UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND FACULTY OF HEALTH, ENGINEERING, AND SCIENCES Course No: MEC3203 Course Name: MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY Assessment No: 2 Internal External This assignment carries 30% of the total assessment for this course Examiner: DR STEVEN GOH Moderator: PROF HAO WANG Due Date: 02 June 2016 A coversheet with the relevant personal and course details is sufficient for electronic submissions. There is no requirement to submit the official USQ coversheet. TopNZ students to use your own relevant coversheet. Please refer to the Marking Rubric when attempting the assignment. Part A: Failure Analysis - Assessment Criteria [150 marks] 1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge base in the relevant topic; 2. Demonstrate the ability to delineate the problem in the case study; 3. Demonstrate the ability to analyse (and critique) the potential failure modes, and propose the likely cause of failure and a strong justification/argument to back the assertion; 4. Demonstrate the ability to propose rectification or prevention strategies; 5. Demonstrate the ability to professionally present your report (including in-text citation and referencing). Part B: Materials Selection - Assessment Criteria [150 marks] 1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge base in material selection methodology; 2. Demonstrate the ability to delineate the engineering requirements of the materials; 3. Demonstrate the ability to systematically apply material selection methods; 4. Demonstrate the ability to propose the best material(s), and a strong justification/argument to back the recommendation(s); 5. Demonstrate the ability to professionally present your report (including in-text citation and referencing). NOTE: It is inadequate to provide an answer like ‘very hard steel’. Be specific in your material selection, and always support it with evidence (such as figures or material selection charts from materials handbook). You can find most of the information resources from the textbook, USQ Library Online or relevant library databases such as ASM Online. Use Harvard referencing style; refer to USQ Library website for details. Limit the number of pages of your report submission to approx 30 pages excluding appendix. Part C: Oral Interview – Assessment Criteria [% of the Part A and Part B] 1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge in relevant materials topics and the case study; 2. Explain the approaches and relevant findings in failure analysis and materials selection. NOTE: Scheduled 15mins “face-to-face” interviews will be scheduled with individual students after submission of report to validate and confirm the learning outcomes. Zoom video-conferencing will be used for external students to facilitate the interview. Failure to participate in the interview could result in 0% being applied. X X MEC3203 MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 2 S1, 2017 2 ___________________________________________________________________ CASE STUDY – DEEPWATER HORIZON (Extracted from http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3160312.htm) BP: $30 Billion Blowout Reporter: BBC Money Programme Broadcast: 14/03/2011 And a warning for Australia as the Federal Government issues licences to explore for oil deep in our most pristine oceans. Presenter Kerry O'Brien will explore the lessons from the spill with the Co-Chair of the BP Oil Spill Commission. The US President called it "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced." And there was one man who became the focus of America's angry response: Tony Hayward. In BP: $30 Billion Blowout, Tony Hayward, BP's former Chief Executive speaks out in a wide-ranging interview, reliving every aspect of the crisis: from being under the US media spotlight and running a multinational in financial meltdown, to dealing with a US President who was making the crisis personal. It may have been an environmental disaster of epic proportions, but the political and financial fallout from the Deepwater Horizon Spill ultimately proved just as toxic as the oil that leaked into the Gulf of Mexico. In an extended interview the former BP boss recalls his time as America's Public Enemy Number One: "You know it's very difficult to hate a company, it's much easier to hate an individual..." He regrets some of his comments to the US media - or at least his candour: "If I had a degree at RADA rather than a degree in geology I may have done better. I'm not certain it would have changed the outcome, but certainly the perception of myself may have been different..." MEC3203 MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 2 S1, 2017 3 ___________________________________________________________________ And he lashes out at aspects of the coverage, such as the criticism he received in June when he took time out to go sailing with his son: "I have to confess, at the time I was pretty angry actually. I hadn't seen my son for three months. I was on the boat for six hours, between the hours of midnight and six o'clock in the morning US time and I'm not certain I'd do anything different. I wanted to see my son. The only way I could see my son was to be with him on a boat race he was on..." First broadcast on the BBC Money Programme, BP: $30 Billion Blowout features a host of interviews with key industry insiders, including Bob Dudley, the new Head of BP. Dudley talks in detail about just how close to the edge the world's fourth largest company came at the height of the crisis: "When a company reaches this point where its debt becomes almost illiquid, it is very difficult to come back from that. These were frightening days..." Following the report, Four Corners presenter Kerry O'Brien will interview one of the men entrusted by President Obama to investigate the circumstances surrounding the disaster. Senator Bob Graham was the Co-Chair of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Its final report is a damning indictment of the safety culture of the entire industry. Interview - Bob Graham Read the transcript of Kerry O'Brien's interview with retired US Senator Bob Graham - who is also the Co-Chairman