At the end of their design life, platforms must be reassessed

based route much more easily. Tey are able to store and retrieve information used by all inspectors. Te purpose of a formalised process, essentially, is to ensure that appropriate notifications are delivered across the organisation, which enables an organisation to function effectively. Te respondents also said poor communication across departmental silos (41%) is another major challenge. Lastly, the survey tackles alternative ways to conduct inspections that include mobile devices, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), cloud technology and laser scanning. With regard to using mobile devices to conduct the inspection process, only 32% of respondents said they were using them, which means there is great potential for adopting more of this technology. According to Phil Christensen, VP of analytical modelling with Bentley Systems, those with paper-based workflows are hesitant to adopt mobile devices, fearing users could drop them in the water or not know how to back up the device when out on the platform. But with 32% adopting this technology, clearly some have overcome these challenges. Interestingly, the adoption of UAVs is rapidly making inroads in the industry with more than a quarter already using them. Christensen says he is encouraged by this number, as he guessed that the percentage of users would only be around 10%. He is also surprised by the number of respondents using cloud technology. With a quarter of the audience adopting it, Christensen says we are just beyond the early adopter stage with users becoming more relaxed about issues of security.


He adds that some Bentley users are asking for cloud-only solutions of the products it offers. Tese unsolicited requests specifically demand a solution to their data needs that is not on premise, validating that the thinking among oil producers has changed.

SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE FIELD Te takeaway from the survey is that producers are seeking alternative ways to inspect, maintain and extend the life of their assets. It is no different from an individual taking their car into the mechanic for general maintenance and tune ups. Let’s examine how three owner- operators are implementing analysis software to maintain their offshore platforms and assets. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) currently operates more than 265 offshore fixed jacket platforms in waters off the coast of India that have outlived their 25-year design life. Installing new platforms would cost the company US$25 million per platform. Instead, ONGC saw the value of asset life extension and invested US$150 million to assess its jacketed platforms for extended fit for user and strengthen the platforms as required to meet industry safety standards. ONGC deployed Bentley’s SACS for design-level analysis to carry out detailed structural analyses and SACS collapse for ultimate strength analysis. Te analyses included dent modelling, member/joint component strengthening, additional pile modelling, and soil convergence, as well as extensive load modelling to recommend equipment removal if necessary. Te

technology became part of ONGC’s methodology for platform life extension/ requalification, which added 10-15 years to the average life of each structure. In the Chenqdoa oilfield in Bohai Bay, a number of offshore platforms reached the end of their design life and needed to be reassessed for extended life and to ensure safe operation. China-based oil producer Sinopec performed underwater inspection of the platforms to evaluate their structural security and determine their maintenance feasibility. It relied on analytical software to evaluate the structural integrity of the platforms and consider the maintenance alternatives based on the analytical data required for safe operation of the marine platform. Using SACS, Sinopec evaluated the structural integrity of the existing

Software now helps determine the structural integrity of platforms

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  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56