Interface management in
complex projects
Managing the interface between contractors, owners and a host of authorities
and affected groups is vital to the success of large and complex energy projects
Richard Collins and Robert Durham Foster Wheeler
Raafat Fayek and Walid Zeid GASCO
T
.', n 5P TO TPD
he United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been National Oil Company (ADNOC) for health,
progressively expanding its oil and gas safety and environment (HSE) studies approvals,
production for decades, and has ambitious the Supreme Petroleum Council to obtain project
plans to continue to do so. However, as projects approvals, and working with ADNOC managehave become larger and more complex, and some ment, other ADNOC operating companies, EPC
of them are extensions to existing facilities, there contractors, Abu Dhabi Water & Electricity
has been a vast increase in the array of interac- Authority (ADWEA), municipalities, forestry
tions between the respective projects, the existing commission, local highways authorities, the
facilities and the infrastructure and third parties Petroleum Port Authority at Ruwais, Port Zayed
upon which they both depend and on which they at Abu Dhabi, Critical National Infrastructure
impact. These interactions, if not managed effec- Authority, police, and so on, have all had their
tively, can lead to major difficulties at both challenging moments. This experience has
macro and local planning levels.
provided an extensive insight into the way in
Foster Wheeler, an engineering, procurement which these interactions work in Abu Dhabi, and
and construction contractor (EPC), is active in lessons learned regarding the critical success
the design and execution of
major projects throughout the
Middle East region and
Ruwais
globally, and has provided
# TPD
management
services
to
"OROUGE
PETROCHEMICALS
several of the larger projects
in Abu Dhabi at Habshan,
4AKREER
,0'
'!3#/
Asab and Ruwais. This article
CONDENSATE
RD .', TRAIN
TANKS
outlines some of the challenges with key inter-faces
Habshan
#ONDENSATE
&EED GAS
and interdependencies that
BPD
!$#/
were encountered in Abu
--SCFD
GASCO
/'$n))) UPSTREAM
.', n TPD
OGD–III
Dhabi, together with the
/'' )
)NJECTION
GAS
actions taken to manage them
--SCFD
during the implementation of
.', n TPD
"U (ASA
these large and complex
Asab
&EED GAS
EXISTING
--SCFD
projects.
'!3#/
!$#/
.', n TPD
!3!"
!'$n)
Working closely with the
!'$n))
EXISTING
'AS TO INJECTION
GASCO management team,
--SCFD
interfacing activities with
parties such as Abu Dhabi Figure 1 Overall facilities block diagram
www.digitalrefining.com/id/123456
PTQ Q1 2010 1
Allocation of project packages
Project package
Description
1 OGD-III Upstream (OGG & I)
Gas gathering and sour gas
injection facilities for OGD-III
Responsible operating
company (OPCO)
ADCO
2 OGD-III
Onshore gas development phase III —
condensate and NGL recovery and NGL pipeline
GASCO
3 AGD-II
Asab gas development phase II — NGL recovery and pipeline
GASCO
4 Train III
GASCO Ruwais expansion — 3rd NGL
fractionation train, storage, jetty and berth
GASCO
TAKREER Ruwais — condensate tankage and tie-ins
TAKREER
5 Condensate tanks
Table 1
factors in making these interactions function
well.
In summary, this article provides a case study
which demonstrates that good interface management is vital to the successful delivery of large,
complex projects.
GASCO projects
In 2001, as part of its ongoing development
programme for oil and gas production in Abu
Dhabi, ADNOC instigated a major project to
recover and process additional quantities of oil
and gas from its existing reserves. The project
was known as OGD-III/AGD-II.
A pre-feasibility study resulted in the definition of a suite of five separate, but closely
integrated, projects interconnected to existing
facilities at Habshan, Asab and Ruwais (see
Figure 1).
While the five new plants would ultimately be
owned and operated by three of ADNOC’s
subsidiaries — namely, Abu Dhabi Gas Industries
(GASCO), Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil
Operations (ADCO) and Abu Dhabi Oil Refining
Company (TAKREER) — GASCO was given the
lead role in developing and implementing this
overall project, with support from its two sister
companies. Package definition was allocated on
a geographic basis, taking account of eventual
asset operatorship. The final split of major packages is shown in Table 1.
