Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
2 | EXECUTIVE OUTLOOKPreparing for Greater Profitability
4 | GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEIndustry Commentary from Around the World
6 | TECHNOLOGY FOCUS Changing How We Think About Low Flow/Low Pressure
8 | SAFETY MATTERSSafety Imagination, Chronic Unease, and Storytelling
10 | FUTURE THINKINGIncreasing Regulation and Cost-Effective Compliance
12 | MARKET REPORT Shale Success in a Low Price Environment
20 | TOUCHPOINTSPipeline Events, Papers and Conferences
28 | BY THE NUMBERSFour Steps to Battling Pipeline Integrity Threats
14 | Corrosion: The Pervasive MenaceAs the rest of the world comes to grips with the unrelenting threat and growing cost of corrosion, the pipeline industry is already at the frontlines meeting the threat head-on.
22 | Containing CatastropheWhether during pipe laying or for platform protection, advances in non-intrusive isolation technology are helping offshore operators reduce risk and mitigate incidents.
D E P A R T M E N T S
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Jim Myers MorganMANAGING EDITOR Waylon SummersART DIRECTOR Joe AntonacciDESIGN PRODUCTION Kat Eaton, Mullerhaus.netDIGITAL PRODUCTION Jim Greenway, Ward MankinPHOTOGRAPHY Adam Murphy, CorrViewILLUSTRATION Invisible Element
T.D. WilliamsonNorth and South America +1 918 447 5000Europe/Africa/Middle East +32 67 28 3611Asia Pacific +65 6364 8520Offshore Services +47 5144 3240www.tdwilliamson.com
Want to share your perspective on anything in our magazine?Send us an e-mail: [email protected]
V O L . V I I , N O . 3 • 2 0 1 5
Innovations™ Magazine is a quarterly publication produced by T.D. Williamson.
®Registered trademark of T.D. Williamson, Inc. in the United States and other countries. ™ Trademark of T.D. Williamson, Inc. in the United States and other countries.© Copyright 2015. All rights reserved by T.D. Williamson, Inc. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Printed in the United States of America.
14
10 22
28
BY THE NUMBERS 4 Battling Pipeline Integrity Threats
steps to
PIPELINE INTEGRITY: A COMPREHENSIVE VIEWPipeline operators face the continual challenge of delivering energy to the world in the safest and most economical ways. They battle aging infrastructure, weather economic pressures, adjust to increasing regulation, and engage communities to achieve social license. Fortunately, continual advances in pipeline threat detection, such as multiple dataset platforms, are supporting them every inch of the way. Follow steps 1-4 to see how.
DETECT While running an MDS platform, mechanical (i.e., third-party) damage is detected
by a number of onboard technologies.
CHARACTERIZE Each technology on the MDS platform provides a unique layer of damage information, providing full characterization of the threat.
PRIORITIZE/MITIGATE With the final integrity report delivered in close proximity to the inspection, the pipeline operator is able to:
REPORT When critically assessed by specialized software and data analysts, the overlapping MDS data helps determine the exact characteristics and severity of the entire series of interacting threats – a re-rounded dent with gouging and crack-like features.
Metal loss, re-rounding, cycling, dent length and depth, strain and severity ranking.
• Assess the pipeline’s most critical needs
• Prioritize maintenance/repair based on severity
• Minimize cost by avoiding unnecessary digs
• Ensure safe operation for its employees and the community
MULTIPLE DATASET (MDS) PLATFORMS can supply pipeline operators with a comprehensive view of their line integrity by providing a vehicle for an evolving combination of overlapping inspection technol-ogies to be run on a single tool, at the same time. THE RESULT: robust threat detection and advanced characterization.
Locates the anomaly relative to the centerline of the pipe.XYZ MAPPING
DEFORMATION
LOW FIELD MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE
Defines the anomaly as a dent.
Identifies re-rounding (or rebounding) of the dent.
Recognizes volumetric metal loss within the dent.
HIGH RESOLUTION MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE
SpirALL® MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE
Identifies axially oriented metal loss or gouging within the dent.
SMFL
LFM
MFL
DEF
XYZ
28
2
3 428
1
N O R T H A M E R I C A N
PIPELINEC O N G R E S S
C H I C A G O
Forging the road aheadSeptember 22 & 23 | The Westin Chicago River North | Chicago, IllinoisBUILD STRATEGIC CONNECTIONS | DO BUSINESS | ACCESS UNGUARDED INSIGHTS | FIRST CLASS ACCESS | NOTABLE NETWORKING
The key to unlocking North America’s potential as a major energy exporter while securing a stable domestic supply lies within pipelines.
North American Pipeline Congress provides an elite forum for influential players to engage in an open dialogue on the regulatory, political, infrastructural and technological demands impacting the road ahead.
Join us at the crossroads of a new era. Register at pipelinecongress.com.
pipelinecongress.com
3
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
2
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
When the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) moved to preserve market share by maintaining their own production targets amid a worldwide supply glut, the strategy led to collapsing global oil prices, the idling of shale oil rigs in the United States, and cutbacks in capital budgets.
But OPEC’s decision isn’t the only reason for the current slump. Structural factors, weak demand, and the strength of the United States dollar also played a role. Today, those issues continue to exert downward pressure on prices, as do geopolitical risks and events.
With the world concerned about China’s economy, Middle East instability, and Russia-Ukraine relationships, it’s no wonder that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that price volatility is likely to persist throughout 2015.
At the same time, however, energy production in the United States remains on the rise. In fact, the EIA notes that the quantity of shale or natural gas produced per rig has increased by more than 300 percent in less than five years. And that’s just one factor helping insulate the pipeline sector from instability.
Because pipeline infrastructure isn’t fully developed in the areas where much of the new energy production is occurring, projects that were planned, approved, and funded before the price decline must continue to progress just to catch up with E&P activity. A considerable amount of this work involves reconfiguring existing pipelines rather than new construction.
Pipeline operators are making some business adjustments. But those activities would probably occur regardless of energy prices.
For example, over the past several years, I’ve seen more fine-tuning of activities that lead to operational and capital efficiency. In addition, there’s been more effort to prepare for and respond to increased regulatory scrutiny, such as Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Integrity Verification Process (IVP).
By working with service providers who have field-seasoned expertise and a broad base of technologies, operators can further boost efficiency, better understand the condition of their pipeline systems, and promote even greater safety and supply reliability.
All of which create a framework for greater profitability when energy prices rise again.
CHAD FLETCHERSENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
GLOBAL SALES & SERVICET.D. WILLIAMSON
E X E C U T I V E O U T L O O K
Preparing for Greater Profitability
By working with service providers … operators can further boost efficiency, better understand the condition of their pipeline systems, and promote even greater safety and supply reliability.
5
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
4
TRENDS IN OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY
JAMES DRUMMOND
VP GLOBAL OPERATIONS - LLOYD’S REGISTER ENERGY, ASSET INTEGRITY SERVICES
OVERCOMING TOMORROW’S INDUSTRY CHALLENGES TODAY
In the face of falling oil prices, it is no surprise that confidence in the outlook for the global oil and gas industry has taken a hit. More surprising though was how quickly sentiment changed in a short space of time; the confidence of over 360 senior industry professionals and executives dropped from 65 percent in October 2014 to just 28 percent in January 2015. The findings come from DNV GL’s report, A Balancing Act: The Outlook For The Oil And Gas Industry In 2015.
