ABSTRACT
The management of corrosion and integrity for offshore applications has become more critical as
deepwater exploration and production continues. There are many challenges ahead, the most
important being that the scope for error is greatly reduced. Repair, retrofit or replacement all
become that much more difficult and costly due to logistics. The importance of correct execution
first time is therefore vital, and one of the most important areas is that of suitable materials selection
and corrosion management. This paper presents a new Risk Based Corrosion Integrity Management
(RB-CIM) methodology comprising 10 discrete steps which when used diligently can provide the
means to resolve the many threats encountered. In particular focusing on pertinent through life
fitness-for-purpose, and important regulatory issues. The principles engage a multidisciplinary
approach with a radical emphasis on design reappraisal, failure investigation, prioritized inspection
and extended verification to address the demanding safety, environmental, and performance
objectives. The scheme invokes a paradigm shift in thinking and is considered very relevant for both
existing and new offshore deepwater developments.
Keywords: risk, corrosion, integrity, design reappraisal, fit for purpose, extended verification,
offshore systems, deepwater applications, failure mechanisms
INTRODUCTION
The subject of integrity management has received much attention over the past ten years or so, a
cross section of pertinent papers shows typical developments in this field.1-9 The urgency has now
reached a more pressing level as deepwater exploration and production continues, and new
challenges present themselves, some of these have been predictable, others are not. The
traditionalist viewpoint of the design meeting the minimum requirements of the relevant code has to
be questioned, and confronted thus enforcing the modernist standpoint that designs must be fit for
purpose through life. This means from conception to retirement i.e. from drawing board, fabrication,
installation, and commissioning through to service (in/out) operations and onto decommissioning.
The integrity function must therefore expand to accommodate all operating conditions including,
steady state, shutdown cycles, excursions and transients. Hitherto designers can meet the code
requirements for the structure, pressure/piping systems, nozzle reinforcements, geometry, external
loadings etc, and the fabrication/assembly validated against design drawings by third party review
and test witnessing. However as challenging deepwater remits beckon, comfort zones will need to
be stretched, and greater emphasis placed on risk based judgmental engineering. It is the intention of
the RBCIM to minimize the subjective content by maximizing the objective content, through a
sequence of transparent checks and procedures enforcing better, revisable, auto-improving
quantification.
Mechanical Design, Operations and Corrosion.
It is clear that the gray area between design and operations is often skipped, though it is noted that
more operators are voluntarily requesting second opinion type reviews. Often with beneficial (albeit
sometimes controversial) results. And this is without doubt a good trend; the new approach we
believe provides the necessary vehicle for safety/critical area isolation, with best practice regarding
knowledge application, roles, and responsibilities. When the structure/system is installed, and meets
the environment addressing both steady and non-steady service, the onus for through life operations
is supposedly transferred to the operations/maintenance departments. There is at this stage little
recourse to the designer who may now be more interested in the next project, and so there is rarely
any follow through. Any sensible suggestions at this stage will be frowned upon and often
inadmissible. The best time for constructive design comment is clearly at concept or front end
engineering design (FEED), even up to detailed drawings stage. However materials/corrosion input
is rarely permitted at this stage, usually because of project costings, mainly as it is often excluded at
contract write-up stage. It is strongly contended that such review is vital, and that bid preparers,
project managers/ coordinators, and ultimately regulators should be made fully aware of the possible
consequences. Design modifications, retrofit, rehabilitation, investigations etc at later stages can
become very expensive and negatively received.
The whole ideal, regarding asset integrity management has now become much more pronounced
as deepwater ventures consolidate. Facility managers need therefore to make the case for such
input sooner rather than later, and this is already happening with considerable success. Major
industrial projects are utilizing advanced asset management techniques as business initiatives 7,8
and this will no doubt continue. However it will probably be the economic forces of deepwater oil
and gas, which will provide the prime moving catalyst for, accelerated growth in this area. In the
Gulf of Mexico region this has already become more important as the MMS/USCG regulations
evolve. The introduction of the MMS defined Potential Incidents of Non-Compliance’s (PINC)
listings is a powerful example of such impact. 9 The listings are actually for inspector guidance
but should serve as warning flags to the operator. And of particular note are the PINC series
G #‘s 110-113, which focus on the need for safe workmanlike operations regarding the lease,
equipment and associated facilities; G-111 in particular addresses corrosion and inspection detail,
including interpreted links to design. Needless to say policing of these criteria will be more
pronounced as we venture into deeper fields, with greater manning levels, and more public
sensitivity. And as with safety cases elsewhere, the statutory body interests are directed to the
achievement of performance setting goals or end objectives, and not so much the means. The
rationales described by the MMS 7,9, 10 and the market place11,13 may therefore be construed as
directives to assert integrity management.
