asset integrity management for purpose-built fpsos and subsea system facilities
TRANSCRIPT
Asset Integrity Assessment and Management Program for life preservation of a purpose-built FPSO and associated subsea system facilities
Dr Abe Nezamian – Director, Asset Integrity Management
Low oil priceDuring challenging market conditions, effective integrity management of offshore assets is more important than ever to ensure they’re safe and reliable.
FPSOFloating facilities for production, storage and offloading (FPSO) and subsea facilities are effective options for exploiting offshore oil and gas resources in remote marginal fields.
While they offer the industry significant benefits, they also present a number of complex challenges to the Asset Integrity Manager
FPSO Overview
There are currently +240 floating facilities in service,
with more planned in the future.
Jabiru Venture
Most FPSOs were built after 1997, having less than 19 years in operation.
Some may be taken to dry dock
Rubby PrincessNan Hai Kai Tuo
Schiehallion needed to be
replaced by 2015Challis Venture
Studied FPSO
Lack of dataAlthough there is considerable growth for these type of facilities, it’s generally recognized that when compared to trading tankers, FPSO/FSOs have limited experience from which to draw historical data and trends.As a result, there is limited data for Asset Integrity Management decision making.
Schiehallion FPSO
Source: NOV team
• Non-disconnectable purpose-built FPSO, with a design life of 20 years
• Design constrained• Built with the best available construction• Production fluids worse than expected• Increasing defects (operations expenditure 50% higher)• Operations efficiency down to 60% • Expecting major obsolescence “hit”• Has been replaced
The Schiehallion FPSO needed to be replaced by 2015
Source: NOV team
…due to poor integrity and field performance – 3 years short of its initial design life
Shutdown period is about 1 year, requiring: • New risers, umbilicals and mostly new mooring lines (12
to 20)• Re-used flowlines/SS hardware
Out of all the potential failures to occur on a FPSO, almost all happened to this facility
High
Low
Low High
Man
agea
bilit
y
Consequence (Mmbbls)
Polytropic tubing
Switchboardconnections
Fare tip
PSV failures
Emergency gen fails Framo System
Major Leak
Tree corrosion / erosion
Shuttle tanker incident
Main Gen failure
Subsea pipe corrosion / erosion
Drill centre disabled
Seawater system failure
Production equip failure
T/S sand impact
Thruster failure
Turret manifolds
Swivel failsRiser failureFire – air
compressor
Mooring integrity
Ware/green water damage
Hull + pipe-work defects
Low IR Turret struct
1 5 10 20 40
Major events as developed for the Joe Leghorn review:
Incident occurred on Schiehallion FPSO
These integrity issues regarding Schiehallon are not unique, but
rather common with FPSOs
Asset Integrity Management (AIM)
For an FPSO part of the deep-water oil and gas development in Africa, an AIM program needed to be developed to prioritize and maximize resources for availability, while maintaining the risk profile of the facility (‘as low as reasonably practicable’)
Key features of the facility include:• FPSO hull and topsides + mooring lines + suction piles• Modular topsides • SPM buoy • Flow lines, risers and export line• Umbilicals• Drilling wells • Subsea manifolds• Other subsea equipment
Asset Groups
Asset Group Asset Type
Main Field Wells
Subsea SystemsSubsea Flowline Systems
FPSO
Risers and Umbilicals
Mooring System
HullTopsides – Main Facilities Topsides – Utilities
SPM
Mooring System
Offloading System
SPM Buoy
The asset data was grouped into three parts, based on functionality:
Data was stored and secured in a unique database and accessible in real-time by anyone who was acting on the AIM activities.
AIM Process
Data Evaluation Strategy Program
Managed system for recording,
archive and retrieval of AIM data and other
pertinent records
Evaluation of integrity and fitness-for-
service; development of
remedial actions
Overall inspection, monitoring,
maintenance, mitigation and decommissioning philosophies
Detailed work scopes for inspection
activities and execution to
ensure integrity
of asset
Design DecommissionData update
The most critical part of the process is data capture and gap
analysis
Data Requirements
Design Basis Data Requirements
General Facility Data
Design Data
Fabrication Data
Installation Data
Environmental Data Requirements
Metocean
Seismic
Soil Data
Weather Events
Regulatory Data Requirements
Certification Authority
Facilities Safety Case
Scheme of Examinations
Operational Process Data RequirementsHeat & Mass Balance
Original & Current Operational Performance
Process Chemistry
Process Description
Production Limitations
Production Rates
What is developed in the design stage of a development is often based off presumptions. Once all the required data has been collected, what is done in the design stage can be recalibrated - data from operations is now available and therefore uncertainty can be narrowed and reliability increased.
Data RequirementsCondition Data Requirements
In-service Inspection Reports
Incident Reports
Modifications
Anomaly Register
Weight Report
Condition Monitoring reports
Corrosion Protection
Engineering Assessment
Engineering Evaluation
Asset Integrity Manual
Scour Trend Analysis
Marine Growth Trend Analysis
Corrosion Assessment
Damage Evaluation
Mitigation
Risk Assessment
Structural AssessmentAnalyse data to build a trend for lifecycle management - look at all the implications and determine how these will be managed for the life of the asset.
