W8_Mohammed_Production Expansion


Problem definition

The Government has directed the company to increase the company oil production rate by additional 40,000BOPD before end of 2013 as per the encourage exploration results. As facility department our role is to decide which facilities needed to cover such expansion. The required facilities and the alternatives are the main challenges which are answered in the below Blog. The blog will highlight in brief the required WBS as per the proposed scope for the proposed options.

Development of the feasible alternatives

The targeted area is divided to two parts with respect of location and reservoir quantities expected, the facilities were proposed as following:

Scenario 1: Build one FPF with capacity covering the production of two areas.

Scenario 2: Build small capacity FPF in each area.

 

Analysis and comparison of the alternatives

Scenario 1: Development of AREA-1

  1. AREA-1 & AREA-2 Field Surface Facilities (FSF) i.e. wells,  OGM and trunk line to Hadida FPF
  2. AREA-1 FPF.
  3. Transit line from AREA-1 to CPF, for LC & HC. Design capacity is 40,000 BOPD. At least one middle pump station shall be considered for future.
  4. Consider 2 phases: short term or early production and long term. The early production is to export qualified 10,000 BOPD of LC from
  5. Power Generation Plant and Distribution for FPF and other FSF Requirements.
  6. Instrumentation, Control Philosophy &Telecommunication
  7. Expansion in the Central Processing Facilities (CPF) to handle the extra fluid

Scenario 2: Development of AREA-1 & Area-2, Will be same as above, in addition to the following:

  1. AREA-2 FPF
  2. Transit Line from AREA-2 to AREA-1
  Development of AREA-1 WBS     Development of AREA-1 & 2 WBS
1.0 Crude Expansion Projects    1.0 Crude Expansion Projects
1.1 Conceptual design 1.1 Conceptual design
1.2 Basic design 1.2 Basic design
1.3 Long Lead Items 1.3 Long Lead Items

1.3.1

Compressors

1.3.1

Compressors

1.3.2

Line Pipe

1.3.2

Line Pipe
1.4 Pre-Award Phase (Tendering and Award) 1.4 Pre-Award Phase (Tendering and Award)

1.4.1

Issuing of ITB

1.4.1

Issuing of ITB

1.4.2

Bid Evaluation

1.4.2

Bid Evaluation

1.4.3

Shareholders & Government Approvals

1.4.3

Shareholders & Government Approvals

1.4.4

Award

1.4.4

Award
1.5 Post Award Phase (EPCC & PCC Projects) 1.5 Post Award Phase (EPCC & PCC Projects)
1.5.1 Central Processing Facility Expansion (PCC) 1.5.1 Central Processing Facility Expansion (PCC)

1.5.1.1

Procurement

1.5.1.1

Procurement

1.5.1.2

Construction

1.5.1.2

Construction

1.5.1.3

Commissioning

1.5.1.3

Commissioning
1.5.2 EPCC for Field Processing Facility of AREA 1 1.5.2 EPCC for Field Processing Facility of AREA-1

1.5.2.1

Engineering

1.5.2.1

Engineering

1.5.2.2

Procurement

1.5.2.2

Procurement

1.5.2.3

Construction

1.5.2.3

Construction

1.5.2.4

Commissioning

1.5.2.4

Commissioning
1.5.3 EPCC for Pump Station (EPCC) 1.5.3 EPCC for Pump Station (EPCC)

1.5.3.1

Engineering

1.5.3.1

Engineering

1.5.3.2

Procurement

1.5.3.2

Procurement

1.5.3.3

Construction

1.5.3.3

Construction

1.5.3.4

Commissioning

1.5.3.4

Commissioning
1.5.4 PCC for Field Surface Facility (AREA-1 & AREA-2) 1.5.4 PCC for Field Surface Facility (AREA-1 & AREA-2)

1.5.4.1

Engineering

1.5.4.1

Engineering

1.5.4.2

Procurement

1.5.4.2

Procurement

1.5.4.3

Construction

1.5.4.3

Construction

1.5.4.4

Commissioning

1.5.4.4

Commissioning
1.5.5 Transit Line from AREA-1 to CPF (170km) 1.5.5 Transit Line from AREA-1 to CPF (170km)

