But what exactly is an FMEA & how was it developed?

What is an FMEA?

Learning from each failure can be costly & time consuming. FMEA is a systematic method of studying failure.  This ensures that time is not wasted & the root of the problem is quickly determined.  It is used to Identify methods to eliminate or reduce the chance of that failure occuring in the future.

It should be noted that an FMEA is a Living Document that is used to anticipate & prevent failures from occuring.  As such it must be continuously updated as changes in the system occur.

FMEA stands for Failure Mode Effect Analysis.  Failure Mode is defined as the manner by which a failure is observed.  It describes the way the failure occurs.

FMEA trials will be conducted onboard a DP vessel by a competent third party, working with the ships crew, whenever a major change has taken place.  An example would be a thruster overhaul in dry dock.  It should also be updated whenever:

▪            At the beginning of a cycle (new product/process)

▪            Changes are made to the operating conditions

▪            A change is made in the design

▪            New regulations are instituted

▪            Customer feedback indicates a problem

History

The FMEA discipline was developed in the United States Military. Military Procedure MIL-P-1629, titled Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis, is dated November 9, 1949. It was used as a reliability evaluation technique to determine the effect of system and equipment failures. Failures were classified according to their impact on mission success and personnel/equipment safety.

Later it was used in the aerospace industry to avoid errors in small sample sizes of costly rocket technology.  The Apollo Space program is an example.

Then in the 70′s it was introduced to the automotive industry by the Ford Motor Company.

DNV & ABS adopted the requirement for FMEA in the late 1970′s – early 1980′s.

The Process

Over the vessels life it will undergo a number of FMEA’s, each with diffeen requirements.

1. As the vessel is designed, the processes & components undergo an initial Design FMEA

2. The vessel is brought into service & the FMEA is proofed.

3. That FMEA is built upon as the vessels early trials & experiences are integrated.

4. As a mature working vessel, the FMEA only needs to be updated when major changes have taken place.

Objectives

A Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is required by class for any Dynamically Positioned (DP) vessel for Class 2 or Class 3.

The objective of an FMEA, as applied to a DP vessel, should be to provide a comprehensive, systematic and documented analysis to establish the important failure modes with regard to station keeping.  The analysis must seek to determine any failure modes that can affect the station keeping as a whole and cause a position loss.  The possible modes of position loss are:

• Drive off

• Drift off

• Large excursion

The analysis seeks to find any single point failure in any of the total DP system that can cause any of the position losses stated.  The FMEA of a DP vessel is based on a single failure concept under which each system’s subsystems and parts are assumed to fail by one probable cause at a time.  It must in effect make sure that the stated worse case failure for the vessel cannot be exceeded by any single failure.

It is also customary to include a single act of mal operation as a possible single failure.  This is assessed when a mistake is easy to make due to system layout where a single act has severe consequences.  ‘Single act’ is a subjective definition and is generally taken to mean the operation of a single button, lever or switch.

The analysis must also consider hidden failures; this is a failure of a back up or standby without an alarm so that a second failure is not realized until the initiating single failure has occurred.  For instance a standby pump being faulty; or a UPS having a faulty battery and being unable to take load when required.  It must also consider that on some vessels that are in continuous operation, such as drilling vessels, will have some equipment may be down for maintenance for long periods of time.

Scope

The DP system onboard ship includes all compontents required to support & keep the vessel on position.  Each of these must be covered in an FMEA, as a failure could come from any sector.

Areas to be addressed include:

• DP Control System
• DP PRS
• Power Management & Distribution
• Thrusters & Propulsion
• Human Factors.

The Human Factor

The inclusion of the Human Factors is interesting, but that can be taken as a single point failure as well.  This can be addressed in the FMEA but looking at:

• Capability Plots
• Vessel Footprint
• Communication Systems
• Operator Training & Competance
• Operator Experience
• Working Conditions
• Checklists
• Operations Manuals
• Standing Orders

A Tool for New Joiners

Looking at the vessels most recent FMEA can aid a new joiner to a vessel in quickly getting up to speed on its capabilities & limitations.  By identifying the potential problem areas & noting the areas that perhaps have been addressed but not yet rectified, the operator will gain an nderstanding of how that vessel operates.

