a classification society´s experience with subsea mining

7/21/2019 A Classification Society´s Experience with Subsea Mining

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-classification-societys-experience-with-subsea-mining 1/8

A Classification Society´s Experience with Subsea Mining

Marco Figoni ABS Brazil Offshore Technology

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Sudheer Chand ABS Offshore Technology

Houston, US

ABSTRACT

Growing interest in deep water minerals resources is providingopportunities for both the mining and oil industries. Exploration andproduction of ocean minerals require synergies between different

technologies. In this context appropriate standards are needed to coverboth new equipment and existing equipment that may be subject tochanged service conditions. This paper covers ABS’ experience withrelated equipment such as deep sea oil and gas, certification ofequipment as per existing API requirements, manufacturer’sSpecifications and Coastal Administration’s requirements

KEY WORDS: Deep-sea mining, Certification, Classification, Risk

Assessment, Novel Concept.

NOMENCLATURE

ABS American Bureau of ShippingDP Dynamic PositionFAT Factory Acceptance TestFMECA Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis

HAZID Hazard Identification StudyHAZOP Hazard and Operability StudyHV High VoltageISA International Seabed AuthorityJIP Joint Industry ProjectLV Low VoltageNDE Nondestructive ExaminationP&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram

PQR Procedure Qualification RecordREEs Rare Earth Elements

SCFU Subsea Chrushing and Feeding UnitSEPS Subsea Electrical Power StandardizationSMS Seafloor Massive SulphidesSS Seabed SystemsTS Topside SystemsUTS Underwater Transportation SystemsWPS Welding Procedures Specifications

INTRODUCTION

The most critical challenges with regard to the recovery of ocean bedmineral resources, especially in deep water, are related to thproduction operations, including the deep-sea excavation process, thtransport to the surface of large slurry volumes, slurry abrasiveness

power supply management and the subsea equipment handling. Whilthe mining industry has taken the lead with respect to the dredging anprocessing part of the system, the oil industry is contributing througthe adaptation of exploration techniques and the development of orlifting technology based on existing subsea knowledge. The areas ointerest for deep sea mining are:

- Mid ocean ridges, volcanic arcs and back arc spreadin

systems where active and extinct hydrothermal vents creatsulphide deposit commonly called Seafloor SulphidDeposits (SMS) and located between 1500 m and 5000 m

below sea level

- Seafloor of ocean basins between 4000m and 6000 m wherit can be found polymetallic nodules deposits rich in rarearth elements (REEs)

- Seamounts and around flanks of volcanic islands betwee400 m and 4000 m where it possible to find polymetallicrusts

Several exploration techniques and offshore production systems havalready been designed and assessed, all of them with apparentlpositive results. While the exploration phase is well advanced, an

subject to continuous expansion, resulting in the discovery of anincreasing inventory of different mineral resources in the world’oceans, production can be considered to be still at an early stage

Subsea operations associated with offshore mining require closcooperation between international and local authorities to preserve thenvironment and leave a small footprint yet there are still manuncertainties in this regard. Additionally, all the exploration processemust be carefully evaluated if subsea mining is to be allowed todevelop in a sustainable manner. From a purely technical standpointmining at the seabed has already been successfully demonstrated. Thprocess is based on three main components (fig. 1), namely SeabeSystems (SS), Underwater Transportation Systems (UTS) and Topsid

Systems (TS). This layout is based on the concept that ore, or othe

78

Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth (2014) I nternational Ocean and Polar Engineeri ng Conference

Busan, Korea, June 15-20, 2014

Copyri ght © 2014 by the International Society of Of fshore and Polar Engineers (I SOPE)

I SBN 978-1 880653 91-3 (Set); I SSN 1098-6189 (Set)

www.isope.org



mineral, must first be disaggregated at the seafloor, transported to thesurface in the form of a slurry and subsequently dewatered beforeonward transportation to a planned location such as an onshoreprocessing plant . Tailings, the result of the dewatering process, aredisposed back to the sea, as is the excess water (Shimmield et al. 2010).Industry’s awareness of these challenges is increasing because theenvironmental and safety issues associated with these processes must

be taken into consideration as a priority when evaluating the efficiencyof the system. SS, UTS and TS are interrelated and should be selectedtaking into consideration the following:

