Challenges of Executing Structural Integrity Programs for Floating Offshore Structures

Dan Gallagher Floating SIM Manager

27 November 2012
1 of 11

Contents
Introduction Developing the Structural Integrity Management (SIM) Program for Execution
Key Lessons RBI Vs Class Only

Executing a SIM Program in Operation

Budgets Personnel Other

Concluding Remarks
2 of 11

Introduction
Importance of hulls, moorings & marine systems
Provides a stable platform (keep afloat & upright) Keeps on station (remain on location) Provides cargo storage and offloading (FPSOs)

Why is execution of SIM programs for these systems so important?

Safety Costs

Key challenge is to get organizational buy-in

Project development phase concept to installation Operational phase start-up through end-of-life
3 of 11

SIM Program Development

Organizational buy-in means considering SIM during all phases of project development

SIM Development Resource Requirement

SIM Development Activities

Account for SIM o Novel or unique o Regional influences

Basis of Design o Design/Const. aligned with SIM o SIM Objectives, Scope & Deliverables o Estimate of CAPEX/OPEX for SIM FRONT END ENGINEERING & DESIGN (FEED)

SIM Program o Guidance (ISIP) o Model Retention Plan o Sparing Plan o Other Plans o Update based on final design / construction Formal Facility Handover and Review by BU Operations DETAILED DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION

Project Development Phase

CONCEPT SELECTION PROCESS

Project Development
4 of 11

SIM Program Development

Engage operations throughout entire process Account for SIM costs in OPEX projections
Be realistic about corrosion protection systems

Account for novel features & regional resources Conversion sufficient vetting & baseline of hull Coordinate SIM strategy and design
Adjust design margins uninspectable regions Provide permanent access Plan for tank functional redundancy

Carry out risk workshop to develop tailored RBI Develop model retention and sparing plans
5 of 11

SIM Program Class vs. RBI

Class rules applies industry experience in generic fashion and reports on exception basis
Limited database on floaters especially TLPs, Semis, Spars, etc.

Good RBI tailors industry experience and acts in a proactive manner to level effort over life
High
Class Rules Only
High

Mitigation Level of Effort

Surveillance Level of Effort

Class Rules Only Class Rules Modified by RBI (Brownfield)

RBI Initiated

Medium

Medium

Class Rules Modified by RBI

Class Rules Modified by RBI (Greenfield)

Low

Years

10

15

20

Low

Years

10

15

20

6 of 11

SIM Program Operations

Organizational buy-in means providing adequate resources both budgetary and personnel
Update Plan as Required ISIP (RBI Plan) SIM PROGRAM EXECUTION No Update Required

Inspections
Planning / Execution Inspection Monitoring Reporting

Plan Review
Performance measurements Health checks (Annual) Event driven reviews

Potential Scope Expansion Resolution Process

Documentation Mitigation plan & execution Resolution close-out

Technical Review (Anomaly Present?)

Technical review of surveillance data Anomaly Identification

YES

Data Management
Design Data (Drawings, Reports, Models etc.) SIM Data (Inspection reports, anomaly register..)

NO

7 of 11

SIM Execution - Budgetary

Make SIM activities a base business budget item
SIM activities included in CMMS system as PMs
Inspection, monitoring and planned repairs Annual program reviews and 5th yearly reviews

Avoid annual wait/competition for funds

Annual budget cycles can waste months to get AFEs Temptation to fund profit enhancing production projects first

SIM not optional pay now or pay more later

Hull appears to be an easy place to pinch budgets
Hull highly redundant and degradation relatively slow On a short term basis, structure often does not show as high risk

Delay leads to larger issues

Costly unplanned repairs on a panic basis Can become very difficult to ever catch up
8 of 11

SIM Execution - Personnel

Personnel dedicated to SIM is the key to success
Corporate Level Central Engineering Resource
Internal or contractor Develop integrity plans Lead 5th year program updates Provide technical assistance as needed on all aspects of program Develop mitigations for significant anomalies Contract Engineering

Inspection Support Rope access NDT Contract Engineering Coating Crew To be available at inspections Construction Crew As required

Business Unit 1 Local Integrity Engineer(s)*

Internal or contract structural Naval Architect or equivalent Manage integrity program Provide technical oversight during inspections Lead annual program review Develop/implement mitigations for most anomalies Class interface

Business Unit 2
Same as BU 1

Business Unit 3
Same as BU 1

* When assets are new, one integrity engineer may be able to manage multiple assets, but as age increases (especially for FPSOs) to 15+ years an engineer should be dedicated to each asset

9 of 11

SIM Execution Other

Data management
Most important is a set location to store all inspection results along with maintenance of a detailed anomaly register in an easily accessible and searchable format Particulars of tools and style are operator preferences

