Gord Masiuk - Case Studies in Continuous Quality Improvement - WCQI Anaheim 2012

1,796 views

Published on

G Masiuk Presentation May 21, 2012 WCQI Anaheim

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,796
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
153
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
80
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gord Masiuk - Case Studies in Continuous Quality Improvement - WCQI Anaheim 2012

  1. 1. World Conference on Quality and Improvement May 21-23, 2012 Anaheim, California Case Studies In Continuous Quality Improvement Gordon Masiuk, President Masiuk Consulting Services Ltd. www.business-performance-excellence.ca
  2. 2. Implementing Quality Improvement• What has worked well in your organization?• What are some of your challenges?• I wish I could…. MCS
  3. 3. “If you think you can, or, if you think you can’t, you’re right!” Henry Ford MCS
  4. 4. Presentation Overview• Case Study 1: Reducing Downtime and Improving Production in an Oil Field Operation• Case Study 2: Plant Maintenance Initiative to Reduce Downtime and Improve Production in the First Half Hour of Start-Up• Case Study 3: Reducing Corporate Wide Rig Release to On-Stream Cycle Time and Increasing Production and Cash Flow For an Oil & Gas Operation MCS
  5. 5. Focus of the Presentation• What Was Needed to get the Initiative Started?• How The Initiative was Identified• Improvement Methodology Used• Quality Management Analytical Tools Used• Implementing and Measuring the Improvements• Bottom Line Impacts• During the case studies ask yourself how you might be able to apply the quality concepts, tools and measurements in your organization! MCS
  6. 6. Improving Production and Reducing Downtime in an Oil Field Operation Case Study 1 MCS
  7. 7. What Was Needed to get the Initiative Started?• This initiative was part of an overall Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) pilot process – acquired sponsorship of executive and senior management• Focus was to generate bottom line results: improving production, reducing costs, eliminating waste and downtime• “Engagement and commitment” of the production supervisor and his operators vs. their “compliance”• Formal and just-in-time training and coaching of supervisors, operators, engineers and others in practical application of CQI tools and methods, teamwork and leadership effectiveness was critical• Full time on-site consultant to guide the initiative• “Diplomatic Immunity” to allow the area to challenge the status quo MCS
  8. 8. Key Opportunities• Operations supervisor wanted to involve his teams in the improvement of production and reduction of downtime. This would be the first exposure of the operations crews to a Continuous Improvement initiative.• Operations supervisor was very open to learning and applying performance management and continuous improvement techniques. His engagement and leadership was critical to success. MCS
  9. 9. Continuous Improvement Approach• Plan-Do-Check-Act continuous improvement model Plan Continuous Act Improvement Do Model Check MCS
  10. 10. Continuous Improvement Approach• Used the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) approach to design and implement the improvement.• Started the process by conducting operations/ engineering team brainstorming sessions to understand their operational issues.• Identified potential improvement opportunities focused on reducing downtime or improving production (including the “vice on the back of the truck”).• Reviewed one year of production accounting data to identify specific causes of downtime and lost production (Pareto Analysis) and to establish a baseline of performance.• Engaged operations staff and other disciplines in problem solving exercises (Root Cause analysis).• Further fine tuned the accounting data, identified primary improvement opportunity. MCS
  11. 11. “The best way to get a good idea, is to get a lot of ideas” Linus Pauling Nobel Winning Chemist MCS
  12. 12. Vital Few (Top 20%)Downtime Shortage/Lost ProductionTop 12/57 Vital Few Top 12/56 Vital FewReason Hours Reason BarrelsQuota Produced 12900 Quota Produced 20337BH Pump Failure 5330 BH Pump Failure 15848Pumped Off 2900 Turnaround 10502Engine Failure 2809 Recover Load Oil 4189SI (Flared Gas) 2374 Pumped Off 3310Recover Load Oil 2326 Engine Failure 3069Turnaround 1982 Pump Change 2656Line Break 1821 WCT Request 2336Road Conditions 1080 Line Break 2142Pump Change 1043 SI (Flared Gas) 2045WCT Request 1032 Rods Parted 1384Shut In 864 Gear Box 1054 MCS
