40
Subsea Technology Standardisation Overview – Current Status Oil & Gas UK Efficiency Task Force Steve Duthie – Subsea Standardisation Industry Lead 26 th May 2016
Subsea Technology Standardisation Overview – Current Status
Oil & Gas UK Efficiency Task Force Steve Duthie – Subsea Standardisation Industry Lead 26th May 2016
2
Contents
1. Overall Project Objectives, Key Stakeholders and Companies Involved
2. Project Organisational Structure
3. Literature Review Findings
4. UKCS Project Reviews (Case Studies)
5. Standardisation Projects
a) Strawman Project
b) General Projects
c) Prospect Standardisation Project
6. Summary
3
1. Overall Project Objectives Summary
The desired result from achieving the objectives will be improved efficiencies along with optimised solutions resulting in a reduced cost base.
There is known to be significant savings to be realised through adopting a simplified approach to project execution and through standardisation of subsea technology.
Focusing only on the UKCS, the Working Group has identified the following two objectives:
1. Applying standardisation to equipment (hardware) and methods for both new and existing subsea infrastructure to maximize compatibility, interoperability and provide reduced delivery times.
2. Develop a simplified approach, in particular, focusing on aligned standards and non-value adding specifications to eliminate superfluous detail and reduce complexity and provide a fit for purpose solution. Challenge current working practices to provide a simplified solution to Project Execution.
4
1. Key Stakeholders and Companies Involved
Projects Technical Authority
Detailed Design & Engineering IVB
Line-pipe Valves
Umbilical Flexibles
Flanges, Fittings & Piping Coatings & Insulation
Subsea Production System
Pipelines Structures
Spools & Risers
Subsea Construction (SURF) Rock-dumper
Pre-Commissioning
Operator & OGA
Design Consultants
Manufacturer
Fabrication
Installation
KEY STAKEHOLDERS
30 Companies 14 Working Group Members
57 Sub Group Members
5
1. Key Stakeholders and Companies Involved
6
2. Project Organisational Structure
OGA
Operators
Design Consultants
& IVB’s
Manufacturers
Fabricators
SURF Contractors
INDUSTRY SUPPORT
Dan Cole Dave Masson
Graham Whitehead Guy Trumper Lloyd Duthie Matt Corbin
Martin Fowlie Neil Kirkbride
Patrick Duggan Richard Hinkley Stuart Buchan
Stephen Marco Jones
Subsea Asset Stewardship Workgroup TLB & Small Pools
Reviews, Surveys,
Workshops
Project Case Studies
Project Case Studies
Standardisation Theme
Efficiency Task Force Steering Group
Valves Standardisation Well P&A Standardisation Subsea Technology Standardisation Industry Lead Steve Duthie
General Project Selection
Strawman Project
Standardisation Projects
‘Prospect’ Review
Literature Review
7
3. Literature Review: Industry Review
Previous Initiatives
1994 – CRINE
Original report 1994 on back of dramatic decrease in oil price to $15 (62% drop from 1990 to 1994).
CRINE Network established 1994 – 1999 supported by the industry on a part time basis and Operator driven.
1994 report made 6 recommendations (Codes, Standards and Specifications/ Technical Standardisation/Commercial Standardisation/ Regulatory/ Cultural Change/ Drilling Practices Committee).
Same themes highlighted by CRINE such as standardisation, simplification & collaboration….
Large report but deemed high level, mixed feedback on the success of CRINE.
No evidence or legacy of CRINE today except Terms and Conditions which were adopted by LOGIC.
1998 Follow On CRINE report
Around Oil price drop from $25 to $12 (52%).
Project and Procurement Managers Conference report, 1998:
Applying the philosophy of CRINE to FPSO, Subsea and Deep-water.
Industry sponsored event.
Focus on Functional Specifications, but never adopted by industry.
Other Initiatives
Majority of other initiatives such as:
Oil & Gas Industry Task Force commenced 1999 till 2001.
LOGIC commenced 2000 – now part of Oil and Gas UK (2007).
PILOT commenced 2000 - now part of MER (OGA 2015).
Similar trend followed where work groups never really followed through to provide detailed solutions and adopt a longer term approach.
Only provided high level recommendations.
Conclusion: No visibility of long term solutions being implemented and adopted
8
3. Literature Review: Industry Review
Behaviours
Repeat short term views and behaviours adopted and more evident during a downturn.
