OTC 7436

Ninian Third Party Project: A Unique North Sea Challenge

M.L. Christensen and R.P, Banks, Chevron UK Ltd.

Copyright 1994, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper wae presented at the 26th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2-5 May 1994.

Thie paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Prcgram Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s), Contents of the pap-w,
ae presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference end am subjectto correction by the author(s). The material, ee presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officere. Permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than WI words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract
should contain Cnnsp[cuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper Ie presented.

ABSTRACT The impacts of managing a major project (over

3 million offshore construction manhours) with an
The Ninian Field, operated by Chevron on behalf of existing operations infrastructure, interfaces with
the Ninian Field Group, is a mature North Sea Third Party Entrants, safety, productivity and
producer. Rationalisation of the topside facilities efficiency results are among the issues which will
and declining production rates had left spare be addressed.
equipment and capacity in the Platform production
systems. This spare capacity coupled with
Ninian’s strategic location in the Northern North INTRODUCTION
Sea made it an ideal candidate for tie-in of subsea
fields. The Ninian Field is located some 110 miles North
East of the Shetland Islands within Blocks 3/3 and
Staffa, Lyell and Strathspey, operated by Lasmo, 3/8 in the area commonly known as the East
Conoco and Texaco respectively, are three such Shetland Basin. The Ninian Field maintains a
third party subsea developments using Ninian strategic position in the Basin.
topside facilities.
The field was discovered in February 1974 and
The Ninian Third Party Project is unique since it is began production in December 1978. With an
the first offshore development where three third estimated 3 billion barrels of oil in place, the field
party operated subsea fields are processed by is expected to recover 1.2 billion barrels of oil
another operator and developed within the same producing well into the next century.
timescale. In addition, major topside modifications
were performed while Ninian continued to operate. The field was developed using three platforms, the
giant concrete Ninian Central and the two
Through sharing the lessons learned by Chevron as conventional steel structures of Southern and
operator and manager of the Third Party Project, Northern.
others will benefit in improved efficiency, planning
and organisation for similar future endeavors. Oil export from Ninian is via a 36” pipeline to the
largest terminal in Europe - Sullom Voe located
110 miles away on the main island of the
Shetlands. Oil from Ninian Southern is pumped up
Figures at end of paper and over Central through a manifold to the 36”
export line. Ninian Central also acts as a hub

149
2 NINIAN THIRD PARTY PROJECT : A UNIQUE NORTH SEA CHALLENGE OTC 7436

gathering production from Unocal’s Heather Field, Strathspey

BP’s Magnus Field and Total’s Alwyn North Field.
Since their initial construction, all three platforms
have received regular updates to their production
systems. On Ninian Southern and Central
Platforms the original two train, three vessel
production separator systems have been optimised
to single train, two vessel operation, leaving
redundant production vessels in place. Also on
Ninian Southern Platform in response to Ninian’s
declining production and reduction in associated
fuel gas availability the LPG recovery plant was de-
commissioned.
For these, and other reasons, Ninian Southern and
Central Platforms were best suited for host
satellite developments.
Strathspey, operated by Texaco, is the largest of
the satellites, located some 16km North East of
Ninian in Block 3/4a. Strathspey will produce from
two distinct reservoirs, the Brent oil reservoir with
associated gas and the Statfjord gas/condensate
reservoir. Recoverable reserves are estimated at
89 million barrels of oil, 10 million barrels of
condensate and 334 billion cubic feet of gas.
Production peak is expected at around
32,000 BOPD and 29 MMSCFD of gas from the
Brent reservoir; and 120 MMSCFD of gas and
approximately 16,000 BPD of condensate from the
Statfjord reservoir.
co MMERCIAL