The pessimistic outlook was also reflected in capital expenditure (CAPEX) intentions, with those planning to increase CAPEX in the same time period dropping from 40 percent to 12 percent.
While investment in technology and innovation will remain a priority for many oil and gas firms in 2015, a significant proportion will struggle to maintain last year’s spending levels. Almost half (45 percent) expect investment in R&D to stay the same during 2015, while the number of those planning to cut R&D investment has more than tripled since last year (up from 11 percent to 37 percent).
To adjust to this lower-margin environment, industry players need to develop a long-term sustainable cost base. This can be done by taking a broader view, reducing complexity and standardising processes, materials and documentation. We need to work together, and industry standards and guidelines must adapt to industry needs and the advance of new technologies.
As an independent technical partner and adviser, DNV GL - Oil & Gas works with the industry to address these issues. The company has 5,500 oil and gas specialists and 22 laboratories and R&D centres around the world and this year we have initiated over 60 new joint industry projects (JIPs). Several of these address challenges the pipeline industry faces around the world.
One such example is a JIP run from DNV GL’s laboratories in Singapore and Columbus, Ohio. Eight participants have so far joined forces with us to develop a method to evaluate fractures and cracks using a Single Edge Notched Tensile (SENT) test designed for sour service environments. Sour gas puts significant demand on pipeline material, particularly in deeper water. It is evident in various oil and gas producing regions of the world, in particular, the Middle East and the Commonwealth of Independent States. The JIP will enable the development of a guideline which
is likely to develop into a Recommended Practice to help provide significant technical, logistical and financial savings to the industry.
Arve Johan Kalleklev REGIONAL MANAGER, SOUTH EAST ASIA, DNV GL – OIL & GAS
GlobalPerspective Industry Commentary from Around the World
Download a complimentary copy of A Balancing Act: The Outlook For The Oil And Gas Industry In 2015: www.dnvgl.com/balancingact
Reserves are being explored in ever-deeper waters and remote locations where development requires the oil and gas industry to push the boundaries of existing technologies.
Last year, Lloyd’s Register Energy published a comprehensive industry report – Oil And Gas Technology Radar 2014 – which examined the state of technology innovation within the industry, including the motivators and barriers to implementation. Cost, not technological capabilities, was identified as the greatest barrier.
“The [international oil companies] have great difficulty replacing their hydrocarbon reserves, which drives them to go into the most challenging and expensive
environments,” says Duco De Haan, CEO of Lloyd’s Register Drilling Integrity Services. “As a result, costs have exploded in the last four to five years.”
Nonetheless, technical innovation continues to be a central focus for subsea pipeline owners as they explore operations at unprecedented new ocean depths.
To support asset integrity management programs, the industry is exploring the use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) – which are docked and recharged subsurface – to perform routine visual inspections, free span pipe monitoring, and cathodic protection surveys that detect corrosion.
In some cases, AUVs could replace current remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and their support vessels, potentially reducing cost and improving integrity management practices and maintenance activities.
Advancements in data analytics are also playing an increasingly important role in the integrity management of pipelines. They are giving operators better visibility of the operating health of subsea pumps and the fluids produced in subsea processing facilities, as well as helping to monitor the condition of the pipeline – including the use of leak detection systems.
Pipelines, too, are undergoing a technological evolution with the emergence and application of thermoplastic composite pipes. Both the polymers and fibre materials are composed of typical industry materials. The fibre, which provides the strength within the composite, is comprised of materials such as glass or graphite fibres and KEVLAR®.
Another exciting emerging technology is “additive manufacturing” for fabrication of subsea equipment. Since deepwater processing facilities require thick-walled vessels to contain pressure, equipment such as gravity-based separators have become large and difficult to transport when fabricated using solid steel plate.
But just as additive manufacturing offers an opportunity to customize materials, these variations from solid materials can compromise the structural integrity of an asset in ways that would be new to the industry. Clearly, a deeper understanding of the benefits and barriers to adoption is required.
Innovative new technologies continue to be developed as the easily accessible fields are depleted. These new technologies bring improvements, but many also bring new limitations, which require engineers to revisit accepted risk management techniques, develop appropriate standards, procedures and methodologies, and apply their experience in new ways.
Lloyd’s Register Energy’s “Oil and Gas Technology Radar" report is available at: www.lr.org/technologyradar
KEVLAR® is a registered trademark of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and/or its affiliates.
Map & globe art by freevectormaps.comROVs at work on a subsea pipeline.
a full picture of the pipeline’s condition and, in many cases, convincing them that these lines can’t even be inspected.
An Inspection Breakthrough For Difficult-To-Pig LinesT.D. Williamson (TDW) recognized the challenge of controlling drag to improve wall thickness inspections in a small diameter, low flow, low pressure environment. And, in response, the company developed a 6-inch low drag deformation and MFL inspection tool that, according to TDW integrity expert Lloyd Pirtle, not only “removes or minimizes” speed excursions, but makes it possible to inspect lines long thought of as too difficult to pig.
“This tool and capability creates confidence,” Pirtle says. “Operators can now collect geometry and metal loss data to know what kind of shape their system is in – even with low flow or low pressure – while these critical pipelines remain in service.
“For operators with similar obstacles who’ve thought their lines weren’t piggable, what we’re saying is, ‘here’s a tool that can make it piggable,’” he adds.
The new 6-inch tool not only overcomes the design compromises that restricted navigability and wall thickness inspection in conventional small-diameter MFL tools, it also includes geometry inspection on the same platform for improved threat assessment versus stand-alone MFL.
Its advantages include:• Greater wall thickness capability• Reduced drag• Improved navigability• Improved protection of the magnetizer
Successful Field Testing Following extensive internal validation using multiple 6-inch tool configurations, the low drag tool was field-tested* in partnership with Access Midstream, a natural gas service provider and subsidiary of energy company Williams. The tool was run seven times on pipelines in Texas’s Barnett Shale, at pressures around 10.34 bar (150 psi).
According to Chuck Harris, Manager, Strategic Commercialization at TDW, although some speed excursions occurred with the low drag tool, they weren’t on the magnitude of those experienced with traditional inspection tools. The tool gathered acceptable inline inspection data at pressures as low as 8.27 bar (120 psi).
“The technology cannot overcome line conditions completely,” Harris says. “What’s important is the fact that it can run in pipelines even at such low pressures.”
In other words, the new low drag tool essentially opens previously difficult-to-inspect pipelines to easier, more accurate assessment.
Which can also open operators’ minds to the possibility of pigging.
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
7
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
6
T E C H N O L O G Y F O C U S
6
Every day, there’s another example of technology making the impossible possible.
But making the difficult-to-pig easier-to-inspect? That’s an entirely new triumph.For natural gas operators, inspecting geometry and wall-loss in
small diameter gathering lines, especially in low flow, low pressure environments, has been a challenge. So much so, in fact, that many operators have their minds made up: it just can’t be done.
Now, however, there’s a new 6-inch inspection tool that overcomes problems of size, flow, and pressure in these difficult pipelines.
Not only does it gather data for integrity assessments, it might just change how operators view the possibility of pigging.
