2012 spim conference, 7 december 2012, london th … im...2012 spim conference, 7 december 2012,...

th

Update on SURF IM Joint Industry Project2012 SPIM Conference, 7th December 2012, London

Patrick O’BrienPatrick O Brien,Group Director Strategic Business & Marketing, Wood Group Kenny

Experience that Delivers

Introduction

Key Presentation Points:

• SURF IM Participation & Workscope

• Picture Tour of what is being doneg

• How SURF IM JIP is evolving for the future

1Experience that Delivers

SURF IM Joint Industry Projecty j

• Participation:– BG, BHP Billiton, BP, Chevron, Hess, Maersk Oil, Petrobras, Petronas, Shell,

Suncor Total WoodsideSuncor, Total, Woodside

• Scope:– Review of SURF System Design & Operation (An integrated approach)– Review of SURF System Design & Operation (An integrated approach)– Comprehensive Catalogue of Failures & Failure Mechanisms– Identify and catalogue existing inspection and monitoring technology

Evaluate Inspection & Monitoring Technology Gaps and identify emerging– Evaluate Inspection & Monitoring Technology Gaps and identify emerging appropriate technologies for SURF inspection & monitoring

– Prepare a Best-Practice Guidance Note for SURF Integrity Management

• Schedule– Commenced: January 2011– Complete: Mid 2013


– Complete: Mid 2013

SURF Integrity Management Guidelineg y g

Public DomainReview Relevant

Industry Standards

Operator Experiences

Best Practice SURF IMOperators’ Best Practices

Expertise in

Is sharing possible?

Mapping Failure Modes onto an

Wood Group Kenny

Experience

Expertise in Integrity

Management & Technology

Modes onto an Inspection &

Monitoring Strategy


SURF IM Work Scope (Graphically)( y)

Industry Experience

Design and Operational

Requirements

• Operational Experience• Design Experience• Failure Modes/Mechanisms

Failure Mechanisms

SURF IMJIP

Scope of WorkIndustry Integrity

Management

Holistic Integrity Management Methodology

Inspection and

pgApproach

InspectionMonitoring

Methodology

Requirements

pMonitoring

Requirements

Assessment ofInspection/

MonitoringSamplingTesting & Analysis


Inspection/ Condition

MonitoringMethods

Potential New Insp. and Monitoring Technologies

Assessment of Probability of Occurrence (as input to Risk)Occurrence (as input to Risk)

Probability UPP o yIndex, P ][ ADUTSOPP o

T h l St O tTechnology Step-Out:Uncertainty concerning new technology applications

Anomaly:Uncertainty due to anomaly or defect from construction, installation or operation.

Design Uncertainty :Uncertainty from • Inputs: design basis• Response: analytical p

techniques or tools

What we don’t knowwe don’t know

What we know we don’t know

What we know we know

Increase in P due to uncertainty

Po TSO DUwe know

1 2 3 4 5

uncertainty

Possible reduction in P due to IM measures reducing uncertainty


reducing uncertainty

SURF IM Evolution

• Physical and VC MeetingsPhysical and VC Meetings

• 3-Day Physical Meetings– Perth March 2011– Houston November 2011– Aberdeen and Oslo May 2012– London October 2012

P i M 2013– Paris May 2013

• Meetings take time (1.5 days) to share knowledge on subsea component failures and subsea operations experienceand subsea operations experience– Engage local operator offices as we move around

• SURF IM Scope Extension– Subsea Processing– SURF IM Business Case– Sharing Experience on Application of New Inspection & Monitoring

Techniques


Techniques

Develop / Review IM Performance Standards/ Processes

Corporate Requirements & Standard Risk Matrix

Regulatory Requirements Integrity Basis

PreparationOutput

Assemble / ReviewSystem Data

SystemSubdivision & Grouping

Design Data

F b/I t ll I ti d /

Previous IM Work (e.g. Risk analysis, IM Plans)

Failure Mode Database HAZIDHazard & Risk Analysis

Reporting / Documentation

Risk Analysis

Fab/Install, Inspection and / or Operational Data

RiskAssessment

All risks acceptable?

