5 steps towards the perfect ‘plant dismantling for re-erection’ project

At a time when materials reuse and recycling is high on the general environmental agenda – across the world and in all walks of business – it’s no surprise that the dismantling of processing plants for re-erection, remains a popular consideration for operators. But how exactly do such colossal projects come to life? RVA’s managing director Richard Vann shares his thoughts…

Of course, the careful salvage of complete or partial assets is nothing new – dismantling specialists have long been able to safely and meticulously disassemble individual pieces of equipment or entire structures, for reconstruction and reinsertion into the global supply chain. So, it is only right that this process is validated or discounted as a feasible option – just because the plant may have reached the end of its useful life for one organisation, doesn’t mean it cannot have operational potential elsewhere.

However, there are naturally numerous criteria to thoroughly evaluate, to ensure that such a dismantling project represents a safe, cost-effective and environmentally sound route for the plant. And if the project does go ahead, what then? Here are five key pieces of advice to consider:

1) Confirm that the project is genuinely feasible

In truth, these projects only work in very specific circumstances. Of almost 800 RVA projects completed worldwide, to date, less than 1% of assets have been dismantled for re-erection.

When this route is of interest, an impartial feasibility and options study should be conducted to uncover an objective, clear and realistic view as to its true liability or opportunity.

Multiple factors must be considered. At a very basic level, the plant and/or machinery should still comply with current legislative standards.  Many assets – particularly those constructed in the 1960s/70s – have simply reached the end of their design life, certainly in the Western Hemisphere. They therefore represent too many inefficiencies – not to mention safety and reputational risks – to warrant ongoing operation, or they may have reached a ‘sell by date’ when it comes to compliance, which naturally makes dismantling a ‘no go’.

If the above compliance boxes are ticked, other data-driven findings must also be uncovered, including realistic costs, the delta in value that the sale will attract relative to the scrap alternative, timeframe and the vendor’s business drivers – to name just a few.

2) Find a plant buyer

On occasions the ‘buyer’ for a dismantled asset is a sister company in the same global group as the plant’s seller. The driver for the purchase may be to enhance production of a similar plant on the receiving company’s site, to provide a source of major spares or even because the second-hand plant will provide a useful ‘stop gap’ while a more modern facility is being constructed.

If an external buyer is sought, the completion of a mutually-attractive deal is a challenging exercise, as the costs of sequentially dismantling, refurbishing and relocating the plant – on top of the baselines decommissioning fees themselves – commonly eat into any potential profit margin. Delays which are common in the negotiation process will also contribute to excessive site security, maintenance, leasing and other holding costs, so financial awareness must stretch far beyond the price tag on the sale of the plant itself.

The numbers matter more than ever for this type of project, which is why the sale for reuse avenue should, in most cases, be seen as a ‘plan B’.

3) Don’t underestimate the complexity of the project

Dismantling for re-erection is a technically demanding and resource-intensive assignment, so the scheduling of work and the formation of a suitably-skilled project team should also form part of the business case for going ahead, or not.

If the dismantled asset will not remain in imminent future use – perhaps because it will be stored prior to shipment and/or re-erection – this will almost certainly impede the project’s viability as the likelihood of corrosion, decay and/or contamination is simply too great. Preservation to the required standards can be costly and difficult to achieve.

Maintaining the operational integrity of every component part is critical – otherwise, a highly-valuable resource could become nothing but a very expensive scrap metal jigsaw.

4) Decide on the definition of ‘clean’

Before any decontamination works begin, the asset’s condition – including the type and level of hazardous materials, cleanliness and structural integrity – must be rigorously audited. It is important to gather as much information as possible so that appropriately-skilled personnel – equipped with the necessary PPE – can then proceed with minimum risk.

In the general dismantling and demolition world, the objective should not be to over-clean an asset so that it becomes completely contaminant-free, but rather the priority is to take it to a ‘known state’. However, as relocation projects often involve taking plant across international boundaries, the  decontamination regime typically has to be set at a very high level.

In practice, it will have to be mandated for safe shipment, but remember that with the international transfer of plant, there are usually varying standards at play. Works must therefore comply with the regulation, documentation and certification rules of the plant’s origination and destination locations. However, to ensure best practice and maximum peace of mind, legislative parameters should only ever set the very minimum criteria. A responsible decommissioning professional should always strive to take EHS management to the highest achievable level.

5) Master match-marking and laser scanning

Prior to dismantling, it is often recommended that the plant is fully digitally recorded by a specialist laser scanning team.  This will ensure that on re-erection, the asset will be correctly configured and aligned. Once sufficiently cleaned, every individual component part of the plant should be match-marked with unique codes for ease and accuracy of reconstruction at the onward destination, and ideally carefully packed and shipped with accompanying drawings and maintenance records – where available – to aid the reassembly process. The specialist refurbishment and certification of some components may also be required, so it is crucial to maintain a detailed ‘log’ of everything.