of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon MEC3203 MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 2 S1, 2017 4 ___________________________________________________________________ Oil Spill. First broadcast on 14 March 2011 after the BBC report "BP: $30 Billion Blowout". Reporter: Kerry O'Brien Date: 14/03/2011 via http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3164554.htm BBC Documentary Deepwater disaster: the untold story http://library.usq.edu.au/Record/vtls000808891 RELATED NEWS AND MEDIA (Extracted from http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3163595.htm) First US permit puts BP back in the gulf | UPI.com | 2 March 2011 European oil giant BP returns to the Gulf of Mexico as the largest shareholder in the first offshore drilling project given the green light after last year's spill. Ferguson releases Independent Review of Montara PTTEP AA report | Resources and Energy | 4 February 2011 On 4 February 2011, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson AM MP, released the report of the Independent Review of the PTTEP Australasia (AshmoreCartier) Pty Ltd (PTTEP Australasia) Montara Action Plan and announced that, at this time, he would not be issuing a ‘show cause’ notice to the company that might lead to the cancellation of its petroleum titles. Read the report. Offshore Petroleum Exploration Permits Awarded | Resources and Energy | 17 January 2011 Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, announces seven offshore exploration permits. Four are awarded to BP Exploration in Ceduna Sub-basin (Sth Australian Bight Basin). The other three permits are in Carnarvon Basin, awarded to Finder No.4 Pty Ltd, Woodside Energy Pty Ltd and Riverina Energy Pty Ltd. Tony Hayward says BP was 'not prepared' for the Gulf oil spill | BBC News | 9 November 2010 The former boss of BP Tony Hayward has admitted that the company was "not prepared" to deal with fallout over the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and the media "feeding frenzy" surrounding it. White House Lifts Ban on Deepwater Drilling | New York Times | 12 October 2010 The Obama administration lifted the moratorium on deepwater oil and gas drilling on Tuesday, but it will be weeks or months before drilling resumes while industry and government regulators scramble to meet strict new rules intended to prevent another disaster like the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill. After three months, oil gusher plugged, says BP | SMH | 16 July 2010 Engineers have stopped oil flowing freely into the Gulf of Mexico for the first time in almost three months - but stress tests over the next 48 hours will determine whether the new cap on the deep-sea well will hold. Video: BP and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, Opening Statements | 17 June 2010 Watch Tony Hayward's opening statements about the role of BP in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil rig explosion and oil spill. MEC3203 MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 2 S1, 2017 5 ___________________________________________________________________ Statement by the President After Meeting with BP Executives | 16 June 2010 President Obama discusses his meeting with BP's chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, and outlines the plan for addressing the spill. Barack Obama orders six-month freeze on offshore drilling and expansion | The Guardian | 28 May 2010 President Obama told a White House press conference he was ordering a six-month freeze on the opening up of the remote waters of the Arctic to oil exploration and on the drilling of 33 deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico. He also admitted he was wrong to believe oil companies were prepared to deal with catastrophic spills. Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Contintental Shelf | US Dept of Interior | 27 May 2010 Secretary Salazar, US Department of the Interior, recommends imposing a moratorium on all oil and gas drilling activity from floating rigs for six months. His 30-day report can be read Remarks by the President on the Gulf Oil Spill | 27 May 2010 President Obama: "... after reading the report's recommendations with Secretary Salazar and other members of my administration, we're going to be ordering the following actions: First, we will suspend the planned exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska. Second, we will cancel the pending lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico and the proposed lease sale off the coast of Virginia. Third, we will continue the existing moratorium and suspend the issuance of new permits to drill new deepwater wells for six months. And four, we will suspend action on 33 deepwater exploratory wells currently being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico." Timor oil permit given despite Thai company's role in disaster | The Australian | 10 May 2010 The Australian's Paul Cleary reports that: "The parallels between the Montara disaster and the massive Gulf of Mexico spill are striking. Faulty cementing by Halliburton on the Montara is believed to have caused the leak, and the same company did the cementing on BP's sub-contracted Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf." 11 missing after oil rig explosion in Gulf of Mexico | The Telegraph UK | 21 April 2010 Eleven people were missing and seven critically injured after an explosion on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Remarks by The President on Energy Security at Andrews Air Force Base | 31 March 2010 President Obama eases offshore oil drilling ban. Excerpt: "So today we’re announcing … we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence." Read full transcript. Montara leak plugged, fire splutters out | PetroleumNews.net | 4 November 2009 PTTEP Australasia has killed the leaking H1 well in the Timor Sea and has stopped the main fire at the Montara wellhead platform and surrounding the West Atlas jack-up drilling rig. Gas, crude oil continuing to leak from rig: mining company | WA Today | 22 August 2009 The oil spill forced an evacuation to Darwin of all 69 workers from the West Atlas rig, PTTEP Australasia said. MEC3203 MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 