Cost reduction drive
Task forces generally initiated
New developments cancelled or put on hold
Industry has become risk adverse – need to readdress the balance
Reaction to failure is to add more specification requirements.
Long term approach for achieving industry wide efficiencies never adopted.
Relationships
Relationships driven by the Operator.
Operators often won’t listen to the supply chain proposals/justifications.
Independents operators more receptive
Early engagement provides real benefits but generally not applied.
More trust is required in the industry.
Will promote innovation and providing solutions.
Collaboration
Evidence of collaboration within the industry is limited.
Collaboration does not come easy and has to be worked.
Three forums for collaboration required – Operator to Operator/ Operator to Supply Chain/ Supply Chain to Supply Chain.
Efficiency, Innovation & Continuous Improvement
Greater focus required on efficiency, innovation and continuous improvement.
No real evidence of continuous improvement and transformational change within the Industry.
Strong leadership and management required to transform the industry.
Cultures,
Behaviours
and Practice
Change in industry behaviours is starting to happen but there is still a long way to go.
Cross Sector
9
3. Literature Review: Cross Sector
Continuous Improvement
Automotive industry key focus = continuous improvement on quality & efficiency.
Effective leadership drive for continuous improvement very apparent.
Aerospace adopted continuous improvement program across the supply chain.
Automotive manufacturing plants have adopted a simple set of KPIs that are clearly communicated to the workforce and displayed throughout the workplace.
Leadership / Behaviours / Culture
Automotive industry awareness of thinking about tomorrow is key to their success.
Industry mind-set that it will only survive if it can be more efficient and provide new technologies on a continuous basis.
Potential Learnings
Car Industry and Aerospace not thought to offer detailed learnings but offer concepts like modular and common components, interchangeable building blocks or modules aligned to a standardised approach.
Cars manufacture and assembly line approach lends itself to standardisation.
Warehouse logistics controlled by barcode (planned movements and sequence to assembly line) transformed the automotive and aerospace industries.
Commercial models out with this scope, but could learn from automotive industry (gain share approach adopted).
Some car manufacturers have developed stronger relationships with the supply chain who provide to their global business.
Collaboration
Collaboration prevalent in Aerospace and Automotive industry’s– more so the latter.
They have to work at collaboration and process to follow – it does not come easy.
Automotive driven by push for lower development costs resulting in sharing development at technology centres.
Supply Chain Leaders Forum / Operator Forum / Operator & Supply Chain Forums.
Automotive collaboration example: Volkswagen Group (Audi, Porsche, Seat, Skoda) and alliances such as Nissan/ Renault (50-50 share in others company).
Often car manufacturers will exchange power trains to each other.
Aerospace – SC21 collaborative approach to share learning through a forum and how to best improve the program.
Collaboration Forums used to develop collaborative behaviours.
No Tangible learnings in the short term …!!
However longer term offerings are achievable with transformational change around leadership, behaviours and culture.
Less is Better Documentation Requirements Review Cycles Inspection Reporting Interface Management Methodology (Concept to Detailed
Design) Industry Performa Documents Risk Review Profile Standard Process
Apply to Design, Manufacture, Installation
Hot Taps to host pipeline EPS with minimal SURF Schedule optimisation, Vessel sharing
and cluster development strategy (Mass Centralisation).
Fit for Purpose Establish Reference/Base Case UKCS Minimum Standards/Guiding
Principles Functional/Performance Requirements Pre-qualification Industry Standards today (i.e. API) are
considered above a Fit for Purpose
10
3. Literature Review Findings: Standardisation Themes
Standardisation Projects
Literature Review Findings
(Inc. TLB Hackathon)
Catalogue of Components Re-Use of Equipment Envelope for Design Components Standard Classifications Interchangeability (Mix & Match) Plug and Play Modularised and building block
approach Standard Interfaces Standard Classifications for
pressure, bore.
Alternative Methods and Technologies
Hardware Process
Codes, Standards
and Specifications
4. UKCS Case Studies: Results
11
Highlights are:
£500k saving from Design, Engineering and Supervision
£2m saving from Flowline Manufacture
£3m saving from Mid-Water Arch Manufacture
£1m saving from Transportation and Installation
Total Savings of £7.75m = 25%
Case Study 1 reviewed the design, engineering, manufacture and installation of an FPSO riser system.
