Operating Weight Calculation Errors &

Revisions to ISO 19901-5 (Weight Management)

Libra Engineering Ltd

L l o y d s Re g i s t e r
9 July 2015
Agenda

— Introduction

— Errors & Omissions

— Consequences

— Update on ISOs 19901-5 Weight Engineering and 19901-9 SIM

— Conclusions

— Actions Required
Introduction

Gary McKale – MSc, Fellow ECITB

— 25 years as Weight Engineer – Shell, Talisman, Amec, RDS, Atkins
— 10 years as Project Manager – Talisman, Amec, WGPSN
— 3 years as Director of Libra Engineering Ltd
— MSc thesis: Identifying and Managing Engineering Challenges to
Topside Loads on Offshore Oil & Gas Platforms
— UK Team Lead for ISO 19901-5
Introduction

Mike Taylor, C Eng, M I StructE

— 20 years in major projects in London and Aberdeen
— 12 years with engineering consultants
— 3 years as Director of Libra Engineering Ltd
— 4 major greenfield projects, 6 major brownfield projects
— IRC Chairman for BP Miller, CNR Murchison & Fairfield Dunlin
— UK Expert for ISO 19901-5
 Errors & Omissions – Results from Libra study findings

Pre and post-study - after applying a common Operating Philosophy

Base Oper Wt (te) Triangulated
Base Oper wt %age Oper
Original Date CoG plan
Platform difference wt
Operator installed Pre-study Post-study movement
(te) increase
(m)
Platform A Amoco 1989 3,226 3,808 582 18% 0.83 Arb
Platform B Conoco 1988 983 1,223 240 24% 0.97 Aud
Platform C Conoco 1989 1,045 1,245 200 19% 0.41 Au
Platform D Shell 1974 7,037 7,661 624 9% 0.87 Auk
Platform E Occidental 1974 19,940 21,454 1,514 8% 0.27 Cl
Platform F Britoil 1984 20,585 23,277 2,692 13% 0.64 Cl
Platform G Shell 1982 28,836 30,254 1,418 5% n/a Ful
Platform H Amoco 1975 10,812 12,874 2,062 19% 1.56 Mo
Platform I Texaco 1979 16,640 20,530 3,890 23% n/a Tar
Platform J Occidental 1992 12,900 16,498 3,598 28% 1.50 Sal
TOTAL 122,004 138,824 16,820 14% 7.05

Similar results are also being found in newer platforms

Errors & Omissions – Ideal weight control model
Errors & Omissions – From Libra study findings
Errors & Omissions

Typical Errors & Omissions – Co-incident operating weights (Q1)

(Typ 15,000te operating wt, oil producing, single rig, manned platform)
¡ Scaffold (operational and stored) – 250 – 350te missing
¡ Laydown and storage loads – up to 400te underestimated
¡ Pipe rack and setback loads - up to 400te underestimated
¡ Fixed containers (tea shack, paint stores) - missing
¡ Helicopter - missing
¡ Men and luggage – missing
¡ Sack store – missing
¡ Schlumberger and tool house – missing
¡ Incorrect SG for powders and muds
¡ Sand in separators - missing
¡ Bridge reaction – missing
¡ Snow, ice accretion, live loads, hook load – wrongly included
Errors & Omissions
Full

Full Schlumberger Full

Errors & Omissions Ops
scaffold is
typically
250t-350t
Errors & Omissions

Typical Errors & Omissions - Dry weight (G1)

¡ PFP and site run materials – up to 200te missing

¡ Flow lines - added post installation – up to 150te missing

¡ Weighing corrections – up to 400te missing
¡ Hook-up - added post-installation - missing
¡ Handrail – underestimated
¡ Bulk loading hoses – missing
¡ Temp installation aids – permanent as not removed
¡ Accommodation furniture, galley equip, stores – missing
¡ AVMs - missing
¡ Caisson loads - missing
¡ Bridge bearings - missing
Errors & Omissions

Typical Errors & Omissions - Drilling loads (G1 & Q1)

