LD EL3

Lessons Learned Collection
Workshop Report
BI 10-02399
Additional Capacity
North Jeddah Bulk Plant &
Yanbu Distribution Hub - FEL3
Prepared by: Majdi Ali Alsaleh

Project Management Office Department
September 2016
Additional Capacity North Jeddah Bulk Plant & Yanbu Distribution Hub
Executive Summary
This report highlights lessons learned and the unique challenges BI 10-02399 (Additional Capacity
North Jeddah Bulk Plant & Yanbu Distribution Hub) IPT faced during the FEL3 phase of the project.
The lessons in this report were documented during the Lessons Learned Collection workshop that was
held in Khobar on September 1st, 2016. The objective of the workshop was to identify lessons learned
from (Additional Capacity North Jeddah Bulk Plant & Yanbu Distribution Hub) project for the benefit
of future projects. The workshop participants included Project Management personnel, Proponent
representatives, Facility Planning Department representatives and Designer Project Manager and Leads.
This report is organized as follows:
1.0 Project Scope Summary

2.0 Proposed Lessons Learned
3.0 Key Lessons Learned
The key lessons learned highlights the dominant and recurrent issues that were developed and discussed
during the lessons learned collection workshop.
The proposed lessons learned is the entire list of lessons learned captured during the workshop. The key
lessons learned were selected from this list on the basis of “potential value” and “widespread applicability”
to future projects.
The project scope summary section prefaces the rest of the report and provides a concise description of
the scope of (Additional Capacity North Jeddah Bulk Plant & Yanbu Distribution Hub) project and
lays the foundation for an understanding of the complexities of the project and the challenges that the
project management teams were confronted with.
Project team members should capitalize on successes achieved and avoid problems encountered by the
(Additional Capacity North Jeddah Bulk Plant & Yanbu Distribution Hub) IPT, some of which are
highlighted in this report. However utmost care should be exercised in applying these lessons to projects.
IPT’s should first seek to understand the context and basic concepts presented in the lessons, and adapt
them to their unique projects situation.
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

1 September 2016
1.0 Project Scope Summery

The budget item is intended to provide a reliable refined products supply for Makkah province by
expanding North Jeddah Bulk Plant (NJBP) and providing the grassroots facility Yanbu Distribution
Hub (YDH). NJBP Expansion provides additional 1,000 MB of products storage, loading bays, Jet A-
1 unloading bays, and all supporting infrastructure. YDH provides a grassroots tank farm facility to
aggregate refined products from three (3) local refineries (SAMREF, YASREF, and Yanbu Refinery
Terminal) with a provision for future SA Yanbu Grassroots Refinery to facilitate shipment to NJBP.
YDH provides 3,400 MB product storage, shipper pump stations for PG95/PG91/DPK/DO, and all
associated infrastructure
Contracting Strategy
DBSP: GES+ Contract, Mustang HDP
Project Proposal: GES+ Contract, Mustang HDP
Detailed Design: GES+ Contract, to be advised
Construction: 3 LSTK Contracts, to be advised
Project Timeline
Duration
Task / Milestone Start Finish
(months)
BUSINESS CASE / / / /
FEL 1 / / / /
/ / / /
STUDY / / / /
FEL 2
DBSP Sep-2015 Jun-2016 9
/ / / /
PROJECT PROPOSAL Jun-2016 Dec-2016 6

FEL 3
/ / / /
/ / / /
DETAIL DESIGN Oct-2016 Oct-2017 12

Execution
CONSTRUCTION July-2017 July-2020 37
/ / / /

2 September 2016
2.0 Proposed Lessons Learned
Originator Detailed
No. Proposed Lesson Topic
(initials) Lesson #
01 Difficulty in Dealing with External Stakeholders AAM 21
02 LUP’s and Land Acquisition Issues AAM 22
IPT Involvement and Understanding of Roles

03 BTG 13
and Expectations
Creation, Continuity and Focus of Core Team

04 BTG
(FPD, PMT, Proponent and Contractor)
Deviation from The Main Purpose of the

05 Project, Leading to Lack of Focus and Short BTG 14
Term Solutions
Implementation of CMS (Unclear Expectations and

06 BTG
Deliverables)
07 Late Implementation of Studies (SRA) AMT 15
Consideration of Existing Facilities in the

08 TSI 16
Project
09 Late Review of Plot Plan Limits TSI
No Clear Direction to Use Single or Multiple

10 Lupe Oil for Pumps, it Only Shows in Standard TSI 17
Drawings
11 Disconnection of Proponent from Project Cost TSI 18
Not having Allowance for Changes in Service

