28
14/11/2016 Work Package 5 – Integration PETROBOT Business Case
14/11/2016
Work Package 5 – Integration
PETROBOT Business Case
14/11/2016
Business Case
Business Elements and Market potential of PETROBOT
Outline
Analysis why Robotic Inspection
Current Market Analysis
Market Opportunity For PETROBOT
14/11/2016
Why we need a business case?
14/11/2016
Multidisciplinary knowledge needed
Application areas across all sectors of the O&G industry
Business drivers and key to adoption and uptake
Strategic Context: Robotic Inspection
Robotic Inspection
in O&G
Storage Tanks
Pressure Vessels
Guidelines & Regulations
Inspection Methods & Tech
RoboticsMarket Uptake
Costs
Operations
Work Practices
•Exploration
•Drilling
•Production
Upstream•Transportation
•Storage
•gas processing
Midstream
•Refining
•Distribution
•Marketing
Downstream
14/11/2016
5 Factors identified which add value to end users for robotic inspection
1. Increased Plant Uptime for Industrial Operations of
End-Users
2. Lower Overall Inspection Costs for End-Users
3. Improved Inspection Data Collection
4. Decrease in Environmental Impact
5. Improved Asset Management
Business Drivers
14/11/2016
3 Main drivers for Robotic Inspection
1. Safety Drivers: Consisting of three important aspects: 1. Personnel safety 2. Asset safety3. Equipment safety
2. Environmental Drivers: The contribution that robotic solutions makes towards the reduction of the environmental impact.
Minimising environmental accidents and maximising environmental protection3. Economic Drivers: The contribution that robotic solutions makes towards the
operation and longevity of the assets, and the improvement of the efficiency and profitability of the facilities.
Industry considerations Government and Regulation Policy Capital Requirements Economies of Scale Customer Loyalty
Drivers for Robotic Inspection
14/11/2016
PETROBOT mobilises the complete value chain
Stakeholder Analysis
Inspection Equipment Suppliers
Knowledge Institutes
Robot Builders
System Integrator
End Users (Asset owner)
Supply ServiceIndustrial Service
Provider(Performs Inspections)
Supply Systems/
Technology
Robot Solutions
Sensor solutions
Novel Solutions
Maintenance/Improvements
KnowledgeFeedback
Knowledge
Knowledge
Regulators and Law makers
Feedback
14/11/2016
Requirements Barriers to Entry
Barriers to Entry and Requirements
Industry Drivers
Economic
Environment
Safety
14/11/2016
The market for Robotics in O&G
Current Market Analysis
14/11/2016
There is a growing market need for
inspection
Worldwide increase in refining capacity
Aging assets, €100 Billion in project
cancellations, holds or delays*
The non-destructive testing market is
estimated to be valued at €12.68 Billion in
2015 and is projected to reach €18.00 Billion
by 2020, at a Compound Annual Growth
Rate (CAGR) of 7.78% from 2015 to 2020**
Current Market Analysis
Figure 6 World refinery production *Source HPI Maintenance Report 2014**http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/nondestructive-testing-market-257342201.html
14/11/2016
Current Market Analysis
*Source HPI Maintenance Report 2014**http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/nondestructive-testing-market-257342201.html
Sector U.S. M€ O.U.S. M€ Worldwide M€
Petrochemical/
Chemical€7,200 €22,200 €29,400
Refining €6,300 €19,600 €25,900
Gas processing €1,500 €5,000 €6,500
Figure 8 Number of operating refineries in the EU, Norway and Switzerland – end 2015.
number of refineries
Figure 9 Map of Europe Refineries (Left), Capacity of EU Refineries [million tons / year] - 18% of glob-al refining capacity (Right)
Table 7 2010 worldwide HPI maintenance spending by sector and materials (in the PETROBOT domain) [in M€].**
14/11/2016
Market Opportunity For PETROBOT
14/11/2016
Market Projection via Use Cases
The business case implemented use cases to project the Market opportunity for the PETROBOT Robots Pressure vessel use cases Tank use case
Compared conventional inspection vs robotic inspection Man Hour Study Economic study
Market Demand Study Annual Inspection Demand Robotic Market Demand Inspection Market Potential
Market Opportunity
14/11/2016
PV Use Case 1 – Snake Arm Robot Conventional Inspection vs. Robotic Inspection
Market Opportunity
Vessel type Produced water degassing vessel
Material Stainless Steel
Location Upstream offshore
Size 1.2m dia. x 4m length
Possible robotic and NDT
solutionSnake arm, Visual and EC
Assumptions for
business case
Assuming positive isolation is not
needed for Robot Internal Inspection
(RII).