Highlights are:
£980k saving from Design Engineering
£1.02m saving from Field Joint Coating
£2.6m saving from Pipe in Pipe Procurement & Fabrication
£2.2m saving from Trenching and Backfill Requirements
Total Savings of £13m = 18%
Case Study 2 reviewed the design, engineering, manufacture and installation of a typical UKCS subsea pipeline tieback.
This provides an early indication of the potential savings that could be realised Four Previously executed projects revisited adopting the four standardisation themes.
12
Highlights are:
£2.4m saving from Project Management
£3.8m saving from Engineering
£15.8m saving from Procurement, and Fabrication
£4m saving from Offshore Installation
Total Savings of £26m = 15%
Case Study 3 reviewed the design, engineering, manufacture and installation of subsea manifolds and bundle system
Highlights are:
£640k saving from Umbilical Manufacture
£7.14m saving from Offshore Construction
£6.08m saving from Pipe lay
£500k saving from Pipeline Fabrication
Total Savings of £14.5m = 28%
Case Study 4 reviewed the design, engineering, manufacture and installation of a typical UKCS subsea pipeline tieback.
4. UKCS Case Studies: Results
The Project case studies highlighted savings of circa 15% - 28%
Savings grouped into the standardisation themes:
13
Case Study 1
Total Savings: £7.75m = 25%
Case Study 2
Total Savings: £13m = 18%
Case Study 3
Total Savings: £26m = 15%
Case Study 4
Total Savings: £14.5m = 28%
Standardisation Theme % Saving Codes, Standards and Specifications 1%-8%
Process 3%-12%
Alternative Methods and Technologies 1%-14%
Hardware 1% - 5%
4. UKCS Case Studies: Results
14
There are three types of Standardisation Projects,
Supported by 12 sub groups
a) Strawman Project
b) General Projects
c) Prospect Standardisation Project
5. Standardisation Projects: Overview
Detailed Design Fabrication Flexibles IVB
Stuart Buchan - Genesis Dave Masson – Isleburn (GEG) Andrew Roberts – Wellstream Martin Fowlie – DNV GL
Installation Pipelines, Line Pipe &
Coatings Pre-Commissioning SPS
Neil Shand - Technip Alan Black – Subsea 7 Malcolm Harris - EnerMech Matt Corbin – Aker Solutions
Survey Trenching, Backfill and
Rock Dump Umbilicals
Valves, Flanges & Fittings
Mike Clark – Subsea 7 Willie Ross - Technip Steve Marjoram – Technip Umbilical Neil Kirkbride – Bel Valves
15
5.(a) Strawman Project: Proforma
High
Medium
Low
Level of Complexity:
A UKCS scope relevant to the Sub Group either hypothetical or based on a previous project.
Reference Case to be developed from:
Fit for purpose approach for the UKCS, excluding preferential requirements, applying only appropriate standards
Define and score metrics in regard to performance of 9 Operators (4 Global & 5 UKCS Focussed) compared to the reference case.
Where relevant, this can be extended to sub categories as shown on the Proforma diagram.