The prime objective of the Third Party Project is to

THE THIRD PARTY SATELLITE FIELDS maximise the return on the total capital
investments and to prolong the life cycle of the
Staffa Ninian Field facilities on Ninian Southern Platform
and Ninian Central Platform.
The reservoir locations of the three third party
satellite fields in relation to the Ninian Field are The corresponding attraction for the Entrants is to
shown in Figure 1. provide the most attractive means of production
from the fields by adaptation of satellite subsea
Staffa operated by LASMO is the smallest of the production wells with topsides control and
satellites, located some 10km to the South East of separation processing from an existing platform.
Ninian in Block 3/8b. It is estimated that Staffa
contains recoverable reserves totalling 8 million When the operators of three North Sea oil and gas
barrels of oil and 20 billion cubic feet of gas. Oil fields discussed with Chevron the possibilities of
production peak has been around 12,000 BOPD using Ninian platforms for processing, Chevron
with a large amount of associated gas. With no entered uncharted waters. Chevron had not
water injection support the Staffa reservoir will anticipated and no-one had attempted an operation
produce by natural pressure decline. on this scale, tying-in not just one, but three
satellite fields, each owned by separate groups,
Lyell while maintaining production and day-to-day
platform activities such as drilling and
Lyell operated by Conoco is located some 15km to maintenance.
the North West of Ninian in Block 3/2. Lyell has a
very complex reservoir structure and the current Although each commercial agreement differed in
development is expected to recover approximately detail, the basic package offered to each entrant
30 million barrels of oil from an estimated contained three elements:
400 million barrels of oil in place. Oil production
peak was expected at around 18,000 BOPD, ● The level of service required by the
although production has reached 32,000 BOPD. customer consisting of reliability of
Water injection support is provided for at production, quality and volume of
approximately 45,000 BPD. production, and accuracy of metering.
OTC 7436 M L CHRISTENSEN AND R P BANKS 3

● The price they would have to pay for use companies utilising the host topside facilities
of the facilities (tariff). operated by a fourth, Chevron.

● The date they could start producing oil and
gas.
From its inception on 15 June 1990 when the first
“Heads of Agreement” was signed to process oil
from Conoco’s Lyell field, the project expanded to
accommodate oil from the Lasmo operated Staffa
field, and oil and gas from Texaco’s Strathspey
field, the largest and most complex subsea
development in the North Sea. The Staffa and
Strathspey “Heads of Agreement” were signed on
25 January and 15 February 1991, respectively.
The ground-breaking project contributes to
Ninian’s long-term future as the agreements bring
tariff income contributing significantly to the
remaining value of the field.
Ownership of the oil/gas is retained at all stages
by the satellite field operator (and its field
partners) and a tariff (or fee) is charged by the
Ninian Asset for the volume of fluids and gases
processed on the platform and subsequently
transported to the shore bases.
With the exception of changes to the scope
defined in the agreed specifications which are
specifically requested by the “Entrant”, all capital
costs associated with the modification works are
met by the Ninian Field Partners.
Each company is accustomed to applying its own
standards and operating philosophies. Now each
company had to share the responsibility of the
overall project development, progressing their
respective project, either subsea for the satellite
field operators or topside for Chevron, and
successfully interfacing to ensure a satisfactory
result. The key element for success has been
teamwork from all project groups.
Staffa
Production from Staffa’s two subsea wells is
linked via subsea trees and common manifold to a
single 8“ pipeline to Ninian Southern. Well control
and chemical injection is via an electro-hydraulic
umbilical from Ninian Southern. Processing of
Staffa’s production is performed on Ninian
Southern Platform from where oil is exported and
associated gas used on Ninian as fuel.
The Staffa project has responsibility for the subsea
well completion, their control and utility system
and the subsea pipeline and umbilical. The project
interface for the pipeline is at the outboard flange
of the Subsea Emergency Shutdown Valve
(SSESV) skid. The interface for the umbilical is at
the umbilical termination box located topside on
Ninian Southern Platform near the top of the j-tube
used for the Staffa umbilical pull-in.