-

The design of the equipment involved- Possible harsh met-ocean conditions- Seafloor morphology and depth- High pressures in ultra-deep waters- Slurry lifting and abrasiveness- Low or high temperature excursions depending on the nature

of the recoverable deposits- Environmental sensitivity

- Cost, schedule and resources including design problems,equipment and component selection, vendor selection andmanagement and the retrieval of equipment for repair andmaintenance

Fig.1: Scheme deep sea mining installation. Modified from BoomsmaW. et al. (2013).

Figure 1 show an example of mining system for polymetallic nodulesrecovery where a self-propelled dredge crawls on the bottom to collectnodules and condition them for pumping through the flexible hose. The

slurry is then lifted through a rigid steel pipe string to the surface forprocessing. Possible layouts for mining SMS deposits with threedifferent pumping systems (i.e. topside water injection pump, positive

displacement pump and topside air compressor respectively) are shownon figure 2. Two flexible risers anchored to the sea bed with a steepwave layout are used separately to transport slurry to surface and tocirculate filtrated water result of surface dewatering process.

Depending on the system design, a Subsea Chrusing and Feeding Unit(SCFU) can be used to reduce the size of SMS chunks to be lifted(Parenteau et al. 2013, Waquet et al. 2011).

Fig.2. SMS mining architecture (Parenteau et al. 2013)

DEEP SEA MINING SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The equipment being used for seabed exploitation is expected toperate at water depths than can exceed 6000 m and its origin comefrom the interaction of at least four main industries, namely ship, o

and gas, land-based mining and sediment dredging industries. Methodused to design and test a specific system must follow recognizedstandards but not necessarily related to these industries if thtechnology employed is derived from other sectors where specifistandards have already been recognized. In general, TS and UTS arcovered by Ship and Oil and Gas industries providing the technologfor dynamic position, power generation, pipelines, riser system, liftinsystems, umbilicals, controls, monitoring and ROV’s. The land-basemining and sediment dredging industries are responsible mainly for th

79



advances on the production tools of SS, lifting systems and oreprocessing. Key components and hydrodynamic challenges of SS are:

- Adaptation, marinization and assembly of existing provenmining and dredging equipment

- The effect of hyperbaric pressures on the excavation processand cutting efficiency (fig.3)

- SS performance depending on rock parameters, cutterparameters, time efficiency and utilization (Jackson et al.2007)

- The hydraulic transport of the excavated material

-

Control and handling systems design for ultra-deep waterenvironment

- Seafloor morphology

The main challenges related to UTS are pipe dynamic behavior (ChungJS, 2010), vibrations (VIV and internal pipe flow) and flow assurance.In order to maintain excavator performance, UTS should not transfervessel and sea related motions to SS. One of the equipment that

determines the design and layout of the SS and UTS is the liftingsystem and in particular the nature of the equipment utilized. The slurrylifting system at the present time is based on three main methods(Leach S. et al. 2012 and Verichev S. et al., 2012), namely:

- Positive displacement pumps- Multi-stage centrifugal pumps

- Air lift system

Fig.3. Difference between a shallow water and deep water excavation

process (Verichev S. et al., 2011)

Each solution has its own advantage/disadvantages (Leach S. et al.2012) that should carefully be assessed during the design phase. Themost important parameters that should be optimized are:

- Pump efficiency for long vertical distances- Power consumption- Maintenance requirements that should be kept as low as

possible due to- Environmental disturbance

One aspect to take into consideration is that some positive displacementpumps installed close to the seabed have the ability to dispose thetailings from dewatering process close to the sea bottom without theneed of return pipe installation (fig. 4). TS should have a Dynamic

Position (DP) able to keep the vessel steady and at the same time inconstant motion following the SS excavation path without overstressingUTS. The processing of the excavated material on board an offshoreoperating vessel, the effects of motions on process equipment, thepower supply and the handling system for mining equipment are themain challenges related to TS.