Share

What does the Principal Designer role mean in demolition?

The role of a Principal Designer (PD) may be familiar territory for RVA Group, as we routinely adopt PD responsibilities on behalf of our UK clients. But for organisations new to the world of demolition, PD is yet another acronym that merits further exploration.

Here, RVA’s operations director and experienced decommissioning engineer Matthew Waller, gives a top-line overview of this extremely important project role…

In the most basic of terms, the appointment of a Principal Designer is a legal and fundamental requirement for UK decommissioning and demolition projects. This duty holder role is set out under the Construction Design Management (CDM) regulations, which exist to help manage health and safety on these potentially high-hazard assignments.

However, the successful fulfilment of PD responsibilities, in truth extends far beyond this regulatory framework. In fact, in our opinion, the role of Principal Designer is integral to good project management and an essential element of the structure of any decommissioning team.

The role of a PD is to analyse the various potential risks that exist on a given site. Such risks may relate to the demolition discipline itself, but will also extend to include the process-specific hazards relevant to the industrial background and current operational status of the plant concerned. The PD may therefore need to enhance their own process knowledge with that of personnel from the sector, whether that be from energy, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and so on.

The Principal Designer must then understand how these multiple hazards interact with each other, to assist and provide direction that will help mitigate the danger they pose.

In short, this detailed project knowledge and understanding adds demonstrable value to a demolition project. It forms the backbone of advice to the client in terms of:

  • What hazards are known to exist and can therefore be accounted for
  • And where they are located
  • When and in what order the risks should be approached
  • Who should tackle them, once the persons carrying out the works have been fully informed of the risks and the works that have gone before
  • How the process should be executed, in terms of communications between all involved parties, the most appropriate techniques for hazard mitigation, taking into account best-practice procedures, methodologies and ever-evolving legislation
  • And why, i.e. the ultimate rationale once everything has been assessed.

The above naturally relies on robust communication with all parties involved throughout, including the Client, Principal Contractor, CDM Contractors, Designers, etc as well as any other personnel brought in to work on the assignment. But it is this same clear and informed dialogue which will best protect health and safety during the entire project lifecycle. The PD should strive to create a successful safety-first mindset, with the management of EHS considered a joint responsibility shared by all involved.

Share

How has COVID-19 affected demolition projects?

In case you missed the recent edition of Demolition and Recycling International, Richard Vann explored the rapidly changing demolition industry during the global Coronavirus pandemic.

Read the full article here…

Every time I pen some thoughts for a column, there’s always the chance, of course, that the external landscape may have changed by the time my views appear in print. Over the last few years, I’ve frequently been asked to speak about Brexit, for example, and consequently tried to cover multiple scenarios to ensure the commentary remains relevant.

Fast forward to the situation we currently find ourselves in – the global battle against Coronavirus – and the landscape has never been so fluid.

Everyone is perhaps tired of hearing the fact that we’re experiencing ‘unprecedented times’, but of course that admittedly overused phrase is incredibly true. That said, when planning for the future, savvy organisations try to anticipate various eventualities – from best to worst case. So, while we’re perhaps facing extremities of planning that some demolition firms will unsurprisingly not have encountered before, we must stick to the same underlying principles we’re used to.

I’ve always said that no two projects are ever the same in the world of demolition, and COVID-19 has not changed that. In addition to all existing EHS protocols, adherence to safe distancing regulations must be the non-negotiable baseline, of course, and continued monitoring of evolving guidance is paramount. But there are then multiple other project-specific factors to accommodate too – they have not been eradicated because of the virus.

Speaking from personal experience over the past few weeks, we’ve seen some projects adapt rapidly to a ‘new normal’ and approximately 70% of our sites have remained open as a result. Elsewhere, other works have stopped entirely, for the foreseeable future. There hasn’t been a singular method of coping with the pressures being faced.

We’re currently supporting a UK pharmaceutical client with a project in a live and operational environment, for instance, and the schedule here remains almost uninterrupted. In the first few weeks of lockdown, we continued to develop our decommissioning specifications and plans remotely, rather than on site. And, when it was absolutely necessary to physically inspect the plant, for example, the client arranged a system to visit the workface on our behalf and feed back information.

This client is considered an essential business so has kept a core production team on site, meaning visits to site could be organised relatively swiftly. We’ve maintained regular contact via video calls throughout, when not in the same physical location, so that we can continue to consult with one another, and this media-rich form of communication has worked well. We hope to have a full team back on site in the next week or two, with social distancing measures naturally in place.