2 S1, 2017 6 ___________________________________________________________________ Minister Reaffirms Government Commitment to Safety in the Oil and Gas Industry | Resources and Energy | 5 August 2009 The Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, speaks at the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association's 2009 National Oil and Gas Safety Conference and reaffirms Australia's commitment to safety and environmental excellence for the oil and gas industry. New Offshore Petroleum Exploration Underway | Resources and Energy | 15 April 2009 The Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, announced the award of 13 new offshore petroleum exploration permits in Commonwealth waters. Inquiry to Ensure Australian's Offshore Petroleum Safety Regulation is World's Best Practice | Resources and Energy | 9 January 2009 Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism, Martin Ferguson, today announced a joint inquiry with the Western Australian Government into the Varanus Island gas explosion in June last year. RELATED LINKS BP's Gulf of Mexico Response Site www.bp.com/ BP's Internal Investigation Report www.bp.com/ Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation The official site of the Joint Investigation Team. www.deepwaterinvestigation.com/ National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill www.oilspillcommission.gov/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Deepwater Horizon / BP Oil Spill Response http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh Bob Graham Center | About Bob Graham A bio and backgrounder on the Democratic Senator from Florida. www.graham.centers.ufl.edu/about/bob-graham William K. Reilly, Co-Chair, National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Background on Bill Reilly. www.oilspillcommission.gov/page/commission-members Timeline: BP Oil Spill | BBC News A chronology of events in the months since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and causing an oil spill that soon became the worst environmental disaster in US history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_(film) MEC3203 MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 2 S1, 2017 7 ___________________________________________________________________ Case Study Assessment Information Part A: FAILURE ANALYSIS Scenario for the "Failure Analysis" part of this assignment is in the form of a client brief in reviewing failures/literature documented in the past, critiquing investigative work done, and systematically investigating the failure to provide detailed insights into the case of Deepwater Horizon BOP materials failure relating to the drilling pipe, include specifically in your report: 1. Outline a brief background on the failure, operations, and its operating environment; 2. Delineate the problem and provide an analysis of the failure modes and potential causes of failure based on an extensive review of literature; 3. Review and critique one of the “failure reports” as prepared by the experts; comment specifically on whether the methodology is suitable and adequate based on your extensive review of literature; 4. Comment on whether additional information or additional investigation is required (eg sample testing or validation required); and 5. Recommend suitable solutions or rectification to the problem (based on certain assumptions). Part B: MATERIALS SELECTION An oil and gas service and product provider, noting your failure analysis work has decided to engage you to re-evaluate and re-consider the materials specification for its BOP’s annulus seal. In the light of recent publicised failures, the company has engaged your firm to identify an alternate material for its annulus seal. Scenario for the "Materials Selection" part of this assignment is in the form of a client brief: 1. Provide an outline and analysis of the performance requirements; 2. Evaluate and select an appropriate materials selection method; 3. Systematically justify your selection of materials for the equipment; 4. Comment on whether additional information or additional investigation is required; 5. Recommend suitable materials for the “shut-off valve” (based on certain assumptions). Part C: ORAL INTERVIEW Following the submission of this report, there will be a scheduled 15mins “face-to-face” oral interview with individual students to validate and confirm the learning outcomes. Zoom video-conferencing will be used for external students to facilitate the interview. Failure to participate in the interview could result in 0% being applied to Part A and Part B of the report submitted. The interview will be seeking to validate the student’s learning via their responses in the following: 1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge in relevant materials topics and the case study; 2. Explain the approaches and relevant findings in failure analysis and materials selection. Assessment criteria sheet for MEC3203 Assignment 2 Criteria Level 1- Level 2- Level 3- Level 4- Level 5- A1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge base in the relevant topic 0-4 marks No attempt or knowledge demonstrated were limited and/or without support. 4-8 marks Knowledge demonstrated was either incorrect or poorly articulated and supported. 8-12 marks Knowledge demonstrated was somewhat correct and adequately articulated and supported. 12-16 marks Knowledge demonstrated was clear, correct, and well articulated and supported. Limited evidence provided. 16-20 marks Knowledge demonstrated was clear, correct, comprehensive and extremely well articulated and supported; Further evidence included. 20 A2. Demonstrate the ability to delineate the problem in the case study 0-8 marks No attempt or limited delineation of the case study problem. 8-16 marks Poor delineation of the case study problem. 16-24 marks Delineation was somewhat articulated, and adequately supported and/or justified. 24-32 marks Delineation was clear and well articulated, supported and/or justified. 32-40 marks Delineation was clear, comprehensive and extremely well articulated, supported and/or justified. 