Avoiding TurbulenceAn inline tool moves when pressure differentials around it are greater than the friction produced by the tool itself. In the case of inspection tools used to survey geometry and measure metal loss, progress through pipelines is generally slow and steady. Accurate data is captured at regular points along the line, creating a successful integrity assessment.
But during the inspection of small diameter, low flow, low pressure pipelines, certain magnetic flux leakage (MFL) tool components – such as urethane cups and brushes – make contact with the pipe’s interior. This can create significant drag, which is additional frictional pressure within the line. And drag can make an inline inspection (ILI) tool’s ride turbulent, impairing its performance in compressible products such as natural gas.
For one thing, drag can cause speed excursions, where the tool accelerates abruptly and lurches ahead before returning to its normal pace. Unless it stops completely. A standstill could last 10 seconds or 10 hours – sometimes even longer – and might eventually require an intrusive intervention like having to cut out the MFL tool or launch a foam pig from behind to push it along.
Drag-related speed excursions, which can be greatly exaggerated in low pressure and low flow natural gas pipelines, prevent the ILI tool from capturing data at every point – keeping operators from getting
*Download the white paper from Access Midstream and TDW to learn more: www.tdw-lflp.com
Turning Impossible into Piggable
New 6-inch, low drag inspection tool changes
how operators think about assessing low flow, low
pressure lines
DEF2+MFL4 Drag Results
Drag comparison was performed between multiple 6-inch configurations:
MFL: traditional stand-alone metal loss inspection
DEF+MFL: traditional geometry combined with metal loss inspection
DEF2+MFL4: newly designed geometry combined with metal loss inspection
Drive: drive body only
DRAG TESTING
55%
59%
61%
68%
Drag reduction vs MFL in 0.188-inch Wall Thickness (WT)
Drag reduction vs DEF+MFL in 0.188-inch WT
Drag reduction vs MFL in 0.388-inch WT
Drag reduction vs DEF+MFL in 0.388-inch WT
8
It Can Happen HereEveryone has heard some variation of the classic “safety hero” narrative: Someone – a technician or an engineer, or an especially observant passerby – notices something suspicious. A warning light. An odd sound or strange smell. Data that doesn’t add up. Acting on instinct, a feeling that something just doesn’t feel “right,” they report what they’ve noticed – and in doing so, they prevent a catastrophic accident.
There’s a reason stories like this are so popular. Everyone loves to cheer when a hero saves the day and prevents a massive and costly disaster. But according to Dr. Jan Hayes, associate professor at the School of Property, Construction & Project Management at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, these stories aren’t the only ones worth telling.
Not every blinking light means a system failure, after all. And not every strange sound or unusual smell means a disaster is on the horizon.
But what about the people who report those non-disasters? They still deserve recognition. They’re still heroes.
Cultivating Safety Imagination In her recent book, titled “Nightmare Pipeline Failures: Fantasy Planning, Black Swans and Integrity Management,” co-authored with Professor Andrew Hopkins, Hayes examines several well-known pipeline disasters. While the specifics vary from incident to incident,
there’s one common thread running through each case: Somebody noticed something. And in every case,
that “something” was explained away as minor and unworthy of immediate attention.
This tendency to look for alternate – and less dire – explanations isn’t an indication of laziness or inexperience. And it’s not unusual, either. Hayes says it’s a psychological
process that happens so far below the surface that operators aren’t even conscious of it. The real culprit, she explains, is a lack of “safety imagination”: Because most operators have never experienced a disaster, they can’t imagine a disaster actually happening.
Look at almost any major oil spill or gas leak, Hayes says, and you’ll see the same pattern: There was evidence, but nobody really believed it. Hayes recalls experiencing a similar sense of disbelief during her early career as a process engineer with a major oil and gas company: She was shocked when the North Sea Piper Alpha oil platform accident claimed the lives of more than 160 people.
“I just didn’t think things like that could happen,” she says. “It’s easy to have the mindset of, ‘It can’t happen here because I’ve never seen it happen here’ – but there’s always the potential. Safety imagination is about knowing in the back of your mind that things can go wrong.”
But how do you encourage employees to develop – and use – their safety imagination when it comes to pipeline integrity? How do you convince them to report anything that seems suspicious, even if they’re fairly certain it’s nothing major?
It’s a challenge, Hayes says. But with the right cultural shifts, it’s not impossible.
The Benefits of “Chronic Unease”Some safety experts and researchers use the term
“chronic unease” to describe the ideal approach to safety. It’s the opposite of the “it can’t happen here” mindset; an outlook that remains aware that something could go wrong at any time. Chronic unease means having specific, customized plans in place for each type of accident; it means thinking proactively about public safety rather than focusing solely on compliance.
It also means encouraging people at all levels of a company – from junior engineers to maintenance people to C-level executives
– to think critically about safety. Some
organizations are accomplishing this by creating specialized safety workshops aimed directly at groups like executives and board members. Others enact bonus systems that tie financial rewards to process safety. The most important thing to do, though, is to create a culture where everyone feels empowered to speak up when they notice something unusual – even if it turns out to be nothing.
“We always hear about the guy who noticed something and reported it, and if it wasn’t for him there would have been a huge disaster,” Hayes says. “That’s all well and good, but we also need to hear about the guy who thought there was a problem and reported it, and it turned out that everything was fine. That guy should still be congratulated – because it’s not about whether he prevented a catastrophe. It’s about the fact that we need those reports to be made.”
S A F E T Y M AT T E R S
Dr. Jan Hayes on safety imagination, chronic
unease, and storytelling
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
9Some of the research on which this article draws was funded by the Energy Pipelines Cooperative Research Centre, supported through the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. The cash and in-kind support from the Australian Pipeline Industry Association Research and Standards Committee is gratefully acknowledged.
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
“We also need to hear about the guy who thought there was a problem and reported it, and it turned out that everything was fine.”
Because most operators have never experienced a disaster, they can’t imagine a disaster actually happening.
SAFETY IMAGINATION:
Dr. Jan Hayes
10 11
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
Safe, cost-effective compliance is
within reach
Federal regulators in the United States appear to be honing in more than ever on bolstering natural gas transmission line safety. And while everyone wants to be safer, achieving and maintaining full regulatory compliance can be quite a challenge – and a costly one at that.
For more than a year, natural gas transmission operators have been deciding how to address the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) pending Integrity Verification Process (IVP) regulation. The new regulation would require operators to verify the records they use to establish and support the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of pipelines in high and moderate consequence areas.
Now, operators are digesting the 28 transmission line safety recommendations that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made in late January of this year – including one that would require all natural gas transmission pipelines to be configured to accommodate inline inspection (ILI) tools. The proposed NTSB requirement specifically refers to the use of “smart pigs”, which are used to record information about the mechanical condition of pipe material.
For a number of transmission line operators, the proposed ILI
requirement would be a tall order: While the use of sophisticated ILI tools is considered a highly effective method of detecting corrosion, weld defects, and other risks to pipeline integrity, the process simply isn’t an option for some transmission pipelines. Acute angles, varying inside diameter and incompatible pipeline pressure make these pipelines unfriendly territory and significantly raise the risk of lodging or damaging costly ILI tools as they are propelled by product flow.
The prospect of making these ILI-unfriendly transmission lines “piggable” has been a frequent topic of discussion among American Gas Association (AGA) members this year, says Andrew Lu, the AGA’s Managing Director for Operations and Engineering. Many operators worry that if the NTSB’s pipeline safety recommendations result in new regulations, they could be looking at significant costs during a season of low oil prices.