Other sites closed for approximately a couple of weeks when Boris Johnson first announced the lockdown. In these instances – typically projects at the physical decontamination, dismantling or demolition phase – such ‘pauses’ provided an important opportunity to take stock and devise plans with contractors and clients. These included introducing upgraded security measures and temporary make-safe operations. With the duration of the suspension period being unknown, a range of flexible care and maintenance regimes also had to be considered.

Again, every scenario has been different. However, generally speaking, the priority has been to reduce the number of people on site to the absolute minimum, while being careful to prevent any skills gaps arising. On this note, it is important to stress that the usual project safety considerations must remain paramount – COVID-19 or no COVID-19. A proficiently skilled team is always required to carry out the work, so now is not the time to cut corners. If the work can’t be carried out safely with a condensed team, it cannot go ahead.

There are projects elsewhere that stopped completely, either for reasons such as this or because the client was more comfortable allowing schedules to be reframed. The current commodity value of scrap metal has come into play too, as well as logistical difficulties associated with moving materials.

We are now seeing positive movement on the majority of these sites though. The biggest changes have centred upon access and accommodation arrangements for staff, so that we have utmost confidence that people can shower, eat and use WCs without compromising social distancing guidance.

Given our international presence, we have had to remain abreast with slightly differing regulations from one country to the next. But this is the way we always work – whether we’re in the thick of a health crisis or not. We must be respectful of every client situation, cultural variations and so on. But whatever the local rules and customs may be, we will never put people at risk.

 

 

Share

5 things you need to know about the Demolition Code of Practice

Demolition is a scientific and highly regulated engineering discipline, underpinned in this country by the British Standard Code of Practice for Demolition (BS 6187). Here, RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann explores five things you need to know about the industry cornerstone he was involved in developing…

  1. If you’re a demolition or dismantling professional, you need to be aware of EVERYTHING contained in this 168-page document, from front to back. If you’re a client organisation procuring the services of a demolition contractor or consultant, you require utmost confidence that the appointed project team has a comprehensive understanding of this code.
  2. BS 6817: 2011 outlines good practice when it comes to the partial or full decommissioning, dismantling and/or demolition of facilities, buildings and structures. Superseding the 2000 version of the standard, it offers recommendations that help to govern the successful and effective management of works. From establishing project responsibilities, to safe exclusion zones, the code delivers a detailed run down of the engineering discipline’s must-know guidelines.
  3. The code should be considered as setting merely the baseline standard for a demolition project, and in truth it provides only one planning element. The finer details come in the industry’s more specific regulations, such as the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, and so on.
  4. The Code is unsurprisingly detailed, but the updated 2011 document also reflects the evolving nature of the industry, and therefore the benefits that technological advancements and ongoing knowledge transfer can bring. It is consequently less prescriptive in content, to allow for innovation to be deployed by professionals with the relevant experience.
  5. The application of BS 6187 alone will not keep people safe on site. Think of it like The Highway Code – this rulebook tells you the do’s and don’ts of the road, and we all learn the content to pass our theory test, but it can’t teach you how to drive. The principles of the Demolition Code of Practice are therefore extremely important, but they need to be coupled with real world experience, if projects are to be delivered in a robust manner with maximum respect for EHS compliance and commercial integrity.

To discuss the content of this blog, or the safe, environmentally sound and commercially robust execution of your demolition project, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Share

Decommissioning in the Middle East – market challenges and opportunities

Our Managing Director, Richard Vann recently spoke with the editor of
Tanks and Terminals to explore the challenges and opportunities associated with decommissioning in the Middle East .

If you missed the article, you can view it in full here:

As the oil and gas market advances in parts of the world such as the Middle East, all eyes are on what the future could hold for this developing sector. But to move forward safely, economically and with maximum respect for the environment, operators must also think carefully about how to proficiently manage their older assets.

Drawing on more than 30 years’ industrial experience, Richard Vann – managing director of RVA Group and past president of the Institute of Demolition Engineers – explores the challenges and opportunities associated with the clearance of tanks and terminals, and advises how to proficiently move forward with any decommissioning projects that arise…

—

On a global scale, oil and gas production has a rich and diverse history, and even on more local levels, the sector has evolved differently, from one country to the next.

The story in the Middle East, for instance, dates back to the turn of the 20th century, with oil reportedly first discovered in Iran in the early 1900s. Resource supply from countries such as Saudi Arabia began much later, with commercial quantities not unearthed until the late 1930s. But many would argue that the market became most interesting for this part of the world in the 1960s and 1970s, when the peaking of production in industrialised – and largely Western – countries, presented opportunities for Middle Eastern operators, particularly during the worldwide crises of 1973 and 1976.