Fig.4. Scheme of mud-lift pump (modified from General Electrics)

CLASSIFICATION and CERTIFICATION PROCESS

In general, design, construction procedures, safety procedures anconstruction supervision remain the responsibility of the designeshipyard, ship repairer, manufacturer, owner or other stakeholder aapplicable. Class carries out plan review, and surveys before, durinand after construction to verify that a vessel, structure, item of materiaequipment or machinery is in compliance with the applicable clas

rules, guides and standards and with any other specified third partcriteria.Classification means that a specific vessel, system, subsystem, piece oequipment, and/or components has been designed, constructedinstalled, and surveyed in compliance with and the applicable standardof the class society. Applicable national regulations and other statutory

requirements can either be carried out by the flag administration itselfor by a recognized organization (RO) so authorized by the flaadministration. In many instances the RO is also the class society orecord. The classification process consists of:

- Development of rules, guides, standards and other criteria fothe design, construction, installation and maintenance of vessel, its systems, subsystems, equipment, and/ocomponents

-

Review of the design and subsequent survey during and afteconstruction to verify compliance with the applicable rulesguides, standards or other criteria

- Assignment and registration of class when such complianchas been verified

- The issuance of a renewable classification certificate, thmaintenance of which is subject to satisfactory periodi

surveys.Existing standards that can be applied for SS, UTS and TS are relateto equipment that has already been utilized in an environment similar t

the one being proposed. These standards can be organized as follows:

Subsea Systems- API RP 17H, API RP 17M and API 610 for ROV’s an

Remote Operated Tools (ROT’s)

-

API 17E and API 17F for subsea umbilicals and controls- ABS Rules for Building and Classing Underwater Vehicle

Systems and Hyperbaric Facilities

Underwater Transportation Systems- API RP 2RD, API 17B, API 17K and API 17J for flexibl

and rigid risers- API Technical Report per15K for high pressure and hig

temperature equipment

80



- API 674, API 610, API 526 and API 682 for pumps- ABS Guide for Building and Classing Subsea Riser Systems

Topside Systems- ABS Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Units

- ABS Rules for Building and Classing Mobile OffshoreDrilling Units (some support vessel designs include a moonpool area)

- ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Barges

A process for the evaluation of novel concepts should be utilized for

SS, UTS and TS applications that have never been utilized in theenvironment being proposed and when existing industry Standards arenot directly applicable. In the case of the deep-sea mining industry,existing Standards can only be applied when considered compatible.Following this philosophy, the ABS methodology for the review and

approval of new concepts, when applicable, follows 3 main stages (Fig.4):

- Conceptual Design and Approval in Principle (AIP)- Detailed Design, Construction and Installation approval- Operations and Maintenance of Class

The AIP stage uses a risk based approval process and requires submittalof conceptual engineering and risk assessment studies to allow foracceptance of the concept for classification. In this phase it must bedemonstrated that failure modes and consequences have been identifiedand at least considered in the concept design. When a project involves a

detailed design, the approval must include an advanced risk assessment

and testing. This phase of the project would involve traditional classparticipation in the form of design review and survey and would

ultimately result in class approval. At the third stage, maintenance ofclass would be performed in the traditional sense, involving periodicsurveys to validate renewal of the class certificate.However, in this instance, the maintenance of class for a novel conceptmay involve a modified and/or expanded survey scope or frequency asa condition of class, until the concept has built up a satisfactory serviceexperience (ABS, 2003). The graph on fig.5 shows the evolution of aconcept in terms of engineering and operation, risk assessment andABS involvement in these phases.