Annual program review

Forces thorough review of inspection/monitoring results with a step-back to consider impacts going forward Keeps IM Group, Class and Management aligned

Major plan review every 5th year

Original plan can never cover all contingencies Builds on annual reviews to update the SIM plan in accordance with changing condition of the asset
10 of 11

Concluding Remarks
There is no silver bullet to overcome SIM execution challenges but:
If your organization believes in what they are doing and adequately supports it, everything else will fall into place If not, there are no tools that can overcome a lack of resources

SIM execution excellence begins with project development and extends through life
Many SIM execution challenges are born in the project development phase The RBI/ISIP is not just another project deliverable that can be left to the design contractor alone

Early investment in enhanced (RBI) SIM will provide:

Predictable cash flow over the life of the asset Better management of risk profiles A better situation when life extensions come
11 of 11

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective

Neil J Fraser : Head Of Department, Offshore Services, UK October 2012

N/A

The Classification / Verification Concept (1)

Experience Feedback

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 13

The Classification / Verification Concept (2)

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 14

Stakeholder Interaction

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 15

Standards and Recommended Practices (1)

Free to download : www.dnv.com

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 16

Standards and Recommended Practices (2)

Drill Plant: OS-E101
Qualification of New Technology: RP-A203 FPSO Safety: OS-A101 Materials: OS-B101 Hull: OS-C101 OS-C102 RP-C102 OS-C-401 Stability: OS-C301 Marine/Machinery: OS-D101 Electrical: OS-D201 Instrumentation: OS-D202 Fire Safety: OS-D301 Risers: OS-F201 RP-F201 RP-F202 Loading buoy: OS-E403

Helideck: OS-E401

Production Plant: OS-E201 Gas Export & Receiving Terminals: OSS-309 OSS-103

SEMI-SUB Safety: OS-A101 Materials: OS-B101 Hull: OS-C101 OS-C103 RP-C103 OS-C-401 Stability: OS-C301 Marine/Machinery: OS-D101 Electrical: OS-D201 Instrumentation: OS-D202 Fire Safety: 17 October 2011 OS-D301 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved.

Mooring: OS-E301

Wire rope: OS-E303 RP-E304

Chain: OS-E302
Anchors: RP-E301 RP-E302 RP-E303

Pipeline: OS-F101 RP-F101 RP-F104 RP-F105 RP-F106 RP-F107 RP-F108

Wellheads: OS-E101
17

FSO Safety: OS-A101 Materials: OS-B101 Hull: OS-C101 OS-C102 RP-C102 OS-C-401 Stability: OS-C301 Marine/Machinery: OS-D101 Electrical: OS-D201 Instrumentation: OS-D202 Fire Safety: OS-D301

Risk Based v Prescriptive Rules Some Examples

Prescriptive DNV-OSS-101 Rules for Classification of Offshore Drilling and Support Units April 2012 DNV-OSS-102 Rules for Classification of Floating Production, Storage and Loading Units April 2012 DNV-OSS-103 Rules for Classification of LNG/LPG Floating Production and Storage Units or Installations April 2012 DNV-OSS-104 Rules for Classification of Self-Elevating Units April 2012 Risk Based DNV-OSS-121 Classification Based on Performance Criteria Determined from Risk Assessment Methodology October 2011 DNV-OSS-300 Risk Based Verification April 2012 DNV-OSS-304 Risk Based Verification of Offshore Structures April 2012

DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures October 2011

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 18

RBI : The Approach to be Adopted.(1)

Phase 2 : Detailed Analysis Phase 1 : Risk Screening

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 19

RBI : The Approach to be Adopted.(2)

Integrity Risk (including Stability, Watertight Integrity and the end effect on other Safety Critical Systems)

Consequence Assessment

Environmental Risk

Likelihood Financial or Production Related Risks (not strictly a concern of your Classification Society)

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 20

DNV Hull Integrity Management Tools

Prescriptive or Risk Based : your program still needs to be managed .

There are 2 discrete roles , that should not be confused :

- Assurance - Verification / Classification

Both give valuable data , that should be visible to all stakeholders .

DNV HIM tool is a web based solution, that allows the Class and Assurance activities to be managed using same data base.

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 21

Condition Status and Fleet overview

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 22

Concluding Remarks - 5 Key Points

Class Rules allow for Alternative Approaches to a Calendar based Rule Set

In fact, there are published Standards and Recommended Practices issued by the Class Societies
Engage with your Class Society or Verification body at an early stage, in order to gain a common understanding of the RBI Program Be Clear on the assumptions you are making, and be able to justify them Risk Assessment is not always the same as Risk Analysis
Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 23

Safeguarding life, property and the environment

www.dnv.com

Hull Integrity Management from a Class & Verification Perspective October 2012 Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 24