There was a major investment in oil and gas during this era. But fast forward to 2020, and the consequence is that an unprecedented number of assets are now rapidly nearing the end of their natural design life, efficiency and environmental compliance. So, the question is how to clear tanks, terminals and other site infrastructures safely, cost-effectively and with minimal environmental impact.

The Middle East is not unique in demonstrating this trend of course, but many countries here now find themselves faced with a fairly notable challenge. Before the aforementioned upsurge in oil and gas activity, the landscape was largely undeveloped. There were no other heavy industries present, which means no industrial demolition history and consequently an absence of a supply chain proficient in this niche engineering discipline. This is therefore the start of a new decommissioning cycle, which has kickstarted a global hunt for expertise.

A global supply chain?

In many respects, despite the maturity of the demolition industry in countries such as the UK and USA – and consequently the level of specialist expertise which ought to be available – this worldwide search for a suitably skilled supply chain will not always be straightforward.

There are several capable contractors in the market. However, I have previously spoken at many international events about their unfortunate yet apparent reluctance to take on jobs outside their own borders, despite the opportunities this could present for the growth of their businesses. Assignments closer to home feel far more comfortable, for many.

This therefore narrows down the number of potential demolition teams able – or willing – to tender for work in Middle Eastern countries, among others.

Consultancy support and advice is undoubtedly even harder for asset owners to procure, as independent, strategic partners are rare. This has little to do with geography and is more a reflection of the makeup of the industry. Compare decommissioning to the world of building and construction, for example, where clients have a wealth of guidance at their fingertips, plus a variety of industry specialists to choose from when assembling their project team, and it is and always has been starkly different.

 

That is not to say, however, that it is impossible to form a proficient supply chain for Middle Eastern decommissioning projects.

Tank demolition

RVA Group has recently been appointed to help a Middle Eastern oil and gas company demolish a large floating roof storage tank.

The 106m diameter, 22m tall carbon steel fabrication – with a shell up to 50mm in thickness – has long been used to contain crude oil. But the tank was recently subject to an operational failure which resulted in a major fire, leaving it both structurally distressed and contaminated with residual hydrocarbons and other products of combustion.

This inherently high-hazard environment has therefore emphasised the need to plan for the adoption of cold-cutting demolition techniques only, to help ensure the strict control of sparks and any other possible sources of ignition generation. The continued monitoring of this potentially explosive atmosphere is also, perhaps unsurprisingly, paramount.

The project is of added complexity as all works are being carried out within a live crude oil stabilisation plant and long-distance pipeline pump station, with an operational ‘sister’ tank also lying adjacent.

Identified as a result of informal word of mouth recommendation, validated by initial remote research, RVA was then engaged by the client following several months of more detailed dialogue. The team’s first task was the development of a pre-tender safety plan to act as the backbone of all ensuing works. RVA has subsequently been retained to provide specialist project management and HSE advice for the remainder of the project, and will assist the local contractor – an oil and gas engineering services supplier who has procured resources and equipment from the established global decommissioning sector – in the works execution. RVA has also supported the contractor in sourcing specialist UK personnel and equipment, for shipment to the Middle East.

At the time of writing, the team is three months into a six-month schedule.

Mounting demand from the Middle East

Having completed almost 800 decommissioning projects globally, RVA is no stranger to working on complex international assignments on virtually every continent worldwide. But enquiries from the Middle East are certainly at an all-time-high.

The team has recently worked with another organisation, for instance, to write a detailed specification of works to facilitate the tendering for the decommissioning and eventual demolition of a 1960s-built oil refinery in the region. Having supported the client with the devising of various corporate environmental, health and safety procedures, plus the procurement and management of a hazardous insulation materials survey specialist, before the next-step decommissioning activity can begin.

A stretched supply chain?

Sometimes, when a project team is formed of personnel from varying locations, a level of anxiety – or at least a degree of caution – exists surrounding the management of cultural differences. To a certain extent, this air of apprehension is understandable, as additional project considerations may of course present themselves. However, the thing for all parties to remember – because sometimes the appointed engineering teams also share such concerns – is that no two decommissioning assignments are ever the same, irrespective of their geography. To attempt to approach any works with uniform methodologies in mind, or rigid attitudes towards others for example, would not only be extremely foolish, but incredibly risky too – as far as decommissioning goes, there is no ‘one size fits all’.

Responsible partners in the supply chain on the other hand – RVA included – acknowledge the need to carefully and flexibly consider all project parameters on their own merit, so that a best-fit team, approach and schedule can be formulated on a case-by-case basis. As a result, such organisations and specialists are unlikely to be fazed by a demolition brief in the Middle East. Admittedly, it has the potential to create some additional criteria for consideration, but often a complex assignment in the consultant or contractor’s own country of origin generates unique challenges too.

