assest management conference 2013
DESCRIPTION
Operations Due DiligenceTRANSCRIPT
Operations Due Diligence
1
Richard Robinson4 June 2013
1
Increasingly organisations are required to demonstrate due diligence for the management of assets. Traditionally this has been done ‘stair-wise’ (bottom up) outside the context of an organisation’s overall risk context. This tends to leave the senior decision makers with an uncertainty as to the precise meaning of the results.
Purpose
22
Operations due diligence answers the question from a strategic viewpoint by determining the actual effective availability in the context of all the credible risk issues. It is especially useful when acquiring (or disposing) of an asset to confirm its proper market value.
3
Operations Due Diligence
3
A. Outline of the operations due diligence process
B. Two examples: * Critical Assets Due Diligence Review Gladstone Area Water Board* Effectiveness of the Western Outer Ring
Main (WORM) Project on Security of Supply of the Victorian Transmission System (VTS)
APA Group4
Presentation
4
Top Down not Stair-wise Bottom Up
5
Context vulnerability assessment (criticality)
Common mode (zonal) vulnerability assessment (risk)
Functional availability modelling
(reliability)
Options review and investment payback
5
Primary operating mode
i) Context (or boundary) vulnerability assessment
iii) Functional availability modelling
ii) Common mode (zonal) assessment
Alternate operating modes
Site boundary
Threats (unwanted inputs)
Critical success factors
(desired outputs)
6
Three assessments context
6
This is a high-level context (boundary) vulnerability analysis establishing the risk context for the review. It examines the credible boundary threats to the critical success factors of the organisation, plant or project. This is an established process derived from the security/military intelligence community.
i. Functional boundary analysis.
77
This process identifies the critical common mode and common cause failures such as issues associated with fires/explosions, pipe failures and power. This is usually done on a geographic and incident history basis. These are typical common mode failures for which organisations purchase insurance, especially for fires and explosions. This process is long established in underwriting and HPR industries.
ii. Zonal Vulnerability Assessment
88
This focusses on the identified critical elements for each operating mode, consistent with standard reliability modelling techniques.
iii. High level functional availability modelling.
99
Systems rather than components
i) Systems operate continuously (including any possible scheduled breaks);
ii) Systems are repairable;iii) System availability has reached steady state, that is,
enough time has passed from commissioning for the wearing in period to have negligible affect on system availability; and
iv) Systems have a constant failure rate (that is, random failures).
1010
Generative Interviews
In order to test the preliminary models and the results of the zonal assessment and context vulnerability assessment, a series of generative interviews should be conducted with representative key stakeholders. This is a worthwhile reality check in most situations and provides the most useful feedback to the proponent organisation.
1111
Comprehension
12
Gladstone Area Water Board
13http://www.qca.org.au/files/W-GAWB2010-PriceInvest-Sub2-App16-1209.pdf. Viewed on 15Nov2012.
Gladstone Area Water Board (GAWB) commissioned R2A to undertake a critical infrastructure due diligence review.
Gladstone Area Water Board (GAWB) owns and operates bulk treated (potable) and raw (non-potable) water storage and supply system throughout the Gladstone region of Central Queensland.
13
Gladstone Area Water Board
14
!
14
GAWB, bulk water, functionally
1515
Boundary Vulnerability Assessment
16
GAWB Delivery Critical Success FactorsBoyne
SmelterCement
AustraliaGladstone Port Corp. Orica QAL QER RTA Transpacific GRC CSE &
CPMRaw water (Ml pa) 650 230 580 1,120 10,775 10 3,700 25 - -
Treated water (Ml pa) 80 40 - 570 6 - 515 - 9,000 -
Credible Threats1 Dam failure (earthquake, flood) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx2 Bushfire (catchment) x x x x x x x x x x3 Power failure (cyclone/storm, supply failure, switchyard failure) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx4 Regulatory changes incl. reduced allocation x x x x x x x x x x5 Inundation / flood (tailwater) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx6 Industrial issues incl. contractors esp treated water xxx xxx - xxx xxx - xxx - xxx -7 External comms failure eg backup comms, telephone, modems x x x x x x x x x x8 Drought xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx9 Contamination x x x x x x x x x x
10 Sabotage / Terrorism xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx11 Sun Water infrastructure failure xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxx
16
System Availability Model
1717
Results
1818
Results
1919
Western Outer Ring Main (WORM)
20http://www.aer.gov.au/sites/default/files/C-5%20R2A%20WORM%20Security%20Supply%20Report.pdf Viewed 18 Oct. 2012.