¡ Cuttings reinjection kit – up to 80te missing

¡ Schlumberger unit & tool house – up to 35te missing

¡ Top drive, torque tube and hoses – up to 30te missing
¡ Gripper jacks – up to 20te missing
¡ HP and LP risers – up to 15te missing
¡ Pipe bridge – up to 30te missing
¡ 2nd BOP – up to 40te missing
¡ In-line drilling equipment and Drill floor tools – up to 30te missing
¡ Drag chains – up to 20te missing
¡ Crown block & water table – up to 10te missing
¡ Drilling line drum – up to 25te missing
¡ Samson posts and pipe rack timbers – up to 15te missing
 Errors & Omissions

Reasons for Errors & Omissions

— No common topside Operating Philosophy in place
— Poor understanding of how platforms operate
— Poor understanding of laydown & storage loads
— Poor understanding of drilling loads
— Poor reporting of co-incident operating weights
— Poor in-house weight procedures
— Inexperienced Weight engineers - with no yard or offshore experience
— No effective industry Standard or professional bodies in place, or
minimum qualification requirements
— Selective weight reporting by Client (removal of operating weights from
the weight report). If it can be there, it is there.
Consequences

Dr Ramsay Fraser: It’s critical that there is a high degree of confidence

in the topside dry and operating weights and CoGs:-
— No significant errors or omissions
— No consistent under-estimates in individual items
— No consistent over-estimates in individual items
— No offshore operating practices that breach the agreed operating
philosophy

Because the partial action factors do not account for significant errors
and omissions.

Likewise, weight database factored weights do not account for

significant errors and omissions.
Consequences

Increase in
leg load = 37%

Reduction in =1.30 / 1.15

FoS = 28%
Consequences: 4-leg jacket

Includes ISO
19902 partial
action factors
Consequences

Susan Mackenzie, Director of Hazardous Installations Directorate, HSE *

"now is not the time for operators to think they can take a more relaxed
attitude to asset integrity"

"Operators should continue to deal with the issue. Deferment or other

delaying tactics are not an acceptable way to manage risk in the long or
short term"

* Energy Magazine, 2 Mar 2015

 Update on ISOs 19901-5 Weight Management

Rev 2 will be issued Q4 this year. It clarifies the roles, responsibilities &
interfaces between Weight database custodians and SIM teams.
It will also include an Annex that provides:-
— Prescriptive list of co-incident topside operating weights to be
included / analysed for
— Guidance on avoiding arbitrary restrictions to justify weight & space
for new projects
— Common topside operating philosophy
— Drilling load combination matrix
— Laydown and storage drawings and loads
— Auto-download of weight database to SIM model (SESAM & SACS)
Rev 3 will address weight engineering for full platform lifecycle from
Concept to Decommissioning. Drafting commences Q4 this year.
 Update on ISO 19901-9 SIM

— SIM currently addressed by ISO 19902 Clause 24.

— ISO 19901-9 SIM currently being drafted. Scheduled issue date 2017.
— ISO 19902 also being re-drafted – will address new build structures only.
— Possible review of partial action factors to account for audited and non-
audited weight data?
— There will be a strong prescriptive link between ISO 19901-5, ISO
19901-9, ISO 19900 & ISO 19902 via G1, G2, Q1 & Q2 loads and their
factors
 Conclusions

— Case studies have identified errors in operating weight of up to 28%, and

CoG errors up to 1.5m
— Partial action factors & factored weights do not account for errors and
omissions
— Many SIM models are not in synch with reported weights & CoGs

— Errors & omissions can reduce jacket leg (& primary structure) safety
factors by 28%
— ISO 19901-5 will become more comprehensive and more prescriptive

— ISO’s 19900, 19902, 19901-5 and 19901-9 will be much more integrated
 Actions Required

Actions required
— Thoroughly review and correct topsides weight & CoG data

— Ensure SIM models are synchronised with topsides weight databases

— Ensure Regulatory bodies, Operators, SIM Consultants & Weight database

custodians are made aware of the issues and upcoming ISO revisions

For information
— Libra has already presented to HSE, LR, DnV, I Struct E, I Mech E, OES.

— We have arranged a further meeting with HSE to raise concerns further.

Any questions?