Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

Introduction

A few years ago a number of lifeboats were upgraded to take into account the increased size of the modern platform worker, which resulted in slightly longer lifeboats. The lifeboats are permanently suspended by the winch lines but require additional pendants and padeyes to temporarily hold the lifeboat when maintenance is carried out on the winching gear. Due to the increased weight and the misalignment of the padeye and maintenance fastening location (due to increased length) it was identified that new padeyes would be required.

Solution

Quite simply, cut and grind existing padeyes off and weld on new padeyes in adjusted locations. A fairly straight forward job? Nothing is ever that straight forward in an offshore industry!

Who’s who

WGPSN – Engineering Service Provider who are contracted to deliver the project

CAPE – Scaffolding contractors

Sparrow – Lifting contractors

Lloyds Register – Independent Verification Body

Issues

Following a constructability review the following key points were identified.

1. Confirmation of the test load for each of the padeyes.

Non-destructive Testing (NDT) is carried out on all padeyes to ensure they are fit for purpose, the question is how much do you test them? Going into the meeting the plan was for a test load of 8.5Te on each padeye, which accounts for a lifeboat tare weight of 4685Kg, 10 pax at 98Kg each and a Safety Factor of 1.5. The gentlemen from Lloyds, who act as an independent verification body, questioned how these figure came about and it could be easy to understand why they would ask that. The tare weight is 4685Kg but is held by two anchor points, so why not half? During maintenance you would only expect 3 pax to be involved so why 10? The industry standard for a safety factor is 2.2 or 2.5 depending on the application, so why 1.5? All very good points and the answer was simple. That is what Lloyds agreed to (told us) at the last constructability review. Unfortunately the individual who told us that was not at this meeting due to being on holiday, so nothing could be agreed there and then.

2. Serviceability of the Lifeboat during the offshore execute phase.

Removing the lifeboat from service would impact the number of pax allowed on the installation and would therefore affect a whole host of other activities planned at the same time, so it was important that the lifeboat remains in service throughout where ever possible. Going into the meeting, it was understood that it would be ok; difficult but doable in terms of scaffolding arrangement, protective screens for welding etc. A concern was raised by the construction team in that the job could not be executed without taking the lifeboat out of service, so why had we assumed it would be ok? Again a simple answer; because that was the opinion of the construction representative who attended the previous meeting; that individual has since moved on.

Lessons Learnt

1. Continuity is key. Where at all possible maintain key personalities throughout a project in order to help understand decisions made earlier on in the project. Given the recent and still ongoing job losses and efficiency drives in both BP and WGPSN I’m not surprised this has happened. I know I’m not the first person to mention this, and believe it was Angela who made a comment that after 6 months, she was the only person on a project who had been there at the beginning.

2. Clear and accurate record of decisions. Whenever key decisions are made make sure it is clearly and correctly documented with any supporting information. The only evidence I had of the test load was in typed handover notes from the previous SPA. If continuity cannot be achieved then this becomes even more vital.

Looking Forward

These issues will cause a delay. Not to the execution offshore phase, as that is in Q2 2016, but certainly to the issue of key deliverables required for offshore execution. Not a concern but if the time lines were shorter then it well could have been. More work now needs to be done to clarify these points and of course man hours means increased costs. It might surprise some of you (or maybe not) that the current budget for this (one might say simple) project is (currently) circa £180k.