Strawman Project
Define Strawman
Scope
Define Reference
Case
Define Metrics
and Score
Produce Time/ Cost/
Complexity Diagram
16 Scopes
10 Sub Groups
Reference
Case
16
5.(a) Strawman Project: Summary of Strawman Projects
Sub Group Strawman Scope Scope Cost Project Schedule
Detailed Design
Pipelines £65,000 130 Days Structures £90,000 120 Days Material Corrosion £33,000 70 Days Flow Assurance £50,000 60 Days Controls and Umbilical's £30,000 90 Days
Fabrication SSIV Fabrication £326,000 113 Days
Flexibles Flexible Riser and Flowline £1,600,000 260 Days
Installation
Mobilisation, Umbilical Installation, Spools and Structure Install, Pipe Lay and Diver Tie Ins Including Protections
£7,957,000 280 Days (19 days offshore/ 80 Days Onshore)
Pipelines Line pipe procurement, Coating, ECA, Welding, NDT, FJC and Fabrication
£6,723,000 145 Days
SPS Control Systems £4,850,000 455 Days
Trees £1,200,000 325 Days Connecting Systems £255,000 150 Days
Survey Installation of Pipelines, Umbilicals, Structures and Metrology Surveys
£660,385 27 Days
Trenching 10km Pipeline Trench and Backfill £5,000,000 151 Days
Umbilicals Umbilical Flowline £9,600,000 260 Days
Valves Valve Supply £2,000,000 150 Days
17
5.(a) Strawman Project: Flexibles Example - Scope
Scope
Water Depth 200m
Design Temp 80°C
Design Pressure 344.8bar (5000psi)
Fluid Oil/ Gas/ Water
Nominal Bore 8”
Pipe Designs
Pipe Design 8” Riser
400m Long
8” Flowline/Jumper
1000m Long Units
Nominal Bore 8 8 “
OD 284.55 274.84 mm Weight (Empty in Air) 107 101.4 kg
Bending Stiffness 24.65 18.88 kNm2 Length 400 1000 m Pipe Construction
Carcass 316L 316L
Pressure Sheath PA 12 PA 12
Pressure Armour Mild Steel Mild Steel
Tensile Armours Mild Steel Mild Steel
Outer Sheath PA 12 HDPE End Fitting F22 F22
Reference Case Cost and Schedule
Price £1,600,000
Schedule 52 weeks
Metrics Low (L) Medium (M) High (H)
Material Requirements
3.1 Certification. No restriction on geographical
location of supplier.
3.2 Certification on all metallic materials. 3.2 certification on all metallic materials. Additional material testing such as Charpy
Tests, Sour Service Tests, etc.
Specifications
Design Code API 17J supported by Flexible Functional/ Performance data sheet.
Clearly defined design codes supported by client specification and data sheet.
Flexible data sheet defines temperature range, pressure range and auxiliary requirements such as filling and marking only.
Multiple design codes and client specifications resulting in interpretation and consolidation.
All project specifications issued including those that are not relevant. Leads to conflicting data and time to filter out non relevant specifications.
Limited design basis with iterations required throughout design process.
Design Analysis
Design based on 'like for like' for replacement projects with little additional analysis.
'Small' load case matrix (~2000 LC) and pragmatic approach to non compliant LC's for new development.
Minimal 3rd party design house involvement.
Design and analysis in parallel to procurement and manufacturing.
Design and analysis driven by 3rd party design house requirements.
Extensive engineering and iterative rework to demonstrate full compliance with LCM / boundary conditions.
Analysis parallel to procurement / manufacturing however risk significantly increases of Client non acceptance of design rework.
Changes to ancillary components late in the day due to iterative rework to satisfy demanding Load Case Matrix.
Short lead time with tender based on 'generic' 3rd party FEED.
Onerous LCM with preliminary / conservative RAO / Offset data.
RAO's / Offsets modified in the course of project execution.
Analysis in series with procurement / manufacture.
Unfavourable interpretation of API 17J / API 17L imposed with no discussion permitted.
Product Testing Testing as per the requirements of
API 17J.
Testing as per the requirements of API 17J with the client modifications/ additions.
Client Specific testing requirements.
Product Qualification
Within qualified domain. Minor deviations accepted on the basis of desktop study to justify.
Client not willing to accept pre-qualified solution on the basis of limited track record but alternative materials available at additional cost.
Small scale qualification testing.
Full scale qualification tests.
18
5.(a) Strawman Project: Flexibles Example - Metrics Explained
19
Metrics Low (L) Medium (M) High (H)
Document Requirements
GA drawings such as Packing drawing and Data Summary drawing.
GA drawings such as Packing drawing and Data Summary drawing.
Multiple drawings including anode assembly drawings, cross sections of end fittings.
ITP and Quality Plan. Basic Design Report. Manufacturing Record Book
contains CoC and material certs. Typically 1 submission on
documents.
ITP and Quality Plan. Design Report and Operating Manual. Manufacturing Record Book includes
material certs, CoC, manufacturing records including NDT, FAT test.
Addition of some Client specific documents. Documents ranging from of 10-19.
Document Cycles can vary dependant on the document but common to see 1-2 submissions.
Large amount of client specific documents with total amount of documents produced ranging from 20 upwards.
Multiple reviews and submissions can be upwards of 4.
Extensive requirement for memo's / additional information in reports etc.