Need opening 1 extra nozzle for RII
compared to Internal Visual Inspection
(IVI)
Longer inspection time for RII as speed
of robotic inspection is slower.
PV1 Process Task Description forNo. of personnel No. of personnel
Conventional IVI Robotic IVI
Preparing external access to the vessel (e.g. external
scaffolding) 4* 4*
Isolating the vessel (includes isolating, spading, venting) 4* -
Opening manway and cleaning for human/robot entry 4* 4*
Preparing internal access to the vessel (e.g. internal
scaffolding, removing internals) - -
Inspection 4 3
Replacing internals and closing manway 4* 4*
De-isolating the vessel 4* -
Restoring external condition (e.g. reinstate insulation,
remove external scaffolding) 4* 4*
*Same personnel can be used for the process
14/11/2016
PV Use Case 1 Conventional Inspection vs. Robotic Inspection
Market Opportunity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Preparingexternal
access to thevessel (e.g.
externalscaffolding)
Isolating thevessel
(includesisolating,spading,venting)
Openingmanway andcleaning for
human/robotentry
Preparinginternal access
to the vessel(e.g. internalscaffolding,
removinginternals)
Inspection Replacinginternals and
closingmanway
De-isolatingthe vessel
Restoringexternal
condition (e.g.reinstate
insulation,removeexternal
scaffolding)
Ho
urs
Pressure Vessel 1 - Conventional IVI vs. Robotic IVI
PV1 Conventional IVI PV1 Robotic IVI
PV1 Process Personnel
Conventional IVI Robotic IVI
No. of personnel Man hours No. of personnel Man hours
TOTAL 16 206 11 168
SAVINGS 5 38
PV tasks and steps for tasks man hours PV man hours savings
14/11/2016
PV Use Case 2 – Crawling Robots Conventional Inspection vs. Robotic Inspection
Market Opportunity
Vessel type Produced water degassing vessel
Material Steam condensate flash drum
Location Downstream, onshore
Size 2.5m dia. x 7.8m length
Possible robotic and NDT
solution
Fast platform, Visual + structured white
light
Assumptions for
business case
Assuming positive isolation is not
needed for RII
Assuming inspection not on critical path
Less internals, so FAST platform should
be able to crawl to all the areas of
interest. As an alternative, the BIKE can
be used in conjunction.
PV1 Process Task Description forNo. of personnel No. of personnel
Conventional IVI Robotic IVI
Preparing external access to the vessel (e.g. external
scaffolding) 4* 4*
Isolating the vessel (includes isolating, spading, venting) 4* -
Opening manway and cleaning for human/robot entry 4* 4*
Preparing internal access to the vessel (e.g. internal
scaffolding, removing internals) - -
Inspection 4 3
Replacing internals and closing manway 4* 4*
De-isolating the vessel 4* -
Restoring external condition (e.g. reinstate insulation,
remove external scaffolding) 4* 4*
*Same personnel can be used for the process
14/11/2016
PV Use Case 2 Conventional Inspection vs. Robotic Inspection
Market Opportunity
PV1 Process Personnel
Conventional IVI Robotic IVI
No. of personnel Man hours No. of personnel Man hours
TOTAL 16 204 11 128
SAVINGS 5 76
PV tasks and steps for tasks man hours PV man hours savings
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Preparingexternal
access to thevessel (e.g.
