A review of a P&ID package against the statement of requirements for new transfer lines between two facilities. The gap found was between the sheets, not on them.
Outcome
Objective met4 of 4 success criteria. Read the conclusionA package of P&IDs, a statement of requirements, tie-in surveys and management of change forms covered additional transfer lines between two facilities. Reviewed sheet by sheet the drawings looked compliant. The operator needed a comment register it could act on and a sign-off recommendation before the package went to construction.
We set up the document register with revisions, area boundaries and the technical authority. We built a matrix from each clause of the statement of requirements to the drawing and tag, with compliance, evidence, owner and close-out. We checked line size and class, pressure rating, flow direction, dead legs, isolation, overpressure, drains and vents, instrumentation, shutdown logic, testability, maintenance access and constructability. We traced the full flow path across sheets using continuation arrows, manifold layouts, battery limits and crossovers.
The trace found that references on one facility's manifold drawing to two downstream sheets did not show the full continuation of the third line. Each sheet was correct on its own. The gap was between them.
The comment register ranked the deviations and wrote each so it could be checked. We recommended approval with conditions, with the continuity item as a hold. The package went to construction after the hold was closed.
The objective was a comment register the operator could act on and a sign-off recommendation before construction. Both were delivered. The traceability matrix covered every clause, the continuity gap between sheets was held and corrected, and the package went to construction with the hold cleared.
| Success criterion | Met | How it was achieved |
|---|---|---|
| iEvery clause of the statement of requirements traced to a drawing and tag or recorded as a gap | Met | Traceability matrix completed for all clauses |
| iiNo safety item open under a recommended-for-approval status | Met | Approval with conditions recommended; the continuity gap held and corrected on a revised sheet |
| iiiComments written so a third party can verify closure | Met | Comment register closed with the designer and the operator |
| ivHold items closed before issue for construction | Met | Package issued for construction with the hold cleared |
Deliverables
Evidence note
Work done for the operator of an onshore field in the Middle East. Drawing numbers, tags, the designer and the operator are not named.
We set the concept, worked the design through with the operator and the vendor, wrote the commissioning procedure with five hold points, supported execution and brought the line into service.
Met4 of 4 success criteriaOperator engagementRead the caseMiddle East·Restart after turnaroundA plan to bring a train back to about 87 thousand barrels of oil a day and 35 thousand barrels of water, one well at a time, with checks between phases and a hold on any abnormal condition.
Met4 of 4 success criteriaOperator engagementRead the caseSend us the version you are dealing with. We will tell you what we would do first.
hello@assostechltd.com · 5 South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4AN