Review Cycles
2 week turn around - Supplier issues document to client/ contractor and document is returned within 2 weeks.
1 Comment Cycle to add any comments Client/ Contractor will have after this the document is issued as approved.
4 week turn around. 2 comment cycles.
6 week turnaround. 4+ comment cycles - several comment
cycles with additional comments to be added each time complicates projects and extends the schedule.
Reporting
Minimum reporting. Phone call to discuss progress on a bi-weekly/ monthly basis.
Bi-weekly reports that include schedule, HSE, concerns, document updates, commercial updates.
Monthly phone call to discuss progress.
Weekly reports that provide detailed schedule.
Weekly schedule will show baseline, start and finish of activities during design and manufacture.
Weekly call or meetings with client to discuss progress.
5.(a) Strawman Project: Flexibles Example - Metrics Explained
20
Metrics Low (L) Medium (M) High (H)
Interface Management & Control
Product meets regulatory, technical and safety requirements so level of control and interface is a minimum.
IVB will review design calculations only. Design Calculations will be issued to Clients and then for further review from an IVB. The reviews can include drawings, calculations, hazard analysis, operating instructions.
Parallel design / analysis by design house.
Shipping dependent on IVB approval.
Inspection
Supplier Quality Control only. Supplier fully ISO compliant. NCR's issued for information only
/ non critical in Databook only.
Client Monitor Points only. NCR's discussed as they arise - approved
repair procedures allowed without client consultation.
Client and Contractor/ IVB. Multiple Hold and Witness points
through the manufacture. All NCR's to be discussed with Client
prior to continued manufacture. Each NCR to receive detailed report / documentation to justify.
Sub Supplier & Sub Contractor
Generic ITP of subcontractor provided materials.
Detailed review and client specific amendments to standard ITP.
Client requirement to use non qualified supplier (and thus qualify supplier).
Restrictions on supplier location (e.g. specify that all supply must be from Europe etc.).
QHSE Auditing
Accept Type Approval and QMS certification.
1-off Audit. Appoint own inspector for Manufacturing
and Test.
Audit of main site against all work procedures.
Interim audits. Vendor specific audits. High presence during design ,
manufacture and test.
5.(a) Strawman Project: Flexibles Example - Metrics Explained
21
5.(a) Strawman Project: Flexibles Example - Metrics Scoring
Cost
L 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% £1,600,000
M 0.5% 0% 0% 5% 10% 0.5% 0% 0% 1% 0% 5% 0% £1,952,000
H 1% 0.5% 5% 10% 50% 1% 0% 1% 5% 0.5% 10% 0.5% £2,952,000
Schedule (Only Critical Path Applies)
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Weeks
M 0 2 0 4 8 1 4 1 0 0 2 0 66 Weeks
H 4 4 8 8 52 4 8 2 4 2 8 2 138 Weeks
Complexity
L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
M 2 3 3 3 5 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 35
H 3 5 7 5 10 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 61
UKCS Operator: Cost - £1,712,000 (7%)
Schedule – 56 Weeks (8%) Complexity – 27 (225%)
Global Operator: Cost - £2,232,000 (40%)
Schedule – 84 Weeks (62%) Complexity – 54 (450%)
7%
22
5.(a) Strawman Project: Flexible Example - Result
Global Operators
UKCS Focused Operators
High
Medium
Low
Complexity
Reference Case
% Duration
15%
62%
40%
% Cost
23
5.(a) Strawman Project: Various Sub Group Results and Initial Trends
Each of the strawman projects show a divide between UKCS focused and Global Operators
Manufacturing offered the greatest cost and schedule savings.
Detailed Design costs are relatively low across a typical UKCS project but have the greatest influence on Manufacturing and Installation activities.
Installation cost and schedule increases relate to onshore activities only prior to vessel mobilisation.
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160%
24
5.(a) Strawman Project: Overall Results
Note: Impact of duration on project development cycle is not reflected in costs.
