Table of contents:
From Brazil’s pre-salt to the gale-lashed North Sea and the cyclone tracks of Australasia, floating production, storage and offloading vessels operate wherever subsea hydrocarbons demand flexible surface processing and storage. Paik and Thayamballi’s definitive text explains why ship-shaped offshore units flourished: they combine hull, topsides, and storage in a relocatable system, with mooring, risers, and station-keeping tailored to site-specific metocean conditions and the harsh/benign divide that governs everything from mooring choice to riser geometry and green-water protection. In benign regimes, spread moorings and even rigid risers can suffice; in harsher seas, turret-moored weathervaning, stronger scantlings and winterisation become first principles. (1)
Operational theatres cluster in five zones. South America—led by Brazil’s Santos and Campos basins—anchors the global program with a cadence of large newbuilds; Petrobras has brought multiple mega-FPSOs online in 2025, underscoring the basin’s depth and infrastructure advantage. Guyana and Suriname add a second South American pole with fast-tracked developments. West Africa, from Angola to Nigeria, remains a mature heartland with a mix of conversions and redeployments. The North Sea requires brownfield tiebacks and life-extension units, where harsh-environment design and decommissioning planning are closely interlinked. Finally, Asia-Pacific spans relatively benign fields in Southeast Asia and cyclonic theatres off Australia, where hulls and moorings are sized against extreme wind-wave-current combinations. These geographic choices—and the FPSO operations they enable—reflect the book’s core logic: design to site, then operate to the envelope.
External challenges map neatly onto physics, seamanship and security. Weather and sea state define uptime: significant wave height, long-period swell, and directional seas drive green-water risk and motions; strong currents and eddies challenge turret bearings and riser fatigue; icing, spray and low temperatures in higher latitudes force winterisation and sheltering. Operators fuse meteorological and oceanographic feeds and safety communications drawn from IMO/WMO guidance to frame operational windows for offloading, crane lifts and helicopter logistics. Security hazards are episodic but real. In the Gulf of Guinea, reported piracy incidents have fallen from pandemic highs, yet kidnapping and armed boarding risks persist, shaping guard-vessel posture, citadel procedures and crew change routes. Intelligence from IMB and naval advisories continues to drive voyage and standby planning. (2) Marine traffic adds a quieter but constant constraint: exclusion zones around installations must coexist with traffic separation schemes and COLREGs duties, which govern how supply craft, shuttle tankers and visiting tonnage join and leave lanes near crowded oil provinces. (3) The tragic 2022 Trinity Spirit explosion off Nigeria remains a cautionary tale about ageing hulls, inspection regimes and classification—evidence that asset integrity is as much a safety system as any barrier on the PFD.
The market picture is firming even as macro oil balances wobble. Industry trackers estimate the FPSO market at roughly $13 billion in 2025, with growth projected through 2030 as deepwater sanctions continue, particularly in Latin America. Consultancy outlooks point to 10–12 offshore production FIDs in 2025, with Brazil again the gravitational centre, while deepwater investment edges higher despite flatter global upstream outlays. (4) Fleet statistics vary by methodology. Still, reviews place the active/available FPSO population in the 180–200 range, with Brazil’s high-capacity newbuilds tilting the average nameplate upward and contractors like SBM, MODEC and partners adding units for Brazil and Guyana. Forward risk is two-sided: OPEC+ policy and demand softness can defer orders, yet pre-salt economics, standardised hulls, and BOT/lease models keep the pipeline resilient. (5)
For editors and readers focused on safety, the operational throughline is clear. FPSO operations are a choreography of design limits, procedures and real-time judgment under shifting weather, seas, security and traffic. Paik and Thayamballi’s framework—engineer to site, operate to envelope, verify integrity—remains the industry’s compass, even as the fleet grows larger and more capable in the world’s most demanding waters.
Floating production, storage and offloading units are unique among offshore assets in that they unite three distinct functions—hydrocarbon processing, storage, and offloading—on a single hull. Each of these processes is complex in itself; taken together, they form an ecosystem where risks interlock and where operational discipline is the decisive safety barrier. Paik and Thayamballi, in their analysis of ship-shaped offshore installations, emphasise that FPSO operations cannot be separated from the risk environment: design choices, operational practices, and safety management systems must be treated as one continuum.
