Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to End of Summer Intern Presentation-3
Similar to End of Summer Intern Presentation-3 (20)
End of Summer Intern Presentation-3
- 1. Project ManagementProject Management Summer InternshipSummer Internship Rachel HowardRachel Howard NGPLNGPL August 13, 2015August 13, 2015
- 2. AgendaAgenda • ProjectsProjects – NGPL Long Term Make PiggableNGPL Long Term Make Piggable EstimatesEstimates – Recoat Cost EstimatesRecoat Cost Estimates – Budget vs. Actual AnalysisBudget vs. Actual Analysis • Assistance to other PMs in CentralAssistance to other PMs in Central RegionRegion • Field Experiences and ToursField Experiences and Tours
- 3. ProcessProcess • Trap InstallationsTrap Installations • Valve ReplacementsValve Replacements • Bar TeesBar Tees • River Crossings and Pipe ReplacementsRiver Crossings and Pipe Replacements NGPL Long Term Make Piggable EstimatesNGPL Long Term Make Piggable Estimates
- 4. 1212” Arcadian Lateral - Alignment Sheets” Arcadian Lateral - Alignment Sheets Section 2Section 1 Section 3
- 5. Estimate Example – 12Estimate Example – 12” Arcadian Lateral” Arcadian Lateral Traps Cost per Trap MLVs Cost per MLV Tees Cost per Tee Total Cost 2 $567,666.67 4 $244,666.67 0 $131,733.33 $2,114,000.00
- 6. AMA #3 and #4 Recoat EstimatesAMA #3 and #4 Recoat Estimates 3 Separate Estimates – Capital Projects – Recoat 205 feet of 36” pipe – Amarillo Line #4Recoat 205 feet of 36” pipe – Amarillo Line #4 – Recoat 468 feet of 36” pipe – Amarillo Line #3Recoat 468 feet of 36” pipe – Amarillo Line #3 – Recoat 125 feet of 36” pipe – Amarillo Line #3Recoat 125 feet of 36” pipe – Amarillo Line #3
- 7. Cost Estimate ProcessCost Estimate Process • Determine LocationsDetermine Locations • Determine StakeholdersDetermine Stakeholders • Establish Scope and AssumptionsEstablish Scope and Assumptions • Hold Scoping MeetingHold Scoping Meeting • Receive Cost Estimate from EstimatorReceive Cost Estimate from Estimator • Review and Send to Director for ApprovalReview and Send to Director for Approval
- 8. Location – Dodge City, KansasLocation – Dodge City, Kansas • Google EarthGoogle Earth • Recoat Locations –20 Mile RadiusRecoat Locations –20 Mile Radius • Review of Potential Access PointsReview of Potential Access Points
- 9. TeamTeam
- 10. Scope and AssumptionsScope and Assumptions • Scope of WorkScope of Work • AssumptionsAssumptions – Relatively flat landRelatively flat land – Non-laser leveledNon-laser leveled – No bendsNo bends – No mats neededNo mats needed
- 11. Analysis of NGPL 2014 andAnalysis of NGPL 2014 and 2015 Projects2015 Projects • Budget vs. ActualBudget vs. Actual • Construction Bids vs. ActualConstruction Bids vs. Actual Mechanical Contractor CostsMechanical Contractor Costs • Change Order BreakdownChange Order Breakdown
- 12. Budget vs. Actual ExampleBudget vs. Actual Example BudgetBudget VarianceVarianceActualActual ExplanationExplanationCategoryCategory • Project Name: 30 Inch Portable Launcher Receiver FabricationProject Name: 30 Inch Portable Launcher Receiver Fabrication • AFE: 201656AFE: 201656 • Project Manager: Tony GoncalvesProject Manager: Tony Goncalves • Project Type: Make PiggableProject Type: Make Piggable • In-Service Date: 4/7/2015In-Service Date: 4/7/2015
- 13. Construction Bids and Change Order AnalysisConstruction Bids and Change Order Analysis
- 14. Assistance to PMsAssistance to PMs Calvin McKnight - Belvidere Meter Station Upgrade andCalvin McKnight - Belvidere Meter Station Upgrade and REX Moultrie LateralREX Moultrie Lateral –Scope of WorkScope of Work –Excavation PlanExcavation Plan –Bid Tab and RFMBid Tab and RFM –Over Pressure Protection EvaluationOver Pressure Protection Evaluation Charlie Malcolm – AMA #2 and #3 Make PiggablesCharlie Malcolm – AMA #2 and #3 Make Piggables –BOM and Procurement Status Report ComparisonsBOM and Procurement Status Report Comparisons Tony Goncalves – CS 312Tony Goncalves – CS 312 –Meeting MinutesMeeting Minutes –HAZOP meetingHAZOP meeting
- 15. Field ExperienceField Experience CS 346 Flow ReversalCS 346 Flow Reversal and Sabine Henry Huband Sabine Henry Hub ModificationsModifications
- 16. ToursTours • Houston Central PlantHouston Central Plant • Markham StorageMarkham Storage Compressor StationCompressor Station • Metallurgy LabMetallurgy Lab
Editor's Notes
- Hi everyone, my name is Rachel Howard, and I am currently a junior at Texas A&M University studying civil engineering. This summer I had the privilege of working as an intern in project management for the NGPL group under Chris Drescher.