Implement Barriers / Mitigation Measures

Reliability Assessment

No

Yes

Failure Database

Develop Integrity Management Plan

Inspection Monitoring Analysis and Testing Operational Procedures Preventative Maintenance

Anomaly Limits / KPIs Anomaly Limits / KPIs Anomaly Limits / KPIs Anomaly Limits / KPIs Anomaly Limits / KPIs

Database of Available IM Measures

Integrity Management Plan

S St t

Implement Integrity Management Plan

Periodic Review & Fitness Assessment

Risk Assessment and / or IM Plan

RevisionInspection and / or Operational Data

Spares Strategy

Schedule

Plan executed?Review / Propose Revision of Neglected Procedures

Regulatory / Compliance Review(If Required) Fitness Statement &

Recommended Changes

Regulatory / Compliance

No

Yes

7Experience that DeliversFit for Purpose?Develop & Execute Repair /

Remediation Plan

g y pReports

(If Required)

No

Yes

Yes

Integrity Through Field Lifeg y g

Risk Management and Integrity Management Strategy

FeasibilityFeasibility Concept Concept FEEDFEED DetailDetail OperateOperate De-De-

DesignDesign

FeasibilityFeasibility SelectionSelection FEEDFEED DesignDesign OperateOperateCommissionCommission

InstallationInstallationManufacture

Testing (FAT, SIT)

Storage/Preservation

Pre-Commission

Commission


Failure Modes Categorisationg

• Accidental Damage • Fatigue

Failure Drivers

• Corrosion/Erosion• Electrical;

• Flow Assurance/ Flow Restriction• Temperature

P• Pressure


Mapping Failure Modes to IM Strategyg gy

M f il d b id tifi ti f i ti b li dMap failure modes by identification of existing baseline and emerging technology:

Failu

re N

o.

Equipment Failure Consequence Integrity Management Measures

Equipment Sub- Failure Failure Initiator Mechanism Failure Record of O CS CE CC Monitoring Inspection Testing and Procedures MaintenanceF Equipment component Driver Mode Initiator Mechanism Result Occurrence CS CE CC Monitoring Inspection Analysis Procedures Maintenance

Subsea Piping - Jumpers, Flowlines and Spools

SP 0

01

Subsea Piping1. Jumpers2. Flowlines3. Spools en

tal D

amag

e

External damage collapse

or rupture

1. Dropped objects due to 3rd party2. Anchors and mooring vessels

3. Dragged line4. ROV impact

5. Natural disaster (iceberg

Deformation or over stress

due to localized oc

arbo

n co

ntai

nmen

t

Happened to

operator(s)NA M H 1. Pressure 1.GVI

1. Metal loss defect

assessment

1. Deck lifting and handling

2. Vessel exclusion zone

3. Dropped object

Acc

ide or rupture interaction, storm, etc)

6. Trawl board/fishing activityimpact

Loss

of H

ydro reporting

4. ROV handling


Technology Review Processgy

Failure Modes Assessment

(Task 1.0)

Baseline Inspection & Monitoring Measures

Baseline Technology Catalogue

Public Domain Identification of Emerging T h l i

TRL AssessmentReview Technologies

Operator Experiences

How is Integrity Assessed?

Technology Gaps


Baseline Inspection & Monitoring TechnologyTechnology

Compilation of Baseline Technology• Identification of technologies available to support baseline

Inspection & Monitoring MeasuresInspection & Monitoring Measures • Completion of catalogue with technologies available to be

deployed for assessment of specific defect or deterioration. • Classification based on Failure Drivers

– Facilitate mapping of technologies to failure mode assessmentassessment

– Systematic approach to ensurecomprehensive review

f– Presentation using a Flowchart format• Compilation of technology datasheets


Baseline Technology MappingElectrical Power / CommunicationsElectrical Power / Communications


Baseline Technology MappingErosion / Internal CorrosionErosion / Internal Corrosion


Technology Datasheets Compilationgy

Technology Datasheet CatalogueTechnology Datasheet – CatalogueMethod 1.3 Intelligent NDT Inspection Pigging

Magnetic Flux Leakage

Control Systems

Magnetic Flux LeakagePURPOSE

1 Applicable S t

To utilize magnetic fields to detect flaws and cracks in steel sections. MFL are currently used extensively in intellignet pigs as a NDT inspection technique

Subsea PipingSubsea Structures (main piping)UmbilicalsXmas TreeDDD : Defect, Detection and Degradation Monitoring2 Strategic Level

Systems

DDD : Defect, Detection and Degradation MonitoringELR : Exposure, Load and Response MonitoringSLM : Safety Limit MonitoringGLC : General Layout and Configuration MonitoringGlobal Integrity / Condition.3 Scope of

C diti

2 Strategic Level

Local Integrity / Condition.Exposure / Environment.

