A gas processing plant designed on international codes and standard, now it is to be changed to client Design Engineering Practices (DEPs). I would like to know what documents and drawing will require changes. I have to make a comparitive statement. Is there anyone who has such a matrix or spreadsheet to be used as template?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Comparison
- Thread starter Khansahib
- Start date
HamishMcTavish
Nuclear
Snorgy is right, the only other obvious statement is that if the client has written the DEPs then THEY should have a compliance matrix somewhere which links their engineering practice to relevant standards.
What is the driver for this work because surely it doesn't add much value? Usually the transfer is the other way!
Regards, HM
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam
What is the driver for this work because surely it doesn't add much value? Usually the transfer is the other way!
Regards, HM
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam
HamishMcTavish:
When I see "DEP" I automatically think of, for example, Shell (The Hague)...a rather sophisticated company with some fairly stringent but very well thought out DEPs, possibly the best I have ever seen. There are other high-end companies with similar standards out there. My experience is that it is commonplace, particular on the beginning of a large project, for those folks to begin with the company Standards and go through an exercise of toning them down (or, far less often, beefing them up) to be project-specific. The result typically takes the form of a cover sheet and a few pages of superseding notes attached to the front end of the Standard indicating where exceptions have been taken and where changes are to be made, otherwise leaving the original Standard unchanged. When done correctly, significant cost and schedule optimizations can be realized.
In recent years, I have seen a trend that major O&G producers are writing their Standards (or DEPs or equivalents) in the form of covering augmentations of the various API and ASME Codes. I would expect that, over time, this trend will render the "fit for purpose" optimization process either much easier or obsolete altogether. What prevents that from happening, of course, is a counter-acting trend on the part of suppliers at the end of the supply chain, who more and more are taking the approach that says, to paraphrase: "We take general exception to all of your Specifications. You can have our Vendor Standard design - take it or leave it or pay us another quarter million and wait a few more months.". Then the engineering time ends up being wasted on investigating whether or not that's "good enough". The results are:
(1) A dissatisfied Owner who is quite unhappy with the Engineer that the specifications are not being met;
(2) Dissatisfied Suppliers who are unhappy with the Engineer for trying to enforce the specifications to the extent possible;
(3) A dissatisfied Engineer who gets caught as the middle-man in the ensuing urination contest, with the Owner and Suppliers alike placing all of the blame for cost, schedule and technical compromises directly on the Engineer's shoulders.
Ya gotta love this business!
Regards,
SNORGY.
When I see "DEP" I automatically think of, for example, Shell (The Hague)...a rather sophisticated company with some fairly stringent but very well thought out DEPs, possibly the best I have ever seen. There are other high-end companies with similar standards out there. My experience is that it is commonplace, particular on the beginning of a large project, for those folks to begin with the company Standards and go through an exercise of toning them down (or, far less often, beefing them up) to be project-specific. The result typically takes the form of a cover sheet and a few pages of superseding notes attached to the front end of the Standard indicating where exceptions have been taken and where changes are to be made, otherwise leaving the original Standard unchanged. When done correctly, significant cost and schedule optimizations can be realized.
In recent years, I have seen a trend that major O&G producers are writing their Standards (or DEPs or equivalents) in the form of covering augmentations of the various API and ASME Codes. I would expect that, over time, this trend will render the "fit for purpose" optimization process either much easier or obsolete altogether. What prevents that from happening, of course, is a counter-acting trend on the part of suppliers at the end of the supply chain, who more and more are taking the approach that says, to paraphrase: "We take general exception to all of your Specifications. You can have our Vendor Standard design - take it or leave it or pay us another quarter million and wait a few more months.". Then the engineering time ends up being wasted on investigating whether or not that's "good enough". The results are:
(1) A dissatisfied Owner who is quite unhappy with the Engineer that the specifications are not being met;
(2) Dissatisfied Suppliers who are unhappy with the Engineer for trying to enforce the specifications to the extent possible;
(3) A dissatisfied Engineer who gets caught as the middle-man in the ensuing urination contest, with the Owner and Suppliers alike placing all of the blame for cost, schedule and technical compromises directly on the Engineer's shoulders.
Ya gotta love this business!
Regards,
SNORGY.
They are proprietary to Shell. I have done some work for Shell over the years and have seen and worked with a lot of their DEPs, but they are not in the public domain so I, for one, no longer have access to them. I am going from memory. Occasionally, one shows up on the internet when you do a Google search, but it is usually an outdated one.
Regards,
SNORGY.
Regards,
SNORGY.
- Status