Quality Aspects in Planning of Maintenance and Modification on Offshore Oil and Gas Installations

Transcription

1 Quality Aspects in Planning of Maintenance and Modification on Offshore Oil and Gas Installations S. Sarshar, A. B. Skjerve & G. Rindahl Institute for Energy Technology (IF E), Halden, Norway T. Sand & B. Hermansen Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Høvik, Norway ABSTRACT: This paper explores quality aspects in planning of maintenance and modifications of offshore oil and gas installations based on the evaluation of plans made by the tool Maintenance and Modification Planner (IO-MAP). 1 INTRODUCTION The process of planning maintenance and modifications activities on offshore installations is complex. The planning process is traditionally carried out in sequences by different departments in the organization, depending on the time frame and level of granularity of the plan: from 5-year plans to daily plans. It involves highly skilled persons representing different professions, which are located at different physical sites (onshore/offshore). Planning is performed using various software tools such as SAP, SAFRAN or Microsoft Project. People involved in the planning process are under constant pressure for ensuring that the plans will have a minimum negative impact on production, i.e., in terms of time, cost and resource constraints. The specific attributes that characterize a high quality plan are, however, not readily defined. The robustness of plans, i.e. the inherent ability to keep as much as possible of the original structure as time moves forward, is furthermore, considered as a key concern. The reason is that robustness will reduce the amount of re-planning between each level of planning and it will enable more accurate cost estimates and better basis for material/logistics planning earlier on in the process. Still, it should be possible to identify what characteri Knowledge about the characteristics of a high quality plan would be highly useful in two different respects. First, it would contribute to the basis for design of tools to support maintenance and modification planning, by ensuring that information of importance for developing a high quality plans is included in the tools. Second, it would facilitate assessment of the quality of maintenance and modification plans developed with existing tools, and thus assist assessments of what type of tools that efficiently support people involved in planning in various contexts. This paper explores aspects in planning of maintenance and modifications of offshore oil and gas installations: What are the characteristics or aspects of a high quality plan? To answer this question, insights are needed about how plans are developed. Section 2 describes how the different planning levels from annual plans down to work preparations for activities to be undertaken the following day are handled. Risk assessment is performed in each of the planning phases, but with different means and purposes. It is of high importance that risk detected in early phases of the planning are communicated through each step of the planning activity to maintain a high level of safety. The personnel involved, the required skills, prerequisites and methods of interaction necessary to build safety into the planning process from the top level down to execution is outlined. The handover from one level of planning to the next and also re- planning routines is illustrated. The description reflects the planning process commonly seen in the North Sea. Section 3 reports the method used to derive aspects of high quality plans identified in the present study. Data was obtained as part of a usability test of a prototype tool to support planning called Maintenance and Modification Planner (IO-MAP) (Skjerve et al., 2011). The findings from the usability study are discussed, in light of the overall characteristics of planning processes identified in section 2. They include several interesting observations that can point to future improvement in tools designed to support planning, as well as in evaluations of plan, distributed across three categories: Health, safety

