condition based maintenance and monitoring of drilling
TRANSCRIPT
Condition Based Maintenance and Monitoring of drilling facilities
- Effects of Digitalization
MSc in Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Lene Magnussen 22.05.2018
II
Oppgavens tittel:
Condition Based Maintenance and monitoring of drilling facilities – effects of Digitalization.
Levert dato: 22.05.2018
Forfatter:
Lene Magnussen
Mastergrad:
Master of Science in Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Tall sider u/vedlegg: 55
Veileder:
Åge Garnes
Tall sider m/vedlegg: 62
Studieobjekt:
Drilling Facilities
Metodevalg:
Qualitative Case Study
Sammendrag:
Digitalisering har en økende påvirkning på vår arbeidshverdag. For olje og gas industrien påvirker
den Helse, Miljø og Sikkerhet (HMS) for arbeiderne ved å skape et tryggere arbeidsmiljø.
Tilstandsbasert vedlikehold kom som en effekt av denne digitaliseringen, og muliggjorde effektiv
drift og vedlikehold for boreanlegg. Det er i denne oppgaven undersøkt muligheter for
implementering av tilstandsbasert vedlikehold for boreanlegg, gjennom et eksplorerende case
studie for tre ulike boreanlegg. Oppgaven tar for seg både et teknisk og et organisatorisk
synspunkt.
Summary:
Digitalization has an increasing effect on our day-to-day work. For the oil and gas industry it
affects health, safety and environmental issues for the workers, creating a safer work environment.
Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) came as a result of this digitalization, enabling more
effective operation and maintenance for drilling facilities. For this thesis, different options for
sensor instrumentation and organizational responsibilities and responsibilities for Condition Based
Maintenance have been researched. The research examines options for implementing CBM at
three different drilling facilities through an exploratory case study from both a technical and
organizational viewpoint.
Stikkord for bibliotek: Digitalization, Condition Based Maintenance, Drilling Facility, Case
Study, Sensor Instrumentation.
III
© Lene Magnussen
2018
Condition Based Maintenance and monitoring – Effects of digitalization.
Lene Magnussen
http://www.duo.uio.no/
Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo
IV
Acknowledgements
This master thesis was written in collaboration with Equinor. I would like to thank my mentor
at Equinor, Sigve Hovda, for providing me with this opportunity and for all the support during
the process.
To my mentor Åge Garnes, thank you for all your helpful input and feedback throughout the
writing process.
I would also like to thank all the interview candidates from Equinor, KCADeutag, NOV,
DNV GL and Transocean for their support, their time and expertise.
V
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition CBM Condition Based Maintenance
DNV GL Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Loyds DP Drilling Platform FMECA Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis
HSE Health, Safety and Environment
JSDP Johan Sverdrup Drilling Platform MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit NCS Norwegian Continental Shelf NDA Non Disclosure Agreement
NMA Norwegian Maritime Authorities. NMD Norwegian Maritime Directorate NOV National Oilwell Varco
NPD The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate PMS Planned Maintenance system POB Personnel on Board PSA Petroleum Safety Authority
RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance SDIR Sjøfartsdirektoratet SOLAS Safety Of Life At Sea
SPS Special Periodical Survey
6
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... IV
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ V
Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... 6
List of figures .......................................................................................................................................... 7
List of tables ............................................................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Theory ............................................................................................................................................... 112.1 Condition Based Maintenance .................................................................................................. 112.2 Drilling Equipment .................................................................................................................... 122.3 Class and regulatory requirements for maintenance ............................................................. 15
2.3.1 The Petroleum Safety Authority .......................................................................................... 152.3.2 Classification Company ....................................................................................................... 162.3.3 Flag state .............................................................................................................................. 16
2.4 Continuous Class Concept ........................................................................................................ 172.5 Organizational theory ............................................................................................................... 19
2.5.1 Organizational change .......................................................................................................... 192.5.2 Organizational environment ................................................................................................. 212.5.3 Moral Hazard ........................................................................................................................ 22
2.6 Framework ................................................................................................................................. 22
3. Method and data .............................................................................................................................. 233.1 Research method ........................................................................................................................ 233.2 Research Design ......................................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Data collection ...................................................................................................................... 243.3 Reliability and Validity ............................................................................................................. 27
4. Case – Drilling Facilities .................................................................................................................. 304.1 Drilling Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 304.2 Organizational overview ........................................................................................................... 324.3 Drilling Equipment .................................................................................................................... 34
5. Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 365.1 Organizational aspect ................................................................................................................ 365.2 Drilling Equipment .................................................................................................................... 38
6. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 406.1 Operator ..................................................................................................................................... 406.2 Drilling Contractor .................................................................................................................... 426.3 Vendor ........................................................................................................................................ 446.4 Drilling Equipment .................................................................................................................... 46
7. Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 487.1 Summarize .................................................................................................................................. 487.2 Further research ........................................................................................................................ 517.3 Critical reflection ....................................................................................................................... 52
References ............................................................................................................................................. 53
Attachments .......................................................................................................................................... 56
7
List of figures Figure 1 - Top Drive ................................................................................................................ 13Figure 2 - Iron Roughneck ....................................................................................................... 13Figure 3 - Pipe Handling .......................................................................................................... 14Figure 4 - Mud Pumps ............................................................................................................ 14Figure 5 - Organizational Environment .................................................................................. 21Figure 6 - Cat J ......................................................................................................................... 30Figure 7 - Johan Sverdrup Drilling Platform .......................................................................... 31Figure 8 - Organizational relationship ..................................................................................... 34
List of tables Table 1 – Overview of Oseberg field rights ............................................................................. 32Table 2 – Overview of Gullfaks field rights ............................................................................ 32Table 3 – Overview of Johan Sverdrup rights ......................................................................... 33Table 4 – Organizational View ................................................................................................ 33Table 5 - Sensor Instrumentation ............................................................................................. 35Table 6 – Overview of organizational opportunities ............................................................... 37
8
1. Introduction
Digitalization has had a huge impact on society over the last decades and this is only the
beginning of this transition to a digital era. With digitalization comes new opportunities for
improvement and new use of technology will affect our daily life. This will create changes for
the way we work and for the tools and resources we use. For the oil and gas industry,
digitalization has created new opportunities that can improve Health, Safety and
Environmental (HSE). The work we do can be performed more automated and by use of
mechanical equipment to prevent the former physical labour, our workdays become safer with
machines performing the heavy lifting and people controlling and monitoring the process.
The theme for this master thesis is Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) within the oil and
gas industry, as an effect of digitalization. CBM is a very relevant subject within the industry
just now and many companies are currently looking to include CBM in their maintenance
programs (Seehusen 2015). The increased focus on digitalization within the industry has
come as the possibility for monitoring has become available. Sensors are cheaper and more
available and the possibility for communication and recording of big data streams has become
possible (DNVGL 2018). Through digitalization, new opportunities to monitor the equipment
and to better plan maintenance might prevent operational down time. The maritime sector has
for the last few years been characterized by recession. This has created room for increased
focus on innovative technology and change within the field. A result is this digitalization,
which impacts the industry and creates opportunities for the companies that implement CBM.
The companies embracing this digital change are likely to have an economical and
organizational advantage over those who do not. Several companies within the industry has
experienced organizational changes and used the recession to restructure and think innovative
to survive in the new industrial environment (Taraldsen and Andersen 2015).The maritime
industry is slowly turning out of recession, but the need for innovation and entrepreneurship
will increase. To keep up with both customer and industry requirements, organizations must
continuously improve their technology, operation and procedures. In addition, all drilling
facilities operating on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) needs to be operated and
maintained according to regulatory requirements. There are different regulations to follow
depending on the type of drilling facility, fixed or mobile, which all organizations within the
9
industry must relate to for their operation. There is also a requirement from the authorities for
continuous improvement (PSA 2017).
Maintenance is an important subject for the oil industry, as the drilling facilities need to avoid
down time while operating to avoid profit loss. Planning for and maintaining the equipment
between operations, decreases the risk for downtime during operation. The cost of
maintenance is the use of spare parts, the labour that goes into it and not the least, the loss of
production time, having the drilling facilities shut down for a planned maintenance period.
This master thesis will research how digitalization can change the maintenance intervals for
drilling equipment on board Drilling Facilities. The thesis will also discuss how it is possible
to decrease operational down time. The thesis will describe how digitalization allows
companies to make the transfer from a traditional calendar-based maintenance to Condition
Based Maintenance. The proper use of digitalization can allow for better planning of
maintenance and more predictable operations. The result can be both time and cost reducing
opportunities for maintenance of drilling equipment.
The thesis will research the problem:
“How can Condition Based Maintenance and Monitoring be implemented for Drilling
Facilities?”
The purpose of this thesis is to look into opportunities for CBM for drilling facilities, the use
of new technology to achieve CBM for specific drilling equipment and the impact of CBM.
The thesis will research how CBM can be implemented from both a technical and an
organizational viewpoint. The technical approach will focus on the sensor instrumentation for
the drilling equipment itself and opportunities for data monitoring. This includes opportunities
for both existing and new instrumentation. It will also research current routines and
procedures for maintenance for the drilling equipment, and how monitored data can be
utilized to improve the maintenance. From an organizational viewpoint the thesis will
research ownership of monitored and collected data, and look into opportunities for more
effective operations and for organizational change. The thesis will discuss the responsibility
for the CBM activities.
10
The thesis will be limited to effects of digitalization for drilling equipment. There are many
improvements possible for drilling operation through the digitalization of measuring
parameters for the drilling fluids and similar that the thesis will not cover. The drilling
equipment selected for this thesis will be Pipe and Riser handling Tools, Draw Work, Top
Drive, Iron Roughneck and Mud Pumps. These are all critical equipment for drilling
operation. The thesis will conduct a holistic single case study of three drilling facilities.
Askepott and Askeladden (Cat J project) are mobile, jack-up type, drilling rigs and Johan
Sverdrup Drilling Platform (JSDP) is a fixed installation. These are three Equinor operated
drilling facilities, that all have drilling equipment supplied from the Vendor Company
National Oilwell Varco (NOV). These rigs were chosen because CBM has not yet been
implemented and they have drilling equipment from the same Vendor. These are three fairly
new drilling facilities and the two Cat J rigs are the first Equinor owned mobile units. Since
the two mobile drilling rigs, Askepott and Askeladden, have the same organizational and
technical specifications, they will be researched as one unit. JSDP also have NOV drilling
equipment but a different setup, both technical and organisational, from the two mobile rigs.
The thesis will use several sources for data collection and compare the chosen drilling
facilities. Interviews with relevant key personnel within the organizations will be carried out,
to collect data from both a technical and an organizational view. Data will also be collected
from different documentation. This includes documentation for the Cat J and JSDP project,
product specifications from Vendor, reliable articles, technical magazines and textbooks.
The thesis will start with an introduction to CBM and the relevant theoretical framework in
chapter two. This includes both technical aspects and organizational theory chosen as
framework for the research question. The thesis will proceed with chapter three presenting the
research method and design, also describing the data collection process, before presenting the
case researched for the thesis in chapter four. The case will describe both organizational and
technical aspects. The thesis will present the analysis in chapter five, before the findings are
discussed further in chapter six. The research will be summarized in chapter seven, including
limitations to the thesis and suggestions for further research.
