The right approach to permanent moorings

Permanent mooring is one of those offshore operations where small decisions made early can have massive consequences over the life of a field. In this episode, Brian Boutkan, Director of Commerce at Jumbo Offshore, and Martin Kobiela, Value & Performance Authority at Intermoor, unpack why mooring is such a critical and often underestimated part of field development. 

They explore the complexity, risk, cost, and long‑term performance implications of permanent moorings, and explain why an integrated mooring approach can make the difference between a resilient asset and years of avoidable challenges. 

If you’re involved in FPSOs, offshore field development, or long-term asset performance, this conversation offers practical insights from two industry leaders who have seen firsthand how mooring strategy shapes lifecycle outcomes. 

You’ll hear: 

• What makes mooring an FPSO so challenging 
• The traditional pain points in permanent mooring projects 
• Why integration matters for risk, cost control, and long‑term performance 

Tune in now and join the conversation. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to Act on Energy, acting this podcast where offshore expertise and innovation meets global energy insight. Hosted by a range of voices from across our global teams, we dive into the data, engineering knowledge and operational expertise, providing smarter, safer and more sustainable energy solutions. We act across the full project life cycle and we're here to unpack the ideas shaping the future of offshore energy. Let's get started.

SPEAKER_01 0:28

I am Interpreting Value and Performance Authority, Martin Cobriella, and I'm joined today by Brian Bookcam, Jumbo Offshore Director of Commerce. Thanks for joining us. Today we would like to discuss the right approach to permanent mooring. When we talk of permanent mooring developments, it's easy to focus on topsides, hulls, or production capacity, but the mooring system is what quietly holds the entire system in place for decades. The mooring combines some of the most complex engineering, highest offshore risk, and longest performance commitments in a project. Today, Brian and I would like to share practical lessons on what the right approach really looks like, why early decisions matter, how integration changes outcomes, and what good permanent mooring looks like over a 20 to 30 year lifestyle cycle. Permanent moorings is one of those areas where relatively small early decisions can have massive life cycle consequences. From your side, Brian, how do Intimore and Jumbo typically work together on these projects?

SPEAKER_02 1:38

Yeah, we we bring together the expertise of Jumbo, Oshore, and Intimore already in the in the early business development stage and continue doing that in the in the in the tenders and the projects. What we provide is an integrated team providing project solutions from design to installation, and we we make full use of the experien expertise of Intimore and Jumbo in doing so.

SPEAKER_01 2:09

When we say permanent moorings is complex, it's not just a throwaway statement. Brian, maybe we can start by breaking down what actually makes mooring such a technical and operational challenge.

SPEAKER_02 2:24

Yeah, there are a lot of variables that impact the mooring system of a deep water floater. It already starts with uh with the seabed uh conditions uh that impact a lot the the anchor selection. Uh there is the environmental conditions, the swell periods, the the wave uh impact, uh even hurricane or site loan loadings. Um, and the and the mooring system needs to perform under all of these uh conditions. Then there is the FPSO motion behavior, extreme motions in 60 degrees of freedom, and the interplay between the hull, uh the risers and the moorings. It's a it's a complex uh combination.

SPEAKER_01 3:10

And I guess we we also have load uncertainty as well, you know, nonlinear behavior under these complex loading conditions, and then the selection of materials and equipment at its basic level, whether you go for chain, wire, fibre, and its various different formats, and then balancing that strength, fatigue life, stiffness, inspection requirements, and installation limits. I think maybe what's often underestimated is sometimes the temporary and installation load cases and how sensitive fatigue life is to small design or or layout changes. Um from your experience in an installation and vessel perspective, Brian, where do theoretical designs most often clash with uh the offshore reality?

SPEAKER_02 4:02

Yeah, installability is often not taken into account uh enough. A couple of examples of that are, for example, in uh in suction pile designs, we see that uh uh vent holes are, for example, not not big enough to allow for high workabilities. Increasing the ventil size uh increases workability and has a big effect on on the project schedules in uh in harsh environments. Uh lifting provisions are also something like that. We the safety uh for hooking on uh lift rigging and and being able to do that under uh harsh conditions, important topic to be taken in in account in the design. Um, and also type of connectors, the the way uh connections need to be made between the various uh mooring components on deck and the space uh needed for that and uh the equipment to safely do that is is something to be taken into consideration already in the early design stage of the mooring system.