Factors to consider

When assembling a multi-cultural project team, there are language barriers to navigate, as well as variances in everything from cultural beliefs to working hours and days. The time difference must be accommodated when planning dialogue between RVA’s personnel in the Middle East and resource at the UK HQ, for example, and with the weekend starting on Thursday evening and Sunday being a normal working day in this part of the world, further thought is required to ensure this does not ever cause any on-site disruption or delay. There is a need to adapt to and embrace local customs.

Some decommissioning teams less familiar with working abroad may even need to think carefully about the climate, as both hot and cold extremes can also influence on-site behaviour. The procuring client should ensure discussions take place around all of these factors, for utmost peace of mind that they will not cause any unexpected problems.

Legislation also varies significantly from country to country, which can set the tone regarding project expectations, unless carefully managed from the outset. A scrupulous decommissioning specialist will never knowingly put the wellbeing of an individual at risk, nor will they wish to jeopardise the commercial or environmental integrity of the project by taking an action which – in their eyes – could be seen to be cutting corners.

However, there should be one common law irrespective of culture, geography or the scope of works – respect. Respect for the client, colleagues, the environment, wider stakeholders and of course the engineering discipline itself, will help set the project barometer.

Establishing this respect naturally takes effort, but this is usually easier to attain with strong levels of communication, consultation and clarity. The corporate minimum standards for the project – however large or small – should be outlined and agreed from day one. Globally-respected European standards are often the starting point, but where higher levels of quality are known, they should always be the benchmark.

Share

Do modern economics mean the sale of redundant plant is impossible?

In the latest of his regular columns for Demolition and Recycling International, RVA’s Managing Director Richard Vann gave his thoughts on whether modern economics make selling redundant plants impossible.

If you haven’t read the full article, you can catch up here….

Impossible is a strong word. By definition, it means something that is completely out of the question – it cannot be done.

But of course, this statement is not true when it comes to the sale of redundant plant. There are occasions when assets that have reached the end of their useful life for one operator, can still contain inherent value in the eyes of another. A sale therefore can go ahead.

Consideration of this route is understandable. The goal – for any soon-to-be-decommissioned facility – should always be to maximise the return on assets where possible and safe to do so. However, factors such as plant age, former processes, recovery cost, testing, market forces and commercial competition, will all form part of the decision as to what should happen next.

As my dismantling for re-erection column stressed in the last issue of D&RI, the sale of redundant plant should be realistically viewed and often not prioritised as the ‘plan A’ for an unwanted facility, as the challenges likely to obstruct a sale are significant in both scale and quantity.

Supply and demand

Firstly, there are the basic economics of supply and demand at play.

In developed parts of the world – across virtually every heavy industry – operators are seeking ever more efficient processing technologies. Sometimes this is to stay on the right side of the law, if the ageing plant risks breaching necessary legislative or EHS standards. But there are capacity, ecological, financial and innovation advantages associated with investing in smarter and more modern equipment too, which, collectively, can prove the catalyst for operators looking to proceed with an ‘out with the old’ strategy.

This widespread availability of redundant assets means that from a resale perspective, the market is becoming saturated with standard and off-the-shelf kit, and such plants – or component parts of them – are consequently becoming harder to sell.

Copycat technologies

Processing markets are becoming further saturated because – as markets are maturing and operators’ expectations are becoming increasingly sophisticated – all eyes are on the latest plant and equipment. But many countries are so proficient at designing and manufacturing ‘copycat’ technologies – often for very affordable investment levels – that any ageing assets would need to be extremely advanced to justify purchasing something ‘second hand’ as opposed to brand new.

Could you sell a ten-year-old laptop on eBay, for example, when so many better, more current models exist – often without breaking the bank? It would probably be a struggle – especially if the laptop is shipped in hundreds and thousands of component parts that require re-assembly before it can be used.

Finding a ‘buyer’

The sale of a redundant asset is – perhaps unsurprisingly – far easier if the facility is to be transferred to an operator within the same group as the seller.

When RVA was engaged to oversee the decontamination, demolition and dismantling of a manufacturing facility on an 11-hectare site on Jurong Island, Singapore, for example, selected plant items were carefully recovered so that they could be transferred to the owner’s sister plants worldwide.

This project was bound by tight timescales, given a commercial driver for the client to exit the site within defined lease and permit parameters. The work was therefore planned sequentially with designated demolition areas handed over in a carefully phased manner. Potential sources of ignition were subject to strict controls, due to the nature of the chemicals housed nearby and the presence of some units which had to remain operational during the initial stages of the programme.

Had this shipment of assets been dependent on the involvement of a third-party buyer, the project specifics may have been quite different, due to the complexities involved. In-house transfers are often easier than external ones, as the ‘owner’ has control at both ends.