11
2. Theory
This chapter presents the theoretical framework for the thesis. The first sections of this
chapter will introduce the reader to CBM, the selected drilling equipment and relevant class
and regulatory requirements for maintenance of the drilling facilities. The concept of
continuous class activities will also be introduced. The last sections will cover relevant
organizational theory that impacts the research problem. This will be utilized in the analysis
and discussion part of the thesis in chapter five and six.
2.1 Condition Based Maintenance
Drilling facilities depends on good control of operational state of equipment and a good
maintenance program to have an overview of the condition of the drilling facilities to avoid
incidents with regards to Health, Safety and Environmental situations. The maintenance is
also essential to prevent unscheduled stop of operation. Today a lot of equipment maintenance
is calendar based programs, i.e. equipment has a planned date for maintenance and this is
often timed without regard for operation or what need the equipment has for maintenance.
The time intervals are set up based on previous experience and criticality, with a frequent
visual inspection and a less frequent, but more thorough inspection and testing (Adams 2014).
Calendar based maintenance involves a lot of maintenance hours, as each equipment will
require preventive maintenance at the set time. The actual state of the equipment will not be
known until it is time for maintenance, unless it fails ahead of schedule, then the schedule will
be modified. Should critical equipment need maintenance during operation there would be
two options. One would be to continue the on going operation until the equipment fails and
hope to be able to finish the drilling operations before failure. The other option would be to
stop operation while carrying out the corrective maintenance. These options are not the best
for predictable drilling operation.
Condition Based maintenance allows companies to monitor the equipment’s condition
through sensor instrumentation and (computer) logic to log and analyse the incoming data.
This allows for monitoring of the equipment’s condition throughout its lifecycle, better
12
planning for preventive maintenance and more predictable operation. By using historical data
and logic applied to the sensor data it is possible to monitor when the equipment condition is
starting to change. The change detected can give indications and warnings at different level of
criticality. Should there be a critical change for the condition of essential drilling equipment,
an alert can inform the user to take required action for the equipment. CBM can provide
predictable operation, anticipate equipment failure and assist in the assessment of when the
equipment condition is critical. During operation the user can then access the control system
data and logs online and determine if the equipment can last without further maintenance until
drilling has been completed or if the condition deteriorates and become critical to the point
where urgent action is needed. Should the monitored data come within critical levels during
operation, there is also a change of stopping operation in a controlled manner instead of an
abrupt failure. Increased control over the equipment’s condition though sensor- and IT-
technology can reduce the risk of down-time, increase safety and decrease the number of
maintenance hours needed, which in turn can lead to reduced operation and maintenance costs
(Seehusen 2015).
2.2 Drilling Equipment The thesis has been limited to drilling equipment for the facilities, in specific the pipe
handling equipment. This section will shortly present the drilling equipment for the reader by
describing the selected equipment’s functions. Providing the necessary information for a
better experience for the reader of this thesis.
Draw work
The Draw work is a winch that can reel in and out the drill pipe in a controlled fashion. It has
a suspension in the drill tower and can move the drill pipe up or down into the borehole
(Paaske 2016).
Top Drive
The Top Drive is mounted in the drill tower and placed directly over the borehole. It is used
to control the drill sting and avoid sideways movement by handling and rotating the drill
string in the well. It is run from the drillers cabin, which reduces manual labour (Ludvigsen
2016). To reduce manual labour on the drill floor and increase the safety for the workers,
13
regulations demands that all pipe handling is to be automatically controlled remote from the
drillers cabin (Ludvigsen 2016).
Figure 1 - Top Drive (NOV s.a.)
Iron Roughneck
The Iron Roughneck connects and disconnects the drill pipe. The process is controlled from
the drillers cabin and the drill pipes are fed mechanically (Ludvigsen 2016).
Figure 2 - Iron Roughneck (NOV s.a.)
Riser handling tools
The riser handling tools handles controlled movements of the riser and connection and
disconnection of the riser parts, which are bolted together (NOV s.a.).
14
Pipe handling tools
Pipe handling tools handles movement of the drill pipes on the drilling floor and the well
center. This also includes suspending and rotating movements for the drill pipes (NOV s.a.).
Figure 3 - Pipe Handling (NOV s.a.)
Mud pumps
The mud pumps circulate a high volume of drilling fluid under high pressure down the drill
string and throughout the drilling system, for well support during operation (Rigzone 2009).
Figure 4 - Mud Pumps (NOV s.a.)
15
2.3 Class and regulatory requirements for maintenance As the technology companies improve their equipment and evolve around CBM, the
regulatory requirements for them also change. The drilling facilities must be built, operated
and maintenance performed according to the regulatory requirements applicable for operation
on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. This chapter will describe the different regulatory
requirement from the classification company, the Flag state and the Petroleum Safety
Authority (PSA).
2.3.1 The Petroleum Safety Authority The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) issues the regulations for the petroleum related
activities, including exploration and production of oil, for the NCS. There are five regulations
in place, these are: Framework regulations, Management regulations, Facilities regulations,
Activities regulations and Technical and operational regulations (PSA s. a.). All fixed
installations, oil production platforms, Tension leg platforms, Floating production and storage
units, etc. and their facilities are to comply with the above regulations directly. In addition to
these regulations there are offshore standards referred to in the guidelines for these
regulations. NORSOK is an example of a standard for the Norwegian sector where section Z-
008 is the standard for maintenance (NTC s.a.). The Petroleum Safety Authority will monitor
and inspect the facilities and verify the operations according to the regulations mentioned.
Maintenance is of high focus for the PSA and audits are performed regularly. Planned
maintenance being a component for the operational availability of the drilling facilities and
the drilling equipment. Operators for petroleum activities on NCS have to be in compliance
with the Activities Regulations chapter IX with regards to planned maintenance for the
installation (PSA s. a.). The Petroleum Safety Authority of Norway is monitoring the
operators and performing safety audits and inspections of the systems in place. The Johan
Sverdrup Drilling Platform is a fixed drilling Platform, and will have to follow these
regulations.
Mobile facilities can, according to the Framework regulation paragraph 3, choose to comply
with a set of maritime regulations instead of the above regulations, given that the safety level
is compatible to those of the Facilities regulation (PSA s. a.). The mobile facilities are then to
be operated and maintained according to the regulations set by the Norwegian Maritime
16
Directorate, and to the flag state requirements where the mobile unit or vessel is registered as
well as to the requirement for the applicable Classification society and its offshore standards.
Mobile units following a set of maritime regulations for operating on the NCS will be subject
to inspections from PSA, in addition to inspections from the Norwegian Maritime Authorities
NMA and the class society.
2.3.2 Classification Company There is a requirement for having the mobile drilling unit and its facilities assigned to a
Classification Company, often in order to get insurance for the Mobile unit itself. This also
makes it easier for a vessel to operate worldwide. In the NCS, many of the rigs are classed
with Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Loyds (DNV GL). Ship owners and insurance
companies founded DNV GL in 1864, and DNV GL has since produced its own set of
offshore standards for drilling facilities (DNVGL s.a.). Offshore Standard DNVGL-RU-OU-
0101 (DNVGL 2018) and DNVGL-RU-OU-0300 describes offshore drilling and support
units and requirements for planned maintenance (DNVGL 2018), and DNVGL-OS-E101
describes requirements for drilling facilities (DNVGL 2018).
2.3.3 Flag state Mobile drilling rigs that can operate worldwide already have to comply with the regulations
for the registry country, The Flag state, in addition to the Mobil Offshore Drilling Unit
(MODU) CODE (IMO s.a.). The MODU CODE is for drilling rigs what Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) regulations are for ships. The regulations came about after the sinking of Titanic
(DNVGL s.a.). The two jack-up rigs for Equinor, Askeladden and Askepott have a Norwegian
flag, and is registered in the Norwegian ship register NOR. This means that they have to
follow the requirement for the Norwegian Maritime Directorate (NMD). These requirements
are being followed up by the Norwegian Maritime Authorities. For drilling rigs that are
registered in NOR, The Petroleum Safety Authority will choose to inspect the rig in
accordance to the maritime regulations and only to some of the NORSOK standards and
regulations that cannot be substituted with maritime regulation. For drilling rigs with NOR
flags, this means that the maintenance systems will be inspected and verified according to
NMD regulations (SDIR 2016).
17
2.4 Continuous Class Concept
The traditional class activity is checking of the maintenance and operability of drilling
equipment on an annual basis with visits on board the rig and then a more thorough check of
the drilling equipment every five years. The latter is often referred to as a Special Periodical
Survey (SPS). During an SPS the drilling facilities are de-mobilized, the equipment is opened
up for inspections and material testing often result in replacing vital parts for renewed service
life. An SPS can easily last 25-30 days for a mobile drilling unit. Structure and machinery
systems are also inspected. Often parts will be replaced due to a given time limit and to
prepare for the next five years and not as result of them being past their operational life. This
practice can amount to vast costs and the number of days the drilling facilities are taking out
of operation also amounts to huge costs for the owners. The concept of continuous class is to
implement condition monitoring of equipment and perform the necessary maintenance at a
time of convenience while still being in operation (Adams 2014). The critical drilling
equipment is identified and monitored carefully for any change in behaviour or measuring
signature to plan for performing the maintenance at the best possible time. This is when the
equipment is not critical for drilling operation. For drilling equipment, much of the critical
maintenance is performed between drilling of wells.
A plan for Condition based maintenance is the basis for getting a change in the required Class
activities for a mobile drilling facility. An offshore rig owner can apply for a Continuous
Class activity (DNVGL s.a.). This will replace the scheduled yard stay activities at a Shipyard
every 2 to 5 years with a risk and reliability centered schedule for maintenance performed
offshore at the best feasible time from an operational perspective. The Class Societies have
this as an optional service and can perform the necessary inspections offshore based on input
from logs of monitored sensor data and the trends proving the state of the equipment. Similar
schemes can be made for drilling facilities on fixed platforms.
For a drilling rig to get approval for continuous class for drilling equipment, optional class
called DRILL Planned Maintenance System (PMS), there are certain requirements to start
with and the process can be long and costly if not planned from the design stage of the drilling
facilities. DNV GL requires that this system is established and approved for the machinery
systems for the mobile unit before the knowledge and technology is transferred to cover the
18
drilling facilities (DNVGL 2018). Based on an approved maintenance program and the
recommendations from the original manufacturer of the drilling equipment.
DRILL PMS enables the owner of the drilling facilities to perform 20% of the maintenance
annually, such that, the whole drilling facility is undergoing the SPS while in operation and
no down-time is necessary after the five-year period (DNVGL s.a.). This will provide
continuous income for the owner instead of downtime with added cost for spare parts replaced
ahead of their operational life.