The period from mid 1987 until October 1990 was The Staffa subsea control system was completely
related primarily to feasibility studies and tested by Lasmo as an integrated system then
development of the Third Party Entrants “Heads of supplied free-issue to Chevron in its component
Agreement”. Due to the “stop-go” nature of parts for installation on Ninian Southern Platform
commercial negotiations, these studies were topside. This was obviously an area where great
intermittent and disjointed. Preliminary studies effort at integration of project teams was made to
were performed on Strathspey and Staffa to verify ensure safe operation of Staffa and smooth
the original concepts. No formal study was interface with Ninian Southern Platform Main
undertaken for LyeIl. Control Room Operations.

Lyell
SCOPE OF WORK/lNTERFACE
The Lyell development includes 13 subsea wells,
Satellite developments in the North Sea have 8 production and 5 water injection, deployed in a
become more common in recent years, but the circular array surrounding a central manifold
Ninian Third Party Project is different. In this case structure.
there are three satellite fields operated by different

151
4 NINIAN THIRD PARTY PROJECT : A UNIQUE NORTH SEA CHALLENGE
Production fluids are transported via either a 12“
production or an 8” test pipeline to Ninian
Southern Platform. Water injection support to the
Lyell reservoir is provided via a 10“ pipeline;
methanol injection for hydrate suppression via a 2“
pipeline; and well control and chemical injection
via an electro-hydraulic umbilical. Provision of
water injection and processing of Lyell’s
production is performed on Ninian Southern
Platform from where oil is exported and associated
gas is used on Ninian as fuel.
The Lyell project has responsibility for the subsea
well completions, their control and utility system,
and the subsea pipelines and umbilicals. The
project interfaces for the production and test
pipelines are at the upstream flange of the SSESV
outboard of the platform jacket; and for the
umbilical termination box located topside on Ninian
Southern Platform near the top of the j-tube used
for the Lyell umbilical pull-in. The water injection
interface is at the flange at the riser base.
As with Staff a, the Lyell subsea control was
completely tested by Conoco and then supplied
free-issue to Chevron.
Strathspey
The Strathspey development includes 17 subsea
wells, 14 production and 3 water injection, tied
back to a subsea central production manifold.
Production fluids from the Brent reservoir are
transported via either a 10“ production or an
8“ test pipeline; and production fluids from the
Statfjord reservoir are transported via either an 8“
production or 8“ test pipeline to Ninian Central
Platform. Utility supplies are provided via a
4“ pipeline, methanol injection for hydrate
suppression via a 3“ pipeline, and well control and
chemical injection via two hydraulic/chemical
umbilicals and one electric umbilical. Water
injection support for the Brent oil reservoir only is
provided via a 12“ pipeline from Ninian Southern
Platform to the Strathspey subsea manifold at a
peak of approximately 85,000 BPD.
Processing of all Strathspey, both Brent and
Statfjord reservoir produced fluids, is performed on
Ninian Central Platform from where oil spiked with
152
OTC 7436
LPG is exported to Sullom Voe and gas is exported
to the North Sea FLAGS system at a design rate of
120 MMSCFD. To accommodate this a new 16“
pipeline has been laid from Ninian Central Platform
26km to the Brent “A” Platform where it joins the
FLAGS system. Strathspey gas will also be used
for fuel on the Ninian platforms.
The Strathspey project similarly has responsibility
for the subsea well completions, their control and
utility system and the subsea pipelines and
umbilicals associated with the Strathspey
manifold. Texaco, however, also has responsibility
for the gas export pipeline and provision of the
SSESV skids for its hydrocarbon pipelines,
including methanol, at Ninian Central Platform.
This project interfaces at Ninian Central Platform
are therefore at the flange at the base of the riser
for all pipelines; and the umbilical termination
boxes located topside on Ninian Central Platform
for the umbilicals near the top of the j-tube used
for the Strathspey umbilical pull-ins. The project
interface at Ninian Southern Platform for the water
injection pipeline is at the flange at the base of the
riser immediately outboard of the platform.
The interface. for control of the SSESV skids
supplied by Texaco is at a Subsea Control Module
(SCM) on an existing skid which currently controls
the existing hydrocarbon pipelines. A jumper
control umbilical supplied by Texaco provides the
link from the SCM to the Strathspey SSESV skid.
As with Staffa and Lyell the Subsea Control
System for Strathspey was completely tested by
Texaco then supplied free-issue to Chevron.
LESSONS LEARNED
The deeper Chevron ventured into the Third Party
Project the greater were the complexities, and
costs, that emerged. The original capital cost
estimates of E 120 million have risen to the current
target of E278 million and the original schedule
slipped by several months.
What began as a maintenance type project utilising
in-house engineering skills and selected
contractors under the existing Ninian operations
management structure grew into a development
OTC 7436 M L CHRiSTENSEN AND R P BANKS 5