SPEAKER_01 5:05

Okay, thank you. If we take those challenges as a given, and we both experience those. The next question is where do projects most commonly struggle? It's not generally because of physics or engineering or procedures, but because of how they're executed, which is generally a fragmented approach uh currently in the market. You know, we generally have different parties for design, any fabrication, procurement, installation, hookup, and maybe a lack of clarity uh on overall project perspectives. Um, and then you have that handover which introduces numerous assumptions, um, certain uncertain uncertainty around the operational risk, and then maybe a reinterpretation of the results. Is there is there anything else you would like to add to that?

SPEAKER_02 6:01

Yeah, I think the the the the common understanding here is basically the the more interfaces created, the more uh chance on uh inefficiencies uh uh arise. So what what we try to do as an alliance is is take all those interfaces away and really uh provide provide an integrated approach from design to to insulation and and not creating an interface but actually uh giving a single solution covering all those those aspects.

SPEAKER_01 6:33

Yeah. And then I I guess that that uncertainty and and uh fragmentation can also lead to late-stage engineering changes, which drives delay offshore, uncertainty around decisions, certainty around management of change, all of that kind of stuff as well. I think you know the most avoidable cost in in permanent moon comes from that lack of continuity, really, and and excessive interfaces. Not not really the the hard the hardware that's selected, would would you agree? Yes, yes, definitely.

SPEAKER_02 7:08

I think also also there the still needs uh uh how how we try to overcome these challenges that we uh also on, for example, vessel idle time, uh the uh the whole logistics around the project. If also there we try to take away the interfaces and provide a solution from fabrication yard to CBET, uh tackling and managing all the interfaces, and also thereby uh the schedule, and uh by doing so preventing vessel idle time, either that is the installation vessel or transport vessel or uh or the time that we use a marshalling yard. It's uh we all try to optimize that by by integrating uh uh yeah, all the whole um full approach, I guess.

SPEAKER_01 7:55

Yes, yes. And you know, and it always comes back to this fragmentation now or that fragmented approach to to the whole um the whole project cycle. Um, you know, with the different teams, the various phases, different assumptions amongst different teams, and you know, it just leads to we need an integrated approach across that uh installation cycle. You know, we've got the one, we had that integrated planning stream, we've got aligned design assumptions, and that's around the vessel capability. We have um optimized sequencing, you know, relay onto tow out, onto hoop up, all planned as as one operation. Um, do you see any other advantages around that integrated approach?

SPEAKER_02 8:46

Installation experience in the early design phase and physic version. So, for example, and what we what we uh what we do is our offshore construction managers, they are they are already involved in the early stages of the project, in the project preparation phase, so that allows us to to have the operational input in the in the project preparation phase, but it also uh enables the offshore construction managers to know all the details of of the project, and once we uh are in an operational stage, uh they are and and things go different than expected, then they have all the background information to uh to act and change uh the procedures accordingly. Um so also also there it's it's integrating uh the whole team uh from taking offshore experience into the project preparation stage and taking the detailed uh project preparation information into the project execution stage.

SPEAKER_01 9:46

And I think that that integration amongst amongst the alliance teams um and that shared contingent thinking um it certainly gives us clearer direction and guidance when we're thinking around um various weather scenarios, good or bad, um any equipment fallback or or or rigging issues that that we may have, unexpected issues that we may have. And it just allows us to make faster, safer decisions. And I mean obviously for us as as a responsible contractor, there is nothing more more key than that safety. And I think the familiarity of the of the teams around the entire life cycle of the of engineering through to hookup, the crews know the equipment, the engineers know the operation, they're all really familiar with the vessels and and the type of operations that we carry out, and we get far less surprises and much lower risk exposure. And I think you know, from that environmental perspective as well, actually, the you know, the integrated planning, we've got fewer vessel mobilisations, and that's partially helped by the by the types of vessels that we utilize from Jumbo, and then we have shorter offshore durations and therefore a lower fuel burn. So I think integration is really interesting as a concept, um, but the real test is whether it actually changes outcomes for our customers, the operators, commercially, technically, and operationally. You know, with the fewer contract boundaries, there's much clearer responsibility, and fewer commercial disputes arise triggered by any any sort of technical changes. Um anything else that you would see as an advantage, Brian?

