Cost estimating for turnarounds

Petroleum Technology Quarterly

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Lawrence, Gordon ^a  

^a Asset Performance Networks   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865225584     PISSN: 1362363X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/ sectors/refining/refinery-turnaround. cfm.
2. http://ap-networks.com/latest-news/ tinc-europe-2011-summary.html.
3. We are very aware of the fact that in recent years the preference within project cost estimating circles is not to talk of a typical ±10% or ±30% estimate, but rather to talk of "classes" of estimates. This is because of the need to recognise that for the same level of scope definition, two projects could have different levels of estimate accuracy because of the inherent risks in their characteristics. For example, a new technology project probably carries more risk than a similarsized project expanding an existing plant. However, the turnaround world has not yet reached that level of sophistication. Hence, for the survey, we used terms that are readily recognised, such as ±10% estimate.
4. Lawrence G R, Stage gated approval processes - a practical way to develop and filter capital investment ideas, Pharmaceutical Engineering, vol 20, No 2, March/April 2008.
5. AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97; cost estimate classification system, as applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the process industries.
6. Lawrence G R, The use and misuse of contingency - or why cutting contingency makes projects more expensive, not less. Pharmaceutical Engineering, vol 27, No 5, Sept/Oct 2007.
7. Burroughs S E, Juntima G, Exploring Techniques for Contingency Setting, AACE International Transactions, Washington DC, 2004.