1.5.5.1

Engineering

1.5.5.1

Engineering

1.5.5.2

Procurement

1.5.5.2

Procurement

1.5.5.3

Construction

1.5.5.3

Construction

1.5.5.4

Commissioning

1.5.5.4

Commissioning
    1.5.6 Transit Lines from AREA-1 to 2 (20km)
   

1.5.6.1

Engineering
     

1.5.6.2

Procurement
     

1.5.6.3

Construction
     

1.5.6.4

Commissioning
      1.5.7 EPCC for Field Processing Facility of AREA-2
     

1.5.7.1

Engineering
     

1.5.7.2

Procurement
     

1.5.7.3

Construction
     

1.5.7.4

Commissioning
         

Selection of the preferred alternatives

From the above WBS its shown that the only difference is in the additional FPF of AREA-2 and the additional transit line from AREA- to AREA-1, but actually, there are many differences are not shown i.e. The difference in the capacities which are resulted in the difference in the scope and accordingly the cost estimate which changed from one scenario to another.

Following the same WBS, the estimation were done for both scenarios and we found that it is better to go for scenario two but in two phases, firstly to build only one FPF and later to construct the second one. The conceptual study is on progress and the results of our decision will be clearer after getting the result of the conceptual study.

Performance monitoring and the post evaluation of results

The result of the chosen option will be determined after the conceptual study.

 

Conclusion

The company has taken the risk and concentrates on the second scenario considering it’s the most optimum choice and its added value more than the first scenario.

 

References

* Humphreys & Associates, Project management using Earned Value.

* W14_ADI_WBS Development for conceptual study phase of project

W13_ET_Reduce Cement Consumption in Paste Fill_Kristal2011


Problem Statement:

In back fill activity we are using 14% of cement content in the paste pouring to the area in underground mine that have been finished in ore mining. In order to be able to mine an ore drive beside or underneath it, we need to back fill it first before we are allowed to do mining in relation to comply with geotechnical requirement and safety factor. The higher cement percentage being used in back fill activity, means that higher consumption in cement.

Alternatives:

Review had been done with geotechnical and mine planning team for certain drifts to use lower cement percentage in order to reduce operating cost. There are some conditions that after we back fill certain drifts, we are not going to mine under or beside for more than 3 months depending on the mine planning team.

Criterion:

Ground stability is a priority and still in mining practice. Higher cement percentage will create faster curing time to be able to mine under or beside as soon as possible to get the ore areas. But for some reasons depends on mine planning, in certain areas we don’t need to mine as soon as possible.

Analysis and Comparison:

The table below shows areas that used 14% of cement and we will mine under or beside them in some stages

                       

No.

Date

Location

%Cement

Material Usage

Paste Product

 

Vs Dry Tuff

Cement

Water

Tuff

Tuff dry

Tuff

 

  

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

M3

Tons

M3

 

1

5-Jul-11

K2-Sub 9’D’ Sill South OD.03

14%

83

286

774

578

846

1143

706

 

2

8-Jul-11

K2-Sub 12’B’ Sill South OD.03

14%

18

70

172

128

188

260

161

 

3

9-Jul-11

K2-Sub 12’B’ Sill South OD.03

14%

19

68

180

134

197

268

165

 

4

9-Jul-11

K2-Sub 9’D’ Sill South OD.01

14%

48

171

443

331

484

662

408

 

5

24-Jul-11

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

14%

69

237

639

477

699

945

584

 

6

24-Jul-11

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

14%

16

52

148

110

162

216

133

 

7

26-Jul-11

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

14%

2

9

22

16

24

33

20

 

8

27-Jul-11

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

14%

8

28

71

53

77

106

65

 

9

10-Sep-11

K2 – Sub 9 ‘D’ Sill South OD.1

14%

75

262

692

517

757

1029

635

 

10

28-Sep-11

K2 – Sub 12 ‘B’ Sill South OD.01 (#1)

14%

124

408

1151

859

1258

1683

1039

 

11

30-Sep-11

K2 – Sub 12 ‘B’ Sill North OD.02

14%

55

199

515

384

563

770

475

 

