Norwegian Subsea Standardization An industry collaboration to raise quality, reduce cost and delivery times through standardized project processes and equipment compatibility Roald Sirevaag, Statoil David Llewelyn, Nosk olje og gass
Norwegian Subsea Standardization
An industry collaboration to raise quality, reduce cost and delivery times through
standardized project processes and equipment compatibility
Roald Sirevaag, Statoil
David Llewelyn, Nosk olje og gass
A report on Subsea Standardization in Norway
• This joint industry initiative responding to the Åm report, is sponsored by
KonKraft and the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association
• The objective is to raise quality and reduce costs and delivery times by increasing standardization
• It is intended to be a further step in the ‘industrialization of the subsea sector`
Workgroup Participants
Suppliers
Operators
* Industry sponsors
* *
The Resource Challenge and 6 Focus areas
• Subsea production is an essential option for field
development on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
• But Subsea Suppliers are fully committed now, and
projections indicate an increasing gap between
Operator demand and the industry’s ability to supply
• There is an increasing inventory of subsea facilities
which offer opportunities for life extension, or form a
basis for expansion and increased functionality
1. Unified Specifications and QA/QC for subsea
forgings
2. Subsea component catalogue with
configurable solutions
3. Universal Workover systems
5. Brownfield Re-engineering
4. Standardized subsea
documentation
6. Compliance with established standards
and Equipment qualification
Current Subsea Standards Work in Norway
• Subsea Standardisation in Norway is overseen by Norwegian Standards
(NS) via the Expert Group Underwater (EGU)
• Work is focussed on generating ISO 13628 Standards (1-17) which are
developed from the Norsok Standards U 001- 012 and aligned with the API
RP17 Standards (A-P)
• Full alignment of ISO and API standards is the goal of NS, but this co-
operative work was suspended 2 years ago for copyright and other reasons
• Making progress with standards is also challenging due to heavy workloads
on key subsea specialists
The recommendations made here provide a framework for future Standardisation efforts in Norway, though several relate to the way the
subsea industry operates
1. Unified Specifications, QA/QC for Subsea Forgings
• Initial focus is on carbon steel & low alloy forgings, aiming to rationalise the wide
range of Operator compositional, QA /QC and verification requirements
• Comparisons of typical Operator specifications found NO contradiction or
irreconcilable differences that cannot be resolved by a common forging spec
agreed across the industry, featuring several material ‘grades’
• How will the new forging specification work?
– Three grades of forgings - similar to grades of gasoline at gas station
– End user specifies:
- Material (e.g. AISI 8630, ASTM A 182 F22)
- Forging specification (i.e. this new Subsea Forging Spec.)
- Forging grade (from Grade 1 to Grade 3)
– For each Grade (1-3):
Grade Material Specification QA/QC Documentation Target Applications
Grade 1
"Standard" - Industry standards
- Minimal ITP
- Standard NDE - Industry standards
Low criticality, non-hydrocarbon
service, static applications, tools
Grade 2
"Plus"
- Industry standards
- Additional requirements for composition &
manufacturing
- Expanded ITP
- Additional NDE requirements
- Industry standards
- Additional requirements
Majority of subsea forgings,
hydrocarbon service, static
applications
Grade 3
"Premium"
- Industry standards
- Enhanced composition & manufacturing
requirements for fatigue-sensitive applications
- Comprehensive ITP
- Enhanced NDE requirements for
fatigue-sensitive applications
- Industry standards
- Enhanced requirements
Fatigue-sensitive applications (e.g.
tree master block, wellhead connector,
riser stress joint)
and participants
• Kick off meeting held
6.11.13
• Draft RP due end 2014
• Phase 2+ could cover
alloy steels, welding,
bolting and coatings
1.1 DNV Forging JIP; topics
The objective is to promote use of configurable systems and components that
cater for a reasonably wide range of NCS reservoirs and locations (eg: 10K, 121C, 80-
500m).
It saves engineering time, speeds up deliveries and improves quality.
