Naturally enough, there are some differences between fixed platforms and FPSO which need to be incorporated in the layouts. A simple example of this is the stem to stern orientation of bunks and stairs. This is required for the health and safety of the users, particularly in stormy waters. Whilst some FPSO are sited in placid waters and are passively moored, it is still sensible to maintain this orientation, given that the weather conditions during the delivery sea voyage from fabrication yards are part of the equation.

Currently, there are grey areas for the designer of living quarters layouts, due to the lack of unified codes and regulations which are specifically for FPSO. Admittedly, the various configurations of FPSO also contribute to the 'greyness' to an extent. FPSO can be a passively moored hulks with no motive power; a vessel with limited motive power, to keep it on station; or a ship with full motive power.

The latter must be designed to meet all rules and regulations for ships, and the regulations are generally less subject to local variations. However, the first two configurations tend to generate differences of opinion over the classification and, consequently, over the selection of applicable regulations and codes, In all such cases, the situation can become further confused, when consensus can not be reached on the interpretation of the rules, between international, national and local regulators. To compound matters, it is often the case that the appointment of the certifying or classification authority, not to mention the flag state, is not decided until the design is well developed.

An aspect of living quarters over which the designer has no control, but which has a big impact on capital expenditure, is the size of the complement. Usually the permanent complement is readily determined, but the amount of accommodation needed for hook-up, commissioning and maintenance personnel is often forecast incorrectly. This subsequently leads to the need for offshore modifications, or flotel leasing. Ironically, such costs are probably far in excess of that of providing spare space in the initial design.

One reason for this apparent inaccuracy in forecasting personnel requirements appears to reside in the layered budgetting methods for offshore projects, where the various stages of a project have separate budgets. At the design and engineering phases (and presumably all other phases?), there is typically a cost review, for which read ‘cost-cutting’ exercise.

Whilst this may be prudent, one of the potential outcomes is that the purchase of equipment tends to be based predominantly on the lowest 'fit for purpose' bids. However, the cheapest equipment is not necessarily the most hardwearing, with the consequence that maintenance periods are more frequent. Therein, perhaps, lies the need for the additional personnel when the FPSO is up and running?

Personally speaking, I believe that a more holistic approach to budgetting would improve matters and also that the designers should follow a project through to First Oil. This might just create continuity, consistency in quality - and accountability. Do I hear the frantic flap of porcine wings?