12

7-Oct-11

K1 – Sub 6 ‘A’ UC3 North OD.01

14%

134

453

1249

932

1365

1837

1134

 

13

8-Oct-11

K1 – Sub 6 ‘A’ UC.3 North OD.01

14%

24

89

225

168

246

338

209

 

14

8-Oct-11

K1 – Sub 6 ‘C’ UC.3 North OD.02

14%

65

232

603

450

659

899

555

 

15

8-Oct-11

K1 – Sub 6 ‘C’ UC.3 North OD.02

14%

55

183

508

379

555

746

461

 

 

The table below shows if the areas above will use 8% of cement in back fill instead of 14% cement

No.

Date

Location

%Cement

Material Usage

Paste Product

Vs Dry Tuff

Cement

Water

Tuff (wet)

Tuff dry

Tuff

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

M3

Tons

M3

1

40729

K2-Sub 9’D’ Sill South OD.03

8%

48

286

809

604

884

1143

706

2

40732

K2-Sub 12’B’ Sill South OD.03

8%

11

70

179

134

196

260

161

3

40733

K2-Sub 12’B’ Sill South OD.03

8%

11

68

188

140

206

268

165

4

40733

K2-Sub 9’D’ Sill South OD.01

8%

28

171

463

346

506

662

408

5

40748

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

8%

40

237

668

499

730

945

584

6

40748

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

8%

9

52

155

115

169

216

133

7

40750

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

8%

1

9

23

17

25

33

20

8

40751

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

8%

4

28

74

55

81

106

65

9

40796

K2 – Sub 9 ‘D’ Sill South OD.1

8%

43

262

724

540

791

1029

635

10

40814

K2 – Sub 12 ‘B’ Sill South OD.01 (#1)

8%

72

408

1203

898

1315

1683

1039

11

40816

K2 – Sub 12 ‘B’ Sill North OD.02

8%

32

199

538

402

588

770

475

12

40823

K1 – Sub 6 ‘A’ UC3 North OD.01

8%

78

453

1306

974

1427

1837

1134

13

40824

K1 – Sub 6 ‘A’ UC.3 North OD.01

8%

14

89

235

175

257

338

209

14

40824

K1 – Sub 6 ‘C’ UC.3 North OD.02

8%

38

232

630

470

688

899

555

15

40824

K1 – Sub 6 ‘C’ UC.3 North OD.02

8%

32

183

531

396

581

746

461

 

Selection of the preferred alternative:

     

VARIANCE AFTER IMPROVEMENT

PRICE

COST SAVING AFTER IMPROVEMENT

 

No.

Date

Location

Cement

Tuff

Cement

Tuff

 

Cement

Tuff

Tuff

USD / ton

USD / m3

IDR / ton

IDR / m3

USD

IDR

 

Tons

Tons

M3

152.23

$ 10.46

1,351,473

92,234

 

1

5-Jul-11

K2-Sub 9’D’ Sill South OD.03

35

(35)

(38)

5,364

(366)

47,311,437

(3,228,879)

$ 4,998

44,082,557

 

2

8-Jul-11

K2-Sub 12’B’ Sill South OD.03

8

(8)

(8)

1,190

(81)

10,492,380

(716,077)

$ 1,108

9,776,303

 

3

9-Jul-11

K2-Sub 12’B’ Sill South OD.03

8

(8)

(9)

1,248

(85)

11,004,183

(751,006)

$ 1,163

10,253,177

 

4

9-Jul-11

K2-Sub 9’D’ Sill South OD.01

20

(20)

(22)

3,073

(210)

27,101,057

(1,849,575)

$ 2,863

25,251,482

 

5

24-Jul-11

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

29

(29)

(32)

4,432

(302)

39,086,282

(2,667,534)

$ 4,129

36,418,747

 

6

24-Jul-11

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

7

(7)

(7)

1,026

(70)

9,048,054

(617,506)

$ 956

8,430,549

 

7

26-Jul-11

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

1

(1)

(1)

150

(10)

1,326,824

(90,552)

$ 140

1,236,272

 