comparable to many new North Sea stand-alone major and unique North Sea project and not a
projects, ending with an expanded management series of minor platform modifications. The
team. recognition was missing because the project scope
had not been adequately defined.
Three key lessons have become evident:
Scope Definition
1) Project management principles including a
firm definition of scope, cost and schedule A key lesson learned is that a definitive scope of
should be developed from inception. work must be established at the outset reflecting
the selected concept, the condition of existing
2) The impacts of agreements with third party topsides facilities, statutory requirements and
entrants must be clearly understood and, if limitations of the potential services available. This
possible, the full agreement signed before will permit preparation of realistic estimates,
commencement of detailed design. budgets, plans and schedules.
Facilities should be kept as simple as
possible. The primary factors impacting the control of scope
were:
3) Third party entrants projects can be
successful and construction/ ● Concept/feasibility studies were not
commissioning work on a live platform can developed sufficiently before
be achieved safely with excellent commencement of detail design and
productivities/ef ficiencies. engineering.

● “Snowball” effect of three discrete projects

Proiect Management Princides on two platforms contracted concurrently.

Better adherence to the following Project ● Third party entrant requirements were not
management principles would have set the project firm and changed as the project
on the right track from the beginning: progressed.

● Define project scope and what is required - ● Actual condition/capacity of existing

acknowledge a project exists at inception. platform vessels/equipment versus
assumptions made.
● Devote appropriate funding and resources
to produce a well defined development ● The extent of destruct works and the
plan. impact upon Operations (Ninian
Production).
● Establish a management team and staffing
commensurate with the defined project ● Impact of design changes (from ail
scope. sources).

● Develop a Project Execution Plan, identify ● Complexity of electricalfinstrumentation

scope, budgets, schedules and milestones.
● Establish project procedures from inception
for areas such as planning, cost control,
contracting, purchasing and expand as
needed.
Most of the lessons learned stem from a lack of
recognition that the Third Party Project was a
scope when interfacing with a live platform
of older technology.
● Platform wide versus Third Party Project
safety systems. New Third Party Project
safety systems had to be evaluated before
the final Ninian Safety Case was available.
(The Safety Case became a requirement
following the Piper Alpha incident).

153
6 NINIAN THIRD PARTY PROJECT : A UNIQUE NORTH SEA CHALLENGE OTC 7436

● As-built status of the platform(s) at the offshore adequately planned and resourced to
outset. satisfy the project objectives.

The combination of the above factors had a In November 1992, the project management
pronounced effect on the ability of the project structure was revised by the appointment of a
team(s) to develop a work content definition with Project Management Team consisting of (Figure 3):
manhour estimates, cost estimates and realistic
timescales. ● Project Director
● Project Manager (Ninian Southern Platform)
As a result, the project engineering and ● Project Manager (Ninian Central Platform)
construction scope for both Ninian Southern and ● Manager Technical Design
Central Platforms was not easily defined and ● Project Services Manager
scope continued to emerge after the project was ● Senior Project Safety Engineer
in full swing and construction contract ● Operations Co-ordinator (part time)
commitments made. The engineering and
construction growth trend is shown in Figure 4. At this point all project functions, including
offshore construction, were within the project for
Organisation the first time.