PMS Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) is the service that DNV GL recommends for
owners implementing Condition Based Maintenance, CBM (DNVGL s.a.). The idea being
that the Vendors recommendations for the replacement of parts for continuous operation
might be somewhat conservative. By adding sensor technology and online monitoring
according to approved and Vendor recommended online analysis the owner will be able to
monitor critical parts of the drilling equipment to detect deteriorations before the equipment
actually failing. It will then be possible to predict equipment failure and plan for repair or
replacement of equipment in the operational phase or between wells. This will require an
accurate stock of spare parts and more attention to which parts of the facilities are critical for
operations. Measuring of sensors directly might not be sufficient. A program or an algorithm
of certain testing based on known parameters, speed, frequency vibration, pressure, etc. will
most likely have to be implemented and approved for PMS RCM.
This will be similar for drilling facility on a fixed platform where the planned maintenance
system is regulated through the before mentioned NPD regulations. The Activity regulations
chapter 9, §45-51, describes the requirements for maintenance (PSA s. a.). Within the
guidelines, the NORSOK standard Z-008 explains requirements for risk based maintenance
and the Management §23 gives the requirements for continuous improvement of the
maintenance system (PSA s. a.). Digitalization can be seen as a part of this continuous
improvement process.
19
2.5 Organizational theory
This section includes organizational theory relevant for the thesis problem and will be
discussed in chapter 6 of the thesis. It will describe three different organizational theories that
can impact implementation of CBM for drilling facilities from an organizational view. An
organization is a tool used to achieve goals and is defined by Gareth R. Jones as (Jones 2013)
“a tool people use to coordinate their action to obtain something they desire or value”.
2.5.1 Organizational change An organization implementing CBM will undergo the process of organizational change,
where they will go from their current maintenance plan to a condition based maintenance
program. This change comes from a desire to improve utilization of resources and increase
the ability to create value for the organization. Gareth R. Jones defines organizational change
as (Jones 2013): “The process by which organizations move from their present state to some
desired future state to increase effectiveness”.
Organizational change and design
To carry out the process of organizational change, going from å current to a desired state, the
organizations must re-design its cultures and structures to be able to make the change. The
organizational culture is a set of norms and values that is shared by and affects interaction
internally and externally for the organizations members (Jones 2013). This can be customers,
suppliers, etc. The culture is forms by the organizational members, ethics and structure. It can
affect how the members respond to and interpret environmental changes. As the values and
norms can aid innovation, it can help the organization respond faster and more creatively to
environmental changes (Jones 2013). Organizational structure controls how the members
carry out actions and utilize resources in the organization. Gareth R. Jones defines the purpose
of organizational structure as (Jones 2013): “to control the way people coordinate their
actions to achieve organizational goals and to control the means used to motivate people to
achieve these goals”. The structure is a formal system of the necessary task and the authority
in the organization, which exercises the control. The organizational culture and the structure
are the means used to reach organizational goals, and will evolve throughout the
organizational lifecycle as it grows. They can both be managed through organizational design
20
and change. A flexible organization allows for continuous redesign of the means to be able to
respond to environmental changes (Jones 2013).
For an organization to meet current challenges, they must continuously look for new and
better ways to utilize and scarce their resources. There are two wide categories of change
based on how the organizations choose to respond to forces of change, evolutionary and
revolutionary change. The Evolutionary change is a more gradually change, where the change
is focused on something specific. Nothing will change rapidly, but will be carried out
incrementally. This allows the organization to continuously adapt to changes in the
environment. Companies who require more urgent changes will fall under the category
revolutionary change. This is a drastically, rapid and widely focused type of change. Some
organizations might need to urgently make changes, this can come as a result of changes in
the environment that needs urgent action form the organization (Jones 2013).
Resistance to change
Organisations struggling to make changes can result in decline. If an organisation does not
respond to changes either internally or from the environment it can cause a need for structural
changes due to late respond. The organisation and it members must continuously be aware of
and prepared to respond to changes. Organisational success depends on development and
management for a plan to carry out the change (Jones 2013). This is a continuous learning
process, and the more an organisation changes, the more efficient the change process will be.
When going through the process of organizational change there are several forces for change
from the constantly changing environment, but there will also be resistance to change. The
resistance can cause decline for organisations not willing to change and adapt to changes in
the environment. Organizational change can also lead to organizational conflict if all
members are not on board. One viewpoint is that organizational change occurs when the
behaviour of one group goes against the goals of another (Jones 2013). There are several
different stakeholders in in an organisation, which may have different goals. This can lead to
organizational conflict, which can be harmful and affect the effectiveness of the organisation.
When implementing a change in an organization there can be several different sources that
lead to conflict, for example differences in goals or competition for resources. This is one of
several other viewpoints of organizational change.
21
2.5.2 Organizational environment Organizational theory describes how organizations work and is affected by their
environments. Gareth R. Jones defines this environment as (Jones 2013): “The set of forces
surrounding an organization that have the potential to affect the way it operates and its access
to scarce resources”. All organizations have an environment with several forces and
stakeholders that can impact them. We can distinguish this into two different environments:
the specific and the general environment (Jones 2013), see Figure 5 below.
Figure 5 - Organizational Environment (Jones 2013)
The general environment forms the specific environment and can affect all organizations
ability to secure resources in that specific environment. The specific environment consists of
forces from stakeholders that can directly impact an organization ability to obtain resources in
the specific environment. The parts of the environment that cannot be controlled are sources
of uncertainty. This can for example be a technological force where organizations need to
keep up with the technological development in the environment. These uncertainties can also
help organizations change and grow, as the organization will try to reduce the uncertainty
surrounding them (Jones 2013). There can be forces against change, and the organization
must continuously respond to these forces to survive. When implementing CBM the
organization needs to be aware of the forces in the organizational environment, which can
affect the implementation. The forces and conditions in the environment beyond the
organizations boundaries can affect its ability to reach its goals.
22
2.5.3 Moral Hazard Moral Hazard is an issue that can occur when two or more companies enter a deal and one of
the companies provide misleading information. Moral Hazards are situations that create an
opportunity to exploit the other companies in the agreement. It is based on people doing what
benefits them other than what is morally correct (Pritchard 2016). For labour contracting,
where one part pays while the other carries out the work, Moral Hazard is pushing ethical
limits. When the economical transaction is carried out, the action of one company can lead to
harm for the other. The incentive problem to Moral Hazard is caused by asymmetry of
information, where one part has either more accurate or different information than the other
and their actions cannot be monitored (Hölstrom 1979). This can create advantages for the
company with more information, where they can handle more risk than the other companies
and hide or talk down potential issues.
Opportunism is circumstances where people deliberately act based on self-interest without
taking regards to consequences (Wathne and Biong 2009). Should a company proceed with an
opportunistic behaviour, they will follow their own interest and exploit circumstances.
Creating high risks for the part with the disadvantage and potentially causing harm to their
organization.
2.6 Framework
The above theoretical framework will be utilized for the analysis and discussion part of the
thesis, chapter five and six respectively. The theoretical framework has been selected due to
its relevance and impact of the thesis question. The thesis has both a technical and
organizational view, and theory for both parts has therefore been included to help provide a
complete framework for the reader. There is a lot of litterateur available for organizational
theory, which is all not covered for this thesis. It is important to note that organizational
theory has many different viewpoints that go beyond the literature chosen for this theoretical
framework. The thesis will have a main focus on the organizational view, and will look into
organizational impacts and opportunities for Condition Based Maintenance. The technical
aspect of the thesis covers the drilling equipment, sensor instrumentation and regulatory
requirements for maintenance.
23
3. Method and data
This chapter will present the selection and justification for research method and design chosen
for this master thesis. It will also describe the data collection process and the analysis
performed.
3.1 Research method
The research method applied was a case study and was chosen based on the thesis problem:
“How can Condition Based Maintenance and Monitoring be implemented for Drilling
Facilities?” According to Yin (Yin 2014), the use of case study as a method is appropriate for
where the research problem includes “how” or “why” in the question, does not allow control
of behavioural events for the researcher(s) and focuses on contemporary events. This was the
basis for which case study was chosen, as it would fulfil the research question.
A case study can either look deep into one or look into a small selection of organizations,
events or individuals (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe et al. 2015). These are respectively called
single- and multi-case and both can be either holistic (one unit) or embedded (multiple units)
(Yin 2014). This case study will be an exploratory, single-case study with multiple units. It
looks into three Equinor operated drilling facilities. Single-case was chosen as the three
drilling facilities have similar drilling equipment from the same vendor, however two of the
drilling facilities are of the type mobile jack-up while the last is a fixed installation. This
means they follow different regulatory requirements.
A case study can be applied for both qualitative and quantitative research, however for this
thesis it was decided to use a qualitative single-case study to go in depth for the research
problem. The research would also benefit from multiple data sources, to help shed light on
both current situation and future plan for maintenance.
CBM has currently been utilized for other offshore equipment and other companies have
started the implementation process also for drilling equipment. As this is a newer focus area
within the industry, limited literature has been found for CBM for drilling equipment nor
24
reviewed. The thesis was written in collaboration with Equinor as previously mentioned,
which provided insight into internal documentation for the drilling facilities and current focus
for digitalization. Some documentation was not available until a later stage during the
research process. It was therefore decided to proceed with an exploratory single-case study.
As this will be an exploratory case study it will not provide a final solution to an existing
problem, but look into the organizational opportunities for CBM and suggest further research,
regardless of whether potential further research will be a case study or not (Yin 2014).
3.2 Research Design
For the master thesis it was used an explorative, inductive approach for the data collection.
This section of the thesis will describe the data collection process, that is to say methods used
for the data collection and data sources, and justification for the data sources selected.
3.2.1 Data collection For the data collection, Yins six sources of evidence was considered (Yin 2014):
Documentation, Archival records, Interviews, Direct observation, Participant Observation and
Physical artefacts. All six sources have strengths and weakness, without one having a
complete advantage over the other five sources (Yin 2014). It was therefore used several
sources for data. When planning and designing the case study it was decided to mainly use
sources that would not restrict the thesis by utilizing classified information, as far as possible.
Based on this the following methods were used:
Interview
It was carried out interviews with key personnel from relevant organizations, i.e.
representatives from the following organizations: owner/operator, vendor, class regulation
and Drilling contractors. Each candidate was selected based on the following criteria’s: (i)
they worked for one of the following organizations: Operator, Drilling contractor, Vendor or
Classification company, (ii) they had worked with one or more of the three selected units for
the case, (ii) their deep knowledge for one or more of the three units qualified them to speak
on behalf of the their organization. In addition, one interview was carried out with a Drilling
contractor for another project, where they have started implementation of CBM for the
25
drilling equipment. It was a longer process than planned to collect the required information
for the case, but with assistance from Equinor employees and the Equinor mentor the
candidates were selected. Some leads on potential interview candidates lead to new referrals
for candidates instead of interviews. As the interviews were carried out with candidates from
different organizations and different positions towards the case, interview guides were
adapted to each organization, based on their position for the drilling facilities. All interviews
were carried out at locations either in Bergen or Stavanger, or through Skype.