Sometimes, sadly, deals also fall through. And the longer a plant lays idle – whether comprehensively mothballed or not – the greater the chance, on the whole, that an eventual sale will prove difficult. The condition of the asset is likely to deteriorate, and with the passage of time there is usually an increased risk that EHS and legislative compliance will no longer be guaranteed. In addition the cost of keeping an asset in saleable condition increases exponentially with time and can erode any potential commercial gain.

What is financially viable?

Acknowledging that the operator will undoubtedly wish to proceed with the most financially advantageous – and hopefully safe – route map for their decommissioning project, a feasibility and options study will prove an extremely valuable modelling exercise before any works begin.

It is crucial to explore all possible project scenarios because, sometimes, the route eventually selected may not have initially been considered or deemed possible, due to false perceptions of the associated financial burden.

The complete clearance of a plant is often the most straightforward and cost-advantageous exercise overall, for example. This is because, from a technical perspective, a full clearance usually only requires a global or battery limits isolation strategy. In simple terms, the plant is usually rendered ‘cold and dark’ so that, once residual hazards have been removed, all structures can then be demolished for scrap and the site taken back to flat slab. This then paves the way for the construction of a new facility, or the sale of the site ‘as is’. In many instances the net cost/gain of such a project could be far more attractive than that to facilitate the sale of a redundant plant.

Share

Offshore decommissioning – where do the biggest challenges and opportunities lie?

In case you missed the latest edition of Offshore magazine, our MD Richard Vann penned his thoughts on the challenges and opportunities within offshore decommissioning.

Read the article in full here….

The number of offshore assets reaching their end of life, globally, is rising, meaning decommissioning projects are a real eventuality for many operators. Drawing upon over 35 years of working throughout the decommissioning discipline, Richard Vann advises the key considerations plant owners should therefore make as they look to the future…

Decommissioning is an inherently hazardous exercise, which requires meticulous planning, experienced management and an extremely defined skill-set, if it is to be executed safely. If that exercise is being carried out in a remote offshore location, exposed to the elements, with added access difficulties and limited options, it’s no surprise that the challenges are magnified further.

That isn’t to say the challenges cannot be overcome of course. As is the case with any complex undertaking, they simply need to be anticipated, acknowledged and addressed, if the project is to unfold with maximum respect for safety standards, the environment and operators’ budgets.

Here are 8 key considerations to make when embarking upon an often-necessary decommissioning route map:

  1. Establishing a decommissioning mindset

In some countries, decommissioning is still viewed as a ‘necessary evil’ – it doesn’t help to produce a revenue-generating asset, as a commissioning exercise would, so organisations often fail to dedicate the level of time, skills and resources truly required. But there cannot be any temptation to cut corners, as this could put lives, the environment and the commercial integrity of the project, at risk.

  1. Assembling a competent project team

For one of the first times in the history of the decommissioning profession, there is a risk of demand outstripping supply – an issue now being felt on a global scale. The question of who is available to undertake the work is therefore one of the largest challenges currently faced by the industry – especially when it comes to tackling offshore assets.

Great care and attention should therefore be taken to assemble a competent supply chain including decommissioning expert and contractor (people who understand the world of decommissioning inside out), as well as offshore oil and gas specialists – nobody knows these assets more than the operators who have worked on them their whole lives.

  1. The logistics of the project

Comprehensive planning lies at the heart of every successful decommissioning project, but the challenges are undeniably greater – especially from a logistics perspective – when working offshore. As is widely known, getting people to and from a platform in itself is a hazardous process. Therefore, where possible, personnel movements should be planned so that return trips are minimised.

Add to this the physical constraints of getting large plant to an offshore location, and the job is harder still. There will inevitably be limitations regarding the equipment that can be used, so specialist knowledge is required to understand exactly what is possible, how this will affect the programme of works (including timescales) and how to move forward with safety at the forefront of all decision-making.

  1. Bringing assets to a ‘known state’

If the asset has already been mothballed, this poses many potential difficulties – some structures will have only been partially cleaned, for instance.. Offshore structures will also degrade much faster than a similar asset on an inland location, due to their exposure to the elements. This adds to the difficulties associated with establishing their ‘known state’ and understanding the potential pitfalls that lie ahead.

When first arriving on site, it is therefore imperative to assess the level of residual product, any loss of containment and the structural integrity of the remaining assets.

  1. Respect the role of technology

Drones can often provide a helpful inspection aide both on- and offshore. They can be flown over an installation – and in some cases deep into specific structures – before people need enter any vessels or work at height themselves. The convenience and safety benefits associated with this clever use of technology should not be underestimated.

As always, the pilot will assess the weather conditions prior to sending a drone in, and admittedly the window for a safe flight may be far more limited when working offshore. But it is far better to lose a drone than for a person to suffer even a minor injury on-site.