2 and environment; Cost issues; and Workmanship of maintenance and modifications. Section 4 concludes the study. It outlines a set of characteristics that should be addressed in assessments of the quality of maintenance and modification plans for offshore oil and gas installations. The study reported in this paper is a direct continuation of the study presented at ESREL 2010 (Sarshar & Sand, 2010), which concerned identification of improved management of safety aspects for maintenance and modifications planning. 1.1 Abbreviations, definitions and terminology This section provides some abbreviations, definitions and terminology used in this domain (OLF 2006): Health, Safety and Environment (HSE). Norwegian Continental shelf (NCS). Work O rder (WO) is a description of one or more activities or tasks and has no limitations with regards to scope or type of work activity. Work Permit (WP) is a written document that authorizes certain people to carry out specific work, at a certain time and location, and which sets out the main precautions needed to complete the job in a safe and timely manner. Safe Job Analysis (SJA) is a systematic and stepwise review of all risk factors prior to a given work activity or operation, so that steps can be taken to eliminate or control the identified risk factors during preparation and execution of the work activity or operation. Certain categories of work will always require SJA to be performed based on regulatory and company standards, others do not. However, any participant in any planned work task has the right to demand a SJA before work is undertaken. Risk factor, the term includes all aspects that directly or indirectly may influence the risk for loss or damage to personnel, environment or financial assets. Integrated Operation (IO) is an operational concept that is gradually being introduced in Petroleum Companies operating at the NSC where the focus is on enabling new ways of working in operations through implementation of innovative technologies (Holst & Nystad, 2007; Drøivoldsmo et al., 2007). IO h nshore from offshore fields and new integrated work pro (OLF 2008). 2 PLANNING MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES A general overview of planning and modification activities was provided in (Sarshar & Sand, 2010). Here, these activities are further detailed. As shown in Figure 1, the level of detail increase as one break down the plan from long term down to daily plans. The long term plan contains information about large project and turnarounds with a horizon of about 6-8 years, while the main plan is a plan without obligation for contractors. Both the long term plan and preventive maintenance tasks provide input to the main plan which has a horizon of one year. The operational plan receives batches of preventive maintenance tasks from the main plan in addition to corrective maintenance tasks and modification tasks planned onshore. At this stage, the tasks are committed with contractors, delivery plans for materials are made, personnel are allocated and work orders are defined. At the daily plan, work permits are granted and prepared for execution. The daily plan receives batches from the operational plan in addition to corrective tasks offshore at the platform. The planning activities offshore are illustrated in Figure 2. This model describes maintenance and minor modification performed by personnel working on offshore rotation and does not include the activities when planning campaign-based maintenance and modifications (i.e. work performed by onshore based work force). The first planning activity offshore is preparation of work permits. Based on the operational plan, list of corrective tasks and tasks from previous days, the different discipline leads manage the tasks for their respective disciplines; i.e. mechanical, electrical, automation and process. The maintenance and operations manager and the discipline leads, contractor and drilling manager identify the need for safe job analysis for tasks of high risk and prepare a work plan. M&T lead and catering manager is also participating. These plans are then merged into a 24 hour plan which will be treated in the daily WP meeting on the installation for coordination of work permits and simultaneous activities. The participants include the offshore installation manager, maintenance and operations manager, discipline leads, drilling manager, maintenance contractor(s), HSE coordinator and catering manager. At this meeting, each job is discussed in plenum; inter discipline, where the job description and related safety measures are evaluated. Examples of such are plan for habitat and safety equipment needed to perform the job safely. Work permits are not approved unless required SJA performed. A common model for safe job analysis is provided in (SfS, 2010). The planned jobs are formally and legally approved in the management meeting before the approved work permits are executed. The participants of the management meeting include the same participants as in the WP meeting excluding the discipline leads.

3 Long term plan Preventive maintenance tasks Main plan Corrective tasks & modifications Operational plan Corrective tasks offshore Day plan 24 hour 3 months 1 year 6-8 years Figure 1. The planning process. Preparation of WP WP meeting Management meeting Operational plan Mech Corrective tasks El Aut Drilling Op & Maint lead Contractor Formal and legal approval of work plan Execution of approved WPs Tasks from previous days Proc Figure 2. Planning activities from preparation of work permits to execution.

4 Figure 3. The IO-MAP tool. 3 METHOD 3.1 Testbed The characteristics or aspects of a high quality plans were derived based on data obtained in a usability test of a prototype tool to support planning called Maintenance and Modification Planner (IO- MAP) (Skjerve et al., 2011). The IO-MAP testbed (Rindahl, et al., 2009; Sarshar et al., 2010; Skjerve et al., 2009) (see Figure 3) has been developed by Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) as a part of the project Future Collaboration Environments in the IO-CENTER at NTNU, Norway. It has been developed to explore how technology characteristics may improve risk identification in maintenance and modification planning for oil and gas installations in future IO work practices, with special focus on technology for risk visualization applied by individuals and teams planning maintenance activities. Existing tools for planning, e.g., SAP, SAFRAN, and Microsoft Project, make use of tables to list the jobs and Gannt diagrams to present the job schedules and require high competence and tool experience to extract important information with respect to planning jobs with safe operation. In contrast, the IO-MAP visualize safety hazards directly on a GIS type of map display, and should thus facilitate plan- esign process. It should contribute to increase situation awareness to better support decision making processes with the use of graphical representation of the jobs using concepts for information rich design. 3.2 Participants The users participating in the first usability evaluation were all on-shore planners (n=8) (Skjerve et al., 2011). The planners had experience from preparations of the operation plan from their respective companies. 3.3 Scenarios The users individually were presented with one or two scenarios, lasting minutes. Each scenario presented the user with a plan. In the scenarios, a range of adjustments would be required to avoid risky situations. Each scenario contained a set of jobs/tasks, which the user might realistically face in a planning situation in a normal working day. In between these tasks, so cal hidden risks mposed. constitute tasks with inherent