The first interview had a more structured interview guide as the researcher had no knowledge
of the candidate and wanted to make sure all the necessary information was collected. After
this the first interview was completed it was made clear that adaptability and flexibility was
essential for the interviews. The candidate would often answer several questions at once,
which resulted in using semi-structured guides including a few open questions for the
remaining interviews. This opened up for a more informal conversation and created a relaxed
environment for the interviews. Most of the candidates spoke very openly and with high
enthusiasm about the subject. It was early made clear that CBM was a big focus area within
the industry, and the candidates were happy to share their knowledge and experience. Some
even had presentations prepared or offered to send relevant information for further reading.
The presentations took up some of the interview time (average time per interview was one
hour), but all presentations provided a lot of useful information for the case. The researcher
chose to not strictly follow the interview guides for some of the interviews, based on how the
candidate had prepared. This was beneficial for the data collection as it provided a lot of
information, where the candidates managed to provide the information required independent
of the interview guide. All interview guides are presented in the appendix, but for some
interviews they have not been follow thoroughly. All candidates also offered to make them
selves available at a later time if further questioning was needed. The presentations keep the
conversations focused around the subject, had this not been the case it would have required a
stricter focus around the interview guides.
The researcher had no previous knowledge of the candidates selected for the interviews,
which allowed me to avoid bias due to previous relations. All candidates seemed to gladly
share information, but there could have been limitations. As I had signed a Non-Disclosure
Agreement (NDA) with Equinor, the interviews carried out with Equinor employees had
fewer restrictions. For the other organizations there could have been some information that
26
was held back. Information could also have been held back due to my collaboration with
Equinor, which has the position as operator for this case.
No names, positions or other personal information has been gathered during the interviews.
This in order to protect the candidates’ privacy and it will therefore not be used in the thesis.
They will only be referred to by their organizations position to the case, i.e. Operator, Vendor,
Drilling contractor or Classification Company. No interviews were recorded to protect the
candidates, and the interviews are therefor not transcribed. Notes were taken by pen and paper
during the interview and then summarized straight after in private, to make sure nothing was
forgotten in the interview notes and all necessary information was gathered. The researcher
brought some personal notes as to what information was required to make sure nothing was
forgotten, due to the flexibility during the interview. Not using names has a limited effect on
the thesis, but using the candidate’s positions within their organizations could have affect on
the credibility for the data collection. This will be noted further in chapter 3.3, Reliability and
validity.
Documentation
Internal documentation provided by Equinor has been used for the master thesis with regards
to sensor instrumentation and for the drilling facilities. This documentation will not be used as
appendix due to confidentiality. Its purpose has been to provide insight to the sensors installed
on the drilling equipment for the three drilling facilities, as well as general information for the
three units. In addition, has material from presentations shared by interview candidates been
used, this will also not be listed in the appendix due to confidentiality and by request from
candidates.
Journal articles, relevant technical magazines and textbooks have also been used for the data
collection. The documents are used to enlighten the research question and as support material
in the discussion. It will consist of current documentation available online and from the
database A-Text. The data collection focused on material from Teknisk Ukeblad (TU) and
other industry magazines.
Observation
The collaboration with Equinor provided several opportunities to participate at different
events. This allowed for both direct observation and participating observation to be used as
27
sources for the data collection. Early in the research face an opportunity occurred to visit one
of the drilling facilities, Askeladden. This facility was at the time (30.01.2018) not in
operation offshore, but at the Cost Center Base Ågotnes preparing for departure. This
provided insight for the drilling equipment and current routines for maintenance on the
equipment on board. The visit included a tour of the drilling facility, focusing on the drilling
equipment and drilling floor, and opportunities to ask questions for the personnel on board
Askeladden. This visit provided a better understanding for the drilling equipment and how the
work is organized at the drilling facility, which again provided a better insight to the current
maintenance situation. Having this option early in the process affected the remaining research
due to better knowledge for the researcher, regarding the drilling equipment and facility.
Later in the process another opportunity came to observe during an Equinor meeting for
digitalization with regards to one of the drilling facilities. This provided a lot of information
for both current and future plans for CBM and Equinor’s own vision for digitalization. Both
opportunities provided good information for thesis as well as for personal experience.
3.3 Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity describes the quality of the research, i.e. the research’s verifiability
and credibility. When initialising a case study, both reliability and validity has to be taken
account for, as this will affect the entire research’s quality (Yin 2014). This section of chapter
three will describe the internal and external validity and reliability of the research.
Reliability describes the research credibility and opportunity for repeating the research with
the same result (Yin 2014). This would require a good description of the procedures carried
out from the researcher, and potential later investigations doing the exact same case without
replicating results to a new case study. Interviews were one of the essential sources for the
data collection. The interview candidates positions or names are not collected for this thesis,
making it difficult to preform interviews with the same candidates and obtain the exact same
result. In addition, the semi-structured interview guides developed for this study are based on
the experiences, knowledge and personality of one researcher. For exact replication it could
require similarities between the researchers conducting the study to achieve the same results.
The access from Equinor also provided assistance with finding the correct candidates for the
28
interviews and the NDA could have affected how much the candidates, especially within
Equinor, would share during the interviews. During some of the interviews I was
accompanied by a Equinor representative, which could have also affected the interview
candidates in both a positive and negative way based on their relation to each other and their
respective organizations. As the semi-structured was not followed strictly for all interviews, it
would affect the ability to replicate the data collection and lower the reliability.
The flexibility during the interviews provided a lot of useful information for the case. In the
beginning it was planned to use a more structured guide, but this could have limited some of
the interviews. The adaptation based on the candidate increased the value for a lot of the
interviews and the data collected. This decision was set early, avoiding too much inequality
between the different interviews. All interviews had in addition the same duration,
approximately one hour. None of the interviews were taped due to the privacy of the
interview candidates, excluding options for transcribing. Taking notes by hand did however
serve as sufficient as each interview was summarized straight after to avoid missing critical
information.
The documentation used for data collection could also provide certain issues for replication.
During the research it has been given access to internal documentation from Equinor and
other documentation from interview candidates that is not published. This would require the
same access for a later investigation. In addition it was also given access to visit one of the
case facilities, which would also require collaboration with Equinor. The facility is currently
in the North Sea and only accessible for certified personnel. This visit provided knowledge
and experience early in the research process, affecting the data collection. Should the later
investigation be guaranteed to include the same availability of resources it would increase the
research reliability, which unfortunately is impossible and limits the opportunity for repeating
the data collection. The research could have been performed limited to only accessible
sources increasing the reliability, but it would have affected the results and could have
lowered the validity of the research.
Validity describes the relevance of the data collected relative to the research question (Yin
2014). Documentation used for this thesis includes internal project documentation directly
tied to the case, increasing the validity. Had the thesis been carried out without the same
access to resources it could have affected the validity of the thesis. The data collection would
29
have depended more on the interviews and the candidates. The collaboration could also be
affecting the research negatively. As Equinor provided a lot of documentation and assistance
with the thesis, it could affect the researchers view and interpretation. To avoid bias it was
conducted interviews with candidates from several organizations. In addition, the researcher
had no former relations with any of the candidates to be able to stay natural, and avoid any
biased interpretations of the data material (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe et al. 2015). Not using
names or positions for the interview candidates can affect their credibility as sources for the
reader. It is important to make sure to only use credible sources, for both interviews and all
other sources selected for data collection, as this will affect the entire research’s credibility
and validity (Yin 2014). To prevent this, the three criteria’s for the interview candidates
mentioned in section 3.2.1 Research Design was set. Making sure all candidates had the
necessary knowledge and relations to the case, making them eligible to speak on behalf of
their respective organizations.
Validity can be sorted as internal validation and external validation (Yin 2014). The internal
validation describes in which degree the results of the research is valid for the selection and
phenomenon being researched, while external validation describes in which degree the results
can be transferred to other selections and situations. It can be augmented that the internal
validation is high as the thesis was written in collaboration with Equinor, providing close
contact with the industry and access to a high amount of sources. The findings in the thesis
are a direct result of impacts and insights into the industry, from several different
organizations. The thesis was limited to specific equipment, making it easier to keep within a
specific frame during the data collection. When collection the data material it can be hard to
only collect relevant information for the research problem, but the frames provided the
necessary limitation for the data collection. For the external validation it could be possible to
transfer results to other drilling facilities or type of equipment at drilling facilities, however
there are several organizational issues with regards to maintenance regulations and licence
ownership of the drilling facilities, which could prevent a direct transfer. As the case includes
both mobile jack-up and fixed drilling platform, it will increase the options for transferring to
other drilling facilities of both types, increasing the external validation.
The thesis will have a moderate reliability due to the flexible interviews and confidential
information, while the validity is higher than the reliability as the data collected is directly
tied to the research problem and the case. The internal validity is also higher than the external.
30
4. Case – Drilling Facilities This chapter will present the drilling facilities for the three units of the case. The Cat J rigs
will be looked upon as one unit, due to similarities in design. It will start with background
information for the drilling facilities, before presenting an organizational overview and finally
look to the sensor instrumentation and drilling equipment. The following information together
with the theoretical framework will be the basis for the analysis in chapter 5.
4.1 Drilling Facilities Askepott and Askeladden
The drilling facilities on Askepott and Askeladden are included in Equinor’s Cat J project,
Figure 6. The rigs are of the type jack-up, described as mobile self-elevating rigs. The two
jack-up rigs were delivered in 2017 by the shipyard Samsung Heavy Industries in South
Korea, and contain the latest of technology for drilling equipment supplied by National
Oilwell Varco, improving both efficiency and safety within the industry (Økland 2016). The
Cat J rigs can drill wells down to 10.000 meters deep and will be working towards ensuring
recovery of all profitable reservoirs, in addition to seeking all unexplored opportunities for
recovery within their respective oilfields (Statoil 2018). The jack-up rigs follow the regulatory
requirements from their flag state. The two Cat J rigs both have Norwegian flag, and will
therefore follow the regulatory requirements from the Norwegian Maritime Authority
(Authority 2016). The Drilling contractor company, KCADeutag, will manage and operate
both of the rigs on behalf of the owners. Askeladden will be operating at the Gullfaks field,
while Askepott will be at the Oseberg field (Statoil 2018). These Cat J drilling facilities went
into operation in the North Sea in the first quarter of 2018.
Figure 6 - Cat J (Økland 2016)
31
Johan Sverdrup Drilling Platform
The Johan Sverdrup DP (Drilling Platform) is currently not in operation, but located at
Aibel’s yard in Haugesund (13.05.2018) where the building was carried out. Aker is the
overall responsible for engineering and build of the Johan Sverdrup Field and Aibel is the
direct responsible for building the Drilling Platform. This drilling facility is a fixed drilling
platform, Figure 7, that follows the regulatory requirements from the Norwegian Petroleum
Department and the build is monitored by the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA s.
a.).
JSDP also has its drilling equipment supplied from vendor NOV, same as for the Cat J rigs.
Odfjell Drilling is the Drilling contractor with responsibility for the operation and
maintenance for the Johan Sverdrup Drilling Platform on behalf of the owners. The platform
will be moved from Haugesund to the Johan Sverdrup field in June 2018 for commissioning
and other preparation for operation.
