Está en la página 1de 25

SPE-183020-MS

Engineering Standard Project Packages

Salem Omar AL Katheeri and Khalid Abdul Haq Abdul Samad, ADCO

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Objective:
Development of engineering standard project packages has major benefits in establishing a design
baseline project model across assets engineering. This enable bench marking for continuous product
improvement process.
This resulted in optimizing resources, achieving sustainable production rate and Key performance
indicator due to minimize project life cycle.
Methods, Procedures, Process
The methodology is an engineering approach that creates product baseline for continuous engineering
challenges to drive optimum engineering standard project packages.
Result and conclusions
The final conceived product is now currently utilized by all engineering asset. The most significant
benefits gained and realized are as follows:
1. Shorten project life cycle. Reduction of 10 - 12 months of tendering and award for Front End
Engineering Design execution.
2. Minimize design variances across Assets resulting in optimized design.
3. Support higher management initiative Long term strategy project - Capital Efficiency.
4. Ensure common best practices & engineering procedures are adhered to.
5. Meet production injection targets (for delivering water injection and artificial lift technical
packages) prior the declining of wells.
The final conceived product is engineering standard project packages that we have benchmarked with
similar oilfield companies. As a result we have yielded skid mounted modular unit that have vast greater
advantages than current design. We have achieve 30% reduction in final cost of product from standardizing
engineering project packages
Novel
The novelty of the new standard engineering packages project is creating project baseline for future
continuous improvement process cycle to achieve optimum comprehensive design.
Hence enhancing project design wll drive better product life cycle cost and ensures inherited values are
continuously integrated and inbuilt in final product.
2 SPE-183020-MS

Introduction
COMPANY manages and operates oil and gas reservoirs (production and re-production) in fields.
COMPANY set up have four main Engineering Asset / Area:
i. A Asset
ii. B Asset
iii. C Asset
iv. Technical Center
These Assets are supported by Technical Centre Division that has all kind of engineering disciplines.
Each engineering Asset supports operation in its oilfield. As it has own organizational structure engineering
from all kind of disciplines. Operation facilities for each Asset are similar to each other it cosisits of the
following:
○ Central Degassing Station (CDS)
○ Remote Degassing Station (RDS)
○ Natural Oil Wells or artificial oil wells connected to Manifolds at RDS or CDS through pipeline. As
shown below

Figure 1—The Basic Engineering Organizational Structure

Each Asset consists of Vice President and Engineering Manager supported by all disciplines (Civil,
Process, and Mechanical, Pipeline, Telecom, Electrical, piping engineers and project managers). Each
Asset supports their operational area in term of engineering and design through established Engineering
Procurement and Construction, once Front End Engineering Design is completed.
Technical center role is to complete all concepts studies only whereas an Asset role is to complete FEED
and Engineering Procurement and Construction.
The main problem is that each asset will have their own scope requirements for each type of project listed
in Table No. 1.1. Hence it has to go through Front End Engineering Design (FEED) studies, Tendering and
Award Cycle. This cycle takes 9 to 11 months to complete the whole cycle prior Award. Hence each Asset
will end up having different design set up for each project packages upon completion. There was no baseline
common project model that can be utilized by all.

Table No 1.1—Standardization process and yield result in this paper

The standardization process is divided into three stages:- Result in this paper

1) Create baseline Engineering Standard Project Package

2) Bench Marking with similar Company. Gap Analysis


(lesson to customer voice, continuous challenges current product
design)

3) Design improvement Production of Skid mounted Modular Unit".


SPE-183020-MS 3

This paper presents an engineering systematic approach to eliminate unnecessary repetitive repeated long
tendering and award cycle for FEED. In addition adopting standardization process to establish baseline
design where it can be benchmarked with other OPCO's similar companies in future for further design
enhancement.
The accomplishment of above has satisfied the recommendation raised from COMPANY's major
stakeholder initiatives. It calls to create Engineering Standard Project Packages to unify design and to
enhance KPI and project delivery.
There is a necessity need for COMPANY to create a Standard Engineering Project Packages which we
will share and elaborate in more detail in this paper.

