OTC-28029-MS

An All-Electric BOP Control System: A Game-Changing Technology

John Dale and Magne Rød, Electrical Subsea & Drilling AS; Thomas Howes, Well Design Solutions LLC

Copyright 2017, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 24–26 October 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
Control system failures in subsea operations are a leading cause of Blowout Preventer (BOP) down-
time. The cost of these failures can increase exponentially with water depth. Legacy BOP control
systems are based on 90-year-old hydraulics technology and have been stretched to cope with new
regulatory requirements and harsher environments. The industry has responded to these design requirements
by increasing component sizes, weights, and system complexities. These adaptations have resulted in
unintended consequences, such as reduced reliability and an increase in wellhead loading. As subsea
operations move into deeper water and wellhead pressures increase above 15,000 psi, legacy control systems
may have reached their design limit. This paper introduces a new concept of an all-electric BOP, a game-
changing technology that will not only negate these issues, but also improve the safety, efficiency, reliability,
and functionality of subsea BOP control systems.

Introduction
The BOP provides safety-critical functions to prevent the uncontrolled release of reservoir fluids and
gasses during well construction and intervention operations. The lifeline of the BOP is its control system,
whichis the conduit for controlling the BOP and monitoring its health (MCS Kenny 2013). Since the
early 1920s, conventional control systems using direct hydraulics have been used for surface and shallow
water operations. With the expansion of operations in deep water in the early 1970s, electro-hydraulic and
multiplex (MUX) systems were introduced to alleviate excessive response time of direct hydraulic controls
(Vujasinovic 1988).
While legacy electro-hydraulic and MUX systems have served their purpose, there are inherent
weaknesses thatmake thesesystems prone tofailure. Foremost are the complex interfaces and the number of
potential leak points that are attributed to the leading cause of BOP failures (MCS Kenny 2013). Additional
complications have resulted from contaminated hydraulic fluids, seal failures, shuttle-valve failures, and
discharge to the environment.
In response to the Deepwater Horizon tragedy in 2010, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE) and equivalent regulatory agencies across the globe have introduced stricter
requirements affecting subsea BOPs. The industry is facing challenges to provide qualified, field-proven,
and commercially available solutions ahead of the mandated timelines for implementation.
2 OTC-28029-MS

This paper presents a new, all-electric control system that will overcome the limitations of legacy control
systems and provide solutions to conform to many of the new regulatory requirements. The system includes
the development of innovative electro-mechanical actuators for well barriers, connectors, and valves on the
BOP stack. Field pilot testing and qualification of the new system integrated on a BOP is expected to be
completed by 2021. An overview of the main technology drivers, benefits, solutions, current development,
and a vision for future applications are presented in this paper.

Background of Electric BOPs

Evolution of Subsea Electrical Systems. While there are no electrical BOPs in operation today, subsea
production systems have been moving towards all-electrical controls with electro-mechanical actuators. The
first applications were introduced in Norway as retrofits to existing systems. In 2001, Statoil launched a
pilot project to install an all-electric choke system with actuatorsand controls on 16 production chokes in
the Statfjord field. Following this success, in 2006, Statoil performed the first conversion of a production
manifold with all-electric actuatorsin the Norne field to operate choke and manifold functions as well
as pigging valves. Both applications demonstratedthat installations can be retrofitted without interrupting
production(Offshore 2006). This has led to major developments of all-electric subsea controls, particularly
for subsea processing and boosting. A recent example is the subsea gas compression facility installed in
the Åsgard field in Norway.
Development of all-electric subsea treeshas progressed at a slower pace. The application was first tested
by BP in a six-month trial in 2004, on the Magnus field in the North Sea, whereby a set of valves and a choke
on a skidwere deployed, but not connected to a well. Following this, in 2008, Total undertook the first field
development with an all-electric subsea tree system, using two DC-powered trees on its K5F satellite field
in the Dutch sector. With actuator reliability results reported at 100%, Total proceeded to install the next
generation system in 2016 on the same field, which included an electrical DownholeSafety Valve (DHSV).
This was the first fully all-electric subsea well in the industry (Schwerdtfeger 2017).
The main driver for all-electric trees was originally a responseto theultra-long tieback challenge and to
improve reliability. The initial development was spurred on by expectations of ultra-long tiebacks in the
Barents Sea, where it would be necessary to remove hydraulics in the subsea umbilicals for technical and
economic reasons. However, fulfilling these expectations has been much slower than anticipated. Although
all electric solutions were developed and tested by several market players, new subsea fields have not been
developed with all-electric trees since the K5F development.
Challenges for the Development of an All-Electric BOP. Electrical BOP development has so far been
held back by a mixture of commercial and technical circumstances. The incentives for funding research and
development programs have been overshadowed by a general contentment with the status quo of electro-
hydraulic control systems and cost of development. Subsea BOP suppliers and operators are reluctant to
change since these systems are proven technologies and are familiar to usersacross the industry. Efforts tend
to be focused on continuous improvementof existing systems rather thanenabling technologiesthat may be
disruptive to current business models.
From the technical side, there are three primary challenges to developing an all-electric BOP.
1. Power Transmission in Electric Cables
For long electric cables, a large variance of delivered power occurs during usage. During high loads, power
loss across the cable limits voltage at the receiving end. During low loads, the line becomes energized,
resulting in voltage at the receiving end becoming higher than the sending end; this is known as the
Ferranti effect. These phenomenaare more pronounced when longer cable and/or higher voltage are applied.
Although the power loss acrosscables reachinga seafloor depth up to 12,000 feet is manageable, the high
voltage requirement (2 kV to 3 kV) is challenging.
OTC-28029-MS 3

