SPE-180889-MS

Asset Integrity Management and Life Extension of Gas Distribution

Facilities and Pipeline Network
A. Nezamian, C. Rodriques, and M. Nezamian, WorleyParsons, Advisian

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 1315
June 2016.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Gas processing facilities and pipeline networks play a key role in energy distribution. There is an ever
increasing need to extend the life of the aging networks beyond their original design life and operators are
continually looking for requalification and extension of the service life aimed at ensuring the integrity,
functionality and availability of the network for the extended operating life. In order to ensure technical
and operational integrity of this ageing infrastructure, the fitness for service of these systems is required
be maintained for the intended service life.
Maximising the availability and functionality of the network, whilst operating safely and with minimal
impact on the environment, is a major concern for requalification and life extension. Gas processing asset
integrity management (AIM) and pipeline integrity management (PIM) consist of inspection, testing,
maintenance and repair programs are critical to ensure integrity and sustainability in gas production. The
AIM program is to assess and report upon the risks imposed on the community by natural gas supply
facilities, and based on the available information; identify opportunities for improvements to ensure the
risks to the community are as low as reasonably as practicable (ALARP) (UPSTREAM NATURAL GAS
SAFETY REPORT 2001). Detailed integrity assessments are needed to demonstrate that there is sufficient
technical, operational and organisational integrity to continue safe operation throughout an extended
service life. Information on characteristic data, condition data, historical performance, maintenance
management and inspection and testing results are required to assess the current state and to predict the
future state of the network subsystems and critical components and the possible extension of service life.
Effective record keeping and ongoing analysis of data are key inputs to a successful life extension program
(Nezamian and Altmann 2013).
This paper presents state of art practices in life extension of existing gas distribution and pipeline
facilities and an overview of a customised life extension methodology to address risk factors to the
integrity of a gas distributio and associated facilities. It covers the required procedures and re-assessment
criteria for a life cycle cost effective approach to decide on life extension in particular the one with the
importance such critical subsystems.

SPE-180889-MS

Introduction
Asset Integrity Assessment and Life Extension of gas distribution facilities is becoming an increasingly in
demand service in the Oil and Gas industry. ISO/TS 12474:2011 gives guidance to follow, as a minimum, in
order to assess the feasibility of extending the service life of a pipeline system, as defined in ISO 13623, beyond
its specified design life. ISO/TS 12747:2011 applies to rigid metallic pipelines. However, Pump stations,
compressor stations, pressure-reduction stations and depots are not specifically addressed in ISO/TS 12747:
2011. In addition, Many regulatory authorities have distributed guidance on asset ageing and life extension,
such as Oil & Gas UKs Guidance on the Mangement of Ageing and Life Extension for UKCS Oil and Gas
Installations. Health and Safety Executive has developed A guide to the Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996 that
gives guidance on the Pipelines Safety Regulation, which complement a number of other onshore and offshore
regulations. The Regulations apply to all pipelines in Great Britain and to all pipelines in territorial waters of
the UK Continental Shelf, with a few exceptions that are also highlighted in the guideline. It is aimed at helping
operators and others involved with pipeline activities, or those who may be affected by the Regulations, what
the Regulations require. However, none of these guidelines provide detailed methodology and safety integrity
requirements for the life extension. This paper aims to demonstrate a new method for assessing the remnant life
of existing onshore gas processing, distribution and pipeline facilities. Further, a practical example is provided
based on a study conducted for a major gas utility in the South East Asian market.
The following section outlines a proposing methodology and step by step activities to evaluate the current
condition of a gas distribution facility, carry out the remnant life assessment and develop appropriate life
extension strategies to requialify and extend the life of the facility by the required number of years.