Exacerbating those concerns is the risk of revenue loss that comes with downtime, as operators complete the modifications necessary to make their pipelines compliant.
“There are a lot of conversations going on,” Lu says. “Operators are asking, ‘What are the smart practices for doing this? How do we know where to start?’”
That’s not to say there hasn’t been activity in this area. Some operators are doing more than talking about the changes on the horizon. A handful of companies are already taking steps to get ahead of the regulatory curve.
In a March press release, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) welcomed the NTSB’s 28 safety recommendations for the gas pipeline industry
– including the call for more inline inspections. Executive Vice President of Gas Operations Nick
Stavropoulos said PG&E would be working to “explore and leverage innovation in developing new inline inspection technologies to inspect pipelines previously considered ‘uninspectable’ with commercially available tools.”
COST-SAVING OPTIONS
Whether operators wait to see if the NTSB’s recommendations become regulation or they opt to take a more proactive approach, they should know that modifying transmission lines is achievable – and it’s far less complicated and costly than many believe.
The most desirable modification method is one that is safe and does not require line shutdown or interruption to flow. This can be achieved with proven hot tapping and plugging (HT&P) processes, which allows operators to isolate and bypass short lengths of pipe while modifications or tie-ins are made.
Today, operators can employ HT&P methods like a double block and bleed isolation with the STOPPLE® Train isolation system, developed by T.D. Williamson (TDW). In conjunction with a bypass, the system allows lines to be modified for inspection safely and cost-effectively without the loss of revenue associated with line shutdowns.
A recent case study calculates the difference between an operator’s line-replacement costs for a project that includes a pipeline shutdown and completing the same project with a standard HT&P process – along with the costs of using the STOPPLE Train isolation system. The results, which show significant savings with the HT&P process – and even greater savings with the STOPPLE Train system – are shown below:
MORE STRINGENT SAFETY REGULATIONS COULD BE ON HORIZON FOR U.S. TRANSMISSION PIPELINES
F U T U R E T H I N K I N G
SHUT DOWN
Lost Opportunity Due To No Flow 15%
Internal Costs 51%
Isolation Service Provider Cost –
Job Site Charges 34%
—
38%
16%
32%
—
38%
16%
23%
STANDARD ISOLATION STOPPLE®TRAIN ISOLATIONOPERATOR'S LINE REPLACEMENT COSTS
Operator Savings over shutdown: 18% 23%
CONTINUED ON PAGE 27
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
12 13
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
Play-specific services model supports
profitability in low price environment
Business as UsualAs any operator in the Eagle Ford knows, pipeline service and supply needs are often dictated by play-specific issues. And one of the area’s most problematic issues is paraffin. Paraffin buildup clogs lines, reduces throughput, and increases compression costs. It can also trap water and encourage buildup of dangerous hydrogen sulfide.
The battle against paraffin buildup can be costly and time-consuming – and it can be a source of frequent emergency (or “pop-up”) supply needs. Hurst recalls one Eagle Ford operator who was especially concerned about sourcing an aggressive cleaning tool, the PitBoss™ Cleaning Pig. With plenty of notice, it wasn’t hard to get these 8-inch mandrel pigs shipped in from another location, but for a pop-up situation, there wasn’t time to wait several days for a replacement.
The operator reached out to Hurst. Due to the ongoing dialogue and service agreements between the service center and local operators, Hurst had anticipated the need – and TDW had the appropriate safety stock level.
“It’s all part of being partners and problem-solvers,” Hurst says. By listening to operators and monitoring what products they need – and how often they need them – local service centers are able to ease one of the most common pain points for Eagle Ford operators: Wait time.
“We operate as a storefront in the Eagle Ford,” Hurst says. “Rather than waiting days or weeks, operators can stop by the warehouse and pick up what they need on the way to a jobsite.”
As the service landscape in the play is changing,
stories like this are becoming increasingly common: Early in 2015, a gas transmission line running from the Eagle Ford to Mexico became obstructed, dramatically affecting the flow to thousands of customers. It was a weekend, and it could have been a challenge getting a crew of qualified technicians
on a plane fast enough to prevent a serious service disruption. But under this new local supply model, a team from the region was out to the site within a few hours.
At one time, this would have been fairly unusual. Today, though, operator access to same-day service and critical supplies is just business as usual. Whether in the Eagle Ford, Marcellus, or Bakken, local sourcing helps operators ensure long-term profit and stability.
Despite the current low price environment, many of the industry’s major players remain committed to the Eagle Ford long-game, including Anadarko, BP, Koch, Marathon, and Shell, to name a few. To ensure stable profitability these operators are learning to increase efficiencies while lowering their operating costs.
But until recently, this could be a problem, particularly when it came to completing repairs or maintenance within tight time constraints. Over the last two years, though, operators have adopted a play-specific pipeline services supply model that provides near-instant access to maintenance, supplies, and repairs. This shift is helping keep costs down and product flowing in the massive – but isolated – play.
Waiting Doesn’t PayWhen Doug Hurst, a veteran oil and gas manager, joined T.D. Williamson (TDW) in the Eagle Ford in 2013, he spent several months driving back and forth getting to know local operators. He put 93,000 kilometers (58,000 miles) on his brand-new Jeep, but the mileage was worth it. Hurst learned a lot about the issues facing operators, and about why it was difficult for them to predict their service and supply needs.
Some of what Hurst learned was surprising: It wasn’t unusual for a simple pipeline maintenance or repair issue to slow – or even temporarily shut down – production. Operators would sometimes wait days or weeks for help or product to arrive from a major service or supply hub outside of the play, or even outside of the region.
“Operators can’t afford that kind of downtime,” says Hurst. “Your throughput is your cash register. If oil isn’t flowing because you’re waiting for a part or a technician, you’re not getting paid.”
Hurst, who has helped develop a newly opened San Antonio service center for TDW, has spent the last 18 months working closely with operators to determine which types of equipment and service schedules best meet their needs, and creating service agreements that guarantee availability. The result has been a collaborative partnership that gives operators access to personalized supplies and services – when they need them.
Shale play operators share this common goal: to guarantee the health and safety of employees and the communities they work in. To meet this goal, operators rely on the highest quality products and services to assist them in reducing environmental impact and mitigating the risk of leaks and ethane emissions. The local pipeline services supply model helps fulfill this goal.
Local Sourcing in the Eagle Ford
“Your throughput is your cash register. If oil isn’t flowing because you’re waiting for a part or a technician, you’re not getting paid.”
M A R K E T R E P O R T
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
CO
VE
R S
TO
RY
15
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
14
The United States Department of Defense is locked in battle against a ‘pervasive menace.’
But this time, the enemy isn’t terrorism, despots, or nuclear proliferation.
Instead, it’s corrosion. The U.S. Pentagon spends about US$22.5 billion per
year defending American military assets and infrastructure against corrosion. Which makes the label “pervasive menace” understandable, if not even a little mild.
But as hefty as that multibillion-dollar figure is, it represents just a drop in the old, rusty bucket compared to the global price tag: at US$2.2 trillion, the annual cost of corrosion around the globe amounts to between 3 and 4 percent of the GDP of the world’s industrialized countries. That’s according to the World Corrosion Organization, which keeps tabs on such things.