Statement of Theory and Definitions


This is quoted that Standardized work is one of the most powerful but least used lean tools. By documenting
the current best practice, standardized work forms the baseline for kaizen or continuous improvement. As
the standard is improved, the new standard becomes the baseline for further improvements, and so on.
Improving standardized work is a never-ending process.

Figure 2—Toyota Original concept - Kaizen

Hence COMPANY that requires standardization process for their project shall have measurement against
the followings:
It is business case for COMPANY and will gain Return on Investment.
It is repeated in nature.
It has similar characteristics in nature such as Tie in or Construction
It requires to be unified across COMPANY.
It will add values and further enhancement will be gained in term of defined uniform scope,
Design, schedule, cost, quality, risk, and customer satisfaction
It will enhance product life cycle cost for final outcome product.
4 SPE-183020-MS

It is to be noted that all standardization processes in packages as listed in Table 1.1 have been performed
at X-tree since all materials and equipment's are located therein- refer to Figure 4.

Figure 4—simple Sketch for Oil X-tree, flow line and manifolds (Tie in)

All these packages are of Tie in Well nature from X tree, pipeline and final Tie In destination at Manifolds /
MSM (located in area Called Remote Degassing Station, RDS or CDS Central Degassing Station, CDS).
COMPANY that plans to perform standardization process has to look into the followings:
○ COMPANY culture, procedures, and standards.
○ COMPANY's historical record and lesson learnt.
○ Identify boundary extent, Constrain and Assumption and assumption validation.
○ Best Technology Available. (BAT)
○ List of Main Stakeholders and their requirement and expectation of final package.
○ Historical records, lesson leant, approved variation in contract, other COMPANY practice.
○ Set main criteria that shall be inbuilt into designed final product (i.e. Constructability, operability,
maintainability, safety, product life cycle cost)
○ List of design optimization
○ Challenges of Current standard and specifications.
○ Continuous listening to customer voice
○ Estimated cost for the process.
○ Available resources to carry out process and external resources requirements & available Engineering
Tools / software's.
○ Creation of Methodology process Flow chart for standardization process.
Hence an engineering group gathering session listed and identified number of repeated project whereby
a formal standardization process can be applied to these as outlined in Table 1.1 and Figure A-1.
SPE-183020-MS 5

Table No 1.1—List of Engineering Standard Project Packages from engineering workshop


6 SPE-183020-MS

Table No 1.1 (Contd.)—List of Engineering Standard Project Packages from engineering workshop
SPE-183020-MS 7

However, only Table No. 1.2 shows the engineering standard project packages where standardization
process take place for each package from FEED to further detailed Construction package.

Table 1.2—Engineering Standard Projects Packages

Engineering Standard Project Packages Final Stage

1) Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) Detailed

2) Water Alternate Gas (WAG)

3) Gas Lift (GL)

4) Normal Oil Producer H2S content < 1%

5) Gas Injector Joint Venture

6) Gas Producer–ASR–ADNOC Sole Risk

7) Gas Injector–ASR–ADNOC Sole Risk

8) Gas Injector–Joint Venture

9) Water Injection Cluster (WIC)

10) Chemical Injection Skid

11) Produced Water Reinjection Well

12) Water Disposal Well

13) Conventional Oil Manifolds / MSM (Multi- Selector- Manifold) FEED

14) Well Pads

15) C.P Casing For Oil Producer

16) Heli-Pad

17) Remote Degassing Station

18) Oil Producer with High H2S > 1%

The purpose of FEED is to complete all required engineering design studies and engineering assurance
reviews. Whereas the purpose for detailed construction package is to generate detailed construction scope,
drawings, Materials Take Off and long lead items to let award project on call off basis. Hence package such
as Gas lift went through FEED and once completed, it is further went through Detailed Construction.
Before proceeding let us define the differences between FEED and Detailed construction project Scope
is summarized in below Table No. 1.3

