OTC 19764

Deepwater Subsea Tie-In Between Chevron Blind Faith and Williams Devils
Tower Export Pipelines
Huy Phan, Williams Field Services – Gulf Coast Company; Oran Tarlton, Blue Water Technologies; and
John Charalambides, Oceaneering International, Inc.

Copyright 2009, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 4–7 May 2009.

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
This presentation will concentrate on the design challenges, experience and learning from the SIT and offshore
installation of two deepwater pipeline tie-ins using first-of-its-kind subsea technology and installation methodologies on the
“Blind Faith” project. The Blind Faith Subsea Tie-Ins join the Blind Faith oil and gas pipelines with the Canyon Chief gas
pipeline and the Mountaineer oil pipeline in 5100 feet of water. Both of the Blind Faith oil and gas pipelines are terminated
with conventional PLEMs providing a horizontal connector for the tie-in and a vertical connector for a future tie-in
connection point. The connectors are ROV operable / installable clamp style connectors.
The method of joining to the DT oil and gas export pipelines and the type of jumper employed are unique to the tie-
in. An ROV operable / installable mechanical pipe end connector connects the bare ends of the Canyon Chief and
Mountaineer pipelines. The mechanical pipe end connector is fitted with an integral clamp connector hub and rests on an
ROV installed mud mat. After installation of the mechanical connector, metrology was performed to create a neutral state
horizontal jumper for joining the mechanical connector hub and the Blind Faith PLEM.
The neutral state horizontal jumper is a compliant “Z-Bend” design. During installation the jumper was elastically
pre-deformed using a bowstring system. Pre-deformation of the jumper provided installation clearances and facilitated the
neutral stress state after installation. Once landed the jumper bowstring was relaxed, allowing the jumper to expand to fit
between the hubs. After expansion and make-up, the clamp connectors were tightened via an ROV operated hydraulic torque
wrench. A seal test verified the integrity of the connections. After installation the jumper remains in a minimal residual
stress state atypical of most horizontal jumpers.
The horizontal jumper was chosen over the vertical jumper because it provides a more compact and lighter weight
connection system. This also allows a wider choice of installation vessels. In addition the horizontal “Z–Bend” provides the
greatest amount of compliancy for the neutral state jumper. Lastly, the successful installation (and deployment) of the
jumpers (and tooling packages) proved out the desired goals of installation by any medium size MSV vessel retrofitted with
any work class ROV system.

Nomenclature
API – American Petroleum Institute A&R – Abandonment and Recovery Head
BF – Blind Faith Semi-Submersible Floater DSAW – Double Submerged Arc Welding
DP – Dynamic Positioning DT – Devils Tower Spar
FAT – Factory Acceptance Test FBE – Fusion Bonded Epoxy
FSW – Feet of Sea Level GoM – Gulf of Mexico
GRC – Oceaneering’s Grayloc Remote Connector HCB – Heave Compensated Buoy
HSF – Oceaneering’s Hydraulic Smart Flange MAB – Misalignment Ball Joint
MC – Mississippi Canyon Block OD – Outside Diameter, inches
OSV – Offshore Service Vessel PLEM – Pipeline End Manifold
PLET – Pipeline End Termination PLES – Pipeline End Sled
PLF – Pipe Lift Frame ROV – Remotely Operated Vehicle
SCR – Steel Catenary Riser SIT – System Integration Testing
WT – Wall Thickness, inches
2 OTC 19764

Introduction

Chevron’s Blind Faith Semi-Submersible floating production facility is located in MC-695, approximately 38 miles
due east of the Williams’ DT Spar, located in MC-773. The scope of this project was to tie-in, via hard-pipe jumpers, the
Williams’ oil and gas export pipelines from Blind Faith to the Williams oil and gas export pipelines from DT.
The DT oil and gas export pipelines consist of 14-inch SCR’s and transition into an 18-inch pipelines seven miles
downstream at subsea PLETs. From the PLETs, the 18-inch pipelines extend toward shallow water junction platforms. Also
at the PLETs, valves isolate each two-mile oil and gas pipe segments, known as “tails,” terminated with an A&R head. This
A&R heads was intended to be the tie-in points to DT production. The Blind Faith oil and gas export pipelines consist of 14-
inch SCR, 16-inch and 18-inch pipes. At the end of the 18-inch pipes, two conventional PLEMs with tie-in hubs and future
connections were laid. Both DT and Blind Faith tie-in points are located in MC-728 in 5200-feet water depth and are offset
approximately 120 degrees apart. The nominal length between the tie-in points is approximately 100 feet. Refer to Figure 1
for more details.