  1. Varying regulatory frameworks

Demolition professionals undertaking assignments on an international scale will inevitably be presented with varying legislative standards. It could be argued that this makes it difficult to ensure compliance when faced with differing levels of regulatory stringency, but the stance on this should actually be obvious.

There should never be a safety scale, e.g. where the degree can be ranked as ‘very unsafe’, ‘unsafe’, ‘almost safe’, ‘quite safe’ and so on – safety is an absolute and non-negotiable standard. So, whilst criteria and attitudes may fluctuate from country to country, the baseline reference point should be best practice. Generally, this is driven by the legislation and codes adopted by EU nations.

  1. Waste management and disposal

Decommissioning experts are now adept at delivering projects with ~100% material reuse and recycling rates, to the point where such high environmental standards are now becoming the norm. Consideration should therefore be given to the waste management programme for offshore works, especially because there is the added – yet manageable – challenge of transporting materials (including hazardous substances) back onshore.

  1. Cost

The number of asset owners that favour a solely cost-led rather than quality/cost-led approach to decommissioning, is thankfully dwindling – supply chain selection criteria is now far more multifaceted than simply bottom-line impact. This isn’t to say that financial parameters won’t be encountered, but if they risk compromising EHS standards, works must stop immediately.

Richard Vann is managing director of RVA Group – a specialist project management and EHS organisation that has completed more than 770 complex decommissioning, decontamination, dismantling and demolition projects worldwide. With over 35 years’ experience in the sector, he is past president of the Institute of Demolition Engineers and the Institute of Explosives Engineers. A notable commentator in this field he was also the keynote speaker at the World Demolition Summit 2017 and session chair in 2018.

Share

My Working Day- Richard Vann

In case you missed the article, our MD Richard Vann, recently spoke with Business Leader about what the day to day running of a decommissioning consultancy looks like. Read the full article here…..

As the leader of a company, you are there to set an example, to lead and inspire a team individuals to achieve a series of business goals. But how do these business leaders go about their daily routine?

Business Leader spoke to Richard Vann – CEO of RVA Group about his working day.

  1. What time do you usually wake up?

I’m an early riser, so will usually be out walking the dogs – Ben and Jerry – by 06:00.

  1. What do you typically have for breakfast?

I know many will frown upon my breakfast choice, but I rarely eat in the mornings – hot water with ginger and lemon is my go-to start to the day.

  1. What is the rest of your morning routine before you start work?

It depends what my working week looks like, but if I’m in the UK, I’ll usually be in the office for 07:30-08:00. So, I listen to the news with my wife and son before I drop him at school.

  1. What is the first thing you do at the start of your working day?

We have long had an international presence – and are increasingly working further afield including the Middle East – so I always prioritise responding to any emails that have inevitably come in overnight. I am a big fan of virtual meetings too, especially with clients and colleagues based outside of this country, as I think face-to-face contact is important regardless of location.

Then I’ll focus on the strategic priorities I’ve already set for myself the previous day, which could include supporting particularly complex bids for upcoming projects, liaising with our teams as they progress large-scale decommissioning works in virtually every corner of the globe, or working on some of the seminars that we routinely deliver at industry forums internationally. We’ve got presentations coming up in Amsterdam, Prague and Moscow, for example – all in Q1 of 2020.

  1. How do you prioritise your day’s work?

I’ve always been really disciplined with what needs to be both dealt with and delegated. This has helped me prioritise as the company has grown, it’s a skill I’ve relied on more and more – and I encourage it in others.

I am protective of my time and try to always think clearly about what are the must-do tasks, what are nice-to-haves, and what is – in truth – unnecessary.

  1. Do you plan meetings or are they a waste of time?

I have never been a fan of meetings for meetings’ sake, and I’ll politely cancel – or at least reschedule – an appointment if there’s nothing to discuss. That said, sometimes the purpose of a meeting is to develop relationships or foster trust, so sometimes things beyond an obvious agenda need to be considered too.

I think anyone who does commit time to a meeting should plan what needs to be covered – including the ‘softer’ stuff. But I don’t think you always need to be in the same physical room for a meeting to be effective. We’ve begun to increasingly rely on technology over the years, opting to use tools like Teams where we can, for example. This cuts down on travel, alleviates diary pressures and means long-distance relationships are prioritised with the same magnitude as closer ones! Having said that there are occasions where sitting around a table to debate issues and observe the body language of all participants is essential.

  1. Do you have a working lunch or is it good to take a break?

A similar response to my breakfast – I have a very light lunch, usually of fruit and nuts, so I don’t really need to take a break

  1. When does your working day finish?

I do try to prioritise a work-life balance – especially after 45 years of working – but the day finishes when it finishes. I could have a really late finish, particularly if I’ve been travelling. However, I’m a big believer that it’s not the time you put in, it’s what you do with the hours you’ve got, that counts.

