dynamic positioning conference review
Testing and training are top DP concerns for owners
Failure modes and effects analysis, and dynamic positioning operator training, are major challenges for offshore vessel owners to overcome
W
ith around 35 per cent of the 8,000 strong OSV fleet fitted with dynamic positioning (DP), there is greater pressure than ever on owners to ensure their systems operate
as expected without fault
during high-risk operations, such as positioning close to oil production facilities. Oil companies are chartering more advanced DP vessels for platform supply and anchor-handling operations. They expect full redundancy, plus accurate and concise factory and field tests.
The subject of testing and operating DP systems was the basis of a lively discussion at the end of the second day of presentations at the Annual Offshore Support Journal Conference. These discussions were
led by Joe Hughes,
European DP manager with GL Noble Denton, and involved shipowner comments from the floor. These issues and more will be further discussed at Riviera Maritime Media’s European Dynamic Positioning Conference in London on 24-25 May.
The two greatest challenges for the DP industry are the training and retention of DP operators and the consistency of failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). On the subject of DP operators, Hornbeck Offshore vice president Mike Wallace highlighted how changes in DP training had led to a shortage of operators in the Gulf of Mexico.
Experienced operators have been employed by drilling rig and drillship owners from OSV owners, he said at the Annual Offshore Support Journal Conference. The situation was so bad that Hornbeck had to idle vessels because it did not have enough DP operators available, and there was a lag time between hiring new people and training them for the role. DP training affects all of the industry, as do the problems behind inadequate FMEAs. Mr Hughes said it is the responsibility of shipowners to ensure their FMEAs and ship DP systems meet oil company requirements. Oil companies see the importance of FMEAs as assurance that DP systems will not fail during operations close
www.osjonline.com
to their expensive production facilities. “FMEAs are the greatest headache for clients because of the lack of consistency and sometimes poor quality,” Mr Hughes said. “We find shipyards and owners will look for class- approved FMEAs without looking at the details, but their clients are becoming more aware of the risks to their assets.
“Clients can knock back FMEAs and ask for them to be done again. It could have been better if a more detailed FMEA was done at the beginning.”
Mr Hughes said shipowners could ask companies like GL Noble Denton to review and audit FMEAs.
Shipowners responded with calls for class societies to ensure their DP notations reflect what is required of a vessel’s DP system, including checks on FMEAs. According to P&O Maritime’s executive general manager Gary Dockerty there is an expectation gap: “It is the responsibility of class to provide a level of confidence in their DP notations,” he said.
David Blencowe, director of health, safety, environment and quality assurance with Maersk Supply Service, asked why the offshore industry could not ensure that class societies met the expectations of the oil companies in their approvals. Other shipowners understand that it is their responsibility to ensure DP systems meet client requirements. Esnaad manager Paul Jarkiewicz said, “Owners need to take responsibility
that FMEAs are acceptable for the industry. So owners should get FMEAs audited and make sure they are covered. Otherwise, clients could rip up FMEAs and demand another one, or the vessel will not go on hire. It is the owner’s responsibility to make sure FMEAs are done properly.” Ian Perrott, chief executive of shipowner ER Offshore, said it was the responsibility of the shipyard to ensure FMEAs were done properly. “[Shipowners] need to go back to the building contractor of the vessel to make sure vessels come out with DP2 notations and the owner will get to review FMEA.” He spoke from the experience of ER Offshore rejecting a shipyard’s FMEA on one of its vessels. “The yard sent us the FMEA and we knew it was less than industry expected. We sent it back to the yard for the FMEA to be done again. Then it was audited by a third party so it would be accepted by the oil companies,” he said. Rasmus Stute, GL’s head of offshore service vessels, said the German class society would take on owners’ concerns to enhance its notation standards so they are closer to the oil company requirements. “We need open dialogue with the industry to understand what needs to be improved. Certain standards have to cover DP class for oil company requirements, but there has to be an area where people can have lower DP standards for IMO compliance,” he concluded. OSJ
Joe Hughes: oil companies can reject FMEAs and ask for them to be done again Annual Offshore Support Journal Conference and Awards 2012 I 15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40