Data Collection (Functional and Design, Historical and Current)

One of the vital parts of this methodology is the efficient collection of the data required for the determination
of the current condition and remnant life of the equipment. Design, operational and maintenance data and
current condition data are important parameters for determination of the remnant life. The majority of this
information can be collected from the O&M team, maintenance records, RBI reports, other inspection reports,
fault history, site O&M personnel, equipment OEMs or vendors and a site survey. The maintenance records
are used to identify the frequency/occurrence of failures and maintenance work carried out on particular
equipment in a chronological manner. The data that was gathered consisted of:

Functional and Design Data; The data describing the equipments physical characteristics, design
pressures / temperatures / loads and purpose)
Historical Data; The equipments historical maintenance / failure records
Current Condition Data; Visual inspection condition data which includes noise, vibration, corrosion, coating, incident reports, modifications, anomalies and condition monitoring reports
Data relating to obsolescence should also be collected. When considering obsolescences, the following
requirements should be considered:

Functional obsolescenece (wear out / failure)

Technical obsolescence (incompatible / non-compliant / out of date)
Economic obsolescence (high cost); and
OEM obsolescence (e.g. no support from the original manufacturer or 3rd party)

Additional typical data to be collected may include but is not limited to:

Name plate details

Useful service life
Normal running parameers
Breakdown history

SPE-180889-MS

Inspection, repair and replacement reports

Performance / condition monitoring reports
Equipment condition data
OEM / vendor support (where available)
Collection of documents (design, operational, maintenance-as applicable)

Asset Identification
After collection and collation of all functional, design, historical and current condition data, all assets
subsytems and critical components within the scope of the Life Extension assessment has to be identified
and listed. The asset identification is conducted as using a master asset register, or similar list, of
equipment based on an asset owners records. Asset data can also be found within drawings such as
P&IDs and general arrangement drawings. The asset hierarchy is produced and documented according
to ISO 14224:2006. A Functional Hierarchy is developed to define the relationship between maintainable components and each unit of plant. This describes the component structure of the plant item by
assigning functional locations to each component. This hierarchy provides an overview of equipment that
belongs together functionally, and shows the physical relationship between equipment, instruments,
valves etc. The purpose of the hierarchy is to:

Show technical interdependencies of the installation

Enable retrieval of asset tags, equipment and spare parts
Assist retrieval of documents and drawings related to the maintenance function (e.g. safe isolation
equipment)
The allocation of maintenance costs; and
Planning of corrective work
The structure described above should follow a taxonomy which provides for a systematic classification
of items into groupings based on common factors such as location / component / asset type / functional
system. This can be visualised as follows and a description of each factor is given in Table 1 below.
Table 1Typical Taxonomic Hierarchy from ISO 14224: 2009
Taxonomic
Level

Taxonomic Hierarchy

Definition

Examples
Petroleum, natural gas, petrochemical
Upstream (Exploration and Production), midstream,
downstream (refining), petrochemical
Oil/gas production, transportation, drilling, LNG,
refinery, petrochemical
Platform, semi-submersible, hydrocracker, ethylene
cracker, polyethylene, acetic acid plant, methanol
plant
Compression, natural gas, liquefaction, vacuum gas oil,
methanol regeneration, oxidation section, reaction
system, distillation section, tanker loading system
Heat exchanger, compressor, piping, pump, boiler, gas
turbine extruder, agitator, furnace, Xmas tree, blowout preventer

1
2

Industry
Business Category

Type of main industry

Type of business or processing stream

Installation Category

Type of facility

Plant/Unit Category

Type of plant/unit

Section/System

Main section/system of the plant

Equipment Class/Unit

Subunit

Class of similar equipment units. Each

equipment class contains
comparable equipment units (e.g.
compressors)
A subsystem necessary for the
equipment unit to function

Component/Maintainable Item

Part

The group of parts of the equipment

unit that are commonly maintained
(repaired/restored) as a whole
A single piece of equipment

Lubrication subunit, cooling subunit, control and

monitoring, heating subunit, pelletizing subunit,
quenching subunit, refrigeration subunit, reflux
subunit, distributed control subunit
Cooler, coupling, gearbox, lubrication oil pump,
instrument loop, motor, valve, filter, pressure
sensor, temperature sensor, electric circuit
Seal, tube, shell, impeller, gasket, filter plate, bolt, nut,
etc.

SPE-180889-MS

RLA Criteria Determination

RLA criteria can ve determined as Qualitative, Semi-quantitative or Quantitative and these considerations
will drive the data capture requirements for each piece of equipment to perform an assessment of the
remnant life. RLA criteria can take the form of age and non-age related degradation mechanisms.
Qualitiative criteria include but are not limited to:

Obsolescences
Gas properties
Maintenance practices (breakdown, preventative fixed time or age based, predictive condition
based monitoring/reliability centred maintenance)
Damages (physical, spalling, weathering, expansion / contraction, subsidence)
Location and installation conditions
Semi-quantitative criteria include but are not limited to:

Age
Useful service
MTTF (mean time to failure)
Correlative functions (i.e. correlation between insulation on electrical equipment and failure rates)
Severity of failures and breakdowns
Severity of leaks

Quantitaitve include but are not limited to:

Wall thinning
Corrosion rates
Some damages if they can be trended and lead to direct estimation of remnant life (physical,
spalling, weathering, expansion / contraction, subsidence)

Based on the initial data collection activities and asset identification steps, a gap analysis is conducted
to determine the remaining gaps in data required to complete the remnant life study. If any gaps are found,
requests can be sent for their retrieval and closure to the asset owner. A site visit is a good way to
complement the assessment activity and aid closing out of outstanding gaps.

Remnant Life and Current Condition Assessment

Qualitatie, Semi-Quantitative or Quantitative factors are considered for the appropriate assets for Remnant
Life Assessment (and thus Life Extension program development) for each type of equipment. For piping
and some pressure vessels, a quantitative assessment of remaining life is possible if trendable wall
thinning data is available (i.e. if there are records of UT measurements). For a small subset of equipment,
the remaining life is determined using only qualitative factors and criteria where trend-able degradation
mechanisms are not available (i.e. electrical equipment such as central processors or remote terminal
units). In this case, obsolescence and availability of spares determined the continued use of this equipment
and their remaining useful life within the OTSs.
For the majority of equipment, a semi-quantitative assessment of remnant life is followed. The
semi-quantitative assessment considers factors that are indicative, but not directly correlated to (as in the
case of wall thickness loss for piping) remnant life. An example of theis is the comparison of equipment
specific MTTF rates to industry standards or norms OR the correlation between insulation resistance and
remnant life for electrical and instrumentation cables. In this case while insulation resistance is not a direct
measure of remnant life, it may have a strong correlation to and can point to deficiencies in cables and
a need for increased focus on maintenance activities for this class of asset. The assessment is carried out
based on a scoring system which is tied into the quality of data or the past history of performance of the

SPE-180889-MS

respective piece of equipment or asset. The first step in the determination of remnant life of a particular
item is scoring the particular degradation mechanisms and other remnant life parameters falling under

Design and Functionality Data

Historical Data; and
Current Condition Data

A score is assigned based on the quality of the data and/or the comparison of the collected information
with that of a benchmark. To reflect the relative importance of the parameters each of the scoring
parameters are then factored by a weighting factor dependent on the type of asset (static equipment,
rotating equipment, instrumentation and control equipment, electrical equipment or civil/structural items).
The factor considers the relative importance for life expectancy within each of the three categories. The
factors should be developed based on a case by case basis and also dependent on the type of gas facility,
condition of equipment and quality of data.
The weighted scores are then aggregated for each of the Design and Functionality Data, Historical Data
and Current Condition Data and then normalized to give an overall assessment score (OAS).

Life Extension Program Strategy

A Life Extension program and recommendations will be developed for each asset based on inputs from
the current condition and remnant life assessments. Option evaluation also considers the criticality of the
equipment/system (HSE, production loss, and support functions), nature of damage, costs associated with
operations, and costs and effectiveness of maintenance, inspection and monitoring programs. During
development of life extension options, OEMs and Vendors can be approached to obtain further information about the respective equipment such as spare parts availability, the number of years it shall be
available, level of technical support, potential for continued support, replacement options (e.g. new
design) and formal declaration of obsolescence as these are critical in the asset life extension management.
The follow is the list of considerations in developing life extension options and recommendations:

Influencing factors in the Life Extension evaluation option study are listed below:
Asset type;
Current Condition and Remnant Life of the asset
Special requirements such as compliance with statutory regulations or mandatory standards;
Trends from the maintenance records / past performance of the equipment;
Reliability, availability and maintainability requirements;
Redundancy;
Obsolescence;
Integrity management improvement options;
Industry past experiences;
Site feedback;
Business drivers; and
Options currently available from the market.

Life extension options may be assigned one of the following recommendations: RUN; REPAIR;
REHABILITATE; RE-DESIGN / MODIFY; RE-RATE; REPLACE or RETIRE. Description of what
each of these options entails is included in Table 2.

SPE-180889-MS

Table 2Life Extension Options

LE Option
RUN

REPAIR

REHABILITATE

Description
Equipment technical integrity and performance are
acceptable.
Revise the equipment performance standards and keep it
running with close monitoring to ensure that the revised
performance standards are achieved in the long term and
to identify any terminal decline before it becomes critical.
This may include revision to integrity management or
maintenance strategy to cater for changes in the
equipment condition, the process conditions, the level of
redundancy and the remaining life: without carrying out
any physical changes to the equipment.
Monitor the equipment to ensure that the extent and rate
of the damage does not change sufficiently to compromise
Safety & Integrity limits.
Analyze the margin between the equipment condition and
minimum code specification.
Remove damage with/ without repair; if necessary revise
the role & performance respective diagnostic tests.
Repair the component temporarily with/without removing
the damage.
Rehabilitate/ refurbish existing equipment/systems, bring it
back to its original performance.

RE-DESIGN / MODIFY
Modify existing equipment/systems to provide alternative
means to fulfil equipment function or reduce risk while
the equipment/systems is brought back to full
performance.
RE-RATE

REPLACE / MONITOR

Revise the role and live with the reduced performance for
the remainder of the lifecycle; i.e. by placing greater
dependence on other systems.
Change operating practices, de-rate the duty, or make
favourable modifications to process conditions or
chemistry.
Replacement with identical (like for like) or compatible
(different type).
Replacement with an asset of similar capacity.
Replacement with a larger capacity asset as part of
strategic requirements.
Replacement with a smaller capacity asset because
customer demands have reduced and are unlikely to be
increased.

RETIRE

Scrap and decommission equipment/ system from

operation.
No replacement.

Notes

For equipment or systems that have no significant safety,

production or cost implications, a run to failure strategy
may be the most cost effective LE option.

Downtime to enable repair to be completed shall be

considered, with production losses / availability risks
accounted for.
Downtime to enable major overhaul shall be considered,
with production losses / availability risks accounted for.
Required if current equipment / system is inadequate due
to not satisfying design requirements (e.g. premature
failures observed) or changes in future requirements (e.g.
increased capacity). Either replace equipment with new
design or modify existing equipment / system (e.g.
strengthening, changes to supports, increased piping
diameter, etc.)

Reduced capacity may result in production losses unless

adequate level of redundancy is built into the system.

Downtime to enable replacement shall be considered, with

production losses / availability risks accounted for.

This may be considered for some redundant equipment

near the end of the plants life, when other LE Mitigation
Options are no longer cost effective. The retired
equipment may be cannibalised for spare parts to maintain
the equipment remaining in service. This may have a
negative impact on system availability, due to a reduction
in the level of redundancy, which in terms makes the
plant more susceptible to loss in production due to
equipment failures.

Cost / Risk / Benefit Analysis (CBRA)

To explore and quantify different life extension options, scenarios may be developed based on obsolescence characteristics, availability of spares and replacement parts, costs of replacement and the benefits
of replacement/rehabilitation (in terms of risk reduction). The CBRA canexamine the following scenarios
as examples

SPE-180889-MS

Scenario 1: The base or do nothing different case where the gas asset owner conducts the same
inspection, maintenance and testing (IMT) regime with no change to their current maintenance
strategy. This will set the baseline risk level (in monetary terms)
Scenario 2: An Improved scenario where a reduction in risk (in monetary terms) is achieved
through the development and implementation of a targeted, risk based IMT program
Scenario 3: An alternative case where consideration of life extension recommendations (Rehabilitation and Replacement) are implemented over and above the current maintenance strategy
from Scenario 1,to reduce the risk level (in monetary terms)
A reduction in Risk is the driving factor in the apportioning of costs and benefits between each
Scenario. In order to quantify risks, standard risk matrices is developed based on an industry standard 55
grid. These help assess the likelihood and consequences.
For the purpose of this CBRA, benefit over and above a base case is considered in terms of reduction
in risk, per unit cost of implementing the risk reduction. API RP 581 provide a guideline and basis for the
development of this CBRA methodology.
The industry standard definition of risk is taken and is defined as the product of the Likelihood and
Consequence of Failure according to:

Figure 1 below quantifies the drivers of Risk for the purposes of the analysis.

Figure 1Drivers of Risk

Probability of Failure
The Probability of Failure (PoF) is driven by the:

Management Factor (MF) The effectiveness of maintenance management systems and practices for IMT and analysis of the results of IMT. Value between 0 and 1 representing excellent to
baseline management respectively
Likelihood Factor (DF) Likelihood of age, damage mechanisms and rates and inspection
effectiveness (equally weighted) affecting the probability of failure of any one piece of equipment/
asset. Value between 0 and 1 representing high to low likelihood respectively.
X

Age: Note that age is represented by a percent value with bounds of 5% (1 year old asset) and
95%

SPE-180889-MS

Damage Mechanisms: Likelihood that damage mechanisms and rates are present and able to
be captured by the IMT program. Values between 0 and 1 representing high to low damage
mechanisms and rates capture respectively.

Generic Failure Frequency The sum of the likelihood of failures according to the 4 risk
matrices (Health and Safety, Business, Environmental and Capital Asset). Each failure within a
respective Scenario is assigned a likelihood of failure which is then used to derive the generic
failure frequency.

Consequence of Failure
The Consequence of Failure (CoF) consists of the quantified effects of 4 types of risks:

Health and Safety (Fatality, Incapacitation, Injury)

Business (Reputation and Loss of Revenue)
Environmental (Damage to Property and Natural Habitat); and
Capital Asset (Direct Replacement Costs of Assets)

Case Study
An operator has under its management a network of natural gas offtaking stations within a South East
Asian country. The energy regulator is currently reviewing the integrity of the natural gas network. It is
within this context that the operator has to produce a life extension assessment and verification for their
natural gas distribution assets. These assets were commissioned in the mid-90s and have currently reached
the end of their design life. The objective of the project was to conduct a life extension assessment of two
off-taking stations and associated pipelines by:

Review of any anomalous conditions such as metal loss and cracking from visual assessment
Evaluation of the corrosion rate of pipelines
Review maintenance records, identify key degradation mechanissms and determine degradation
rates
Development of a strategy to continue operations of the offtaking facilities
The proposed methodology was applied to the subjected assets. The outcome of the life extension study
indicated that most of subjected asset types achieve life extension viability with a few notable exceptions.
Table 3 shows the results of the life extension study including current condition assessment and remnant
life. It can be seen that for a life extension window of 10 years, most of the assets will need to be replaced
in general. However, the application of this methodology indicated that with more frequent inspection,
monitoring, testing and calibration intervals the decision to replace can be deferred dependent on the
continual monitoring of asset condition. As a result, the exisitng integrity and maintenance management
plans were updated to reflect a more risk based inspection and maintenance schedule and help extend the
life of the assets without incurring the need to replace in the first instance. This is a massive saving for
life extension compared with the common practice of replacing older component based on OEM
recommendations.

SPE-180889-MS

Table 3Overview of LE Results

Asset
Regulators

Description
Active and Monitor
Active and Monitor

Station #

RL

LE Option

1
2

7
5

Replace / Monitor
Replace / Monitor

Drivers of RL

Valves

Filters

Inlet, Outlet and Intermediate Ball

Valves with Motorised Actuators
Instrumentation Ball Valve (Small
Bore)
Inlet, Outlet and Intermediate Ball
Valves with Motorised Actuators
Instrumentation Ball Valve (Small
Bore)
Dual Basket Filters with 1-2 micron
Filtering Element

Replace / Monitor

Replace / Monitor

Replace / Monitor

Dual Basket Filters with 1-2 micron

Filtering Element

Replace / Monitor

Pipeline

Inlet/Outlet and Offtaking Station

Pipeline and Pipework, 200mm
to 400mm nominal diameter

1 and 2

22

Run

Pressure
Pressure Differential Pressure
Transmitters
Transmitter with Capacitance
Sensing Element. 4-20mA output

1 and 2

Temperature
RTD, Thermocouple and Millivolt
Transmitters
Input. 4-20mA output.

1 and 2

Replace / Monitor

Replace / Monitor

Gas
Detectors

Catalytic Gas Detection Sensor

Type. 4-20mA output.