Figure 7 - Johan Sverdrup Drilling Platform (Today 2017)
32
4.2 Organizational overview
The Norwegian Continental Shelf is divided into oil fields where each field is owned and
controlled by a license (NPD s.a.). The license is owned by a group of companies, where the
government controls rights to the licenses. Each company has a specific percentage of the
rights and one of the licence rights companies will function as the Operator for the field. For
this case study, Equinor is the current Operator for the respective fields of all three drilling
facilities.
Askepott is owned by the Oseberg license, Askeladden by the Gullfaks license and Johans
Sverdrup DP by the Johan Sverdrup license. All three drilling facilities are owner by a
different licensee and the rights for each field is presented in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3
below (percentage rounded up to one decimal). All numbers are collected directly from the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorates field overview (Directorate 2018).
Table 1 – Overview of Oseberg field rights
Licensees Askepott Oseberg rights
Equinor 49,3 %
Petoro AS 33,6 %
Total E&P Norge AS 14,7 %
ConocoPhillps Skandinavia 2,4 %
Table 2 – Overview of Gullfaks field rights
Licensees Askeladden Gullfaks rights
Equinor 51,0 %
Petoro AS 30,0 %
OMC (Norge) AS 19,0 %
33
Table 3 – Overview of Johan Sverdrup rights
Licensees Johan Sverdrup rights
Equinor 40,0 %
Lundin Norway AS 22,6 %
Total E&P Norge AS 17,4 %
Aker BP ASA 11,6 %
Maersk Oil Norway AS 8,4 %
Each drilling facility has an Operator on behalf of the licensees, which is Equinor as noted
above. In addition each rig will have a Drilling contractor, responsible for operation and often
maintenance on board the facility. Table 4 below shows an overview of the different
organizational relationships for each facility in the case study.
Table 4 – Organizational View
Position Askepott Askeladden Johan Sverdrup DP
Operator Equinor Equinor Equinor
Drilling Contractor KCADeutag KCADeutag Odfjell Drilling
Vendor NOV NOV NOV
The Operator for all three facilities is Equinor, as previously mentioned. The Drilling
contractor is hired by them to operate the drilling facilities, including all maintenance on their
behalf. The Drilling contractors plan and create their own maintenance program for the
drilling facilities equipment. Should there be a change of Drilling contractor when the
contract expires, Equinor has ownership rights to the maintenance history of the equipment.
This is critical for future maintenance of the drilling facilities.
The three organizations mentioned in Figure 8 below are the companies involved for
implementation of CBM. The different responsibilities for the monitoring will have to be
divided between the three organizations for implementation. The Operator is the owner, while
34
the two other parts will each supply a service. The Vendor will deliver the equipment, while
the Drilling contractor will be responsible for the operation. The analysis of the collected data
will look into different opportunities for roles and responsibility for the CBM.
Figure 8 - Organizational relationship
The current structure for the operative Cat J rigs is as follows. The Vendor, NOV, will send
all data ashore to its own data centre for the Cat J rigs or to a dedicated logger on board.
Equinor has chosen to purchase data stream for a specific amount of sensor data for the
drilling facilities for each rig. The Operator can then make its own historical log and choose
to share this with its Drilling contractor. There is a huge potential for utilizing more of the
sensor data.
4.3 Drilling Equipment
The organization responsible for monitoring and maintenance of the equipment would need to
provide proof of competence to the classification company. When applying for continuous
class, the organization would need to have completed extensive analyses in form of
Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and/or Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality
Analysis (FMECA) for the drilling equipment (Gjellestad 2015). Showing the Classification
Company that they have the required expertise, through their application. The drilling
Operator
Vendor
ConditionBased
Maintenance
DrillingContractor
35
equipment all has different criticality and the responsible part must have the expertise to
analyse and interpret the incoming data from the monitoring.
The drilling equipment on board all three drilling facilities have a selection of sensor installed
on them already. Table 5 below gives an overview of the relevant sensor types, currently
installed on the equipment. The sensors are all installed by the Vendor and are currently not
being utilized for CBM, only condition monitoring for safe operation.
Table 5 - Sensor Instrumentation
Equipment Askepott Askeladden JSDP Comment
Top Drive Vibration,
Performance
Vibration,
Performance
Vibration,
Performance
Rotating
equipment
Drawworks Vibration,
Performance
Vibration,
Performance
Vibration,
Performance
Rotating
equipment
Iron Roughneck Proximity
switches
Proximity
switches
Proximity
switches
Torque
Riser/Pipe
handling
Proximity
switches
Proximity
switches
Proximity
switches
Torque
Mud pumps Vibration,
Performance
Vibration,
Performance
Vibration,
Performance
Rotating
equipment
For Continuous classing, the regulatory requirement is vibration analysis and grease samples
(DNVGL 2018). During the Special Periodical Survey by the classification company, the
documentation for the maintenance will be inspected instead of overhauling the drilling
equipment lasting up to several weeks. The five-year inspection is moved from the drilling
floor, to the conference room. This avoids downtime for the drilling facility, which can be in
full operation during class activities. However, this creates higher requirements for the
documentation procedures.
36
5. Analysis
This is the analysing of the collected data material from the case study. The collected data has
contributed to providing a detailed image of the current situation and the challenges yet to
come for implementing CBM for the drilling facilities. In this chapter the result of the
analysis will be presented, i.e. different organizational opportunities for CBM. The technical
opportunities by utilizing sensor technology for continuous class activities are presented
based on the researchers knowledge and experience. This will be discussed in further detail in
chapter six.
5.1 Organizational aspect
Implementing CBM will require a consideration for new organizational responsibilities as
each drilling facility involves several companies that are in contractual agreements to
collaborate. When implementing CBM there will be a need for contracts that clearly defines
each organizations role and responsibility. The current organizational structure is based on the
drilling contactor having the sole responsibility for maintenance of the drilling equipment, but
implementing CBM might lead to structural changes for the operations with CBM to be
performed optimally. The Operator, Drilling contractor and Vendor will each need a role,
with contractual incentives specified, for the implementation. This will include responsibility
for the monitoring and logging of data, responsibility for maintenance and criticality and in
addition, which company owns the rights to the monitored and historically logged data and
which company will cover the costs for downtime, spare parts and maintenance. These are all
roles and tasks that need to be allocated when implementing CBM.
For the drilling facilities, there are several different options to be considered for roles and
responsibilities.
Table 6 presents the organizational options that are a result of the analysis and is described in
further detail below. It is important to notice that there are several other organizational
possibilities, which will not be looked into for this thesis. For all the cases selected below, the
Vendor will deliver the equipment for monitoring and will perform critical parts of the
maintenance, due to expertise from the Vendor regarding the equipment and its condition.
37
Table 6 – Overview of organizational opportunities
Option 1 consists of the Operators establishing their own control center with continuous
monitoring of the drilling facility. Operator will control data and provide input for Drilling
contractor, who will perform the maintenance, with regards to its urgency of being repaired.
Vendor can also be involved in parts of this maintenance, which will be up to the Operator to
decide. This opens up for the possibility of having a control centre, which can monitor all
drilling facilities operated by Equinor.
Option 2 consists of Drilling contractor controlling the monitoring from either offshore or
onshore location. They will decide criticality and urgency and when to use Vendor’s expertise
for the maintenance. Downtime due to critical equipment out of service will be loss of profit.
Option 3 consists of the Operator and/or Drilling contractor purchasing a service from the
Vendor. The Vendor will then be responsible for the monitoring the drilling equipment from
their service center, while the risk for downtime will lie on the Operator. Vendor will perform
the maintenance and have control of the data, while giving scheduled inputs for criticality and
urgency for the maintenance. Another option can be for the Operator to buy information from
the Vendor and provide input for criticality and maintenance urgency to Drilling contractor.
Should the Drilling contractor buy services directly from Vendor, they can control the data,
criticality and urgency of maintenance themselves, while they buy service from Vendor who
performs the maintenance.
Activities
Data rights
(owner)
Data
Monitoring
Criticality Urgency for
maintenance
Maintenance
work
Cost for
downtime
Option 1 Operator Operator Operator Operator Vendor/
Drilling
Contractor
Operator
Option 2 Drilling
Contractor
Drilling
Contractor
Drilling
Contractor
Drilling
Contractor
Vendor/
Drilling
Contractor
Drilling
Contractor
Option 3 Vendor Vendor Vendor Vendor Vendor Operator /
Vendor
38
5.2 Drilling Equipment
Sensors are already installed on the drilling equipment by the Vendor, but are currently being
used in just condition monitoring for safe operation. These sensors can be further utilized for
condition-based maintenance for the drilling equipment. For continuous class activities, the
regulatory requirement is vibration analysis and grease samples. With the correct logic in
place, the vibration sensors could be utilized for the CBM, without adding additional sensor
instrumentation for the rotating equipment. Saving both time and costs for the
implementation.
The Top Drive, Draw Work, Iron roughneck and Mud Pumps are all rotating equipment. The
vibration sensors monitors vibration in the bearings during operation and can detect condition
change for the bearings. Should the bearings experience wear and tear, the condition change
can be detected early and its criticality evaluated. Vibration sensors for Condition based
maintenance are already widely used by vendors.
There is extensive use of proximity sensors in drilling equipment. For pipe /riser handling
cranes and trolleys the proximity sensors are used to determine the position of the various
movable equipment, in addition to sensors registering movement and distance. The sensors
are normally used for giving a signal to the Drilling control system when a crane, a gripping
arm or a trolley has reached its next position. This can be a checkpoint on the way towards an
end position or the end position itself. The sensors are used for both vertical and horizontal
movement. The possibilities for use of the sensors lay in the control program and how to
monitor the drilling equipment. There is a potential for use of such sensors beyond just
positioning by using proximity sensors in combination or creating algorithms for detection of
variations to the signals from a defined normal.
Pipe / riser handling equipment is usually not rotational and therefore a vibrational signature
can be difficult to monitor for CBM. There are however possibilities for CBM by measuring
the positioning of the equipment and give a feedback to the drilling control system if the
signal changes. This can indicate that the position of the equipment has moved from its
normal end position. The timing for a move between positions can also be calculated to give
an indication of a possible change that can indicate a coming failure of the equipment. These
39
possibilities are not yet fully utilized by the Vendors. A small change in positioning of the
equipment relative to a proximity sensor and the timing between positions can give an
indication that there is mechanical wear. The drilling control system, monitoring the sensors,
can give an alarm for an abnormal signature. The signals can also be sent to a shore based
control center where algorithms in a monitoring and analytical control systems can inform an
operator that there is a change in the performance of the drilling equipment. This can then be
followed up with an alert to the crew onboard or to a maintenance team that visual inspection
and other methods of testing is needed. The result of this inspection/testing will then
determine the need for corrective maintenance or replacement of parts.
The ideas for using the proximity sensors for more than position checkpoint have come from
the researchers vocational background in electronics and recent studies of subsea engineering.
Several sensors can be used together for a timing of the speed and detection of changes.
Accelerometers can be added and combined with the commands given for start and stop, these
can be used to measure any change in performance for equipment movement. They can also
be used for registering trends for how much and how strong vibrations there are in any
equipment related to a change in position.