8

27-Jul-11

K2 – Sub 11 ‘A’ UC.1 North OD.05

3

(3)

(3)

490

(33)

4,321,161

(294,908)

$ 456

4,026,253

 

9

10-Sep-11

K2 – Sub 9 ‘D’ Sill South OD.1

31

(31)

(34)

4,800

(328)

42,337,945

(2,889,452)

$ 4,473

39,448,493

 

10

28-Sep-11

K2 – Sub 12 ‘B’ Sill South OD.01 (#1)

52

(52)

(57)

7,977

(544)

70,354,071

(4,801,478)

$ 7,432

65,552,594

 

11

30-Sep-11

K2 – Sub 12 ‘B’ Sill North OD.02

23

(23)

(25)

3,571

(244)

31,491,745

(2,149,228)

$ 3,327

29,342,517

 

12

7-Oct-11

K1 – Sub 6 ‘A’ UC3 North OD.01

56

(56)

(62)

8,657

(591)

76,352,481

(5,210,853)

$ 8,066

71,141,628

 

13

8-Oct-11

K1 – Sub 6 ‘A’ UC.3 North OD.01

10

(10)

(11)

1,558

(106)

13,744,204

(938,005)

$ 1,452

12,806,198

 

14

8-Oct-11

K1 – Sub 6 ‘C’ UC.3 North OD.02

27

(27)

(30)

4,184

(286)

36,902,386

(2,518,489)

$ 3,898

34,383,897

 

15

8-Oct-11

K1 – Sub 6 ‘C’ UC.3 North OD.02

23

(23)

(25)

3,523

(240)

31,072,337

(2,120,604)

$ 3,283

28,951,733

 
           

TOTAL SAVING FROM JUL-OCT’2011

  

$ 47,744

421,102,399

 
                         

With this initiative in reducing cement percentage from 14% to 8%, cost saving in cement consumption from July – October 2011 is $ 47,744

Performance monitoring and post-evaluation of results:

This will be permanent practice going forward for back fill areas where we will be mining in the next more than 3 months later for mining beside ore drift.

 

Reference:

  1. Sullivan William. Wicks M, Elin. Koelling C, Patrick. Engineering Economic, Fifteenth edition. Pearson International Edition, 2009

 

                                                    

 

 

W12_ET_Accelerator Cost Reduction_Kristal2011


Problem Statement:

Following up on the ground support consumables cost reduction project, one of the initiative is we are looking into alternatives in accelerator type to reduce 5% of overall ground support consumables cost. Currently we are using “A” product and looking for the opportunity to other product or brand

Alternatives:

After reviewing several offerings from several products and reviewed their specification who meets our technical requirements, we decided to trial “B” product.

Criterion:

The criterion will be technical requirement that can be accepted by geotechnical aspects and lower price from current supplier/product.

Analysis and Comparison:

Table below is for cost comparison only between two accelerators from “A” and “B” brand

Fibre Chip – Cost Savings Calculation
     
“A” Brand

11.05

SGD

1 SGD

6551.65

IDR

     
“A” Brand 72,395.73

IDR

“B” Brand 51,200.00

IDR

Saving Per Kg 21,195.73

IDR

     
     
Daily Shotcrete Consumption

60

M3/day

1 M3 Shotcrete

3

kg/M3

     
Cost Savings Rp 3,815,231.85

IDR/day

Cost Savings per Annum Rp 1,373,483,466.00

IDR/year

  $ 150,107.48

IDR/year

 

Selection of the preferred alternative:

Assuming that accelerator from “B” brand is reliable, accepted from geotechnical point of view, and based on the cost comparison above, we can come up with the decision to use accelerator from “B” brand which will give us $150,107.48 cost saving in accelerator consumption per year.

Performance monitoring and post-evaluation of results:

Geotechnical team will keep continue monitor the application of this accelerator especially in early strength and 28 days strength test in shotcrete to make sure the application will meet ground support standard to make sure a safe mine environment. Review and evaluation will be sent and done weekly and monthly for 6 months period.