METHODOLOGY
The starting point for the RB-CIM 10 step methodology is the adapted bathtub failure curve, Figure
1 which attempts to correlate failure frequency, fitness for purpose and investment. Specific curves
are case dependent and not generally repeated across facilities. However it is the precursor to the
new methodology offered, Figure 2, by virtue of its ability to focus attention when and where
needed. The 10 steps follow a logical plan, which is tailored to counter known weak points in the
overall life cycle. This is also demonstrated per examples submitted later. The principles are based
on the evolution of North Sea and GOM trends by history and experience, as illustrated by the
annotation of the failure distribution with some typically expected milestones through plant life
Primarily the discovery of new or more potent forms of existing mechanisms of failure may be
interpreted when new realms of environments or operations are entered, and deepwater campaigns
certainly qualify for this. A sizeable percentage of existing facilities world wide are now in this
arena, and of particular note, may be the more domineering localized, microbial, wear/fretting,
CRA-hydrogen damage under CP, stagnant pocket, and complex flow related corrosion
mechanisms. The major problems are usually perceived as being external but the harsher reservoir
conditions in deepwater fields, and aging pipeline infrastructure, provoke a greater inclusion for
internal corrosion.
Technology Drivers.
Also as technology has advanced over the years, pushing design envelopes to greater stressing
loads, pressures, temperatures and flow velocities, a new silent parameter the litigation function has
also arrived. Leading even to legal fund allocations within budgets to reserve a protection caveat.
Most company warranties for equipment are active for the early running-in period or commissioning
phase, however some are now omitting liability for any corrosion related failure, others limit their
liability to the value of the project consultation fee, even though the consequences of a mishap may
be horrendous. Some seek global protection in limiting liability to a single country or jurisdiction,
and others more recently will overtly disclaim responsibility for their findings. In other words the
ground rules are shifting as risks particularly within deep waters are increasing and it is now almost
a question of being smart to outsmart. Not ideal but perhaps understandable; still technology presses
on and important fitness for purpose criteria, though highly subjective, need to be quantified.
One such method may be via banding profiles see Figure 3, and an awareness of the (often
unwritten) tolerable level of failures or planned shutdowns. It is likely that not all problem areas or
threshold values will be identifiable or foreseen but it should be the intention to have them mostly
manageable, using where appropriate risk based techniques, with iterative process revisions on an
ongoing basis. Under difficult conditions where there is a shortage of experience or data, perhaps
with a relatively new alloy under unique exposure conditions, the loop assists the use of derivations
from across systems, or risk based estimates via focused efforts, and good documentation. In this
way parallel testing/trials and knowledge accumulation will give the best opportunity for a positive
merging of all findings. The approach should also discourage the passing-on of anticipated problem
areas to other divisions, future operations, next years budget etc, since technical assessments and
program adjustments will be better visualized within the bigger picture.
Timing and Hindsight.
The point at which such a risk based strategy should be introduced is debatable, in reality anytime
from start to finish is acceptable, but it seems most valuable to engage parallel to design. If not then
for new facilities at or soon after start-up in order to maximize added value and productivity. 7,11,12
For older systems, it may come into effect soon after a problem recognition area or site failure,
whereupon the desire to continue production unabated invokes an organized (or often unorganized)
risk based decision process. 12 The discrete ten risk oriented steps proposed, refer Figure 2, have
been formulated to be logical, and give quantifiable improvements within a cost-effective action
plan. The procedures once in place can self-drive the key steps viz., failure history assessment,
design re-appraisal, risk assessment, inspection matrix prioritization, NDE implementation, survey
data interpretation, predictive trending, corrosion/integrity statement, practical fit-for-purpose
solutions, extended verification, validation and continuous positive feedback. In all cases the output
must be improved reliability, ongoing plant operational and future design improvements. In
principle the loop is considered near equivalent to hindsight in action. The following paragraphs
attempt to expand on some of the important matters within this methodology.