40
6. Discussion
This chapter will look into the results presented in chapter five. It will discuss the three
options from
Table 6 with regards to the theoretical framework in numerical order. Finally, the thesis will
discuss options for the drilling equipment for the technical aspect of the thesis. A summary of
the discussion and important findings will be provided in chapter seven.
6.1 Operator
For option one, the Operator will be responsible for handling the monitoring. This will
include establishing a control center, but also acquiring all the necessary knowledge for use
within the organization. This is required, as the organization will need to have similar
knowledge as the Vendor for handling the criticality and urgency for the maintenance. It is a
huge task to implement CBM and it requires the correct monitoring equipment and expertise
regarding the equipment’s condition. This is knowledge that the Vendor possesses within
their organization, experience built over several years of service in operation.
For the Operator, establishing a control center can be highly beneficial. Operator will have
full control over equipment condition, maintenance and have all rights to the historical data.
This will give them an extensive knowledge of the drilling equipment’s condition over time
and help them plan the maintenance according to operation. The three drilling facilities
researched for this study could all be implemented in one control center, dividing the cost
over several drilling facilities. As they all share the same drilling equipment type, there could
also be an option to share a spare parts stock, diving costs for spare parts. In the future, even
more facilities could be included, exploiting economies of scale by dividing the costs further.
Difficulties would be sharing between licenses. To add more monitoring for a control center,
each facilities organizational ownership and choice of equipment Vendor must be taken into
account. The more organizations involved, the tougher it can be to get all parties aligned and
implement such a joint control center. For the spare parts it would be even tougher as the
facilities might need different spare parts, creating logistical implications and possibly
41
conflicts for costs related to the spare parts. If a central station controlled and owned by the
Operator is in charge of monitoring, they can be more motivated to take risks. The Operator
can also limit the monitoring to include only compatible drilling facilities. Having control
through such a monitoring center, it can be easier to evaluate delay of the maintenance for a
specific operation, since the Operator itself will be exposed to the risk. Operator can evaluate
the benefit of completing a well and not stop the operation with the well collapsing when the
equipment is pulled out for maintenance. This can increase the need for spare parts, by
pushing an operation to the point of running equipment until failure. It might be cheaper to
replace a piece of equipment than having to drill an entirely new well and the Operator will be
exposed to the risk one way or another, and might be better off when having full control of
this decision process.
Drilling equipment is expensive and if some drilling facilities have a higher use of spare parts
than others, this can create issues within a joint control center between the companies
involved. Who gets priority if more than one party need a spare part. All costs are shared over
several licences, then when one unit has more cost and issues with equipment, it can reduce
the profit for the other involved parties of the control center. This could be a source of conflict
that would need to be addressed prior to implementation. All parts would need to be in
agreement, avoiding potential harmful situations for Moral Hazard.
For the Operator, it would require organizational change to implement a control center for
monitoring within their organization, i.e. going from a current state to a future desired state.
The organization would need to transform their current structure, but also culture, to be able
to carry out the required change (Jones 2013). The implementation would require the
organization to obtain new knowledge to be able to run the control center successfully. They
will need to find a new way to utilize their resources to obtain experience with both the
equipment to be monitored and the logic and software, created by the equipment Vendor, for
analysis of incoming data from the facilities. When implementing a new function to the
organization, the organization can experience resistance against the change (Jones 2013). This
can be highly critical and cause the implementation to be unsuccessful. The management team
would need to get all parts of the organization on board for the implementation, and keep an
open communication for the implementation. Should there be situations where parts of the
organization working against the change, this can be harmful for the organization.
42
The organizational environment surrounding the Operator would also be affected by the
implementation of a control center. The Vendor can directly affect the organization in the
specific environment through the warranty period for their equipment (Jones 2013). During
this time, all maintenance performed for the equipment would need to be in accordance with
the Vendor specifications. This will directly affect the CBM implementation, as they would
need to adapt to Vendor requirements to avoid loss of the equipment’s warranty. The
Operator would in addition have to follow all regulatory requirements in the specific
environment from both the Classification company, the Flag state and the Petroleum Safety
Authority for NCS, while transforming their maintenance system into a CBM system and
changing the organization with monitoring from a control center in addition to the existing on
the drilling facility. Should they be unable to follow the set regulations for CBM, they would
not be able to receive and keep the necessary approval for operation. From the general
environment, economical forces could affect the Operator. The industry is slowly coming out
of recession, possibly affecting future investments for the organization. This can increase their
desire to implement CBM, due to its advantages.
6.2 Drilling Contractor
For option two, the Drilling contractor will have responsibility for monitoring and
maintenance. The Drilling contractors always have responsibility for the operation, this apply
for the three drilling facilities researched, where they also currently have responsibility for the
maintenance. This can create issues with the cost of implementing CBM, as there currently is
a contract between the Operator and the Drilling contractor for operation and maintenance on
board the drilling facilities. For the Drilling Contractor to include monitoring in their
responsibility they would either need to establish a control center onshore or monitor directly
from the offshore facility. Should they establish a control center, they would face the same
implications as for the Operator discussed in section 6.1. There would also be an option for
each Drilling contractor to establish a joint control center for all the facilities they have a
contract with. The issue here would be the contract. If they were to invest in a control center,
it would be beneficial to include it for several facilities, as the contract with each facility is set
for a specific number of years. It could therefore be unprofitable, should they not get the
contract renewed and had invested for only one facility. It would require extensive
calculations to make sure profit is secured or optional the cost could be transferred to the
43
Operator should this be of interest from both parties. If the costs are shared over multiple
drilling facilities, it could make for a lower investment risk. If they would carry out the
monitoring offshore, they would face some of the same cultural and structural changes as for
an onshore control center. The personnel is already monitoring the operation and would in
addition be dependent on having all the necessary resources and expertise on board at all
times for CBM activities, which could be an issue due to Personnel on Board (POB). As they
would have the full responsibility they could hire the Vendor for assistance with tough repairs
or for criticality advice, and use them to assist when there is a lack of experience with the
monitoring. This would be especially useful for the warranty time. During the warranty period
all maintenance should be carried out according to Vendor specification, affecting the Drilling
Contractor from the specific environment.
If monitoring is performed onboard only by the Drilling Contractor and owner of the facility,
loss of equipment is loss of payment. Equipment, which is vital for drilling operations, might
be maintained better than other auxiliary equipment. This could affect other areas in terms of
HSE. Should the Drilling contractor be responsible for cost as a consequence of equipment
failure due to criticality, they could prioritize maintenance for the drilling equipment, creating
a situation of Moral Hazard. They could utilize more resources for the drilling equipment,
causing neglect, or minimum work, for the other onboard equipment. The Vendor has no
incentives to minimize the maintenance, should spare parts and working hours be excluded
from the contract. The incentive for implementing CBM for the Drilling contractor could be
getting the same payment for less working hours. It can be difficult to find an organizational
structure that would work for setting up an operating center with the Drilling Contractor. A
model where the cost is split between the owner/Operator and the Drilling contractor should
be considered, but then there should be an upside for the Drilling Contractor in the form of a
bonus or other incentives. Otherwise all the benefit is for the Operator.
Every organizational change comes with a risk. Extensive preparations and calculations are
necessary for the Drilling contractor to find the best solution. It could be beneficial for the
Drilling contractor to utilize resources for maintenance, if they are paid for these resources,
rather than implementing CBM. The profit margin is in the difference in pay for operation and
downtime. If the Drilling Contractor has an incentive through contract to keep the drilling
facilities in operation and to limit the use of spare parts, then the implementation of CBM and
possibly establishing its own monitoring center can be manageable.
44
6.3 Vendor The Vendor has supplied all drilling equipment for the drilling facilities. This is state of the
art technology within drilling, also including simulators for the drillers to practice prior to
tough drilling conditions. The Vendor has the advantage of expertise, knowledge and
experience with the equipment. This makes them a good candidate for monitoring and
handling of the equipment. There have been changes within the after sales market for
technology Vendors as a result of the lower oil prices later years, and more Lean operations
from Operators with focus on spending less for maintenance has had similar negative effect
on Vendors profit margins. This has created a need from both the general environment
through technological forces and customers and competitors from the specific environment,
for new technology and service offers to be produced for the after sales marked and
digitalization has provided this opportunity.
When purchasing technical equipment from suppliers you do not just have the option to buy
the equipment, you can also buy different service packages including everything from regular
service to CBM services. The Vendor is no longer “just a Vendor” for the sales and delivery.
They can offer full lifecycle follow up for the equipment. Most Vendors have 24/7 service
centers available to aid any customer in need, for both critical and non-critical situations. This
is the Vendor’s response to the ever-increasing need for service availability of new
technology that comes as a result of digitalization. They have found a way to aid the customer
throughout the equipment’s lifecycle, while adapting to digitalization. Responding to
uncertainties from the organizations surrounding environment.
These new business strategies also affect the regulatory requirements from the specific
environment for the Vendors. For offshore drilling facilities, one of the biggest incentives is
more efficient operation through a Continuous class scheme. This excludes the need for a
five-year overhaul, where the facility could be on downtime for several weeks, dismantling all
drilling equipment for inspection. The class activities are then done continuously, instead of
shutting down operation over a longer period of time every five years. This sets new
regulatory requirements for the Vendors and the Drilling contractor to be approved for CBM.
All Vendors would need an ISO approval from the classification company (DNVGL 2018).
The Drilling Contractor would need an approval for responsible personnel as well as approval
45
of their maintenance system. This shows the Class society they have the required skills and
knowledge for continuous class activities.
Today the Vendor can monitor, log and analyse all the incoming data from their operational
control center. This creates a complete package for the customer, where they can pay for their
Vendor to handle the equipment’s condition and all necessary repairs and replacements for
the drilling equipment throughout it´s lifecycle. The Vendor will then monitor the equipment
from their onshore service center, where they will follow the equipment’s condition. Should
there be any changes for the condition, they will receive an alarm and can from there decide
the criticality for the equipment and urgency for repair based on their in-house expertise.
Today’s technology also allows the Vendor to connect to the drilling facility from their
onshore service center, and can check the necessary actions to be made directly from their
service center (NOV s.a.). For repairs the Vendor will send a service team to the drilling
facility to carry out all required repairs and maintenance for the drilling equipment. But how
much access should the Vendor have to the facility? The Drilling contractor is currently
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility. Having the Vendor carry out the
monitoring will relieve the Drilling contractor of some responsibilities, and also force them to
cooperate with the Vendor for CBM on the drilling equipment. This can create interruptions
for the Drilling contractors day-to-day operations and create conflict between the two
organizations. Conflict can arise from many things, for example by have different
organizational cultures (Jones 2013). Each facility has a limit for Personnel On Board. Should
the drilling facility be in full operation, with many ongoing activities, maintenance could be
less prioritized, making it harder for the Vendor to send a service team at that exact time.
They will both have to adapt to each other and cooperate for the CBM implementation to be
successful for the drilling equipment.