Together, these projects repres-ented a total
investment in excess of $5 billion on a 2005 cost
base. A contract was awarded to Foster Wheeler
in December 2001 for the provision of project
2 PTQ Q1 2010
management consultancy (PMC) services to
assist GASCO in developing the OGD-III/AGD-II
suite of projects.
The feasibility study was undertaken by Fluor
in the US, and the front-end engineering design
(FEED)/project specification was completed by
Bechtel in the UK. Throughout these early stages,
staff from GASCO and the PMC were based in
the respective contractors’ offices to provide
management and general review/approval of the
work as it proceeded. Support was provided as
required by visits from ADCO and TAKREER
management teams.
FEED stage development
Identified need for an interface manager
As can be seen from the highly integrated flow
scheme and multi-operator scenario, there are
substantial
technical,
physical,
logistical,
commercial and organis-ational interfaces
between the various elements of this project.
Management coordination of the extensive and
diverse nature of these interfaces was recognised
as being critical to the overall success of the
project. In May 2003, the position of interface
manager was established to provide a single
focal point.
In addition to inter-project interfaces, it was
soon perceived that each of the five individual
EPC project packages not only had its own intraproject interfaces, such as tie-ins to existing
facilities, but each also had extra-project interfaces in relation to other independent projects in
their vicinity, including local infrastructure
systems. Local and national approvals were
www.digitalrefining.com/id/123456
Interdependent projects (example)
Project
Contact
Scope
Affected scopes
Scheduled completion
Interface issues
S/S9
Project manager,
New substation
Provides power
Oct 2005
1 Responsible company/contact: GASCO
Project 6404
GASCO
at Ruwais
supply to 3rd NGL
Level 0
2 Extent of workscope: available as EPC
enquiry spec
including new SCMS
train at Ruwais
schedule available
EPC award Dec 03
3 Schedule for undertaking work —
conditions/limitations/risks: draft schedule in
tender documents
4 Interface points (responsibilities for location,
design, construction, commissioning): new
switchgear/tie-in to new SS9; cable route accessibility
5 Construction plan: awaited
Table 2a
progressively required to document and sanction
the identified impacts at every stage of each
project’s development.
While the general requirements for the function were known by many, the initial task for the
interface manager was to define the role and
optimum strategy for its successful implementation. With such a range of possible strategies, it
was important to agree and document the
balance of scope, responsibility and resources to
be provided to support the position of interface
manager within the established project teams.
Alternative strategies were defined, complete
with resource assessments, for review with
GASCO. The selected strategy required that the
interface manager would work within the overall
project team and utilise existing personnel and
services to support his work.
Interface execution plan
The project execution plan for both the FEED
and the EPC stages had already been defined.
However, specific considerations relating to
planning of, and responsibilities for, interface
coordination within, between and external to the
various projects were incorporated. These related
to all project phases, from initial site surveys
through commissioning to operation and final
plant acceptance.
The concept selected required that the EPC
contractors would have the prime responsibility
to coordinate and manage their respective interfaces. However, the GASCO/PMC team would
provide support, facilitate contact with the
respective authorities and generally monitor the
interface activities and drive these to a successful
conclusion.
Primary interfaces and inter-dependencies
With the execution strategy agreed, a list of all
the possible projects and tasks that could potentially affect, or be affected by, the various
individual projects, was identified and agreed.
An initial list of about 15 projects formed the
original basis of the assessment. By the end of
the FEED stage, more than 30 projects were
listed and many others were added during the
life of the EPC phase execution.
Interdependent projects (example)
Project
Contact
Scope
Affected scopes
Scheduled completion
Interface issues
Liquid
Sr project manager, Pipeline from Pipetrack Habshan-Ruwais.