12 TSI 19
Order Budget
Discrepancy in Design Package related to Project

13 TSI
Narrative
Communicating Urgency of Project to Other

14 TSI 20
Departments

3 September 2016
15 Conflict in SOW for Developing of the DBSP PND 04
Interface Study with Other BI’s was Not Done

16 PND 02
during FEL2b & 3
Interface Engineering to Accommodate

17 Relevant Engineering Standards of PND 03
Stakeholders
Late Consideration of Using Thrust Boring

18 PND 01
rather than Conventional Culvert
Consideration of Prior Approval Expenditure

19 PND
Request and Novation to Improve Project Schedule
Difficulty Getting Approval and Finalization for

20 AZ 06
Different Studies (BRA & RAM)
21 Poor Handling of Comments Log AZ 05
Design Improvements and Clarification were

22 missed because of Working Parallel on FEL2b AS 07
& FEL3
23 Late Tie-In Location Information Approvals AS 08
Number of Storage Tanks Changes Compared

24 AS 09
to PSP
Difference in Elevation between Existing and

25 MAM 11
New Area
Disposal of Heel Recovery Product Not Elaborated

26 MAM
in PSP
Interconnecting between 2 Pipelines was

27 MAM 12
Considered for a Flexible Operations
28 Conducting Laser Scanning Late MTI 10

4 September 2016
3.0 Key Lessons Learned
Index of Lessons
No. Title Originator
01 Consideration for Thrust Boring v/s Culvert PND
02 Inadequate Interface Study with Other BI’s during FEL 2B & 3 PND
03 Interface Engineering & Relevant Engineering Standards PND
04 Key Consideration for DBSP SOW PND
Improper Handling of Comment Response Log for the 90% Project

05 AZ
Proposal
06 Difficulty in Getting Approval of Subcontracts AZ
Design Improvements and Clarifications were missed because of

07 AS
Parallel Working on FEL2B and FEL3
08 Late Tie-In Location Approval AS
09 Number of Storage Tanks Changes AS
10 Conducting Laser Scanning Late MTI
11 Elevation Difference between New and Existing Area MAM
12 Interconnection between Surge Relief Tank/Pump MAM
13 IPT Involvement and Understanding of Roles and Expectations BTG
Deviation from the Main Purpose of the Project, Leading to Lack of

14 BTG
Focus and Short Term Solutions
15 Conducting SRA Late in Brown Field BI’s AMT
16 Consideration of Existing Facilities in the Project TSI
17 No Clear Direction to Use Single Lube Oil for Each Pump TSI
18 Disconnection of Proponent from Project Cost TSI
19 Not Having Allowance for Changes in Service Order TSI

5 September 2016
20 Communication Urgency of Project to Other Departments TSI
21 Difficulty in Dealing with External Stakeholders AMA
22 LUP’s and Land Acquisition Issues AMA

6 September 2016
Proposed Lessons Learned
#01- Consideration for Thrust Boring v/s Culvert
Background
BI-10-02399, Proposed to set up Distribution Hub at Yanbu & Expansion of storage capacity at North
Jeddah for which DBSP was being developed by GES+ Contractor with IPT Team under CMS. This
project has pipelines, electrical cables & instrument cables crossing roads at various locations outside
the battery limit of the plant. Culverts design were recommended for crossing the roads. Construction of
culvert over the major roads could delay the project schedule as well increase the cost. Study was
conducted to use thrust boring for the pipelines to cross the roads. Drawings with thrust boring for the
pipelines were accomplished and submitted for the required approvals.
Root Cause/Benefit
Major cost benefits as well as positive impact on the schedule could be seen as achievable.
Recommendation
Due considerations must be provided for use of thrust boring in lieu of culverts where possible for
locations outside the battery limits of the plants.
Originator
Pradeepkumar N. Das, Engineer I, Pipelines, Distribution & Terminal Projects Department / North Jeddah
Bulk Plant Project Unit