For this third option, the Vendor has the sole responsibility for monitoring and can freely act
based on changes in equipment condition. How much responsibility should be assigned to the
Vendor? Option one can cause increased maintenance hours and use of spare parts as a result
of measured discrepancies. The Vendor will have no incentives to not act on condition
changes, creating situations of Moral Hazard (Pritchard 2016). Giving the sole responsibility
to the Vendor can cause them to act based on all discrepancies from the monitoring, if there is
no cost for downtime. Should the drilling facility be in operation, it would be a risk for the
customer to refuse the Vendors service request based on their condition monitoring. This
46
would cause downtime and the cost would be on the Operator and or Drilling contractor.
Equipment and maintenance causing downtime would reduce the incentives for CBM, but
increased maintenance frequencies can also come from desire to take risk. When the Operator
themselves decides if a monitored discrepancy is critical, the risk lies on them. Should they be
mid operation they could wish to complete the well, increasing their desire to take risk, unlike
for the Vendor. The Vendor will be less interested in taking risks than the Operator, which
can cause an increased maintenance frequency. For this option, the Vendor sells a CBM
package to their customer. Who should have the data ownership rights? Should the Vendor
own the monitored data on the Operator’s equipment? The Vendor will carry out the
monitoring, but without ownership rights to the data, the Operator and Drilling contractor will
have limited control and overview of the equipment condition and historical data. Drivers are
based on operation, while intensives are economical. For option three to work, where the
Vendor will control monitoring, criticality and urgency of repair, it would be important to
keep track of maintenance hours and use of resources (i.e. spare parts, etc.).
6.4 Drilling Equipment
During inspection by the classification company, there will be a high requirement for the
documentation, as this will be reviewed. When following the principle of Continuous class
activities, instead of overhauling the equipment for inspection during a yard stay for five-year
SPS, the documentation is inspected. New procedures for documenting the maintenance must
be made, and all personnel involved must receive relevant training for these procedures.
The equipment will have different criticality, i.e. degree of criticality should equipment fail.
Each of the drilling equipment researched in this thesis are critical for operation, in different
degree. Should the Top Drive fail all operations would stop resulting in down time, as there is
only one Top Drive. For the Mud Pumps, there are three installed on the mobile Cat J jack-up
rigs. Should one equipment fail there will be two more running. However, some operations
might require all three to run, which would lead to downtime should one fail and increase
each Mud Pumps criticality. These assessments would be carried out by the personnel
responsible for performing the maintenance for the drilling equipment. Implementing CBM is
not an isolated event and requires extensive pre-work and applications to the relevant
regulations for approval. It could be tough for an organization to carry out a revolutionary
47
change, but could rather focus on implementing CBM gradually through an evolutionary
change. When applying for Continuous class, the organization would need to have completed
extensive analysis in form of RCM and/or Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis
(FMECA) for the drilling equipment. Showing the Classification Company that they have the
required expertise, through their application.
48
7. Findings
This chapter will summarize the result and present important findings from the case study. It
will suggest further research to be made, and in the end comment implications for the
research.
7.1 Summarize
The thesis has presented three different organizational opportunities for the drilling facilities,
based on which company would be handling the monitoring and maintenance during
operation, as well as continuous class activities. These options where:
Option 1
If a Control Center, operated and owned by the Operator is in charge of monitoring, it can be
easier to combine the maintenance with the operational activities since the risk will be with
the owners. The Operator will have control over the equipment condition, will have all rights
to the data history, and can make its own decisions to determine both criticality and urgency
of repair and decide directly if the corrective actions can be postponed or to stop operation.
This information can then be handed back to the Drilling Contractor, or the Vendor directly,
to perform the maintenance. The Drilling contractor might not have any economic risk of
stopping an operation, while the Operator have all. The Operator will then benefit from
having control of the analysis telling the exact condition of the equipment in order to make an
educated decision on when to carry on operation, or to stop. It can be expensive to operate a
control center for only a few oilfields. The more oilfields that can be monitored and included
in this control center, the better the economy from having the center. The Operator can also
choose details of the maintenance contract, to award it to either a Drilling contractor or the
Vendor based on historical down time and what is more efficient and therefore economical for
the operation. The decisions of when to perform maintenance and the planning of
maintenance will be under control of the Operator even if the maintenance itself is performed
by Drilling Contractor, Vendor or another service company.
49
Option 2
There is also the option of having CBM performed by the Drilling Contractor and have the
Drilling Contractor set up its own center for monitoring for the units under their control. The
benefit will be that the Drilling Contractor, already responsible for the maintenance will have
control of both operation and can decide when to perform the maintenance. This will mean
less need for an organisation for a control center at the Operator. The investment cost
however, will be higher, if the Operator have to pay for each Drilling Contractor setting up
their own monitoring center. A possibility will then be to buy this service from the Vendor
and have the Drilling Contractor perform the analysis and decide the maintenance schedule.
Depending on the variation of rates in the contract there might not be much economical
reward for the Drilling contractor to ensure that the maintenance is planned within the
operational schedule. If the contracts already have allowed for operational down time or do
not give the Drilling Contractor an incentive to avoid this, it is possible that more incentives
are needed from the Operator to achieve the goal of keeping the drilling facilities in operation
during maintenance or replacement of equipment. If the maintenance is included in the
contract with the Operator, CBM can also be a possibility for the Drilling Contractor to
minimize the amount of maintenance to be performed. Loss of equipment is loss of payment.
Equipment, which is unique and vital for drilling operations, might be maintained better than
equipment with backup or less critical auxiliary equipment. The incentives to utilize CBM
would be less maintenance work for the same payment and achieving a more effective
operation where equipment that does not require it will receive less maintenance work.
Option 3
An option is to have the Vendor in control of the monitoring from their own control and
service center. The Vendor has the expertise of all the equipment and is the better at giving
advice on when the maintenance is to be performed. There is no incentive given for the
Vendor to keep the operation of the drilling facilities going while doing maintenance and
repair. On the contrary, it means more difficulties in performing the maintenance, having to
consider other operational and safety issues at the same time as doing the work of repair.
There is no benefit from doing maintenance during operation for the Vendor, unless there is a
bonus or payment from the Drilling Contractor or the Operator for preventing downtime.
With the Vendor in control, the maintenance might actually increase as a result of measured
discrepancies / measured changes in frequency from the sensors. For the Vendor there might
be a risk of reputation if they fail to alert the Operator or Drilling Contractor when a situation
50
occurs that cause downtime, and only profit in doing maintenance more frequent than needed,
by the sale of parts and labour. The incentive for the Vendor to have control of the data would
be profit through a contractual agreement for monitoring and maintenance of the equipment.
It can be a disadvantage for the Operator or the Drilling Contractor if the Vendor has the
power to decide maintenance amount and frequency, without any responsibility for downtime.
The Vendor has no incentive to minimize maintenance, but customer can provide them
incentives through a maintenance contract, should the Vendor manage to keep a continuous
and efficient operation. This requires control of the need for maintenance and the Operator or
Drilling Contractor will still need to be in close cooperation with the Vendor for the
scheduling of maintenance during operation.
For all the above models to work, the downtime cost needs to be split between both the
Operator and the Drilling contractor. There is also the need from those companies to share the
downtime cost with the Vendor, or perhaps better, to give an incentive for keeping the
maintenance and use of spare parts to a minimal while keeping the drilling facilities in
continuous operation. This can either be included in the contract between the Drilling
contractor and Operator or put as a separate bonus scheme for achieving time for perfect well.
This thesis shows how beneficial it is for any of the companies to have control of the analysis
and the historical data trends and to be able to decide when it is necessary to perform
maintenance and the extent of the maintenance. The Operator for keeping the operation going,
and preventing downtime. The Drilling Contractor to minimize the need for labour extensive
maintenance and thereby saving cost. For the Vendor it is beneficial to have control of the
data to sell this as a service to other companies, to have control of the need for service and
maintenance provided by its own maintenance department, and to be able to provide advice
on when replacement of parts will be necessary. A huge portion of Vendors revenue will be
service and sales of spare parts and to have control of the scheduling of this can be very
profitable.
The thesis also considered options for utilizing installed sensors for CBM. The process of
implementing CBM will determine the number of sensors needed for the monitoring.
The regulatory requirement for continuous class activities includes vibration analysis and
grease samples. The thesis shows that, the already installed vibration sensors for the rotating
drilling equipment, and some additional need for sensor instrumentation for increased
51
monitoring will be a good foundation for the transfer from calendar based to condition based
maintenance. This includes the opportunity to use the already installed proximity sensor for
the pipe/riser handling tools and Iron Roughneck for CBM.
For implementation of CBM there are many implications for the owners of the drilling
facilities and there is a need for proper Management of Change for drilling facilities that are
in operation. The Operator should decide which company will have the responsibility to
perform the monitoring, using the equipment and technology provided by the Vendor. The
Operator should also decide its own involvement in defining each equipment’s criticality and
the operational criticality for the drilling facilities, criticality for preventing downtime.
Decisions are to be made for who is responsible for making the necessary decisions regarding
planning of maintenance, repair or replacement of parts, criticality levels, criticality of the
equipment, and finally decide the urgency of repair and maintenance based on warnings and
critical alerts. The overall goal for the Operator for implementation of CBM, Digitalization, is
to achieve continuous and more effective operation. This will be the same goal for the
Drilling Contractor and the Vendor if the correct incentives are in place through contractual
agreements.
7.2 Further research This thesis was carried out as an explorative case study. It did not provide any final
conclusions to an existing problem, but would consider opportunities for CBM and suggest
further research to be made (Yin 2014). This thesis considered three different drilling
facilities with equipment provided from the same Vendor. The theoretical framework was
selected based on their implications for the thesis problem. Further literature aspects need to
be researched as to get a wider understanding of implementation of CBM. This includes a
wider look into other viewpoints for organizational theory, which is note provided for this
thesis and should be further researched. In addition, data transaction costs, the need for
sensors and to further explore the investment and operational cost for establishing a control
center should be further researched, as well as performing FMECA and RCM analysis that
would need to be performed to get an overview of the equipment’s criticality. This would be
the basis for implementing CBM and should be performed for all applicable drilling
equipment.
52
7.3 Critical reflection There are some limitations to the research carried out for this thesis. The research has only
included three drilling facilities with equipment supplied from one Vendor. The research can
therefore not necessarily be eligible for other manufacturers. In addition, regulatory
requirement was only researched for mobile jack-up rigs and fixed drilling platforms. Mobile
semisubmersible drilling rigs have critical equipment for position keeping and CBM can
provide an even better effect for continuous operation of such drilling facilities. Combining
monitoring of the positioning system with the drilling facilities.
One of the Drilling contractors was not available for interview during the data collection, but
information was gathered through different sources. This could have affected interpretations
and the result for the thesis.
