Seabed Drilling Technology in Geotechnics: Why, Alternatives and Recent Experience

Seabed Drilling Technology in
Geotechnics
(Based on a market study Spring 2009 and field experience August 2009)
Why, Alternatives and Recent Experience

Presented at Oceanology International London11th March 2010
Tor Inge Tjelta – Statoil and Tony Halliday, Julian Osborne & Gulin Yetginer - RPS
Content
•Why Seabed Drilling?
– Motivation?
•What are the Deep Water soil investigation options?

– Market Survey
– Selected system
•Recent experience, Luva August 2009

– Drilling, sampling and in situ testing
– Piezometer installations
– Performance and efficiency
•Concluding remarks
Why Seabed Drilling? Motivation(1)
•Competition and SI market capacity (in

2008/9 there were 6-12 months waiting
time)
•HSE: All operations (e.g. sampling, testing,
coring) performed from the seabed
•Efficiency in deep water (doesn’t make
sense to spend more than 50% of time on
pipe handling)
•The future? Surface mounted drilling
systems are up against the limit in today’s
deep and ultra-deep water
Motivation(2)
Luva
•Opportunity
•Budget
•Future (TQP)
Luva Deepwater SI Alternatives
•Standard geotechnical drilling
vessel (surface mounted
system)
•Water depth of 1,300m
necessitate aluminium drill
string due to weight
•Inefficient for short boreholes
a) Seabed based systems like

seabed CPT units and long
piston drop corer
b) Seabed drill systems
1. Conventional Drilling 2. Seabed Based Systems

Surface Mounted Drilling Systems
Fugro Markab Fugro Bucentaur
Fugro Bavenit Fugro Explorer

Market Survey
Technical and commercial
evaluation of “all” Seabed
Drill systems
Comparison between
different sampling systems
Surface Mounted Drilling Systems
MAIN ADVANTAGES:
• Well proven in North Sea and other deepwater environments
• Standard interchangeable geotechnical equipment suites
MAIN DISADVANTAGES / LIMITATIONS:
• Vessels of varying ages and hence reliability
• Possible sample quality issues using conventional techniques in

deepwater soft soil conditions
• Possible borehole depth accuracy issues
• Potential issues with alluminium drillpipe

Seabed Sampling Systems
Calypso STACOR
NIOZ DWS
Seabed Sampling Systems
MAIN ADVANTAGES:
• Can be deployed from a range of vessels
• Potentially good quality samples
• Large diameter sample (90-120mm)
• Sample loss / uncontrolled penetration
• Potentially limited sample recovery
• Large size of system requires specialised LARS / handling safety

Seabed Based Drilling Units
Williamson DWACS Seafloor Geoservices M80

Benthic Geotech - PROD Gregg Deep Sea Drill

MAIN ADVANTAGES:
• Can be deployed from a range of vessels
• High productivity for the given water and borehole depth
• Very good depth control
• Potentially very good sample and in-situ test data quality
• Safety
• Limited track record of some systems
• Availability / development uncertainties
• Small companies as suppliers
• Complex systems / reliability
• Adequate testing of sampling equipment

. . and for Luva the winner was
Summary: Why PROD ?
•Water depth 1,300m – potentially an issue with

surface drilling, better suited to seabed based
drilling
•Improved operational efficiency
•Better borehole depth accuracy and improved
drillstring control
•Better sample and data quality?
•Competition in deepwater geotechnical investigation market segment
•HSE initiative – moving the drilling operations away from the human
interface, down to the seafloor
How was PROD used?
•Mobilised onboard Skandi Bergen

•Deployed midships over the side
•Utilised as part of a combined
geophysical and geotechnical survey
campaign
•10 years track record but with no
significant experience outside
Australia
•Part of a Technology Qualification
Programme (TQP)
PROD on deck
Launch and recovery over the side
Remotely operated & partially automated drilling
Luva Samples offloaded on deck
Luva results – Sample liners pulled out
Luva results – Sample inside the liner & cutting
shoe
Luva Piezometer Locations
Diapir Area Nyk Slide
Headwall
Luva Piezometers I
Luva Piezometers II
P P
•Five piezometers installed to

varying depths from 19.5 to 102.3m P P
bml
Luva Piezometers: As Installed
Installation
Final Time taken
time
Tip Depth deck-to-deck on seabed
(m bml) (hh:mm) (hh:mm)
Luva Template L1009-PZ1 21.5m 00:50