% Cost
% Duration
17%
38%
57%
26%
Global Operators
UKCS Focused Operators
High
Medium
Low
Complexity
Reference Case
7%
24%
9% 18%
12% 21%
4% 14%
7% 12%
2% 10% 12%
31% 40%
46%
17%
40% 29%
23% 15% 16%
14%
48%
17%
39%
22%
29%
22%
120%
28%
37% 32%
51%
40%
62%
46%
86%
59%
120%
65%
47%
69%
41%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
%
UKCS Focus Global
Reference Case
25
2% 5
% 8%
11%
14%
9%
6%
6%
12%
27%
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
5.(a) Strawman Project: Scope Activities - Cost and Schedule Impact
Trenching Installation Fabrication Survey Flexibles Design Valves Control Systems
(SPS)
Trees (SPS) Pipelines Umbilical
26
4.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 4.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0%
10.0% 8.0%
2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 4.0% 4.0%
8.0%
2.0% 4.0%
2.0% 4.0%
2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
0%
50%
100%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
3.9% 5.0% 7.7% 1.0%
7.7%
0.5%
7.7% 5.0%
15.4% 10.0%
15.4%
10.0%
15.4%
1.0%
7.7% 7.7%
0.5% 3.8% 5.0% 7.7%
1.0% 3.9% 5.0% 3.9%
0%
50%
100%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
6.0% 3.0%
14.0%
1.2% 3.6%
6.0% 4.4% 10.0%
14.0%
3.0% 0.2% 2.0% 1.2%
7.2%
1.2%
0%
50%
100%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
UKCS Focus Global Complexity - UKCS Focus Complexity - Global Complexity - Reference case
5.(a) Strawman Project: Metrics - Cost and Schedule Impact
Co
mp
lexi
ty (
%)
Fabrication
Flexibles
Umbilicals
Co
st &
Sch
edu
le (
%)
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Materials/ Hardware
Specifications Design Analysis/ Engineering
Qualifications Product Testing Documentation Inspection Interface Mgmt.
Reporting Review Cycles
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Supplier and Sub Contractor Mgmt.
0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1.6% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.8%
0.5% 1.9% 1.0%
5.(a)Strawman Project: Metrics - Cost and Schedule Impact
10.0% 2.2% 5.0% 2.2% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 3.3% 2.0% 3.0% 2.2% 3.0% 2.0% 2.2% 2.2%
15.0%
3.3% 4.0% 3.3%
10.0% 8.8% 5.0% 4.4% 4.0% 4.4% 4.0% 4.4%
7.0% 3.3% 2.5%
4.4% 4.0% 3.3% 5.0% 3.3%
0%
50%
100%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
7.0% 9.2% 3.0%
41.0%
9.2% 7.0%
9.2% 5.0% 3.7% 5.0% 3.7% 3.0% 2.7%
0.5% 1.8% 0.8% 3.0% 4.6%
0%
50%
100%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%UKCS Focus Global Complexity - UKCS Focus Complexity - Global Complexity - Reference Case
27
8.0%
20.0%
6.7% 3.0%
6.7% 3.3% 3.3%
8.3% 3.0%
24.0% 27.0%
5.0%
26.7%
4.1%
13.3%
0.9% 6.7%
0.9%
20.0%
4.7%
13.0%
5.0% 6.7%
3.0% 0.9%
0%
50%
100%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Co
st &
Sch
edu
le (
%)
Co
mp
lexi
ty (
%)
SPS- Trees
Valves
SPS- Control Systems
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Specifications Qualifications Materials/ Hardware
Product Testing Documentation Review Cycles Interface Mgmt.
Reporting Supplier and Sub Contractor Mgmt.
Inspection
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.1% 0.9%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%
0.0% 0.0%
1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%
1.5% 1.3% 1.8%
1.1% 1.1% 1.0%
5.0%
0.3%
10.0%
3.0%
10.0% 6.0%
5.0% 0.6%
2.0% 0.6%
5.0% 6.0% 2.0% 3.0% 5.0%
11.0%
10.0%
0.6%
20.0%
6.0%
20.0%
12.0% 10.0%
1.2%
5.0%
1.2%
10.0% 12.0%
5.0% 6.0%
20.0%
29.0%
0%
50%
100%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%UKCS Focus Global Complexity - UKCK Focus Complexity - Global Complexity - Reference case
3.0% 7.0%
10.0% 8.5% 4.0% 4.2% 3.0%
7.4% 3.0%
7.0% 9.5%
6.0%
14.0% 15.0% 17.0%
8.0% 10.6% 6.0%
14.8%
2.0%
7.0% 7.4%
14.0%
19.0%
0%
50%
100%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
28
5.(a) Strawman Project: Metrics - Cost and Schedule Impact
Co
st &
Sch
edu
le (
%)
Co
mp
lexi
ty (
%)
Installation - DSV
Detailed Design
Sch
edu
le
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Co
st
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Sch
edu
le
Specifications Technical Authority Interface
Documentation Review Cycle
Reporting Interface Mgmt.
