Subsea Technology Standardisation Overview – Current Statusoilandgasuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Subsea...£2.4m saving from Project Management £3.8m saving from Engineering

Subsea Technology StandardisationOverview – 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

ProjectsTechnical Authority

Detailed Design & EngineeringIVB

Line-pipeValves

UmbilicalFlexibles

Flanges, Fittings & PipingCoatings & Insulation

Subsea Production System

PipelinesStructures

Spools & Risers

Subsea Construction (SURF)Rock-dumper

Pre-Commissioning

Operator & OGA

Design Consultants

Manufacturer

Fabrication

Installation

KEY STAKEHOLDERS

30 Companies14 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 ColeDave Masson

Graham WhiteheadGuy TrumperLloyd DuthieMatt Corbin

Martin FowlieNeil Kirkbride

Patrick DugganRichard HinkleyStuart Buchan

Stephen Marco Jones

Subsea Asset Stewardship WorkgroupTLB & Small Pools

Reviews, Surveys,

Workshops

Project Case Studies

Project Case Studies

Standardisation Theme

Efficiency Task ForceSteering Group

Valves Standardisation Well P&A StandardisationSubsea 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

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

HardwareProcess

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 realisedFour 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.


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 % SavingCodes, Standards and Specifications 1%-8%Process 3%-12%Alternative Methods and Technologies 1%-14%Hardware 1% - 5%


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 130DaysStructures £90,000 120DaysMaterial Corrosion £33,000 70DaysFlow Assurance £50,000 60DaysControls and Umbilical's £30,000 90Days

Fabrication SSIV Fabrication £326,000 113DaysFlexibles Flexible Riser and Flowline £1,600,000 260Days

Installation

Mobilisation, Umbilical Installation, Spools and StructureInstall, Pipe Lay and Diver Tie Ins Including Protections

£7,957,000 280Days (19 days offshore/ 80 Days Onshore)

PipelinesLine pipe procurement, Coating, ECA, Welding, NDT, FJC and Fabrication

£6,723,000 145Days

SPSControl Systems £4,850,000 455DaysTrees £1,200,000 325DaysConnecting Systems £255,000 150Days

SurveyInstallation 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 DaysValves Valve Supply £2,000,000 150Days

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” Riser400m Long

8” Flowline/Jumper

1000m LongUnits

Nominal Bore 8 8 “OD 284.55 274.84 mmWeight (Empty in Air) 107 101.4 kgBending Stiffness 24.65 18.88 kNm2Length 400 1000 mPipe ConstructionCarcass 316L 316LPressure Sheath PA 12 PA 12Pressure Armour Mild Steel Mild Steel

Tensile Armours Mild Steel Mild Steel

Outer Sheath PA 12 HDPEEnd 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


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.


20


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.


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

22


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


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%)

23


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


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

Global Operator:Cost - £2,232,000 (40%)

Schedule – 84 Weeks (62%)Complexity – 54 (450%)

7%

24

5.(a) Strawman Project: Flexible Example - Result

Global Operators

UKCS Focused Operators

High

Medium

Low

Complexity

Reference Case

% Duration

15%

62%

40%

% Cost

25

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%

26

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

27

2% 5

%8%

11%

14%

9%

6%

6%

12%

27%

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

Cost

Sche

dule

5.(a) Strawman Project: Scope Activities - Cost and Schedule Impact

Trenching Installation Fabrication Survey Flexibles Design Valves Control Systems

(SPS)

Trees (SPS)Pipelines Umbilical

28

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

Com

plex

ity (%

)

Fabrication

Flexibles

Umbilicals

Cost

& S

ched

ule

(%)

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Materials/ Hardware

Specifications Design Analysis/ Engineering

Qualifications Product Testing Documentation Inspection Interface Mgmt.

