Process, Power and Marine Division Reducing Costs & Risks for Owner Operators throughout the Plant Lifecycle Adrian Park, Global Technical Director, Owner Operator Solutions Pat Casey, Program Manager, Shell International E&P BV Heidi Wevik, Information Manager, Gjøa Development, StatoilHydro
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Process, Power and Marine Division Reducing Costs & Risks for Owner Operators throughout the Plant Lifecycle
Adrian Park, Global Technical Director, Owner Operator Solutions Pat Casey, Program Manager, Shell International E&P BV Heidi Wevik, Information Manager, Gjøa Development, StatoilHydro
• How important is it for an OO to include life-cycle management of the virtual plant engineering asset in their corporate IT strategy? a) Imperative b) Somewhat important c) Neither important nor unimportant d) Not very important e) Don’t know
• Handover requires a thorough knowledge of the engineering data and business processes of the asset, requiring highly competent individuals and scarce resources
• The hand over of poor quality of data results in: – Costly physical verification of data
prior to undertaking modifications and revamps
– Incorrect decisions based on incorrect data, resulting in costly mistakes (e.g. buying incorrect replacement parts and rework)
Data Validation, Transformation and Loading • The number of data items and the complexity of the checks
required to ensure adequate verification necessitates the implementation of computerized data validation.
• Shell have developed an in-house proprietary system for validation, the intention is to replace this with a COTS solution: – To reduce cost of ownership – To replace the proprietary tool with a solution that tightly
integrates with an Engineering Data Warehouse (SmartPlant Foundation) and provides end-to-end automation
– Intergraph’s Validation, Transformation & Loading tool (VTL) is now being user tested in a number of Shell projects
Intergraph’s SPO VTL Provides tools to transform and load data into a Staging Area where it may be validated prior to loading into target systems such as an Engineering Data Warehouse, maintenance system etc. for access by the project and operations
VTL Benefits - providing the “certification” of information deliverables
• Shell communicates requirements for information deliverables in the form of an IM Scope of Work and EIS data standard.
• Contractors should implement these requirements in their own validation tools to ensure the handover information complies with the IM Scope of Work. In case the EPC also uses VTL, reuse of validation rules might be possible.
• Shell always validates the received data in their own environment before loading it into the Engineering Data Warehouse for quality assurance reasons.
16
VTL
EPC/ Supplier VTL Rules
Data
Information deliverable With VTL log as certification
• Reduced time and cost of data handover throughout the asset lifecycle
• Support for the increasingly data centric deliveries from projects • Improved range, quality, and consistency of validation performed • Automated end-to-end workflow for managing the loading of data
into the staging area, validation, export and load into target EDW. • Capability for end-users to define and manage rules • Tight integration with target SPF/SPO solution including
comparison of data in the staging area with data in the target system to facilitate incremental loading
• Fully auditable traceability of data submissions, validation performed, results and manual changes in the Staging Area
• On average, how much does poor data quality and inconsistencies in documentation during operations increase the cost of modifications and turnarounds? a) > 30% b) 20-30% c) 10-20% d) < 10% e) Don’t know
Why focus on Integrated Project Execution (IPE)? • Large cost overruns in projects • Difficult to get overview of costs related to
changes (ref. SOX)
• Difficult to find information on decisions taken – Who decided what? – Why? – When?
• Difficult to get overview of need for information exchange between the various suppliers
– To get information from other suppliers at the right time
– Information exchange / interface ends up on critical line
– Critical for contractor’s and supplier’s progress – Delays cost – during the project phases and for
Operation at delayed start-up • Achieve quality early instead of late in the
project
Change
RRM
Tag, Doc
Interface Change Mgt
TQ/SQ …
26
IPE – Key Principles • Workflow full traceability / history • Bi-directional information exchange with Contractor
systems via web services • Relations between different IPE objects • Relations between IPE objects and related tags and
documents • Relations to project plant breakdown structures
(PBS)
27
Integrated Project Execution – IPE
28
The Change Management Process
Change proposal Initiated by e.g. - VOR - TQ - NCR - Non-IPE
- Make the change info available to the project organization. - Attach workflow.
Allow the project to review the proposal prior to starting the detailed evaluation process
Ensure a thorough but efficient evaluation. The basis for concluding the total effect of the change proposal
Decide if change is to be approved, rejected or if further information is needed
Ensure a satisfactory implementation of the approved change
29
Project Management of Change – Management Reporting –
30
The Interface Control Process
• Identification, planning, execution and follow-up of interfaces on Gjøa shall be undertaken in such a way that at all times interfacing parties are able to progress their work according to plan based on sound and consistent information
• This shall be done through – Identification of interfaces – Planning for delivery of interface items – Registration of interface items – Status reporting – Holding meetings for timely resolution of interface issues
31
Gjøa Interfaces
LMT Aker Solutions (AKG)
Vega
(SEV)
Scandpower
(SCA)
Gjøa oil export pipeline (GPC)
Energiverk Mongstad
(EVM) Gjøa flags pipeline (GPB)
Gjøa gas export pipeline (GPA)
Samsung (HFC)
Semi Marine Inst (MAI)
RAM
SS7 Vega (SEV) Aker Subsea
(UBA)
Acergy (UDB)
NKT (URI)
FMC (USP)
GJO
FMC Vega
(VEG)
D&C GJØA (DCP)
ABB (UCP)
SAI
Technip (TEC)
Technip (TIR)
Transocean (DTR)
OCE
SS7 / Acergy (SAC)
Aibel (UDD)
Aker Subsea (UDC)
Technip (TEN)
NEM
BRO
32
IPE Interface Hierarchy
• Interface code: Unique identification of internal or external responsible and receiver of information / delivery (parties)
• Interface Item: Interface issues/points between two parties. Can be StatoilHydro internals, contractors or vendors
• DIIR: (Discipline Interface Information Requirement): Defined information requirement pr. discipline with need dates, responsibility, etc
Interface Code
Interface Item
DIIR
33
Interface management – progress reporting
34
Summary • Integrated Project Execution – IPE
– The IPE processes are here to stay – Information traceability gives faster, more efficient and SOX
compliant work processes – Keeps track of costs, schedule and weight impact for changes
It gives you Availability of information through
the whole life cycle of the installation
Good information quality early in he project
Seamless handover to Operation High probability of very little carry-
Source Saving Improved handover and verification of information deliverables from CAPEX projects
1-1.5% CAPEX
Implementation of improved processes and tools for project management of change, interfaces, Technical/Site Queries and Non-conformities
2-6% CAPEX
Implementation of improved data quality reducing the need for plant walkdowns, management of change during operations including data synchronization with CMMS and improved asset integrity and reduced plant incidents and downtime.
Shell $20-40m OPEX/CAPEX pr yr on $ multi-billion assets
$11m+ OPEX annual savings per 1 bill CAPEX investment