
stability of the hybrid riser structure.

To control dynamic motions and offsets in the more
extreme metocean load conditions, the restoring buoyancy
component may need to increase.

The global motion and load analysis of a hybrid riser
tower can be performed with reference to the industry standard
specifications, and using standard riser analysis software. The
bundle is usually modeled as an equivalent single pipe, by
taking each of the structural and hydrodynamic aspects and
calculating a set of equivalent properties. Analysis cases are
well defined in API [6] and DNV [7] standards, and will
include;

1. Storm analysis; static, quasi-static, dynamic
2. Fatigue analysis; wave, drift & vortex induced
3. Interference analysis; jumpers & umbilicals

The calculated buoyancy volumes and depth of buoyancy
tank for the three regions are compared for the same bundle,
carrying six, 12 inch flowlines. The buoyancy volume and
depth of buoyancy tank identified in Table 2 is that required to
maintain acceptable flexible riser configuration, and limit riser
base angle to less than 15 degrees.

Norway GoM Angola
Water
Depth (m)
1500 2000 2000
Buoyancy
volume
(m^3)
720 940 560
Depth of
Tank (m)
75 150 50
Nominal
Base
tension
(ton)
650 850 580
Table 2. Parameters for buoyancy tanks (similar bundle)

The requirement to place the upper buoyancy tank at a
greater depth for the GoM has a double cost impact; the
buoyancy tank must be stronger to withstand the higher
hydrostatic pressure; plus the flexible jumper costs increase
due to the longer lengths required.

Riser Bundle Configurations
The bundle section of the riser system represents a very
significant proportion of both the riser cost and construction
schedule. There is a motivation therefore to explore cost
effective means of designing and constructing this element.
Several characteristics of the bundle section are discussed.

A benefit of the hybrid riser concept is that the design of
individual product lines can be changed without major impact
on dynamic performance of the system. For instance, high
thermal insulation performance can be added through a pipe-
in-pipe configuration on product lines, and supported with
additional buoyancy; however the outer diameter of the bundle
will change very little.

Several different approaches to the cross sectional layout
of the riser bundle have developed. Both the Placid and
Girassol risers are configured with a structural core member
surrounded by buoyancy foam elements and the product lines
captured within the foam elements as per Figure 3. This
configuration provides simple structural loadings, but requires
complex buoyancy element shapes with very good control of
the buoyancy module geometry to ensure adequate clearances
and alignments for the encapsulated lines. The core pipe can
be left empty to provide buoyancy, or may possibly be used
for product carrying if the integrity can be assured during the
life.

Buoyancy
elements









Figure 3 Bundle with encapsulated lines and structural core.

A second configuration studied includes a much larger
diameter structural carrier pipe within which the product lines
are carried, see Figure 4. The carrier is then surrounded by
buoyancy foam. This configuration is much heavier due to the
weight of the carrier pipe, but the buoyancy foam design is
very simple and the geometric tolerances are not critical to
differential movement and interface loads. Material costs will
be higher as the expensive buoyancy is not optimized.
Construction techniques for this configuration may potentially
be more difficult because of the carrier pipe fabrication and
handling.












Figure 4 Bundle with lines within a structural carrier pipe


Structural
Core Pipe
Product
Line
Buoyancy
elements
Structural
Carrier
Pipe
Product
Line
4 OTC 17397
A third configuration studied has a simple structural core
pipe, but the product lines are external to the buoyancy
elements. This configuration greatly simplifies the buoyancy
foam configuration without introducing a heavy carrier pipe.
The product lines however will require some form of external
guidance, and the hydrodynamic performance and stability
will be much more complex to evaluate.


Figure 5 Bundle with lines external to buoyancy and core pipe

Hydrodynamic performance.
The hydrodynamic performance of the simple cylindrical
geometry of the first two riser bundles shown, is well
understood. Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV) modeling
techniques for cylindrical sections are becoming more
accurate in predicting the drag amplification effects and
induced oscillatory motions. Typically the in place VIV and
wave induced fatigue, when combined with towing and
installation fatigue does not require extremely high quality
requirements for materials and fabrication. The installed
Angolan projects have typically not required VIV suppression
to achieve the required fatigue design life targets.

The third configuration, figure 5, with external product
lines, however poses new challenges to modeling the
hydrodynamic performance. The external lines give the bundle
a non-circular form, and may also give a non-symmetric cross-
section. This will mean that the static and dynamic
hydrodynamic coefficients will have to be evaluated for each
orientation to the prevailing current direction. Additionally the
peripheral lines are now hydrodynamically loaded, and will
need to be evaluated for hydrodynamic loading and stability.

Computation Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, see
figure 6, are now being used to understand both the global and
local hydrodynamic effects of these very complex
configurations, and calibrate them with model test results.