7 September 2016
#02- Inadequate Interface Study with Other BI’s during FEL 2B & 3
Background
Jeddah for which DBSP was being developed by GES+ Contractor with IPT Team under CMS.
Opportunity was observed during the DBSP development phase that installation of VRU unit could be
de-scoped from the on-going project.
Root Cause/Benefit
One of the prime reasons identified was that under BI-10-01036, standalone Vapor Recovery Unit (VRU)
was for existing facility and hence associated expansion was not considered. Therefore planning to
consider and study new / future projects was implemented at the existing facility, so that necessary
modifications / redesign could be done to achieve project purpose. In this case detail analysis was done
to accommodate requirement of expansion under BI-10-02399 which eventually called for modification
of design basis of VRU.
Cost savings (approximately 7 MMUSD) without any impact on the project schedule could be
accomplished as separate VRU unit for the expansion was not required.
Recommendation
Associated projects on-going as well as near future projects anticipated must be studied to consider the
benefits and opportunities available.
Originator

8 September 2016
#03- Interface Engineering & Relevant Engineering Standards
Background
Jeddah for which DBSP was being developed by GES+ Contractor with IPT Team under CMS. This
project has interface with MARAFIQ, SAMREF, Yanbu Refinery and Yanbu Royal Commission. It was
encountered during DBSP development that relevant engineering standards differed from SA
Engineering Standards and guidelines. Ambiguity are observed and design may change to accommodate
the prevailing standards & guidelines.
Root Cause/Benefit
Interface was not designed with consideration to the design standards followed by the respective
stakeholders.
Identifications at early stage of the design development was not done to rule out duplication of design
engineering and eliminate major changes.
Recommendation
Significant considerations to the prevailing design standards among the stakeholders must be considered
during the design phase so that no major changes are encountered.
Originator

9 September 2016
#04- Key Consideration for DBSP SOW
Background
Jeddah for which DBSP was being developed by GES+ Contractor with IPT Team under CMS. GES+
Contractor was approached with SOW specified in PSP. It was noticed and observed during DBSP
development phase that deliverables were derived from PSP. These deliverables were not sufficient to
complete the DBSP for SOW intended to be completed under BI-10-02399.
Root Cause/Benefit
One of the prime reason identified was only SOW covered under PSP would be developed by GES+ in
the form of DCL. Conflict had arisen as there were certain SOW which were not identified as DCL and
hence not covered under SOW which could eventually not develop a good DBSP package.
Recommendation
During the clarification meeting with the GES+ Contractor prior to awarding the job, GES+ Contractor
must be explained the intent of the project and relevant SOW should be considered by GES+ for
developing sound DBSP package for further progress of the project.
Originator

10 September 2016
#05- Improper Handling of Comment Response Log for the 90% Project Proposal
Background
The 90% comment response log for North Jiddah bulk Plant Expansion package was handled improperly.
BI Number 10-02399
BI Title Yanbu Distribution Hub and North Jeddah
Order 10-02399-0001
Order Title Preliminary Eng. North Jeddah Bulk Plant
Order Remarks
90% PP/DBSP of North Jeddah Bulk Plant (Exclude Package 2 - Kerosene
Review Title
Unloading Skids)
Phase Project Proposal
Cycle 90%
Planned Start Date 6/1/2016
Planned End Date 6/14/2016
Actual Start Date 6/2/2016
Actual End Date 6/15/2016
The comment response review meeting was scheduled on 22nd of June 2016 as per attached attendance
sheet. Design Contractor kept on receiving the comments until 20th of June 2016 by emails. This was e-
review system but Design Contractor received many emails as comments after the cutoff date.
Many commentators were unavailable at the comments review meeting and then lot of e-mail
correspondences had to be done to close out the comments.
Root Cause/Benefit
 Comments review meeting was not attended by commentators.

 Cutoff date for receiving comments was not successful and cutoff date for receiving responses to
comments was not successful.
Recommendation
 Comment review meeting shall be attended by commentators or a cutoff date shall be announced
that if responses are not received from commentator it is understood that GES+ contractor responses
are acceptable.
 It is better if all comments shall come through the e-review system.
Originator
Abdul Rehman Zakir, Project Engineer, Mustang HDP

11 September 2016
#06- Difficulty in Getting Approval of Subcontracts
Background
Many sub contracts were executed during FEL2b and FEL3 stage of the project. More specifically we
had difficulty in getting the finalization and approval of Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM)
Report. The draft report was commented on several times and the report was required to be revised
several times.
Root Cause/Benefit
Commenting on the draft report several times by the same commentator.
Recommendation
Comments shall be received from all commenters only one time by the due cutoff date and not in piece
mail basis.
Originator
Abdul Rehman Zakir, Project Engineer, Mustang HDP