40 A3. Demonstrate the ability to analyse (and critique) the potential failure modes, and propose the likely cause of failure and a strong justification/argument to support the assertions 0-8 marks No attempt or the analysis (and critique) was limited and/or without support or justification. 8-16 marks The analysis (and critique) was poorly articulated, supported and/or justified. 16-24 marks The analysis (and critique) was somewhat articulated, supported and/or justified. 24-32 marks The analysis (and critique) was clear and well articulated, supported and/or justified. 32-40 marks The analysis (and critique) was clear, comprehensive and extremely well articulated, supported and/or justified. 40 A4. Demonstrate the ability to propose rectification or prevention strategies 0-8 marks No attempt or proposed strategies were limited and/or without support or justification. 8-16 marks Proposed strategies were poorly articulated, supported and/or justified. 16-24 marks Proposed strategies were somewhat articulated, supported and/or justified. 24-32 marks Proposed strategies were clear and well articulated, supported and/or justified. 32-40 marks Proposed strategies were clear, comprehensive and extremely well articulated, supported and/or justified. 40 A5. Demonstrate the ability to professionally present your report (including in-text citation and referencing) 0-2 marks No attempt at in-text citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language were limited. 3-4 marks Poor demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language. 4-6 marks Adequate demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language. 6-8 marks Good demonstration of intext citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language. 8-10 marks Excellent demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language. 10 150 B1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge base in material selection methodology 0-4 marks No attempt or knowledge demonstrated were limited and/or without support. 4-8 marks Knowledge demonstrated was either incorrect or poorly articulated and supported. 8-12 marks Knowledge demonstrated was somewhat correct and adequately articulated and supported. 12-16 marks Knowledge demonstrated was clear, correct, and well articulated and supported. Limited evidence provided. 16-20 marks Knowledge demonstrated was clear, correct, comprehensive and extremely well articulated and supported; Further evidence included. 20 B2. Demonstrate the ability to delineate the engineering requirements of the materials 0-8 marks No attempt or limited delineation of the engineering requirements. 8-16 marks Poor delineation of the engineering requirements. 16-24 marks Delineation was somewhat articulated, and adequately supported and/or justified. 24-32 marks Delineation was clear and well articulated, supported and/or justified. 32-40 marks Delineation was clear, comprehensive and extremely well articulated, supported and/or justified. 40 B3. Demonstrate the ability to systematically apply material selection method(s) 0-8 marks No attempt or application of method(s) was limited and/or without support or justification. 8-16 marks Poor application of method(s) and/or with some support or justification. 16-24 marks Adequate application of method(s) with support or justification. 24-32 marks Good application of method(s) with support or justification. 32-40 marks Excellent application of method(s) with support or justification. 40 B4. Demonstrate the ability to propose the best material(s), and a strong justification / argument to back the recommendation(s) 0-8 marks No attempt or materials selection proposal was limited and/or without support or justification. 8-16 marks The materials selection proposal was poorly articulated, supported and/or justified. 16-24 marks The materials selection proposal was somewhat articulated, supported and/or justified. 24-32 marks The materials selection proposal was clear and well articulated, supported and/or justified. 32-40 marks The materials selection proposal was clear, comprehensive and extremely well articulated, supported and/or justified. 40 B5. Demonstrate the ability to professionally present your report (including in-text citation and referencing) 0-2 marks No attempt at in-text citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language were limited. 3-4 marks Poor demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language. 4-6 marks Adequate demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language. 6-8 marks Good demonstration of intext citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language. 8-10 marks Excellent demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or professional presentation and language. 10 150 C1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge in relevant materials topics and the case study; C2. Explain the approaches and relevant findings in failure analysis and materials selection. Level 1 0-40% No or poor attempt at demonstrating knowledge, and/or explaining the subject matter, approaches and findings submitted in the report Level 2 40-60% Adequate attempt at explaining the subject matter but demonstrating limited understanding of some approaches and findings submitted in the report Level 3 60-80% Good attempt at explaining the subject matter, and demonstrating good understanding on most of the approaches and findings submitted in the report Level 4 80-100% Excellent attempt at demonstrating knowledge of subject matter, and familiarity of the relevant approaches and findings submitted in the report Total Part A (after Part C applied) Level 1 0-40% No or poor attempt at demonstrating knowledge, and/or explaining the subject matter, approaches and findings submitted in the report Level 2 40-60% Adequate attempt at explaining the subject matter but demonstrating limited understanding of some approaches and findings submitted in the report Level 3 60-80% Good attempt at explaining the subject matter, and demonstrating good understanding on most of the approaches and findings submitted in the report Level 4 80-100% Excellent attempt at demonstrating knowledge of subject matter, and familiarity of the relevant approaches and findings submitted in the report Total Part B (after Part C applied) Assignment 2 Total