Its involvement in work on landing production from the field built on a provision in the agreement on state participation in Statfjord which required Mobil to assign “specific tasks or the conduct of specific studies” to Statoil.[REMOVE]Fotnote: Agreement on state participation in the Statfjord field, 10 August 1973.
The state company itself had proposed that it should be responsible for planning and engineering work related to possible pipeline systems, and this proposal was approved by the other licensees. Statoil’s preliminary project gave priority to the option of an oil pipeline to Norway. That would give the company an opportunity to build up specialist expertise in deepwater pipelaying, while the other Statfjord licensees would have to help meet the cost.
A special nine-strong team reporting to Statoil’s technical department was established to study transport options. It found that the island of Sotra outside Bergen was the best site for an oil pipeline landfall in Norway. But the most important conclusion of the study was that pipeline transport would be much more expensive than offshore loading into shuttle tankers. The other licensees regarded this finding as more than good enough reason to adopt offshore loading, but Statoil nevertheless held back.
It wanted to check whether it was possible to lay and operate a pipeline across the deepwater Norwegian Trench, a submarine valley which runs up the coast of south-west Norway.
To learn more, see: Offshore loading versus pipeline transport
Lindøe, J., & Stavanger sjøfartsmuseum. (2009). Inn fra havet : Bøyelasternes historie. Stavanger: Wigestrand ; Stavanger sjøfartsmuseum: 16.
Nerheim, G., Dahlberg, F., & Norsk petroleumsforening. (1996). En gassnasjon blir til (Vol. B. 2). Oslo: Leseselskapet.: 39-40.
Stafsnes, T. (1984). Ilandføring Av Petroleum Fra Statfjord : Analyse Av En Iverksettingsprosess: 51-54..