- My work this summer consisted of three larger scale projects along with a number of smaller tasks in assisting other project managers in my group with various aspects of their projects. I also got the opportunity to travel to a construction site in Louisiana as well as attend a number of tours with the other interns.
- The first project I was assigned involved developing a large number of estimates for NGPL make piggable projects. The integrity team assigned the project management department the task of evaluating a large number of future make piggable projects for NGPL and providing broad estimates for each of these projects. This was an assignment one of the project managers in my group was currently working on when I first started here this summer; he had about 40 estimates left to evaluate, which he then left for me to finish. Here, I have illustrated my process for determining each general estimate for these make piggable projects. I was provided a very general scope for each project which usually included installing pig launchers and receivers and replacing any mainline valves and barring tees where necessary, as well as replacing river crossings and pipe. I then pulled up the appropriate alignment sheets using Geospatial to determine how many mainline valves needed replacing, and how many tees needed to be barred. I also utilized the location of these laterals to make a good assumption on whether union or non-union labor would be used for these projects. I then used all the information I found from evaluating the scope and the alignment sheets to determine a general estimate. The project manager working on this project prior provided me with a list of go-bys for the calculations for these projects. These go-bys were developed from examining historic data from past projects, such as the costs of mainline valve replacements and permanent pig launchers and receivers; these pricings were broken down by pipe sizing and whether union or non-union labor was used.
- Here is an example of one of the projects I evaluated. The purpose of this project is to make the 12” Arcadian Lateral Piggable. The scope includes installing a pig launcher and receiver, replacing any mainline valves, and barring any tees. Here are three small sections of the alignment sheets for the Arcadian Lateral I analyzed for this estimate. From examining these three sections, you can see that there are four mainline valves on this lateral and one tee. The replacements of the four valves were included into the estimate, but the barring of the tee was not. The tee on this alignment sheet is a 4” tee on a 12” line. Because the tee is less than half the diameter of the pipe, the tee does not need to be barred. The alignment sheets also told me that this lateral is located in Beatrice, Nebraska, which is a non-union state. I used this knowledge to make the assumption that non-union labor would be used.
- Scope – install permanent launcher and receiver on line, replace any valves, bar any tees Here is a breakdown of the scope and costs I used to determine the final cost estimate for this project. As you can see I used the information that I found from the alignment sheets and the go-bys. I then multiplied the number of traps, mainline valves, and tees with its corresponding individual non-union cost to determine my final cost for the project. Although this type of estimate is very general and lacks a lot of detail that a normal cost estimate contains, these estimates provided the integrity team with general pricing they need for future projects.
- After completing the make piggable estimates, I was then assigned the task of providing three estimates for three NGPL integrity projects submitted by operations to be completed in 2016. This project helped me in seeing the difference between a very general cost estimate and a detailed estimate as well as gave me a lot of insight into the cost estimation process for project managers.
- Here I have outlined the process in developing these estimates. I first determined the locations of all three sites on Google Earth, I then established the stakeholders for this project in order to determine who needed to be invited to my scoping meeting. I then outlined the scope and general assumptions which was all then reviewed during the scoping meeting. After holding the meeting and corresponding with those that were unable to attend the meeting, the cost estimator developed the final estimate which I then reviewed and sent to my director for approval within the 2 week deadline.