A Tool for Old Hands

With the ever increasing reliability of shipboard systems (due in large part to the FMEA process), the only time many personnel will see a major failure with the DP system is when it is simulated during FMEA testing.  This makes it an essential part of the training process for ships crew.

DSV Koosha-1

Eight divers were decompressing aboard the Iranian flagged dive support vessel Koosha-1 when it sank three days ago in the Persian Gulf.

The official in charge of the rescue operation told an Iranian news agency that the bodies of eight divers have been recovered. He also said that 60 personnel assigned to the ship have been safely rescued but five divers remain missing.

The divers — Indian, Iranian, and Ukrainian nationals — were inside the vessel’s pressurized diving chamber when the vessel sank in stormy seas Thursday afternoon. The divers were decompressing after installing an underwater oil pipeline located approximately 14 nautical miles off the coast of Iran. The work was being done in the South Pars gas field which is shared by Iran and Qatar.

The chamber was bolted onto the deck of the vessel which now rests 72 metres below the surface.

Pictured: Petrobas 10000, a 6th generation drillship working offshore Brazil

RIO DE JANEIRO (Dow Jones)–Brazil’s emergence as a hot frontier for oil and natural gas was boosted Wednesday by two fresh discoveries, with exploration and development of the country’s newfound oil wealth likely to attract billions in investments over the next decade.

Latin America’s largest country is squarely in the cross hairs of the global oil industry, with Brazil’s stable democracy and robust economic growth making it especially attractive. Investments by state-run energy giant Petroleo Brasileiro (PBR, PETR4.BR), or Petrobras, and international players such as BG Group PLC (BG.LN), BP PLC (BP), Chevron (CVX), Galp Energia (GALP.LB), Repsol (REP) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA.LN) are expected to reach $250 billion through 2020, according to a study Wednesday by consultants Ernst & Young Terco and Brazil’s private Getulio Vargas Foundation.

Brazil is betting heavily on development of its offshore fields, with former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva–the predecessor and mentor to current head of state Dilma Rousseff–saying oil could transform the country by easing the crushing poverty afflicting many of its citizens. The area known as the pre-salt, where oil was found more than 4 miles below the ocean surface, could hold between 50 billion and 100 billion barrels of oil and make Brazil the world’s fourth-largest crude producer and a top-10 exporter.

That promise has led to a surge in mergers and acquisitions in recent years, with companies that failed to buy acreage at concession auctions paying big bucks to buy in now. M&A activity soared to $18 billion in 2010, up from less than $1 billion in 2007, said Ernst & Young Terco partner Elizabeth Ramos.

Petrobras on Wednesday unveiled a new oil province off the coast of Sergipe state in the Northeast with a deep-water discovery in the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin. The company said the offshore well held high-quality light oil, which contains less sulphur and is easier to refine into products such as gasoline.

The latest discovery builds on a string of high-profile finds that started in 2007, when Brazil announced the first pre-salt oil field. The Tupi field, now in pilot production after being renamed Lula, was the largest discovery in the Western Hemisphere since Mexico’s Cantarell in 1976. Lula alone is estimated to hold 6.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Lula is part of a pre-salt cluster in the Santos Basin, off the coasts of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo states. Long-term well tests are under way on other fields in the region, with Petrobras expecting output from the ultra-deepwater fields to reach 543,000 barrels a day by 2015 before surging to 1.15 million barrels a day by 2020.

Despite the technical challenges that make pumping oil from the ocean depths expensive and complicated, the Ernst & Young Terco-Getulio Vargas study said that oil exports could reach 600,000 barrels a day by 2020 and generate $27.9 billion in revenue. That’s nearly double the $16.1 billion in oil-export revenue Brazil earned in 2010.