12 September 2016
#07- Design Improvements and Clarifications were missed because of Parallel Working on FEL2B
and FEL3
Background
For BI-10-02399 (YDH portion), SA asked to work on 60% FEL3 and same to be submitted as FEL2B.
Accordingly, Design Contractor worked on 60% FEL3 and some of its deliverables submitted with FEL2B.
This caused one less submission of the project due to which design freeze could not be done at FEL2B.
Root Cause/Benefit
Due to squeeze of project schedule.
Recommendation
FEL3 should be started after approval of FEL2B.
Originator
Azeem Sajjad, Process Engineer, Mustang HDP

13 September 2016
#08- Late Tie-In Location Approval
Background
For the tie-ins at SAMREF for product transfer to YDH, initial visit was carried out at the start of the
project. During the visit, Design Contractor identified the tie-ins along with FPD, Proponent and SAMREF
operations. After the visit a site visit report was issued and later 60% FEL3 but Design Contractor did not
receive any information about tie-in confirmation. Then at very late stage when 90% FEL3 was ready for
submission, different tie-in location proposal was received from SAMREF.
Root Cause/Benefit
1. No feasibility was done for these tie-ins.

2. Specific area / approving authority were not present during the visit.
Recommendation
1. SAPMT and proponent should emphasize on approvals of all site related issues especially tie-ins and
these should be resolved as soon as possible.
2. There should be active participation from all stakeholders at beginning stage of the project to decide
and concur on the tie-ins.
Originator

14 September 2016
#09- Number of Storage Tanks Changes
Background
At the start of the project, PSP proposed certain numbers of storage tanks for the facility. However, it
gets changed along with some other major changes like use of existing pumps at YR instead of new
pumps.
Root Cause/Benefit
Reduction in project CAPEX, project will be executed in phases.
Recommendation
Such kind of major scope changes should not be done after award of the project.
Originator

15 September 2016
#10- Conducting Laser Scanning Late
Background
Laser scanning is part of Design Contractor scope in North Jiddah Bulk Plant Expansion. It took too long
to receive the scanning data for the existing facility due to licensing and technical reasons. By the time
60% milestones were already achieved, most of the piping routes had already been finalized based on
the site visit and existing drawings. When laser scanning data (Point cloud data) was superimposed on
the 3D model (piping), it was found that there is a lot of clashes with the existing facility. This caused a
lot of changes in pipe routings.
Root Cause/Benefit
There are two reasons for the above:
1. Existing drawings from the i-plant are not as built.

2. Laser scanning information received at a late stage of the project.
Recommendation
There are two recommendations:
1. Laser scanning should be mandated for brown field projects in order to avoid changes during
subsequent phases.
2. Laser scanning should be conducted at DBSP stage or immediately after DBSP but before FEL3
stage.
Originator
Muhammad Tufail, Lead Piping Engineer, Mustang HDP

16 September 2016
#11- Elevation Difference between New and Existing Area
Background
North Jiddah Bulk Plant is an expansion project which has existing and new area. Topo survey was
conducted and the results were available late. The different elevations between the existing area and the
new area was reported in the Topo report at a time when design was already in progress. Different
elevation between these two areas may cause design lapse mainly during hydraulic calculation.
Root Cause/Benefit
Topo survey report was not available at the early stage of the project.
Recommendation
The designer shall consider the difference in elevation between the new and the existing areas to have
the correct design.
Originator
Mujtaba A. Matar, Lead Process Engineer, Mustang HDP

17 September 2016
#12- Interconnection between Surge Relief Tank/Pump
Background
Two pipelines are received from Yanbu Distribution Hub. One is 24 inch (DO, DPK) and the other pipeline
is 20 inch (PG91, PG 95). Initially each pipeline had a dedicated surge relief tank/pump. Later on SAPMT
requested to have interconnection line between them to get more flexibility in operation.
Root Cause/Benefit
Due to any maintenance of surge relief tank or surge relief pump the other surge tank/pump can be
utilized.
Recommendation
To provide interconnecting line at tank outlet, pump suction and pump discharge for more flexible
operation.
Originator
Mujtaba A. Matar, Lead Process Engineer, Mustang HDP