Regulatory Issues
Generally over the past few years, there has been an underlying trend of the oil companies; focusing
on core business and moving away from corrosion studies largely for economic reasons. However
the main Regulatory bodies such as, MMS/USCG and UK-HSE seem to be moving towards greater
emphasis in this area, largely due to statistically corroborated concerns regarding levels and types of
failures observed. 2,6,7, 13,14 Hopefully at some stage soon there will be a natural convergence of
trends. In order to assist with resolution protocols it seems that the leading authorities have accepted
that best, safe, economically balanced practices per corrosion management /control in the industry
may be risk related. 10, 15 Though there are some inherent concerns regarding possible compromise
of plant integrity 7,16 and these will ostensibly only be allayed with focused R&D, and the
accumulation of more experience with risk based systems. Presently it is also noted that most such
developments are in fact land based, this means that access, response and escape can be pursued
relatively easily. This is not the case for deepwater projects, whereupon optimum checks and
balances cannot always be taken for granted. Thus the urgent need for greater cognizance of up-
front and operational means to fill this void, hence the new methodology.
Inevitably high volume risk analyses have in the past often engaged complex/expensive databases or
models, much to the chagrin of operators, who do not always see value for money. Frequently these
tie the client into an unhealthy “marriage of convenience” with the software supplier. Needless to
say this over reliance on packages/ expert systems can tend to, encourage belief in the numbers, and
inhibit probing inquisition, and may have the longer-term effect of restricting lateral thought and
innovative engineering.
The loop presents a closely considered course of action, and a new more radical, cost effective
approach, the guidance is practical and risk based to restrain any burgeoning effects. It has been said
that nothing focuses the mind more than a signature and the sequence, revert to Figure 2, formalizes
recognized best practices, validation, and clear auditable decision making processes, all within a
team based approach. Greatest multidisciplinary group motivation is realized when all parties can
reap the potential rewards, and this case is no exception. As a corollary needless to say when things
do go astray the same parties must share in the negative aspects too, the logic being that all critical
decisions must be consensus based.
Sound information exchange at all levels is of paramount importance, but with the advent of e-mail,
presents no logistical problems. The loop provokes a live system re-evaluation status, and
knowledge updating ethic, and enforces due diligence. Where appropriate, solutions should be
ALARP-Risk based, with good documented feedback control. This approach should encourage a
natural tendency to meet set performance goals and regulations, and may in reality offer a viable
option against liability concerns, since all parties are empowered, in fact obliged to have input.
Engineering Suitability
The operating environment is a moving variable, often changing erratically as the reservoir/well
dynamics alter and service continues. Thus engineering suitability and fitness for purpose will also
see a moving target. These must cover non-service conditions such as transients/ shut-ins/
excursions etc, (hence the term purpose is actually preferred to service) as an all encompassing
through life stipulation. To address this matter, the internal and external environments must be
considered per best information sourced; review of the design basis criteria is also useful but
remains a constant and thus often not updated for completeness. Any onerous changes which may
catch the attention of operators, third party reviewers, or certification authorities are often received
with consternation, with everyone wanting to go forward without penalty since critical items are
already installed.
The above scenario is a recurring dilemma, probably most effectively managed using an RB-CIM
type philosophy, since this would allow a vehicle for all interested parties to have input from the
beginning but at the same time take responsibility via consensus and traceability. The service data
accrued will examine at minimum all vital concerns regarding internal and external modes
(continuous or intermittent), normal or steady operating conditions, identification of abnormal
operating- temperatures, pressures, velocities, pH, chemical injection etc, presence of insulation,
subjection to temporary contaminants, and the periodicity’s of each. The first pass analyses may be
performed using the standard operating temperatures and pressures entered against each item of
equipment listed, and this usually approximates to the design basis, Figure 4. The loop also provides
valuable focus to the application of ALARP to material selection leak path criteria as well as
component leak or failure path criteria. And perhaps challenge other hitherto unaddressed areas
such as impending ultra long term ( >40 year) life cycle –age effects such as plausible
effects/variances per critical material properties.
Appropriate theoretical and process simulations may also be used, and subsequent iterations would
lead to improving value analyses. Where no such detail is forthcoming, suitable best risk based
estimates may be agreed, quantified, or if appropriate modeled. The feedback within the loop will
ensure continual improvement at subsequent passes/cycles of the methodology. Alarm flags may be
raised to define threshold values. The approach if applied correctly and in good faith will ensure
best-latest-safe-knowledge usage, without dominance by any single group.