Table No 1.3—Differences between FEED and Detailed Construction

Main Basic Scope Requirement FEED Detailed Construction

Assurance Reviews: HAZID, HAZOP, Design Review, Assurance Review shall be completed Revised and close out if required
Safety Integrity Level SIL, EPC scope Functional Review

Piping Isometric No Yes

General-Arrangement (GA)Piping No Yes

Material Take Off, Bill Of Materials and Bill Of Quantities No Yes

Data sheet and specification Yes Yes and in detailed

MRQ No Yes

GA drawing for Electrical, Civil, No. Yes

Piping and pipeline Stress analysis No Yes

(continued on next page.)


8 SPE-183020-MS

Table 4—(continued).

Main Basic Scope Requirement FEED Detailed Construction

EPC Scope of work No (high level scope only) Yes

Data sheet, specification Yes Yes detailed to process scheme

Inspection Test Plan No Yes

Materials, equipment and LLI High level Detailed

Description and Application of Equipment and Processes


We have adopted the below Methodology in figures 6 and 7 in all engineering standard packages as listed
in Table 1.2.

Figure 6—Basic Standardization Process Flowchart


SPE-183020-MS 9

Figure 7—Detailed Process Flowchart for Engineering Standard Project Packages


10 SPE-183020-MS

Figure 7(Contd.)—Detailed Process Flowchart for Engineering Standard Project Packages

We have utilized this methodology for creating Engineering Standard Packages are as follows in
detrimental sequential manner: i.e. let take as an example Gas Lift Well Package.
1. Obtain higher Management approval for standardization process.
2. Assign Technical team and Form Chart.
3. List of all important Stakeholders such as Asset Engineering, Operation, construction, development,
project managers, Vice president Technical center, management etc.
4. Analyze all stakeholders' expectation and satisfaction in development of these standard packages.
5. Collect all historical information, lesson learnt, Previous approved variation from similar project, best
available technology, recent design improvements.
6. Lists of proposed design optimization, challenges of current practice, standard and specification.
7. Define the scope and boundary for engineering standardization, identify area of concern, create
configuration for each packages based on pressure rating / processes and create Work breakdown
structure. Refer to Figure A-2
8. List of constraint and Assumption and validate the assumption during standardization processes.
9. Identify Risk and set mitigation plan.
Summary of Risk Register and mitigation plan can be summarized in the following table 1.4:
10. Set Budget Man-hours for Engineering deliverables and draughting deliverables and verify the same
through planning engineer and project manager. Refer to Figure A-4
SPE-183020-MS 11

10.0  Set an approved baseline schedule –Refer to Figures A-5 & A-6


11.0  Progress-Measurement. Refer to Table A-6
12.0  Assurance Review workshops

Table 1.4—Risk Identification and Mitigation Measure and Control

Risk Mitigation

1 Package Configurations Establish pressure rating

2 Pipeline & its route is unknown Includes procedures on how to design, construct and verify pipeline engineering
Create pipeline design basis.
Create typical pipeline drawings all types of crossings (Rig, Track, Main
road,etc)
Standardize specification and sizing

3 Piping Create piping design basis


Create isometric drawings and BOM
Standardize specification and sizing

4 Asset/ Customer Utilization upon Create deliverable "Design Selection Guideline".


completion of standardization processes Create deliverable for "Engineering Data Requirement for Residuals
Engineering"

5 Identify Scope and boundary of KOM and agree and Identify and outline Engineering Deliverables per discipline
standardization and required Man hours Rate in Group Session Exercise.
Create Design basis for each discipline.
Limit the standardization at X-tree area and its facilities

6 No available resources and Tools for Establish a contract through tendering with Approved Consultant for drawing
creation of drawing / isometric support.