  1. How do you prepare for the next day’s work?

I’m a huge paper-phobe – the only thing I carry is a small A5 book, and it’s now a luxury that I can’t be without. I use this to list my ‘must dos’, which means I’m better equipped for the day ahead.

  1. Favourite piece of technology?

It’s an obvious thing to say, but my smartphone as it’s my ultimate connectivity to all the personal and professional things that matter to me. Thanks to our secure cloud I can work from anywhere in the world, which is important both as a leader of an international business and someone who likes travelling too!

  1. How do you switch off?

I try to get to the gym at least three times a week, at weekends or before or after work, and have taken up the guitar again – I find beingin the studio really therapeutic and ‘me’ time. I also have a particular interest in the period between the rise of Communism and the end of WWII, as my library at home and my wife’s frustrations with my ‘obsession’ testify.

  1. Best piece of advice you’ve received?

Three golden nuggets in my book:

1.Be confident in deciding which projects to take and which to walk away from.

2.Do what you do best and leave everything else to others.

3.Never chase quick money and always focus on longer term success.

Share

3 takeaways from the Russian Demolition Forum

RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann recently took to the stage at the inaugural Russian Demolition Forum in Moscow, as industry professionals from around the world gathered to share ideas, expertise and visions for the future of the sector.

Following an in-depth two-day agenda, here are Richard’s 3 key takeaways from the event:

  1. Firstly, this was an ambitious event programme to deliver, given the number of guests who were invited to attend from a wide range of truly global locations. But the bold plan did pay off. This wasn’t just a testament to the event organisers – it also reminded everyone involved just how many talented, experienced and forward-thinking people there are in what remains a very niche area of engineering.

I have played a part in delivering almost 800 RVA projects around the world and believe our network is very strong, but I still made some very interesting and valuable contacts when I was in Moscow.

  1. The importance of cross-cultural knowledge transfer cannot be underestimated. Approaches naturally differ from one country to the next, as do attitudes to environmental protection, health and safety standards, best practice on-site techniques, and more. But the triangulation of expertise – via events such as this – plays a crucial part in raising standards on a truly global level.

Over the years we’ve seen so many examples of locally ‘acceptable’ standards, often driven by the legislative benchmark in the country concerned. But in parts of the world where the demolition profession has advanced significantly – such as Western Europe – minimum standards stretch far beyond legislative compliance alone.

The more we – as an industry – can share project scenarios, learnings and ideas, the greater our EHS awareness as a collective.

  1. It was great to see the appetite to form a new demolition federation in Russia, off the back of this first successful forum. If such a strong will can be stimulated following a single event, it will be very exciting to see how this association takes shape with continued dialogue, meetings and future events.

It is a privilege to have been involved from the outset and we look forward to seeing what happens next…

Share

RVA begins dismantling contractor search for Cypriot power station

Following 12 weeks of collaborating with decommissioning consultancy RVA Group, the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) has embarked upon the international tender and selection process for a contractor to execute a Cypriot power station dismantling project.

It was announced late last autumn that RVA had been appointed to oversee the complex 26-month assignment at Moni Power Station – a 1960s construction approximately 14km east of Limassol – and the development of a detailed tender package was one of the first crucial elements of the initial planning and preparation phase.

A number of local partners – specialising in safety management, structural engineering and geotechnical science – are already working with RVA’s team of engineers. Now all eyes are on the identification of a dismantling contractor who can help fulfil the complex brief.

The project will see the sequential clearance of a number of assets on the 16 hectare site, including six 30MW steam and oil-fired turbines, boiler generating units and ancillary equipment; six chimneys; the fuel oil pump house; and switchyard. All have been out of operational use since 2013.

Commenting on the project, RVA’s managing director Richard Vann said: “The careful formation of a best-fit team acts as a crucial foundation for any dismantling or demolition assignment.

“On paper, the appointment of professionals from varied cultures and backgrounds sounds like it has the potential to present additional challenges, when it comes to things such as regulatory knowledge and language barriers. However, engineering-specific experience and a shared, non-negotiable commitment to the safe, environmentally sound and cost-effective execution of works, are actually the most important criteria when selecting who to bring on board.

“We have now worked on almost 800 projects across the globe and our international experience – including the management of diverse teams working on energy sector schemes – is one of the reasons why we were appointed to oversee this two-year brief.”

RVA will have a permanent on-site project management presence until the programme is complete. RVA’s key role during this time is to provide a range of engineering, site project management, technical compliance and financial reporting services – to name just a few. An RVA asbestos analyst will also travel out to the Mediterranean island to survey and monitor the hazardous insulation material removal processes, as the dismantling unfolds.

 

Share