Hydrocarbon production and processing sit at the core. Well fluids arrive via subsea risers and enter topside modules where separation, gas treatment, water handling, and compression occur. Here, the dominant risks are process safety failures: hydrocarbon leaks, loss of containment, explosions, and fire. The Trinity Spirit disaster off Nigeria and the Cidade de São Mateus accident in Brazil illustrate the devastating consequences of lapses in integrity management and gas monitoring. Risk management in this arena relies on multiple layers: hazard identification (HAZID), hazard and operability studies (HAZOP), quantitative risk assessment (QRA), and barrier models that integrate hardware (emergency shutdown valves, deluge systems) with organisational measures (permit-to-work, maintenance routines). Industry standards such as API RP 14C and ISO 17776 anchor these processes in a structured framework.
Storage and cargo management bring a different profile. Crude oil accumulates in segregated tanks within the hull, and stability depends on careful cargo distribution and ballast management. Risks range from structural failure of the hull to tank overfilling, sloshing damage, and volatile atmosphere build-up. Paik and Thayamballi underline the need for rigorous inspection of cargo tanks and corrosion protection systems, noting that hull girder strength must be maintained over decades of service in corrosive waters. Risk management tools here include structural reliability analysis, fatigue monitoring, classification society surveys, and the Ship Structure Reliability Assessment (SSRA) methodologies. Tank safety demands inert gas systems, gas detection, and continuous monitoring of oxygen levels, supported by the International Maritime Organisation’s SOLAS standards (see also: HSE standards) and OCIMF cargo-handling guidelines.
Offloading operations add an external interface and are among the highest-risk events in FPSO operations. Shuttle tankers must approach and maintain position alongside or astern, often in adverse sea states. Collision, hose failure, and oil spill represent the principal hazards. Dynamic positioning failures can escalate rapidly into contact accidents, while hose rupture can trigger environmental incidents and fire. Risk management therefore spans marine assurance—vetting of shuttle tankers, DP capability audits, tandem and side-by-side offloading procedures—as well as real-time risk tools such as stop-work authority and weather window assessments. Offshore loading rules from OCIMF and industry joint operating guidelines provide standardised risk-control frameworks.
Utilities and support systems form the hidden backbone of safe operations. Power generation, cooling, water treatment, and flare systems must run continuously. Their failure can cascade: a blackout not only stops production but also disables safety-critical systems. Risk management addresses these vulnerabilities through redundancy, preventive maintenance, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), and alignment with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards for safety-related systems.
Marine operations and station-keeping introduce further risks. Turret or spread moorings, anchoring systems, and riser arrays are constantly loaded by wind, waves, and current. Extreme weather, fatigue, and accidental damage can compromise station-keeping, with potential catastrophic disconnection or riser rupture. Paik and Thayamballi detail the engineering and operational safeguards: mooring line integrity monitoring, periodic inspection, dynamic analyses of riser response, and the application of risk-based inspection (RBI) principles. Cyclone contingency planning in Australia or storm-response procedures in the North Sea exemplify operational risk management in this field.
Finally, human factors and organisational processes cut across all technical domains. Crew fatigue, inadequate training, or miscommunication can compromise even the most advanced hardware protections during high-stakes operations. Offshore safety cases, as required by regulators in the UK, Norway, and Australia, explicitly address management systems, competence assurance, and safety culture. Bow-tie analysis is widely used to visualise threats, barriers, and consequences, ensuring that operators and crew understand not only what to do but why it matters.
Taken together, the processes on board an FPSO create a dense web of technical and operational interfaces. Each process—production, storage, offloading, utilities, station-keeping—carries characteristic risks, yet none can be managed in isolation. The industry’s evolving approach is therefore holistic: integrate engineering reliability, operational procedures, and organisational culture into a single safety management system. As Paik and Thayamballi argue, FPSO operations succeed not when risks are eliminated—they never can be—but when risks are anticipated, layered against, and continually reassessed under real-world conditions.