20:10
Luva Template L1010-PZ2 85.5m 14:50
Luva Platform L4005-PZ 19.5m 04:30 01:05
Nyk Slide N1001-PZ 102.3m 14:25 10:40
Diapir area V1001-PZ 24.3m 06:50 03:00

PROD Performance @ Luva
•Some initial problems

•Then, more then 100% of an ambitious
programme completed, within time and
budget (740m in 10 days)
•Up to 5-10 times more efficient than
traditional surface drilling at Luva
•PROD downtime used for other survey
activities
•Potentially represents a technology shift?
Concluding Remarks
•Seabed based geotechnical drilling is now established as an alternative to

surface drilling in soft soil conditions
•PROD exceeded expectations for Luva, however sample quality needs to
be confirmed
•Luva results proved the anticipated higher levels of efficiency that a
seabed drill can provide, especially where shallow soils information is
required
•Seabed based drilling does not expose the drilling crew to the same risks
as surface drilling
•This potentially marks the start of a technology shift in geotechnical
drilling operations
Comparison Seabed Drilling vs Surface Drilling
?
More info on Seabed Drilling?
•ISFOG Perth Nov 2010

– 5 papers on Luva
– Key note paper incl Total West Africa experience
•Suppliers: Williamson, Seafloor Geoservices, Benthic, Gregg Drilling

•M80 presentation today, ref. Spencer
•OE Feb 2010

Thank you for your attention
Luva – by night

Seabed Drilling Technology in Geotechnics: Why, Alternatives and Recent Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seabed Drilling Technology in Geotechnics: Why, Alternatives and Recent Experience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seabed Drilling Technology in Geotechnics: Why, Alternatives and Recent Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seabed Drilling Technology in

Why, Alternatives and Recent Experience

•What are the Deep Water soil investigation options?

•Recent experience, Luva August 2009

•Competition and SI market capacity (in

a) Seabed based systems like

1. Conventional Drilling 2. Seabed Based Systems

Fugro Markab Fugro Bucentaur

Fugro Bavenit Fugro Explorer

• Well proven in North Sea and other deepwater environments

• Standard interchangeable geotechnical equipment suites

MAIN DISADVANTAGES / LIMITATIONS:

• Vessels of varying ages and hence reliability

• Possible sample quality issues using conventional techniques in

• Possible borehole depth accuracy issues

• Potential issues with alluminium drillpipe

• Can be deployed from a range of vessels

• Potentially good quality samples

• Large diameter sample (90-120mm)

MAIN DISADVANTAGES / LIMITATIONS:

• Sample loss / uncontrolled penetration

• Potentially limited sample recovery

• Large size of system requires specialised LARS / handling safety

Williamson DWACS Seafloor Geoservices M80

Benthic Geotech - PROD Gregg Deep Sea Drill

• Can be deployed from a range of vessels

• High productivity for the given water and borehole depth

• Very good depth control

• Potentially very good sample and in-situ test data quality

MAIN DISADVANTAGES / LIMITATIONS:

• Limited track record of some systems

• Availability / development uncertainties

• Small companies as suppliers

• Complex systems / reliability

• Adequate testing of sampling equipment

•Water depth 1,300m – potentially an issue with

•Mobilised onboard Skandi Bergen

•Five piezometers installed to

Luva Template L1009-PZ1 21.5m 00:50

Luva Platform L4005-PZ 19.5m 04:30 01:05

Nyk Slide N1001-PZ 102.3m 14:25 10:40

Diapir area V1001-PZ 24.3m 06:50 03:00

•Some initial problems

•Seabed based geotechnical drilling is now established as an alternative to

•ISFOG Perth Nov 2010

•Suppliers: Williamson, Seafloor Geoservices, Benthic, Gregg Drilling

•OE Feb 2010

You might also like