The financial impact of metal corrosion in Europe alone exceeds US$1.4 trillion a year. And as Dr. Roger King,
Ph.D., reminds pipeline operators, about 40 percent of pipeline failures result from corrosion, although not all
of those failures result in incidents. In other words, there’s a lot of stuff breaking
down right now, a lot of deterioration that needs to be identified and fixed before a failure or
catastrophe occurs.In some cases, of course, it’s already
too late. And the media is increasingly tuned to such events. Which means
the public is, too.
GLOBAL PRICE TAG FOR CORRODING INFRASTRUCTURE
US$2.2 TRILLION
As the public becomes increasingly aware of the problems associated with corrosion, they’re demanding more information about the condition of the world’s pipelines. Operators are acting now, using detection and control best practices to help people be – and feel – safe.
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
The Insidious Enemy WithinIn a recent article called “Rust Never Sleeps,” which appeared in the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic magazine, writer Tim Heffernan ticks off a list of devastating and deadly incidents resulting directly from “seemingly mundane” corrosion: the rupture of a high-pressure natural gas pipeline near the American city of Charleston, West Virginia, in 2012 that melted 800 feet of interstate highway; the deaths of five
people in Malta when their lifeboat fell from the side of a cruise ship during a safety drill; a series of sewer explosions in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1992 that killed 252; and the 1971 crash of British European Airways Flight 706, which took 63 lives.
For the uninitiated reader, those are pretty frightening tales. For those who deal daily with the risks of corrosion, they’re the stuff of nightmares.
Although Heffernan’s larger point – that the fight against “the insidious enemy within,” is being lost – is directed specifically at the United States, it’s the same story all over the world. Even in the digital age,
he claims, we still rely on “massive, interwoven, mechanical” infrastructure. That “big stuff,” he says, is rusting.
The fact that a piece about corrosion would make a publication like The Atlantic, aimed at a general, albeit well-educated, audience, suggests that concerns about it are no longer exclusively the province of scientists, engineers, and infra-structure operators. And it’s no accident that the ravages of corrosion are rippling into mainstream consciousness.
Out From Underground, And Into The MainstreamOne of the groups working to increase awareness is the New York-based World Corrosion Organization (WCO), whose mission is to
“facilitate global implementation of best practices in corrosion protection for public welfare.” Since 2010, WCO has sponsored Corrosion Awareness Day. This year’s event was April 24.
According to WCO Director General, George Hay, Corrosion Awareness Day is a “means to educate the public, industries and government agencies of the deleterious effects of corrosion on our infrastructures worldwide.”
As Hay noted in a statement, “The worldwide cost of corrosion is currently in the same order of magnitude as the cost to produce and distribute food worldwide. The difference is that the public is somewhat aware of issues related to hunger and the cost of food, but totally unaware of the cost of corrosion today and its effect on sustainability of our infrastructures in the future.”
‘A Blender Pureeing The Remains Of A Mardi Gras Float’In the United States, however, more people grasped those concerns after the TV news show “60 Minutes” aired a story, in November 2014, called “Falling Apart: America’s Neglected Infrastructure.” It highlighted the nation’s outdated roads, airports and rails, its 70,000 structurally-deficient bridges – 15 percent of them “at risk of catastrophic, corrosion-related failure,” according to NACE International, the technical society for corrosion professionals – and the lack of funding to take care of any of it.
But one part of the story was missing, NACE International said in a public response issued shortly after the broadcast. And that was a key solution to infrastructure woes: corrosion control.
The organization argued that “what’s forgotten is that corrosion-control technology and effective management practices can extend the life of bridges and other infrastructure well beyond original design life.”
NACE International is working with local, state, and federal governments on policies to
“eliminate the devastating effects of corrosion and strengthen public safety.”
It’s possible that some of that work took place at the organization’s Corrosion 2015 conference in Dallas, Texas, in March. The five-day gathering, which drew some 7,000 attendees, was covered with wide-eyed wonder by The Dallas Morning News. Reporter Marc Ramirez seemed especially enthralled by an electrode rotator that mimics fluid flow to test the efficacy of offshore coatings. The device had been filled with what Ramirez referred to as ‘sparkly items’ to demonstrate its whirlpool effect. It looked, the reporter said, like “a blender pureeing the remains of a Mardi Gras float.”
Corrosion, Chapter-By-Chapter, Mile-By-MileExposés and news articles aside, if anything is likely to boost public attention to corrosion, it will be Jonathan Waldman’s new book, Rust: The Longest War.
Journalist Waldman’s journey into what the dust jacket describes as “a thrilling drama of man versus nature” takes him from corporate hallways to hardware stores, from a tropical Florida film set to the subzero Arctic. That’s
where he starts to follow, nearly mile-by-mile, the trek of a smart pig (inline inspection tool) through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The 54-page chapter called Pigging the Pipe recounts initial failures, subsequent successes, and the retrieval of data that uncovers nearly 1,000 anomalies, some three-quarters of them corrosion-related.
Waldman’s prose is matched by his humor – he refers to a conventional pig as a “red urethane pig of lesser intelligence” and explains how wax can render “smart pigs senseless, leaving them blind, dumb, and amnesiac.” He’s also got a keen way of bringing the concept of pigging down to human scale and layman terms. While it’s unlikely that terms like coupons, magnetic flux leakage, slacklines, and MAOP will roll off the tongues of casual readers, at least they’ll have a basic understanding of what all that means.
According to Waldman, TAPS was at first called rustproof. Unfortunately, its principal protection was a painted coating that proved vulnerable within a number of years. The anti-corrosion system was eventually fortified with buried magnesium anodes (“mag bags”), cathodic protection, and 800 monitoring coupons. But Waldman notes that it’s due largely to the work of inline inspection (ILI) tools finding faults before they could become failures that TAPS hasn’t suffered a corrosion-induced leak since it began operating in 1977.
As A Best Practice, Monitoring Beats InspectionIt’s likely that all of this increased attention around corrosion issues will lead to greater public scrutiny of the oil and gas pipeline industry.
1716
CO
VE
R S
TO
RY
Rust author Waldman is all in favor of it. As he writes, “Opposing the construction of
new pipelines is silly … Pipelines are the safest way to deliver oil. Demanding that we know the condition that pipelines are in, on the other hand, is not silly.”
Keeping pipelines in top condition is an industrywide activity, of course. But delineating best practices from a global perspective means talking to people like Dr. Liane Smith, FREng, and Richard Norsworthy. They were among a group of experts asked by global pipeline services provider T.D. Williamson to share their opinions about what works best when it comes to detecting and protecting against corrosion.
Materials and corrosion expert Liane Smith is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineers. That
means she’s achieved the United Kingdom’s top honor recognizing engineering researchers, innovators, and leaders.
The managing director of asset integrity company WG INTETECH, Chester, England, Smith earned a
Ph.D. in laser welding from
Sheffield University and is the author of
94 technical papers and one book.Although she wasn’t
referring specifically to TAPS’s 800 monitored coupons, Smith says
that in a contest between corrosion monitoring and inline inspection, she’d
put her money on the latter. Literally.“Monitoring gets you almost nowhere,” she
says. “It’s not even worth installing. I’d put all of my investment into inspection.”