External.Internal.In-line

Condition Assessment

4 Level of Intrusion


In-line.

Technology Datasheets Compilationgy

T h l D t h t ( td )Technology Datasheet (contd.)External.Internal.In-line.Fully on line system No downtime required but operational conditions must

4 Level of Intrusion

5 Downtime Fully on-line system. No downtime required but operational conditions mustbe adjusted to release and receive pigging tools and to carry out actualinspection run.Production shutdown required.Production shutdown and system opening required.Installed during construction; no further interference.

5 Downtime Requirement

Installed during construction and requires shutdown for inspection.Continuous.Periodic.Condition based.

7 Access Pigging requires release trap, reception trap and assurance of wide ID

6 Frequency of Use

Requirements(i) Capable of detecting cracks wider than 0.1mm and longer than between 25 to

50mm. Pipe diameter range from 8 to 30inches(ii) Poor internal pipeline cleaning prior to inspection run, presence of small ID

valves or other components compared with pipeline ID, presence of tight bends tees or 90° elbows and out of roundness or ovality of pipe due to

valves/components and wide bends on pipeline system.

8 Limitations

bends, tees or 90 elbows and out of roundness or ovality of pipe due to shocks or blows, falling objects, etc.

(iii) Battery life on inspection tool must be sufficient for each stage of inspection run.

9 Identifiable Failure Modes

Allow to detect pipeline wall condition and ascertain the following types of corrosive attack: Pitting, top of line corrosion, bottom of line corrosion, erosion-corrosion, flow related corrosion CO corrosion H S corrosion and stress corrosion cracking


corrosion, CO2 corrosion, H2S corrosion and stress corrosion cracking.

Technology Datasheets Compilationsgy

T h l D t h t ( td )Technology Datasheet (contd.)Description of Method

The following equipment is relevant to intelligent pigging inspection:

MFL inspection: An electromagnetic testing technique; for this case the pigging tool is equipped with very powerful rare earth magnets and these in contact with the pipe wall create a magnetic field, which is stable and uniform if there are no indications. H if th i di ti t ( ll thi i ) th ti fi ld11 E i t

10

• Polyurethane cups pipeline cleaning pig.• Steel brushes/scrapers pipeline cleaning pig.• Chemicals/inhibitors flushing pig.• Dummy calibration pig.

The following equipment is relevant to intelligent pigging inspection:11 Equipment

• Fully instrumented (UT or MFL + recorder + battery pack) inspection pig.12 Preparation

RequirementsTo carry out intelligent pigging inspections delivery or release traps and reception traps must be available topside. Traps are ancillary items of pipeline equipment, with associated pipework and valves for introducing a pig into a pipeline or removing a pig from a pipeline. Usually for engineering design purposes, traps are considered p p y g g g p p , p"pipeline accessories" and thus trap barrels are designed according to ANSI B31.4 (Liquid pipelines) or ANSI B31.8 (Gas pipelines); quick opening trap end closures are designed according to ASME VIII, Div. 1. At traps locations lifting capabilities (permanent or temporary) are required to handle the heavy and long intelligent inspection pigs. Depending on the length of the pipeline several traps may be necessary, otherwise the pig's battery-pack charge may not last the complete run. In addition, careful coordination with Operations must be forthcoming to assure the appropriate pipeline flow conditions for optimum pig velocity.

13 Time Requirements

Pigging operations: Depend on length of pipeline being inspected and number of pigging traps in system.


(i) Scan rates of Pigs typically 0.2 to 4m/s.

Emerging Technologiesg g g

SURF IM Objectives• Industry survey of emerging technologyIndustry survey of emerging technology

• Identification of IM technology gaps and on-going technology development to address these gapsto address these gaps

• Sources include public domain, operator experience, vendor contacts

• Technologies are identified along with vendors, type of application and methodologygy

• For emerging technologies, the objective is to assign a Technology Readiness Level assessment based on API 17N