5 risks, which were different types of situations, such as: 1. Two tasks were interlinked in a way that - most likely would not be obvious to the user from the beginning of the scenario. 2. The priority of a re-scheduled task that no longer is adequate and has to be updated. 3. Two tasks that would require similar resources, etc. 3.4 User task The users were instructed to evaluate the plan contained in the scenario, and to rearrange the tasks if this was found to be needed. 3.5 Evaluation of the quality of the final plan For each scenario, important observations, which the user should make, and important actions, which the user should take, were specified. The type of observations to be specified included: What risks the user should notice Other important/critical situational factors that should be attended to Each run in the usability study has been evaluated by walking through all actions performed by the planner. The assessment was performed in a group setting. The evaluation was based on the actual plan developed by the user, and on recordings of what factors the users attended to when planning each task (detections), and what decisions the user made regarding the task addressed (actions). For each group of tasks in the final plan, the following were documented by the assessors: The ID of the task(s). If there are any risks related to performance of the task/group of tasks based on its location in the final plan. If yes, the risks where specified. To what extent the assessor found the task/group of tasks to be well-planned with reference to the other tasks contained in the overall plan. When all tasks where assessed, an overall evaluation where performed: How is the safety risk associated with performance of the plan characterized? Can the plan be approved for execution? If yes, how is the adequacy of the final plan characterized for the perspective of production loss? The evaluation where based on the log file and the screen dump from IO-MAP and observation and detection/action notes made during the usability study. During the evaluation process, the characteristics of plans, which the evaluations focus at, were documented. In addition, the outcome of the evaluators assessments were reviewed by senior managers with broad experience from maintenance and modification, to assess if all factors of relevance for assessing the quality of the plans developed with the IO-MAP had been considered. 3.6 Findings The evaluators focused on a range of different aspects. These aspects were identified and documented in parallel with the ongoing evaluation. Below, the findings are documented. These are structured in three categories: Health, safety and environment; Cost issues; and Workmanship of maintenance and modifications. 3.7 Health, safety and environment The findings related to health, safety and environment were found: How well are safety related matters taken into consideration in the planning process? How well are work environment issues dealt with; physical access/working positions and physical work environment? How much variation is allowed for versus repetitive work for the individual? These and other HSE-related questions are natural to ask as new work models, with new ways of splitting work between onshore and offshore, emerge. Assessment made by experienced personnel from the industry indicate that the lack of local knowledge from the offshore installation (such as might be the case for on-shore based planners) could be successfully compensated by graphical user interfaces, detailed as required, with methods of indicating factors of risk to health, safety and environment. 3.8 Cost issues: Although the visualization capabilities already valuable in the tool may give some benefit on cost -MAP tool does not have specific means to visualize these factors. However, it is believed that the connection with production can give valuable spin-off through relatively small enhancements in the tool. Below some ideas in this direction are suggested. How well are production related matters dealt with to avoid lost production? Production loss shall be a part of the operational plan. The tool could