Failure Mechanisms
At first project contact the question of failure status and frequency must be addressed, see Figure 2.
This is key to success, failure modes the end result of inadequate design, engineering performance,
or low efficiency are defined by considering the combined effects of the operating environment, and
circumstances upon each item, and the total integrated system. This is not easy, the corrosion
related failure modes must include all possible mechanisms, 12 such as pitting, crevice, stress
related - SCC/HIC/HE, corrosion fatigue, FAC/erosion, impingement/cavitation, CUI, dissimilar
metal /galvanic attack, COMP-other compatibility issues, MIC, scaling/deposit cells,
fretting/vibration, intergranular/selective phase, mechanical dominated (Hs, Rs, Ts, τ, etc) surface
condition related (Ff, Rx, Cw, etc.) and uniform thinning and so on. A more complete listing of
mechanisms and pertinent parameters characterized in the program are shown in Table 1. Modern
applied techniques are now practically forensic in detail, and carefully characterizing such high risk
parameters is often do-able within reasonable budget 12.
The working loop resources would thus identify the most likely root cause of failure or damage,
and assist suitable counter measures beyond basic corrosion allowances offered by design. This is
a major challenge of persuasion, since the tendency is for designers to assume the corrosion
allowance is the panacea. In reality this only solves the problem of general or uniform corrosion.
The project managers, engineers and field inspectors must have full recognition of all likely
corrosion phenomena through briefings or teach-in, thus ensuring appreciation, accuracy and
reliability of actions. The loop will also help address any unique vulnerability identified, such as
liquid metal embrittlement /caustic /sweet /sour cracking which may come into play at later
stages. This would be done in accordance with pertinent standards, company specifications, and
proprietary techniques per latest industrial experience accrued. Thus whilst zero failures may not
strictly be possible, the approach can help eliminate the corrosion surprises, which are always a
daunting prospect.
In many instances the failure mechanism is unknown/uncertain, or of a mixed nature, and not
easily recognized. In such cases provided the source and site can be located
(a formidable task itself) it is feasible for the strategy to specify a tactical anomaly management.
Thus allowing very close monitoring of the feature perhaps using computer driven ultrasonic C-
scan type mapping in order to pre-empt actual failure- the so called “just in time” approach. 14
Other modern techniques such as B-scan, advanced thermal imaging and creative sidestream or
bypass/removable spool technologies may also be appropriate, often as screening tools used
alongside daring rope access methods. The tie-in between predictive goal setting corrosion
management, within reappraisal and extended verification stimulates innovation, maximizes data
accuracy/repeatability/auditability, and ensures credit and approval where due, and that
recognition and responsibility, are not lost in the human equation.
APPLICATION
The 10 step loop is practical, experience, and risk driven; with emphasis on safety and tendency
towards being fail safe. Upon application the system enforces a stop and verify status at any time if
safety were compromised in any way. Theoretical and probabilistic modeling may be referred but is
not accepted as overriding. The heart of the assessment will be the plant walk round/ close visual
and this will invoke updating drawings and inspection isometrics. All critical decisions will require
checklist make up, review, and competent person sign off. This is sometimes avoided under the
unsupported guise of additional time-cost burdens; the loop process can and has, demonstrably
made this a compelling overview rather than unnecessary detail which may hinder project
schedules.
The program is an aiding dynamic, offering a live condition of plant at any instance, forming the
backbone of the integrity decision making process. The approach allows the lessee full
management capability if so desired, thus avoiding the hassles of software tie-in/upgrades/service
agreements etc. The key is impartial, efficient, transparent, free flow of data to allow critical
assessments, revisions, feedback, etc. However the use of an impartial third party project
management would give solid edge and have advantages.
The team based group could be internal with external input or any combination thereof, however
deemed appropriate. Ultimately if the plant runs at high reliability with few unscheduled shut
downs, no surprise leaks, and no regulatory/safety /environmental issues, all players in the loop are
into win-win. In principle the know-how generated by the process can be applied to any project
whether Offshore, Marine, Pipeline or Industrial. The strategic level logic is essentially the same.
The specific methods at tactical level will vary, depending on specific undertakings to assure
integrity against corrosion threats. The aim always being to resolve production and shutdown
conflicts within the framework of predefined performance objectives, with practical fit for purpose
actions.