On 30 October 1990, the design contract was A number of items related to personnel have come
signed and Phase I engineering commenced. to light in the analysis of the initial project
performance. These include:
Initially, the project was treated as an extension of
the existing operations management, Figure 2. A ● No dedicated personnel during early
small engineering project team was mobilised to development stages.
supervise conceptual design for LyeIl. This team
was headed by a Project Co-ordinator assisted by ● Seconded Chevron staff were primarily
company engineers. The project scope was experienced with operations and
substantially increased in January 1991 with the maintenance and not prepared for a major
inclusion of Staffa and again in February 1991 capital expenditure project environment.
with Strathspey. As the new agreements became
reality the staffing levels increased but the overall ● Initial management levels were inadequate
structure was not adjusted significantly. and too burdened with detailed activity to
permit or even consider the high level/long
The organisation evolved as more and more work term aspects of the work.
scope emerged and the project became difficult to
control. An experienced Chevron Engineering ● Unexpected escalation of manning levels,
Manager with project background was appointed initially in engineering, to cater for the
late in 1991. relatively sudden success in winning the
Staffa and Strathspey developments.
In the early stages essential project control
functions were lacking within the Third Party ● Project experienced personnel over-
Project organisation to cover cost control, burdened with specific task work and
contracts administration and project planning. limited time to spread the project
experience knowledge due to lack of
A Project Support Services Team was appointed existing approved project procedures.
with specific responsibilities to ensure that detailed
estimates were established, budgets prepared, ● Contractor personnel costs predominantly
approved and controlled; project specific contracts reimbursable which could encourage poor
drawn up, negotiated and administered; and all work efficiency.
permanent and temporary works onshore and

154
OTC 7436 M L CHRISTENSEN AND R P BANKS 7

Execution Plan exercise undertaken involved a complete re-

appraisal of all outstanding works with associated
The nature of the platform modification works and plans of execution and corresponding cost
the criteria establishing that the platforms maintain estimates.
full production throughout the period of the project
(except for the planned shutdowns for tie-ins) At this point several execution philosophies were
gave rise to the following Execution Plan: re-examined. The most noteworthy changes in
philosophy were:
● The design contractor carry out offshore
surveys and produce all engineering Onshore fabrication and offshore
deliverables to meet the requirements of construction became the direct
the outline specification for each responsibility of the project and not the
development. Operations Construction Group.

● Chevron retain engineering responsibility Construction management and offshore

for “platform wide” modification works to Iabour for Ninian Central Platform was sub-
satisfy statutory requirements or Cullen contracted.
Safety Case recommendations.
Flotel accommodation was required
● The design contractor responsible for alongside Ninian Central Platform to
procurement and expediting of equipment support an increased offshore manning.
and bulk materials. (Only initially, later
became a Chevron responsibility). Ninian Southern Platform remaining work
was reviewed for constructability and
● Chevron Operations Construction Group milestones were split to maintain
responsible for satisfactory completion of production dates for Entrants.
all onshore fabrication and offshore
construction work. (Later became part of The material control/handling process was
the project responsibility). improved.

● Chevron and a commissioning contractor A systematic commissioning and start-up

responsible for commissioning and start-up philosophy was identified.
prior to hand over to Chevron Operations
Group. Control of offshore permits and approvals
was improved.
● The design contractor responsible for
project management including planning, ● Quality assurance and control enhanced.
cost control and contracts administration
on project wide basis. (Only initially, later A revised budget was prepared at this time based
became a Chevron responsibility). on historical costs and estimated costs in line with
the revised Execution Plan.
To progress the schedule and maintain Ninian
production during the course of the Third Party New guidelines for weekly/monthly progress
Project works a “fast track” philosophy was reporting were established and implemented.
adopted whereby predetermined packages of work
could be sequentially engineered, procured, Procedures
installed and commissioned prior to completion of
the overall design and detailed engineering. A key lesson to be learned is that managers must
establish a structure and organisation on day one
Following the restructuring of the project to account for all future requirements as well as
management team in November 1992, the initial present. In addition, managers must be able to