7 Site conditions are different for each Asset Create typical drawing for pipeline crossing all types of crossing such as Rig
and route of pipeline from X –Tree to crossing, Asphalt Crossing, Track Road Crossing, Security fence crossing, etc.
Conventional Manifold / MSM Create Deliverable " Data requirement for Residuals Engineering
Create deliverable for Geotechnical and topographical survey scope.

8 No scope available Formulate strategy in standardization,


Create General Guideline and Methodology
Compile all stack holder requirements.
List of design optimization
BAT
create package configuration
Set limit and boundary,
Set assumption and constraint
create engineering deliverables
create design basis for each discipline

A serious of an engineering workshop was included in planning package and implemented during
execution phase for each package during its FEED time schedule and revised if required during detailed
construction stage:
a. HAZID
b. Design Review workshop Session (Value Engineering shall be performed in future for all packages)
c. Design Resolution Sheet final outcomes
d. Key Document updates (i.e. Cause and Effect, P&ID and Plot Plan Updates)
e. HAZOP
f. SIL
g. EPC Scope Functional Review.
12 SPE-183020-MS

Presentation of Data and Results


The final outcome result in completion of Engineering Standard Project Packages published in COMAPNY
Net, and now all ASSETS are utilizing these packages to EPC level without going through FEED Tendering
and Award Cycle, resulted in elimination of 11 months tendering cycle.

Figure 8—Publish Engineering Standard Project Packages at COMPANY Web Site

As an example the cost for gas lift prior and after standardization is presented for reference

Table No 1.5—Cost Comparisons between old and new standard design for Gas Lift

Existing Design New Design

WHCP Yes (hydraulics only) Yes (hydraulics and operational logic)

Safety PLC Yes (for operation logic and safety functions) No (safety functions are provided by hardwired safety rated
components)

RTU No (part of safety PLC function) Yes

Passive shelter Yes No

HIPPS Yes (Separate Panel) Yes (logic solver installed in WHCP)

Telecom System Yes (SDH with FO Cables) Yes (Wireless Wi-Max or FO cable)

Gas flow meter Yes (Vortex) Yes (V-cone)

Gas flow control Yes (PLC logic and motorized choke) Yes (RTU logic and motorized choke)

Solar system Yes (1.2 Kw) Yes (0.8 Kw)

Estimated cost (excluding $ 1,350,000 $ 760,000


valves)

Cost Reduction of almost 40


%

Similar Cost comparison is made for Gas Producer- as indicated in Table No D-1
SPE-183020-MS 13

Bench Marking with Other's similar petroleum Companies


Upon Completion of Standard Engineering Project Packages as shown below in Figure 9 and 10
We made a serious of 6 workshops to challenge the plot plan for Gas Producer and HSE separation
distance between equipment for detailed work refer to Appendix B. the outcome for this study is to minimize
plot plan. In addition we performed bench marking gap analysis with other similar companies.
The main outcomes from these challenges workshop and benchmarking with other Company is to
establish and create Skid Mounted Modular Unit as shown below:

Figure 9—Initial Gas Producer Skid Mounted Modular Unit Prototype

Figure 10—Initial Oil Producer Skid Mounted Modular Unit Prototype

The SMMU in figure 9 above can be compared with existing Gas Producer Plot plan as below:
14 SPE-183020-MS

Figure 11—Existing Current Gas Producer Plot Plan.