Performance Goals.
General guidelines will be performance goal setting, and based on agreed safety critical items,
however there may be instances where RB-CIM will gravitate towards a knowledge based
prescriptive ruling; such as for example the selection of highly specific anodes for retrofit CP or
structure survey locations. The actual level of success would be measured by any combination of
predetermined objectives such as:
• Monitoring facility/unit efficiency and general condition
• Reduced downtime/increased productivity
• Reduced failures and frequencies
• Reduction in general and localized corrosion rates
• Reduction in perceived and calculated risk evaluations
The original and mainstay aspects of the RBCIM are the design reappraisal and extended
verification, and the modern day prompt for this has been the critical need to maintain integrity
under applications whereupon the margins for error are constrained. Up until recently most
corrosionists would accept the given design landing on their desk without question, this barrier
needs to be broken. If the majority of engineering problems can usually be related back to the
drawing board, then it stands to reason that the first and most powerful tool in the process is the
design reappraisal discipline for both new build and old build. Essentially third party verification
type reviews have been ongoing for certification, classification, and good workmanship purposes
for many years, but with limited predictive content in the context of corrosion/degradation
phenomena. Such checking nearly always being against identified standards or codes alone.
Extended verification is therefore pushing the envelope to the next level.
The loop logic is to focus the reasoning taking full cognizance of predictive through-life factors.
The concept examines performance goals and prognoses, beyond minimum code including
management of excursions beyond design envelope, and would draw solidly from historical risk
oriented experience, and knowledge based extrapolations. Thus covering alert for known but often
difficult to quantify problem areas such as waxing/hydration, sand content, stagnance,
embrittlement etc often invoking consideration of the formerly secondary parameters such as Rx,
Rs, τ, Ts, etc, which often play part in root cause failures at extreme design boundaries and beyond.
And since the scope of design is often based on uncorroborated reservoir conditions, a means to
give allowance for operations outwith the design envelope must therefore be included for deepwater
applications.
Timing and methods guidance. Design Reappraisal at the beginning and Extended
Verification towards the end of the loop when latest corrosion and excursion profiling data are
describable seems logical. But it is accepted that case specificity can override, and so the loop is
flexible, and some re-arrangement regarding where and when to do these critical steps is possible.
The extent of defining excursions is difficult and may be quite subjective, however a good basis can
be found from previous in-house or cross operator experiences. The caveat being that the loop
insists on all such profiles to be operator defined and agreed. The important point is not to ignore
them, reappraisal as defined will ensure that the necessary attention albeit demanding, is given.
Close adherence to the loop is expected to ensure that such decisions are ordered and self improving
upon iteration. The asset-holder or lessee will recognize the advantages for maintaining integrity
and performance. And as such since design documentation must exist by law in most jurisdictions,
the intent is to review selective/available plans and not necessarily detailed P&ID‘s etc, for the risk
based inspection monitoring. The added value is in the objectives to minimize or eliminate
corrosion problems and not to censure or reprove the design, which seems on occasion to be a
design house concern. The end result will invariably increase stature of the design, and help
maintain critical integrity for production continuity. The campaign should be directed where
possible at existing client procedures and specifications, and may thus be developed as a powerful
superimposing rather than replacing predictive tool, aimed at giving all parties greater peace of
mind for continued life cycle operation.
Where insufficient information exists records should be examined and system walk through used to
generate “ as-installed/existing drawings”, at the same time an NDE orientated baseline survey must
be carried out to augment the data available, and to facilitate comparative data. Specific regulatory
requirements and commercial standards must in all cases be unambiguously defined with client
participation in the review. It can be argued that most materials and corrosion related problems
could be addressed using published data alone. However the advantages of reviewing company
specific design/operations data via independent route, and engaging the company field engineers
can be an order of magnitude greater; often giving the opportunity to identify events in a chain of
actions which could be precursors to failure. Thus if we accept this then the only real hindrance to
resolution is access and motivation. This is true knowledge management, and the application of RB-
CIM can provide the meaningful purveyor.