The tails from DT were laid with inhibited sea water in 2004 and consist of 18-inch OD, 1.125-inch WT and API 5L
Grade X60 DSAW pipe. The Blind Faith export pipelines were laid dry in 2007 and the pipe at the PLEM is 18-inch OD,
0.875-inch WT and API 5L Grade X65 DSAW pipe.

Figure 1: Subsea Layout of Tie-ins

Design

When DT export pipelines were constructed, new productions to such pipelines were intended to be tied-in via the
tails. The A&R heads on the tails were to be picked up by the installation vessel, cut out and new pipes and/or PLEMs
welded on. However, this plan proved to be more risky and complex than initially thought. Such risks and complexity
include those listed below and did not warrant a topside recovery:
o There was only one valve isolating each tail production from hot work
o The weight of the wet tails exceeded the handling capabilities of the contracted pipe installation
vessel
o There were risks with potential buckle propagations during the recovery and lay down of the tails

The solution for the DT and BF export pipeline tie-ins then focused on subsea intervention techniques. The
uniqueness of such interventions created the following challenges for the team:
o On-bottom connection to existing pipe (subsea intervention)
o Connector type (Collet, mechanical slip on, three-piece clamp)
o Removing weld-seam and FBE coating
o Cutting and pipe end preparation
o Pipe end supports
o New Construction
o PLEM structure – size and weight
o Offset angles between BF and DT pipelines
o ROV operated tooling packages and pipe support structures
o Jumper Installation
o Vertical vs. horizontal
o Gantry frame system
o Alignment issues
OTC 19764 3

o Installation vessel availability

Addressing the challenges above required thinking “outside the box” and being open minded to all possible solutions.
Historically, the status quo in the GoM for hard pipe jumper systems has been vertical “U” or “M” shape jumpers with Collet
mechanical type connectors. These connectors typically require dual tools to operate and usually weight between 15,000 to
30,000 pounds each. So when the concept of horizontal type jumper with mechanical slip on type and three-piece clamps
connectors were introduced, some experts doubted the feasibility and success of the project.

The objective of the BF Tie-In project was to safely and successfully tie-in the export pipelines. However, there
were additional challenges. First, at the time of the project, installation vessels were limited due to ongoing repairs to
damages induced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As such, the BF system needed to be lightweight and compact enough to
allow the use of more vessels of opportunity. Second, deepwater pipeline repairs are not common and require complex
subsea interventions. One of the most recent deepwater repairs in the GoM utilized a large subsea gantry frame to manipulate
connectors for installation and alignment. This resulted in the use of a larger vessel to perform the work. Based on that, the
BF system needed to be designed with a simpler and easier method of translation and alignment. This is important because
the contracted pipe-lay contractor vessel had weight constraints that limited the size and weight of the PLEM with a gantry
system. Third, the BF system had to be operationally pragmatic and reliable. This meant that it needed to be designed with
minimal seals (i.e. minimal leak paths) and, if required, needed to be easily accessed to address seal issues.

The BF final tie-in solution was achieved through various iterations, balancing between design, fabrication,
installation and operability. To achieve the desired solution, the right equipment contractor needed to be selected. While the
cost of the equipment was not cheap, the cost was minimal compared to installation costs. The BF system needed to be
purchased from a supplier or contractor who had past experiences with repairs, had the engineering and field expertise to
properly identify installation issues and could provide the appropriate tooling to get the job done. The search for the right
contractor started domestically with those well respected in the industry and then later expanded to overseas. After a lengthy
and extensive search, Oceaneering International, Inc. was selected as the contractor of choice for the BF tie-in system.
Oceaneering met the criteria set forth and brought the experience of performing other deepwater pipeline repairs.