 

 

Reference:

  1. Sullivan William. Wicks M, Elin. Koelling C, Patrick. Engineering Economic, Fifteenth edition. Pearson International Edition, 2009

 

 

 

W11_ET_Development Cycle Process_Kristal2011


Problem Statement:

As part of improvement process in the business unit, we are doing an evaluation for our development cycle in order to find any ways to improve it. Development cycle in underground mine could be varying depends on its method. Underground mine has several mining methods depends on its ore body geometry and shape, geology characteristic, mineralization, rock characteristic, etc. Picture below shows a development cycle in our mine with underhand cut and fill method combine with long hole stope.

 

Alternatives:

When we determine and review the development cycle, this can be expanded to wider purpose as a multiple purpose project as the result gained can be used to evaluate each step in the cycle. In this instance, we can review further in Drilling activity – Charging activity – Ground support activity – etc to improve productivity on each step and will impact to the overall development cycle. In evaluating cycle time we can use data from Pitram/DOME that record our mine activities and also we can use actual data collecting in the field directly by assigning our production engineers.

Criterion:

Cycle time would be the parameter on this evaluation without ignores the safe production. The shorter development cycle we can gain is the better.

Analysis and Comparison:

From actual data collecting that was done by Production engineers, it can be compiled and found the Pareto chart as shown below:

 

There are top 4 activities that decided to be reviewed in detail and can be continued on its own improvement project leading by each project manager to be more focus develop some action plans to reduce the cycle time.

Selection of the preferred alternative:

As seen on the Summary Pareto Chart, there are top 4 activities:

  1. Charging
  2. Mesh & Bolting
  3. Shotcrete
  4. Grouting

Performance monitoring and post-evaluation of results:

Four activities above need to be highlighted in management concern as priority to be reviewed to reduce development cycle. Some actions need to be taken and divided in 4 different improvement projects that will be led by production engineers and the team. In instance, for Spraying Pareto chart below for shotcrete activity, activity “Waiting” need to be a concern and need to be reduced as soon as possible.

By implementing fish bone diagram to find the root cause, “Waiting” time should be eliminated and replaced with something that can give benefit to production.

 

Reference:

  1. Sullivan William. Wicks M, Elin. Koelling C, Patrick. Engineering Economic, Fifteenth edition. Pearson International Edition, 2009
  2. Paul Keller – Mc Graw Hill, Statistical Process Control, Chapter 7, 2011
  3. The Memory Jogger 2, p122-134

 

 

                                                    

 

 

W13_Adi_CPM and Schedulling of “Establish a Schedule” Project (Humphreys Case Study Chapter 9)


Problem Statement

A project is about to begin. The project name is “Establishing Project Schedule” , its objective is to create the schedule in bar chart and also establish Critical Path Method to identify which activities are critical. A given date and activity list has been provided prior to the project planning.

Alternative Solution

Solution to execute this project will be describe as the following steps:

  1. Breakdown all the activities items of the project scope.
  2. Define the network logic for all activities.
  3. Prepare the Precedence Diagram Method to Map all activities and its network logic.
  4. Define duration of each activity
  5. Set date and float calculation
  6. Construct a abar chart.

 

Development of feasible alternatives

List of activities of project are as shown below:

Activity

Description

A

Define General Project Scope

B

Detailed Project Scope, Incl. Master List

C

Develop Master Schedule

D

Determine Level of Schedule Detail

E

Define Detailed Activities

F

Define Responsibility Assignments

G

Develop Detail Schedule Logic

H

Assign Resource to Activities

I

Determine Preliminary Activity Times

J

Determine Preliminary Lead Times

K

Review Acitivity Durations

L

Calculate Early and Late Dates

M

Check Feasibility & Efficiency of resource

N

Compare Calculated Dates for Milestones w/ Required Dates

O

Revise Detailed Logic and Durations

P

Resource Level the Schedule

Q

Review the Network for Inclusion of All Activities

R

Revise the Network

S

Review Activity Responsibility Assignments

T

Revise Responsibility Assignments

U

Review Network Logic

V

Revise Network Logic

W

Fineal Review of Resource Profiles

X

Revise Resource Plan

Y

Approve Schedule Baseline

 

All activities shall be connected each other by network logic to create a sequential and logical step of works that create a project.