  13. 13. Barrels of Oil Q 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 uo ta Pr BH o du P ce d of downtime um p Fa ilu Tu r e rn R ar ou ec ov nd er Lo ad O Pu il m pe d En O g in ff e Fa ilu Pu r e m p C ha W n C ge T R eq ue s t Lin e B SI re ( Fla a k re d G as R ) od s Pa rte d G ea Pr rB e ss ox ur H e ig Su h r ve Lin e y P re s su Po re w er Fa ilu r e Fu C el om pr G as e ss or D ow Po lis n h ed R od Pig St u ck Sh u tI n W or Te ko st ve O r th Eq er u ip W W m ell at en er D Fa t is il u po re al s M Pr ec ob ha le nic m al Fa il u re Sa dd R le oa Br d g C Be on dit nt io Po ns lis he d R od Flo w Lin SE e F W ax ed O ff G en D er EF at or Fa i lu re Lo w IG Sp Ta a rk nk Plu R g oo m W Pr at a e r sc o Fa ilu r e Plu g U pg Lin ra e d e Fr oz en W O at ff R er od S H w W un itc at g h U er p Reasons for Lost Production/Shortage In (D je EF ct io ) n P ro b le Ta mMCS nk Sw itc h Ig H nit ig io h n Ta n k Le ve l C W lu tc eig h ht s M 1 Year Baseline Lost Production/Shortage - Pareto Chart ov ed W ell H H ea ole d in Tu H b in ig g BHP failures accounted for 20.1% of annual lost production out of the 56 categories h O D il is Sw ch ar i tc ge h Pr e ss C ur oo e le rF ro H ze ig n h Pr e ss ur Ba e Production Accounting Pareto Analysis t te ry D ow n Lo w O il
  14. 14. Hours of Downtime Q 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 uo ta Pr o du BH P ce um d p Fa ilu Pu r e m pe d En O g in ff e Fa SI ilu ( Fla r e re R d ec G ov as er ) Lo ad O Tu il rn ar ou nd Lin e R B oa re d a k C on d itio Pu ns m p C ha W n ge C T R eq ue s t Sh u tI n M G ec ea ha rB n ic ox al Fa il ur e U pg ra R d e od s Pa rte d Te SE st O F th Ta er nk W R ell oo m Pr W e ss at e ur r e Su r ve y Fu C el om G pr as e ss Eq or u D ip ow m n R en od t Fa H il u un re g U categories, about 222 - 24 hour days H p ig (D h EF Lin e ) P re s N su o re N om H in ig at io h n Ta n k Le ve l W or ko ve r Pig St u ck Sp a rk Plu Po w g er Fa ilu r e D EF Sa d dle H Br ig g h Pr e ss ur Po lis e h ed R od Flo W w ell H Reason for Downtime Lin ea e d W ax ed O ff Lo H w ole IG in Tu b in g Ig nit W io at n er D is Plu po s g al Pr o ble m Be n C luMCS tP tc oli h sh ed W R eig od 1 Year Baseline Downtime Hours - Pareto Chart ht G s en M ov er ed at or Fa Lin i lu e re Fr oz en W O at ff er S w BHP Failures accounted for 11.7% of the total downtime out of the 57 itc h O il Sw H Pr i tc ig as h h co D is Fa ch ilu W ar ge re at er Pr In es je su ct re io n P ro ble C m oo le rF ro ze Ba n tte ry Production Accounting Pareto Analysis D ow n Lo w O Ta il nk Sw itc h
  15. 15. Pump JackOil Producing Formation Depth: 1300 – 1500 meters (4200 – 4900 feet) Bottom Hole Pump MCS
  16. 16. Bottom Hole Pump Failure – Root Cause Analysis Methods Methods Operators Operators don ’t know optimum production level Wrong start up/shut down Inadequate orientation/on -the job training Wrong strokes/minute Engineers provide inaccurate data Poor Training Equipment at wrong speed/temp Improper Improper “Wait till it breaks ” Inadequate orientation/on -the job training Dewaxers Chemicals Engineers provide inaccurate data Poor Inadequate maintenance Poor Training Training Different Shifts operate differently Lack of Procedure Budget cuts Lack of ProcedureMaterials Bottom Hole Pump Failures Failures in specific wells Temperature Seats/balls failures Formation Pump specs not to acid level Pressure Rod impacts damage pump Plugs Pump Rod Stretch Corrosion Low cost/low quality pumps Inadequate pump for application Environment Machines MCS
  17. 17. Bottom Hole Pump Failure – Root Cause Analysis Methods Operators Operators don’t know optimum production level Wrong start up/shut down Op Inadequate orientation/on-the job training era tors not Wrong strokes/minute full Engineers provide inaccurate data y tr ain ed Poor Training Equipment at wrong speed/temp Op Inadequate orientation/on-the job training Improper Improper “Wait till it breaks” era tors Dewaxers Chemicals not full Engineers provide inaccurate data y tr Inadequate maintenance ain Poor Poor ed Training Training Different Shifts operate differently Lack of Procedure Budget cuts Lack of ProcedureMaterials Bottom Hole Pump Failures Failures in specific wells Temperature Seats/balls failures Formation Pump specs not to acid level d Pressure an as G S Rod impacts damage pump id Ac Plugs Pump Pum Rod Stretch Corrosion p jack spe ed Low cost/low quality pumps Low High Inadequate pump for application Bid failu Poli re ra Environment Machines cy te MCS
  18. 18. Improvement: Discovery• Upon determining that the root cause of BHP failures was the physical design limitations of the pump, we needed to determine which wells had the problem.• 89 wells had bottom hole pumps – to replace them all may not have been the right solution.• As the field operators would rotate through the area, no one really knew the extent of the problem, or where it really was.• A second Pareto Analysis was done to pinpoint the actual BHP failures and impacts by well. MCS
  19. 19. Second Pareto to Pinpoint the Opportunities Bottom Hole Pump Failure - Affected Wells: Impact on Lost Production 100 90 86Percentage of Lost Production 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 6 3.6 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.09 0 D4 B57 D80 B63 D59 D82 D6 D85 D99 B74 Affected Wells Out of the 89 wells with BHPs, 10 had BHP failures in the past year and one of those wells had 86% of the lost production! MCS

×