155
8 NINIAN THIRD PARTY PROJECT : A UNIQUE NORTH SEA CHALLENGE OTC 7436

bring together quickly and accurately information ● Integrate construction/commissioning

required to permit pre-emptive and informed plans, with onshore and offshore
decision-making. construction/commissioning personnel
actively involved in schedule development.
This organisation should provide:
● Integrate third party entrant personnel into
● Knowledge and good understanding of the the project team.
work and the objectives (with particular
reference to the constraints of live platform ● Integrate offshore start-up and
working). commissioning group comprising
commissioning contractor’s engineers,
● Clear guidelines on authority, responsibility Chevron commissioning management and
and control, with targets/goals set and Chevron Operations Group personnel.
agreed.
● Strict control of indirect labour expenditure
● Effective lines of communication and offshore can give excellent overall
reporting. efficiency.

● Informed decision-making based upon ● Prepare and regularly up-date the project
accurate and timely data. execution plan.

● Delegation of duties relative to authority ● Provide regular EFC (Estimated Final Cost)
and expertise. forecasting and strict AFE funding
regulation.
● Application of control mechanisms
including common project procedures for ● Obtain major improvements in Operatorr
each platform team on the project. Partner, Entrants relationships.

● Recognition of the importance of Although it is understood that commercial factors

certification documentation” and of the may well take precedence over other
concerted effort required to satisfy considerations, it is essential, in future, to dedicate
statutory bodies. sufficient time and resources during the pre-
sanction period to ensure that accurate information
Recommendations on project requirements is available for the
decision-making process.
Several important successes resulted when project
management principles were applied. The
following successes and recommendations are FINALISE AGREEMENTS/KEEP FACILITY SIMPLE
offered for consideration:
The impacts of the agreements with Third Party
● Have operations input at senior Entrants must be clearly understood and
management level. consideration given to having full agreements
signed before commencement of detailed design.
● Consolidate all onshore project personnel in Facilities should be kept as simple as possible.
one office location.
A key lesson learned is that Operator must know
● Use existing proven project progress and the remaining potential of the facility, any limits or
cost reporting methods. constraints of the facility, the condition of existing
equipment likely to be affected by modifications
● Integrate Follow-On Engineering personnel and indicative budget, and estimates and
(Chevron and contractor engineers). timescales supported by conceptual studies

156
OTC 7436 M L CHRISTENSEN AND R P BANKS 9

(including risk factors and contingency) necessary In particular, for the case of multi-project
to achieve the potential developments. Preferably execution consider the following:
these factors should be ascertained before
initiation of discussions with potential third party ● Alternative scenario analysis indicating
customers and certainly prior to conclusion of cumulative effects of simultaneous
agreements with them. execution of two or more projects.

Items which must be carefully considered during ● New technology, industry standards and
the pre-sanction period include: legislative requirements may not be
compatible with the original platform
● Commercial impacts arising from present or design.
future statutory regulations and
requirements. ● Keep facility simple. Complicated new
facilities, particularly controls and ESDS will
● Technical difficulties emanating from be out of step with technology 15 years
proposed commercial agreements and the ago when the platforms were first built.
operational capability of the existing
facility. ● Challenge complexity of design and
materials.
● Comprehensive technical studies taking
cognizance of three elements - (1) only In the post Piper Alpha period there was a
9sse ntial processing facilities supplied by tendency to be extra cautious. Challenge
the operator to provide the service, (2) all output from design and undertake an
statutory requirements and (3) preferred assessment of risk analysis and the cost
third party entrant requirements. benefit.

● Determination of realistic timescales given ● Justify exotic materials versus renewal

the task(s) at hand. during operating life.

