Hasbi Asidik - 29120131 - Strategic Decision Making and Negotiation Mid Term

INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
SCHOOL OF BUSSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

MASTER OF BUSSINESS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
MID TERM MM5009 – STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING AND NEGOTIATION
Lecturer : Mrs. Santi Novani Ph.D
Student Name : HASBI ASIDIK [NIM. 29120131]
PLAN STEP 1. DETERMINING TOPIC
1.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

A. INVENTORY OF EXISTING RIGS OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS IN WO-WS
DEPARTMENT, JATIBARANG FIELD (Period 1 January 2019 – 1 October 2019)
No Problem
1 Long Duration of Tubing Test Implementation
2 Waiting For Services Company Before Job
3 Waiting Checklist HSE before Start Job
4 Waiting Daylight to Bleed Off Pressure Well
1. Long Duration of Tubing Test Implementation

The Following steps and time required when test tubing in the well with a depth of
2000 meters.
Blind Probe
Note:
- All stages based on Well Program of Exploitation Department (Exhibit-1)
- Basis of calculation time is taken from the standardization work time WOWS
Department.(Selected Performance Measure – Exhibit-2)
Total Cost to be paid by Pertamina to the implementation of tubing test are 27.47
hours /24 hours x 11,275 = $ 12,903.60
2. Waiting For Services Company Before Job

In the implementation of fracturing job requires a service company, but the time will
do the job, waiting for service company activities often occur. Waiting for a service
company is often done for 5 hours, as a consequence Pertamina EP must pay the
Standby Cost in the amount of (5 hours/24 hours) x $ 9,020 = $ 1,879.17 (Exhibit-3)
Page 1 of 15
Plug and Prong

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT MM5009 – DECISION MAKING
Lecturer : Mrs.
3. Waiting Checklist HSE before Start Job

HSSE Checklist must be done when rig has finished moving and set equipment.
Checklist is only can be done during the daylight or illumination sufficient. The
unable checklist of HSSE at night cause rental rig is paid standby cost.
Waiting for checklist in the average of 6 hours, as a consequence Pertamina EP must
pay the Standby Cost in the amount of (6 hours/24 hours) x $ 9,020 = $ 2,255.00
(Exhibit-3)
4. Waiting Daylight to Bleed Off Pressure Well
After the Checklist HSSE is OK, next job is Bleed Off Well Pressure. Bleed Off
Pressure Well is only can do when the day light.
Waiting for daylight to Bleed Off Well Pressure or Swab Job need approximately 5
hours, as a consequence Pertamina EP must pay Standby Cost in the amount of (5
hours/24) x $ 9,020 = $ 1,879.00
(Exhibit-4)
B. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
After found 4 dominant factors that contribute to Rig operational problems in WO/WS
Department, Our team need to set the priority that need to be solved by seeking at 3
factors, that is:
Timing :
• How Urgent is the problem
• What Will happen if nothing is done
Trend :
• Will the problem get worst
• Problems’s potential growth
Impact
• What are the effect on production ,people and organization
Page 2 of 15
Set Priority Process

Identify Concerns Timing Trend Impact
Action needed
(H,M, L) (H,M, L) (H,M, L)
Long Duration of Tubing
H H H PA/DA
Test Implementation
Waiting For Services
H M M PA
Company Before Job
Waiting Checklist HSE
M H H PA
before Start Job
Waiting Daylight to
M H M PA
Bleed Off Pressure Well
1.2 PROBLEM STRATIFICATION TABLE AND PARETO DIAGRAM

cum
NO Problem Table Cost Cost cum. %
%
1 Long duration tubing test activity USD 12,905.18 USD 12,905.18 68% 68%
2 Waiting for checklist USD 2,255.00 USD 15,160.18 12% 80%
3 Waiting for daylight to bleed off well USD 1,879.17 USD 17,039.34 10% 90%
4 Waiting for services company USD 1,879.17 USD 18,918.51 10% 100%
Value Total USD 18,918.51
Our discussion result among the team member conclude that Long Duration of Tubing Test is
our first priority.
1.3 DETERMINATION OF PREVENTION TOPIC
Based on pareto table above, problem number 1 have the highest score/priority. Based on the
exist problem source, therefor WOWS Jatibarang will solve the problem, with topic “COST
REDUCTION OF RENTAL RIG BY TUBING TEST PLUG INSTALATION ON
PRODUCTION PIPELINE AND FRACTURING PIPELINE IN PERTAMINA EP
ASSET 3 JATIBARANG FIELD”
Page 3 of 15
Lecturer : Mrs.
1.4 PROJECT PLAN TARGETS