As shown existing design of Gas Producer plot plan of 120 meter X 45 meter consist of following
equipment:
Chemical Injection
Solar Panel
WHCP
HIPPS
PLC / RTU
SCADA Tower
Valves
Flanges
H2S detectors
Burn Pit as indicated in figure B-1
Fence at X tree and control area

Table No 1.6—List of advantages for SMMU and comparison with existing Gas

Current practice / processes New processes after SMMU implementation

Plot plan is 100 meter X 45 meter Enhance plot plan


Plot plan is 11 meter X 3.5 meter

Construction and materials cost is 2.7 Million dollars Cost is 930,000 dollars

Repeated Tendering, and award EPC Cycle for Artificial Lift, WAG and Duration of 2 years will be eliminated
WDW, Oil with high H2S, Gas Injector JV

Large pole along with foundation for antenna is required Anntena is installed at Skid, no need for foundation and large pole

Company Organizational resources Minimized more than 8 %

Inventory of COMAPNY is very High Inventory will be minimized to more than 30 %. (only Piping and Pipeline
will be stored) since all equipment will be installed in SMMU (WHCP,
Solar Panel, HIPPS, chemical injection)

(continued on next page.)


SPE-183020-MS 15

Table No 1.6—(continued).

Current practice / processes New processes after SMMU implementation

Lots of Price Agreement per item Material, Tendering, clarification, Will eliminate these practice and hence will minimize work and staff in
evaluation report and commercial by SCMD SCMD and Tie In

Construction Time duration for Gas is 3 Months and for Oil producer is 30 Will be only for 2 weeks for Gas Producer. For Oil Producer is 7 days
days.

Burn Pit for Gas producer length is 120 meter and No well shall be Portable Flaring is already included in Engineering Standard Project
drilled within 150 meter Radius from tip of Burn Pit Package and SMMU.
Maximo Approval Cycle for AFE,DTR, TO We will use Maximo only for piping and pipeline, almost 70 % reduction
in this process is attained

We presented the skid mounted concept for Gas Producer, Oil Producer. This SMMU will accommodate
chemical Injection, Control Panel / solar, HIPPS valves and other accessories in one confined Skid.
"This is a mobile, modular unit that can be used at one oil or gas field after the other."
In addition our future Company preliminary initial design of SMMU is compared to the other company
SMMU

Table No 1.7—Comparison between other COMPANY SMMU and Our COMPANY SMMU

OTHER COMPANY SKID UNIT Proposed COMPANY SMMU

Cost 2 Million dollars for Gas Producer Well. Cost will be lesser than 1 Million Dollars.

Utilize power transformer Utilize Solar Panel

Inconel cladded coating in piping at Skid. Utilize Carbon Steel with 6 mm corrosion allowance.

Utilize PLC. No PLC, Utilize Trip Amplifier and RTU inside WHCP.

Utilize Passive cool shelter. Hence, No Passive Cool Shelter

Height is more than 3 meters due to passive cool Height is less than 50 CM.

The SMMU will be applicable for the following Engineering Standard Project Packages
○ Oil Producer
○ Gas Producer ASR.
○ Upon completion of these, we will apply SMMU to the following packages
○ Gas Lift
○ WAG
○ Gas Injector ASR
○ Gas Injector Joint Venture
○ Oil with High H2S
This has been presented to higher COMPANY Management and agrees to formulate strategy and plan
to implement the same immediately.

Conclusion
Achieving optimum design is endless process. Hence a continuous challenging in the design, component
functions, standard and reason behind it is essential part of optimum enhancement and standarazation
process.
We have developed engineering package as baseline, bench mark the same to other company, set
continuous challenges to current design, and finally we have introduced Skid Mounted Modular Unit
16 SPE-183020-MS

In future we need to set challenges even to our current processes to make these more optimized
in term of productivity, profitability, performance and people need. Another main area is to look into
optimizing Standards and Specifications that would lead to substantial Operational Cost reduction. The use
of engineering specifications standards is critical to effective capital planning and project execution for
Company.