Aug 2005
1 Responsible company/contact: GASCO
sulphur
GASCO
Habshan
Power supply at Habshan
Level 0
2 Extent of workscope: pipeline and power
pipeline
Project 5204
to Ruwais
& Ruwais (S/S 9)
schedule available supply
—
scope of requirements available
FEED stage
3 Pipe routing: per pipe alignment drawings
EPC award Feb 04
by study engineer
4 Schedule for undertaking work — conditions/
limitations/risks: later, after EPC award
5 Construction plan: later, after EPC award
Table 2b
www.digitalrefining.com/id/123456
PTQ Q1 2010 3
Interfacing projects were defined as either:
interdependent, where there would be direct
interface — for instance, physical tie-ins; or
parallel, where there would be no direct interface, but where the potential for interference,
such as access to site, could not be discounted.
A tabulation of these projects was established,
together with key reference data, examples of
which are shown below. These were reviewed
and updated monthly, with any new data being
progressed through the information chain
so as to enable review for any possible impact on
other projects.
Monitoring and reporting in-country developments
Identification of ongoing and future projects and
their potential impacts was essential. The GASCO
project team, with input from ADCO and
TAKREER, provided a wealth of knowledge
regarding potential interface projects. However,
it was not until a tour of all the plant sites at
Habshan, Asab, Ruwais and the interconnecting
pipelines route was complete that all of the
smaller, more obscure projects were identified.
The project listing was considered a live document. Existing projects changed through their
lifetime and new projects were regularly added,
reflecting the ambitious develop-ment plans of a
dynamic country.
Throughout the FEED stage, the PMC had resident site coordinators at each of the three GASCO
sites at Habshan, Asab and Ruwais. These multitasking engineers provided a point of contact at
the sites to supply the interface manager with
information, including GASCO site management
views regarding key interfaces and any potential
problems associated with them. Optimal locations
of tie-ins, pipe and cable routings were all facilitated by these site coordinators.
Once interface projects were identified, their
characteristics were investigated and an assessment of the impact risks they might have
on each of the major projects documented.
Planning for the interfaces
When interface projects were identified, the
interface manager:
• Liaised with all relevant parties to establish
the schedules for all such interface projects and
reviewed these in the context of the schedules
for the individual scopes within the OGD-III/
AGD-II project
4 PTQ Q1 2010
Identified the potential impacts — in addition
to schedule — on this project of all the interfacing projects
• Ensured the FEED engineer identified and
incorporated all intra-project interfaces and tiein points for inclusion in the EPC packages
• Ensured the FEED engineer established proper
schedules for the various parts of this project, to
show the timing required for interfaces/tie-ins to
be completed
• Identified the formal approval processes, and
their timings, as are required for the project
through to beneficial operation, so as to schedule
these into the overall programme
• Reviewed the interactions of the multiple
project schedules to identify key dates for
performing tie-ins and minimise the number of
any additional shutdowns necessary for this
project to be implemented
• Arranged for all interested parties to participate in a risk assessment relating to the impacts
of the interface projects, and proposed a methodology for monitoring and advising GASCO
management regarding the progress of the interface projects and any mitigating actions that
might be required as the projects progressed
• Established a level 1 programme to show all of
the interface projects and their potential impact
on each of the five projects within the OGD-III/
AGD-II programme.
To formalise these activities, check lists of issues
and criteria against which each of the interface
projects would be assessed were established to
monitor and report progress on all related
issues.
•
Publicity
As with all new initiatives, publicity was important to get all people who could assist the
initiative to fully understand the need, the
objectives, the methodology and the planned
benefits.
In July 2003, a series of presentations was
held in Abu Dhabi for the parties who would
most directly influence success. GASCO division
and project managers, ADNOC managers and
executives, then separately the OPCO managers
at Habshan, Asab and Ruwais were appraised of
the initiative and encouraged to participate. This
effort in making key people aware of, and
included in, the activity was crucial to the later
success of the interface initiative.
www.digitalrefining.com/id/123456
High-level workshop
Following the publicity tour, the tangible deliverables in terms of project procedures were
developed. By January 2004, a high-level workshop was undertaken. More than 40 executives
and senior personnel from the relevant companies, covering the full range of business lines,
attended. These included ADNOC E&P, ADNOC
Marketing, ADNOC Chemicals Directorate,
TAKREER, ADCO and GASCO, as well as senior
members of the OGD-III/AGD-II project
management teams.
