PIPELINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

ENHANCES INSPECTION RESULT

JANUARY 30, 2014 LEAVE A COMMENT

Offshore operators often fail to fully benefit from their pipeline programs. In so doing,
they are effectively leaving money on the table, because an effective pipeline
integrity management systems (PIMS) captures all the benefits of an inspection and
enhances the value of an asset throughout its lifecycle.

A well designed and managed pipeline integrity program reduces scheduled and
unscheduled downtime and improves HSE performance. It also helps to assure
greater value for money on inspection and maintenance programs; yields auditable
data to demonstrate regulatory and internal compliance; drives a more efficient
stewardship of assets and resources; improves risk management and preparedness;
enhances corporate governance; and promotes operational confidence.

At the bottom line, it helps to increase uptime and productivity, extend the life of
pipeline assets and significantly improves business performance and the return on
investment.

The costs associated with pipeline failures or unplanned shutdowns are high in terms
of lost production and repairs. HSE problems can raise those costs to another level. A
fully implemented PIMS can prevent many of the failures, incidents, and shutdowns
that typically occur on less well-managed pipelines. Distilled to its essence, PIMS is a
comprehensive risk-assessment program.
 This picture, from an ROV inspection in the
Gulf of Mexico, shows anode wastage with
approximately 50% deterioration. A pipeline
integrity management system (PIMS) captures
all the benefits of an inspection and enhances
 the value of an asset throughout its lifecycle.

Risk assessment
The general categories of risk for offshore pipelines are well known and documented
in a study prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service in 2000 and in the
PARLOC studies in the North Sea. These studies analyzed thousands of incidents
involving hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines, including risers and other
components that occurred between 1984 and 2000. The principal causes of these
incidents were internal and external corrosion, material defects, defects from
construction or installation, equipment malfunction, operator error, and damage from
outside forces. These risks all can be mitigated by managing the integrity of the
pipeline, provided they are accurately identified and assessed.

While risk assessment can be conducted at any time during a pipelines operational
life, and becomes a continuous process in an ongoing PIMS program, it is most
effective when started during the design stage. Risks identified during the design
stage can be mitigated or eliminated with modifications that also reduce future
operating costs.

Strategies also can be developed for managing any additional risks. For example,
careful monitoring of risks during construction and installation will help to ensure that
the condition of the pipeline is thoroughly documented when it is commissioned and
put into service. A complete dossier of accurate data about a pipelines design,
startup condition, and subsequent operational history is of great value when setting
up and operating an effective PIMS.

Risk assessment is also the starting point for establishing a PIMS for operational
pipelines, following the same methods used for new pipelines. The process begins
with a review of the design and condition data, such as inspection and maintenance
reports, as well as operating procedures and HSE systems. Further inspections and
testing may be needed for a complete baseline condition profile. Gap analysis then
pinpoints vulnerabilities and deficiencies, and also identifies strengths, which are
built upon. This is followed by an assessment of the probability and consequences of
every potential failure, which may be conducted with the assistance of risk-based
mechanical integrity (RBMI) software. The results are summarized in a
probability/consequence matrix that clearly ranks each risk. These rankings are used
to determine inspection and maintenance priorities and to recommend changes in
operating and management procedures. The areas of risk that present a high
probability of failure with severe consequences are flagged for diligent monitoring
and a higher frequency of inspections, perhaps using sophisticated technologies.
Risks with a low probability of occurrence and minor consequences simply may be
ignored until a failure occurs.

Risk assessment findings may lead to recommendations for bespoke inspection

programs. For a new pipeline, the assessment will yield clear risk rankings and
inspection priorities, along with a highly optimized frequency schedule. An in-service
pipeline that lacks adequate documentation of its operations could make risk
rankings problematic, so more frequent inspections may be required.

As the operator gains confidence in the data, the inspection program can be
optimized. Where good documentation is available for an existing pipeline, including
complete inspection records, the information will support risk rankings that allow
optimization, which in some cases may lower inspection frequency or alter the
techniques used.

There is no universally recognized standard for offshore pipeline inspection programs

and the overall safety management of pipeline systems. Regulatory agencies in
various regions require operators to prove initially that a pipeline is safe and fit for
purpose and to report certain information, such as results of cathodic protection
tests, at regular intervals. Otherwise, the inspection and maintenance of offshore
pipelines is left to the discretion of individual operators. It is thus essential that
operators understand their risks, assess and rank them accurately, and establish
inspection programs that use the right methods and tools to yield data that represent
the conditions of their pipelines.