A network logic has been define as follow:

NETWORK LOGIC

1

Activity A initiates the project

2

Activity A precedes activities B and C, which may proceed concurrently

3

Activity A precedes activity D

4

Activity C and F precede activity G

5

Activity D precedes activity E

6

Activity E precedes activity F

7

Activity G precedes activities H, I, and J, which may proceed concurrently

8

Activity H and I precede activity K

9

Activity J and K precede activity L

10

Activity L precedes activities M and N, which may proceed concurrently

11

Activity M and N both precede activity O

12

Activity O precedes activity P

13

Activity P precedes activities Q and W, which may proceed concurrently

14

Activity Q precedes activity R

15

Activity R precedes activities S and U, which may proceed concurrently

16

Activity W precedes activity X

17

Activity S precedes activity T

18

Activity U precedes activity V

19

Activity T,V, and X precede activity Y

20

Activity Y completes the project

 

After network logic has been defined, we can visualized the sequence by using Precedence Diagram Method:

 


 

Next step is to ddetermine the duration for each activity:

Activity

Durations (days)

  

Activity

Durations (days)

A

2

  

N

1

B

10

  

O

2

C

4

  

P

5

D

1

  

Q

1

E

4

  

R

1

F

2

  

S

1

G

8

  

T

1

H

3

  

U

1

I

2

  

V

1

J

4

  

W

1

K

2

  

X

4

L

1

  

Y

1

M

1

  

  

  

 

 

Analysis of Alternative Solution

To create a CPM, we need to analyze date and float from given PDM and duration. CPM will be created based on value of Early Start, Early Finish, Late Start, Late Finish, Total Float, and Free Float obtained by date and float analysis.

The early dates are calculated on the Forward Pass, while the Late dates are obtained by performing the Backward Pass. After running the two “passes” we should have visualization of CPM as shown below:

 


By create the CPM, we are not only obtain the Early and Late Dates, but also the value of float. If the value of float of a path is equal to zero, then the path sholud be noticed as Critical Path. The critical path on the above CPM is marked in red arrow.

W14_Adi_WBS development for Conceptual Study Phase of Project


Problem Statement

An “X” oil company has completed their exploration and drilling activity in eastern Indonesia for a gas field. Well completion has been done and ready to produce and process the hydrocarbon product. The well is located about 27 Km south of Sorong offshore. Well test report has result a significant number of hydrocarbon impurities (H2S and CO2) which need special treatment to produce gas that will meet the specification required by the gas buyer.

Alternative Solution

Alternative A :

Construct Central Processing Platform (CPP) near the offshore Wellhead Platform (WHP), which means to put all process equipment and facilities on the CPP. The impact of this option, is the size of platform structure will be enormous since lot of heavy equipment are mounted on it.

Alternative B :

Construct Central Processing Platform (CPP) at the nearest onshore area and connect it to Wellhead Platform (WHP) by 27 km Corrosion Ressistant Alloy (CRA) offshore pipeline, which means they can eliminate the necessity to construct an offshore platform.

Development of feasible alternatives

Identify and define the Major Scope of works for each alternative

Scope of Works Alternative A :

  • Additional Wells Tie in
    • Well Site Facilities
    • Gas Gathering (Flowline) System and its Tie-in.
  • Offshore CPP Fabrication and installation
    • CPP Topside, include risers,living quarters, helideck, flare, deck structures and appurtenances
    • CPP Substructures, including CPP Jackets, pile and mudmats
  • Offshore Gas Processing Facilities
    • Gas Processing Train,
    • Condensate handling facility
    • Produced Water facility
    • H2S removal for HSE purpose
    • Amine system for CO2 removal
  • Utilities and Off-site Facilities.
  • Metering Facilities and its Tie-in
  • Flowlines/Pipelines

Scope of Works Alternative B :

  • Additional Wells Tie in
    • Well Site Facilities
    • 27 km CRA flowline and its Tie-in.
  • Onshore Gas Processing Facilities
    • Gas Processing Train,
    • Condensate handling facility
    • Produced Water facility
    • H2S removal for HSE purpose
    • Amine system for CO2 removal
  • Utilities and Off-site Facilities.
  • Metering Facilities and its Tie-in
  • Flowlines/Pipelines

Analysis and Comparison of Alternatives

Both alternatives will be mapped as Work Breakdown System to explore and identify all activities which become input prior to project scheduling and cost estimate development. The Work Breakdown System development in this Conceptual Study/ Several Options phase will refer to Physical Breakdown System of Norsk Standard Z- 014 to anticipate Class 5 – Class 4 cost estimate.