This challenge can be addressed by dimensioning the electric cable to obtain an even-balanced inductance
and capacitance; however, the cost and added weight of specially manufactured cable make this approach
impractical. The solution is to supply power only to charge subsea batteries, which are used to provide
stored energy for regular operations and emergencies. While the supplied power will depend on re-charge
time requirements, this will not be critical, since the actuators are only operated for very short durations
with long time between operations.
2. Batteries for Energy Storage
Battery performance has been a contentious issue since its introduction to the industry. The industry has yet
to fully embrace the use of rechargeable batteries as the primary power supply, especially for safety-critical
equipment in a subsea environment. Improvements in battery technology, proven applications in the field,
and a greater understanding of their advantages are changing this paradigm.
The standard solution used in subsea applications today, is to place rechargeable Lithium-Ion(Li-
Ion)batteries in nitrogen-filled, atmospheric pressure canisters. Li-Ion batteries are largely produced for
high-tech professional applications and are easily integrated due to their small size. The technology has
proven its high reliability through many years of operations on subsea manifolds, providing substantial
experience with critical applications related to choke and valve operations. Standard Li-Ion batteries provide
exceptionally long life and are relatively maintenance-free, but are limited by low power capability at low
states-of-charge (SOC) (Chung 2002) and are prone to thermal runaway if not properly controlled.
The electric car industry, renewable energy industry, and other technology companies are aggressively
funding battery research and development programs to improve the overall performance, reliability, and
cost. One possibility being considered is an improved Li-Ion battery made from nanoscale chemistry to
form lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4). These batteries are explosion proof and havegreater ability to
maintain consistent power over a wide range of SOC (Chung 2002). Another development, which is not
yet commercially available, is a battery that can be used in a pressure-compensated compartment. This
will save weight and be less complicated than the current approach of locating batteries in nitrogen-filled,
atmospheric compartments. These solutions are plausible but currently not mature enough to produce in
sufficient quantities.
With technology maturation and experience gained, the industry has discovered many advantages of
batteries for energy storage as compared to hydraulic accumulators. These advantages are discussed in the
next section of this paper.
3. Electro-mechanical Actuators
The BOP stack is fitted with devices to perform required functions. Each of these devices require mechanical
actuation from a stored energy source. While the standard practice is to use hydraulic fluid pressure,
development of electro-mechanical actuators will enable electrical stored energy to be utilized. This paper
describes three types of actuators under development: ring piston actuators for annular preventers and
connectors; ram actuators for pipe and blind shear rams (BSRs); androller screw actuators for various valves
on the BOP stack. Each has unique challenges.
The main challenge for ring piston actuators is to ensure the annular preventer provides reliable sealing.
Since annular preventers do not have a locking mechanism, sealing is prone to relax with a loss in closure
force. This is especially true when high closure pressure is required and during stripping operations.
Improvingsealing reliability around drill string components, including tool joints, and reducing seal wear
during stripping operations are long sought-after capabilitiesthat the electro-mechanical actuator will
address.
The main challenge for ram actuators is to provide sufficient force for the cutting operation. This is
especially important for wells drilled to deep, high-pressure reservoirs, where there is a requirement to shear
thick-walled, high-yield-strength pipe at maximum anticipated surface pressures (MASP). There is also a
demand for shorter time to shear the pipe than what is available today.
4 OTC-28029-MS

The main challenge for the valve actuators is to minimize the number of designs to meet the various
functional requirements of the different valves.
Adding to these design challenges, the size and weight of the actuators must be controlled to keep the
overall BOP stack dimension and weight at manageable levels.

New BOP Regulatory Requirements

In 2016, BSEE issued their Final Rule on Blowout Prevention and Well Control for offshore USA oil
and gas operations. This rule established reforms that will be phased in over timefor a wide range of
systems and equipment related to well control operations. Many of these are expected to be difficult to
implement, particularly during the worst industry downturn in decades (Scheefer 2016). Upgrading existing
BOP control systems to meet the following requirements is expected to be especially difficult:

• Expand accumulator capacity for more stored energy.

• Provide shear rams capable of shearing at any point along the identified pipes, tubes, and lines.

• Provide dedicated bottles for auto shear and Deadman functions.

• Require the use of BOPs with double shear rams.

• Provide real-time monitoring capability for deep water and high-temperature/high-pressure

activities.
• Provide capability for using remotely operated vehicles (ROV) to assist in closing the BOP stack.

Rationale for All-Electric Control System

The rationale for developing an all-electric control system to replace conventional control systems is
supported by the following major advantages:

• Improved safety.

• Reduced Non-Productive Time (NPT).

• Reduced BOP stack size and weight.

• Improved Condition-Based Monitoring and Maintenance (CBMM).

• Elimination of hydraulic control fluids and discharge to the environment.

Improved Safety
All-electric control systems will provide improvements to the safe operation of Subsea BOPs in the
following three areas: reliability, emergency systems, and stored energy system.
1. Reliability. Since the BOP acts as a well barrier element, its reliability is safety-critical. Numerous
studies have been performed to evaluate the reliability of subsea BOP systems. Three of the leading industry
studies (i.e., Scheefer 2016, Holland 2012, and Sattler 2010) have drawn similar conclusions as follows:

• Reliability of subsea BOP systems has improved over the last decade, but critical failures still occur.

• Control systemsare the most likely component to fail on a BOP stack – see Figure 1.
OTC-28029-MS 5

Figure 1—Subsea BOP Failure Distribution (source: MCS Kenny – Scheefer 2016)

The complexity of electro-hydraulic control systems explains why this is true. These control systems are
dual redundant down to the shuttle valves between the "blue" and "yellow" pods (subsea control modules).
Even with this redundancy, if a critical component were to malfunction, the BOP stack or Lower Marine
Riser Package (LMRP)must be pulled for repair. Adding to this riskare points in the hydraulic control
systems that are susceptible to single point or common mode failures (e.g., the accumulator bank and
pressure reducing valves, the single high-pressure header, the piping to each function, the shuttle valves
between the control pod functions). An example is the commonly occurring event of debris entering the
hydraulic system, causing the shuttle valve to be stuck in mid position.
It is expected that fewer failures will occur with all-electric control systems because the hydraulic system
will be completely removed. The electro-mechanical actuator force will not be affected by the draining of
hydraulic energy from accumulators during a shut-down sequence (with pumps off) and can reliably provide
maximum force when operated for any function in the sequence. During shearing operations, it will be
possible to control the actuator speed during the stroke, so that the speed is maximized across the unloaded
distance before the cutting blades touch the pipe. "Soft stop" of rams may be implemented after severing
the pipe; this should increase the seal life compared with "on/off", high-pressure hydraulics.
The all-electric system will also have various sensors to provide continuous health monitoringand
instantaneous feedback from the motor controls to verify actuation. Electronic and electro-mechanical
components are inherently easier to accurately monitor than their hydraulic counterparts. With
implementation of Condition Based Monitoring and Maintenance (CBMM), the system and component
performance will be monitored by tracking operation cycles so that repairs or replacement of critical
components can be performed beforethey turn into major failures, which could lead to catastrophic results
during operation.
2. Emergency Systems. There can be as many as six emergency subsystems or sequences in a subsea BOP
system. They include the following:

• Emergency disconnect sequence – A one-button system that allows the wellbore to be secured
by closing the shear rams and the LMRP to be disconnected.
• Hydro acoustic systems – A limited number of emergency functions (typically shear rams and
LMRP connector) can be operated from the rig using a hydrophone, transmitting to transponders
on the BOP with today’s solutions.
• Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) – "Hot stab" operation of the LMRP connector, BSR, and
one pipe ram, as a minimum.
• Deadman system –Designed to automatically shut in the wellbore and disconnect the riser when
hydraulics, electrical supply, and communication with the rig are lost.
6 OTC-28029-MS

• Automatic disconnect system –Closes the shear rams when the lower flex joint reaches a preset
angle.
• Auto shear –Closes the shear rams in the event the LMRP is unintentionally disconnected.