The workshop comprised a series of presentations on key issues, followed by structured
teamwork sessions. Report-back from the team
sessions resulted in a range of additional issues
that were later correlated, analysed and consolidated into the Interface Management Programme.
This workshop presented an ideal forum for the
disclosure of potential effects on the project and
their evaluation by the attendees, benefiting from
their extensive knowledge and experience in the
oil and gas business in Abu Dhabi.
Land allocations
One of the first critical areas of interface coordination was land allocation. This covered the
new processing facilities, but also temporary
facilities such as labour camps, project offices,
fabrication and laydown areas required to realise
the project. This temporary land use usually
requires a greater area than the permanent
facilities.
It may seem strange that land in Abu Dhabi
can be difficult to allocate. However, parts of the
country are inundated with oil and gas wells, and
are criss-crossed with pipelines carrying oil, gas
and water, high-voltage electrical power lines,
occasional roads, tree plantations and settlements. This existing infrastructure can result in
significant areas near existing oil and gas
processing plants being construed as sterile with
regards to further development or even temporary use.
To add to existing limitations on land, longer
term plans to drill additional oil and gas wells
may preclude the use of land that appears to be
accessible at present. The infrastructure supporting these plans also has to be considered.
In general, land in the vicinity of an existing
processing site is allocated to the care and
control of the responsible operating company
(OPCO) with the largest ownership of infrastruc-
www.digitalrefining.com/id/123456
ture. Land adjacent to the Habshan plants
of ADCO/GASCO is under the care of ADCO,
whereas within the Ruwais Industrial Complex
land allocation is by TAKREER, the refinery
operating company.
Land away from the direct influence of the
OPCO requires approval by the local and area
administration authority and the respective
directorates. This can relate to pipeline routings
and road crossings, electrical power cable routes,
fibre-optic cable routes, cross-country telemetry
systems, and so on.
Even when the prime party for land allocation
has been identified, it is necessary to obtain
letters of no objection from any number of
other potentially affected parties before submitting a land use request. These may include the
regional town and planning department, public
works department, buildings directorate, water
and power authority (ADWEA), Etisalat,
Transco, forestry commission, military authorities and others. It is not unusual to find that
one authority will provide a letter of no objection subject to another authority offering no
objection.
To obtain such approval, the scope and timing
of the overall project must be provided, together
with
details
relevant
to
the
specific
issue that requires approval. This may be a
multistage process, starting with preliminary
data to obtain outline permission and later
followed up with fully engineered documentation
to obtain final permission.
The action of submitting requests for preliminary letters of no objection during the FEED
stage ensured all relevant authorities were
appraised of the project. As the projects received
sanction, GASCO advised the key authorities
accordingly to facilitate final approvals during
the project execution stage.
SIMOPS
SIMOPS refers to the simultaneous operations of
existing facilities during the construction and
commissioning of adjacent new facilities. It is a
critical element in the overall HSE management
for any new facilities project. Interfaces by definition include SIMOPS, and extensive efforts
were made to identify the issues and mitigations
that would be required to reduce to the realistic
minimum any risk to safety and the
environment.
PTQ Q1 2010 5
Obligations for contractors and owner
EPC stage management
With any project, it is important for the owner,
at the outset, to define and sanction the level of
risk it is prepared to take, whether this is cost,
schedule, HSE or product quality. Once this level
of risk is defined, the appropriate allocation of
risk between owner and contractor can be
communicated, and the contract wording and
procedures developed accordingly. Risk means
money, and any exceptional risk allocated by
owner to contractor will generally manifest itself
in a higher contract value.
In the case of interfaces, it is doubly important
to identify which party is best able to minimise
specific components of risk and to control those
that will exist. Some owners will provide an
extended project team to manage all such interfaces, while others will allocate the full risk to
the contractor.
In this case, GASCO identified in the invitation
to tender as many of the interface issues as could
be identified at the tender stage, advised of
others as they arose during the tender stage, and
required the contractor to provide interface
management for all known and inherent interfaces at the time of contract award.