18 September 2016
#13- IPT Involvement and Understanding of Roles and Expectations
Background
During the creation of the project team all the way thru to the end of FEL2B, there has been a learning
process with all of the team members regarding their roles within the project team and how the team as
a whole functions. In some instances there are divisional walls where one member will not perform a task
as it is the responsibility of another group. I have experienced several times where team members were
unaware of their roles and what/ how they should do something. For example CMS mandates that a
document must be signed off by the department, yet the IPT member for that department will not sign the
document. Finally there is a struggle aligning everyone’s intentions and actions as a single unified team
to complete the project. Unfortunately there are some groups or individuals who believe that they are a
transactional contributor to the team and their function is to challenge to the letter of the regulation. The
guiding principle of the IPT is to tear down the walls that divide and unite the team to creatively and
collectively complete the project.
Root Cause/Benefit
The CMS is ultimately attempting to change the culture to a move collective, ownership culture. While
shifts like this take time, they also require significant training, communication, and alignment of objectives.
Recommendation
Possibly additional training or a few larger meetings with all of the members would have helped align all
of the IPT. Additionally monthly working level IPT meetings may be a good idea.
Originator
Bryan T. Gorrell, Facilities Planning Specialist, Facilities Planning Department / Distribution Group

19 September 2016
#14- Deviation from the Main Purpose of the Project, Leading to Lack of Focus and Short Term
Solutions
Background
During the initial phases of this project, there was a significant amount of time placed (+3months) against
creating short term solutions for supply gaps before the project was completed. FPD and the IPT are
mandated to work on the design and oversite of capital projects and thus the team was performing
activities outside of their team focus.
Root Cause/Benefit
 A weak initial team charter and understanding of the IPT’s core function lead to the lack of project
focus.
 Misalignment work borders with the IPT and proponent teams.
Recommendation
 Training to IPT members and the senior leadership on the remit and function of the IPT team to
understand their boundaries.
 Additionally, a stronger team focus communicated across all levels could be performed at the
beginning of each new project.
Originator
Bryan T. Gorrell, Facilities Planning Specialist, Facilities Planning Department / Distribution Group

20 September 2016
#15- Conducting SRA Late in Brown Field BI’s
Background
In NJBP during DBSP, SRA was conducted late and came up with scope changing recommendations
that caused delay in issuance of DBSP design package.
Scope changes was basically to upgrade existing fence along with IDAS system which accordingly
required changes in the design especially in the instrumentation and civil scopes as well as spacing in all
related drawings.
Root Cause/Benefit
SRA usually conducted at later stages in grass root projects because there is no exiting plant to assess.
Recommendation
In brown field projects, SRA shall be conducted at early stages in order to capture all scope changing
recommendation in the DBSP package.
Originator
Abdul Majeed M. Taresh, Engineer IV, PD&T Projects & Technical Support Department / D&T Project
Planning Unit

21 September 2016
#16- Consideration of Existing Facilities in the Project
Background
Any new project in Saudi Aramco is required to comply with the latest standards and procedures which
include brown field projects that deal with existing facilities. North Jiddah Bulk Plant Expansion Project is
part of BI-10-02399 which includes connection and modification scope to existing facilities. Therefore,
complying with the latest standards and procedures for existing facilities will have a cost and schedule
impacts. Otherwise, processing a waiver if it is not possible to comply with the new requirements which
leads to major schedule impact on the project.
Root Cause/Benefit
As there is no consideration of brown field in Saudi Aramco standards and procedures, the project has
to comply with Saudi Aramco standards and procedures which are made considering the new facilities.
Recommendation
As Saudi Aramco is growing up and more projects are coming for existing facilities, Saudi Aramco
standards and procedures shall include clauses and exceptions for the brown field projects that deal with
existing facilities.
Originator
Talal S. Isa, Engineer IV, Pipelines, Distribution & Terminal Projects Department / Yanbu-North Jeddah
Dist. & P/L Projects Division

