Gå til hovedinnhold

Supervision of the engineering of 2/4-M

During the period 21 - 22 August 2003, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate conducted supervision of the engineering of loadbearing structures for the deck, gangway and gangway landing of 2/4-M on Ekofisk.

Notification of the supervision had been given in a letter to ConocoPhillips and took place in AkerKværner's facilities on Buøy.

The background for the supervision

The supervision was based on the NPD's priorities related to facilitating and maintaining technical integrity on installations, as well as minimising personal injuries and maintaining and further developing an appropriate working environment.

The purpose of the supervision

The purpose of the supervision was to make sure the structures analyses for the 2/4-M installation complies with the requirements laid down in the Facilities Regulations and NORSOK standard N-001.

The purpose was also to verify that the contractor's and principal's management and quality assurance systems have been implemented and are adhered to in the project.

The result of the supervision

The NPD received a positive impression of ConocoPhillips' management of and compliance with its supervisory responsibility in the project.

The same can be said for AkerKværner's project implementation, including their preparation of the basis for the analysis.

However, the NPD has some suggestions which we feel might contribute to improvements:

· Assessing whether the project organisation complies with the recommendation in NORSOK N-001 concerning the function of the technical manager.
· Assessing the significance of faults in individual components of the structures.
· The third party verifier (DNV) is planning to use the same software as the project operator (AkerKværner) is using, for independent analyses.
· Improving the basis of calculations for vortex-induced vibration on stays.
· Qualification requirements for contractor personnel who conduct the risk analysis.
· Routines for access to the project software and certification of programs.
· Frequency of structural failure in the risk analysis.