Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

But first thing first.  A bit more on how projects develop in Projects and Mods.  

The Process.  As you read in my last blog the BP process goes from Appraise –> Select –> Define –> Execute.  The precursor to all this activity requires the that customer, read platform, submits a request for work (WFR) form which is considered by the Project and Mods Team.  Should it be deemed suitable the proposal is considered in a screening study.  This identifies in very broad terms who the stakeholders are, how much, how long it will take, possible options…..  This will then define how the project is taken forward:

• C1 – Separate Appraise, Select, Define and Execute phases.  (High Value and / or complex)
• C2 – Combined Appraise / Select and separate Define and Execute phases.  (Medium value and a number of options to be considered.)
• C3 – Combined Appraise / Select / Define and separate Execute phase.  (Low value and simple e.g. like for like replacement)

Responsibilities.  Outside the BP structure Costain Upstream is responsible for delivering the screening study, Appraise and Select phases.  Wood Group PSN is responsible for the Define and Execute phases.  This split responsibility is mirrored in BP with there being a front end single point of accountability (SPA = project engineer) for the screening study, Appraise and Select phases and a Define / Execute SPA (me).

Funding.  There are various sources of funding available to the project teams: operational expenditure (OPEX) and capital expenditure (CAPEX).  OPEX is used to fund the screening, Appraise and Select phases and CAPEX is used to fund the Define and Execute.  The OPEX budget is generated and owned by Projects & Mods.  The budget is bid for annually by considering planned work on assets and adding an allocation for emergent work.  CAPEX expenditure is controlled by the operators and it is made available to a project once a financial memorandum (FM) is approved and an approval for expenditure (AFE) is agreed by the partners.  The FM approval is required prior to an AFE being agreed.

PROJECTS – THE OLD

Mungo Rescue and Fire Fighting Services

This is now in the final throes of the Appraise / Select phase before going forward into Define / Execute phases, at which point the responsibility for the project is passed to me.   The next stage will be the submission of the FM and AFE.  As a warm up for the submission of these documents I was ‘invited’ to present to the partners (First Oil and JX Nippon) so that they understood the need, schedule and cost.  A hugely enlightening experience, dealing purely with the commercial side of the business.  

Miller Helideck Lighting Trial

When I wrote my last blog I hadn’t appreciated that there was no money available to install the lights on the Miller.  A hugely frustrating place to be in, considering that both the Logistics and the Safety and Operational Risk (S&OR) business functions were screaming out for the job to be done.  After much toing and froing and a delay of 8 weeks a lump of cash was found.  This allowed the project to get off the blocks.  I was amazed to be on the receiving end of huge amounts of pressure to catch up 8 weeks on a 9 week project.  Needless to say a face-to-face meeting squared that one.  I still expect to get a note a week ‘asking’ me to make up the lost time!

The accelerated timeline that this is already on is starting to create problems.  As a part of the Define / Execute Wood Group would typically confirm and specify details of selected equipment as the design authority.  Because of the drive to get this offshore, the Define stage has been completely bypassed.  This means that materials identified (not specified) by Costain in their front end work is being used to draw up bills of materials.  (Specification sits outside the requirement placed on Costain.)  So at the moment I’m attempting to move a project forward in which Wood Group is uncomfortable to progress as they have no specification to work from and they are unwilling to take the materials identified and work them into specifications.  Having to sit down and hold hands to even get a rivet on a BoM. 

PROJECTS – THE NEW

Andrew Sea Water Filter Failure

So the 2up boss came into the office and said something like ‘come with me boy!’.  At which point I was the subject of a number of commiserative glances and found me feeling like I was back at primary school and had been summoned by the headmaster for a gentle caning!

Turns out one of the two sea water filters on the Andrew has suffered unprecedented corrosion and was on the verge of failure.  Not a huge concern today as the platform is not producing, however, once the platform comes back on line there will be no redundancy.  Coupled with limited understanding of the corrosion mechanism there is a risk that the second filter may fail cutting off cooling water supply to the platform.  This will result in a halt in production.  

Initially a thinning of the filter vessel wall (Filter A) was identified as a part of a routine inspection.  A significant thinning from 19.3mm to 8.3mm was recorded between Oct 13 and May 14.  Further testing a week later identified a thinning to less than 2mm.  At this point the vessel was isolated and the complete seawater duty run through Filter B.  There has been much flapping as corrosion rates of 1mm / day are unheard off.  As yet no similar corrosion has been seen on the B filter, however, on-line testing is ongoing to confirm the condition on the B filter. 

There are two simultaneous streams of work ongoing to deal with this concern.  The first being run by the asset is a repair of the existing 316L SS filter to bring that back into service.  The second piece of work is to procure a replacement filter.  There are at least four courses of action associated with procuring replacement filters:

• A – procure 2 x replacement filters made from super duplex steel.
• B – procure 1 x replacement filter to replace Filter A.
• C – procure 1 x replacement filter to replace Filter B, assuming that a Filter A is repaired and coated.
• D – do nothing (other than repair).

To date my involvement has been limited to attendance at option studies.  At present the balance of effort is on progressing the repair.  I am awaiting a WRF prior to initiating a screening study. 

ETAP Sand Management

When the ETAP started operating the hydrocarbon flow line did not contain sand.  Recently production has recovered large quantities of sand that is causing considerable damage to the produced water reinjection (PWRI) system.  The PWRI system is used to maintain the well pressure, therefore, has a direct impact on production.  (After bringing the pumps back on line the minimum failure interval is 1 day and the greatest is 6 weeks.)  

The work scope is broad at the moment, but is looking at increasing the residence time of the hydrocarbons in the HP & LP separators and installing cyclones to remove sand from the process completely. 

My involvement at the moment is limited to arranging an offshore survey.  Normally a reasonably straight forward process, however, I’m having to submit waivers to divert from the normal processes.   The risk of ‘fast-tracking’ the process is that the platform won’t be properly prepared for the visit and the survey will fail to meet all objectives, wasting beds on the platform – a cardinal sin.

ETAP Electrical Controls Upgrade (EECU)

I’ve had sight of this one for about a day now.  It should turn out to be educational.  It is mainly a subsea job (so outside the scope of Projects and Mods) but there is a topside interface that needs to be engineered and managed. 

As far as I have been able to figure out, there is a legacy low insulation resistance (IR) problem with the power and control cables that run from ETAP ‘mother platform’ to the surrounding fields.  The low IR is already starting to affect one field. (not sure how yet)  The EECU is a proactive work stream to prevent similar problems occurring on other ETAP fields.