6 be equipped with an icon which symbolizes that a given task can give loss in production. The focus should be on emphasizing tasks that can potentially increase production with use of optimization. Logistics could be considered from a cost point of view (to/from unit and onboard)? Logistics is normally not presented and is often not seen in conjunction with other tasks. It could be considered to include logistics, e.g. visualize whether all required material for a task is available; and check the status of the delivery plan on materials for each task and provide a warning when delays occur. This infor- integrated with visualization of the jobs. Is access established in a cost efficient way (scaffolding, lifting devices)? There are normally 2-5 people responsible for scaffolding. One could make visible the tasks requiring scaffolding, this can help the planner to coordinate such tasks; visualize tasks requiring barriers and their plan, e.g. which areas that is planned to be enclosed. How complete is the job planned, are tasks left to be done later to complete the job? WPs of level 2 can be expanded in time; however, this does not apply to WPs of level 1. WPs of level 1 are only valid in their approved period of time. In IO-MAP the areas for each area supervisor are visualized. Is the multidiscipline aspect considered or are each discipline planned individually? One can visualize jobs on the same equipment for a given period in order to better coordinate these jobs. This would be more critical on safety systems to improve the relations between corrective maintenance and planned maintenance on the equipment. 3.9 Workmanship of maintenance and modifications: The IO-MAP tool as it exists today carries the potential for enhancing workmanship through some of the factors mentioned below. Further enhancement could come from connecting the tool with manning and competence systems, technical information such as P&IDs, etc. Is the planning set-up flexible enough to involve advice from experts onshore or experience from other installations? The team for technical integrity has the responsibility for transferring competence between the different installations. One could focus more on when and how to include experts for decision support. Does the planning process foster team spirit and ownership to the work? It is of great importance to include all participants and make them familiarize with the installation. It would be important to visualize units using pictures and video to gain common understanding and include all participants. The goal should be to create accountability. Do the plans take full advantage of the available competence of the executing team and supporting functions onshore? One should easily be able to include internal or external experts and provide them with a snapshot of the situation. Can the plans increase efficient work time by the maintenance and modification team? It is deemed feasible to improve available work time by improved planning on a detailed level. This can be achieved through the use of the tool as it is today, but could be increased by adding information about required tools, availability of contractor or supplier personnel, etc. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER WORK Overall the study identifies a set of characteristics, which should be addressed in assessments of the quality of maintenance and modification plans for offshore oil and gas installations. These attributes may be organized under three headings: Health, safety and environment; Cost issues; Workmanship of maintenance and modifications. The outcomes of the present study contribute to the basis for design of tools to facilitate development of plans for maintenance and modification activities, in that they point to aspects that should be attended to in the design process. More specific information could be entered into the tool to improve the capability to improve cost optimization and improved workmanship as indicated above. These capabilities should be piloted in an operational environment over time to register the effects. The findings, moreover, contribute to the basis for assessment of maintenance and modification plans. They point to overall issues that should be taken into consideration when plans are assessed. Further work is needed to identify which concrete characteristics that should be addressed when plans are assessed, e.g.,: Which consideration in the planning process? In addition, more work is needed to determine how the characteristics of the plans identified should be prioritized vis-à-vis each other: Are the aspects equally important under all conditions? Still, the present study provides directions on how to identify the characteristics or aspects of a high quality plan? It points to three overall areas that need to be considered: Health, safety and environment; Cost issues; Workmanship of maintenance and modifications.

7 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to thank the Center for Integrated Operations in the Petroleum Industry who financed this work, and all partners involved in our study and preparation research (Statoil, Conoco Phillips, DnV, GdF SUEZ E&P Norge, Norske Shell, Eni Norge). The first usability evaluation st Center for Integrated Operations in the Petroleum Industry, Norway, REFERENCES Drøivoldsmo, A., Kvamme, J.L., Nystad, E., Lunde-Hanssen, L.S., Larsen, R., and Berge- Integrated operations and insights on functional analysis techniques, in Joint 8th IEEE Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants and 13th Annual workshop on Human Performance, Monterey, CA, Holst, B. and Nystad, Integrated Operations introducing the Brage pro- -359, Kaarstad, M., Rindahl, G., Torgersen, G.-E., Drøivoldsmo, A., and Skjerve, A. B., "Interaction and Interaction Skills in an Integrated Operations Setting", in Proc. of the 17th World Congress on Ergonomics, Bei Jing, China, OLF (The Norwegian Oil Industry Association), Recommended Guidelines for Common model for Work Permits (WP). No. 088, revision 2, OLF (The Norwegian Oil Industry Association), 2006b. Recommended Guidelines for Common model for Safe Job Analysis (SJA). No. 090, revision 2, OLF (The Norwegian Oil Industry Association), Integrated Operations in New Projects. Draft version 0.2 Open for comments. Available at (February 2010). perasjoner/081016_iop_pdf.pdf Rindahl, G., Skjerve, A.B.M, Falmyr, O., Nilsen, S., Sarshar, S., Randem, H.O., Braseth, A.O., Studies on the effects on risk identification in team decision processes when applying Risk Visualisation Technologies to support Long and Short Term Maintenance Planning in Future Integrated Operations in the Petroleum Sector, IO Center White Paper No. P Rindahl, G., Torgersen, G.-E., Kaarstad, M., and Drøivoldsmo, A., Collaboration and Interaction at Brage Collecting the Features of Successful Collaboration that Training, Practices and Technology must support in Future Integrated Operations. IO Center Report No. P , March Sarshar, S., Rindahl, G., Skjerve, A. B., Braseth, A. O., and Randem, H. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Istanbul, Turkey, October n- Proc. of ESREL 2010, Rhodes, Greece, 2010., Samarbeid for Sikkerhet (SfS), Skjerve, A. B., Rindahl, G., Randem, H. O., Sarshar, S., and Kaarstad M., "Facilitating Adequate Prioritization of Safety Goals in Distributed Teams at the Norwegian Continental Shelf ", in Proc. of the 17th World Congress on Ergonomics, Bei Jing, China, Skjerve, A. B., Sarshar, S., Rindahl, G., Braseth, A. O., Ran- ations Maintenance and Modification Planner (IO-MAP)