Deployment of these emergency systems varies across the industry because of different local regulatory
requirements. In the latest revision of API53, it is a requirement that all subsea stacks have Autoshear and
Deadman systemsas well as an ROV intervention system to meet closing requirements.
Today, critical hydraulically actuated functions, such as shearing, ram locking, and connector unlatching,
can be activated with the help of an ROV. Connection between the ROV and the BOP stack is usually made
through a single-ported hot-stabreceptacle interface. The hydraulic power supply is provided by means of
the ROV hydraulic system, hydraulic system at the BOP stack (stack-mounted accumulators), or the separate
hydraulic system at the well site. Each of these are limited in functionality and available energy.
In the all-electric system, it will be possible to power and operate the BOP control system via an ROV
in a manner comparable to the hydraulicsystem. The improvements introduced with the system are as
follows:complete control and monitoring of the BOP stack and increased stored energy provided by batteries
on the BOP stack. This is particularly advantageous for emergencydisconnect situations (e.g., if an umbilical
is disconnected or damaged, resulting in the loss of surface power andcommunications). In this situation,
there will be ample stored energy in the batteries and operation of the control system can be regained through
the ROV cable. An additional battery module or new cable couldalso be deployed and connected to the
system.
Electro-mechanical actuators in the all-electric system will also have the advantage of a mechanical
override that isoperated via a spindle by the ROV torque tool and engaged with the gears in the actuator.
Obviously, mechanical override with anROV works only on one function at a time.
There is no requirement for a hydro-acoustic back-up system in the API53 standard;itis optional.
However, all mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs)operating on the Norwegian continental shelf and in
Brazil have this requirement. Currently, only a limited number of emergency functions (typically, shear
rams and LMRP connectors) can be operated with acoustic systems available in the market. The all-
electric control system will further enhancethis capability. Full hydro-acoustic communication back-up will
facilitate operation with a single power-and-signal cable. In the electrical control system architecture, the
battery and control system will be distributed on the LMRP and lower BOP. Communication can thus be
maintained with the BOP through hydro acoustics when the LMRP is disconnected, even from other vessels
with compatible hydro-acoustic positioning systems.
3. Stored Energy System. Current subsea BOP hydraulic systems utilize a surface-mounted Hydraulic
Power Unit (HPU) with a hydraulic distribution system (hoses and hard piping) and subsea hydraulic
actuators. Hydraulic energy for emergency operation is stored in accumulators at the surface and on the
BOP stack. Hydraulic accumulators don`t normally provide reserve power beyond the statuary regulation
requirements and lose pressure as they are drained. This may potentially result in aloss of actuator force,
depending on the operation sequence and remaining hydraulic energy. Another limitation of hydraulics is
that ambient seawater pressure reduces the potential stored hydraulic energy. This must be compensated
with more accumulator capacity.
The hydraulic accumulators, hydraulic distribution system, and subsea control modules add significant
weight to the BOP stack. It is not uncommon to see as many as 126 accumulator bottles on a BOP stack for
deepwater operations, 98 of which are dedicated to the shear system alone (Springett et al 2008). In contrast,
BOP actuators in the all-electric system will be powered from local battery canisters on the stack, and itwill
not be a problem to run multiple actuators simultaneously. There will be a subsea electrical distribution
from the battery and motor controller canisters to each actuator. As shown in Figure 2, the introduction of
OTC-28029-MS 7

electrical batteries instead of hydraulic accumulators will provide much more stored energy at a fraction of
the weight associated with hydraulic accumulators.

Figure 2—Comparison Between Typical Deep Water Accumulators

and Battery Systems (source: Bamford et al 2008 - Geoprober)

Reduction of NPT
Downtime of Subsea BOPs, due to repair and maintenance, is one of the largest causes of NPT in offshore
well construction operations. The impact of this downtime increases substantially with water depths.
Recovering, repairing, and redeploying a BOP stack in deep water can often take weeksand comes at a great
expense to operators as well as drilling contractors. In fact, some operators have concluded that it is more
cost-effective to put a second, backup BOP on the rig. (Hsieh 2010).
With the leading cause of BOP failures attributed to the control system, it is imperative to eliminate
common faults involving the hydraulic system. As explained above, the all-electric control system
willremove the hydraulic system in its entiretyand replace it with a simpler, more versatile, and more reliable
system.
Failure of rams and annular preventers is mainly attributed to elastomer materials leakages. The all-
electric system can also contribute to reduced failure of the barrier elements. Full control of applied
force during operations of rams and stripping of drill pipe through annular preventers will reduce wear of
elastomer materials.

Reduced BOP Stack Size and Weight

Over the last two decades, subsea BOP stacks have substantially increased in size and weight. One
assessment of this trend (Read 2016) is shown in Figure 3. This trend has been attributed to new requirements
for the following: higher pressure ratings, increased water depths, and increased functionality. The latest
development of 20,000 psi BOPs appears to have reached design limitations for adapting to standard
18¾-inch bore subsea equipment and BOP-handling systems on existing rigs. The primary concern is the
weight placed on the subsea wellhead, which induces high bending and fatigue loads onto the wellhead and
structural casing. With the marine riser connected, these loads may exceed weak point limitations, especially
during a drive-off or drift-off event (Read 2016). Potentially worse, in a disconnected free-standing mode,
there is a significant risk of the BOP toppling over if environmental conditions are outside design criteria.
8 OTC-28029-MS

Figure 3—Evolution of Typical BOP Stack Properties (Source: BOP Technologies and Frontier Deepwater Solutions, LLC)

The all-electric system will provide a significant reduction in the size and weight of the BOP stack.
The system will also clear up space for ROV access and reduce requirements for handling and storage. A
graphical representation of a BOP stack stripped down and retrofitted with all-electric controlsis shown in
Figure 4. A new stack design can potentially be shorter once designs are complete and barrier elements
are optimized. Using a typical 15,000-psi,7-ram stack as an example, the potential net weight reduction
could be in the order of 380 kips, as shown in Table 1. This will be accomplished by removal of hydraulic
accumulators, electro-hydraulic pods hydraulic distribution, andsecondary steel with an optimized design
for pressure containing bodies. The accuracy of this estimate, however, is partly dependent on the barrier
elements selected and the ability to optimize structural designs. With standard barrier elements, there will
be somewhat less weight savings.