Supplier and Sub Contractor Mgmt.
Tolerances Preferential Engineering
Vessel Specs
1.0% 1.5%
29
5.(a) Strawman Project: Metrics - Cost and Schedule Summary
Metrics that have the highest impact across the sub groups
Metric Cost Impact Schedule Impact
Qualifications 18% 16%
Preferential Engineering – (Detailed Design Only) 13% 20%
Material Requirements 8% 15%
Documentation 8% 10%
Vessel Assurance 7% 21%
Sub Supplier and Sub Contractor Management 6% 28%
Product and Component Testing 6% 10%
Specifications 6% 7%
5.(a) Strawman Project: Codes, Standards an Specifications Journey
30
1. Multiple Industry Standards defined. 2. Project specifications issued with
conflicting information. 3. Use of exotic materials with full
traceability on all materials (3.2 Certification).
4. Client Prescriptive Qualification requirements, No Scaling allowed.
5. Sacrificial Testing and client specific testing regime.
1. Works to Industry Standards with minor modifications.
2. Supplies defined specification and data sheet.
3. Readily available materials used with full traceability (3.2 certification).
4. Small scale qualification requirements, Scaling allowed.
5. Extended FATs and minor client modifications to contractor standard.
1. Use Industry Standard ONLY. 2. Functional/ Performance data sheet to
specify requirements. 3. Readily available materials with 3.1
certification. 4. Use existing qualified procedures and
solutions. Acceptance of desktop study to justify minor deviations.
5. Accepts Contractors standard testing procedure.
Global
UKCS Focused
Reference Case
5.(a) Strawman Project: Process Journey
31
1. Client specific documents with extensive requirements within documents.
2. Several comment cycles. 3. Weekly reporting with detailed
schedule and face to face meetings. 4. Client inspection throughout along
with 3rd party involvement. 5. NCRs to be discussed prior to
continued manufacture.
1. Addition of Client specific documents on top of contractor standard documents.
2. 2 Comment cycles. 3. Regular reporting on all areas. 4. Client Monitor points with witness of FAT
only. 5. NCRs discussed throughout manufacture
but contractor repair procedure utilised.
1. Acceptance of Contractor standard documents.
2. 2 week turn around with 1 comment cycle.
3. Minimum Reporting 4. No Client Inspection as Contractor is
fully ISO compliant. 5. NCRs issued for info only.
Global
UKCS Focused
Reference Case
32
5.(b) General Project Selection: Projects Selection Process
Through a series of workshops, projects were selected that identified potential costs and schedule benefits if implemented.
The workshops held the following process:
33
5.(b) General Project Selection: Projects Selected
AMT
H P
CSS Legend:
55 Projects Selected Overall from 11 Sub Groups
34
5.(b) General Project Selection: Projects Selected
AMT
H P
CSS Legend:
55 Projects Selected Overall from 11 Sub Groups
35
5.(b) General Project Selection: Project Examples
Simplified RFQ - SPS Projects
Three projects identified that have been linked together to form a simplified example of an RFQ for Central and Northern North Sea scopes.
The projects identified:
Industry Standards that should be applied during a project
Customer functional performance datasheet as per API 17D Annex M.
Simplified documentation requirements including MRBs, ITPs and MDLs
It has been identified that an 13% cost and 18% schedule saving could be achieved with this approach.
Reducing Flexible Riser Design Complexity (Analysis) – Flexibles Project
In the 90’s 12-60 load cases was typical whilst today 5,000 to 12,000 load cases is the norm.
As a result design analysis has now become a project delivery critical path activity.
Similarly, analysis to allow replacement like for like risers cannot be proven to work.
No history of major failures from existing systems to justify the increasingly adverse design methodologies employed.
This project will identify areas of conservatism and look at ways to mitigate these.
36
5.(c) ‘Prospect’ Standardisation Review
The next step is looking at a few uneconomical prospects and applying the findings to date to try and achieve cost and schedule efficiencies.