The message in the Tender documentation and
subsequently incorporated in the EPC Contract
was: “Owner has identified extensive interfaces
that Contractor will be required to manage.
Whilst Owner has an Interface Manager in its
management team and will monitor Contractor’s
interface activities and assist by facilitating
access to other parties undertaking such interfaces, Contractor’s responsibility for coordinating
and completing all interfaces is within the
contract scope.”
Reinforcing the message
Tender evaluations
The comprehensive evaluation of the lump sum
tenders for the projects included an assessment
of the contractor’s understanding of, and provision for, interface manage-ment. This covered
the contractor’s inclusion of a dedicated interface manager, its knowledge of undertaking
EPC contracts in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, the
general process for obtaining permits, interaction at ports of entry, market availability of
local materials in the context of other project
works in the specific project area, logistics of
site access with other contractors on site, and
so on.
6 PTQ Q1 2010
The critical role of interface management, and
the obligation for the EPC contractor to manage
it, was reinforced right from the outset in the
project kick-off meetings.
Coordination of this message was facilitated by
the award of further PMC contracts to Foster
Wheeler for the EPC stage of two separate major
projects at Habshan and for the 3rd NGL Train
project at Ruwais, and in the role of overall
interface management between the suite of
projects. This provided the continuity of personnel and know-ledge of the interface issues. It
also ensured the ready interaction between the
individual project management teams within the
overall interface framework estab-lished by the
resident GASCO/PMC interface manager.
Managing the interfaces
Each PMC project team worked closely with
GASCO’s own project personnel and the operating groups to ensure complete understanding of,
and agreement with, all decisions regarding
project issues. This was never more critical than
with regard to interfaces, of which there were
many between GASCO’s existing plants and the
new projects. In the case of Ruwais, there were
many piping tie-ins that required a shipping
window in which piping in the storage and jetty
areas could be emptied and purged by GASCO’s
operations team so as to enable the EPC contractor to undertake the necessary tie-in work.
Each EPC contractor developed a comprehensive list of interfaces against which it reported
progress on a regular basis. It was crucial that
each EPC contractor progressed its own activities
and highlighted any areas or interfaces that
required GASCO’s input or support to facilitate
responses or actions from third parties.
EPC contractors’ progress with these interfaces
was monitored consistently across all the projects
by the GASCO/PMC interface manager to ensure
focus on the big picture was maintained.
Corrective actions were recommended where it
was deemed necessary.
Some of the most important interfaces related
to the alignment of projects where they directly
interact; for instance, power supply to OGD-III
at Habshan, product flow from OGD-III and
AGD-II to Ruwais NGL3, and availability of new
wells. These are critical; the outcome of any
www.digitalrefining.com/id/123456
delay in these interface areas could cascade down
through affected projects and determine when
additional product is available to market. A
problem with even the most obscure interface
can, therefore, be multiplied, to have a serious
detrimental impact on the whole of the integrated projects in this chain of supply.
Certain key value judgments that inevitably
have to be taken by owners throughout the life
of a project can be seriously flawed without an
overview of the full perspective of the interfacing
schedules and interdependencies.
Managing perceptions
The substantial effort expended by GASCO/PMC
to ensure all external parties were kept informed
of the progress of the projects was one of the key
elements of the PMC interface manager’s role.
Affected parties were advised in advance of the
specific issues where they would be requested to
assist. Many of these third parties allocated a
single point of contact so that GASCO/PMC and
the EPC contractor could jointly and individually
communicate with them on a consistent basis.
Maintaining alignment
Regular alignment workshops were held to
encourage cross communi-cation between project
management teams. Project managers and PMC
representatives from the OGD-III/ADG-II
projects presented their project status to the
assembled GASCO senior management, corporate division managers and project managers
from other, interfacing projects. Lessons learned
and project initiatives were shared at this forum
that further reinforced GASCO’s commitment to
interface coordination.