Readiness Level assessment based on API 17N


Year C t l S b X Areas of Application Technology Company TRL reached TRL

Control Systems Flowline Jumper Subsea

Structures Umbilicals Xmas Trees

Intelligent Pigging -EMAT

RosenGE 5 2008 • •

Intelligent Pigging - R 2 2012Intelligent Pigging Eddy Current Rosen 2 2012 •

Ultrasonic Phased Array Sensor

GESensorlinkClampOn

5 2010 • •

WT Measurement

MagnetostrictiveSensor Guided Wave

Technology

SWRIGULTWITNO

5 2012 •

MFL & UT Pipeway 5 2011 • •& U pe ay 5 0

Digital Radiography VJ TechnologiesApplus RTD 5 2010 • •

Electric Field Mapping Sensors

Roxar Fox tek 7(1) 2007 • • •Sensors Fox-tek

Electrical Resistance Probes – Spool

Teledyne Cormon 6(2) 2008(2) • • •

Halfwave DNV 5 2012 • •Gamma Ray Tracerco 7/5(3) 2008 •


Transmission Survey Tracerco 7/5( ) 2008 •


Year Areas of Application Technology Company TRL

Year reached

TRL

Control Systems Flowline Jumper Subsea

Structures Umbilicals Xmas Trees

Reson Aquadyne

SeaBat

Leak Detection

Sonar

SeaBat acoustics

Sonardyne WavefrontBlueview

Technologies

5 2012 • • • • • •

TechnologiesWeatherford

(Come Monday)Bio Sensor Biota Guard • • • •Fiber Optic

Measurement Schlumberger 5 2012 • • •Measurement g

Physical DamageAUV

Lockheed MartinUTEC

KongsbergC&C

Cybernetix 7(4) 2005 • • • • • •Physical Damage(CVI)

CybernetixTeledyne Gavia

AUVSeebyte

ECA

7(4) 2005 • • • • • •

Blockage Pulsed Pressure Paradigm 6(5) • • •


Blockage Pulsed Pressure Paradigm 6(5) • • •

Gaps & Recommendations

Gap analysis to identify areas that require additional development and provide aGap analysis to identify areas that require additional development and provide a road map to bridge the gaps between current status of technology and the desired performance specification.

Gap Recommendations

Uncertainties of internal corrosion and internal corrosion/erosion models. A study to baseline various corrosion models against volunteer member corrosion monitoring/ inspection results.

NB: Draft Only

Follow results from multiple corrosion/ erosion model JIP, such as University of Tulsa JIP, Ohio JIP, TOPCORP JIP and Deepstar findings from Alternative to ILI.

Standardized method/ process for chemical selection and performance verification

Develop a method /process to validate chemical effectiveness performance and dose optimization

Corrosion Management

verification. effectiveness performance, and dose optimization.Best practice on the design of flood water treatment: Chemical package design. Injection practices. Performance verification / monitoring through life of the flood.

Standard practices for the design of flood water treatment. JIP member organizations will all have internal practices that could be drawn together for mandatory minimum requirements and best practice g g y q precommendations.

Uncertainties with corrosion susceptibility of 316 clad steel when exposed to seawater (e.g.: if 316 clad when exposed to water begins to pit, does the pitting

Guidelines for the corrosion resistance of 316L to seawater / clad pipe based on depth/ temperature/ location.


cease if the seawater is removed and production conditions imposed).


Gap Recommendations

Sand Management

Sand detection technology unreliable Yes/No in some instruments. Review the detectability limits of current sensors (especially acoustic), and

methods of quantifying sand

NB: Draft Only

Review Recommend Practice for sensor location.

Remote instrumentationIssue of power source/retrievable for battery replacement or alternative power source

Develop/investigate wireless acoustic instrumentation in subsea service. Either constantly transmitting ones (some systems use the pipeline as a “cable”), or passive systems that are interrogated by ROV on a periodic basis (physical dock or ireless transmission)

Condition Monitoring

or wireless transmission).

Online strain gauges A review of state-of-the-art and development of guideline of best practice and how long term reliability can be achieved.

Tools to predict degradation on control systems Review industry best practice and propose guideline.

Leak Detection

Time lag on detection of oil leaks. More efficient detection/ diagnostic techniques and remediation for oil leaks (Identification, localization, quantification and classification, as per Ref. 8)e.g. system should have the ability to detect x liters of oil coming from x drill Leak Detection g y y gcenter.

BlockageAbility to quantify % of lines that are plugged, location, length and characterization

A review of best practice and propose guideline. Technologies available should also be assessed to benchmark results.



Gap Recommendations NB: Draft OnlyGap RecommendationsAlternative to ILI: Technology limited to coating. Removal of insulation. Accuracy for defect sizing.