The subsea component catalogue;
• is a catalogue of qualified subsea components with shared interfaces
• allows equipment to be configured during production for a specific project
• will have regional variations to suit local needs (over trawlable structures etc)
• and is shareable; for example the Statoil catalogue is available to others NCS operators
But … it is not an attempt to eliminate differentiation between suppliers or stifle
innovation
2. Subsea Component Catalogue
2.1 Subsea standardization – Car analogy
Family Youth Senior Adventure
VW Passat Golf Tiguan Touareg
Chevrolet Malibu Sonic Cruze Impala
Toyota Corolla Yaris Camry Avalon
Renault Megane Clio Capture Grand Scenic
NCS Template 7’’ / 10K
121C 250F 80 – 500 m
Deepwater Cluster 5’’ / 10K
121C 250F 1500 – 3000 m
Deepwater Cluster 5’’ / 15K
177C 350F 1500 – 3000 m
Deepwater Cluster 5’’ / 20K
190C 400F 1500 – 3000 m
Aker X X X X
FMC X X X X
GE X X X X
OneSubsea X X X X
2.2 Interfaces - umbilical termination
Umbilical Termination Size Reduction initiative(UMSIRE)
• Smaller and easier to install
• Standard interfaces
• Cost reduction due to volume production
• Enabling independent contract processes for: - Template
- Umbilical supply
- Umbilical installation
Is this where we want
to be?
Equipment designed for ease of installation. • Increaed choice of installation vessel
• Reduced installation time
• Alternative installation methods
• Life cycle cost optimised
Universal Pod recepticle – allowing free choice of SCM
Subsea connector and penetrator specification JIP............
More Standardistaion on the Vertical axis – eg connector and tubing
hanger profiles.
Standard `Footprint envelope` for equipment inside template or manifold
Standard pipeline sizes
Standardized and shared tooling
2.3 Interfaces and Standards – further opportunities
3. Universal Workover Systems
Today there are mulitiple workover systems of different age and design.
The aim is to establish an industry standard workover system to interface
with the majority of NCS rigs and subsea wells - independent of tree supplier
It will save rig time and improve safety.
• The new open-water Workover system is
designed for use between 80-500m water depth,
10K, 121C for a medium sized rig
• Fully meets ISO 13626-7 which covers
dynamic loading
• Includes adaptors to the tree cap, with Control system
interfaces made subsea
• Eliniates the rig crew learning curve
• Offers new ownership options
4. Standardized Subsea Documentation
Company specific
data requirements • Tagging and formatting
• Verification
• Regulatory compliance
• Engineering/training data
• Data entry incl. MC, H/O,
Subsea Data Definitions • Review industry standards
• Survey of existing user definitions
• Gain consensus on common data packages
FMC etc
Minimum data
provision by major
and sub-suppliers
AK Solutions
GE Vetco Grey
Statoil etc
Minimum data
requirement for
users ( project and
operations)
ExxonMobil
Shell
System Documentation • Scope and interfaces
• System description and
deliverables
Standard Subsea Dataset
+
Optimised
= Subsea Data
Standard
Standardize MRB contents
Product List • Tree
• Wellhead
• Tubing Hanger system
• Choke Module
• Integrated Template structure
• Manifold
• Controls
• Umbilical
• Tie back/ installation systems
• Work over systems
Documentation can be a major source of (unnecessary) work for suppliers, responding to
marginally different client requirements for the same equipment – the DNV JIP will define;
• A Recommended Practice (RP) will be generated to describe a basic
set of subsea documentation for specific components
• It is proposed this RP will be included in NORSOK U-001, and as a
future ISO standard
4.1 Documentation JIP Deliverables and Participation
• DNV Kick off meeting
held on 4.11.13
• 5 x 2 day workshops
planned in 2014
• Wider participation is
still being encouraged
5 Brownfield Subsea Re-Engineering Example
• Draugen; first oil 1993, field life 20 years, now being extended a further 20 years
• Draguen’s 22 subsea wells, involve 3 suppliers with 7 Tree designs
Improvements to U-009 Life extension approval process Joint Industrty
Specification for Obsolescence
Original facilites designed for expansion/interconnecatbility
Lifetime prediction models, callibration and design enhancements
Adaptive Technologies and standard interfaces for “bolt-ons”
Use of MDIS Control protocols & SIIS Instrumentation
Standards
Life cycle documentation
Industrialize Tree Reburbishment
Improved Condition monitoring & predictive
maintenance
5.1 Brownfield Subsea Re-engineering
The industry challenge is to take a “Life of Field “ perspective with the design and
management of subsea facilities.