And the oil riches are not just limited to the new frontiers. The mature Campos Basin, where more than 85% of Brazil’s crude oil is currently produced, is also home to new finds. While Shell and Chevron both recently started production at offshore fields in the area, billionaire businessman Eike Batista’s start-up OGX Petroleo e Gas Participacoes SA (OGXP3.BR, OGXPY) expects to pump its first oil from the Waimea field in October.

Inland areas are also promising, with Batista’s OGX finding a massive natural gas reserve in the Parnaiba Basin in Brazil’s north. Also Wednesday, Oil start-up HRT Participacoes em Petroleo SA (HRTP3.BR) it made a natural gas discovery in the nearby Solimoes Basin in Amazonas state.

“Brazil has tremendous potential onshore and in shallow waters,” said Helio Diniz, vice president of Canadian merchant bank Forbes & Manhattan. Forbes unit Irati Energy, which is planning a $1 billion initial public offering of shares, is developing a shale oil project in southern Brazil that is expected to produce as much as 30,000 barrels a day. The company also wants to take part in Brazil’s next auction of oil concessions, expected in the first half of 2012.

-By Jeff Fick, Dow Jones Newswires

A graphic representation of the expanded containment system using capture vessels, modified tankers, existing drill ships and/or extended well-test vessels. Image via MWCC

The Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC) says it has taken delivery of an integral part of its expanded containment system, a new Aframax tanker. The 107,500 dwt tanker was delivered during a ceremony held at a shipyard in Takamatsu, Japan, and will be operated by AET Tanker Holdings.

Named EAGLE TEXAS, the vessel is one of two dedicated “capture vessels” that will serve as part of MWCC’s containment system. Modular process equipment will be installed allowing the vessels to connect to the riser assembly, directing oil from the subsea components. The equipment will then separate the oil from the gas, safely storing the oil and flaring the gas.

“This tanker is critical to our expanded containment system, which will be operational next year,” said MWCC Chief Executive Officer Marty Massey. “With the interim and expanded containment systems, MWCC is able to achieve its mission to be continuously ready to respond to a deepwater well control incident in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.”

MWCC says the EAGLE TEXAS and its containment system will have the capacity to process up to 100,000 barrels of liquid and 200 million standard cubic feet of gas from a blown out well per day.

The Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC) is one of two new U.S. approved providers offering deepwater well containment services in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.  In June, MWCC said it had increased its water depth approval from from 8,000 to 10,000 feet.  The company’s expanded containment system is expected to be delivered in 2012.

“We have a long history there, we have some really strong customer relationships there, and we’ve got some great people there,” Newman told investors on a conference call to discuss the proposed takeover. “And so we wanted to take advantage of an opportunity to grow that first and foremost.”

Transocean said it has offered to buy Aker Drilling for $1.43 billion in a cash deal that would add a pair of harsh-weather drilling rigs–both working under contracts off Norway–to the world’s largest offshore fleet.

Terry Bonno, who heads Transocean’s marketing unit, said those rigs position the company to “take advantage of the new emerging area of the Barents [Sea].”

In the deal, Transocean will also get a pair of ultra-deep-water drillships that are under construction in a Korean shipyard.

In addition to the cash payment–which is equal to 26.50 kroner, or $4.83 per-share–Transocean will assume about $800 million in debt and commit $900 million to complete the under-construction rigs.

Transocean will also gain options to build another two ultra-deep-water drillships for $600 million apiece. The company has until October to decide if it will place those orders, Newman said, adding that the company’s long-standing aversion to building new rigs speculatively remains.

Offshore drillers have spent the last year on a buying spree, ordering dozens of new rigs from Asian shipyards as they race to fill their fleets with rigs that are able to drill in increasingly deeper waters. Transocean, however, has sat out the frenzy.

“As we have consistently said, our greatest objection to building on spec is the fact that excess supply could have a negative impact on day rates and asset utilization,” Newman said.

Newman would not rule out ordering those additional drillships, however. He called the terms, which call for a 25% up-front payment with the remainder due upon delivery, “very attractive.”