22 September 2016
#17- No Clear Direction to Use Single Lube Oil for Each Pump
Background
There are 3 diesel shipper pumps and 3 gasoline shipper pumps shall be provided for Yanbu Distribution
Hub which is part of BI-10-02399. There was a value engineering idea to combine the lube oil system for
each 3 pumps and it was raised to CSD for evaluation because there was no clear direction to use lube
oil system for each pump in SAES-G-005. CSD replied as following: per the standard drawing AA-036858,
separate lubrication system shall be used for each pump (each shipper pump in your case). However, it
is fully clear in the standard drawing to provide a separate lubrication system for each pump.
Root Cause/Benefit
There is no clear direction in Saudi Aramco standards and procedures to use lube oil system for each
pump.
Recommendation
There shall be a clear guidance in SAES-G-005 whether to use single lube oil for each pump or combined
lube oil for several pumps. In case this will vary based on the pump size and service, then guidance for
selection shall be detailed with required information.
Originator

23 September 2016
#18- Disconnection of Proponent from Project Cost
Background
The project cost in Saudi Aramco is not connected to the proponent cost center. Therefore, the proponent
is not involved in the responsibility of the project cost and schedule as it should be.
Root Cause/Benefit
The proponent is not involved fully in the responsibility of the project cost and schedule as per the
company system and policy.
Recommendation
The project cost shall be connected to the proponent cost center which will lead to proponent involvement
in the responsibility of project cost and schedule and that will add a great force to complete the project
on time with minimum cost.
Originator

24 September 2016
#19- Not Having Allowance for Changes in Service Order
Background
During DBSP and Project Proposal, any minor change required service order revision which consumed
a lot of time to be completed and that impacted the project schedule. Sometimes, we will find a minor
change after the service order revision is completed and that also required another service order revision.
Root Cause/Benefit
There is no allowance for changes in the service order for Project Proposal to incorporate changes
without revision for the service order.
Recommendation
There shall be allowance for changes in service order which can be added as optional to incorporate the
minor changes without revision for the service order.
Originator

25 September 2016
#20- Communicating Urgency of Project to Other Departments
Background
BI-10-02399 is considered as a fast truck and urgent project to meet the required demand of Gasoline,
Diesel and Kerosene in Makkah Province. There are a lot of documents and deliverables to be reviewed
and approved by other Saudi Aramco departments. However, the urgency of this project is not identified
for other departments by official letter or identification. Therefore, the review or approval of any project
deliverables or reports will go through the normal cycle and it will take the normal time without treating
them as a priority.
Root Cause/Benefit
There is no official identification of the urgent projects for Saudi Aramco departments to expedite the
process for them and give these projects priority.
Recommendation
There shall be a formal way in Saudi Aramco to identify the urgent projects and this identification could
be a letter from the highest authority in the company will give this project the priority by other departments.
Originator

26 September 2016
#21- Difficulty in Dealing with External Stakeholders
Background
It was difficult dealing with multiple external stakeholders in timely manner which lead to delay of many
agreement and high level of uncertainty (RISK). Also, internal Saudi Aramco procedure is limiting in
communication and setting up the meeting. The process is lengthy and not in the favor of the project.
Example, IPT requested a meeting with YRC since May, 2016 and till end of September, 2016 SA GA
could not be able to confirm. This will lead to delay of PP approval by MC as many open items are not
resolved, agreement not signed, and related LUP’s are not secured.
Root Cause/Benefit
Because IPT is utilizing ordinary method and tools, while this is a critical accelerated schedule project.
Recommendation
I would recommend for any future project will be schedule driven and fast track schedule, task force to
be established with high support from upper management to ease working with external entities.
Originator
Abdulrahman M. Abahussain, Scheduling Engineer III, Pipelines, Distribution & Terminal Projects
Department / Yanbu, Jeddah Pipeline

27 September 2016
#22- LUP’s and Land Acquisition Issues
Background
LUP’s/Land Acquisition identification and process is too lengthy and the IPT role/responsibility is not clear
in securing them. LUP’s and Land acquisition being submitted at late stage where DBSP approved
without securing all LUP’s nor Land Acquisition.
Root Cause/Benefit
As this project schedule is in a fast tracking mode and many activities sequence is broken, risk is become
higher in losing efforts and time.
Recommendation
LUP’s and Land acquisition plan to be developed by SME at early stage (FEL2A). This management plan
is to identify the high level of LUP’s/Land acquisition and plan effort/activities toward securing them at
the earliest.
Originator
Abdulrahman M. Abahussain, Scheduling Engineer III, Pipelines, Distribution & Terminal Projects
Department / Yanbu, Jeddah Pipeline