The problem, Smith explains, is that monitoring is tied to specific locations. Weight loss coupons, for example, are effective at providing real time readings, but just for certain points on the pipeline. And because the flow regime around a coupon might differ from the rest of the pipeline, the information can’t be generalized beyond the coupon itself.
Even worse is the fact that corrosion coupons are notorious for producing ‘false positives.’
“There’ve been countless times when we’ve seen negligible corrosion on a coupon, when actually there’s a lot of corrosion in the pipe,” she says.
Inline inspection can overcome those deficiencies, Smith says, providing a highly accurate picture of the condition of the line along its whole length. She advocates starting an inline inspection regimen soon after the pipeline is put in service to capture baseline data that will be useful in later comparisons. Through multiple inspections, operators can identify trends, improve inspection scheduling, and know with greater precision the time to failure.
And what about lines that aren’t considered piggable – or aren’t “fully inspectable,” as Smith prefers to call them?
Smith says that bi-directional inline inspection tools can at least provide information about certain sections of the pipe. By coupling that data with corrosion modeling of the whole line, she explains,
the operator will have “some calibration around areas that can’t be inspected, gaining clarity for business critical decisions.”
It would be best, Smith feels, if pipelines were designed with inline inspection in mind.
“The costs of doing things right at the start are far less than the hassles that could come later,” she says.
No Such Thing As UnpiggableWhen it comes to unpiggable lines, Norsworthy’s view might be even more extreme than Smith’s.
“Most lines are piggable, with very few exceptions,” the NACE International corrosion and cathodic protection (CP) specialist and instructor says flatly. “It just takes time, money, and effort. But it always pays off.”
And right now is the best time for operators to take the time and effort to inspect their lines, Norsworthy says.
“In a low-price environment, when there aren’t as many new projects, operators have the opportunity to find new issues before they become more serious,” he explains. “They can correct corrosion issues, do rehabilitation work, apply new external coatings.”
In Norsworthy’s view, it’s those external coatings that are “the first line of defense” against corrosion.
But that first line isn’t always impenetrable, says the 30-year industry veteran, who is widely acknowledged as a leader in his field.
“Several pipeline companies now list disbonded CP shielding coatings as their number one root cause of external corrosion,” Norsworthy says.
Disbonding is the loss of adhesion between metal and cathodic coatings that allows water, bacteria, and other corrosion instigators to creep in between the disbonded coating and the pipe. In addition, some disbonded coatings prevent cathodic protection currents from protecting the pipe.
As Norsworthy explains, electromagnetic acoustic transducer (EMAT) technology can locate areas where coatings have separated from metal. Once identified, they can often be remediated with mesh-backed tapes or other coatings that will allow cathodic protection to work, should disbondment occur again.
But although repair is possible, selecting the proper coating for the environment, followed by rigorous inspection to ensure the coating has properly adhered in the first place – especially on girth welds, “where most corrosion takes place today” – is a far smarter strategy, Norsworthy says.
Bringing Corrosion Out Of HidingIs a population that thinks of rust as something occurring mainly on old cars and paint can lids ready to learn that their military considers corrosion a significant threat? Can they cope with the notion of rotting bridges? What about the idea that the vast network of pipelines under their feet could be vulnerable, too?
The fact is, whether people are ready or not, corrosion is becoming less of a secret. Which gives the oil and gas industry an opportunity to get in on the conversation, letting the public know all that’s being done to help keep them safe from this
“pervasive menace.”
Dr. Liane Smith
1918
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
CO
VE
R S
TO
RY
2120
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
TDW experts deliver — providing technical presentations and hands-on demonstrations throughout the world. To learn more: [email protected].
TDW Events, Papers & Conferences
TouchPointsOil Sands15-16 SEPTEMBER | Fort McMurray, AB | Canada
S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 O C TO B E R 2 0 1 5
31 AUG - 2 SEPT NACE Central Area Conference St. Louis, MO, USA
15-16 Oil Sands Fort McMurray, AB, Canada
20-22 Arkansas Gas Association Hot Springs, AR, USA
22-23 North American Pipeline Congress Chicago, IL, USA
22-24 Rio Pipeline Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
5-9 Aging Pipelines Conference Ostend, Belgium
12-15 Road Expo Moscow, Russia
17-20 Australian Pipelines and Gas Association Convention
Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
21-22 Offshore Technology Days Stavanger, Norway
21-22 OPT Asia Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
25-27 DUG Eagle Ford San Antonio, TX, USA
26-29 ASNT Annual Conference Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Rio Pipeline22-24 SEPTEMBER | Rio de Janeiro | Brazil
Aging Pipelines Conference5-9 OCTOBER | Ostend | Belgium
OPT Asia21-22 OCTOBER | Kuala Lumpur | Malaysia
SGA Operating Conference & Exhibits
20-22 JULY | Nashville, TN | USA
LGA Pipeline Safety Conference20-24 JULY | New Orleans, LA | USA
MEA Gas Operations Technical & Leadership Summit
11-13 AUGUST | Rochester, MN | USA
FEPA Summer Symposium12-13 AUGUST | Palm Coast, FL | USA
The Pipeline & Energy Expo25-26 AUGUST | Tulsa, OK | USA
NACE Central Area Conference31 AUGUST - 2 SEPTEMBER | St. Louis, MO | USA
Arkansas Gas Association 20-22 SEPTEMBER | Hot Springs, AR | USA
North American Pipelines Congress22-23 SEPTEMBER | Chicago, IL | USA
DUG Eagle Ford25-27 OCTOBER | San Antonio, TX | USA
ASNT Annual Conference 26-29 OCTOBER | Salt Lake City | USA
North American Pipleline Congress (NAPC) CHICAGO, IL | Sept 22-23, 2015
The Road Ahead: North America’s Pipeline Future Abdel Zellou, Ph.D. – T.D. Williamson
This opening executive panel explores industry advancements and challenges in 2015. Panelists will provide a market overview and examine what is impacting the infrastructure deficit, while providing insights into key questions.
New Infrastructure: Planned Project Developments Mike Kirkwood, Ph.D. – T.D. Williamson
Panelists will explore what is required from the industry to reach the forecasted project developments. The session will examine upcoming project developments in the midstream sector, including regional challenges impacting proposed builds.
J U LY 2 0 1 5
20-22 SGA Operating Conference & Exhibits Nashville, TN, USA
20-24 LGA Pipeline Safety Conference New Orleans, LA, USA
A U G U S T 2 0 1 5
11-13 MEA Gas Operations Technical & Leadership Summit
Rochester, MN, USA
12-13 FEPA Summer Symposium Palm Coast, FL, USA
25-26 The Pipeline & Energy Expo Tulsa, OK, USA
Indicates TDW will present a white paper at this event.
Indicates TDW will speak or facilitate at this event.
Road Expo12-15 OCTOBER | Moscow | Russia
Offshore Technology Days 21-22 OCTOBER | Stavanger | Norway
Australian Pipelines and Gas Association Convention
17-20 OCTOBER | Gold Coast, QLD | Australia
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
22 23
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
FE
AT
UR
E S
TO
RY
• Isolating High Risk Construction
• Preventive Measures
• Evolving Use for Non-Intrusive Inline Isolations
• Pipe-Laying Protection
• End of the Wet Buckle
• Reducing the Inevitable
On a Sunday night in the North Sea, workers aboard the Brent Alpha platform started a new workweek off on the wrong foot. Their Monday morning would begin a few hours early – with an evacuation. A crane had malfunctioned, and the large container it carried had been dropped into the North Sea, instead of being safely winched onto a support vessel.
