Selected work/Flowline programme
A flowline replacement programme brought from five workbooks into one record per well: risk, service test, replacement scope, construction and handover, planned against actual.
Outcome
Objective met4 of 4 success criteria. Read the conclusionA 2021 decision paper had identified about 67.7 kilometres of flowline for proactive replacement, ranked by integrity risk, production value and overlap with other project scope. By 2026 the programme lived in five sources: a master project tracker revised every few days, a pipeline risk export, a six-month service test summary, the well services schedule and the operator's well status export. The same well could show a planned handover date in one file and an unfinished service test in another. Operations asked about individual wells every week and got different answers.
We merged the five sources into one record per flowline and well: identifier, material, diameter, length, origin and destination; current risk and probability of failure from the integrity export; service test history and the latest result; replacement scope, priority, survey, clearance, construction, mechanical completion, service test and handover milestones, planned and actual; corrosion and scale threat and treatment; and the integrity hold and the evidence for release to service. Precedence was fixed field by field. The integrity export governed risk. The signed test record governed test position. The project tracker governed milestones. Rows that disagreed went to an exception list with an owner.
A question about any well was answered from one page with the source and date of each item. Handover dates that had slipped showed against actuals. A line with a failed or pending service test could no longer be reported as complete because a construction milestone had passed.
The objective was one answer per well for the flowline programme, reconciled to the five source files. It was achieved. The record is refreshed weekly, lines with pending tests are flagged, three lines previously reported complete were reclassified, and the planned against actual view is used in the weekly delivery meeting.
| Success criterion | Met | How it was achieved |
|---|---|---|
| iOne record per well that reconciles to the five source files | Met | Record issued and refreshed weekly from the five sources by file date |
| iiNo line reported as in service without a signed service test | Met | Lines with pending tests flagged on the record; three lines previously reported complete were reclassified |
| iiiPlanned and actual milestone dates held in separate fields | Met | Planned against actual view issued for the programme and used in the weekly delivery meeting |
| ivExceptions listed with an owner rather than resolved silently | Met | Exception list of duplicate rows, inconsistent dates and stale exports issued with owners and cleared over the following refreshes |
Deliverables
Evidence note
Work done for the operator of an onshore field in the Middle East. The 67.7 kilometre figure is from the 2021 decision paper and describes the candidate list at that date. Operator not named.
Seven water streams tracked separately at each facility, disposal headroom taken at actual injection pressure, and the oil effect of each water limit stated.
Met4 of 4 success criteriaOperator engagementRead the caseMiddle East·Producing field, flow assuranceA written workflow from pressure trend to field confirmation to targeted treatment to post-job review, adopted as the operator's surface scale identification procedure.
Met4 of 4 success criteriaOperator engagementRead the caseNext case: A field procedure for confirming scale before treating it
Send 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