The initial concept of the BF tie-in system consisted of seven possible leak paths on three PLES and two straight
hard pipe jumpers between the PLES, refer to Figure 2. The possible leak paths consisted of HSF’s, ROV-operated MAB’s
and Slip Joints. The HSF is a hydraulically activated, mechanically set slip-on pipe-end connector intended to be used on the
DT tails (subsea intervention). This connector consisted of three forgings held together by thru bolts. The first forging
housed the slips needed to grip the pipe, the second forging housed the primary and secondary seals with the last forging
being the end cap and offered axial adjustment of one pipe diameter. The slips and seals are activated by hydraulic pistons.
The hydraulic source is provided for by the ROV via a hot stab. This system was somewhat similar to other deepwater repair
systems but without the gantry frame. The Slip Joints and the MAB provided for the translation and alignment, making the
connecting spool more articulated. Even though this system was smaller, it was still heavy and large. This made it difficult
to fit the PLEM’s either to the DT tails or the BF export pipelines and had to be placed as the center PLES. It also had too
many potential leak paths, with three of those paths being elastomeric seals and had some potential corrosion spots. It also
included too many first-of-a-kind components that added more risks to installation phase and would have resulted in greater
overall cost.

Oceaneering then proposed the use of its Grayloc Subsea Remote Connector (GRC) in conjunction with the HSF,
MAB and Slip Joint, refer to Figure 3. The Grayloc connector consisted of two hubs, male and female, held together by a
three-piece clamp. This clamp closed by a drive screw operated with a standard ROV torque tool. The male hub was welded
to the pipeline end and the female hub was welded to the jumper pipe with the three-piece clamp and metal seal. With this
lightweight and compact connector, the BF system could be split into two PLES versus three. The solution also facilitated
the installation of the PLEMs at the end of the BF export pipelines as the total weight was manageable by the contracted
pipeline installation contractor. Oceaneering’s Grayloc Remote Connector also offered another advantage in its reliable and
robust metal-to-metal seal design. However, the GRC has historically been used topside and onshore with limited use
subsea. The concept of taking this connector, in large size, to ultra deepwater raised a lot of concerns about installation
challenges, specifically surrounding alignment issues. The overall tie-in system still had seven sealing elements and first-of-
a-kind components. While this version of the BF connection system is much improved over the initial concept, it still had
challenges to overcome. With the introduction of the Grayloc Remote Connector, it was apparent that a landing and
alignment system needed to be developed. Along with such connection systems, a proper ROV tooling suite was also
required to prepare the pipe for subsea intervention
4 OTC 19764

Figure 2: Initial System Concept

Figure 3: Revised System Design

The final version of the BF system, see Figures 4 and Figure 5, were realized once the landing and alignment
systems were conceived. Furthermore, to complete the alignment system, the jumper configuration and orientation were
designed to be a horizontal Z-bend with a bow-string. These features provided for the compliancy needed to achieve the
design tolerances of pitch, yaw, roll and length associated with the connectors and jumper. The landing system consisted of a
yoke and rail. The yoke is welded to the jumper at each end and the rail is welded to the male hub structure on the PLES and
PLEM. This yoke/rail provided for coarse alignment. To further assist the initial landing, a stab pin was designed to attach
to one end of the jumper (the PLEM side). This stab pin is designed to clamp around the jumper and has pins that must be
removed to allow translation of the jumper. The stab pin also served as a mechanical stop to prevent the connector hubs from
damage during installation.

The alignment system consisted of two horizontal guide pins, funnels and pull-in cylinders. The guide pins were
welded to the jumper at each end and opposite of the Grayloc female hub. The funnels were welded to the Grayloc male hub
structure. Once the yoke landed on the rail, the guide pins should be in line with the guide funnels. The pins were then
pulled into the funnels by the hydraulic pull-in cylinders. These cylinders are retrievable and were placed between Grayloc
female hub assemblies (on jumper) and the Grayloc male hub assembly (PLES or PLEM).

The jumper is designed to be Z-shape with 5D bends to allow for the most compliancy. In addition to the Z-bend
shape, a bow-string was added to compress the jumper during installation and allow for a relaxed and neutral stress state after
installation. The bow string consists of sling-piston-sling configurations and is attached to the jumper via pipe clamp at each
end. Another advantage of the bow-string is that it could assist the translation of the jumper and Grayloc female hub towards
the male hub without needing the pull-in cylinder. The final BF system eliminated the need for MAB or Slip Joint, thus
minimizing the number of seal elements down to three from seven and five, out of which only one was elastomeric seal (the
HSF).
OTC 19764 5

Guide Pins
Fine Alignment

Translation
Coarse Alignment

Stabbing Guide
Stab Pin

Figure 4: Landing & Alignment System Figure 5: Final Jumper System Design

Testing (FAT, Load Test and SIT)