CONDITIONS BEFORE MODIFICATION
POINT WAS OBSERVED FOR WELL WITH A TARGET POTENTIAL PROFIT
DEPTH OF 2000 METERS
- Tubing test job using blind probe will Make Improvement by making new tools - Test tubing will be effective and
experience repetitive stages for about 20 that will finish the tubing test job effective efficient
times repetitive and efficient as : - The completion will finish be faster
- Tubing test job using plug & prong will - No repetition stages - Work planning taget will reached faster
QUALITY faces another fishing plug job. - No fishing jobs
Tubing test pipe test that needs a lot of Suppers tubing test cost as much as US Increase company profit
time will cost US $ 12,905.00 (27,47 $ 3,288.5 ( 7 jam / 24 jam x US $
jam / 24 jam x US $ 11,275.00) and fuel 11,275.00)
COST cost 1.373,5 liter (same as US $ (POOH String takes about 7 hours )
1,373.50)
Repetitiive stages on tubing test job will Tubing test job will reduce about 7 hours Doing tubing test job simultaneously
DELIVERY takes 27,47 hours with RIH Production Packer/Fracturing
Packer
SAFETY & There's well kick while disconecnt the Theres No more the well kick by Increase zero accident achivement
ENVIRON tubing eliminating POOH stages while tubing
MENT test job
The crew rig will be bored because doing Making the crew fell comfortable while Worker work ethic will increase
the same job over & over again & worry work
MORALE
because theres a little kick while
disconnect the tubing connection
1.5 RISK ANALYSIS

Implementation of test tubing used the old method if not immediately solved, it can be
caused some problems:
- High cost in completing the job of work over well service, the value of the contract runs
out before the contract expires.
- Time duration to finished job be longer (24,47 our)
- Viewed from HSE Aspect, this work could potentially lead to accident
Therefore the Target of Well Work Plan in 2014 as many as 65 wells for a job work over
well service could not reach the target
Page 4 of 15
STEP 2. DETERMINING PROBLEMS CAUSING FACTOR

PLAN
2.1 FISH BONE DIAGRAM
Environment Method
No bullhead from
string, but have from
annulus Using Blind
Probe
Using blind
probe & prong
Connect &
disconnect while
closing tubing test
It takes time to kill the
well if kick happens while
doing tubing test
Tubing test is not

Crew yang bekerja effective &
tidak nyaman effi cient ( Have
There's leakage at time 27,47 hours )
blindprobe It takes time to pull the
plug from the prong
There's outburst Non standart

while disconnect material Conventional
the tubing Tools
The blind probe
Humans needs to be weld at Tubing test obstacles
the end of tubing - Scale /mud Sedimentation
- Buckling sandline because underbalance
Material pressure BHP>Ph
Tool
2.2 ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS
Page 5 of 15
Lecturer : Mrs.
Possible Root Cause Discussion Root Cause Controllable/

(interview, FGD, etc) (Y/N) Uncontrollable
(U/C)
TOOLS
There's chemical sedimentation on top
Y C
of the plug & prong
Conventional tubing test tools
Buckling at the sandline while fishing
Y C
plug
MATERIAL
Using non standart material with weld
Non Standart material at the blind probe & opened enf of Y C
tubing will caused leackage
MAN
While POOH tubing test using blind
There's mud outburst while probe it will cause the crew feel
N U
disconnect the tubing uncomfortable because of the outburst
of the Completion Fluids (CF)
METHODE
Needs to disconnect the tubing while
Blind probe methode N U
blind probe tools
ENVIRONTMENT
Need to kill well by bullheading the well
Well Kick N C
from casing if there's kick
STEP 3. DETERMINE DOMINANT FACTOR