• Brownfield Challenges include: - New industry codes and changing operating conditions
- Novel production technologies, unknown when the equipment was installed
- Inability to change vendor or utilise latest equipment type
- Obsolete Components
- Original design philosophies, engineering and verification data missing
- Predicting remaining service life
- Industrializing Refurbishment ( reducing XT turn-arounds from12 to < 4 months)
- Lack of interface standards for “adaptive technologies” and “bolt-ons”
- Expandability - not built-in to existing facilities
This Objective aims to implment a set of “best practices” that;
a) facilitate and simplify re-engineering of existing subsea facilities for life
extension, tie-backs and secondary recovery, and
b) will “future proof” new developments to simplify future changes
• A best practice review is proposed to:
- Evaluate and communicate industry progress in the key areas
- Outline the path towards a life cycle approach to subsea developments
6. Compliance with Established Standards
The challenge is to improve the engineer’s compliance with industry and pre-
established standards.
Because every project is a little different, it is tempting to implement `preference
engineering`
• A review of industry best practice indicates the optimum approach: • Corporate subsea organization overseeing implementation of standards and
- strategic procurement
• Frequent internal publication and awareness session on subsea standards and
relevant frame agreements
• Involvement of engineers in ongoing standards review and generation work
• Ready availability to Company engineers of standard designs appropriate for
company projects which in turn, minimize qualification risk
• Configurable components available that can be adjusted to suit specific
projects and increase project flexibility
• Material stocking to reduce lead times ( either finished or part finished
components)
• Suppliers proactively demonstating the advantages of standardisation
Examples for Joint Industry Qualification;
• XHPHT. Equipment resiliance and reliability for 20k/200C
• Intervention systems for XHPHT trees
• Subsea Production Systems for 4000m.
• Riserless well intervention systems
• Sea water filtration and treatment systems for IOR
• Hydrates and wax management for very long tie-backs (200km+)
• Need industry wide design specifications and interfaces for Subsea separation,
compression and boosting
• Electric trees, manifolds and control/monitoring by use of fibre optics
• Condition monitoring for field design life of 50 years
Equipment Qualification is an industry challenge, whereby incremental and
“critical path” qualification should be avoided:
• The workgroup recommended qualification work is done before FEED, via joint
industry initiatives such as DeepStar or Demo 2000, where a budget is available
for planned equipment testing.
6.1 Equipment Qualification
• Operators should specify Subsea equipment with the same/similar
specifications (forgings, interfaces, documentation etc.)
• They should utilise standard catalogues which include configurable
components with industry standard interfaces
• Wherever possible, costs should be shared by renting work-over
systems, tooling and conducting joint qualification programs
• The industry should drive for designs, standards and work processes that
simplify and improve life extension, help the refurbishment/upgrading of
old equipment and facilitate field expansion
So how do we propose to industrialise the Subsea sector?
• Upcoming subsea projects indicate that `business as usual` is no longer an
option: Co-operation is urgently required to eliminate unnecessary work,
reduce delivery times and through Standardization, and improve quality
• This work has helped initiate two JIPs;
• Recommended Practice for Subsea Forgings
• Standandardised Subsea Documentation
...
• The workgroup recommends the subsea industry to adopt:
• Use of standard catalogues with configurable components for NCS application
• A universal workover system to be used on a wide range of Xmas trees and rigs
• Implementation of best practices for exisiting and future Brownfield developments
• Strategic Procurement to increase production runs of “standards products”
• Improved compliance with existing standards and the development of a forward
looking qualification program.
• Norsk olje og gass and Norwegian Standards will together work to support
and encourage the industry to implement these recommendations
Conclusions and Way Forward