Acknowledgement
We need to acknowledge and thanks the following team for COMPANY who contributes to development
of all technical deliverable throughout the processes of standardization of all Engineering Standard Project
Packages. Special thanks and regards for Senior Vice President Saleh Aidrous Al Wahedi and Vice President
of Technical Centre Mr. Khalid Abdul Samad who provide guidance and support throughout standardization
process.
SPE-183020-MS 17
18 SPE-183020-MS

Nomenclature
BOM Bill Of Material
BOQ Bill Of Quantity
CDS Central Degassing Station
ESP Electrical Submersible
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
FEED Front End Engineering Design
GL Gas Lift well
GA General Arrangement
HAZID Hazard Identification
SPE-183020-MS 19

HAZOP Hazards and Operability


HIPPS High Integrity Pressure Protection System
MTO Material Take Of
P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
RDS Remote Degassing Station
RTU Remote Terminal Unit
SIL Safety Integrity Level
SDV Shutdown Valve
Safety Trip STA
Amplifier
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
WAG Water Alternate Gas well
WDW Water Disposal Well
WHCP Well Head Control Panel

References
Amna Abdulla, Mohamed Hafez, 2014, New Design for HIPPS For Onshore Wells, ADCO,
David Smith and Kenneth Simpson, 2004, Functional Safety: A Straightforward Guide to Applying IEC 61508 and Related
Standards, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,
IEC 61511 (all parts), Functional safety –safety-instrumented systems for the process industry sector, 2003.
Jos Jacob, 2016, Initial Prototype Skid Mounted Modular Unit, for oil and gas Producer, Petronash FZE,
Manikandan Balasubramaniam, CHSE, 2016, Dispersion Model study for Gas, and Hazardous area classification, ADCO,
Abu Dhabi
http://www.lean.org/Workshops/WorkshopDescription.cfm?WorkshopId=20Toyota quote, Kaizen laws, Quality
Zaher Salem, 2014, ADNOC initiatives 5.5 references, ADCO,
20 SPE-183020-MS

Appendix A
Methodology-Process Chart for Engineering Standard Project Packages

Figure A-1—Standarazation Workshop

Figure A-2—Engineering Package Configuration


SPE-183020-MS 21

Appendix B
Design Engineering Challenges & Dispersion Module Study
Challenges of:
▪ Separation distance from Chemical Injection to Piping
▪ Separation distance from Chemical Injection to Solar Panel/ WHCP.
▪ Separation distance from X tree to Control Area is now 60 meters comparing to 120 meter
@old design
▪ Separation distance between SCADA Tower and Solar Panel and chemical injection / Piping.
▪ Separation distance between X-Tree and IVC (can be further improved to 30 meters
▪ Burn Pit is long pipe extended for 120 meters and another 150 meter distance Radius require
to NOT drill any wells, this will jeopardize future development in Gas Well Tie In hence we
need to remove Burn Pits and replace the same with Portable Flaring
▪ Chemical injection and flow line of 15 meter
▪ Chemical injection and Solar Panel of 15 meter
▪ X-Tree and Control area of 60 meters
▪ 15 meters around X-Tree.
▪ 120 meter of burn pit pipe can be replaced by portable flaring
Reason for challenges :
Separation distance can be improved due to the following reasons:
❑ The entire facilities are unmanned for 24 hours.
❑ The entire system is equipped with all detections HC / H2S.
❑ All Equipment's rated for Flame proof and Exd.
❑ The entire system design is based on Fail-Safe
❑ WHCP / X-tree has Fuse Plugs for fire Protection
❑ Chemical Injection is rated Exd.
❑ Piping is coated and protected.
❑ Probability of Fire Occurrences during past years is random.
❑ The entire well will be shut off once fire is occurred.
❑ Dispersion Model Output shows distance which is exceed the existing 15 meters in the range
of 40 meters, hence distance can be optimized due to fact that 15 meters is not also adequate.
Dispersion Module analysis, and close out
22 SPE-183020-MS
SPE-183020-MS 23

Figure B-5—Dispersion Module Study


24 SPE-183020-MS

Appendix C
List of Shared Design Enhancement
Shared optimization list items:
SPE-183020-MS 25

Appendix D
Cost Comparison for Gas Producer Package
Table D-1—Comparison of cost between old engineering gas producer and new engineering standard package