Table 1—Estimated Potential Weight Reduction of a 15,000-psi, 7-Ram Stack Retrofitted with All-Electric Controls

Stack Components Weight, kips Weight, metric tons

Weight of an existing 15,000 psi, 7 ram stack 1,000 453.6

- Removal of accumulator rack 158 71.7

- Removal of two Pods 127 57.6

- Removal of hydraulic distribution and valves 13 5.9

- Removal of secondary steel plus optimized design and material for

107 48.5
pressure containing bodies

+ Addition of all-electric system 25 11.4

Projected net weight of an all-electric 15,000 psi, 7-ram stack 620 281.2

Net weight reduction 380 172.4

OTC-28029-MS 9

Figure 4—Comparison of BOP Stacks: Conventional Electro-Hydraulics Controls (left) and All-Electric Controls (Right)

Improved CBMM
On modern MODUs, maintenance time between wells is typically 10 to 14 days with one BOP available.
During that time, 4 to 8 days are normally consumed for work on the BOP alone (Hsieh 2011). On some
MODUs, a second BOP is provided to reduce time between wells; however, this is not yet the norm.
CBMM can potentially reduce time consumed for in-between well maintenance and remove unnecessary
periodic maintenance based on known conditions of BOP components. This "known" condition can be
established based on equipment performance and history as well asreal-time monitoring of the equipment
by signature testing and verification through instrumentation. Knowing the condition of a subsea BOP will
also support evaluations for "well jumping" on larger subsea development fields.
In the all-electric system, the principles of self-diagnostics and condition monitoring will be used
to provide immediate, early detection of reduced performance. The electronic and electro-mechanical
components are inherently easier to accurately monitor than the hydraulic counterparts. This is because
hydraulic signature results, when known (often erratic), must be converted to electric signals before analyses
can be performed. The improved instrumentation features and CBMM will ultimately enhance real-time
safety and management during the operation of the BOP system.
Improved monitoring andposition indication of rams and tracking of operation cycles will provide
valuable information regarding the operational status of the equipment and can be used as input into a
condition based maintenance solution, so that critical components can be replaced before they fail.
10 OTC-28029-MS

Elimination of Hydraulic Control Fluids and Discharge to the Environment

Discharge of hydraulic control fluid to the sea is a normal practice for electro-hydraulic control systems
on subsea BOPs. The estimatedyearly consumption of fluid for one BOPis 156,000 L (41,210 US gal),
almost all of which is discharged to the sea. While water-based fluids are generally accepted for discharge
within agreed limits and environmental impact assessments, additives are necessary for corrosion control,
lubricity, and hydrate formation mitigation. For example, typical hydraulic fluid is a mixture of water plus
3% pure Pelagic 50 fluid and 10% glycol (Source - Odfjell Drilling). In cold climates, the amount of glycol
in the mixture can be higher and this involves greater risk and warrants stricter controls. Recently, Husky
Energy reported a 40-bbl (6,360-L) unauthorized discharge of control fluid containing 28% glycol during
their offshore operations offshore Newfoundland and Labrador (Johnson 2017). At -40°C (-40°F), the glycol
content may be as high as 50% to protect against freezing.
The future of oil exploration will likely involve a growth in activity in environmentally sensitive areas,
such as the polar regions. Elimination of BOP control fluids and the risk of leakage from such systems
will help obtain permits to access these areas, and may likely be mandated. The all-electric control system
currently under development provides this capability. In addition, the added advantage of electrics in sub-
zero temperatures is the removal of downtime and risks associated with the freezing of control fluids. Control
fluid that is not wasted also represents a large cost saving;approximately one million USD/year per drilling
rig.

Basis of Design for the All-Electric Control System

Key points from the Basis of Design (BOD) are covered in the following discussion of the all-electric system
and its sub-systems:

• Design overview.

• System Architecture.

• Umbilical system.

• Electrical power and control system.

• Electro-mechanical actuators.

Design Overview
The design of the all-electric control system is based on modular and dual redundancy principlesthat will
provide the versatility to scale the system to do the following:conform to specific requirements, retrofit
to any type of BOP (wet or dry), and adapt to future technologies. The plan is to develop the system at
the upper-end of the envelope for use in ultra-deep water as this is where the full potential benefits of the
electrical BOP can be best exploited.
This development plan will include complete engineering of a BOP stack in accordance with the technical
specifications listed in Table 2. This will be the first step towards a full-scale pilot project, which may be
either a retrofit or a new-build option. The retrofit option will require minor modifications to thestack and
can be delivered on a shorter timeline. The new-build option will take longer, but will provide theopportunity
to reduce the height and weight of the stack and optimize the all-electric system features.
OTC-28029-MS 11

Table 2—All-Electric BOP Technical Specifications

Maximum water depth 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) – Hyperbaric test of components

BOP bore size 18¾ inches

Pressure rating 15,000 psi

Temperature rating for rams 250°F (121°C)

Temperature rating for annular 250°F (121°C)

Shearing capacity 9–inch drill collar at MASP with cutting speed less than 20 seconds

LMRP Package Flex joint, one annular preventer, choke and kill line connectors, gas bleed valves and LMRP connector

Connector adapter mandrel, one annular preventer, one BSR, one casing shear ram, two variable pipe rams (upper/
Lower BOP Package
middle), one lower test ram, choke and kill valves and a wellhead connector.

Pressure energised rams Yes

Hydro-acoustic control system Yes

System Architecture. The system architecture, shown in Figure 5, is based on modular components
installed on the BOP stack. These components shall be dual redundant from the transformer to the actuator
motors. Even the actuator motors may have a double set of motor coils.