Gap Analysis Methodology
Data Requirement
s
Received / Required
DataConclusions
Component Breakdown
Operator Asset Management team
CDMS(data
management system)
Complete a couple of rounds of gap analysis to ensure all data and information has been captured and correlated to the AIM program.
Gap Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
Performance Indicators
Represents design set point when new
Represents performance degradation that survives through life extension
Represents performance degradation that survives to end of design life
Represents performance degradation requiring repair / replacement but still following the “bath tub” wear out curveRepresents rapid degradation before end of design life
Life extension
123
4
5
Set point when new
Performance Indicators (PIs) required as aging starts
Minimum acceptable performance levelStructural Integrity
Assessment confirms that acceptance level is achieved, exceeded or not achieved
Perf
orm
ance
sta
ndar
d
TimeOriginal design life
The Performance Indicator area is where degradation, issues and problems can be identified. It’s important to have systems in place to pick up issues before they happen.
Asset Integrity Assessment Criteria
Risk Assessment
Minimum AcceptanceAction List
Condition Assessment
Available AIM System
Optimized
Complete a couple of rounds to optimize and develop the Asset Integrity program, and to develop an action list.
AIM program
Safety Management
STOP STOP STOPHazard
PREVENTContainment
DETECTGas/flame detection
CONTROLESD Blowdown
MITIGATEFire protection,
deluge
Release Event
As part of the review, all safety values need to be put in place as well as a sound monitoring system.
Risk ManagementCritical throughout the management of an asset’s integrity program.
2.Communication and consultation
5.Monitoring and
review
1.Establishing the
context
Risk identification
Risk analysis
Risk evaluation
4.Risk treatment
3. R
isk a
sses
smen
t
This underpins the overall risk management process, should occur throughout the cycle and be two-way (as shown by the arrows)
Monitoring at every stage, feeding back to improvements based on increased understanding
Review of the entire process at intervals to ensure it continues to be effective
FPSO degradation mechanisms examples• Operational degradation• Topside facility CP and coating degradation• Marine growth• Subsea systems • CP system depletion • Subsea pipelines internal and external
corrosion• Fatigue• Scouring• Erosion• Crane systems de-rating
Examples of FPSO degradation
FPSO degradation mechanisms root causesActive SRB (Sulfate Reducing Bacteria) corrosion:• A bacteria that obtains energy by oxidizing organic compounds or
molecular hydrogen (H2) while reducing sulfate (SO2) to hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
• “Breathes" sulfate rather than oxygen• Not familiar• Could be a driving factor for corrosion rate• Have been found on mooring lines and suction pile
SRB can lead to 2x the corrosion, not accounted for in the design stage.
A program needs to be developed to control these events.
Purposed RBI Methodology
Inspection Plan
Asset Hierarchy
Subdivision Tag System
Review of the Documentati
onComponent Selection
Qualitative Assessment
(HAZID)
Quantitative Assessment
(FDF)
Probability of failure
Consequences of failure
Risk Ranking
Detailed RBI of Failure
(FDF <10)
Qualitative and quantitative risk assessment is required – in some cases quantitative data is not available.
Risk Rating and Prioritizing
The risk matrix for the project was simplified into three ratings, helping to prioritize maintenance: Risk Rating = 1 (unacceptable) – design improvements/mitigations are strongly recommended;Risk Rating = 2 (ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Practicable) design improvements are suggested;Risk Rating = 3 (acceptable) - design features already prevent/mitigate failures.
AIM Program Implementation
AIM Manual
Philosophy
Workflow
Workflow
Specifications
RCM
Risk Assessment Software/Database
Inspection Specifications
Component Specifications
CMMS / Database
Maintenance Specifications
SMR
RBI
Work Package
Workflow
Conclusions
• Carefully review AIM program and available data • Conduct a gap analysis of the data and determine the areas
for improvement• Update the AIM system and data management systems to
optimize the Asset Integrity Program• Develop a baseline of conditions• Conduct a risk assessment and prioritize maintenance • Develop an acceptance criteria • Determine required mitigations to achieve ALARP Level and
maintenance of fitness-for-service• Develop Requalification and Life Extension plans for the
operating life of the asset
Contact: Abe NezamianDirector, Asset Integrity ManagementE: [email protected]
Visit our website: www.advisian.com
Find out more
DISCLAIMERThis presentation has been prepared by a representative of Advisian.The presentation contains the professional and personal opinions of the presenter, which are given in good faith. As such, opinions presented herein may not always necessarily reflect the position of Advisian as a whole, its officers or executive.Any forward-looking statements included in this presentation will involve subjective judgment and analysis and are subject to uncertainties, risks and contingencies—many of which are outside the control of, and may be unknown to, Advisian. Advisian and all associated entities and representatives make no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of information in this document and do not take responsibility for updating any information or correcting any error or omission that may become apparent after this document has been issued.To the extent permitted by law, Advisian and its officers, employees, related bodies and agents disclaim all liability—direct, indirect or consequential (and whether or not arising out of the negligence, default or lack of care of Advisian and/or any of its agents)—for any loss or damage suffered by a recipient or other persons arising out of, or in connection with, any use or reliance on this presentation or information.