- I have provided a Google Earth screenshot for the approximate recoat length on the Amarillo 4 line. This was done for all three locations. Utilizing Google Earth allowed me to find potential access points for the construction site as well as determine what was in the surrounding areas. As you can see from this screenshot, the recoat location is very near to a road; however, one of the recoat locations on the Amarillo 3 line was about a mile away from an access point. Land and ROW then knew they needed to allot a larger amount money for damages for that recoat project.
- These are the departments of the people that were included in the scoping meeting. Because these three projects were for recoating the pipeline, an engineering representative was not needed. Those that were unable to attend the meeting I corresponded with individually in order to provide the estimator with all the information he needed for the estimate.
- Here I have outlined the scope that was discussed in the scoping meeting. This scope includes excavation of the pipe and stripping the old coating, recoating of the pipe, as well as backfilling and reseeding the site. A cost for a 3rd party company to preform Stress Corrosion Cracking, or SCC, testing was also included in these three estimates. During the scoping meeting, the members of the team and I discussed the established scope as well as specifics relative to each team member’s department. Holding this meeting provided the estimator with the information he needed to develop a good estimate for these three projects.
- My final project was assigned to me by my supervisor, Chris Drescher, and involved the development of a cost analysis of NGPL 2014 and 2015 projects. The purpose of this assignment was to provide an organized source of go-bys for estimates based on costs and construction bids from recent projects. This project also gave me a lot of exposure to the accounting side of the pipeline industry. I developed an Excel spreadsheet which was broken down into these three sections.
- The first portion of this project provides a breakdown of budget and actual costs for 2014 and 2015 NGPL projects. Each project is broken down by Project Name, AFE, Project Manager, In-Service Date (if applicable) and Type of Project (Make Piggable, Drip Removal, etc). Each project was then broken down further by individual costs (Mechanical Contractor, Material, etc.). These costs were broken into budgeted, actual, and variance sections, all of which was found in PSA. A separate section contains comments for variances that a cost analyst helped me pull up by using the application, CARS. For the variance section, what is filled in red represents a unfavorable variance, and the green represents a favorable variance. One major benefit of the portion of the spreadsheet is that each section can be filtered – for example, I can filter the costs for all mechanical contractor costs for make piggable projects included in this analysis.
- The second section of my analysis provides a breakdown of the contractor bid amounts and the actual costs for mechanical contractors for each project. Each project is broken down by Project Name, AFE Number, and Project manager. For each project, there is a construction bid amount for the contractor (or 2 amounts if 2 contractors were used) the actual costs for the mechanical contractors, and the total amount of change orders issued. If the project has not been completed, the estimated total remaining amount for the contractor is also listed. This required pulling up a lot of data from PSA and other Project Managers’ J Drives or personally annoy them if their Drives did not contain this information. I also met with a purchasing manager that Bill Bane put me in contact with for the determining whether the work was done using union or non-union labor. The third section of this spreadsheet is a breakdown of all change orders issued for each project - this section includes the cost impact of the change order along with a description of the change in scope.
- Throughout the summer, I also assisted other project managers in my group with various aspects of projects they were working on. Doing so helped me to understand how much exactly is involved in the development and completion of a project and the importance of staying on top of every aspect of the project. I also got to become familiar with a lot of the paperwork that is involved in project management such as filling out requests for materials and developing a scope of work and an excavation plan for a bid package.
- In mid-July I got the opportunity to travel to Compressor Station 346 and the Sabine Henry Hub in Kinder, Louisiana. Even though this was a project I was not at the time working on, this visit showed me the workings of a project on a larger scale. Looking at the drawings for this project and comparing it to what was actually being done at the site gave me a completely different perspective. While I was there I also got the opportunity to meet with the welding inspectors as well as sit in on a meeting with the contractors and ops to discuss changes in the schedule. (Here’s a picture of me wearing some FRC’s that definitely did not fit me – I had to hold them up while walking to keep from tripping)
- Along with the other interns, I also had the opportunity of touring the Houston Central Plant, the Markham Storage Compressor Station, and the Metallurgy lab here in Houston. (The picture of the plant may or may not have been pulled up from Google – phone usage for taking pictures was limited)