GSF EXPLORER

HORIZONTAL PIPE RACKER 31st May, 2012

FEA

Horizontal Pipe racker Replacement Project RMS 1190029111232

Guidance: The following document acts as a guide for replacement / Major refurbishment of The Horizontal Pipe racker aboard the GSF Explorer.

Table of Contents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reason Reliability data from RMS Down Time from OER Justification Images Solutions Game plan Summary

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

1.

Reason
GSF Explorer Replacement /Major Refurbishment Dry Dock 2014

Overview: Horizontal Pipe racker

Position of installation: Main Deck

The Westech Horizontal Pipe Racker has offered marginal performance and poor reliability for many years now. The HPR is becoming an increasing liability due to repeat Down Time issues, and excessive amounts of labour required to keep the unit operational. It is inevitable that as the rigs position improves, along with the day rates, that the situation will come to a head. The Client will no doubt want to know why they are paying such a premium price, for such unreliable equipment that has been long recognized as a re-occuring liability. Further to the above: a) The unit is obsolete, along with parts , back up, and equipment are no longer available for the Westech Hpr. They are difficult to source and lead times can be excessively long. b) Most of the repairs on the HPR have been/are non Original Equipment manufacture, This is a result of parts simply not being readily available. c) It has long been the recognised Achilles heel of the rig. when it is operational , on most occasions, it requires the entire Electronic and Mechanical department nursing it day and night. In terms of operational integrity, the unit is not sustainable in the medium or long term. But most importantly, we do not want an asset that should be a main selling point of the Explorer, to become the bane of the rig in terms of client satisfaction and / or rig marketability .

2.

Reliability Data From RMS

The labour hours are excessive for any drilling equipment asset of this type and criticality. It must also be noted that even though the hours recorded against the HPR are very high, they only represent a fraction of the true hours. To cut a long story short, we spend so many hours working on this machine, that on many occasions, work done on the HPR goes unrecorded. Taking this into consideration, we could easily add another 40-50% to the existing 11,315 hours. See Figure 1 Note 119% corrective maintenance hours which is excessive for any piece of machinery.

See Figure 2 Top Drive comparison. Note how corrective maintenance on this piece of Operations Critical Equipment only around 22%. It must also be considered that the Top drive does far more hours work than the HPR. See Figure 3 HPR. Note Total Labour Hours. Even though 11,315 is excessive, As mentioned above, this is not a true representation . As much as 40 50% of the work done on this machine can slip under the radar unrecorded because we are usually very busy at that time. So the true figure will be greater than 11,315 hours.

Horizontal Pipe Racker

Figure 1
Note figure 1 above for HPR. Corrective maint is 119%. This is excessive, and as mentioned above is a conservative figure because in many occasions the breakdown hours simply are not recorded because we are too busy. A typical allocation of corrective maint hours on a piece of critical machinery should be around 20 30% max. See pie chart on Top drive Figure 2 (below).Top Drive has by far, a greater usage than the HPR, yet Corrective maint on the TDS 1000 is only 22%. This is about normal for a piece of Operations Critical drilling equipment.

TOP DRIVE

Figure 2

Note percentage of maint hours on a typical Operations Critical piece of drilling equipment such as the top drive. 22% is about normal. It must also be considered that the Top Drive usage is far more than the HPR.

Note HPR in Figure 1. Corrective maint on the Horizontal Pipe Racker is 119%, and is used for a fraction of the time compared to the Top Drive.

Horizontal Pipe Racker

Figure 3
Can easily add a further 40-50% to the existing 11,315 hours. To cut a long story short, we spend so many hours working on it, that on many occasions, work done on this machine simply goes unrecorded. Simply because, At that time we are snowed under and just let the paperwork slide.

3. Down Time from OER

As table below shows. The HPR is a repeat offender in terms of Down time

4.