Figure 5—System Architecture for the Electric BOP Concept

12 OTC-28029-MS

The operational functionality will be handled through the following two main control systems: the
automation system and the emergency system. The umbilical cable will feature dual Ethernetnetworks for
both the automation and the emergency system. In addition, both the automation and emergency systems
will feature separate acoustic data links, based on an Acoustic Control System, to maintain data and control
links between subsea and topside in case of accidental cable break and/or a disconnection. The acoustic-
safety net will allow for shut downs and monitoring from nearby vessels in the case of a severe emergency,
disabling the control system on the drilling vessel. Safety Integrity Level (SIL) 2 requirements can be
implemented for the all-electric BOP control system, including instrumentation, power supply, batteries,
and electrical motors.

Umbilical System
The umbilical system will consist of a single, slim composite subsea cablewith electrical conductors and
fiber optics for communication, which will be deployed from surface and connected to the transformer. A
second composite cable can also be deployed for redundancy, if required.
Although it is normal to run two umbilicals for BOP controls (i.e., one for each pod) there is an established
practice to use a single umbilical for Workover Control Systems (WOCS). With respect to electrical
power from surface, a single, slim high-voltage cable will be sufficient to charge the batteries. The subsea
battery packages will have double capacity and emergency functionswill be operated on battery power and
won’trely on power from the surface. Since the communication is taken through the power cable, there is
an argument for a double set of composite cables, or just a second communication cable. However, there
are plans for hydro-acoustic communication as back-up, which may justify the operation of the BOP with
a single power and signal umbilical.

Electrical Power and Controls System

Power System. All cables used in the subsea distribution system will be of the oil-filled, subsea harness type
with high quality electrical connectors, as used in subsea production control systems. Similar disconnect
and reconnect capability will be incorporated as with existing electro-hydraulic control systems.
Electrical power supplied from surface will range from 2kV to 3kV and 175 kW to 205 kW, depending
on re-charge time requirements. The power will be lowered to 1,000 VDC nominallyby the transformer to
charge the batteries. The maximum charge current will typically be 60A.
The actuators and control system will run on subsea battery power. Actuators will consume power only
for a short moment. Ram and annular preventer actuators will typically draw 250A at 800V during maximum
load with a1,800-metric-ton (3,968,320.7-lbf) load. The current will, however, be lower in an actual case.
The 1,800-metric-ton load for the annular is related to 3,000-psi operating pressure with anormal operating
pressureof1,500 psi.
The batteries will be split into several packages and mounted on both the LMRP and the lower BOP.
This will provide versatile dual redundancy and superior energy density as compared to stored hydraulic
energy. Batteries will be protected by nitrogen filled, atmospheric pressure canisters and be replaceable
by an ROV. Chargers will also be placed subsea and will be tailor-made for specific applications, such as
charging current and voltage.
Li-Ion batteries are the selected standard. To mitigate the concerns discussed earlier, a Battery Monitoring
System (BMS) isincluded and the batteries and chargers will be designed with the highest possible regularity,
following the principles commonly used for uninterruptable power supply systems incritical installations.
Modularity and Dual Redundancy.

• All components willbe protected from water ingress.

OTC-28029-MS 13

• All system controllers will be dual to ensure strong reliability. There will be controllers located at
the top and bottom of the BOP stack so that control is maintained after a disconnection.
• The actuator motors draw power from the battery canisters through the electrically shielded subsea
electrical distribution system and are operated with frequency control.
• The subsea electro-mechanical actuators will be oil filled and pressure-compensated to the subsea
environment.
• The Central Processing Units (CPUs), subsea controls, power system, battery hardware, and motor
controllerswill be fitted inside water-tight canisters that can be retrieved and replaced with an ROV
during operations. The canisters will be atmospheric and nitrogen-filled, but the motor driver to-
be-developed is probably going to be submerged in transformer oil inside a pressure-compensated
canister, preferably integrated with the actuators.
Automation System. Actuator control and subsea instrumentation will be interfaced through the automation
system. This will include full actuator control and monitoring, as well as feedback from the various
sensors installed on the stack. The automation system will operate daily routines, such as annular stripping
operations, function tests, and condition monitoring, and will interface with the BMS to allow for continuous
monitoring of the battery condition.

• All CPUs, communication lines, and electrical wiring will be continuously controlled and
monitored. An alarm system will provide warning if readings exceed permitted values.
• All subsea actuators and canisters willbe fitted with a sensor to monitor water ingress.

• Accelerometers will be included in the actuators to monitor motor, gears and bearings.

• Subsea actuators will be instrumented with temperature sensors for motors.

• The motor controllers provide means to measure and log the stroke, speed, and torque of all actuator
motors. Motor torque characteristics for actuator cyclesare recorded and benchmarked against
previous cycles and fault-monitoring parameters.
• All electrical cables willbe continuously monitored for insulation resistance and leak currents.

• Strain sensors provide a means to measure and log forces applied on the BOP stack from the drilling
riser.
• All batteries will be continuously monitored with individual monitoring of each cell for thermic
runaway, voltage, and loading. Any deviation mustbe compensated for. If one cell weakens, the
load on it must be relieved to a level that it can handle, and the lost capacity will be loaded evenly
over to the other healthy cells. If a cell fails, it mustbe shut down and bypassed and the load be
distributed amongst the healthy cells.
Emergency System. The emergency system is designed to provide provisions to ensure that complete
control and monitoring of the BOP is maintained during any emergency events, as specified in the latest
revision of API53. The system will work in parallel with the automation system to ensure that all emergency
operations are performed in a reliable manner. It will be configured as part of a "cause and effect" scheme
for automatic BOP sequences and disconnection given certain system events. The physical operator buttons
on topsides will be interfaced through the emergency system.
Hydro-acoustics. As part of the emergency system, there will be up to three hydro-acoustic transmitters
located on the BOP, serving different purposes:

• One transmitter will work as an extension to the automation system by transmitting important
control and monitoring signals between the BOP and the surface. This allows for data-traffic even
14 OTC-28029-MS

after a disconnection, so that the conditions around the BOP-stack can be monitored during a re-
entry or in the case of a cable break.
• The remaining two transmitters will work as a redundant pair, in parallel with the safety system.
These will be directly hardwired into the subsea control system and can transmit the most sensitive
control signals.
The acoustic data-links can also be monitored and interfaced from other nearby vessels featuring
compatible acoustic technology normally intended for acoustic position measurements. This means that
crucial monitoring and control signals can be transmitted to and from a standby vessel if the control system
on the drilling vessel, for any reason, should be unable to communicate with the BOP.

