605T load test of a BOP crane
Client: International offshore drilling contractor
Asset: Semi-submersible rig
Load testing of all lifting equipment onboard the drilling rig was required as part of its 5-yearly inspections. Ensuring that all lifting equipment is functioning as intended is critical for the safety of personnel and equipment onboard.
Of all the load tests carried out, including a 165T load test of an X-mas Tree crane and 110T load test of deck cranes, the most challenging was the 605T load test of a blowout preventer (BOP) crane. To put this in perspective, the weight is equivalent to lifting 300 Tesla Model Y or 120 fully-grown African elephants.
The 605T load test was carried out with water bags, shackles, load cells and water hoses.
As a Work Leader, Roger Eidem has performed several load tests throughout his career at Axess, and this was the most significant project he has been involved in.
“The biggest challenge for this test was the limited space in the moonpool area. Successfully arranging a test of this scale in such a confined space requires experience, ingenuity, and meticulous planning. Filling the water bags alone took about a day. I am proud to be part of a team which possesses the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to execute this test safely and effectively,” Roger Eidem, Work Leader at Axess Group said.
The project was safely completed within time and budget as a result of good cooperation with the rig personnel and the equipment supplier. Mobilising a multi-skilled team enabled Axess to execute multiple scopes of work in addition to the load tests. The consolidation of tasks reduced mobilisations, resulting in cost savings and decreased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Odd Øyvind Fjørtoft, Operations Manager, AIM at Axess Group, said, “Given the limited space and associated risks involved in the load test of this scale, thorough planning was crucial. To keep costs to a minimum, we worked closely with the rig personnel and equipment supplier to minimise the rental duration since rental costs were significant due to the size of the equipment.”