There has been interest from three operators to identify any recommendations for cost and schedule efficiencies. The three prospects that will be reviewed are:
Chevron Captain Satellite
Shell Fram
Centrica West Pegasus
The review will also be link up with the Technology Leadership Board to identify further savings from the drilling scope.
Chevron Captain Satellite
Shell Fram
Centrica West Pegasus
Results have identified cost savings potential of up to circa 30% from Process and Codes, Standards & Specifications.
There is a journey to achieve the goal.
Schedule impact and associated costs not fully reflected and further upside could be realised.
Additional savings of up to 14% are highlighted from Alternative Methods, Technology.
Realisation of these savings will be confirmed as part of the prospect standardisation reviews.
In general, hardware standardisation is proving more difficult to obtain traction and progress primarily due to the perceived conflict of proprietary knowledge and commercial sensitivity.
37
6. Summary
38
There are 55 ‘Standardisation’ projects identified…!!!
Proposed these are screened and adopted by the OGTC to deliver with dedicated resources and achieve their full potential….£££
Project Overviews are also available now for industry review and adoption.
Starting to progress the ‘Prospect’ Standardisation Reviews.
Expect to publish findings in July.
To achieve the above goals, we need industry support.
There is no need to wait for the green light to start applying these findings to Prospects and Projects now!!
This can be on a case by case basis.
6. Summary
39
Acknowledgements
14 members of the Working Group
57 members involved across 12 Sub Groups Detailed Design Fabrication Umbilicals
Adrian Ledingham Wood Group Kenny Craig Jamieson Isleburn (GEG) Steve Marjoram * Technip Umbilicals Frank Smith Xodus Graeme Gray Isleburn (GEG) Ian Probyn Technip Umbilicals Gordon Tough Technip Jonas Pettersson Technip Umbilicals
Flexibles Independent Verification Bodies Valves, Flanges and Fittings Andrew Roberts * Wellstream GE Claudia Scragg DNV GL David Gallagher Bel Valves Helle Mortensen NOV Sean Murray Lloyds Register Claudio Ripamonti Technip
Ron Mackinnon Technip Sam Mathew DNV GL Debbie Wyness Technip
Installation Pre-Commissioning Survey Neil Shand * Technip Malcolm Harris * Enermech Mike Clark * Subsea 7
Sean Magee Subsea 7 Mark Rasmusen IKM Scott Winning Subsea 7
David McCann Wood Group Kenny Phil Roberts Atlus Martin Skinner Technip
Graeme Barnett Bibby Offshore Shaun Main Haliburton Lewis Smith Technip
Derek Walker Technip
Damian Ling Chevron
Pipeline, Line Pipe and Coating Subsea Production Systems Trenching, Rock Dump and Backfill Alan Black * Subsea 7 David Benison Aker Solutions Willie Ross * Technip
Herve Quintin Subsea 7 Stephen Wood OneSubsea Trevor Pugh Technip
Stuart Ward Subsea 7 Craig Johnstone GE Oil and Gas Alasdair Maconochie Technip
Lee Miller Subsea 7 Iain Knight Wood Group Kenny Andrew Small Xodus Josip Micak Technip Bruce Stuart ProServ Mike Wilson Ecosse
Sameer Patil Subsea 7 Phil Ashley Siemens Toby Powell Subsea 7
Duncan Graham Subsea 7 Gerard Gillespie Siemens Ian Stewart Chevron
Simon Dewey Bredero Shaw Peter Blake Chevron Jon Machin UTEC
Neil Patrick Bredero Shaw Mike Tierney FMC Technologies
Working Group Steve Duthie Technip Lloyd Duthie Subsea 7 Rebecca Borresen Oil and Gas UK
Dan Cole Mckinsey and Co. Matt Corbin * Aker Solutions Richard Hinkley Chevron
Dave Masson * Isleburn (GEG) Martin Fowlie * DNV GL Stephen Marco Jones Oil and Gas UK
Graham Whitehead EnQuest Neil Kirkbride * Bel Valves Stuart Buchan * Genesis Guy Trumper Technip Patrick Duggan Apache
* Sub Group Sponsor
www.oilandgasuk.co.uk [email protected] #oilandgasuk
© 2016 The UK Oil and Gas Industry Association Limited, trading as Oil & Gas UK
Thank You
