As designer of FPSO vessels ample experience has been gained with both the design of new build FPSOs and the conversion of existing trading tankers into an FPSO. This experience covers FPSO hull design, topsides and topsides support design and the combined application of ship and offshore rules, regulations and standards during the design process.Items discussed in the paper will address the use of direct calculations versus traditional ship rules, and more generally the differences between naval architectural and offshoreorientated approach. A comparison will be made between new build and conversion projects. Integration of topsides and hull design is required, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to accommodate design changes. Moreover the FPSO hull influence on topsides design will be further examined. Attention should be paid to adherence to common shipyard practice.Two examples of FPSO hull design will be presented. One is a new build vessel, and the other a conversion. Both projects are comparable with regard to geographical location and mooring system. For both vessels, aspects of hull design and relation between hull and topsides design will be addressed. Typical aspects of hull design to be discussed are cargo and ballast arrangement, extreme bending moments and fatigue design. The impact of the module support arrangement on the hull design and piping design is evaluated.The general information presented in the paper, and supported by the cited examples, will provide guidance to the industry on how to merge shipbuilding practice and offshore standards. OTC 13210 FPSO DESIGN AND CONVERSION: A DESIGNER'S APPROACH 3

There has been a struggle with the hull structural design for Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels due to conflicting approaches between the maritime and offshore industries. Typically the maritime industry follows the empirically based Rule approach whereas the offshore industry tends to use first-principle methods. FPSO structures are an integration between the two industries where each party needs to be aware of the basis and limitations of their respective approaches. By providing designers and operators with some background and applicability of tanker design requirements and DNV's recently introduced Offshore Standards for ship-shaped units it will allow the two industries to merge and achieve the efficient design and analysis of FPSO hull structures. Using existing traditional tanker design as a basis the design process is defined by firstly considering the environment in which the vessel shall operate. DNV considers two primary environmental categories: harsh and benign. The designer is then provided with guidance for selecting the appropriate environmental category, based on a combination of environmental criteria and vessel particulars. This will assist designers and operators with establishing the appropriate design requirements. Designers are provided with guidance for using direct calculations to supplement the traditional tanker design requirements. Loading issues such as: greenwater, slamming, bow impact, sloshing, motions and non-collinear environments are evaluated, comparing the use of empirical formulas versus direct analysis methods. Although the guidance is aimed at FPSOs the procedures are equally applicable to all ship-shaped offshore units, including Floating, Storage Offloading (FSO) vessels. Introduction Currently, there is a wealth of accumulated tanker design, construction and operational experience in comparison to that available for ship-shaped floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels. Therefore, it is relevant to consider this experience when planning the design for an FPSO. Simultaneously there are also some important differences between an FPSO and a tanker that need to be considered. In order to develop a rational and economic design the available tanker knowledge and experience should be considered with the corresponding structural requirements: Class Rules. For those requirements that are empirically based it is important to be aware of their basis and possible associated limitations. Most FPSO projects shall be built in traditional shipyards that rely on very efficient fabrication processes. These yards may have up to 50 vessels being constructed each year and any interruptions in the fabrication schedule can impact onseveral projects with severe consequences. It is then critical to integrate, as far as possible, with the current yard procedures. To begin this process it is important to highlight the similarities and differences between an FPSO and a tanker to enable all designers and operators to plan the design process to ensure minimal interruptions while still maintaining a tight building schedule. This will allow for the appropriate selection of analytical tools so as to reduce the uncertainty in the design and construction process.