Personnel and Resources
All RB-CIM plays must buy into the defined scheme objectives. To effect this, some team cross
training will be necessitated and the immediate challenge is to select either engineers for corrosion
training or to pick corrosion specialists for suitable structures/mechanical/ process training. The
answer may be critical since the results at the end of the day must guarantee true multi-disciplinary
objectivity. This is an important issue since experience has shown time and again that resolution to
problem areas is often governed by the specialism of the incumbent. Not always a healthy sign. It
would seem logical that since corrosion is by far the largest component of integrity management
then it stands to reason that the project would be best fielded by trained corrosion personnel.
Generally each discrete step in the process will where appropriate be backed up with staff cognizant
with company reports and relevant practices such as: API, ASME, NACE, BSI, etc. The findings
issued can be used by the client to enhance any compliance requirements, verification, productivity,
and indeed the commercial decision making process. This added value aspect also provides a
tangible means to preserve people worth, promote innovation, and engage the better use of existing
technology, the last of which is often cited as being a major weakness.
Typically the prioritization, inspection, monitoring, and control criteria defined within the strategy
are implemented through the development of an acceptable schedule as work planning.12, 15, 17, 18.
These should be prepared via a written scheme of detailed corrosion/ inspection, and reflect
inasmuch possible per existing company protocols to minimize costs. The inspection workscopes
(reporting templates and equipment) having been compiled using the risk based corrosion threats
identified, should also provide checklists and foreseeable apparatus requirements.12 A good
inspection baseline will ensure sound and meaningful subsequent surveys, and so effort/resources
expended at this stage will be made worthwhile. Additionally modern communication paths such as
the internet offer opportunities to efficiently enhance data review almost instantaneously. Thus
previously identified problems with time lag should be virtually eliminated.
DISCUSSION
Numerous attempts at inspection priority rankings have been successfully made over the years for
structures, pressure plant, and pipelines each with merit.7, 12, 15, 17 The method under discussion
herein may use similar means to quantify integrity, the option would be left to the duty
holder/lessee, and tend to evolve on a project specific basis. In this case at first pass, Figure 4, there
will be outputs from each of the 10 steps, however we would expect more critical outputs after
failure analyses, re-appraisal, and inspection prioritization (urgent, high, medium, low, inert -
UHMLI) risk categorization, with subset risk codings also being feasible. The relative proportions
of likely efforts are best exemplified in schematic form by Figure 5. Documenting this will provide
invaluable company specific data for subsequent passes, and indeed future projects targeting both
better predictive prevention, and less reactive cures.
At second pass client – drawings, inventory/line lists, operating max/min temperatures, pressures,
flow velocities, piping and material specifications, etc will be more closely scrutinized, as will
service appropriation -sweet/sour, process stream chemistry target and actual, pH, chloride, sulfate,
carbonate content etc. And in some instances therefore unquantified data may be requested, and this
could engage additional specific zone monitoring of local profiles, e.g. pressure, temperature, or
velocity as suggested by Figure 6 by way of example. The follow-on characterization of multiphase
fluids, and predicted zones of wettability, and stagnation are likely to provide better appreciation for
critical excursions and aggressive profiles thus leading to greater confidence levels per the selection
of inspection sites and therefore localized corrosion control. Thus the pivotal importance of the
second pass now becomes more apparent, and at this stage advanced NDE may also become more
justifiable. Similar curves may be generated for all major failure or damage scenarios.
At third pass, we would expect very meaningful improvements, and major returning trends on
investment, perhaps up to ~30% reduction of inspection/maintenance schedules being achievable
over ~ 2-5 years. The continually improved risk based, overlaying inspection matrix Figure 7, will
be the main deliverable, hopefully yielding the performance, failure and damage control required for
high risk deepwater ventures. As with all new approaches the results will be highly dependent on
the teams which execute the loop. A near full time expertise covering corrosion /mechanical/
process/risk and structural disciplines is vital to drive the working loop. The capital investment is
not high (maintainable within a small percentage of the pre-determined running budget), and it is
argued that since the methodology will be an overlay onto existing company procedures (and staff)
the cost/time/resource burdens should not be restrictive.
Case Examples.
A range of illustrative offshore, deepwater examples are listed below. Almost wholly, the urgency
of each project has been stimulated by virtue of the deepwater perspective, usually leading to the
generation of an integrated investigation and survey report.
• Pipeline/Umbilical Excursions - quantifying damage control
• Water Injection System Heat Exchanger failures –design anomalies
• Ballast Tank Integrity Issues-spalled coatings and waterline corrosion attack
• Corrosion control/CP design reviews-selection of representative parameters for deepwater
applications.