1 and 2

Replace / Monitor

Turbine Flow
Meters

Turbine Type Velocity Meter with

Flow Computer and Index

1 and 2

Replace / Monitor

Remote
Terminal
Units
Instrumentation
Cables

SCADA RTU with 15 I/O Capacity

for Analog/Digital
Instrumentation. Networking
Capability.
2 Pair, Aboveground Instrumentation
Cables

1 and 2

Replace / Monitor

1 and 2

Lack of Detailed Inspection

Data
Age
Current Condition

Replace / Monitor

Lack of Detailed Inspection

Data
Age
Signs of Leaks
Signs of Corrosion

Lack of Detailed Inspection

Data
Age
Signs of Leaks
Lack of Detailed Inspection
Data
Age
Signs of Leaks
Signs of Corrosion
Lack of Detailed Inspection
Data
Age
Relatively Good External Current Condition
Obsolescence
Age
Fixed Maintenance / Testing /
Calibration Schedule
Obsolescence
Age
Fixed Maintenance / Testing /
Calibration Schedule
Obsolescence
Age
Fixed Maintenance / Testing /
Calibration Schedule
Obsolescence
Age
Fixed Maintenance / Testing /
Calibration Schedule
Age (Major Factor)
Obsolescence
Failures of Battery Backup
System
Lack of Detailed Design and
Inspection Data
Inaccessibility
Age

Cost / Risk / Benefit Results

Based on the current maintenance practices and a study of station assets obsolescence, Scenario 2 gave
the highest risk reduction as compared to the base case (Scenario 1) per unit of risk reduction cost.
Although Scenario 3 simulates a reduction in risk, it is projected to cost about double that amount to
implement the replacement and change-out program. This clearly highlighted the benefit for implementing
this risk based decision making IMT program and one where the results of IMT are recorded, analysed
and used to drive targeted inspection and maintenance activities.

10

SPE-180889-MS

Conclusion
The outcome of this study has highlighted the importance of Asset Integrity Management programs in
particular the importance on record keeping of characteristic data, condition data, historical performance,
maintenance management, inspection and testing results. In assessing the remnant life of gas processing
and pipeline facilities it is imperative that a soild, technical and thorough life extension methodology
exists to systematically screen for troublesome assets and investigate root causes of integrity issues to
ensure the continued safe operations through an extended service life.

References
American Petroleum Institute, 2009, Recommended Practice for Risk-Based Inspection Technology,, API API RP 581
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). 2010. Operating Procedure Gas Quality Guidelines, document reference
224235. June 2010. Accessed 05/04/2016.
Australian Standards (AS). AS 4564:2005 Specification for General Purpose Natural Gas. Accessed 05/04/2016.
Australian Standards (AS). AS 2885.1 2007 Pipelines - Gas and Liquid Petroleum. Part1: Design and construction.
Appendix P Environment-Related Cracking
Bergman, D. F., Tek, M. R. & Katz, D. L. 1975 Retrograde Condensation in Natural Gas Pipelines. American Gas
Association.
Church, B.J. & Winckles, G.D. 1999 High Wobbe Index gas A report on the 5th Draft report prepared on behalf
of OGS in Victoria.
Gas & Fuel Corporation, 1991 - Engineering Policy EP.DD.4005 - Policy on design temperatures for system
components
Gas Safety (Gas Quality) Regulations 2007 Victoria, Australia
HSE, A guide to the Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996, Guidance on Regulation. Health and Safety Executive, London,
UK, 1996
ISO/TS 12747:2011 Petroleum and natural gas industries Pipeline transportation systems Recommended practice
for pipeline life extension
ISO 13686 - International Organisation for Standardisation 1998 - Natural Gas -Quality Designation
ISO 14224:2006 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries Collection and exchange of reliability and
maintenance data for equipment
Nezamian, A., Altmann, J. (2013) An Oil Field Structural Integrity Assessment for Re-Qualification and Life Proc.
32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2013-10968 Nantes, France 9-14
June 2013,
Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Regulation 2004 Queensland.
UPSTREAM NATURAL GAS SAFETY REPORT PERIODS 1998 to 2000, Trasmission and Distribution, Prepared by
Office of Gas Safety, Victoria, Australia, 2001