PLAN
3.1 DOMINANT FACTOR AND PARETO DIAGRAM

CUM
NO PROBLEMS COST RIG COST %
%
TOOLS
USD 22,550.00 USD 22,550.00 51% 51%
1 (Conventional)
METHODE
(Blind probe and USD 12,905.18 USD 35,455.18 29% 81%
2 plug prong)
ENVIRONMENT
Dominant Causes Alternative Strengths Weakneses Conclusion
(Blind probe and USD 5,637.50 USD 41,092.68 13% 94%
3 plug prong)
-No repetitive stages
MATERIAL
USD 1,879.17 USD 42,971.84 4% 98%
4 (Not standard) - Tubing test finish faster
PEOPLE - Cheaper cost ( cost to created
USD 939.58 USD 43,911.43 2% 100%
5 (OutBurst CF) tools Rp. 6.500.000)
Cumulative Value USD 43,911.43 - For the natural flow wells
completion time to do well under -Can be applied on
1. Substitute old
pressure balance within the ESP and TCP well
with test plug
string, so the work does not need complation First Alternatif is
STEP 4. PREVENTION PLAN to do the job swab choose, because
PLAN - Prevent wett pull job tubing test plug is :
-As safety device while dismatle - More eff ective
BOP - More effi cient
4.1 PREVENTION
Tubing test not ALTERNATIVES - Insert plug that had fallen in the - More economic
eff ective & effi cient well will be destroyed - Safer
- The material won't
interfere the
production
- Drop bar will be
performance
2. Substitute old became debris on
- Easy to sett
tools with glass the well
- Faster fabrication process
disk - Hard to accive the
material
Page 6 of 15
3. Using new - Do not require test tubing - a high cost to buy a

tubing - Tubing condition is excellent new tubing
4.2 PREVENTION PLAN BY 5W + 2H

WHY HOW WHAT WHEN WHO HOW MUCH
- Analysis performance
methode plugs prong and blind
Analysis methode probe tools
01 - 31 Dec
and step test tubing - Analysis step time Supervisor
2019
with old methode implementation test tubing
using plug prong and blind
Test tubing tools probe to the cost of rig
conventionaluntil Design test tubing tools
WS Engineer
the implementation (Exhibit-5) 1st weeks
not effective and Find material for make tools Jan 2020
Supervisor Fabrication cost of
efficient (crossover redress / AISI 4140)
Tubing Test Tools
make and using Created in workshop and
tubing test plug inspection by third party
2nd weeks Supervisor Rp. 6,500,000,- /
Jan 2020 USD 650
Performance test WS Engineer (Exhibit-7)
Aplication test tubing at field 3rd weeks
and created management of Jan till Dec Supervisor
change (Exhibit-6) 2020
Page 7 of 15
Lecturer : Mrs.
STEP 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF REPARATION

DO
5.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPROVEMENT
Step of
Period Where Who Documentation Result
Activity
01 -31
Selection of Test
December
Problem WOWS Supervisor Tubing problems that
2019
Identification Office are not effective and
efficient
Tool Design
- Drawing 1st Weeks WOWS Drawing Design been
Supervisor
- Dimension January 2020 Office made and Fix
- Material Type
The Material are:
- Plug (AISI 4140)
Material 1st Weeks of At Rig WS - Shear Pin (Solid bar
Selection January 2020 Location Engineer (bronze))
- Seal ( O Ring Seal
Rubber High Temp )
Turning
Fabrication / 2nd Weeks A tool created was
Machine Supervisor
Created Tools January 2020 appropriate design
Workshop
Page 8 of 15
Results of Tools Created
Successfully Test
At location
Implementation 2nd Weeks WS Appropriate with
and Workshop Step job in…..
and inspection January 2020 WO-WS
Engineer Engineering
Calculation
1st location
3st Weeks Success application
at well CMB-
Application in January 4th- tools
24and Supervisor Next step at…..
well December
continue at
2020
another Well
Control cabin to monitor and record

pressure test and release insert plug
From the graph beside, tubing

pressure tested to 2000 psi.
At the time of the test, Insert

Plug successfully release at
7800 psi pressure
The result of record pressure test and release insert plug.