• Produced Water System Failures-confirm the mechanisms and address
• Cooling System Failures-under designed treatment regimes
• Sea Water Systems – incompatible alloys and the under-specified selection of materials
• Presently working with GOM client with a five year plan- covering various systems.
CONCLUSIONS
The key features of the RB-CIM program are the detailed failure history, design reappraisal,
practically balanced risk prioritization, focused inspection and extended verification. The
methodology could if used as intended, provide the concerted effort to make a major difference in
supporting deepwater developments, in particular where hazop, safety, environmental and financial
margins are tight.
The methodology will ensure that corrosion prevention and control is well addressed, and that
practical fit for purpose solutions are planned, and less reactive further down the line. The 10-step
loop can be constructively applied to structures, pipelines, subsea developments, topsides facilities,
specific equipment or can be directed at selective failure investigations or mechanisms.
The principles apply to new and existing facilities, the strategy and matrix generation should focus
attention to urgent and high risk areas of safety critical items only, thus streamlining effort. Close
adherence to the loop will ensure that practical, theoretical and empirical judgements tend to
converge with re-iteration. Ultimately sanctioning the target of zero corrosion surprises.
REFERENCES
1. D.E. Milliams K. V. Gelder, Corrosion Management NACE- MP, November1996
2. G.R. Edwards, W. Hanzalek, S. Liu, D.L. Olsen, C. Smith (Eds)- International Workshop
Advanced Materials for Marine Construction, New Orleans Feb 1997
3. B. Singh, S. Donaldson, J. McKechnie, Corrosion Engineering in Offshore Applications,
NACE/NFK Industrial Conference Sandefjord, Norway, June 1993.
4. H.P.E.Helle, Constraints for Low Cost Reliability in Plants, NACE-MP, March 1993
5. B. Singh Corrosion Management-Strategy and Control, Second NACE Asia Conference,
Singapore Sept 1994
6. R.J. Horvath, The role of the Corrosion Engineer in the Development and Application of Risk
Based Inspection for Plant Inspection NACE-MP, July 1998.
7. MMS/CSM Workshop Corrosion Control Marine Structures & Pipelines, Galveston, Texas,
February 1999
8. J. F. Rau Prioritizing Maintenance by Integrity Analysis NACE-MP, January 1996
9. MMS National Potential Incident of Non-Compliance Guidelines Dec 1998 &Revision
Sept2000
10. MMS Dept of the Interior- Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 250
11. Press and Journal-Offshore Journal, Aberdeen UK Aug 24th 2000
12. Deepwater Corrosion Services-In House RBI Projects 1995-2000
13. M. Mustafa, MS Thesis, Asset Management, Robert Gordons University, UK, October 1998
14. R.F. Herning, Integrated Management of Offshore Oil & Gas Fields in Real Time, OTC paper#
10738/Houston, Texas, May 1999.
15. J.T. Reynolds, Risk Based Inspection-Where Are We Today, NACE Corrosion 2000
Orlando/Fla. Paper# 00690
16. M.T. Trainer, Major Hazards and Emergency planning, HSE Laboratory, UK, March 1998.
17. J. Kallaby, P.E. O‘Connor, OTC paper# 7487, Houston, Texas, May 1994.
18. JD Garber, A. Alverado, R.H. Winters, Study Tracks Internal-Corrosion Trends in Aging
Pipelines Oil & Gas Journal, Vol 98, #13 March 2000.
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES CAPTIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
SYMBOLS
Ecorr- Ff-Friction Factor htc-Heat Transfer Coefficient
Corrosion Potential Hs-Hoop Stress
Nu-Nusselt # P-Pressure Re-Reynolds#
Rx-Surface Roughness Rs-Residual Stress T-Temperature
Ts-Torsion Stress τ-Shear Stress V-Volume
v-Velocity Ws-Working stress Ys-Yield Stress
Step 1. Step 2. Step 3.
Historical Review Design Reappraisal Develop Strategy
Failures, Damage, against Service Walk Systems
Inspection & Excursions Assess Practices
Step 5. Step 4.
Perform Inspection Develop RBI
& NDT Matrices
U,H,M,L,I
RE-ITERATE &
FEEDBACK
LESSONS
LEARNED Step 6. Step 7.
Data Interpretation Reporting
Data Basing Produce Prioritized
Action Lists