externalscaffolding)
Isolating thevessel
(includesisolating,spading,venting)
Openingmanway andcleaning for
human/robotentry
Preparinginternal access
to the vessel(e.g. internalscaffolding,
removinginternals)
Inspection Replacinginternals and
closingmanway
De-isolatingthe vessel
Restoringexternal
condition (e.g.reinstate
insulation,removeexternal
scaffolding)
Ho
urs
Pressure Vessel 2 - Conventional IVI vs. Robotics IVI
PV2 Conventional IVI PV2 Robotic IVI
14/11/2016
Economics of Pressure Vessel Use Case
Market Opportunity Costs
Comparison
on Inspection
process
Hours
Increased
Cost % above
Conventional
Cost
PV1 +24 40%
PV2 +24 35%
Comparison
overallHours
Cost % above
Conventional
Cost
PV1 -38 23%
PV2 -76 6%
The cost comparison for the Inspection part
The cost comparison overall0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hourly Price, operator
Hourly price, equipment
Man hours per inspection…
Cost for preperation
Man hours per inspection
Equipment hour per inspection
Cost of Inspection
Mobilization price
Per vessel
Vessel Preperation
Vessel Return to service
Total Vessel Cost
% of Cost
Ite
ms
Costs Pressure Vessel Use Case 2 - Conventional vs Robotic
PV2 Conventional IVI PV2 Robotic Internal Inspection
Saved Hours!
14/11/2016
Pressure Vessels – Reduction of tasks Tasks can be reduced
Why was time saved?
Task
#Task description
Convent
Inspection
Robotic
Inspection (5)
1Preparing external access to the vessel (e.g.
external scaffolding)X X - Reduced
2Isolating the vessel (includes isolating, spading,
venting)X
Substantially
Reduced
3Opening manway and cleaning for human/robot
entryX X
4Preparing internal access to the vessel (e.g.
internal scaffolding, removing internals)X
Substantially
Reduced
5 Inspection X X - Increased
6 Replacing internals and closing manway X X - Reduced
7 De-isolating the vessel XSubstantially
Reduced
8Restoring external condition (e.g. reinstate
insulation, remove external. Scaffold)X X - Reduced
[5] Current PETROBOT Robots – in the future as the technology matures some of these processes will not be required
Pressure relief Pressure relief
Gas-free Gas-free
Blind off
Blind off
Check flanges
Check flanges
Open manhole
Open manhole
Steaming
Steaming
Cooling
Cooling
Measurements atm
Measurements atm
Inspection, 2
Inspection, 8
Close manhole
Close manhole
Shovels out
Shovels out
N2 / helium
N2 / helium
Resetting
Resetting
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Total Inspection Time(human)
Total Inspection Time(Robot)
Ho
urs
Inspection Solution
Current vs. Robot Inspection Operation Time from previous study
Time reduced by 70%!
Inspection, 2
Inspection, 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total Inspection Time(human)
Total Inspection Time(Robot)
Ho
urs
Inspection Time From Previous Study
14/11/2016
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Asset Preparation
Asset Cleaning
Asset Inspection
Returning Asset to Service
Asset downtime prior and after inspection
Total
% of Cost
Insp
ecti
on
Ste
ps
Costs AST Use Case - Conventional vs Robotic
Conventional Cost Total Robotic Cost Total
Tank Use Case Conventional Inspection vs. Robotic Inspection
Market Opportunity
Tank Type Clear Products Tank
Material Carbon steel bottom
Product type Clear Products
Size 40m dia.
Coating 4 mm
Internals Minimal – floor plates, repair patches
Expected Damage Corrosion on the floor plates
Possible robotic and
NDT solutionTank Robot, SLOFEC
Assumptions for
business case
Assuming 100% floor inspection is not
required
14/11/2016
Market Demand
14/11/2016
Annual Inspection Demand for Assets
End users gave input to asset numbers and % of suitable units
Inspection interval per asset 5 years*
Market Demand
*Tank robots allow tanks to inspected more frequently hence the shorter time
14/11/2016
Net Savings to the Industry
14/11/2016
Inspection Demand potential from robotic use
Inspection Market Demand
14/11/2016
Cost Analysis – Annual potential from robotic sales
Market Demand
14/11/2016
Net Savings to the Industry
14/11/2016
Business Case Conclusions
USE of
+
€84MRobotics
Per year
Market s izePotential of
Industry has a
REDUCE
INCREASE
€280MSAVE
Across the assets
the O&G Industry
can &
14/11/2016
www.petrobotproject.eu
