Asset Integrity Management for purpose-built FPSOs and subsea system facilities

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: abe.nezamian@advisian.com

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.