Alternative A :

Alternative B :


Selection of Preferred Alternative

From the both WBS above, we can categorize that Process and Utillities part (Yellow Boxes) are almost typical each other, while the rest of them (Pink Boxes) is completely different in terms of types and volume of works, that will govern a different project cost estimation in the end.

The preferred alternative can be determined by considering multiple Technical aspect and Economic/Cost aspect. Considering that “X” oil company has a lot of experiences of handling projects typical and more complex than this project, hence the Economic/Cost aspect will be the biggest concern in determining the preferrred alternative. A cost estimation shall be used as a basis to perform economic analysis and select the best alternative.

Performance Monitoring & Post Evaluation of Result

The next step to perform selection of alternative in this phase Conceptual Study/ Several Options of project, is to transform the developed WBS above into preliminary cost estimation. By using a set of guidelines for estimating, the established WBS shall be equipped with WBS dictionary which defines the boundary of scope for each element. A standard estimate template need to be defined prior to the estimating process to ensure that the cost estimation its consictency and traceability. Since the project execution will take times from starting point at phase Conceptual Study/ Several Options, it is important to take into account the escalating factor for both of material and labour cost so that we can deliver a more accurate cost estimation.

References

Humphreys, Gary C (2002),Project Management Using Earned Value, Orange,CA: Humphrey & Associates, Inc.

Norwegian Technology Centre (2002), SCCS Norsok Standard Z-014, Oslo: Norsk Teknologisenter.

Sullivan, William G., Wicks, Elin M. & Koelling, C. Patrick (1942), Engineering Economy15th Edition, Singapore: Prentice Hall, Inc.


W10_ET_Reentry timeline after blasting_Kristal2011


Problem Definition:

Our current practice of reentry after we do the blasting at
the end of every shift is really impacting our productivity. The longer we can
clear the blasting so crew can go down the hole on the next shift, the less
productivity we would achieve. It is important for us to clear the blasting
area as soon as possible after we fire. Shift boss and Blaster are the man to
control this process and they should on top of it to make sure we can do this
process efficiently.

Development of Feasible Alternative:

The process of reentry should be done in the quickest way we
can get to make sure production continues without more delays after blasting.
Direct observation has had been done for 30 days to take actual data to
understand the real process what has been happening in the process.

Looking at the new initiative to do the clearing in K2 &
Klink area first and let the miners enter the mine after K2 clear, and Blaster
crew to continue the reentry in K1 area.

Selection of Criterion:

Any options to do the reentry as soon as possible in a safe
manner would be very helpful.

Analysis and Comparison:


Selection of the preferred alternatives:

Clearing area should be done at K2 & Klink areas first and let the
miners get down the hole after they are cleared while Blaster crew continuing
to clear K1 area. Average time duration of heading fired to tag board opened
for both K2 & Klink and K1 is about 80 minutes, but based on the data we
still have a lot of room to improve this duration to less than 80 minutes.

Performance monitoring and post-evaluation of results:

Firing time should be happened between 5:30am/pm – 6:00am/pm, any firing outside of
this time frame should be approved by Mine Manager or his alternate.

Reentry crew must to be at Portal tag board at the latest 30 minutes after heading
being blasted.

Manhaul and transportation support should be happened from all senior management.

Mine Control will report to Foreman if the blasting time exceed 1 hour. This
occasion will be investigated to prevent any recurrence.

Production engineer will do weekly observation on this process to make sure consistency on
this.

 

Reference:

  1. Sullivan William. Wicks M, Elin.
    Koelling C, Patrick. Engineering Economic, Fifteenth edition.
    Pearson International Edition, 2009.