28 September 2016
Workshop Participants
No. Name User ID/ E-mail Dept. /Organization
Facilities Planning Department /

1 Bryan T. Gorrell gorrelbt
Distribution Group
Pipelines, Distribution & Terminal

2 Abdulrahman M. Abahussain abahusam Projects Department / Yanbu,
Jeddah Pipeline

Projects Department / Yanbu-North
3 Talal S. Isa isats
Jeddah Dist. & P/L Projects
Division

4 Pradeepkumar N. Das DASPN Projects Department / North
Jeddah Bulk Plant Project Unit

5 Ahmad A. Rebh REBHAA0E Projects Department / Yanbu Tank
Farm Project Unit
PD&T Projects & Technical

6 Abdul Majeed M. Taresh TARESHAM Support Department / D&T Project
Planning Unit
PD&T Projects & Technical

7 Talal B. Basseet BASSEETB Support Department / Refined
Products Pipelines Unit
Mohamed.Ebeid@musta Project Manager

8 Mohamed Ebeid
nghdp.com MHDP
Abdul.Zakir@mustanghd Project Engineer

9 Abdul Rehman Zakir
p.com MHDP
Azeem.Sajjad@mustang Process Engineer

10 Azeem Sajjad
hdp.com MHDP
Mujtaba.AlMatar@musta Process Engineer

11 Mujtaba A. Matar
nghdp.com MHDP
MUHAMMAD.TUFAIL@ Piping Engineer

12 Muhammad Tufail
mustanghdp.com MHDP

29 September 2016

LD EL3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LD EL3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lessons Learned Collection

Prepared by: Majdi Ali Alsaleh

This report is organized as follows:

1.0 Project Scope Summary

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

1.0 Project Scope Summery

PROJECT PROPOSAL Jun-2016 Dec-2016 6

DETAIL DESIGN Oct-2016 Oct-2017 12

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

2.0 Proposed Lessons Learned

01 Difficulty in Dealing with External Stakeholders AAM 21

02 LUP’s and Land Acquisition Issues AAM 22

IPT Involvement and Understanding of Roles

Creation, Continuity and Focus of Core Team

Deviation from The Main Purpose of the

Implementation of CMS (Unclear Expectations and

07 Late Implementation of Studies (SRA) AMT 15

Consideration of Existing Facilities in the

09 Late Review of Plot Plan Limits TSI

No Clear Direction to Use Single or Multiple

11 Disconnection of Proponent from Project Cost TSI 18

Not having Allowance for Changes in Service

Discrepancy in Design Package related to Project

Communicating Urgency of Project to Other

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

15 Conflict in SOW for Developing of the DBSP PND 04

Interface Study with Other BI’s was Not Done

Interface Engineering to Accommodate

Late Consideration of Using Thrust Boring

Consideration of Prior Approval Expenditure

Difficulty Getting Approval and Finalization for

21 Poor Handling of Comments Log AZ 05

Design Improvements and Clarification were

23 Late Tie-In Location Information Approvals AS 08

Number of Storage Tanks Changes Compared

Difference in Elevation between Existing and

Disposal of Heel Recovery Product Not Elaborated

Interconnecting between 2 Pipelines was

28 Conducting Laser Scanning Late MTI 10

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

3.0 Key Lessons Learned

No. Title Originator

01 Consideration for Thrust Boring v/s Culvert PND

03 Interface Engineering & Relevant Engineering Standards PND

04 Key Consideration for DBSP SOW PND

Improper Handling of Comment Response Log for the 90% Project

06 Difficulty in Getting Approval of Subcontracts AZ

Design Improvements and Clarifications were missed because of

08 Late Tie-In Location Approval AS

09 Number of Storage Tanks Changes AS

10 Conducting Laser Scanning Late MTI

11 Elevation Difference between New and Existing Area MAM

12 Interconnection between Surge Relief Tank/Pump MAM

13 IPT Involvement and Understanding of Roles and Expectations BTG

Deviation from the Main Purpose of the Project, Leading to Lack of

15 Conducting SRA Late in Brown Field BI’s AMT

16 Consideration of Existing Facilities in the Project TSI

18 Disconnection of Proponent from Project Cost TSI

19 Not Having Allowance for Changes in Service Order TSI

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

20 Communication Urgency of Project to Other Departments TSI

21 Difficulty in Dealing with External Stakeholders AMA