(Exhibit-8 )
5.2 FAILURE IN TOOLS DESIGN
There were some failure tools in

workshop because of tools are
not appropriate with engineering
Page 9 of 15 calculation
Lecturer : Mrs.
5.3 OBSTRUCTION OF TOOLS APPLICATION

The Obstruction of Tool Application is Overpressure. Occurred overpressure caused by:
1. PHP Data does not match with the data well program
2. The presence of iron scale accumulation that clog up the insert tubing plug
STEP 6. EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENT RESULTS

CHECK
6.1 EVALUATION OF EVERY WORK STAGES
Evaluation Before and After Every Work Stages Improvement (Exhibit-9)
Conclusion: The Implementation of Tubing Test with New Tools “Tubing Test Plug” Can
Be Done Simultaneously With Running In Hole Of Production Packer / Packer Fracturing,
therefore time duration of Completion Well is shorter than before.
6.2 DIFFERENT EVALUATION OF TIMES, RIG COST, DIESEL FUEL AND GAIN
PRODUCTION
Work Stages Before Improvement (Exhibit-10)
Page 10 of 15
Work Stages After Improvement (Exhibit-10)
COST
Time (min)
NO DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Rig cost (USD) Fuel (liter ) Fuel (USD) Gain Production (bbl)
USD 11,275.0 USD 1.0
1. Prepare test tubing job 60.0 USD 469.8 50 USD 50.0 0.83
Make up Connection Tubing Test Plug at tool joint tubing atau drill pipe
2. tighteen with recommended torque
USD 2,512.3 267 4.46
320.9 USD 267.4
RIH Tubing test plug with Fracturing / production packer to Well
3. L/U circulating head and release plug 30.0 USD 234.9 25 USD 25.0 0.42
Total time and cost each depth at 2000 mtr 410.9 USD 3,217.0 342.39 USD 342.4 5.71
20.5 USD 160.8 17.12 USD 17.1 0.29
Total time and cost
Page 11 ofeach15100 mtr (After Improvement)
Lecturer : Mrs.
Total Savings The Obtained From Job Well That Use Tubing Test Plug In Years 2014-
2015
COST
TIME (min)
COMPARISON RIG COST (USD) FUEL (litres) FUEL (USD) GAIN PROD (bbl)
USD 11,275.0 USD 1.0
Total of time and cost each 100 mtr (Before Improvement) 82.4 USD 645.2 68.7 USD 68.7 1.1
Total of time and cost each 100 mtr (After Improvement) 20.5 USD 160.8 17.1 USD 17.1 0.3
COST REDUCTION OF TEST TUBING JOB AT 100 METERS 61.9 USD 484.3 51.5 USD 51.5 0.9
Therefore total savings value in terms of:

1. Time : 36.371 Minutes = 25,3 hours
2. Cost : (Rig Cost + Diesel Fuel Cost ) – Tools Cost
(US $ 284,780 + US $ 30,309 ) – ( US $ 18,200) = US $ 296,889.00
Page 12 of 15
3. Gain production does not occur pending: 505,15 bbl.
6.3 COMPARATION PARETO DIAGRAM BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENT
6.4 COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENT RESULT TO PREVIOUSLY TARGET
POINT INITIAL TARGETS THE FINAL RESULT REALIZATION
The new tool can complete the test

Do the Improvement to create new tools to tubing job more effectively and efficiently.
complete the test tubing work more - Old Tools : Doing repetitive stages
100%
QUALITY effectively and efficiently such as: (20 x) at 2000 m depth and fishing
(Acheive)
- No repetition of the same work tools
- No fishing jobs - New Tools : No repetitive stages &
no fishing job
Rig Rental cost for tubing test job at 1

Pressing Test Tubing Cost in 1 wells (depth
well (2000 m depth):
of 2000 meters) of US $ 3,288.5 ( 7 jam / 24
COST old tool : US$ 12,903.6 295%
jam x US $ 11,275.00)
new tool : US$ 3,217.0
(POOH Tubing Test Result for 7 hours)
(costs reduced by US$9,686.6)
No repetitive stages
The timing of the test Tubing in 1 wells Time for tubing test job at 1 well (2000 m
(depth of 2000 meters) fell as much as 7 depth): :
DELIVERY 295%
hours (eliminating the process of re-pull - Old tool : 27.47 hours
circuit) - New tool : 6.85 hours
(Time reduced by 20.62 hours)
SAFETY & Did not happen bursts cf / mud by

100%
ENVIRON eliminating stages of the series when the No more kick while doing tubing test job
(Achieve)
MENT pull test execution tubing
MORALE Creating a sense of comfort in working Worker feel comfortable and safe -
Page 13 of 15
Lecturer : Mrs.
6.4 POSITIVE EFFECT, NEGATIVE EFFECT, AND PREVENT TO THE END

