North American Oil & Gas Pipelines

NOV-DEC 2018

North American Oil & Gas Pipelines covers the news shaping the business of oil and gas pipeline construction and maintenance in North America, including pipeline installation methods, integrity management innovations and managerial strategies.

Issue link: http://digital.napipelines.com/i/1056641

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 34 of 71

napipelines.com NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2 018 | North American Oil & Gas Pipelines 35 the same size crew and same equipment spread. It utilized the same vessel to mo- bilize and demobilize as Contractor A had previously used. Contractor B developed a way to track offshore project progress uti- lizing KPIs tied to their quality manage- ment system (QMS). After two weeks of working at Com- pany X's platform, several efficiency indi- cators became clear regarding how main- tenance money was being spent on the asset. Utilizing a daily man hour report, a cost performance index, schedule per- formance index and contractor efficiency norms, Contractor B sent Company X a report indicating the areas of inefficien- cies and actions needed to increase con- tractor time on tools. The report provided cost-effective ways to perform and man- age these types of projects. • Inefficiency 1: Delays from permit timing: Because of platform space constraints, the crew lived on a boat. Every morning, Contractor B's crew received permits later than ideal. After waiting for crane permits to be issued, the crane operator's first task was to bring the crew to the platform. In the first few weeks, Company X was losing $2,000 per week due to schedule delays as a result of waiting for permits. • Inefficiency 2: Shortened crew work time: Each night, the crew had to shut down early to prevent the operator from working overtime. The early shut down meant the crew did not have time to fill the compressor and sand pot at the end of each day which would have maximized time on tools the following morning. This resulted in additional inefficiencies and costs to Company X. Further data showed the cost perfor- mance index outpaced the schedule performance index, which is a sign of an unhealthy project. Contractor B showed the customer the collected data along with an analysis of improved support operations for the paint proj- ect that would eliminate waste. Collec- tively, this demonstrated to Company X how data collection and analysis could save them time and money on projects with similar constraints. SCENARIO 2: Sacrificing Time on Tools for Cost Savings For this hypothetical job, Company X had a lead on a corrosion project dur- ing inspections on the pipeline into the marsh, where a riser came up from the sea floor into a metering station. KPIs utilized in the bidding process helped drive down the projected cost of the atmospheric cor- rosion maintenance. The biggest cost im- pacting this project was the need for spe- cialized equipment along with the skilled labor required to operate it, i.e. aquatic vessels and trained captains. With this in mind, Contractor B identi- fied a more cost-effective solution. To pro- vide the crew more time on tools, a jack- up barge with living accommodations could be used to allow the crew to stay in the field; however, Contractor B analyzed cost performance, schedule performance and time on tools KPIs to find a more cost-effective alternative. The solution was to have the crew stay in a hotel near the boat launch and travel to and from the metering station by crew boat. Once on location, a smaller, more cost efficient jack-up barge without living quarters was utilized for the crew to perform the nec- essary tasks. Sacrificing the time on tools to save on boat costs put money back in Company X's pocket. SCENARIO 3: No one strategy fits all Company X's pipeline continues into a plant where Contractor B regularly per- forms coatings maintenance work, and for a decade, has assigned the same crews, equipment and personnel to oversee the work. In the back of the plant, another company, Company Z, owns assets that Contractor B has maintained throughout the years. Both companies X and Z have the same coatings specifications, but each company has a different coatings strategy. Company X spends more money to per- form maintenance on entire sections of

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of North American Oil & Gas Pipelines - NOV-DEC 2018