[ case study ]
negotiated contractual terms were fair and reasonable. Counterintuitively, significant cost savings were achieved by reducing layers in the supply chain and compressing the schedule. Completing a project that might typically take five years in under 18 months substantially reduced project overheads. we ensured that every phase of the project was aligned and synchronised. Each contractor was required to submit their best-case schedules, which were then incorporated into a master schedule. This allowed us to identify potential conflicts and opportunities for optimisation early on.
Parallel vs. sequential activities
Due to the fast-track nature of the project, a parallel execution approach was implemented to condense the schedule, with minimal float. For example, long-lead items were purchased before detailed engineering was complete, with some slight contingency on the quantities to cover any last-minute design changes. While this undoubtedly carries higher risk, those risks were mitigated by the experience of the team and the best-in-field contractors selected for the project.
A project risk register was created, and mitigation strategies were developed to prevent a single event from causing a catastrophic delay to the project.
Permitting
Permitting risks are the Achilles’ heel of major offshore projects, often leading to costly delays or budget overruns. Mitigating these risks early is key to success. STS developed a robust permitting strategy at the beginning of the project and subsequently received all survey and construction permits‘ just in time’. Extensive experience with permitting requirements allowed us to confidently commit to reserving vessels that could be deployed immediately. The vessels were mobilised and ready to begin work on the days that the permits arrived.
Scheduling
Monitoring the project schedule seven days a week was a key strategy in keeping the schedule on track. By integrating contractor schedules,
Daily and weekly meetings were held with all key contractors to review progress, address any issues, and update the schedule as necessary. This constant communication and collaboration created a dynamic and responsive scheduling process, allowing swift adaptations to changes to keep the project on track.
When the contractors’ timeline did not align with the schedule or project expectations, we applied some gentle pressure or looked for alternative solutions to keep things on track. The pre-commissioning was estimated to take 20 days but was reduced to five days after additional resources were deployed. When a fuel pump failed on a davit crane aboard the pipelay vessel, the owner estimated several weeks for a replacement. The team quickly searched and found a suitable part at an agricultural retailer in Poland. It was promptly couriered to the port, where a supply vessel shipped it directly to the vessel. These examples reflected the team’ s proactive mindset – when challenges arose, everyone stepped up to find a solution.
For such a fast-track project, multiple projectspecific strategies were utilised to shorten the timeline. Survey, engineering, and technical data from other existing infrastructure in the region were purchased. Existing weld procedures and standardised contractual terms were used where possible, and stock materials were bought where available. Each and every incremental improvement played a role in maintaining or improving the schedule. Delays
34 Hydrogen Tech World | Issue 21 | April 2025