The container sliced through the water heading toward a vulnerable subsea pipeline. If impacted by the container, the pipeline could rupture. And a rupture would be a complete disaster: Not only would product spill into the sea, but a flashback of flammable oil or gas into the platform could cause danger to personnel and equipment, and gas clouds could form causing vessel-sinking bubbles.
Fortunately, the workweek didn’t begin with a dangerous pipeline rupture. But 54 workers were evacuated from the Alpha platform, and both the Alpha and Bravo facilities were depressurized while the
MITIGATE OFFSHORE INCIDENTS
ContainingCatastrophe
NON-INTRUSIVE ISOLATION TECHNOLOGIES
FE
AT
UR
E S
TO
RY
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
24 25
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
container was recovered by a support vessel. The incident was labeled a “near miss,” so the only real consequences were financial.
Although cost and reputation are certainly important to offshore operators, a dropped object incident could have been much worse, even fatal.
While subsea pipelines face a host of threats – corrosion, natural disasters, and anchor drag – some of the biggest risks come from planned operations. These might include laying new pipelines, raising platforms, or construction efforts like tying in new wells. For this reason, many operators – including the one mentioned – now go beyond standard safety training and regulatory compliance to invest in advanced risk mitigation technologies, such as non-intrusive inline isolation systems, to protect their assets.
Isolating High Risk ConstructionDropped objects in offshore operations rarely make the news, but low probability impact accidents like the above-described are actually one of the biggest risks to offshore pipelines, accounting for the most severe potential consequences.
During construction and platform maintenance, construction vessels will often come alongside the platform, potentially dropping or dragging anchor onto or near pipelines, and hoisting equipment that could potentially fall into the ocean. Although offshore operators already implement many safety and risk mitigation procedures to identify and avoid the pipelines in their operational area, due to the extreme severity of a dropped object impact, they take extra precautions during these events.
As with any construction near a pipeline, the absolute safest approach would be to bleed down or decommission all pipelines in the dropped object zone until the work is complete. But as it can take several months before some offshore platform interventions are complete, and bleeding down a pipeline is an extremely costly proposition for the operator – not to mention a major disruption for downstream customers – work must
often take place while the lines are active.For example, in 2009, a gas processing
platform offshore Myanmar required a new pipeline connection to retrieve gas from a neighboring field. The platform would not be in production during the tie-in operation, but the operator needed to keep its large gas export line live, in temporary “shut-in” condition, to avoid full decommission. This was critical to the operator as the export line, which runs 370 kilometers (230 miles) to shore and then onshore to the border of Thailand, delivers up to 20 percent of Thailand’s energy. Following the new tie-in, swiftly resuming flow was essential.
Beginning from the existing platform, the pipe lay vessel proceeded to lay the new line. To protect and isolate the existing export line during the pipelaying activity, the operator used a double block and monitor solution, the DNV-approved SmartPlug® isolation tool. This isolation would ensure that if the export pipeline was damaged during tie-in, it would be safely isolated to prevent product loss or gas flashback.
The SmartPlug tool, developed by T.D. Williamson (TDW), was pigged from the platform into positon, set, and remotely monitored to safely isolate the area surrounding the platform during the entire operation. Once complete, the tool was unset and pigged back to the receiver.
Preventive MeasuresWhile double block and monitor inline isolation has become the industry’s standard method for non-intrusive isolation, utilized in all regions of the globe to protect against the consequences of dropped objects, it is also relied on for risk reduction during general offshore maintenance work.
In 2009, Australia experienced one of its worst oil spill disasters when an incident on an offshore drilling rig in the Timor Sea resulted in 150 kilometers (93 miles) of polluted ocean and evacuation of all personnel. The incident was caused by the cracking of a sub-surface concrete
plug during work on a wellhead. During attempts to stop the leak, the West Atlas offshore platform caught fire. Australia declared the incident to be a national disaster.
Although the Australian disaster was not related to a dropped object and ruptured subsea pipeline, this incident provided the impetus for Australia’s offshore oil and gas regulatory body, NOPSEMA, to prescribe the use of isolation plugs, like the SmartPlug isolation system, as a preventive measure for offshore pipeline interventions. By implementing such regulation the severity of similar future incidents would be greatly reduced.
Evolving Use for Non-Intrusive Inline IsolationsDue, in part, to the industry adoption of the double block and monitor isolation method – and the proven technology that makes it work – offshore operators sought to apply a similar approach to mitigating the risk of wet buckle during subsea pipe laying (one of the most costly undertakings in the offshore industry).
Although isolating pipeline while laying it may seem like a somewhat different endeavor than isolating a pipeline to safeguard against dropped objects or during maintenance, the theory behind the two systems is actually quite similar.
In each instance, the isolation system is set in place to safely maintain the integrity of the pipeline. In the case of isolations during pipe laying, however, the isolation happens much more quickly and only as needed.
Pipe-Laying ProtectionLaying subsea pipelines requires a long string of pipeline to be carefully placed on a seabed up to 3,000 meters (1.8 miles) below the water’s surface. The vessel moves along laying pipe, with each 12 meter pipe joint being welded to the next to form a suspended string (or chain) that is then lowered to the seafloor as the vessel moves along by its own propulsion.
During the pipe laying process – due to the
occasional propulsion system malfunction, or the inadvertent effects of waves and currents – the vessel can pitch or sway outside normal operating limits. This can create a buckle at the point that the string of pipe has the largest curvature (i.e., where it leaves the vessel or where it joins the seabed).
Two things can happen when the pipe buckles: in one instance, the buckle will flatten the pipe together, but it will not break. This is called a “dry buckle,” and can be fixed by going back and cutting the joint, moving back and cutting more, until the buckle is encountered and pulled out. Then the lay vessel will start that section over.
Although a dry buckle wastes pipeline materials and time, it’s nowhere near the cost of the second instance – a wet buckle.
When a wet buckle occurs, the pipeline is severed and water enters the line, filling the suspended section that is being laid. This causes several problems: for one, the lay vessel is calculated to hold the pipeline at a certain weight and let it out as it moves forward, but when it is filled with water, the pipe becomes much heavier.
“There are only two or three lay vessels in the world that can hold a deepwater pipeline filled with water,” cautions George Lim, an offshore expert with TDW. “The vessel has a maximum tension capacity and if the pipeline becomes too heavy it will pull the chain out of the lay vessel.”
And if the pipeline comes loose, it can flail
Wet Buckle
INN
OV
AT
ION
S
•
VO
L.
VII
, N
O.
3
•
20
15
26 27
INN
OV
AT
ION
S •
VO
L. V
II, NO
. 3 •
20
15
around uncontrollably, risking massive damage to the lay vessel and people on board before falling down to the seabed.
Another consequence of a wet buckle is that the seawater and soil contaminate the newly laid line, meaning that the operator must dewater it before the vessel can start laying pipeline again. Dewatering is a lengthy process. First, the damaged area of the line is cut, then pigs with special inhibitors are pushed to dry the line so that it can be picked up again and the laying process can continue.