Risk management for floating production, storage and offloading units is not an afterthought to operations but a principle embedded from the first line of design. Paik and Thayamballi emphasise that FPSOs occupy a hybrid space between ship and offshore platform, and their risk assessment must reflect both domains: marine hazards, hydrocarbon process risks, and the combined exposures of long-duration service at sea.
Hazard identification is the starting point. During concept and front-end engineering design, structured methods such as HAZID workshops gather multidisciplinary teams—naval architects, process engineers, marine operators, and safety specialists—to brainstorm site-specific hazards. For FPSOs, the list is expansive: turret failure, riser rupture, green water on deck, tank overfill, gas leaks in process modules, offloading collisions, helicopter accidents, and piracy. Each hazard is catalogued with initiating events, potential consequences, and existing safeguards.
Risk assessment then translates hazards into structured risk profiles. Qualitative tools dominate in early phases. HAZOP studies explore deviations in process parameters (pressure, flow, temperature) to uncover potential causes of leaks or explosions. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is applied to marine systems—power generation, thrusters, turret bearings—to determine how component failures propagate through critical systems. Bow-tie diagrams visualise threats, barriers, and consequences, ensuring that the logic of defence is transparent to all stakeholders.
Quantitative methods supplement these qualitative analyses, particularly where regulatory safety cases or insurance requirements demand numerical evidence. Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) models probabilities of hydrocarbon releases, ignition likelihoods, explosion overpressures, and evacuation outcomes. Tools such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulate blast loads in congested topsides, while finite element analyses assess hull integrity under sloshing and fatigue conditions. Risk matrices, which integrate frequency and consequence, provide clarity in decision-making on whether risks fall within the ALARP (“as low as reasonably practicable”) band.
Design-phase risk management is central to FPSO safety. Here, decisions made before steel is cut lock in much of the vessel’s risk profile. Mooring and turret systems are designed against site-specific metocean data, with probabilistic load analysis ensuring resilience under extreme storm events. Process layouts adhere to inherent safety principles, including the separation of hazardous modules, blast walls, and escape routes designed to withstand fire and explosion scenarios. Hulls undergo structural reliability assessment, fatigue life analysis, and corrosion allowance planning, informed by statistical models of long-term wave loading. Safety instrumented systems (SIS) are specified in line with IEC 61511 standards, with safety integrity levels (SILs) assigned based on QRA outcomes.
Operational-phase risk management ensures that design assumptions hold in the real world. Risk-based inspection (RBI) regimes determine inspection frequency for risers, tanks, and moorings based on failure probability and consequence rather than fixed intervals. Condition monitoring systems provide real-time feedback on turret bearings, mooring line tensions, and hull fatigue hot spots. Permit-to-work systems and management of change (MoC) processes serve as organisational barriers against procedural drift. Emergency response planning integrates evacuation modelling, regular drills, and coordination with regional rescue services (see our interview with Jake van den Dries about offshore emergency response). In security-sensitive theatres such as West Africa, piracy risk assessments inform guard vessel deployment and citadel design.
Across design and operation, the philosophy is layered defence. No single measure guarantees safety; instead, FPSO operations rely on an architecture of preventive, mitigative, and recovery barriers. From HAZID brainstorming to QRA modelling, from structural redundancy to human-factor controls, risk management is a continuum. Paik and Thayamballi argue that this continuum defines FPSOs’ resilience: safe design aligned with vigilant operations, recalibrated continuously as field conditions, assets, and human organisations evolve.
Emergency preparedness is the ultimate test of safety systems on a floating production, storage and offloading vessel. Despite robust design and risk management, operational scenarios such as hydrocarbon explosions, offloading collisions, mooring failure, or extreme weather can trigger full-scale emergencies. In such cases, the FPSO’s survival depends not only on engineered barriers but on the crew’s ability to execute coordinated, timely responses. Paik and Thayamballi emphasise that emergency scenarios on FPSOs must address the dual nature of these assets, which are both industrial plants and marine vessels, thereby combining offshore process hazards with maritime evacuation challenges.
