OLO - FPSO Best Practice

FPSO Best Practice/Lessons Learned Study - April 2002

Report Presented by David Llewelyn, OLF - 14.11.02

OLF FPSO Experience Transfer Workgroup Workgroup Objectives: “To enable FPSO operators to learn from each other to improve operations and influence future designs”

2002 Scope of Work: •

•

•

•

Gather lessons learned from existing Norwegian FPSOs Develop an OLF website for the sharing of FPSO lessons Establish links with the UKOOA FPSO subcommittee and consider/implement options for co-operation Hold a seminar on topics of relevance to FPSO operators

Workgroup Membership: ExxonMobil Statoil BP N

Norsk Hydro Enterprise/Shell NPD (Ob )

OLF FPSO Best Practice/ Lessons Learned Study – April 2002 Process: •

•

•

3 interviewers (OLF, RGU, Marintek) conducted 1-2 hr interviews with 23 Statoil, ExxonMobil and Norsk Hydro staff from 4 FPSOs Interviewees included 3 OIMs, 5 Maint Supts, 2 Prodn Supv, 2 Ops Supt, 6 FPSOs specialists, 4 Project Mgmt, 1 DNV rep. Findings jointly written up against 64 topics and categorised for importance and underlying causes

OLF FPSO Best Practice/ Lessons Learned Study – April 2002 Analysis: •

•

•

350 lessons documented (220 Design, 56 Ops, 42 Const, 32 Comm.) Reviewed topics to develop 37 FPSO Lesson Summaries and 21 FPSO Challenges. (A Challenge is defined as a problem not yet solved by the industry) Made a comparison with UKCS results

Publication: Report and Database publised 27.9.02 to UKOOA and OLF Included on OLF Open FPSO website and LL database 8.11.02 •

•

FPSO Best Practice/Lessons Learned Study

Key Findings – Project Issues Critical Capex Over-runs/Schedule Delays Major Project Learning/input Capex vs Opex design input (C)

Construction Management

Important Documentation-Industry Standards (C)

FPSO Best Practice/Lessons Learned Study

Key Findings – Marine Systems Critical Green Water Turret Location Marine Standards (C) Major Ballast/Cargo pipework Oil Storage Capacity Motions Underestimated Through Hull Caissons (C) Hydrocarbon Rich Inerting (+)

Hull Cracking Turret Bearing Peformance

Butterfly Valves thru Hull Mooring Systems Hull Shape Optimisation (C)

FPSO Best Practice/Lessons Learned Study

Key Findings – Marine Operations Major Tank Coatings Failures Thruster Removal/Repair(C) Good Off-loading performance (+)

Sea Chest/Marine Growth (C) Tank Entry Methods(C)

Important Submersible pumps Splash Zone painting (C) Motion effects on people (+)

Standby Vessel Utilisation Classification adding value to Ops (C)

FPSO Best Practice/ Lessons Learned Study Key Findings - Topsides Issues Critical Gas Comp. liquid carry-over Major Hydrocarbon Venting Solids/Sand Management Compressor Vibration Long Life Paintwork(C) Swivels (+) Important Compression Start-up Swivel Seal Replacement Produced Water Sheen (C) New Field Tie-ins (C)

Drag Chains Module Supports/interfaces Power Generation Problems

Solids Disposal in Slops Separator Internals Strengthening HP Gas Supply to Diesels (C)

FPSO Best Practice/Lessons Learned Study

Key Findings – Operations Critical Layout Issues High Delivered Uptimes (+)

Insufficient Accommodation Good Safety Performance/Morale (+)

Major High Manning/multi-skilling Helicopter Operations Temporary Accomodation (C) Vendor Involvement in Ops (C)

Crane Selection Riser Ops and Inspection Mechanical Handling (C)

Important HVAC Design issues

Workshop location

FPSO Best Practice/Lessons Learned Study - UK/NOR Comparisons Problems reported from 10 UK FPSOs

UK No

Emphasis on initial capital rather than whole life cost.

7

Much incomplete construction and or testing at sailaway. s ailaway.

7

Designed lay-down areas and bumper bars were inadequate.

5

Insufficient design attention paid to total mechanical handling requirements.

5

Carry over of construction work and limited POB gives operational problems.

5

Specifications not sufficiently clear.

4

Inadequate valve isolations.

4

Construction managers were inexperienced.

4

Marine construction and inspection standards were not as stringent as those of  the process industry.

4

QA/QC during construction was generally poor.

4

Leakage occurred in swivel.

4

General compressor-related problems.

4

Contractual relationship inhibited remedial work being done onshore.

4

The design POB was too low to allow for commissioning and remedial work 

3

Operations suggestions were discounted.

3

Insufficient gas compression capacity.

3

UK  Ranking

Nor Ranking

OLF FPSO Experience Transfer Workgroup

Demonstration of FPSO Website Overview Links to UKOOA Website Lessons Learned Report Lessons learned Database – Entry and Search Tools

Address;

www.olf.no