Electro-Mechanical Actuators
As previously stated, the following three types of actuators are under development: ring piston actuators for
annular preventers and connectors, ram actuators for pipe and BSRs, and valve actuators. The key design
bases for each of these actuator types are discussed below.
Ring Piston Actuators.
Connector Actuator
Figure 6 shows diagrams of the ring piston concept with a patent priority date of 2012.02.10 for the
electro-mechanical-actuated connector under development. The transmission elements and electric motor
are arranged to move an actuation element between first and second position. The rotor of the electric
motor surrounds and is connected to the actuator nut, which is in threaded engagement with the actuation
element. The subsea actuator motor controllers will use frequency converters to control the speed, torque,
and position. It will also provide full feedback to the control system. Depending on the required actuation
force for the connector, roller sleeve thread pitch and the diameter of the roller sleeve, an extra planetary gear
may be included between the motor and the actuator nut with threaded rollers to increase the actuation force.

Figure 6—Ring Piston Actuator Concept – Showing a Connector and Detail of the Electro-Mechanical Transmission Elements

Annular Preventer Actuator

Thesame internal mechanism principle is used for the annular preventer actuator. In this design, a planetary
gear will be included between the motor and actuator nut becausea greater actuation force for the annular is
essential. To achieve this load requirement, it will be necessary to have sufficient space inside the housing
to accommodate the internal sealing element and drive mechanisms to produce the necessary torque.
Ram Actuators. The selected Ram Actuator concept has evolved from three design iterations and extensive
testing. The first design, with patent priority date of 2012.02.10, was based on a ring motor that rotates four
OTC-28029-MS 15

stationary roller screwsvia primary and secondary planetary gears. These drive a thrust plate connected to
the screws via roller nuts to operate the ram.
The second, Mark I design (shown in Figure 7, with a patent priority date of 2016.02.10), was built and
tested in 2016. It is based on an electric ring motor that is arranged to drive a single movable roller screw
along the actuator’s longitudinal axisvia a planetary gear and threaded rollers.

Figure 7—Mark I Ram Actuator with Internal Parts Schematic

The third, Mark II design, currently in the design process, will be a two-screw ram actuator. This solution
is designed with the capability of shearing 9-inch drill collars and to reduce the height of the actuator,
making it easier to integrate with standard components.
Valve Actuators. Conceptual designs for the following two electro-mechanical actuators have been made
for the various valves on the choke, kill, and gas bleed lines: a double acting actuator with patent priority
date of 2011.03.16 and a spring return actuator with patent priority date of 2011.10.12. Both actuator designs
are based on roller screw technology and gears for power transmission from electrical motors.

Development Plan
The development plan is structured in three phases as shown in Figure 8. This plan includes Technical
Readiness Level (TRL) qualifications per API-RP-17N standards (API RP17N 2017)for each of the key
components. The goal at the end of Phase III is to have a complete BOP and control systempilot tested
offshore by 2021. This will result in a full-scale integrated system qualified to TRL-5.
16 OTC-28029-MS

Figure 8—Development Plan with Component Technical Readiness Levels (TRLs)

Phase I – Actuator Prototypes

The first phase of the project was the development and work-shop load testing of the followingsimplified
electro-mechanical actuator prototypes:a ring piston device with planetary gear transmission and a roller
sleeve and a single-screw ram actuator. This phase was successfully completed in August of 2016.
The first prototype, as shown in Figure 9, was a ring piston actuator for the annular preventer. This
device was built into an existing annular body and tested against a hydraulic cylinder. Since the test was
only intended to verify speed and force of the actuating device, a sealing element was not installed in
this simplified prototype. The actuator was successfully tested to a 1,200-metric-ton dynamic load. Further
development in Phase II will upgrade the motor control and roller sleeve optimization.
OTC-28029-MS 17

Figure 9—Ring Piston Actuator with Top Mounted Hydraulic Load Test Actuator

The secondram actuator prototype, Mark I, was a single screw actuator for the BSR. This device was
successfully load-tested with 2,300 metric ton (5,070,632-lbf.) static load, and 1,200 metric ton (2,645,547-
lbf.) dynamic load. The main challenge was the motor control with load. Mechanically, the actuator test was
a success. Further development in Phase II will be a new, more compact, Mark II ram actuator design.
With each actuator, special motors will be developed for their specific function. In addition, development
of subsea motor controllers will be a major R&D effort in parallel with the actuator development.

Phase II – System Engineering

The second phase of the project is to use the results and learnings from Phase I tests to perform systems
engineering and upgrades to the mechanical assemblies, specifically the actuator transmissions, motors,
and motor controls. Designs and further testing will be done to target maximum loading and endurance
requirements for 4,000-meter (13,123-foot) water depth.
Ring Piston Actuator Mark II. The planned Mark II version of the annular actuator will be designed
with a new housing with a larger diameter, to provide more internal space for the actuating devices. The
larger diameter will also provide increased torque. The target loading is an1,800 metric-ton (3,968,321-lbf)
dynamic load, followed by endurance and stress testing to simulate 20 years of operation. More advanced
functional testsof actuator controls arealso planned to reach a TRL-4. These include simulation of stripping
through the annular element. Hyperbaric testing of the annular preventer will be stroking of the actuator
without loading.
The connector actuator will be developed by scaling the Mark II annular device. This activity will likely
proceed near the end of Phase II and completed in Phase III. It will undergo function and hyperbaric testing
to reach a TRL-4.
18 OTC-28029-MS