Fig.5: Building Up a Novel Concept (ABS, 2003)

Qualitative and quantitative risk assessment tools are used to identify

the hazards and assess the risks introduced by the novel features,operability and any interface issues with other systems.At an early stage of concept development, qualitative tools such as.What-if, HAZID, HAZOP, FMECA are employed. Quantitative riskassessments or reliability analysis tend to be more appropriately applied

at later stages of the concept development due to the fact that theyrequire considerably more details related to the engineering and/otesting. Due to the fact that the nature of equipment involved in deepsea mining may be unique or include unique features, it is not possiblto give precise guidelines on how to decide what level of third-partyverification is appropriate for each piece of equipment. For this reasonABS certification utilizes a cross reference matrix with two mai

variables and three levels of risk to define the categories of equipmenwhich should be considered critical in terms of design verification anapproval. One variable is the safety/environment, evaluated in terms o

consequence of an equipment failure, and the other is the level o

design maturity. For the cross reference matrix, if a failure can result in

- Loss of life and/or major environmental pollution – it is to beconsidered a critical event

- Injury and/or minor environmental pollution – it is to beconsidered a moderate event

- No impact to safety and/or environment – it is to beconsidered a non-critical event

The equipment design can be:

- New, unproven and not previously used- Proven, previously qualified or field proven- Established, accepted by industry as a standard design

The combination of these variables identifies three main equipmencategories (fig. 6) as follow:

- Category A; detailed documentation and supportin

calculation/analysis are required for design verification anapproval

- Category B; acceptance can be based on unit certificatiofrom a classification society and a report showing thacceptance criteria with assumptions and design conditionOtherwise, detailed design documentation and supportincalculation/analysis are required for design verification

- Category C; acceptance can be based on manufacturer’affidavit of compliance with an applicable recognizestandard. Otherwise, detailed design documentation an

supporting calculation/analysis are required for desigverification.

A new equipment design is considered part of category A only when itfailure leads to a critical event as described above; when th

consequence of a failure is moderate or non-critical, the new designfalls inside category B and C respectively. Equipment with alreadproven technology can be part of categories B or C depending onwhether the consequence of a failure is critical or moderatrespectively.

Fig.6: Categorization of Consequences of Failure (Figoni et al. 2013)

Equipment considered standard by the industry is only part of categorB when an equipment failure cannot generate a critical event and, in thcase of moderate or non-critical failure, such equipment is exclude

81



from ABS approval in the same way as the equipment with alreadyproven technology (fig. 6). Once categorized, the equipment shouldfollow ABS requirements as described in figure 7.

Fig.7: Requirements for Various Categories (Figoni et al. 2013)

Equipment belonging to category A, the most sensitive level, is the

only one that requires a detailed fabrication inspection. Pressure andload tests and witness of final operation are only required for categories

A and B. When an equipment category requires a detailed review, notonly design but also fabrication and installation phases should becovered. The design should verify the:

- Operational environment and loads parameters (fig.8, fig.9and fig. 10 respectively)

- Compliance with laws/regulations, industry standards andABS rules/ guides

- Suitability for the full range of operating conditions- Analysis results by running the critical load cases

- Consistency of the design with applicable design standards

Fig.8: Definition of Service Conditions (Figoni et al. 2013)

The design review should cover at least:

- Design basis- Drawings, bill of materials and material specifications- Corrosion protection systems

- Strength calculation (stress and structural analysis)- Environment, Geotechnical/Geophysical reports or other

reports as appropriate- Installation procedures- Fabrication specifications, including welding heat treatmen

NDT and testing- Process flow sheets- Equipment layout drawing- P&ID’s, hydraulic, electrical and control schematics

- HAZID/HAZOP and FMECA as applicable

Fig.9 Environmental Parameters (Figoni et al. 2013)

Construction procedures, safety procedures and constructiosupervision remain the responsibility of the shipyard, ship repairermanufacturer, owner or other client.Surveyors apply normally accepted examination and testing standardto those items specified for each survey by the rules.