Keep alert to new and recurring issues
The FEED stage identified approxi-mately 30
projects that would require some degree of interface monitoring. Since then, and in line with Abu
Dhabi’s drive to increase production in the oil
and gas sector, there has been a series of
announce-ments regarding many world-scale
projects in the Emirate. As each of these
progresses through the early development and
FEED stages, the GASCO PMC interface manager
has been active in securing contact with, and
obtaining information on, the new projects. In
particular, during the EPC execution of the
Ruwais 3rd NGL Train, design has started on
www.digitalrefining.com/id/123456
three new projects, which have a direct effect on
Train 3 and also interface with each other, not
least with regard to land allocation.
The extent to which the ongoing project can
accept any modifications to pre-empt the needs
of the new projects has to be carefully judged
with regard to cost, schedule impact and technical suitability. Here, again, it is the GASCO/PMC
interface manager who guides these issues
through the decision-making stage.
Step in to assist
The GASCO/PMC interface manager has a
broad-ranging remit and obviously cannot
handle all of the interface management issues
directly. However, GASCO has ensured every one
of its projects has a team member to coordinate
with and assist the interface manager.
The efforts put into the OGD-III/AGD-II suite
of projects has demonstrated that, however well
the foreseeable interfaces can be allocated and
managed, there will always be new issues that
arise, often at short notice. At times like these,
all of those involved in the project interfaces to
date can be relied upon to step in and assist, and
it is to everyone’s credit that we did not experience any interface impasses in the ongoing
GASCO projects.
Lessons learned
When developing a project in the oil and gas
business in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, it is
crucial to identify and plan for an extensive
number of direct and indirect interfaces
with other parties. Spread the net as wide as
necessary to capture all such projects, whatever
their stage of development. Get everything on
the radar, even if later, after investigation, it can
be discounted:
• Establish the position of an interface manager
in the owner’s team. This person should be a
senior member of the team and have a broad
base of experience, preferably including project
development, process, engineering, commercial
and contract wording/interpretation
• Think through the logical stages of defining,
progressing and managing the interfaces, to
identify the best options for allocation of responsibility for their management
• Include as much definition as possible in the
enquiry document-ation, to minimise the risk to
EPC contractors arising from potential interfaces
PTQ Q1 2010 7
Establish contract obligations for EPC contractors, which are as clear as possible without
loading excessive interface risk for unrealistic or
undefined requirements
• Ensure each EPC contractor understands the
interface issues and its obligations to manage
them
• Follow this all through to the project execution
and do not lose track of the issues
• Accept that new issues will arise and have the
personnel and infrastructure in place to handle
them.
•
This article is based on a paper originally presented at the 2008
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference
(ADIPEC) held in Abu Dhabi, UAE and organised by dmg world
media.
Richard Collins is a Senior Project Manager with Foster Wheeler,
Reading, UK. He was Interface Manager during the front-end
engineering design (FEED) stage of the suite of five projects being
undertaken by GASCO on behalf of ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. He then
became PMC Project Manager for the engineering, procurement
and construction (EPC) stage of the Ruwais 3rd NGL train.
Email: richard_collins@fwuk.fwc.com
8 PTQ Q1 2010
Robert Durham is a Principal Project Engineer with Foster
Wheeler in the UK. As part of the project management
consultancy team, he was Area Project Engineer during the
evaluation stage of the projects undertaken by GASCO on behalf
of ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. He was then appointed PMC Engineering
Manager for the Ruwais 3rd NGL train and has in addition taken
the role of interface manager on behalf of GASCO.
Email: robert_durham@fwuk.fwc.com
Walid Zeid is the Senior Project Manager for Habshan 3 (formerly
OGD III) EPC Phase in the Major Projects Group with GASCO. He
was formerly Senior Projects Manager in the Projects Execution
Division, later joining the FEED stage of the OGD III/ AGD II
projects, before managing the bidding phase of AGD II.
Raafat Fayek was the Senior Project Manager for GASCO for the
Ruwais 3rd NGL train project and is now Senior Project Manager
for all major new projects at Ruwais. He was formerly Electrical
Section Head at Ruwais, then Project Co-ordinator, before moving
to GASCO’s major projects division in Abu Dhabi as a Project
Manager.
Links
More articles from this Company
More articles from this Category
www.digitalrefining.com/id/123456