Ram Actuator Mark II. The planned Mark II version of the ram actuator will be designedto provide the
capability of shearing 9-inch drill collars. The required cutting force for this capability is not yet established
as it depends on several factors; of most importance is the performance of the shearing device used. New
shear ram technologies will potentially lower the required cutting force. Based on preliminary studies, the
targeted maximum output force for the dynamic load test will be in the order of 800 metrictons (1,763,700
lbf). If this is validated, the design load of the device will most likely be 1,000 metric tons (2,204,622 lbf).
The second key design requirement is to integrate the actuator with standard BOP equipment. This will
primarily be done by replacing the large single screw used in the Mark I design with a two-roller screw
system. This will distribute the load to allow smaller roller screws to be used and reduce the overall size
of the actuator. This is particularly important for a retrofit BOP, where there is no ability to resize the ram
bodies. For a new-build BOP it may be possible to use larger roller screws and increase the output force
to approximately 1,500 metric tons (3,306,934 lbf). Another way to increase the force capacity is to use
stronger, non-standard materials in the transmission elements. The downside in this case is that the cost and
delivery time will increase.
Additional tests to reach a TRL-4 will include variable speed versus load, soft stop, endurance loading
in a workshop and function test in a hyperbaric chamber.
Motor Controllers. There are no commercially available motor drivers suitable for the BOP actuator
motor operation. The ideal solution is to develop subsea motor controllers that can be placed in pressure
compensated compartments, preferably integrated with the subsea actuators. A less demanding, but bulkier,
solution is to locate the motor drivers in separate, atmospheric canisters, as shown in Figure 5.
Valve Actuators. Prototyping and testing of the two electro-mechanical actuator designs to be developed
for the various valves on the choke, kill, and gas bleed lines will be done during Phase II. The two solutions
being considered are the following: one double acting device and one with spring return.
Choke and Kill Line Connectors. As an optional enhancement during Phase II, consideration will be given
to developing an electro-mechanical connector actuator to improve the function of the current mechanical
connectors on the choke & kill line interfaces between the LMRP and lower BOP. These actuators, shown
in Figure 5, can be developed from a scaled version of the ring piston actuator concept.
Control System. The control system will not require much new development, because most of the
components and technologiesalready exist. The focus of Phase II will be integration and adaptation of these
components through systems engineering. Preliminary workbegan in January 2016 with initial studies to
formulate conceptual designs and functional and technical requirements. The key deliverables for Phase
IIwill be the following two control systems configurations for the BOP pilot test: one for a retrofit option
and one for a new-build option. Any new components developed will be qualified to TRL-4 at the end of
Phase II. Further detail engineering will be done in Phase III, based on the type of BOP used for the pilot test.

Phase III – Pilot Project

The BOP used for the pilot testwill be either a retrofit or a new build. Results of the systems engineering work
done during Phase II and additional requirements from stakeholderswill provide the basis for this decision.
Further engineering during Phase III will be specific to the type of BOP selected for the pilot test and
qualification requirements. The components and systems qualified in earlier phases will be configured on the
selected BOP. It is envisioned that the pilot test may include partners in a Joint Industry Projectarrangement,
preferably with both operating companies and a drilling company. If the project is a BOP retrofit, it will be
done in cooperation with one of the original equipment manufacturers. There will be a series of sub-system
and -component tests, followed by onshore integration testing. The BOP and auxiliary equipment will then
be mobilized on a drilling rig for further offshore testing, followed by regular drilling of subsea wells when
the BOP system is fully qualified to a TRL-5.
OTC-28029-MS 19

Vison for Future Utilization

Integration with Real-Time Load Monitoring Systems
With the growth of drilling activity in ultra-deep waters and harsh environments, there is a growing
requirementto use real-time monitoring systems to control stress and fatigue loading on the subsea wellhead,
conductor, and drilling riser. While the maturity of these systems is improving, most applications are only
designed to detect stresses along the drilling riser with sensors mounted above the lower flex joint. This is
partly because retrofitting instrumentations on existing BOPs can be troublesome and expensive. Experience
has shown that careful planning of sensor types, sensor locations, installation, and data management is
essential to conduct a successful monitoring campaign forcomplex loadings on the wellhead and conductor
(Diestler et al 2014).
The vision of the all-electric BOP control system is to provide a platform to integrate its instrumentation
and hardware with real-time monitoring systems. This willprovide a more efficient means of installing and
using such systems. It will also ultimately advance the requirement of monitoring and controlling loads to
manage the integrity of wellheads, conductors, and risers during long and more complex offshore drilling
operations.

Integration with Subsea Completion and Intervention Operations

The vision is to integrate the electric BOP with subsea completions operations to operate the Christmas Tree
(XT) and other downhole hydraulically actuated devices. The primary application will be for a Horizontal
XT (HXT) since the BOP is installed on top of the HXT.
Current practice while running completions is to provide hydraulic fluid with an umbilical deployed from
the WOCS on the drilling rig. The all-electric system can be integrated with an HPU mounted on the lower
BOP to provide hydraulic power to operate the XT and DHSV. This will simplify operations and remove
the need for hydraulic umbilicals and the WOCS operation of the HXT and DHSV.
A smaller version of this system can be usedduring riserless open water well intervention operations. In
this application, the battery package and HPUwill be mounted on the subsea well control package.

20,000-psi Electric BOP

As discussed above, the latest development of 20,000 psi BOPs appears to have reached design limitations
for adapting to standard 18¾-inch bore subsea equipment and BOP handling systems on existing rigs.
Compromises, such as eliminating the test ram, may be the only possible means to reduce the loading on
the wellhead and avoid expensive upgrades to drilling rigs. To avoid these compromises, the design of the
electric BOP has taken these requirements into consideration and will be easy to adapt to future 20,000 psi
BOP developments. The system will not only provide significant reduction in the size and weight of the
BOP stack, it will provide increased functionality and integration of advanced real-time monitoring systems
for loading on the conductor, wellhead, BOP, and riser.
In addition, there is a requirement to shear thick wall and high yield strength tubulars at MASP conditions.
This is being addressed in the current designs with the requirement of providing actuation forces to shear
9-inch drill collars. Close collaboration with suppliers of shear rams are ongoing to ensure cutting structure
and shear devices are properly interfaced.

Integration of Subsea Rotating Control Device and Marine Riserless Drilling

Advancement in deep water drilling technologies are slowly moving towards full Dual Gradient Drilling
(DGD) and riserless drilling. These technologies will potentially provide the greatest step change in drilling
performance improvement. DGD will serve to eliminate casing strings and riserless drilling will enable use
of full dual-derrick activity for the duration of the drilling program.
20 OTC-28029-MS

The subsea Rotating Control Device (RCD) is one of the key components for enabling these advanced
drilling techniques. While there are commercial products available, all have limited capability, most notably
as follows: limited seal life requiring it to be pulled every trip and lack of differential pressure rating.
A project is underway to develop a patented RCDthat will address these limitations and provide full
integration with the all-electric controls system on the BOP. The RCD concept will introduce many
improvements and benefits to existing technology, including but not limited to:

• Superior wear resistance and increased seal life withceramic bearing and sealing components for
rotational sealing and wear, as well as a flexible, elastomeric sealing sleeve for axial wear from
the drill string.
• Hydraulically activated seals will dynamically seal on different geometries and allow flexibility
for lateral movement of the drill string across the RCD.
• There is no requirement to inject lubrication for the seals.

• Health monitoring system will predict and detect seal wear.