Transocean shares recently traded 2.79% higher at $57.16.

-By Ryan Dezember, Dow Jones Newswires

Carnival Cruise Lines announced today that it will be building three new cruise ships for two of its European brands at a price tag of OVER $2 BILLION.  The vessels, one 132,500-ton vessel for its Costa Cruises brand and two 125,000-ton ships for its AIDA Cruises brand, will be the largest ever constructed for these two cruise lines.

Carnival has contracted Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri for the construction of a 3,700-passenger ship for Costa that is scheduled for delivery in October 2014.  The all-in cost for this vessel will be approximately euro 150,000 per lower berth, or roughly US$793 million if the math is correct.

Meanwhile, Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is to build two 3,250-passenger ships for AIDA which are scheduled for delivery in March 2015 and March 2016.  The all-in cost for these vessels will be approximately euro 140,000 per lower berth, approximately US$1.3 billion at current exchange rates.

The order for the two AIDA ships marks a return by Carnival Corporation & plc to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries which built two highly successful ships for Princess Cruises, both of which were delivered in 2004. The contract with Fincantieri continues the company’s relationship with the Italian shipbuilder, which dates back nearly 20 years.

Today’s AIDA order marks Carnival Corporation & plc’s first new ship delivery for 2016 and continues the company’s strategy of introducing two to three ships per year.  Including the new orders for Costa and AIDA, Carnival Corporation & plc currently has 10 ships on order – three for 2012, two for 2013, two for 2014, two for 2015 and one for 2016.

Together, Carnival and these brands operate 101 ships totaling approximately 200,000 lower berths with 10 new ships scheduled to be delivered between May 2012 and March 2016. Carnival Corporation & plc also operates Holland America Princess Alaska Tours, a leading tour company in Alaska and the Canadian Yukon.

KALGOORLIE, Australia (Dow Jones)–Nearly a third of the world’s minerals could come from the deep sea using technology similar to that employed by the oil industry, said Nautilus Minerals Inc. (NUS.T), the first commercial company permitted to explore for minerals in international waters.

Paul O’Sullivan, Nautilus’s chief operating officer, said the company hopes to start mining copper and nickel deposits offshore Papua New Guinea in late 2013, using largely off-the-shelf equipment purchased from the likes of General Electric Co. (GE), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and Sandvik AB (SAND.SK).

Nautilus hopes to produce 1.2 million metric tons of ore annually from its Papua New Guinea project, estimating it costs around $70/ton-$80/ton to raise this ore from the seabed.

Record commodity prices are reigniting interest in exploring the seabed for future supplies of raw materials like copper for the first time since the 1970s. But it’s a bold bet as technology to mine the sea floor is untried, and it’s hard to quantify risks to the environment.

Complicating matters further is the threat of a fall in raw materials prices as growth in major markets like China slows and bigger onshore mines are built in regions including Africa and South America.

“Our vision is very much like that of the oil and gas industry,” O’Sullivan told Dow Jones Newswires.

“If you go back into the Sixties when they started going offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, 100% of the oil production came from onshore sources. Now 30% of the world’s hydrocarbons come from offshore and looking forward we can’t see any reason why 30% of the world’s minerals can’t do the same.”

Minerals exploration has lagged petroleum in the rush to exploit undersea resources till now. A flurry of projects in the 1970s, focused on manganese-rich nodules scattered on the ocean floor, fell victim to falling commodities prices and technological shortcomings.

But interest in the ocean floor’s potential is rising as emerging countries like China scramble to secure raw materials to support their rapid urbanization and commodity prices surge.

Japanese researchers estimate the Pacific Ocean could hold around 100 billion tons of rare earth metals, according to a paper published last month in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience. Rare earth prices have spiked due to China’s dominance of production and sharply rising demand.

The International Seabed Authority, which regulates activity on the seabed in international waters, granted its first four exploration leases two weeks ago.