RESULTS
NEGATIVE EFFECTS PREVENTIONS
POSITIVE EFFECTS
Completion can not yet applied to the method of lifting Test tubing job can be simultanly with running casing
1
ESP and TCP scrapper
1. The implementation test tubing can be done with :
Material insert tubing test plug is made from material
2 a.
Insert tubing
Running test plug
in Hole pipeisproduction
left In well
drullable and have high corrosion rate value
b. Implementation running fracturing String Tubing material test plug was made of the same material
3 c.Housing test plug make permanent completion in well
Pressure test X-Mas Tree and Lubricator with tubing production
24 Implementation
Operational wellofcosts raised
Nipple downby use
BlowofOut
thePreventer
tool afterAllocation
completioncost from
there different
is no time
time gap to procure open
unprotected the tools
wells
For well with potention flowing and well gas can be done underbalance pressure in string so that eliminate swab job
3
and unloading with coil tubing
4 Lifetime Rig Equipment not corroded by outburst cf when of the test tubing job
Page 14 of 15
ACTION STEP 7. STANDARIZATION
7.1 STANDARDIZATION ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF COMPANY

INPUT : PROCESS OUTPUT
- Create Individual Work
- Evaluation of work - Work Order to created tools and Procedure
implementation on Selected cash advance fo job TKI. No C-037/EP3333/2015-
Performance Measures - Trial and Error with used S0/Rev00 ( Enclosure 12)
- Evaluation of Rig rental cost / material - Create SOP(Exhibit-11)
Time Distribution Hours - Hydrotest in the workshop, TKPA. No D-012/EP3333/2015-
- Unsafe condition during the according to design pressure S0/Rev00 ( Enclosure 13)
implementation dismantling - Engineering & test material in (Exhibit-12)
- Mill certificate and inspection
Blow Out Preventer the Lab Petroleum Engineering PT. Adivet
- Swab Job & unload Completion Mundu The material used is AISI 4140
Fluid with Coil Tubing c/w Mill Certificate
( Enclosure 14)
(Exhibit-13)
Page 15 of 15

Hasbi Asidik - 29120131 - Strategic Decision Making and Negotiation Mid Term

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hasbi Asidik - 29120131 - Strategic Decision Making and Negotiation Mid Term

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG

SCHOOL OF BUSSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

PLAN STEP 1. DETERMINING TOPIC

1.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

1. Long Duration of Tubing Test Implementation

2. Waiting For Services Company Before Job

Plug and Prong

3. Waiting Checklist HSE before Start Job

Set Priority Process

1.2 PROBLEM STRATIFICATION TABLE AND PARETO DIAGRAM

1.4 PROJECT PLAN TARGETS

1.5 RISK ANALYSIS

STEP 2. DETERMINING PROBLEMS CAUSING FACTOR

Tubing test is not

There's outburst Non standart

2.2 ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

Possible Root Cause Discussion Root Cause Controllable/

STEP 3. DETERMINE DOMINANT FACTOR

3.1 DOMINANT FACTOR AND PARETO DIAGRAM

3. Using new - Do not require test tubing - a high cost to buy a

4.2 PREVENTION PLAN BY 5W + 2H

STEP 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF REPARATION

Results of Tools Created

Control cabin to monitor and record

From the graph beside, tubing

At the time of the test, Insert

The result of record pressure test and release insert plug.

5.2 FAILURE IN TOOLS DESIGN

There were some failure tools in

5.3 OBSTRUCTION OF TOOLS APPLICATION

STEP 6. EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENT RESULTS

6.1 EVALUATION OF EVERY WORK STAGES

Evaluation Before and After Every Work Stages Improvement (Exhibit-9)

Work Stages After Improvement (Exhibit-10)

Therefore total savings value in terms of:

3. Gain production does not occur pending: 505,15 bbl.

6.3 COMPARATION PARETO DIAGRAM BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENT

6.4 COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENT RESULT TO PREVIOUSLY TARGET

POINT INITIAL TARGETS THE FINAL RESULT REALIZATION

The new tool can complete the test

Rig Rental cost for tubing test job at 1

SAFETY & Did not happen bursts cf / mud by

6.4 POSITIVE EFFECT, NEGATIVE EFFECT, AND PREVENT TO THE END

ACTION STEP 7. STANDARIZATION

7.1 STANDARDIZATION ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF COMPANY

You might also like