ReportingReview Cycles

Cost

Sche

dule

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

29

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%

Cost

& S

ched

ule

(%)

Com

plex

ity (%

)

SPS- Trees

Valves

SPS- Control Systems

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

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%

30

5.(a) Strawman Project: Metrics - Cost and Schedule Impact

Cost

& S

ched

ule

(%)

Com

plex

ity (%

)

Installation - DSV

Detailed Design

Sche

dule

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Sche

dule

Specifications Technical Authority Interface

Documentation ReviewCycle

Reporting Interface Mgmt.

Supplier and Sub Contractor Mgmt.

TolerancesPreferential Engineering

Vessel Specs

1.0% 1.5%

31

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

32

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.

GlobalUKCS Focused

Reference Case

5.(a) Strawman Project: Process Journey

33

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 Reporting4. No Client Inspection as Contractor is

fully ISO compliant.5. NCRs issued for info only.

GlobalUKCS Focused

Reference Case

34

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:

35

5.(b) General Project Selection: Projects Selected

AMT

HP

CSSLegend:

55 Projects Selected Overall from 11 Sub Groups

36

5.(b) General Project Selection: Projects Selected

AMT

HP

CSSLegend:

55 Projects Selected Overall from 11 Sub Groups

37

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.

38

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

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

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.

39

6. Summary

40

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

41

Acknowledgements 14 members of the Working Group

57 members involved across 12 Sub GroupsDetailed Design Fabrication Umbilicals

Adrian Ledingham Wood Group Kenny Craig Jamieson Isleburn (GEG) Steve Marjoram * Technip UmbilicalsFrank Smith Xodus Graeme Gray Isleburn (GEG) Ian Probyn Technip UmbilicalsGordon Tough Technip Jonas Pettersson Technip Umbilicals

Flexibles Independent Verification Bodies Valves, Flanges and FittingsAndrew Roberts * Wellstream GE Claudia Scragg DNV GL David Gallagher Bel ValvesHelle Mortensen NOV Sean Murray Lloyds Register Claudio Ripamonti TechnipRon Mackinnon Technip Sam Mathew DNV GL Debbie Wyness Technip

Installation Pre-Commissioning SurveyNeil Shand * Technip Malcolm Harris * Enermech Mike Clark * Subsea 7Sean Magee Subsea 7 Mark Rasmusen IKM Scott Winning Subsea 7David McCann Wood Group Kenny Phil Roberts Atlus Martin Skinner TechnipGraeme Barnett Bibby Offshore Shaun Main Haliburton Lewis Smith Technip

Derek Walker TechnipDamian Ling Chevron

Pipeline, Line Pipe and Coating Subsea Production Systems Trenching, Rock Dump and BackfillAlan Black * Subsea 7 David Benison Aker Solutions Willie Ross * TechnipHerve Quintin Subsea 7 Stephen Wood OneSubsea Trevor Pugh TechnipStuart Ward Subsea 7 Craig Johnstone GE Oil and Gas Alasdair Maconochie TechnipLee Miller Subsea 7 Iain Knight Wood Group Kenny Andrew Small XodusJosip Micak Technip Bruce Stuart ProServ Mike Wilson EcosseSameer Patil Subsea 7 Phil Ashley Siemens Toby Powell Subsea 7Duncan Graham Subsea 7 Gerard Gillespie Siemens Ian Stewart ChevronSimon Dewey Bredero Shaw Peter Blake Chevron Jon Machin UTECNeil Patrick Bredero Shaw Mike Tierney FMC Technologies

Working GroupSteve Duthie Technip Lloyd Duthie Subsea 7 Rebecca Borresen Oil and Gas UKDan Cole Mckinsey and Co. Matt Corbin * Aker Solutions Richard Hinkley ChevronDave Masson * Isleburn (GEG) Martin Fowlie * DNV GL Stephen Marco Jones Oil and Gas UKGraham Whitehead EnQuest Neil Kirkbride * Bel Valves Stuart Buchan * GenesisGuy Trumper Technip Patrick Duggan Apache

* Sub Group Sponsor

[email protected]#oilandgasuk

© 2016 The UK Oil and Gas Industry Association Limited, trading as Oil & Gas UK

Thank You