Commensurate results
Pipeline integrity is commonly viewed as a technical matter mainly involving
inspections. The available technology is impressive. Sophisticated flow modeling and
probabilistic analysis are available for risk assessment. Intelligent pigs snake though
pipelines carrying many highly sensitive instruments. Remotely operated vehicles fly
along risers and pipeline routes to look for coating damage, external corrosion,
leakage, scour and spanning, while also gathering side-scan sonar images. Chemical
analysis of effluent can detect evidence of corrosion if pigging is not possible.

Yet the results often do not reflect the state-of-the-art technology we employ to
assess risks and determine the condition of our pipelines. The number of failures and
incidents remains stubbornly high. If it were mainly a matter of technology, the
advances should have brought similar improvements.

Experience suggests that how the technology is used and managed plays a critical
role. To achieve the best results, we must fully understand what data we need, select
the right tools and procedures to obtain it, interpret it correctly, act upon the findings,
and use the lessons learned to improve our PIMS performance. All of this requires a
level of expertise that lies outside the core competencies of many pipeline operators.

Pipeline inspection is often seen as a costly imposition done mainly to satisfy

regulatory or internal corporate demands in other words, to put a check in a box.
Only findings of serious defects prompt further action. This shortterm mindset fails to
see inspections as a vital part of a comprehensive process to maintain the long-term
integrity of the pipeline its continuing availability and fitness for service. In the
absence of serious defects, the inspection results are consigned to a shelf without
further review and never again consulted.

Offshore pipeline inspection can be expensive. ROV visual inspection usually requires
support vessels, with attendant day rates. Inspections performed as an exercise
without commitment to pipeline integrity are simply wasteful.

Using intelligent pigs and instrumented ROVs in this context may provide a feeling of
assurance. But, in reality, it can simply amplify the waste. Even a carefully optimized
inspection program can be wasteful if the data is used only to assess a pipelines
condition. We should get more from our efforts than a check in a box and a binder on
a shelf.
Integrity management can increase the value of the investment in monitoring,
inspecting, and maintaining pipelines. The PIMS perspective is comprehensive and
long-term. Since the integrity of a system involves each individual component, PIMS
evaluation and monitoring covers every part and piece of equipment associated with
a pipeline pig launchers and receivers, metering skids, instrumentation and
controls, structural supports, welds and connectors, and coatings. Operating and
environmental factors such as fluid composition, the flow regime and throughput
volumes, the potential for fluid accumulation and slugging, seabed topography,
seawater temperature, salinity and oxygen content, and the strength of currents are
all considered in assessing risks and are then monitored for changes.

Measurement and analysis are not limited to physical components and environmental
factors in a PIM program. All aspects of how a pipeline system is operated and
managed are scrutinized to identify elements of risk and opportunities for
improvement. HSE policies and procedures are closely analyzed and many other
factors that affect system integrity are also considered, including hiring qualifications
and personnel training, compensation and incentives, supervisory organization and
approach, data collection and documentation, and even supply chain and contractor
management. Gaps and deficiencies identified in these and other areas represent
opportunities to further reduce risk and improve performance.

Diligence and Continuity

The area where a PIMS can have the greatest positive impact, however, is in the
quality of inspection data and its beneficial uses. In many instances, inspections do
not target the areas that will yield the most useful data. Or if they do, the tools or
techniques may not be the best ones to measure those parameters accurately; or the
instrumentation may not be calibrated correctly to provide measurements within a
useful range of tolerances. Optimizing the inspection process for data quality and
utility demands a level of expertise that may be difficult for individual pipeline
operators to maintain. In such cases, it often is worth the effort and expense to bring
in a qualified consultant.

Securing appropriate and accurate inspection data remains just a technical exercise,
however, if the data is not used to maximum benefit. Putting the data to good use is
part of the comprehensive nature of a sound integrity management program.
Spotting defects and impending accidents is, of course, primary and of urgent
importance. This information, particularly if it can be reviewed in the context of
previous inspection records, will determine whether remedial or mitigating actions
are required. If no actionable defects are found, the data provides proof to senior
management, regulators, and other stakeholders that the pipeline remains fit for
purpose.

When current data is then added to the historical record of the pipelines condition
going back to the inauguration of the PIMS, the continuous record can be used to
reassess risks and to confirm or modify risk rankings. It also can be used to assess
the PIMS performance and determine whether it should be adjusted or changed. A
lengthening record of clean inspections may allow for beneficial changes in operating
parameters and procedures or a relaxed inspection frequency, measures that lower
costs. Reducing an annual visual ROV inspection to biannual, for example, could save
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Changes of this sort, however, can only be justified
by a continuous data record.
Diligence and continuity are key aspects of a successful PIM program. Details must
receive due attention. Records must be thorough and complete. Confidence based on
poorly managed inspections is always over-confidence. Failure to review and maintain
data continuously will ultimately compromise the ongoing inspection process so that
it loses much of its value and further effort is wasted.