• Target differential working pressure in dynamic mode willbe at least 0 to64 bar (0 to 928.2 psi)
from above or below the sealing system.
With the modularity of the all-electric control system, it is envisioned that the electric, subsea, positive-
displacement pump required for DGD, with and without a marine riser, could be integrated with the control
system.

Conclusions
The development of all-electric control system technology has the potential to make a significant step change
in the performance of deep water well constructionoperations by providing an inherently safer design,
improved BOP reliability, and enhanced functionality. A field-proven system, designed to meet the reforms
mandated by BSEE’s new Well Control Rule and could become the basis for anew generation of BOPs
by 2021.
Well constructioncan represent more than 60% of deepwater development expenditures. Technology
that reduces NPT and improves the efficiency of offshore operations will provide major contributions to a
sustainable development of subsea oil and gas resources. With the leading cause of BOP downtime attributed
to failure of electro-hydraulic controls, there is a strong need for a new technology to improve the reliability
of the BOP. The all-electric control system has been designed to remove hydraulic systems on the BOP, thus
eliminating the source of hydraulic-related failures and discharges to the environment. To further improve
reliability, innovative instrumentations and advanced controls will also be integrated into the system to
provide a new level of health monitoring, CBMM. and precise control during actuation of well barrier
elementsto reduce wear and loading of the sealing elements.
Replacing legacy BOP control systems with all-electric controls will enable new ways of working and
further improve the ability to meet new challenges in deep water. Novel solutions already being progressed
include integration of the next generation of a subsea RCD, development of barrier elements for 20,000-psi
applications, and subsea hydraulic power generation for subsea well completions.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Electrical Subsea &Drilling AS for permission to publish this paperandthe
people who contributed to the research and reviews.

Nomenclature
BMS Battery Monitoring System
OTC-28029-MS 21

BOD Basis of Design

BOP Blowout Preventer
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
BSR Blind Shear Ram
CBMM Condition-Based Monitoring and Maintenance
CPU Central Processing Unit
DGD Dual Gradient Drilling
DHSV Downhole Safety Valve
HPU Hydraulic Power Unit
HXT Horizontal Christmas Tree
LiFePO4 Lithium Iron Phosphate
Li-Ion Lithium Ion
LMRP Lower Marine Riser Package
MASP Maximum Anticipated Surface Pressures
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MUX Multiplex
NPT Non-Productive Time
RCD Rotating Control Device
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
SIL Safety Integrity Level
SOC States-of-Charge
TRL Technical Readiness Level
WOCS Workover Control System
XT Christmas Tree

References
1. API 53 (2012). API Standard 53 Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells.
American Petroleum Institute (API), APIPublishing services, Washington, DC.
2. API RP17N (2017). API Recommended Practice 17N Subsea Production System Reliability,
Technical Risk, and Integrity Management. American Petroleum Institute (API), API Publishing
services, Washington, DC.
3. BSEE, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement: Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in
the Outer Continental Shelf – Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control; Final Rule, (April
29, 2016)
4. Scheefer, C. (December 15, 2016), Industry Responds to Final Well Control Rule, Offshore
Magazine, Capgemini North America
5. 12-1841-GD-RPT-0002 Final Report (02)BOP Monitoring and Acoustic Technology, MCS
Kenny (2013, October 14).
6. Vujasinovic, A. N., & McMahan, J. M. (1988, January 1). Electrohydraulic Multiplex Bop
Control Systems For Deep Water. Offshore Technology Conference. doi: 10.4043/5880-MS
7. Blow-out Prevention Equipment Reliability Joint Industry Project (Phase I – Subsea), 2009, West
Engineering
8. PRNewswire – FirstCall, FMC Technologies to Provide Electric Subsea System for Statoil’s
Norne Field Improved Oil Recovery Projectin the Norwegian Sea, May 30, 2005
9. Offshore, Improved Flexibility in Norne Subsea Controls, 08/01/2006
10. Schwerdtfeger, T., Scott, B., & Akker, J. van den (2017, May 1). World-First All-Electric Subsea
Well. Offshore Technology Conference. doi: 10.4043/27701-MS
22 OTC-28029-MS

11. Chung, S.-Y., Bloking, J. T., & Chiang, Y.-M. (2002). Electronically conductive phospho-olivines
as lithium storage electrodes. Nature Materials, 123–128
12. Holland, H and Awan H. (August 2012), Reliability of Deepwater Subsea BOP Systems and Well
Kicks, Report No. ES 201252 Unrestricted, ExproSoft
13. Sattler, J. P., & Gallander, F. B. (2010, January 1). Just How Reliable Is Your BOP Today?
Results From a JIP, US GOM 2004--2006. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/128941-
MS
14. Bamford, A. S., Teixeira, M., & Wickramaratne, L. (2008, January 1). Building and Testing a
Battery-Operated Subsea Shut off System. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/112660-
MS
15. Hsieh, L., (2010, September 8). Rig NPT: The Ugly Truth. Drilling Contractor
16. Hsieh, L. (2011, September 21). Dual BOPs: When One Just Isn’t Enough. Drilling Contractor
17. Read, J. and Shilling, R., (2016, February 7). Legacy BOP Technology Could Be Approaching
Design Limitations. Offshore
18. Johnson, L., (2017, March 28). Husky Spills BOP Fluid off Eastern Canada, Upstream
19. Springett, F. and Franklin, D., (2008 March/April). New Generation of Subsea BOP Equipment,
Controls Smaller, Stronger, Cleaner Smarter. Drilling Contractor
20. Diestler, J., Park, M., & Das, S. (2014, March 4). Drilling Riser Conductor Monitoring: A
Practical Approach for Operational Integrity Verification. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/168002-MS

Authors

John Dale, CEO of Electrical Subsea & Drilling AS, Bergen, Norway. Experience from the drilling
and subsea industry since the early 1980`s. Extensive international experience from marketing work and
management positions in the subsea and drilling industry since 1989.

Magne Rød is Commercial Manager and Chairman of Electrical Subsea & Drilling AS. Technical
background as Senior Subsea Engineer, with over 30 years’ experience from the subsea industry. The main
experience is within subsea Work-Over Systems Technology.
OTC-28029-MS 23

Thomas Howes, Wells Engineering and Project Manager, Well Design Solutions LLC, Houston, USA.
Served 25 years with BP and heritage companies and total 34 years in the upstream oil & gas industry with
extensive operational and project planning experience in drilling, completion and well interventions.