Techbits: Integrity Management Focus of Middle East Workshop
- _ JPT staff (_)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Journal of Petroleum Technology
- Publication Date
- May 2010
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 30 - 31
- 2010. Copyright is held partially by SPE. Contact SPE for permission to use material from this document.
- 0 in the last 30 days
- 32 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||Free|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 17.00|
Abu Dhabi played host earlier this year to an SPE Applied Technology Workshop (ATW) titled “Sustaining Business Excellence and Process Safety Through Effective Facilities Integrity Management.” The goal: to provide the more than 80 professionals in attendance with various perspectives on managing the challenges of ensuring safe and efficient operations in the face of aging facilities and increasing economic constraints.
Over 3 days, the ATW provided integrity-management (IM) professionals from facilities across the value chain the opportunity to share their experiences and best practices in managing the above challenges while also facing increasingly stringent health, safety, and environmental (HSE) regulations and a more competitive business environment. It also served as a platform to present and discuss equipment-specific IM systems for oil and gas surface and subsurface facilities, both onshore and off.
Some of the main points raised by the speakers and participants over the 3 days follow, summarized by topic.
One of the first day’s major topics addressed the factors that make for a successful facility IM system. Some delegates stressed that to be effectively implemented, an IM system must link to a corporation’s top objectives and be supported at all levels. The system needs to be driven in a top-down manner, with top management taking a leadership role and clearly communicating the system’s stated objective down the line to technicians and operators on the ground such that IM awareness becomes part of their daily activities, much like personal safety.
One delegate drew the analogy that just as a cake includes common ingredients, any IM system also includes common components, including management of change, competence, learning, risk management, and standards.
A successful system should envelop the whole life cycle of a facility and include assess/select phases at the earliest project stages, when maximum risk reduction could be achieved. Integral to this is a clear definition of the facilities’ physical boundaries and operating envelopes, as well as the establishment of key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor the system’s effectiveness. These KPIs should be clearly linked to corporate objectives, consistent throughout a given industry to allow for bench-marking, and have the right mix of indicators for lagging vs. leading and effectiveness vs. efficiency.
Other delegates stressed that system implementation should not take a “one-size-fits-all” approach because different companies may have to take different approaches, even though they all have similar ultimate objectives in ensuring that their assets remain running safely and with a minimum of down time. The system should be driven by an established mature framework, and should clearly define accountabilities by nominating competent persons and technical authorities for key roles.
Finally, an IM system should be developed as a system of continuous improvement.
|File Size||117 KB||Number of Pages||2|