Corrosion control design and management for a newbuild Floating Production Storage and Offloading installation (FPSO) operating in certain benign regions, such as West Africa, China and Brazil, can provide significantly increased challenges compared to their North Sea counter parts. This is primarily driven by a number different environmental factors, such as relatively high ambient temperatures, humidity and cargo temperatures. Therefore, it is difficult to select a cost effective corrosion control design that addresses both the fabrication and operational aspects. This paper provides guidance on how to address the key corrosion protection design and fabrication issues and their corresponding impact on inspection, maintenance and repair during operation. Introduction Eventhough there are over 100 FPSOs operating worldwide, designing and implementing a cost optimal Inspection, Maintenance and Repair (IMR) system for a 20 year service still remains a major challenge. Primarily this is due to the fact that there is limited information available to facilitate the corrosion control design for a 20 year continuous service. Newbuilding FPSOs have traditionally been purpose built for harsh environments, such as the North Sea, with converted FPSOs dominating the benign regions, such as Asia, Australia, Brazil and West Africa. As a result previous newbuildings have been designed with a major focus on fatigue and ultimate strength. However, it is forecast that 90% of future FPSOs will be installed in benign regions, with 60% of these being newbuildings/1/. Although these regions may be benign from a wave climate perspective they can impose significant corrosion control challenges relative to their North Sea counterparts. This is primarily a function of increased ambient temperatures and humidity. Many of the current newbuilding 'mega' FPSOs will have production capacities in excess of 200,000 bopd and, therefore, any lost production time can have very significant economic consequences. Therefore, it is very important to design, implement and manage a proper corrosion protection design. This paper provides some background and guidelines to facilitate the cost effective corrosion control design for newbuilding FPSO hulls. Specifically the focus is on:Identifying and quantifying the dominating factors related to corrosion control,How to select a cost effective corrosion protection system based on a combination of corrosion margins, coating systems and cathodic protection,Fabrication inspection related to the desired corrosion protection system,Providing an operation inspection, maintenance and repair strategies for selected corrosion protection system,Introducing a new RBI tool for IMR control of coated areas. Corrosion problems for converted vessels operating in the same regions, e.g. Brazil and West Aftrica, are well documented and selecting a cost-effective corrosion protection system can be equally difficult. Although this paper does not address converstions specifically, many of the basic concepts are still applicable. Basic aspects of FPSO corrosion control For carbon and low alloy steel FPSO hulls there are three principal types of corrosion to be considered/2/:General corrosion,Pitting corrosion, including "in-line pitting attack" and "grooving corrosion", andGalvanic corrosion (e.g. at welds).

SHEEP HUSBANDRY IN CANADAHISTORICAL REVIEW THE sheep industry in Canada dates back almost to the beginning of her agriculture, for the first settlers, as soon as they were able to do so, established little flocks of sheep to supply both food and clothing for their families.The first sheep to come to Canada, according to record, were brought from France in the middle of the seventeenth century. Others followed from time to time during the French regime, but for nearly one hundred years afterwards no other sheep were brought in. These French sheep were small, and are said to have much resembled the Cheviot in size and conformation, particularly in the shape of the head, while the quality and weight of the fleece were much the same.Toward the end of the eighteenth century, colonies of United Empire Loyalists that settled in the Maritime Provinces, Quebec and Ontario, brought with them from New York, Pennsylvania and other Eastern States, such sheep as were common in the districts from which they came. These, as a rule, were grades of the leading English breeds in those days, including Cotswold, Leicester, Hampshire and Southdown. As early as 1830, British immigrants commenced to bring small stocks of sheep, and by these the quality of the established Canadian flocks was improved. About the year 1842, a small number of Leicesters and Cotswolds were imported from England, and a few years later, Southdowns began to appear. From that time onward, shipments were landed almost every year. A report of the first provincial exhibition held in Toronto in 1846 states that the exhibits of Leicesters and Southdowns were of excellent quality and well adapted to the country. Two years later, in addition to the two breeds already named, Merinos were shown at the provincial exhibition. The numbers increased year by year, until the exhibit at London in 1854 amounted to 400 head, divided as follows: Leicesters, 200; Southdowns, 44; Cotswolds, 30; the last named being newly imported by George Miller, of Markham. In addition to a small exhibit of Cheviots, made that year by George Ruddick, of Northumberland county, the remainder consisted of grades. The following year the show of Leicesters was not quite so large but the entries of Southdowns, Cotswolds and Cheviots were more numerous than heretofore. The prize winners were as follows: