OTC 14040

Malampaya Deep Water Gas Pipeline and Flowlines: Technical and Engineering
Challenges faced in the Execution of the Malampaya Pipeline Scope
J.C. Macara - Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
Copyright 2002, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas U.S.A., 69 May 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was
presented.

Abstract
The Malampaya field development comprises subsea wells in
850 metres water-depth producing via a subsea manifold and
two 16 inch diameter inconel clad flowlines to a shallow water
platform 30 km distant. Condensate is removed on the
platform and the dry gas is then transported via a 504 km long
24 inch export pipeline to an onshore gas plant at Tabangao
(Batangas, Luzon Island) for extraction of H2S. The
condensate is stored in the platform CGS caisson prior to
export via a short 3 km long 24 inch diameter pipeline and
CALM buoy.
The field flowlines and export pipeline route selection,
design and installation are at the forefront of deep-water
technology. The pipelines traverse structurally complex terrain
with varied seabed characteristics and sections of high bottom
relief. The Philippines archipelago is recognised as being one
of the most seismically active areas in the world. The gas
export pipeline crosses active faults, an extensive system of
submarine channels and areas susceptible to mass gravity flow
and other soil instabilities.
This paper addresses the pipeline route selection, design
process and some of the specialist techniques employed in the
seismic design of the Malampaya pipeline.
The paper also addresses some of the novel installation
techniques employed and challenges encountered in the
execution phase of the project. In particular the deepwater
PLES installation, deepwater span rectification and the
removal of ordnance in 460 metres water depth will
be addressed.
Introduction
Following detailed reviews of competing concepts for the
Malampaya field, the gas only development, comprising a

deep water subsea tieback to a shallow water platform was

selected in June 1996 as the preferred option for the
development of the field (Fig. 1).
Common to all of the concepts under consideration
however was the provision of a subsea trunk export pipeline
from the Malampaya field to the gas markets situated on the
island of Luzon. Of the technical challenges to be faced in the
engineering of the Project, it was recognised the feasibility of
the export a pipeline in the structurally complex and
seismically active terrain was critical. Early survey and data
gathering work was essential to resolve the feasibility
question. Offshore survey field work was therefore kicked off
in December 1996 and continued throughout 1997 in one of
the most comprehensive offshore data gathering campaigns
performed in the industry.
In addition to the pipeline routing and design challenge the
deep waters of Malampaya were to throw-up a number of
additional technical and engineering challenges in the
installation of the pipelines. These included:

Installation of 16 inch PLES units in 820

metres depth;
Rock dump optimisation (for span correction) in water
depths down to 600 metres depth;

These and other challenges were successfully overcome

and in doing so the boundaries of existing pipeline design and
installation experience extended.
The Malampaya export pipeline and flowlines as part of
the overall Malampaya Development Project were put into
service and supplying gas to the customer on time on 1st
October 2001.
Route Selection.
The route selection process adopted for the Malampaya
pipeline emphasised the avoidance of hazards while
minimising the length of the pipeline and the water depth. The
major tectonic feature between the Malampaya field and a
pipeline landfall in Southern Luzon is the Manila-MindoroNegros subduction-collision zone (Fig. 2). A pipeline route
passing to the West of Mindoro Island would have needed to
cross the Manila trench with water depths in excess of 2000
metres. Instead, a routing passing to the East of Mindoro was
selected. As a fallback option, the Project considered

J.C. MACARA

alternatives to the all-offshore pipeline route including various

partially overland routes across Eastern Mindoro.
The offshore survey campaign was divided into a
Reconnaissance Survey, a Geohazard Study and a Detailed
Survey. An interactive exchange of information was achieved
between the parties contributing to the route selection process
through the use of a Rapid Data Transfer facility (RDT). This
enabled detailed images of the seabed to be transmitted from
the vessel to project offices in The Netherlands within hours
of acquisition. Routing decisions could thus be made with an
unprecedented short turn-around. Results of the routing in
geohazard areas are shown in Fig. 3 and 4, which were
produced using a bathymetric imaging tool (Fledermaus).
Meteocean
In addition to the geophysical and geotechnical surveys no
submarine pipeline design can be completed without a
comprehensive understanding of the meteocean currents that
the pipelines is exposed to along its route. This information
was used to design the on bottom stability of the pipeline.
Current measurements were made at over 40 sites along
the pipeline route in order to provide data for calculating the
amount of weighting that would be required for stability of the
line on the bottom. The near bottom measurements were made
with rotor and vane instruments moored approximately 3
meters off the bottom, while current profiles were made using
acoustic Doppler current profilers in the vicinity of the
shallow water platform and the subsea manifold. At least a
year of measurements at a site are normally required to give
extreme value statistics but after the first deployment it
became obvious that almost all of the measured currents were
due to tides. Since accurate tidal current predictions can be
made with only a few months of data, the eight near bottom
meters were therefore moved to different sites during each of
the four remaining deployments. The complicated topography
along the route produced striking differences in the observed
tidal currents from one site to another. For the sections of the
line in relatively shallow water, typhoon generated currents
and waves estimated by hindcasts were also important in
setting the criteria. These factors were combined using a
newly developed program which sums the simultaneously
occurring velocity components perpendicular to the pipeline.
Seismic Design.
Front-End Engineering and Design of the pipeline commenced
in April 1997 and entered Detailed Design in October 1997.
The pipelines design team adopted a limit state design
approach based on the DNV Rules for Submarine Pipeline
System, 1996 design code. The general design process was
supplemented by specialist assessments to investigate the
seismic hazards particular to the Malampaya development.
Seismic hazards may be grouped under the general terms
Fault Movement and Ground Shaking (Fig. 5). These hazards
can engender a range of geotechnical consequences affecting
the pipeline. Fault movements impose deflections on the
pipeline while ground shaking can cause slope instability.

OTC 14040

Slope failure in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline may

result in free spanning of the pipeline if soil mass subsides
from underneath the pipeline or impose axial or transverse
loads on the pipeline in landslide.
The pipeline may also be at risk from slope instability
occurring a distance away from the pipeline if the soil failure
subsequently develops into a mass gravity flow. Other
phenomena not discussed further here include vibration of
pipeline spans due to ground shaking and the impact of
Tsunamis at the landfall.
Fault Movement. Faulting is the deformation associated with
the relative displacement of adjacent parts of the earths crust.
Fault movements may be triggered by a seismic source at
depth where ground rupture is initiated. Depending on the
relative movement of the soil masses, different fault types are
distinguished (Fig. 6).
The Malampaya GEP traverses four areas of active fault
movement (Fig. 2): the Mindoro Collision Zone to the South of
Mindoro, the Central Mindoro Fault Zone and the
Lubang/Aglubang fault system in the Verde Island Passage
between Northern Mindoro and Luzon. The pipeline response
when subjected to various types of fault movement was
analysed using the finite element program ANSYS. The
conservative assumption of distinct fault movements along a
single fault with well-defined edges was made. The model
takes into account frictional resistance of the seabed and soil
stiffness. In a sensitivity analysis, a flat seabed was displaced
to simulate the four types of fault movement.
Non-burial of the offshore pipeline greatly improves
resistance to fault movements. Stresses and strains in the
pipeline are minimised by allowing free deformation. The
pipeline should be oriented to the fault line such that the pipe
will tend to go into tension with differential movement along
the fault. The optimal crossing angle depends on the fault
type. Initially, the sensitivity analysis indicated a potential
problem only in the case of reverse fault movement as seen in
the Mindoro Collision Zone (Fig. 2). However, detailed
modelling of the regional bathymetry found that the
compressive forces induced in the pipeline could be
accommodated.
Slope Stability. Submarine slope failures have been
documented in several locations around the world, particularly
in areas exposed to strong wave action, seismic activity or
rapid deposition of deltaic sediments. Liquefaction occurs in
sandy soils when excess pore water pressures are generated
due to ground shaking. If the intensity and duration of the
earthquake are large enough, the soil behaves like a dense
liquid and can flow down a slope.
Slumps along the Malampaya pipeline alignment were
initially identified from the geophysical and sub-bottom
profiling data acquired during the feasibility survey. Areas of
slumping were extensively surveyed in order to find the
optimal routing which minimises the risk to the pipeline. In
areas showing evidence of slumping, it was essential to
determine the likelihood of future failure and the risk posed to
the pipeline.

OTC 14040

MALAMPAYA DEEP WATER GAS PIPELINE AND FLOWLINES: TECHNICAL AND

ENGINEERNG CHALLENGES FACED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE MALAMPAYA PIPELINE SCOPE

Slump features were investigated by acquiring additional

sub-bottom profiling data, collecting soil samples and
conducting cone penetration tests (CPT). The CPT data was
interpreted using liquefaction correlations. Additional cores
were selected for cyclic triaxial testing to assess the
liquefaction potential of actual Malampaya soils under
earthquake loading. A dating procedure using a combination
of soil samples and sub-bottom profiling data was being
developed to assess the age of slumps and, therefore, their
likelihood of occurence. The stability of submarine slopes was
analysed using an infinite slope model incorporating the
effects of pore pressure increases in sandy soil.
Mass Gravity Flow. Mass gravity flows can develop as a
consequence of soil instability on slopes. The general term
covers three types of gravity driven flows: mudslides, debris
flows and turbidity currents. Distinct flow channels have been
identified along the pipeline route, primarily offshore the
Bongabong and Balete river deltas (Fig. 4).
A Transport Model was developed by a specialist
consultant to assess the development of a turbidity flow. The
model was calibrated against experimental flume results and
against geophysical and geotechnical information collected in
the Bongabong channels. Likely flow velocities, flow widths
and flow densities were predicted using the model.
The pipeline response analysis was performed using the
finite element package ANSYS. The numerical simulation was
based on the quasi-static analysis of a long pipeline with the
unit load due to a turbidity current calculated from Morisons
equation. The analysis explored the sensitivity of the
parameters load width, unit load, friction force and
net pressure.
Relatively low unit loads distributed over a long length of
pipeline are anticipated in the runout zone of the turbidity
current in which the pipeline is located. By allowing free
displacement of the pipeline on the seabed, stress levels in the
pipeline due to bending remain low. Moreover, investigation
of the specialist scenarios has shown that for the anticipated
flow conditions, even pinning of the pipeline on seabed
obstacles is unlikely to result in failure of the pipeline.
PLES Design and Installation.
Diverless tie-ins between a deepwater subsea manifold and
flowline require a structure at the end of the flowline
commonly known as a PLES (Pipeline End Structure).
Several PLES structures have been installed for deepwater
tie-backs in the Gulf of Mexico with flowline diameters
ranging from 5 to 12 inches. Significant rotation of some
PLES structures have been experienced during the installation
and rotations in excess of 360o have been encountered. When
this occurs, the PLES has to be recovered to surface and reattached to the end of the flowline with a rotational offset to
compensate for the rotation during lowering. Settlement of the
PLES into the seabed due to the sliding of the supporting
mudmat on the seabed has also occurred.
The design of the Malampaya PLES units included
provision of a hinged yoke mechanism to reduce the potential

for flowline rotation during installation.

In addition the following operating requirements and
installation constraints were set for the design:
The footprint of the supporting mud mat be sufficient to
provide support in the soft soil conditions at the location
of the manifold;
The flowlines ends be allowed to move axially by 2
meters to allow for the maximum expansion predicted for
the operational design case;
The diverless subsea connectors positioned horizontally
and 1.5 meter above the seabed;
The PLES be lowered with pre-installed ROVrecoverable pig receivers for controlled flooding of the
flowlines during pre-commissioning;
All pressure containing piping to be clad with Inconel 825
CRA material;
The maximum weight of each PLES structure not exceed
40 tons Tonnes to allow offshore transfer from the
transportation vessel to the installation vessel and
handling during final attachment and lowering.
As a consequence of these requirements and design
optimisation to incorporate the lessons learned from previous
Gulf of Mexico installations, the final design of the
Malampaya PLES differed in a number of ways from those of
earlier PLES structures. (Fig. 7)
A seven-by-twelve metre mud mat was selected to ensure,
with a large factor of safety, that loads from the PLES would
not exceed the bearing capacity of the soil at the manifold
location. The PLES was also designed to accommodate the
predicted flowline expansion without sliding of the mud mat
over the seabed. The sliding system that provided the
necessary two meters for flowline expansion consisted of
Inconel plated sliding rails mounted on the mud mat and
Tufnel coated bearing surfaces on the sliding part of the PLES
structure. As a contingency future raising and leveling of the
stationary mud mats will be possible using pile connectors that
were pre-installed on the mud mats.
The hinged yoke, used to hold the PLES and suspended
flowlines section during installation, were aligned with the
axes of the flowlines which achieved a centre of gravity
(COG) for the PLES that was located below the hinges. This
provided an up-righting moment from the weight of the PLES
in the event of flowline rotation, during installation of the
Malampaya PLES due to residual strains in the flowlines from
pipelaying, as has been observed in some previous Projects.
A swivel ring anchor flange was built into the flowline to
secure it to a bulkhead in the PLES with a bolted connection.
Spacer rings and plates were installed between the anchor
flange and bulkhead for alignment of the ends of the piping in
the PLES and flowline prior to making the closing weld.
The configuration of the PLES around the closing weld
was designed to provide full circumferential access of the
completed weld for the automatic ultrasonic testing (AUT)
equipment used for the non-destructive testing of the root and
hot pass of the CRA weld.

J.C. MACARA

The dynamically positioned pipelay installation vessel was

used to install the Malampaya flowlines and PLES
installations.
A 275 tonne hang-off frame was installed on the portside
of the vessel for the securing and support of the flowline upon
recovery from the seabed and during the connection of the
PLES structure (Fig. 8). A 300 tonne crane was also installed
on the port side of the vessel for the handling of the flowline
end and PLES on and of the hang-off frame. The design loads
for the hang-off and the crane capacity were selected to
accommodate a wet flowline recovery.
The flowlines were laid in the (conventional) S-lay mode
with the ends fitted with a tapered swivel ring anchor flange to
provide the support in a slot in the hang-off frame. The last
section of the flowlines was marked in the 12 oclock position
of rotation of the flowline during abandonment at the end of
pipelay. ROV inspection of the abandoned pipeline head on
the subsea confirmed the minimal rotation predicted during
the installation engineering.
Prior to recovery of the flowline ends, the abandonment
and recovery (A&R) cable was routed to the hang-off frame
on the portside of the pipelay vessel. The flowlines were then
recovered in the J-lay mode and once above water the load on
the A&R cable was transferred to the crane to position the
flowline in the hang-off frame (Fig. 8). All events during the
recovery and hang-off went as planned and the flowlines were
successfully hung-off at the required angle of 7.5o.
The next step was the preparation of the flowline end for
welding and mating of the PLES structures. Stabbing guides
on the PLES were used for the initial alignment (Fig. 9). Spacer
plates were installed between the flowline anchor flange and
PLES bulkhead for final alignment of the pipe ends in
preparation for the closing weld (Fig. 10).
Welding of the first two passes of the Inconel clad
pipework required a continuous high purity argon back purge.
Since the back of the weld is inaccessible after mating of the
pipe ends a pre-installed purge dam was aligned with the weld
bevel during the mating process. Purging hoses had been preinstalled through openings in the pig receiver.
After acceptance of the root hot pass the argon was
stopped and the dam pulled back and secured in the pig
receiver. Welding was then completed with a final
examination of the completed weld with external radiography.
Once the PLES was connected to the flowline all
temporary rigging was removed and the complete assembly
lifted sideways off the hang-off seat using the crane (Fig. 11).
A controlled transfer was then made to the 3.5-inch diameter
A&R cable before PLES and flowline were lowered to the
seabed in J-mode (Fig. 12).
Both PLES units were successful lowered on the first
attempt. No discernible rotations were observed and they were
placed on the seabed within the specified target box of 5 by 10
meters at 820 meters below sea level.

OTC 14040

SPAN Rectification.
The seabed relief along the route of the Malampaya pipelines
is varied and it was recognised early on in the design that there
were likely to be many areas that would require support
beneath the pipeline to avoid excessive spanning. Support by
means of rock dumping was selected as the preferred method
on the basis of cost effectiveness and minimum maintenance
during the operational phase. Rock dumping also provided the
flexibility in terms of quantities necessary to correct the as
then undetermined amount of spanning.
A first estimate of the scope of the span rectification by
placement of rock supports was prepared on the basis of the
route selection surveys conducted in 1997.
This survey had to cover an extensive area in an
inhospitable and unknown terrain and at that time the survey
method chosen focussed on locating the major seabed features.
The survey was undertaken with a surface towed multi-beam
profiler to measure the extent of the seabed obstructions and
provide a first indication of the relief to be expected during
pipeline construction. It was known that the conical shape of
the sonar waves transmitted from the surface would introduce
inaccuracies due to the decrease in data density at greater
water depths. This was accepted as the primary objective of
the 1997 survey was to locate major obstacles on the seabed
and to provide a feasible pipeline route.
A second survey, this time focussed close to the seabed
along the selected pipeline route, was performed in 1999 to
accurately define the seabed unevenness and to also locate the
smaller obstructions that could be a hazard to the pipeline
during installation and subsequent operation. An ROV-borne
multi-beam profiler was employed to achieve transmission of
the sonar waves from a location near the seabed.
Based on the results of the 1997 survey and applying the
conventional method for span analysis, 94 locations had
initially been identified that would require pipe support.
Evaluation of the subsequent more accurate 1999 survey
results employing the some methodology concluded that
supports would be necessary at 1073 locations. This increased
the required volume of rock from 76,000 to 340,000 tonnes.
The dramatic increase underlined the need for accurate
profiling of the seabed when determining the scope of seabed
rectification work.
The difference in resolution of the two survey methods in
illustrated in (Fig. 13).
The next step in determining the scope of the span
rectification work required a re-assessment of conventional
methods in order to arrive at the most cost and time effective
execution of the span correction work.
Opportunities to reduce the amount of rock necessary were
addressed first. Pipeline installation tolerances required a
width of 16 metre of rock support along the pipeline
installation corridor, whereas the width of a support with the
pipeline already in-situ is less than 2 metre. Significant
volumes of rock would therefore be saved if supports were
placed after the pipeline was installed. Two refinements were
introduced in the model for span analysis:

OTC 14040

MALAMPAYA DEEP WATER GAS PIPELINE AND FLOWLINES: TECHNICAL AND

ENGINEERNG CHALLENGES FACED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE MALAMPAYA PIPELINE SCOPE

Rigid seabed conditions had been assumed during the

earlier analysis. At this stage the settlement of the pipeline
into the seabed from the reaction forces at touchdown of
the pipeline during installation were calculated and
included in the span analysis.
The original analysis did not permit the occurrence of
vortex induced vibrations (VIVs) and this requirement
had been for 95% of the spans the governing factor for
pre-lay pipe support. All such spans were subjected to a
fatigue analysis in order to determine whether VIVs could
be permitted for the short period between the installation
of pipeline and the provision of post-lay supports
immediately following pipeline installation.

The 1999 route survey also indicated individual locations

where support requiring more than 2000 MT of rock were
predicted. The seabed near these locations was re-surveyed
during the 2000 pipeline pre-lay survey, but only within the
footprints of earlier surveys. In the majority of cases the rock
volumes could be reduced significantly by minor deviations
off the route centre line.
The above optimisations resulted in a reduction of the
number of rock supports required before pipeline laying from
144 to 69 and a reduction in the required rock volume from
168,000 MT to 37,000 MT.
A further incentive for minimising the placement of prelay supports is the effectiveness of pre-lay supports. The asbuilt surveys revealed that additional rock had to be placed to
provide the envisaged support for approximately 10% of the
pre-lay supports that were installed.
Upon installation of the pipeline and while still empty,
prior to flooding and hydrotesting, an as laid survey was
conducted and this revealed that there remained 929 span
locations which were in excess of the allowable span length
for the pressure testing and subsequent operational phase of
the pipeline. As such these spans would require post
installation rock dump to provide support. For most of the
locations span rectification was only required to avoid
excessive stresses during pressure testing.
However the analysis work performed on these spans had
used a conservative model that assumed simple beam
theories with full axial (compressive) loading from the test
pressure. For each of these spans the sagging and release of
the axial load during hydro-testing was simulated in a finite
element analysis using the actual pipeline and seabed profiles
recorded during the post-lay survey and accounting for the
sagging of the span during testing. The result of this time
consuming work was a reduction from 929 to 665 in the
number of spans requiring rectification. The required rock
volume was also reduced from 170,000 to 110,000 tonnes.
Progress of the rock placement operations was reviewed
frequently during the execution of the work, in consultation
with the contractor to identify opportunities for improving
efficiency. Measures agreed with the installation
contractor included:

Reliance on the as-built surveys rather than another predump survey by the rock placement vessel to determine
the exact dimensions of the supports;
Allowing a natural slope for the supports instead of the
1;4 slope specified in the installation specification;
Reduction of over dumps for small supports.

As a result of these measures, the number of supports

installed per day increased from 15 - 20 to 30 - 40 supports
per day.
For the two 16 inch corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) clad
flowlines because of the anticipated slower pipe installation
rates achieved by the pipe installation vessel, as compared to
the carbon steel gas export pipeline, it was foreseen that a
considerable amount of downtime for the rock placement
vessel could occur. This prompted a re-examination of the
flowlines span support strategy and the installation of grout
bags utilising a vessel already mobilised for other Project
activities (umbilical installation) provided a considerable cost
saving opportunity while also allowing the demobilisation of
the rock placement spread. The grouting spread consisted of a
turntable to deploy the deflated grout bag to the seabed. The
empty bag was pulled underneath the pipeline with the ROV
and, once correctly placed, filled with gout by means of a
grouting umbilical connected to the surface vessel.
Span analysis for the flowlines had indicated a six to eight
meter high span at one location where the seabed was sloping
steeply into deeper water. The seabed also comprised of
relatively soft material. The stability of supports with a height
of six to eight metres at this location was a concern. Further
work was therefore undertaken to eliminate the requirement
for the support.
The as-built survey of the installed flowlines conformed
the presence of the predicted spans but additional analysis
work by the design consultant and independently verified
indicated that the spans would disappear once the flowlines
had been hydrotested.
As the first routine annual inspection programme for the
Malampaya pipelines and flowlines is planned for 2002 a
fatigue analysis of the eight metre high span was performed to
determine whether the flowline would be safe with respect to
fatigue until 2002. This was performed in the event that the
span did not disappear following the hydrotest as had been
predicted. The fatigue analysis concluded that indeed the span,
if it still existed following the hydrotest, could be safely left
until the 2002 inspection programme.
Another considerations for not installing supports at this
location at this time was that such man-made supports would
hinder any future natural settlement of the flowlines in the soft
seabed. Allowing natural settlement should reduce the risk of
any future rectification work at this location. If following the
2002 inspection programme it is concluded that span
rectification work is required at a future date, then the
installation of half-helical strakes instead of providing span
support will be one of the options considered. These strakes
suppress vortex-induced vibrations and have long been used

J.C. MACARA

for this purpose on catenary risers in the Gulf of Mexico. The

VIV suppressers are fabricated from fiber-glass and can be
lowered over a pipeline and set into place by an ROV.
Conclusions
Some of the conclusions that can be drawn from the
experience gained in the execution of the Malampaya pipeline
and flowline scope are as follows:

Long, large diameter gas pipeline can be designed

effectively in areas of seismic activity;
Early definition of the hazards are essential to facilitate
route selection;
Techniques are available to adequately model and
evaluate pipeline behavior under seismic loading;
A PLES design incorporating a hinged yoke mechanism
can assist in reducing the potential for rotation
during installation;
High resolution close to bottom surveys are required to
provide the seabed data necessary to determine the scope
for any seabed intervention (span correction) work;
Pre-lay intervention work is ineffective and costly and
that its requirement should be challenged through
detailed analysis.