● Preparation of conceptual estimates and ● Metering of entrant production when

budgets for predicted scopes of work, sharing facilities was over specified and
highlighting all assumptions made. unnecessary. The culture has changed
since 1990 and commingling of production
● Development of recovery economics/pay using simulation methods for allocation is
back period(s). becoming more acceptable.

● Application of contingency factors ● Be specific in the Basis of Design and

reflecting the levels of confidence in include as part of a signed agreement. Do
existing information. not leave loop-holes which will cause extra
capital and operating expense. (We spent
● Risk analysis runs on cost exposure, many hours discussing addition of heat
schedule impacts and economics. tracing for wax inhibition which was not
included in the agreement).
● Scenario analysis in consideration of
alternative project strategies. ● Be specific about acceptable quality of
fluids. (Watch out for potential wax
● Group responsible for commercial interface formation).
with entrants should report to or properly
interface with the Project Director. ● Be absolutely sure Entrants chemical
injection requirements are known and
specified in the agreement. (An example is

157
 10 NINIAN THIRD PARTY PROJECT : A UNIQUE NORTH SEA CHALLENGE OTC 7436

good definition of methanol quantity to ● Application of damage clauses for non

prevent hydrates). performance.

● Involve the Construction Group throughout ● Requirements for design approval or

design as part of review process. (We did “concurrence”.
but it was not enough).
● Reporting requirements and day to day
● Involve Operations Group throughout influence on the project management.
design.
● Influence on design and subsequent
● Be cautious of complex electronic ESD and construction impact caused by additional
instrumentation systems. The complexity Entrant requirements (Design Change
must be properly understood and addressed Notices).
by construction/commissioning.
It is imperative that the scope of the proposed
Another key lesson learned is that the Operator service, the division of responsibility, all reciprocal
must establish the limits of additional processing/ obligations and required approvals or consent
transportation capability from the facility, the procedures are abundantly clear and consistent at
statutory constraints and the realistic timescalesto the outset of each development and that all such
execute the modification works and to provide a practical matters, as well as the commercial
service via the existing platform operatorship to matters, are accounted for in the “Heads of
interested adjacent Field Operators. In other Agreement” at commencement of the works.
words, the Operator should sell a pre-defined
service, with optional extras, rather than sell a
service yet to be defined. SAFETY AND PRODUCTIVITY/EFFICIENCY

Entrant’s relationship with the Third Party Project Safety

Team differed substantially during the pre contract
and post contract stages in: Throughout all the “lessons learned” the Third
Party Project succeeded. The safety and
● Negotiations leading up to conclusion of efficiency offshore in completing over 3 million
“Heads of Agreement”. In some instances manhours of work are proof that work of this
extremely protracted due to alternative project scope can be performed on live platforms
schemes under consideration. with more than acceptable results.

● Entrants perception of client/contractor Safety continues to be a number one priority. The

relationship presented difficulties when Third Party Project was the most complex project
some entrants made demands on to be undertaken on live platforms in the North
requirements. Sea. All construction and commissioning activities
were performed while full production operations
● Definition of interface responsibility were ongoing.
between subsea and topsides facilities was
an issue which varied. Project management set an ambitious frequency
rate target of less than 1.!5 lost time injuries per
● Entrants requirements for dedicated year, a figure which is generally the aim of North
facilities. Sea production platforms in normal operation.
The Project frequency rate was well below target,
● Accuracy of Entrant’s specifications for with 1.12 for the year ending 1992 and 0.95 for
processing hydrocarbons. the year ending 1993. (See Figure 5). On Ninian
Southern Platform construction and commissioning
manpower levels peaked at approximately 220

158

——— .
—— —
OTC 7436 M L CHRISTENSEN AND R P BANKS 11

with bedding constraints supplemented by These results were made possible by the
shuttling. On Ninian Central Platform the manning following:
levels exceeded 600, with bedding supplemented
by a 500 man flotel. These manning levels were ● Provision of dedicated operations staff to
in addition to the 150 or so Operations related the project for day to day interfacing and
personnel on each platform. approval of work permits.