Figure 6 CFD
modeling of
vorticity around
a bundle riser
(courtesy
Deepsea
Engineering
Management
Ltd.)


Bundle Structural Design.
Although the global structural modeling of the riser bundle is
reasonably straight forward, the distribution of loads within
the bundle is much more complex. Each of the elements
within the bundle will interact in both the axial and lateral
axes, and the transfer of loads must be considered for all
phases of the tow, upending and operation.

Key design issues with the bundle internal design are:

a. Thermal expansion
b. Buoyancy load transfer
c. Friction loads

Thermal expansion
The product lines will be subject to expansion and
contraction during operation as the product temperatures
change during start up and shut down. For a 40 degree
centigrade temperature change, and steel expansion coefficient
of 11.7x10
-6
per degree C, a 1500 meter steel line will expand
by 0.7 meters. This extension can be managed by allowing the
individual lines to expand freely at an end. The lines will exert
frictional loads between the bundle components

The product lines may either be hung in tension from a
top bulkhead (Girassol), or free standing in compression on a
lower bulkhead (Placid). Despite first assumptions that this
difference will produce different riser response, the
configuration chosen does NOT change the overall global
dynamics because the effective tension within the bundle is
unchanged, see [5]. However the distribution of loads within
the bundle will be very different. It is difficult to keep every
element in tension for all of the installation and operating
conditions, so some elements may be required to be designed
for compressive loading.

Alternatively to allowing free movement of lines, the ends
can be fully restrained by structurally locating the lines at
substantial bulkheads at top and bottom of the riser. This will
result in very significant compressive loads within the lines.

Buoyancy Load transfer
The buoyancy elements distributed along the bundle
section length provide buoyancy both during a towed
installation phase, and during the in-place operating phase. If
the buoyancy forces are transmitted regularly along the riser
length to the structural core, then core pipe will transfer this
load to the top of the tower and be in compression at the top.
The core pipe and bundle will require to be designed to
transfer these compressive loads.

To prevent compressive loading, this distributed
buoyancy force can be transferred directly to the top of the
riser through the buoyancy elements. This option would
require high compressive loading in the buoyancy elements,
and the associated design requirements.

Conditions may be found whereby compressive loading in
both the core pipe and buoyancy modules can be evenly
distributed so to achieve a more optimal balance of loads.
Product
Line
Structural
Core Pipe
Buoyancy
Elements
OTC 17397 5
Friction Loads
The possibility of compressive loads in the bundle elements
and transfer of lateral loading, plus the tolerances in the
various components, and global geometry changes, means that
the contact forces and surface conditions of adjacent elements
will be lead to very unpredictable friction loads. Worst case
scenarios may lead to quite high frictional loading in the
bundle and elements. Verification may be required in
prototype bundle tests to establish the relationship of the
friction load with these various parameters.

Industry Specifications
Typically several top level standards will be required to be
used for a hybrid riser system, due to the hybrid nature. A
number of the applicable standards are shown here,
demonstrating the range of sources that have to be considered.

Flexible pipe API 17J
Product lines API 2RD, API 1111, DNV F201
Buoyancy Tank API 2A
Manifolding AMSE B31.4
Polymers ASTM (material specific)
Buoyancy Inspec J IP [6] / ASTM
Global analysis API 2RD
Foundation API 2A

These industry standards are just the starting point for a
riser engineering team, as company specific and project
specific requirements will also be documented. In a recent
project, 59 company specifications were referenced in the
hybrid riser functional specification submitted to the design
contractor.

The industry standards for riser design, API 2RD [7] and
DNV F201 [8], provide only a very small amount of guidance
specific to the design and construction of hybrid riser systems.

These standards do however provide many of the
fundamental structural design loads and design criteria aspects
that can be related to the hybrid tower product lines. Global
modeling techniques are also addressed from the aspect of
equivalencing techniques, hydrodynamic modeling, design
load cases and allowable stress.

There is an opportunity in the next few years to capture
the experience and lessons from a number of hybrid riser
projects to update the guidance and design techniques used for
hybrid riser towers.

Industry standards and guidance are needed to be
extended for such areas as:

1. Buoyancy foam standards industry standard
water depth and temperature qualification
criteria, long term testing against agreed
standards and conditions.

2. The modeling of friction, load transfer,
compression buckling, and tolerance
management in complex bundled arrangements.

3. The design requirements for pressure balanced or
pressurized buoyancy tanks.

4. Methods of modeling hydrodynamic
performance of non-symmetric bundle
configurations, and model test approaches
suitable for developing the hydrodynamic
coefficients.

5. The design and hydrodynamic modeling of
external product lines in close proximity to other
elements.

Construction
Offshore construction of a complex hybrid riser tower system
has been demonstrated on the Placid Green Canyon project,
but required a dedicated drilling and production vessel. For
small hybrid riser configurations e.g. single lines, this may be
effective, but for complex hybrid riser tower configurations it
is not considered that this option would be schedule or
economically efficient.

Onshore construction sites in Angola, GoM and UK have
been developed and used very successfully for the
construction of riser and pipeline bundles. Towing and
installation activities have proved to be well managed and
successfully executed in most cases. Suitable construction
sites in new regions can be difficult to find and develop in a
practical project time frame.

Onshore fabrication allows a greater range of materials
and construction techniques to be considered compared to
offshore fabrication. Complex elements such as umbilicals and
gas lift manifolds can be easily integrated into the structure.

The towing and upending process for more active areas
like Norway represent much higher risk for the installation.
The long tows in more active wave conditions would consume
a large proportion of the total fatigue life, and represents a
higher risk of damage and major loss. The proximity of the
construction site to the field can therefore be a key issue.

There are practical challenges to the increased size of
elements in the riser tower configuration e.g. buoyancy tank,
bundle diameter, but there does not appear to be any
fundamental limitations on the diameter and length (water
depth) for a system. Economic limitations may be reached
when major upgrading is required for construction sites.

Operational Integrity
The life-of-field operational integrity is a key consideration for
BP and other operators. During the design, construction and
installation of offshore systems, the long term performance
must be considered and optimized with respect to capital cost
and schedule.

For a hybrid riser tower, a large investment is made in a
single, integrated assembly, which may transport a large
proportion, or even all, of a fields production fluids. The
6 OTC 17397
consequences of a major failure would have a major impact on
the project for many months or years, and the reliability and
availability of the system and individual non-redundant
components is critical to long term success.

BP has developed and promoted a proactive approach to
subsea reliability, and has issued reliability standards to the
industry, [9]. These standards outline a number of processes
to use in evaluating the design and operability of subsea
equipment. Guidelines have been developed for the long term
integrity management of flexible pipe [10] and [11].

When projects have had to stretch the envelope of proven
technology, monitoring can offer greatest value for integrity
management, and performance verification. BP has established
some minimum levels for monitoring, and outlined principles
to apply during the design process of floating systems and
risers. The hybrid riser system does not allow easy access to
the components in the bundle, so inspection is difficult. The
high reliability can be achieved through robust design, quality
controlled construction, and long term integrity monitoring.

Costs
Budgetary cost data is presented in figure 7 for a deepwater
project in 1500 meters water depth. The costs are for the
construction and installation of 12 infield lines, plus 2 export
lines. The hybrid riser system option falls between the flexible
riser configuration and the lazy wave SCR system. This trend
is common to the projects reviewed in all regions and tends to
reflect the major differences in materials costs for the systems.
The SCR and lazy wave SCR systems tend to offer lowest
riser system installed costs.

What is not included in this comparison though is the
impact on subsea configuration, the impact on the floating
system, increased functionality (gas lift, heating, monitoring)
and project delivery risk. When these costs are included, and
the total field development costs are derived, the cost
differentials are less evident. This suggests that hybrid riser
systems should not be discounted early in a project concept
due to high cost alone. The evaluation assessment must
include the impact on the field development comprehensive
cost and schedule risk.

Riser Cost Comparison
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
FLEXIBLE RISERS 2 HYBRID RISER
TOWERS
LAZY WAVE SCRs
m
i
l
l
.

U
S
$
IMPORT
EXPORT

Figure 7 Cost comparison for Riser Systems in 1500m water
depth
The cost breakdown for individual components within the
hybrid riser system is shown in figure 8. The costs are
dominated by the capital costs of the equipment which total
85% of the installed cost. The bundle (pipe, insulation,
buoyancy, core pipe, and fittings) is approximately half of the
material cost. Installation costs form around 15% of total
installed cost. Engineering management and overheads are
shared between the components in this breakdown.
Figure 8 Breakdown of costs for a hybrid riser system in 1500m

Contracting
A significant influence on selecting a riser concept for a
floating production facility is the strategy taken for inviting,
evaluating and awarding the contracts.

It is evident from the project assessments made for the
GoM, Norway and Angola, that there are different contracting
preferences based on regional operator preference, contractor
capabilities, and governmental and cultural preference.

Two very different approaches to the packaging of
contracts for an offshore floating development are:

1. Large independent EPIC packages
2. Small operator/designer managed packages

These approaches are diagrammatically outlined in
figures 9, and 10, showing a typical packaging of contracts for
a subsea development.