Justification

As described above, the main justification for considering a new HPR is operational Integrity , and the fact that present asset is a known, unsustainable liability. This Elephant in the room has been an issue for some time, and can now be easily and efficiently addressed in the next dry dock. Further to this main point, the other reasons are: 1.0 Equipment is obsolete and parts cannot be sourced in a timely manner for its repair from the manufacturer. 2.0 All Hydraulic cylinders are obsolete and difficult to source. 3.0 Unit is now operating very violently due to compounding wear in just about every moving part, arm and hydraulic cylinder in the machine. This is getting progressively worse. Hydraulic cylinders, pins in fact any or most moving parts on The HPR have a limited lifespan due to its coarse operation. 4.0 Down time is a re-occuring issue with this Asset. 5.0 It is only a matter of time before this issue impacts us severely in terms of client satisfaction and contracts. As the rigs position improves, along with 600k + day rates, the client will want to know why they are paying such top dollar for such antiquated machinery. 6.0 Both the frequency, and severity, of breakdowns on the HPR are increasing with its age. Plotting the direction in which we are progressing with this equipment ,coupled with all the points above, it would be a good idea to address it during this window of opportunity in the 2014 dry dock.

5.

Images

short annotations have been added to the images following.

Flipper arms are badly damaged on most . Hydraulic cylinders are obsolete and difficult to source

FIGURE 4

Tower arm assembly and heads in bad shape over all. See figure 6 for close up main arm in this area

FIGURE 5

Tower arms in bad shape

FIGURE 6
Excessive play in most critical moving parts

FIGURE 7

Excessive play in most critical moving parts

FIGURE 8
Excessive play in most critical moving parts

FIGURE 9

Excessive play in most critical moving parts

FIGURE 9
Excessive play in most critical moving parts

FIGURE 10

Excessive play in most critical moving parts

FIGURE 11
Structurally in pretty bad shape, floor pulling away from central runway

FIGURE 12

Structurally in pretty bad shape, most tower arms/pipe arms are considerably bent

FIGURE 13
Structurally in pretty bad shape, most tower arms/pipe arms are considerably bent

FIGURE 14

Structurally in pretty bad shape, some support beams severely corroded

FIGURE 15

Structurally in pretty bad shape, Note how pins are bent and pipe arms are twisted down.

6.

Solutions

Companies Interested: The following Offshore drilling equipment companies have been contacted, and have shown interest in the HPR Project.

1.0 Control Flow Westech:

2.0 AKER SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE

3.0 ODS Offshore Oil and Gas Singapore

4.0 N.O.V has been contacted

5.0 OILSTATES Skagit

7.

Game Plan

Guidance: As this is simply an informal heads up on the HPR, a more detailed feasibility study should be carried out by projects engineering, but to start with - lets say;

Step 1 Shoreside management to approach corporate and discuss this matter further. Is it a pipe dream - yes -no ?, are they willing to consider the proposal based on the information supplied?

Step 2 Agree on a Design an/or vendor. Either NOV, or ODS- or we could keep with control flow and simply rebuild old unit completely.

Step 3 Have the Vendor come out and do a proper feasabilty survey and give us a timeline, price etc

8.

Summary

The HPR is in principle an excellent Asset, that can/ should be one of the main marketing points of the Explorer. Unfortunately it has reached a point Where it is safe to say; that it will not be sustainable in the medium or long run. This is due to excessive wear , availabilty of parts, and the excessive hours required to keep it operational. With reference to the images section, the working clearances on most of the critical functions on the HPR have degenerated over time, to the point where it is working violently. To remedy this will require large scaleshipyard type remedial work. This coarse operation due to wear on main assemblies, is hard on the equipment, and both the frequency and severity of breakdowns is increasing on the HPR . But most importantly, we do not want an asset that we strongly believe could be a main selling point of the Explorer, to become the bane of the rig in terms of client satisfaction and / or rig marketability .

Domenic Pansini
Mechanical Supervisor
Transocean Drillship "GSF Explorer"
Direct Line 62-2175996870. Mail mechsup.epl@deepwater.com

Save a tree... don't print