Two went to Russian and Chinese state-backed groups seeking to explore the Atlantic and Indian oceans, while the third was taken by Nautilus for exploring waters around 4,500 meters deep near Clipperton Island, around 1,000 miles from Mexico’s Pacific coast.

However, Nautilus will focus on its shallower Solwara 1 project, 1,600 meters below the Bismarck Sea off Papua New Guinea’s northeast coast.

The US$383 million capital costs will be part-funded by Papua New Guinea’s government, which owns 30% of the project and would supply the same proportion of funds, while Nautilus has another US$139 million in cash, said Joe Dowling, vice-president for investor relations.

Nautilus is targeting offtake agreements with potential customers, conventional bank debt and equity funding to cover the difference.

The operation would salvage near-surface ore bodies using underwater diggers commonly used to bury pipelines in offshore oil and gas fields, he said.

-By David Fickling, Dow Jones Newswires

(all images courtesy Nautilus Minerals)

Net profit for the three months ended June 30 was S$149.7 million, down from S$176.1 million a year earlier, the world’s second-largest builder of offshore oil rigs by volume said in a statement to the Singapore Exchange.

“The fundamentals driving the offshore oil industry remain intact with exploration and production spending by oil majors and national oil companies expected to increase in 2011. Increased spending is expected for deepwater activity, driven largely by investments in Brazil, West Africa and Asia,” the company said in the statement.

Sembcorp Marine is the marine engineering arm of conglomerate Sembcorp Industries Ltd. (U96.SG).

Sembcorp Marine’s group turnover fell to S$831 million, down 24% from S$1.1 billion a year earlier as most of the new rig building projects secured since the fourth quarter of last year are still at the planning stage and didn’t contribute revenue in the quarter.

Sembcorp Marine has an order book worth S$5.7 billion, with deliveries scheduled through 2014. The company has received new orders worth S$2.6 billion so far this year, according to the statement.

-By Gaurav Raghuvanshi; Dow Jones Newswires

The Arctic might be the world’s final — and possibly most attractive — emerging market.

While most investors are focused on the economic potential of lower latitudes, the Arctic is — due to increased access from climate change — quietly undergoing a radical transformation that is attracting the attention of savvy investors. But the U.S. is asleep at the wheel, leaving some of the world’s largest oil, natural gas and mineral resources to be developed by others.

The U.S., an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska’s 44,000 miles of coastline and a land area two-and-a-half times that of Texas, is at a critical juncture where it must decide if it wants to open up its 49th state to development. If so, the U.S. must manage the process so it is environmentally sustainable, coordinated with circumpolar neighbors, and done with the support of local populations.

Long literally and figuratively frozen to outside investors, the Arctic now has melting sea ice and thawing tundra that are yielding huge resource opportunities. According to the U.S. Geological Survey and Alaskan state studies, 22% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas reserves are to be found in the Arctic. On the North Slope alone, there’s an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil and 236 trillion cubic feet of gas.

The Arctic is also home to some of the world’s largest zinc, nickel and rare earth mineral deposits, as well as fresh water, which is increasingly important in a warming world. Another resource is the Arctic’s sea routes, which, if realized, would be many thousands of miles shorter than traditional seaways around the two capes or through the two canals. The Bering Strait could one day host the next Singapore. With massive tidal, wind and geothermal capacity, the Arctic also has renewable energy potential.

Russia is actively working to open the Barents region. Canada is doing the same in the Yukon. Norway and Iceland each have multibillion-dollar energy projects underway. And Greenland, for now still under Danish rule, is exploring 31 billion barrels of oil estimated to be off its coast.

But the U.S. has left Alaska in the icebox. Energy production in the North Slope has been in decline for years to the point of threatening the viability of the trans-Alaskan pipeline. In contrast to other nations pocketing the Arctic’s bounty, the U.S. has no major new investment projects there.

If the U.S. wants to catch up, here are some policy initiatives that federal, state and native leaders might consider:

First, the U.S. needs to demonstrate political leadership. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent participation in an Arctic Council meeting — a first — in Nuuk, Greenland was a good start.