The survey process should include:

- Material verification- WPS and PQR

- Critical phases (fit-up, alignment, NDE)

- Witness and report on pressure testing- Operational test

- FAT- System qualification and integration between variou

contractors’ equipment- Installation based on approved procedures

Fig.10: Loads Parameters (Figoni et al. 2013)

UNIT CERTIFICATION PROCESS

Conformity assessment applies to equipment that is considered part ocategory B as previously described. Conformity assessment is a proceswhereby a product, process, service, or system is evaluated agains

82



specified requirements and is typically known as Unit Certification orType Approval. Unit Certification may include one or more activitiessuch as design review, material test or type test that result in theissuance of an ABS document. It provides consumers a means on whichto rely in selecting products in the marketplace. And it permitsgovernments to enforce the regulations for which they are responsiblein protecting the public health and safety. For these reasons, companies

tend to request Type Approval even though it is not a formalrequirement. Conformity assessment may consist of any one of, someof, or all of the following:

-

Design Assessment- Material testing- Sample testing- Item inspection- Factory acceptance tests- Process evaluation- Management system registration and product certification

When carried out by a party other than the supplier (the first party) orthe purchaser (the second party), the conformity assessment is said tobe provide by a third party, one independent of buyer or seller. Relianceon a third party may be required by a government regulator or specifiedby the customer. Based on the intended service and application, someproducts do not require unit certification and they are consideredbelonging to category C; they are not directly related to the scope of

classification or normal practices for their construction within theindustry are considered adequate. Such products may be accepted basedon the manufacturer’s documentation on design and quality.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is an autonomousinternational organization established under the 1982 United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement relating tothe Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on theLaw of the Sea. The Authority is the organization through which StatesParties to the Convention shall, in accordance with the regime for theseabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national

jurisdiction (the Area) established in Part XI and the Agreement

organize and control activities in the Area, particularly with a view toadministering the resources of the Area. ISA has published several

documents, downloadable from its website. Prominent among these isthe Mining Code. The "Mining Code" refers to the whole of the

comprehensive set of rules, regulations and procedures issued by the

ISA to regulate prospecting, exploration and exploitation of marineminerals in the international seabed Area (defined as the seabed andsubsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction).All rules, regulations and procedures are issued within a general legalframework established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on theLaw of the Sea and its 1994 Implementing Agreement relating to deepseabed mining. To date, the Authority has issued Regulations onProspecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area(adopted 13 July 2000) which was later updated and adopted 25 July2013; the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic

Sulphides in the Area (adopted 7 May 2010) and the Regulations onProspecting and Exploration for Cobalt-Rich Crusts (adopted 27 July2012). These regulations include the forms necessary to apply forexploration rights as well as standard terms of exploration contracts.The complete set of these regulations will form part of the Mining Codetogether with recommendations by the Authority's Legal and Technical

Commission for the guidance of contractors on the assessment of theenvironmental impacts of exploration for polymetallic nodules.

NATIONAL REGULATIONS

Article 153, paragraph 4, of the 1982 United Nations Convention on thLaw of the Sea states that the obligation of the sponsoring States inaccordance with article 139 of the Convention entails “taking ameasures necessary to ensure” compliance by the sponsored contractoAdministrations that have already informed ISA of their lawapplicable to subsea mining are Belgium, China, Cook Islands, CzecRepublic, Fiji, France, Germany, Guyana, Japan, Mexico, Nauru

Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Pacific Islands Region, Republic o

Korea, Tonga, United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, United States oAmerica (as Observer) and Zambia.

TECHNOLOGICAL BOTTLENECK

Historically, both the marine, offshore oil and gas and mining industriehave been innovative ones. The subsea mining industry has adaptemany advances in the subsea oil and gas industries, especially as theypertain to exploration. A technological barrier to large scale production

remains the ability to provide ample amounts of power at the seabedABS is assisting in mitigating this bottleneck by participation in variou

joint industry and sponsored research projects involving cables, powedistribution and connectors for subsea use. Subsea resource recovery i

being envisioned to occur at increasing depths and far from shore.The quantity of energy and power required to operate resource recover

equipment is increasing as the magnitude of the recovery efforts growever larger and processing is displaced from the surface/shore to the sebed. Subsea electrification has been identified as a facilitatintechnology to subsea endeavors such as resource recovery, i.epetroleum and gas as well as minerals (subsea mining). The large scaldeployment of high energy, high power electrical systems anequipment to the seafloor is a new endeavor that is in its initial stagesEarly scenarios envisioned that power will be delivered to the subseequipment from a surface based source. In recent times the focus hashifted towards anticipation of power delivery from shore utilizin

step-outs ranging in the 100’s of kV. There has been some discussioof seabed based power sources however at this time it is not believed tbe considered for commercial applications. To date industry is workin

to adapt surface or terrestrial equipment for use in systems deployed othe sea floor as well as attempting to develop uniform standards for the

design of equipment suitable for use in the subsea environment.The United States Government sponsored Research Partnership tSecure Energy for America (RPSEA) has participation from both Ubased and European based equipment makers and operators. There ara variety of challenges to the successful commercial deployment o

high power subsea systems. These challenges may be broken dowinto:

- Equipment

Wet mate power connectors (LV, HV,Communication)

Subsea cable

Subsea Transformers

Motors for subsea compression, pumping and dowhole applications

Subsea Switchgear Subsea Drives

Subsea power supplies (UPS, Batteries, etc.)

- Network Topology

- Network Characteristics

DC or AC (low frequency, commercial frequency,high frequency)

Transmission, distribution and operation voltages

- Network Control

83



There are several pilot projects in various stages of development. Someprojects are qualifying equipment in test pools, dry docks and Fjords;others are near to going into production. The industry, especiallyequipment makers are concerned about non-uniform standards,specifications and qualification requirements from operators. The

observed variances greatly increase cost and time to deployment asoperators are often not willing to accept previous qualification results.A consequence of this chaos was the formation of the SEPS JIP and therecent efforts by IEEE and IEC to develop uniform standards,specifications and qualification procedures. ABS is participating the

IEEE efforts. One area where ABS is very active is in the development

of guidance for subsea network topology, operating parameters andanalysis techniques. The subsea network may be thought of as the“glue” that will bind together all the various components. ABS has

begun to model subsea electrical systems utilizing “Simulink” a part ofthe Matlab suite of applications. An advantage that “Simulink” offersis the ability to model the pipeline along with the electrical system andto couple the pipeline to the electrical network. These coupled modelsallow ABS to see how “transients” in either system propagate in thespecific system and between systems.

CONCLUSIONS

In any emerging industry, there is uncertainty regarding suitability ofequipment. In the absence of clear codes, designers may be at a loss to

refer to a generally accepted standard of design, quality, testing, andinspection. In such an environment, equipment manufacturers,fabricators and integrators such as shipyards tend to cover theuncertainty by estimating their costs to be on the higher end of thescale. Initially certification and then classification processes help inreducing such uncertainty and thus help to provide an impetus togrowth for emerging industries.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank ABS Corporate Managers for theirconstant support during the project and helpful insights during peerreview of this paper

REFERENCES

ABS (2014). “Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels”ABS (2014). “Rules for Building and Classing Underwater Vehicles,

Systems and Hyperbaric Facilities”ABS (2014). “Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore

Drilling Units”ABS (2014). “Rules for Building and Classing Steel Barges”ABS (2008). “Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Units”ABS (2006). “Guide for Building and Classing Subsea Riser Systems”ABS (2003). “Guidance Notes on the Review and Approval of Novel

Concepts”

API RP 2RD (2006). “Recommended Practice for Design of Risers forFloating Production Systems (FPSs) and Tension-Leg Platforms(TLPs)”.

API RP 17H (2009). “Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Interfaces onSubsea Production Systems”.

API RP 17M (2009). “Recommended Practice on Remotely OperatedTool (ROT) Intervention Systems”.

API 17E (2011). “Specification for Subsea Umbilicals”.

API 17F (2006). “Specification for Subsea Production ControlSystems”.

API 17B (2008). “Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe”.

API 17K (2006). “Specification for Bonded Flexible Pipe”.

API 17J (2009). “Specification for Unbonded Flexible Pipe”.

API Technical Report per15K (2013). “Protocol for Verification anValidation of High-pressure High-temperature Equipment”.

API 526 (2009). “Flanged Steel Pressure-relief Valves”.

API 610 (2011). “Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Petrochemical anNatural Gas Industries”.

API 674 (2010). “Positive Displacement Pumps—Reciprocating”.