The equipment and tooling design and manufacturing took approximately 12 months to complete. Toward the end
of the manufacturing stage, the Grayloc and HSF connectors were put through an extensive external load-test program. The
load tests were designed to physically validate the capability and strength of the connectors (HSF and GRC). The load
matrix for the connectors was jointly developed by Williams, Blue Water Technologies and Oceaneering. The tests were
conducted at Houston Hallway Inc. (HHI), a major testing facility located in Houston, Texas. The test matrix included the
following:
o Axial tension
o Torsion
o Bending
o Combination of axial, torsion, bending and internal pressure

A special fixture had to be manufactured in order to achieve the test matrix outlined above. There were two separate
load-test periods performed with each period lasting about a week. During the first load-test period, there were issues with
the connectors that required some modifications. However, the overall project schedule was nearing critical so the team
decided to perform the SIT of the BF system while the connectors were being modified. The second load test was performed
a few weeks after the SIT and took about a week to successfully test both connectors.

While the connectors were being completed and tested, parallel efforts were underway to complete and FAT the
tooling suite. During the project stage, the tooling suite was not on a critical path as it was envisioned to be completed much
ahead of the connectors. However, toward the FAT and SIT stages, there were modifications required that placed the tooling
on a critical path and steps had to be taken to ensure the overall project schedule was met. The tooling suite covered the
following tools, refer to Figure 6:
o Pipe Lift Frames
o Chop Saw (pipe cutter)
o FBE / Weld Seam Removal
o Pipe End Prep Tool (de-burring)
o Gantry Frames (as contingency plan)

The SIT of the BF system took approximately three weeks to complete. Actual spare pipe joints from DT were used
to simulate the tails side of the jumper as well as fabricating a mock PLEM to simulate the BF PLEM. Two jumpers were
fabricated and were based on the designed maximum and minimum lengths as well as worst-case tolerances associated with
the connectors, landing and alignment systems. A step-by-step procedure was developed for the SIT to help ensure all
installation-sensitive tasks were executed. The SIT proved the following design key features:
o The bowstring worked as designed, compressing and relaxing the 18-inch jumper within the 24-
inch while the pipe remained in its elastic stage
o The deployment and landing of the jumper and HSF using a HCB was the preferred method
o The overall landing and alignment system worked as planned
o Proved no mid-jumper support was required
o Validated the overall installation procedures
6 OTC 19764

Figure 6: Tie-In Tooling Suite

The SIT also identified the following areas of improvements to the system:
o The stab guide pin needed to be modified for simpler removal
o The hydraulic pull-in cylinders needed to be improved for subsea operations
o The Gantry Frames were proved to be the secondary means for installing the HSF
o Slight stiffening of the yoke was needed
o Other minor miscellaneous improvements needed

Installation (Phase I, II and III)

PHASE I – Cutting of DT Tail A&R Head

The project overall schedule was driven by the pipe-lay schedule. This resulted in the tie-ins being performed in
three separate phases. The first phase was required since the pipe-lay was ahead of the completion of the connectors, PLF’s
and Chop Saw. The BF pipelay route relative to the DT tails required that both tails be cut prior to the lay. As a result,
Williams rented an off-the-shelf Chop Saw from Oceaneering to perform the cut on bottom without lifting the pipe as
planned. Dredging had to be performed to facilitate the cut. Once the cuts were made, fabricated pressure plugs were used to
prevent ingress or egress into the DT tails.

Figure 7: Cut Devils Tower Tail with Pressure Plug

OTC 19764 7

This precaution step was needed since the tails were only isolated from DT production with one valve at the DT PLET two
miles away. At the completion of Phase I, both BF PLEM’s were laid and the DT tails cut and plugged, refer to Figure 7.
Preliminary measurements were made to validate the jumper maximum and minimum lengths and offset angles. Phase I was
performed in April 2007 and took approximately two weeks to complete due to weather and ROV-related issues. Phase I was
performed by Saipem’s “Harvey Discovery”, a 265-foot DP II vessel equipped with a Saipem 150 HP work class ROV and
65 Te nominal crane capacity.

PHASE II – Installation of HSF and associated PLES

Once the connectors and complete tooling suite were completed, Phase II commenced. Due to the lag between
Phase I and Phase II, the work had to be completed by a different Saipem vessel, the “Chloe Candies.” This vessel is a 285-
foot DP II equipped with a 150 HP work class ROV with a nominal 100 Te crane capacity. Phase II tasks included the
following steps:
o Lifted the DT Tails with the PLF’s
o Inserted the permanent pipe support – purpose is to support the tails and reduce the bending and
torsion loads at the HSF
o Prepped the tails – removed the weld seams, FBE coating, made the final cuts, end prepped to
remove sharp edges and chamfer the ends
o Installed the HSF via a HCB, set the grips and seals and performed annulus seal integrity test
o Performed metrologies between the HSF’s and PLEM’s

Phase II took place in September and ended in early December 2007. As a result, the work experienced the winter
weather with more than usual weather-related issues. In addition to weather, Phase II also experienced ROV downtime. The
total duration for Phase II is somewhat misleading. There was a period within Phase II that the Chloe Candies” vessel was
released to complete some critical tasks for the BF Host and was subsequently returned to complete Phase II. At the
completion of Phase II, the HSF’s were successfully installed with metrologies taken for onshore jumpers fabrications, refer
to Figure 8. The installations of the HSF’s and PLES via a HCB were performed offshore per the SIT.

Figure 8: Phase II – HSF and PLES Installation

PHASE III – Jumpers Fabrication and Installation

The BF jumpers were fabricated onshore at Chet Morrison’s Yard in Houma, La. The mock-up PLEM
used at SIT as well as a newly fabricated mock-up HSF PLES was brought to Chet’s yard to provide the ends for the jumper
fabrications. Metrologies performed from Phase II were used to fit the jumpers between the mock PLES and PLEM. The
fabrication took approximately two weeks to complete, hydrotested and ready to ship out, refer to Figure 9. The jumpers
were then loaded onto the Saipem’s vessel “Chloe Candies” for mobilizing offshore. However, due to issues relating to the
vessel’s crane, it was not able to perform Phase III. The search for a replacement vessel yielded the Global Industries’ “REM
Commander.” This vessel is a 315-foot DP II equipped with an Oceaneering 150 HP work class ROV and a 100 Te heave
compensated crane. Even though the change in vessel was at a late stage, the coordination and execution of Phase III went
well.
8 OTC 19764

Figure 9: Phase III – Jumpers Fabrication in Houma, LA

Phase III execution steps for jumper installation included the following:
o Lowered the jumper using the HCB
o Prior to reaching bottom, contracted the jumper using the blow string
o Landed the jumper on the PLEM side, using the stab guide first
o Landed the yoke and rail on both sides
o Removed the stab guide pins
o Relaxed the bowstring
o Used the hydraulic pull-in cylinders to engage the Grayloc Connectors
o Torqued the Grayloc Connectors
o Performed annulus test on the Grayloc Connectors

During offshore deployment, the oil jumper fit perfectly. The total time from landing to annulus test took
approximately 48 hours. However, the gas jumper did not fit and had to be recovered to the surface. After extensive
evaluations, it was discovered that there were errors in metrologies. The gas jumper had to be re-measured and the jumper
re-fabricated. Re-fabrication of the gas jumper took place at Global’s yard in Carlyss, La. Steps were taken to ensure that the
second metrology was done correctly to ensure a perfect fit. The second attempt of the jumper took place in March 2008 and
was successfully installed, refer to Figure 10.

Figure 10: Phase III – Jumper Installation

OTC 19764 9

Acknowledgments

The BF tie-in project started in October 2005 and was completed in March 2008. This project was very unique and
challenging. The hard work, dedication and perseverance of the entire team made this project successful. The team never let
the status quo nor “it can’t be done” attitude get in the way of achieving the goals set out at the start of the project. One of
the most important factors in ensuring the project stayed on target was the trust, communications and interface between the
different companies. We would like to acknowledge the following companies for their contributions toward the Blind Faith
Tails Tie-In:
o Blue Water Technologies, LLC: Project Management, subsea engineering and overall project
oversight
o Oceaneering – Pipeline Repair System Division: Provided the HSF connectors. Landing and
alignment structures and management of Oceaneering’s entire scope of supply
o Oceaneering – Grayloc Products Division: Provided the Grayloc Remote Subsea Connectors
o Oceaneering – Deepwater Technical Solution Division: Provided ROV tooling and pipe handling
equipment
o Oceaneering – Offshore Projects Group: Provided project management and installation guidance
and managed the SIT
o Saipem America: Provided the installation vessels for Phase I and Phase II
o Global Industries: Provided the installation vessel for Phase III
o Chet Morrison: Fabricated the actual jumpers
o PSF Fabricators: Fabricated the SIT jumpers
o Redline Industries: Provided the miscellaneous, but critical, tools plugs and some of the PLES