In the Introduction a statement was made outling the restraints impacting Modularisation. The reality of the current
status of this situation can be best shown by Requirements versus Solutions. Many current press articles on the
subject of Modularisation request a Standard Solution for the design of Module, Design of its Installation, Site etc e.g.:
-
The result to the above standard List of Dream Style Questions, are the Reality Answers conditioned by the
requirements for :
Variability of Product Processed, Sweet Crude, Sour Crude, Produced Water etc
Variability of Location, Variability of Ownership, Contractor, Subcontractor versus Owner
Variability of Other interest e.g. Contract, Period of Lease, Insurance, Legal System, etc.
Over the last five decades, numerous articles have elaborated a solution using standard Topsides/Refinery/ Modules.
The answer has always been conditioned by the divergent requirements. A Possible solution has been the use of
Generic Designs. If one looks at the status of CALMS then ABS have the requirements of generic design of Can Buoy
for a CALM. This can be designed and built and gets a Maltese Cross Mark showing that it is built under survey and
complies with ABS requirements. Two players/suppliers concerning this item can meet the generic requirements; one
offers a buoy with a rotating arm for the Offloading Connection the other the solution where the whole buoy rotates. If
you relate this response to a generic design for complete Topsides you end up with a similarly dissimilar design. In
General there are two predominant facts concerning most designs: - "Horses for Courses", e.g." over the sticks" versus
"the flat" and “Best Fit" e.g. at any point in time the design should meet the requirements with a satisfactory outcome
for cost, process, quality etc. Given these facts then the best acheivable is an optimisation using a Standard Hull if
available, a Standard Process if one exists, Standard Modules if practical etc.,