The U.S. should be taking a proactive approach to resolving disputes such as our disagreements with Canada over the Northwest Passage and over our maritime border in the Beaufort Sea.

Most importantly, we must finally sign on to the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which many voices in the U.S. national security establishment have long called for. Becoming party to this treaty would have many benefits in the Arctic and beyond. Crucially, it would allow the U.S. to participate in the established process of claiming exclusive rights to the resources over, on and under its extended continental shelf — a predicate for establishing a stable legal climate before attracting investment. (We will also need to revitalize our icebreaker fleet to support Arctic maritime activities.)

Second, the federal government should get out of the way of local commerce. This might be facilitated by a congressional “Arctic Preservation and Development Act” that could lay out the rules of the game, balancing environmental protection and the state’s economic interests.

Lastly, and consistent with President Obama’s formal commitment last month to an open national investment policy, federal and state governments should craft an ambitious strategy to attract foreign capital. Alaskan leaders might especially think about courting Asian investors that are in relatively close proximity, particularly Japan, South Korea and China. As our recent deficit challenges underscore, welcoming any investor interested in the American Arctic would create meaningful new jobs and contribute to economic recovery. Of course, any foreign investment will need to navigate the federal government’s review process, run by the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, that is designed to safeguard national security interests.

Alaska should consider using its $40 billion Triple-A rated permanent fund from oil revenues like a sovereign wealth fund, emulating foreign models for investing alongside private monies. Deploying this capital reserve smartly would allow Alaska to accelerate Arctic development projects that are shovel-ready. If the money is steered toward increasing oil production and financing renewable energy projects — both Obama administration priorities — it would have the added benefit of helping the country reduce its dependence on Middle East oil.

If the U.S. can wake up to the Arctic potential it possesses, Secretary of State William Seward’s 1867 purchase of Alaska for $7.2 million could turn out to be the single greatest investment in American history.

—

Mr. Borgerson is a co-founder and managing director of CargoMetrics. Mr. Minerd is a co-founder and chief investment officer of Guggenheim Partners.

Copyright (c) 2011, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

The move postpones an important committee-level vote on offshore safety legislation that has been in the works for more than a year, following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.

The delay gives more time to behind-the-scenes deal makers to work out a compromise on so-called revenue-sharing proposals, which would direct nearly 40% of royalty revenue away from the federal government and to the coastal states.

But the delay also raises questions about the fate of the offshore drilling safety legislation and the ability of lawmakers to move that bill to the floor of the Senate.

Events unfolded Thursday at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which was scheduled to hold a much-anticipated vote on legislation that steps up enforcement of drilling safety standards and strengthens drilling safety provisions.

Heading into the vote, two coastal senators–Sens. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) and Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska)–were actively recruiting support for an amendment that would steer 37.5% of oil royalties, which are currently collected by the federal government, to coastal states.

With the federal government reporting more than $5 billion in offshore royalty revenue in 2010, such a move would be a big win for coastal state governments. Landrieu has supported such a proposal for years, arguing that coastal states are entitled to some of the royalty revenue that comes from all production off their shores.

An existing law allows Gulf Coast states to collect 37.5% of royalty revenue on some leases, starting in 2017.

Because Landrieu and Murkowski need the support of at least some Democrats to attach the revenue-sharing amendment to the drilling safety bill, they decided in 11th-hour deal-making to create a fund to promote clean energy. In doing so, they hoped to attract the support of some Democrats, a Republican aide said.

But when a measure to create such a fund failed in the committee Thursday, the chance of success for the revenue-sharing plan decreased substantially. Several Republicans then walked out of the committee room, leaving the committee without enough members to hold a vote and effectively blocking any further action.

The fate of the offshore-drilling safety legislation is now uncertain, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico who chairs the energy committee. When asked by a reporter whether the bill could be revived, Bingaman shook his head and said, “I don’t know.”

-By Tennille Tracy, Dow Jones Newswires

Photo via OilSpillCommission.gov