Acknowledgements
The author acknowledge the valuable contributions made by
the Malampaya Project Team members in the preparation of
the paper, specifically Jan Oude Hengel, Luuk Wellens,
Martijn Dekker, Thomas Schneider and Jeff Rimmer.

OTC 14040

MALAMPAYA DEEP WATER GAS PIPELINE AND FLOWLINES: TECHNICAL AND

ENGINEERNG CHALLENGES FACED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE MALAMPAYA PIPELINE SCOPE

OTC 14040

28 km

5 04 km
Upstream
Catenary Anch ored
Leg Mo oring ( CALM)
buo y for tan ker
loadin g of cond ensate

Gas d ehydratio n
Gas d ewp oint ing
Con densate stabilisatio n
Export co mpression

Downstream
Sulp hur Reco very
H2S removal
Meterin g
Sup ply base

Batangas

-0m

Power
Stations

Alternative
Fuel
LU ZON

24" Dry gas

pip eline

- 43 m
3rd flow line
(2021)

Condensate
storage

Manil

Condensate
export

San Lorenzo
( FG P Co p
r )

Santa Rita

( Fi rst G asP ow er
C orp)

Tabangao Refinery
Batangas Si gayau
Ilija n(NPC) Bay

So uth C hin aS ea

MINDORO

Sub sea
man ifold

2 x 16 CRA wet gas

B ula a
l cao
B ay
SC38

SC38

BusuangaI sland
Cul o
i n Isl and

Malampaya

- 820 m

PLATFORM
SC38

5 Developm ent w ells

4 Ad dition al d evelop ment w ells (2009)

Fig. 1 - Malampaya Development Concept

Linapacan Isl and

Semir ar aI sland

J.C. MACARA

Fig. 2 - Malampaya Pipeline Route and Seismic Hazards

OTC 14040

OTC 14040

MALAMPAYA DEEP WATER GAS PIPELINE AND FLOWLINES: TECHNICAL AND

ENGINEERNG CHALLENGES FACED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE MALAMPAYA PIPELINE SCOPE

Fig. 3 - Fledermaus Bathymetric Image of the Mindoro Collision Zone West

Fig. 4 - Fledermaus Bathymetric Image of the Bongabong Channels

J.C. MACARA

SEISMIC
HAZARD

10

Fault
Movement

Ground
Shaking

GEOTECHNICAL
CONSEQUENCES

Vibration

PIPELINE
BEHAVIOUR

OTC 14040

Ground
Acceleration

Soil Liquefaction
Slope
Instability

Soil
Consolidation

Differential
Ground
Movement

Beam mode
deflection

Pipeline
Fatigue

Localised soil
Failure

Mass Gravity
Flow

Free
spanning

Axial /
transverse
pipeline loading

Pipeline
Settlement

Fig. 5 - Seismic Hazard Assessment

c) Oblique Slip Vertical, Horizontal & Tensional Axial Displacement

z
x
y
d) Reverse Slip Vertical & Compressive Axial Displacement
Fig. 6 - Schematic Models of Fault Movement

OTC 14040

MALAMPAYA DEEP WATER GAS PIPELINE AND FLOWLINES: TECHNICAL AND

ENGINEERNG CHALLENGES FACED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE MALAMPAYA PIPELINE SCOPE

Fig. 7 PLEM GA & Elevations

11

12

J.C. MACARA

Fig. 8- flowline end in hang-off frame

on the portside of the Solitaire

Fig. 10 Final alignment of PLES bulkhead

to anchor flange

OTC 14040

Fig. 9 - Mating of the PLES with the flowline

Fig. 11 PLES/flowline assembly in crane for lowering

OTC 14040

MALAMPAYA DEEP WATER GAS PIPELINE AND FLOWLINES: TECHNICAL AND

ENGINEERNG CHALLENGES FACED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE MALAMPAYA PIPELINE SCOPE

Fig. 12 PLES submerged after transfer to A&R cable

Fig. 13 Survey resolution

13