Emergency mustering is the keystone procedure. When alarms sound—whether for gas detection, fire, loss of station-keeping, or hostile action—personnel must report immediately to designated muster stations. Muster lists assign crew to lifeboats, fast rescue craft, or temporary refuges depending on the severity of the event. Risk scenarios inform the organisation of these stations: in a topside fire, protected areas are positioned behind blast walls; in a mooring failure or weather emergency, stations are located near embarkation points for rapid abandon-ship. Traditional mustering relies on manual headcounts conducted by muster checkers, who confirm attendance against crew lists. While simple, this process is vulnerable to delays, errors, and incomplete accounting—particularly when smoke, structural damage, or human stress impair coordination.
Abandon-ship procedures represent the culmination of the muster process. If the incident escalates beyond control, personnel must transfer to lifeboats or escape capsules designed to withstand fire, impact, and rough seas. Timing is critical: in a hydrocarbon fire or explosion, seconds matter, and confusion during headcounting can endanger lives. The 2015 Cidade de São Mateus explosion in Brazil demonstrated how delays in evacuation amplify consequences.
Here, electronic mustering systems introduce a step-change in safety. Using RFID tags, wearable devices, or crew ID cards linked to readers at muster points, electronic mustering provides real-time accountability. Instead of manual roll calls, supervisors receive immediate confirmation of who has arrived, who is missing, and their last known location. This accelerates decision-making, reduces human error, and allows response teams to focus on locating and assisting unaccounted personnel. Integration with personnel-on-board (POB) systems enables the control room to monitor muster progress in real-time, supporting faster abandon-ship decisions.
Moreover, electronic mustering strengthens compliance with regulatory safety cases, which increasingly demand proof of robust evacuation capability. In high-risk theatres such as West Africa, where evacuation may coincide with security incidents, the speed and accuracy of electronic mustering can determine the difference between a controlled evacuation and a chaotic crisis. Ultimately, by replacing manual uncertainty with digital certainty, electronic mustering enhances the resilience of FPSO emergency preparedness, ensuring that even in the most hostile scenarios, every individual is accounted for and protected.
FPSO operations cover the production, processing, storage, and offloading of hydrocarbons at sea. These vessels allow operators to exploit deepwater and remote fields without fixed infrastructure, making them critical to global energy supply. Their flexibility and relocability explain their dominance in regions like Brazil, West Africa, and the Asia-Pacific.
Safety risks include hydrocarbon leaks, explosions, structural fatigue, severe weather, offloading collisions, and piracy. Effective safety management integrates engineering barriers, operational procedures, and human factors to mitigate these threats across the FPSO lifecycle.
Traditionally, crew mustered manually with headcounts at designated stations. Modern systems use electronic, hands-free mustering with RFID or wearable devices, instantly confirming attendance and transmitting data to the control room and shore. This accelerates evacuation decisions, improves accuracy, and ensures all personnel are accounted for during emergencies.
Electronic, hands-free mustering with onshore data-link represents a decisive evolution in FPSO safety. By automatically recording personnel presence at muster points and transmitting real-time data ashore, operators gain both immediate situational awareness and secure backup beyond the vessel. This dual visibility reduces errors, accelerates abandon-ship decisions, and ensures accountability even under chaotic conditions. More than a compliance tool, it strengthens resilience by linking offshore crews and onshore emergency response teams in one integrated safety framework, ultimately safeguarding lives and assets in the most demanding operational theatres.
Delve deeper into one of our core topics: Emergency Response Management
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) is the most significant maritime safety treaty, first adopted in 1914 following the Titanic disaster and regularly updated by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). It sets minimum safety standards for ship design, construction, equipment, and operations, including fire protection, life-saving appliances, navigation, and communications. For FPSOs, SOLAS provisions guide evacuation systems, firefighting, and structural integrity. (6)
References:
(3) https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf
(4) https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/fpso-market
(6) International Maritime Organization, SOLAS Consolidated Edition 2020, IMO Publications, London.
Note: This article was partly created with the assistance of artificial intelligence to support drafting.