Figure 9 EPIC contracting packages.
FPS
EPIC
Risers Flowlines Umbilicals.
Design Construct, Install
EPIC contract
Subsea
EPIC











Figure 10 Operator / designer managed packages

FPS
R
i
s
e
r
Flowlines
Subsea
Equipment
Installation
Operator and Integrated Designer
Installation Installation
Installation
Umbilicals
OTC 17397 7
The hybrid riser system offers a very in-sensitive interface
with both the subsea system, and the floating production
system (FPS). This is in contrast to SCR, and flexible riser
systems where loading on the vessel are high, vessel motions
are critical to fatigue design, and subsea layouts have to be
configured around the riser layout. These different
characteristics are compared in previously industry papers [12]
and [13].

For the EPIC contracting approach, where risk is valued
and included in the contract, and interfaces are key risk
factors, a riser system that offers in-sensitivity to design and
installation is a beneficial option, even if capital costs may be
slightly higher.

When the contracting approach includes an operator or
integrated designer to closely manage all phases of the design
and construction, the interfaces can be highly managed, and
the risks associated with these interfaces are less of a risk for
the selection of riser elements. This maybe more suited to riser
designs that offer lower capital costs, but more complex
interfaces and interdependent design solutions.

Conclusions
This review has led to the following conclusions for hybrid
riser tower systems:

The global dynamics of a hybrid riser tower are generally
quasi-static in nature, and dominated by current loads, and
flexible jumper loads. The criticality of installation to surface
metocean, and the sensitivity to surface currents, suggests that
the hybrid riser will favor the less severe environments.

There are many options for configuring the cross-section of
the riser bundle. The selection of a configuration is highly
complex and will require analysis and trade-off of many
interdependent engineering facets.

Construction and installation experience of HRTs to date has
been good. Given the criticality of damage during installation,
installation in harsher environment locations will represent a
significant hurdle to selection of the HRT concept.

Hybrid riser tower system costs are dominated by the
materials and fabrication costs; only 15% is associated with
the installation costs. Optimizing the HRT materials is key to
optimizing the total costs.

Hybrid riser tower solutions typically represent a higher
material cost when compared to SCR systems, but this
differential maybe less evident when the value of other factors
are considered, such as schedule flexibility, the low impact on
the vessel hull, field layout, insensitivity to installation cost,
and onshore quality control.

Contracting large independent EPIC packages for the riser,
subsea and FPS system will favor a hybrid type riser system
which provides great flexibility and independence in the
design, construction and installation phases.

Long term integrity management is critical to the HRT
concept because of the level of investment and production
throughput in a single integrated component.

Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank Geoff Ashcombe and Stephane
Cornut for their contributions, BPs technology management
for their support in development of this paper, and Deepsea
Engineering Management Ltd. for CFD Figure 6.

References

[1] Non-Integral production Riser for Green Canyon Block 29
Development, Fisher, Berner, OTC 5846, May 1988

[2] Girassol The Umbilicals and flowlines Presentation and
challenges, J . Rouillon, OTC 14171, May 2002

[3] Riser System Selection and Design for a Deepwater FSO in the
Gulf of Mexico, Petruska, Zimmermann, Krafft, Thurmond (BP
America), A. Duggal (FMC SOFEC), OTC 14154, May 2002

[4] Studies of Hybrid Tower Riser and SCR Concepts for
Ultradeepwater Applications, DeepStar Doc No. 4403-2.

[5] 'Riser Effective Tension - Now You See It, Now You Don't!',
McIver DB, Olson RJ , ASME Riser Technology Workshop,
37th Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Workshop &
Conference, Dallas, Texas, September 1981.

[6] New Standard for Insulation and Buoyancy Materials, Grealish
F, Reiners J , Bergman R, Kavanagh W, Roddy I, OTC14116,
May 2002.

[7] Design of Risers for Floating Production and Tension Leg
Platforms, API 2RD

[8] Dynamic Risers, DNV-RP-F201

[9] The BP Subsea Reliability Strategy, BP Exploration, April
2003.

[10] Guidelines for Integrity Monitoring of Unbonded Flexible
Pipe, MCS International & Robit joint J IP Report, published by
UK HSE as OTO Document No. 98019, March 1998.

[11] Managing the Integrity of Flexible Pipe Field Systems: Industry
Guidelines and their Application to BPs West of Shetland
Assets, Picksely, Kavanagh, Garnham and Turner, OTC14064,
May 2002.

[12] Low Cost Deepwater Hybrid Riser System, S.A. Hatton 2H
Offshore Engineering Ltd., OTC 8523, May 1997.

[13] A comparison between Steel Catenary Risers and Hybrid Riser
Towers for Deepwater Field Developments, V.Alliot, J . Legras,
D. Perinet, Deep Offshore Technoclogy Conference, November
2004.