53
References Adams, S. D. (2014). "DNV GL: Beyond condition monitoring in the maritime industry." Retrieved 01.05.2018, 2018, from https://www.dnvgl.com/news/dnv-gl-beyond-condition-monitoring-in-the-maritime-industry-7685. Authority, N. M. (2016). "Mobile offshore units." Retrieved 12.05, 2018, from https://www.sdir.no/en/shipping/vessels/vessel-types/mobile-offshore-units/. Directorate, N. P. (2018, 06.05.2018). "Field." Retrieved 06.05, 2018, from http://factpages.npd.no/factpages/Default.aspx?culture=no. DNVGL. (2018). "Digitalization in the oil and gas sector." Retrieved 12.05, 2018, from https://www.dnvgl.com/oilgas/download/digitalization-in-oil-and-gas-sector.html. DNVGL (2018). Drilling facilitites. dnvgl.com, DNV GL. DNVGL-OS-E101. DNVGL (2018). Fleet in service. dnvgl.com, DNV GL. DNVGL-RU-OU-0300. DNVGL (2018). Offshore driling and support units. dnvgl.com, DNV GL. DNVGL-RU-OU-0101. DNVGL. (2018, 01.2018). "Rules for classification." Retrieved 11.05, 2018, from https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNVGL/RU-OU/2018-01/DNVGL-RU-OU-0300.pdf. DNVGL. (s.a.). "Class transfer of mobile offhore units." Retrieved 10.05, 2018, from https://www.dnvgl.com/services/class-transfer-of-mobile-offshore-units-26696. DNVGL. (s.a.). "Drill PMS - Planned Maintenance System." Retrieved 10.05, 2018, from https://www.dnvgl.com/services/drill-pms-planned-maintenance-system-113450. DNVGL. (s.a.). "Our History." Retrieved 20.04.2018, 2018, from https://www.dnvgl.com/about/in-brief/our-history.html. DNVGL. (s.a.). "PMC RCM: Planned Maintenance - Reliability centered." Retrieved 10.05, 2018, from https://www.dnvgl.com/services/pms-rcm-planned-maintenance-reliability-centred-12199. Easterby-Smith, M., R. Thorpe and P. R. Jackson (2015). Management & Business Research, Sage: 67-75, 333. Gjellestad, O. J. (2015). Drifts- og vedlikeholdsledelse, Høgskolen i Bergen: 310. Hölstrom, B. (1979). "Moral Hazard and Observability." The Bell Journal Economics 10: 74-91. IMO. (s.a.). "Safety regulations for different types of ships." Retrieved 11.05, 2018, from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Regulations/Pages/Default.aspx.
54
Jones, G. R. (2013). Organizational Theory, Design and Change. England, Pearson Education Limited. Ludvigsen, K. (2016, 19.07.2017). "Iron Roughneck." Retrieved 29.04, 2018, from https://ndla.no/nb/node/168498?fag=137414. Ludvigsen, K. (2016, 20.07.2017). "Rørhåndtering på boredekk." Retrieved 29.04, 2018, from https://ndla.no/nb/node/161723?fag=137414. Ludvigsen, K. (2016, 09.01.2018). "Top drive (boremaskin)." Retrieved 29.04, 2018, from https://ndla.no/nb/node/158617?fag=137414. NOV (s.a.). 14-P-220 Triplex Mud Pump. NOV.com. NOV (s.a.). AR3200 Automated Iron Roughneck. NOV.com. NOV. (s.a., 08.03.2017). "Casing Running Tools." Retrieved 10.05.2018, 2018, from https://www.nov.com/Segments/Rig_Technologies/Rig_Equipment/Offshore/Handling_Tools/Casing_Running_Tools.aspx. NOV. (s.a.). "eHawk™ Remote Support." Retrieved 12.05, 2018, from https://www.nov.com/Segments/Rig_Technologies/Aftermarket_Operations/eHawk_Remote_Support.aspx. NOV. (s.a., 08.03.2017). "Handling Tools." Retrieved 10.05.2018, 2018, from https://www.nov.com/Segments/Rig_Systems/Offshore/Handling_Tools.aspx. NOV (s.a.). Horizontal-To-Vertical Pipe Handling. NOV.com. NOV (s.a.). TDS-8SA Top Drive. NOV.com. NPD. (s.a.). "Licensing rounds." Retrieved 02.05, 2018, from http://www.npd.no/en/Licensing-rounds/. NTC (s.a.). Criticality analysis for maintenance purposes. standard.no. Z-008: 30. Pritchard, J. (2016, 22.08.2016). "Moral Hazard - What It Is and How It Works." Retrieved 01.05, 2018, from https://www.thebalance.com/moral-hazard-what-it-is-and-how-it-works-315515. PSA. (2017). "Safety and responsibility." Retrieved 15.05, 2018, from http://www.ptil.no/getfile.php/1346704/PDF/Safety and responsibilit_nett.pdf. PSA. (s. a.). "About the HSE regulations." Retrieved 02.05.2018, 2018, from http://www.ptil.no/about-the-hse-regulation/category929.html. PSA. (s. a., 18.12.2017). "Activities." Retrieved 11.05.2018, 2018, from http://www.ptil.no/activities/category399.html.
55
PSA. (s. a., 15.12.2017). "Framework HSE." Retrieved 11.05.2018, 2018, from http://www.ptil.no/framework-hse/category403.html - _Toc438218427. Paaske, S. (2016, 17.07.2017). "Heisespillet i boretårnet." Retrieved 29.04, 2018, from https://ndla.no/nb/node/158927?fag=137414. Rigzone. (2009, 15.10.2009). "NOV Stands Out in Offshore Mud Pump Category." Retrieved 10.05.2018, 2018, from https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/81464/nov_stands_out_in_offshore_mud_pump_category/. SDIR (2016). Regler for flyttbare innretninger 2016. Norway, Fagbokforlaget. Seehusen, J. (2015). "Statoil vil ha tilstandsbasert vedlikehold." Retrieved 20.05.2018, from https://www.tu.no/artikler/statoil-vil-ha-tilstandsbasert-vedlikehold/218135. Statoil. (2018, 04.04.2018). "Askeladden seeking its fortune on Gullfaks." Retrieved 08.05.2018, 2018, from https://www.statoil.com/en/news/askeladden-seeking-its-fortune-on-gullfaks.html. Taraldsen, L. and I. Andersen (2015). "Oljeselskapene kutter tusenvi." Retrieved 10.05.2018, from https://www.tu.no/artikler/oljeselskapene-kutter-tusenvis-gode-tider-for-dem-som-kommer-med-smarte-losninger/223944 Today, O. E. (2017). "Johan Sverdrup drilling platform audit finds no major issues." Retrieved 21.05.2018, from https://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/johan-sverdrup-drilling-platform-audit-finds-no-major-issues/ Wathne, K. H. and H. Biong (2009). "Når "vennene" lurer deg." Retrieved 19.05, 2018, from https://www.magma.no/naar-vennene-lurer-deg Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research. USA, Sage Publications, Inc.: 9-14, 45-50, 105-118, 238. Økland, J. (2016, 28.01.2016). "Hvem får hjelpe Askeladden og Askepott på jobb?" Retrieved 01.05, 2018, from https://sysla.no/hvem-far-hjelpe-askeladden-og-askepott-pa-jobb/.
56
Attachments
Attachment I Interview number 1 Organization: Operator (Statoil) Case unit: Johan Sverdrup Drilling Platform Date: 21.03.2018 Place: Stavanger Guide: Semi structured
Questions for candidate:
Can you describe the current maintenance responsibilities and future plans for maintenance
for the drilling equipment?
Can you describe the ownership structure for the maintenance history for the drilling
equipment?
Can you describe the sensor technology used for the drilling equipment?
Which data is collected for the drilling equipment and how is the data logged?
Can you describe which access Statoil has for the current monitored data?
How does Statoil currently utilize this data?
Can you describe the ownership structure for logged sensor data and historical data?
Can you describe how the monitoring responsibilities could be divided between the Operator,
Drilling Contractor and Vendor?
57
Attachment II
Interview number 2 Organization: Operator (Statoil) Case unit: Cat J Date: 22.03.2018 Place: Stavanger Guide: Semi structured
Questions for candidate:
Can you describe the current maintenance responsibilities and future plans for maintenance
for the drilling equipment?
Can you describe the ownership structure for the maintenance history for the drilling
equipment?
Can you describe the sensor technology used for the drilling equipment?
Which data is collected for the drilling equipment and how is the data logged?
Can you describe which access Statoil has for the current monitored data?
How does Statoil currently utilize this data?
Can you describe the ownership structure for logged sensor data and historical data?
58
Attachment III
Interview number 3 Organization: Drilling contractor Date: 22.03.2018 Place: Stavanger. Guide: Semi structured
Questions for candidate:
Can you describe the current maintenance program?
Can you describe the sensor technology used for the drilling equipment?
Can you describe the ownership structure for logged sensor data and historical data?
Can you describe the current organizational structure for maintenance of drilling equipment
between the Operator, Drilling Contractor and Vendor?
What future plans is there for maintenance for the drilling equipment?
Can you describe the class requirements for the maintenance program?
How does continuous classing affect the maintenance program?
59
Attachment IIII
Interview number 4 Organization: Operator (Statoil) Case unit: Johan Sverdrup Drilling Platform Date: 23.03.2018 Place: Stavanger. Guide: Semi structured
Questions for candidate:
Can you describe the current maintenance responsibilities and future plans for maintenance
for the drilling equipment?
Can you describe the ownership structure for the maintenance history for the drilling
equipment?
Can you describe the sensor technology used for the drilling equipment?
Which data is collected for the drilling equipment and how is the data logged?
Can you describe which access Statoil has for the current monitored data?
How does Statoil currently utilize this data?
Can you describe the ownership structure for logged sensor data and historical data?
Can you describe how the monitoring responsibilities could be divided between the Operator,
Drilling Contractor and Vendor?
60
Attachment V
Interview number 5 Organization: Drilling Contractor Case unit: Cat J Date: 18.04.2018 Place: Stavanger. Guide: Semi structured
Questions for candidate:
Can you describe the current maintenance program for the drilling equipment?
Which data is currently collected for the drilling equipment?
Can you describe which access DC has for the current monitored data?
Can you describe future plans for maintenance for the drilling equipment?
What are the DC thoughts for CBM for the drilling equipment?
How does the DC look at opportunities for utilizing CBM?
Can you describe how the monitoring responsibilities could be divided between the Operator,
Drilling Contractor and Vendor?
61
Attachment VI
Interview number 6 Organization: Vendor Case unit: Cat J and JSDP Date: 20.04.2018 Place: Stavanger Guide: Semi structured
Questions for candidate:
Can you describe the current business model for the monitoring opportunities?
Can you describe sensor instrumentation for the drilling equipment onboard JSDP and Cat J?
Which data is currently collected for the drilling equipment?
What options do you see for monitoring drilling equipment on board JSDP and Cat J?
Can you describe options for different packages for CBM for the drilling equipment?
Can you describe the regulatory requirements for Vendors for continuous classing?
62
Attachment VII
Interview number 7 Organization: Classification Company Case unit: Cat J and JSDP Date: 26.04.2018 Place: Skype Guide: Semi structured
Questions for candidate:
Which offshore standards should maintenance for the drilling equipment follow?
Which government requirements does the class take into account, in addition to its own?
How are Drilling Unit-N and Drill N affected by CBM?
Can you describe the five-year classing for CBM and its requirements?
Which data will the classification company need access for?
Can you describe the class requirements for equipment and vendors for CBM?
What will be happening with regards to CBM in the near future?