Dewatering is also expensive, requiring a fleet of pumps and compressors to be on standby. The rental fee for this spread, which can occupy an area the size of a football field, is significant. In addition, the lay vessels cost around US$500,000 per day or more and will be delayed on standby while the line is dewatered.
End of the Wet BuckleUntil recently, there were no viable methods for preventing flooding as a consequence of a wet buckle. However, TDW has developed the SmartLay™ pipe-laying isolation system – based on some of the key design aspects of the proven SmartPlug isolation tool.
When laying pipe, one method of deploying the SmartLay isolation tool is to pull it forward inside the line via cable running through the suspended section of pipe. Another method is pulling it forward by means of a self-contained vehicle (tractor or crawler) set in front of the SmartLay tool. When a new joint is welded onto the pipeline, the tool is advanced in the line. In a normal situation, it glides through the pipe as it’s laid, but if the line buckles and there is water ingress, the tool immediately senses the seawater and sets itself in the pipe within one second – preventing water from flooding the
pipe. Typically, a minimum of one such device is
present to close off the newly laid pipeline on the seabed. Additional devices can be placed in the buckling “zone” (i.e., where the line leaves the vessel and where it joins the seabed). Then, the flooded section between the buckle and SmartLay tool can be simply cut out before continuing the laying process.
According to Lim, the SmartLay isolation tool – already delivered to a few major offshore operators who have further developed deployment methods to suit their particular pipelay operations – prevents flooding of the pipeline, reduces risk to personnel, and eliminates the need and extreme cost to dewater.
Reducing the InevitableEvery year the offshore industry adopts more regulations and safety processes, and we are indeed safer for it. However, regardless of how many preventive procedures are put in place, accidents – even low-probability ones – will still occur. So, although these advancing isolation technologies can’t reduce the probability of an incident, they can reduce the consequences.
“The SmartLay and SmartPlug systems are risk reduction tools,” explains Lim. “Risk is equal to the probability of failure multiplied by the consequence. Tools like these reduce the consequences of an unfortunate incident.”
Internal costs generally comprise an operator’s project management, from engineering designs to environmental remediation. Direct job site costs encompass third-party vendors and their work, from welders to the excavation process.
The study’s conservative calculations are based on a completed project where the operator owned the pipeline system, but not the product it carries.
“If there’s a shutdown for an operator that owns all of the assets, the shutdown cuts off their supply of incoming cash flow and becomes even more expensive,” says project author Veronyca Kwan, a Senior Business Market Analyst with TDW.
Income loss is one of the primary concerns facing transmission line operators as they try to decide how and when to respond to the NTSB’s ILI recommendations. And the ability to prevent such losses – by continuing pipeline operations – is one of the key reasons that HT&P procedures could prove hugely beneficial to operators that move forward with a multiyear modification project to get their pipeline system in compliance.
In the case of STOPPLE Train isolation technology, shutdown prevention is one of several features that could make compliance with the NTSB recommendations more cost-effective, says Grant Cooper, Manager of Commercialization, HT&P Technology, for TDW.
“What we’ve done is expand standard block and bleed technology, so you can weld two fittings on the pipeline, instead of four,” Cooper says. “In one fitting you have a double block and bleed isolation, which means it’s not only less costly, it’s even safer.”
The two independent seals used to establish the system’s double block and bleed capability also increase the likelihood of a successful workable seal on
the first try, another cost-saving feature. In addition, the system reduces the size of the excavation needed to access the pipe – lowering equipment costs – and minimizes the risk of costly third-party damage.
And in certain circumstances, the system allows operators to run a bypass directly through the housing of the plugging system, further reducing the need for additional fittings and associated costs.
Whether they choose the standard HT&P process or more advanced isolation technology, the strategic investments in line modifications will not only help operators achieve compliance with the NTSB’s recommendations, the work will enhance their pipeline integrity management programs, provide operators with more actionable inline inspection data, and help them safely maximize throughput.
Future Thinking CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11
= PROBABILITY OF FAILURE X CONSEQUENCERISK * NTSB Study: www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/ 2015_Gas_Transmission_SS_BMG_Abstract.pdf
TDW e-book on pending IVP regulations:www.TDW-IVP.com
Operators worry that if the NTSB’s pipeline safety recommendations result in new regulations, they could be looking at significant costs during a season of low oil prices.
If the line buckles and there is water ingress, the tool immediately senses the seawater and sets itself in the pipe within one second – preventing water from flooding the pipe.
Double Double Stopple Train Isolation with Bypass
28
BY THE NUMBERS 4 Battling Pipeline Integrity Threats
steps to
PIPELINE INTEGRITY: A COMPREHENSIVE VIEWPipeline operators face the continual challenge of delivering energy to the world in the safest and most economical ways. They battle aging infrastructure, weather economic pressures, adjust to increasing regulation, and engage communities to achieve social license. Fortunately, continual advances in pipeline threat detection, such as multiple dataset platforms, are supporting them every inch of the way. Follow steps 1-4 to see how.
DETECT While running an MDS platform, mechanical (i.e., third-party) damage is detected
by a number of onboard technologies.
CHARACTERIZE Each technology on the MDS platform provides a unique layer of damage information, providing full characterization of the threat.
PRIORITIZE/MITIGATE With the final integrity report delivered in close proximity to the inspection, the pipeline operator is able to:
REPORT When critically assessed by specialized software and data analysts, the overlapping MDS data helps determine the exact characteristics and severity of the entire series of interacting threats – a re-rounded dent with gouging and crack-like features.
Metal loss, re-rounding, cycling, dent length and depth, strain and severity ranking.
• Assess the pipeline’s most critical needs
• Prioritize maintenance/repair based on severity
• Minimize cost by avoiding unnecessary digs
• Ensure safe operation for its employees and the community
MULTIPLE DATASET (MDS) PLATFORMS can supply pipeline operators with a comprehensive view of their line integrity by providing a vehicle for an evolving combination of overlapping inspection technol-ogies to be run on a single tool, at the same time. THE RESULT: robust threat detection and advanced characterization.
Locates the anomaly relative to the centerline of the pipe.XYZ MAPPING
DEFORMATION
LOW FIELD MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE
Defines the anomaly as a dent.
Identifies re-rounding (or rebounding) of the dent.
Recognizes volumetric metal loss within the dent.
HIGH RESOLUTION MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE
SpirALL® MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE
Identifies axially oriented metal loss or gouging within the dent.
SMFL
LFM
MFL
DEF
XYZ
28
2
3 428
1
29
OPERATIONOFFSHORE.COM#operationoffshore
T.D. WILLIAMSON / MCG PRODUCTIONS PRESENT “OPERATION OFFSHORE” m MARK SIM, TODD BEADLE, GORDON BLAIR, ALEXEY TUGANOV, ANTON KOVALENKO, LAURENT FABRY, TAMMY WISENBAKER,
KEVIN MCNAUGHTON, PAOLA CORRALES, STEVE APPLETON, ALEXANDRE PETRAGLIA, / ROLF GUNNAR LIE LARRY RYAN, GEORGE LIM JEFF WILSON, GARY ANDERSON x MIKE BENJAMIN, CHAD FLETCHER RISK ON THE PLATFORMDEVELOPMENT
DIRECTORSBASED ON
THE STORYTECHNICALDIRECTORS
© Copyright 2015 T.D. Williamson, Inc