R2A were commissioned by the APA Group to complete a review of the security of supply of the Victorian Transmission System (VTS) with particular regard to the economic benefits to existing and long-term customers of the proposed Western Outer Ring Main (WORM) Project in Victoria
20
Middle Functional Model
21
Effectiveness of the Western Outer Ring Main (WORM) Project on Security of Supply of the Victorian Transmission System (VTS)
5
Iona
Culcairn
to / from NSW
970 TJ per day max (both Gippland and
Bass Basins)
to / from SA
SEA gas pipeline
Iona UGS
W
to / from NSW
to Tasmania
Longford
LNG AGS
Pakenham
Rockbank
20%50%
30%
Longford: 1,045 TJ per day max (3 gas trains)
Dandenong
353 TJ per day
max pipe transfer
limit
Melbourne gas market 800 TJ ave winter demand
Proposed WORM ($85m)
92 TJ per day max to Melbourne
Stonehaven compressor
upgrade
S
418 TJ per day max
with WORM and
compressor upgrades
Brooklyn
W
Wollert compressor
upgrade ($24m)
215 TJ per day max
C
60 TJ per day max
R PB DDDocklands
From Bass Basin
From Gippsland BasinFrom
Otway Basin
Middle Level Model
The middle level model shown above describes the basic system and was used as a basis to develop the higher, functional system diagram which is the basis for the payback model, shown below.
High Level Functional Model
Wollert
LongfordIona
Culcairn
Pressureconstrained
Melbourne gas market (approx 80% of Victorian market or 800 TJ for average winter peak)
NSW
353 TJ per day max limit
92 TJ per day max limit
ProposedWORM
970 TJ per day max limit (Longford and
Bass gas)W
W L DB
C
30% 20% 50%
Pakenham
Bass gas
60 TJ per day max limit
P
West
North
East
21
Functional Model
22
Wollert
LongfordIona
Culcairn
Pressureconstrained
Melbourne gas market (approx 80% of Victorian market or 800 TJ for average winter peak)
NSW
353 TJ per day max limit
92 TJ per day max limit
ProposedWORM
970 TJ per day max limit (Longford and
Bass gas)W
W L DB
C
30% 20% 50%
Pakenham
Bass gas
60 TJ per day max limit
P
West
North
East
22
East Supply Model
23
Credible External and off-site Common Mode Failures East Supply Model BoundaryDays Prob Unavailout (pa) -ability
East supply failure (accidental) 14 0.025 0.35East supply sabotage/terrorism 7 0.010 0.07 Longford -
Off shore plant failure 14 0.03 0.47 Dandenong Dandenong OperatorBushfire 5 0.10 0.50 pipeline City gate 0.9840
Industrial issues 1 0.1 0.100 0.01 0.00
0.00 0.9900 0.9990 0.9990Total Days Unavailable: 1.49
Availability: 0.995927
23
East Supply Interruption
24
Season
Victorian,market,average,demand,,(TJ,per,
day)
Surplus/deficit,with,total,East,failure,?,(TJ,per,
day)
Surplus/deficit,with,total,East,failure,plus,
WORM,?,,(TJ,per,day)
Extra,gas,available,to,
market,due,to,WORM,,(TJ,per,
day)Summer 331 216 296 ?Shoulder 633 ?84, ?6, 78Winter 995 ?443, ?368, 75
24
Winter Season Interruption Costs
25
East%supply%failure%duration(days) $%per%TJ Without%WORM with%WORM Difference5 $106,300 D$235,454,500 D$195,592,000 $39,862,50010 $89,750 D$397,592,500 D$330,280,000 $67,312,50015 $81,460 D$541,301,700 D$449,659,200 $91,642,500
25
Summer season demand
26
LoCOperator error
Dropped customers
Price gouging
Network damage
Summer demand exceeds available
supplies
Single event threat scenarios
VOLL mgt
Load shutdown
WORM project
Supply side - market forces competition policy
Demand side - emergency response co-operation policy
26
Shoulder season demand
27
LoC
Total loss of East supply
Failure of east pipelines
Shoulder demand exceeds available
supplies
Operator error
Dropped customers
Price gouging
Network damage
Load shutdown
VOLL mgt
WORM project
27
Winter season demand
28
LoC
Total loss of East supply
Loss of two Longford trains
East supply line failure
Winter demand exceeds available
supplies
Dropped customers
Price gouging
Network damage
Load shutdown
Operator error
Dandenong city gate failure
WORM project
VOLL mgt
28
Findings
29
In the immediate term, the WORM Project was determined to be economically viable to existing customers on the basis of the reduced cost of risk in the shoulder and winter seasonal markets.
Additionally, the WORM Project is a vital element to support an augmentation of the supply transmission capacity to the Victorian gas market, facilitating long-term market expansion benefits.
29
Explaining “Everything”
In these times of "due diligence" the need to explain "everything" in ways that senior decision makers understand has become paramount. Operations due diligence addresses this concern by placing reliability of systems into the downside risk context of major enterprises. This requires the convergence of existing risk and reliability skills.
3030
31
31