Safety standards and procedures were established ● Review of the plan, schedule and
and continuously monitored in a visible manner. workscope offshore two weeks in advance
The existing safety infrastructure, 15 years of and daily with the operations staff to avoid
safety experience on the platforms, and project any conflicts.
supplied safety support personnel contributed to
the success. ● A high level management planning meeting
was held monthly onshore between Project
Platform Operations Managers and the Project Managers, Operations Management,
Management Team conducted frequent safety Maintenance and Drilling Groups to agree
visits collecting safety concerns and taking priorities.
immediate action when necessary.
● Goals, targets and results were highly
Productivity/Efficiency visible for offshore management and
personnel to know what was expected.
Productivity and efficiency on both platforms was
excellent considering the number of personnel SuMMARY
working on live platforms, ongoing production
demands and priorities, permits required for access The Ninian Third Party Project proved that third
each 12 hour shift, the logistics of supplying party entrants can use existing operator’s facilities
material and personnel 100 miles into the North successfully, extending the life of the existing
Sea and the constantly emerging scope. facilities and providing viable projects for the
entrants.
Productivity is defined as achieved direct
manhours divided by booked direct manhours. A This paper was prepared to document lessons
productivity of one or better indicates good learned and the successful adjustments made from
performance at the workface by the workers. those lessons. Greater co-operation among
operators in sharing of facilities to reduce costs is
Efficiency is the overall manhours achieved the future in the North Sea and the Third Party
factored up by 2.1 to account for lost time and Project experiences shared in this paper will help
indirect support, divided by all hours booked. An pave the way forward.
efficiency of one or better indicates good
management of the support facilities such as ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
material handling, transport, supply of permits,
meals and weather downtime. The Project would like to thank the Ninian Field
Partners for their support throughout the project
On Ninian Southern Platform the cumulative and in the development of this paper:
productivity and efficiencies at project completion
were 0.99 and 1.19 respectively. While on Ninian Chevron UK Limited
Central Platform with a much larger workforce and Enterprise Oil plc
flotel support, the productivity and efficiency at Lasmo North Sea plc
project completion were 0.97 and 1.0 Murphy Petroleum Limited
respectively. (See Figure 6). Neste North Sea Limited
Oryx UK Energy Company
Ranger Oil (UK) Limited

159
 1 I I

LYELL STRATHSPEY
30 MMBO 89MMBOBRENT —

‘------m
15 BCF 10 MMBO STATFJORD
334 BCF STATFJORD

. ....... ........... . J I ....

!~
,/ NINIAN C ENTRAL I I I

E5EEIRr E
m ?wlKI uAltMi?a w AM ma TEctltwa, mcuecrsmvh-k S
C.Eslm “.NAG&,

-. Ctm”m.1”.
NINIAN SIXJTHERN ~
WA cm
cc-..”
f *..”!.
C—
B.?- R.*
5.-.

WATtiR WISCTIOAI - ‘-
nYDBocAnwa — 20 BCF
~ .. ... .. .. . . ................................. . .. ......
I I

Figure 1 - Ninian Field Satellites Figure 3 - “Project Team” organisation follow

November 1992

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION MANH

I OVIESAL UAIIMER
I 3XI0
I
.. .—. — .. ——— — . . —

I
... ... . ... .. ... ... .. ... ... . ------------

[
LIENE~AL
EW31NEER1W
MANUXK

1
I I
-L.---l la I I

I
I .._6..- ;
L ------ ------- ---- J

Figure 2 - “Project Team” at project inception Figure 4 - Engineering and Construction manh
Remained as Project Team until reorganisation in
November 1992 with some minor exceptions
J

“%;
. .

..
I

.*

“d.‘
‘+’---( u
c
m

*
, ;....\;- Cs

m -.
J 0 0

m
m
u)

,
m
---- -0