API 682 (2011). “Pumps—Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal an

Rotary Pumps”.Boomsma, W, Ortega, A, de Wit, L (2013). “Towards Zero Impact

Assessment of ecological impact for tailings return”. Recen

Developments in Atlantic Seabed Minerals Exploration and Othe

Topics of Timely Interest , The 42nd Conference of the UnderwateMining Institute, Rio de Janeiro. pp.1-9.

Brink, AW, and Chung, JS (1981). “Automatic Position Control of 30,000 tons Ship during Ocean Mining Operations” Proc Offshor

Tech Conf , Houston, Texas, Paper 4901.

Chakala, M (2010). ‘Subsea Equipment”, ABS Offshore Engineering.

Chand, S (2013). “A Classification Society's Experience with Deep SeMineral Recovery”. DeepSea Mining Summit , London.

Chung, JS, Cheng, BR (1996). “Effects of Elastic Joints on 3-D

Nonlinear Responses of a Deep-Ocean Pipe: Modeling and BoundarConditions”. The International Society of Offshore and Pola

Engineers Vol. 6, No. 3, September 1996, pp. 1–6.

Chung JS (2010). “Full-Scale, Coupled Ship and Pipe MotionMeasured in North Pacific Ocean: The Hughes Glomar Explorer wita 5,000-m-LongHeavy-Lift Pipe Deployed”. The Internationa

Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2010pp. 1–6.

Figoni M, Chand, S (2014). “A Classification Society´s Experiencwith Deep Sea Mining”. Poster on the 42nd Conference of th

Underwater Mining Institute, October 21–29, 2013 Rio de Janeiro.

ISA - http://www.isa.org.jm/en/mcode

Jackson, E, Clarke, D (2007). “Subsea Excavation of Seafloor Massiv

Sulphides “, MTS–IEEE Oceans Conference 2007.

Kocurek, C, Pathak, P, Melancon C, Sohn, S et al., (2012). “MergingASME and API Design Methods for Subsea Equipment Up To 2500PSI Working Pressure”. Proc Offshore Tech Conf , Houston, TexaPaper 23063.

Leach, S, Smith, G, Berndt, R (2012). “SME SPECIAL SESSIONSubsea Slurry Lift Pump Technology – SMS Development”, Pro

Offshore Tech Conf , Houston, Texas, Paper 23224.

Parenteau, T, Espinasse, F, Benbia, A, Ngim, B (2013). “SubseMining Field Development Concept Using a Subsea Crushing anFeeding Unit”, Proc Offshore Tech Conf , Houston, Texas, Pape23953.

Ridley, N, Graham, S, Kapusniak, S (2011). “Seafloor ProductioTools for the Resources of the Future”, Proc Offshore Tech ConfHouston, Texas, Paper 21443.

Shimmield, TM, Black, KD, Hove, JA, Hughes, DJ, Sherwin, T (2010)"Independent Evaluation of Deep-Sea Mine Tailings Placemen(DSTP) in PNG”. Project Number: 8.ACP.PNG.18-B/15.

Smith S. (2010). “Deep Ocean Seafloor Mineral Extraction Environmental and Social Considerations”, Proc Offshore Tec

Conf , Houston, Texas, Paper 20502.

Verichev, S, Drobadenko, V, Malukhin, N, Vilmis, A, Lucieer, PHeeren, J (2012). “Assessment of Different Technologies for Vertica

84



Hydraulic Transport in Deep Sea Mining Applications”. Proc of the

ASME 2012 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and

Arctic Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil , Paper 83156.

Verichev S, van Gelder R, Alvarez Grima M and van Wijk J (2011).“Into The Deep: A Risk-Based Approach For Research To DeepseaMining”, CEDA Dredging Days 2011 - Dredging and Beyond.

Waquet, B, Faulds, D, Benbia, A (2011). “Understanding the Effects oDeep-Sea Conditions on Seafloor Massive Sulfide Deposits CrushinProcess”,Proc Offshore Tech Conf , Houston, Texas, Paper 21414.

Yu, A (2009). “Extending Deepwater Technology to Seafloor Mining”‘OTC 19912

85

a classification society´s experience with subsea mining

Documents