SPEAKER_02 11:40

I think it's important to uh to realize that that both Jungle Oshore and Intercore, and as a as an alliance together, we we are fully dedicated to delivering mooring solutions. It's uh it's our core business and it's uh it's where the entire organization is focused on. And that's uh the the dedication and that basically enthusiasm to to deliver uh mooring systems gives the extra push uh to provide uh reliable and predictable solutions. Uh we are we are not we are not distracted by by other types of scopes. This this is this is where our entire company is is focused on.

SPEAKER_01 12:27

And I think that gives us that that level of consistency where we've got the same team involved all the way through from conceptual visualization through detail design, that procurement phase, developing offshore procedures for both toe out and installation, and then the hookup phase as well. I think it's our team are fully familiar because of that involvement at the early phase. They understand the degradation of the mechanisms, critical components involved, and you know, even looking for further ahead into OM, you know, feeding into smarter inspection techniques and that kind of thing and late life intervention. So for me, you know, you're not you're not just procuring a mooring system, um, you are committing to how that system can be installed, maintained, and how you intervene with it in this later life and even to the extent of his decommissioning. That's that's how I feel about the mooring system. Looking ahead, uh if we look beyond today's projects, the direction of travel is pretty clear. It's it will be deeper water, there will be environmental challenges, improved efficiency requirements, and potentially more scrutiny around that as well. It raises interesting questions about where permanent booming is heading. You know, I'm thinking along the lines of things like digital twins, increased focus on fatigue monitoring and predictive maintenance, efficient vessel strategies, fewer offshore days, less mobilisations, as we move into that deeper water and potentially new geographies with less infrastructure or no infrastructure, and less certainty on environmental conditions and seabed performance. In five to ten years, Brian, how do you think it will look? Do you think bootings will look fundamentally different than they do today?

SPEAKER_02 14:31

So the project will move to deeper water, uh, will experience more challenging conditions, uh, and that brings with brings higher requirements and more specialist require expertise uh requirements. Um the effects of working in 3,000 meter water depth, for example, is is uh is that there is even less uh room for error. So things need to be even more detailed prepared uh than what we were used to do. Um and in addition to that, I think we should we should work, and and I do expect that that will happen, uh, to more standardization and to create more efficiency, uh, improve safety. And uh at the moment there are still many flavors uh and many uh opinions about about design where I think we can we can streamline a lot and what is definitely a goal of the of the alliance to do. Um and in the in addition to that, we would there is also a drive for lower emissions, of course, yeah, and that's also coming from an installation point of view. Uh the next generation of vessels is on the drawing board, whereby low emissions is an important topic. Uh, but also in the mooring design, uh it might may sound a bit uh silly, but even in the mooring design, uh designing out high volleyball requirements uh will reduce emissions in the long term on these kind of projects. So, yeah, that's there's changes coming. Uh and and these are the ones that I definitely see.

SPEAKER_01 16:08

Thanks, Brian. I think that's quite insightful actually. Um, well, we're getting to the end of our time. Um, to close things out, I think it would be good for for each of us to leave something for the listeners with a simple insight, something that they could maybe keep in mind when thinking about mooring projects. For me, uh, good permanent mooring is but thinking holistically, from design through the installation, and then the long-term performance, late life intervention, decommissioning, all as one um continuous responsibility. How about yourself?

SPEAKER_02 16:44

Absolutely, and that should that should lead to to delivering a predictability and reliability uh for for our uh for our clients, and uh we do that well. We can do that by with our dedication and and integrated uh teams, and to like I said before, by having the organization which are fully focused on on delivering this predictability and uh reliability.

SPEAKER_01 17:08

Um yeah, so that's okay. Thanks very much, and uh thank thanks for the conversation today. Could have spoken for a lot longer, I think, but it's been great comparing perspectives from design through execution. Uh so thank you for that, and thank you to everybody for listening and spending time with us today.

SPEAKER_00 17:30

Thanks for listening to Act on Energy Podcast. To learn more about how we're applying our data, engineering, and operational expertise from CFI to surface, visit actum.com. Don't forget to follow, like, and share. Until next time.