Develop a ROV deployable system with the following specification: Good accuracy – the ability to provide WT data in ½-inch (12.7mm)

resolution pixels within 0.2 mm; Depth capable – the ability to go down to 11,000+ feet (3400m) of

NB: Draft Only

y g Marinization of tools. Issues with 360 deg access, for buried pipe. Source/Energy to subsea application. Pipe-in-pipe.

p p y g ( )water;

WT capable – the ability to inspect pipe walls up to 50 mm thick; Speed capable – the ability to inspect at typical ROV speeds of several

knots. Ability to detect through typical subsea pipeline and field joint coatings

Inspections

Ability to detect through typical subsea pipeline and field joint coatings, 3LPP, FBE, TSA, Shrink sleeves etc.

WT Inspection ILI Develop a ILI tool with the following specification: Small size – the ability to enter 6-inch lines and navigate through pipe

bends;G d b tt lif th bilit t i t 40 il i t 2 5 MPH (16 Good battery life – the ability to inspect a 40 mile pipe at 2.5 MPH (16 hours);

Good accuracy – the ability to provide 360º WT data in ½-inch (12.7mm) resolution pixels within 0.2 mm;

Depth capable – the ability to go down to 11,000+ feet of water; WT capable – the ability to inspect pipe walls up to 50 mm.

Cost effective inspection campaigns. Further develop AUV technology to perform close visual inspection.Reliability of corrosion monitoring spools. Develop guideline on how to improve long term reliability of subsea corrosion

monitoring spools.Better and reliable fatigue crack inspection tools ILI Further development of technology tools and algorithms to analyze results


Better and reliable fatigue crack inspection tools ILI type.

Further development of technology, tools and algorithms to analyze results.

Internal SURF IM Discussions

Typical Discussion Topics:

Real-time continuous monitoring system (corrosion)Real time continuous monitoring system (corrosion)

• Ultrasonic Phased Array Sensor– Vendors for this technology: GE (Rightrax), Sensorlink (Ultramonit) and

ClampOn (Corrosion Erosion Monitoring).

• Electrical field mapping technique:– Vendors for this technology: Roxar (CorrOcean) – Field Signature Method

(FSM) and Fox-tek – Pin-Point Electrical Field Mapping(FSM) and Fox tek Pin Point Electrical Field Mapping

• Magnetostrictive Sensor Guided Wave Technology:V d f thi t h l SWRI GUL TWI d TNO


– Vendors for this technology: SWRI, GUL, TWI and TNO.

Supplier Presentations to SURF IM

GE Oil d G• Lockheed Martin– AUV Inspection Technology

• Clamp-on

• GE Oil and Gas– Umbilical & Flexible Riser

Monitoring• Cameron

– Acoustic Sand Detection• Weatherford

– Leak Detection and others

• Cameron– Remote Subsea Infrasture

Condition Monitoring• AGR

• Applus RTD– Various metal inspection

technology

– Wall Thickness & Weld Inspection• Aker Solutions & Bornemann

– Subsea Pumping Technology• Viper Subsea

– V-SLIM Insulation Resistance Monitoring

• Framo– Condition Monitoring of Subsea

Pumps• Eagle Burgmann• Smart Fibres Ltd

– Optical Sensing Technology for Subsea Condition Monitoring

• Eagle Burgmann– Subsea Sealing Technology for

Pumps


AUV Technology for Inspectiongy

S L kh d M ti W b itSource: Lockheed Martin Website

Graphic: Surveying a Pipeline

L kh d M ti ’ M li AUVLockheed Martin’s Marlin AUV

• 3D High resolution optical and acoustic sensor package


g p p g

Condition Monitoring Subsea PumpsSmart Fibres LtdSmart Fibres Ltd.

R t b i i t t d ith Fib B

Source: Smart Fibres Ltd.

• Rotor bearings instrumented with Fibre Bragg Grating (FBG) strain sensors

• Alerts changes in twin-screw loads and geometry• Shown to be able to detect early damage within twin-

screw shaft


screw shaft

Future of SURF IM

Where do we go from here?• SURF IM will deliver it’s scope by mid 2013

• Phase 2 now in planning– SURF IM Forum– Specific Study ScopesSpecific Study Scopes– Other operators coming on board

• Effective engagement with supply chain and technology developers ofEffective engagement with supply chain and technology developers of inspection and condition monitoring technology

• Lever for ongoing technology developmentLever for ongoing technology development– Spawn off JIPs on collaborative technology qualification / trialing for a

range of specific inspection and monitoring techniques to close the technology gaps


gy g p

Thank you

A ti ?Any questions?

Experience that Delivers

2012 spim conference, 7 december 2012, london th … im...2012 spim conference, 7 december 2012,...

Documents