Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Grant Hosie
 -- 1762 2023-01-10 11:28:45 |
2 layout
Camila Xu
 Meta information modification 1762 2023-01-10 11:34:53 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Amaechi, C.V.;  Hosie, G.;  Reda, A. Industry Guidance on Pipeline Integrity Management. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39956 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
Amaechi CV,  Hosie G,  Reda A. Industry Guidance on Pipeline Integrity Management. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39956. Accessed May 18, 2024.
Amaechi, Chiemela Victor, Grant Hosie, Ahmed Reda. "Industry Guidance on Pipeline Integrity Management" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39956 (accessed May 18, 2024).
Amaechi, C.V.,  Hosie, G., & Reda, A. (2023, January 10). Industry Guidance on Pipeline Integrity Management. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39956
Amaechi, Chiemela Victor, et al. "Industry Guidance on Pipeline Integrity Management." Encyclopedia. Web. 10 January, 2023.
Industry Guidance on Pipeline Integrity Management
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/en16010098

For operators of oil and gas to save the cost of unforeseen events and risks, and to avoid unnecessary shutdowns, there is a need to have an effective subsea pipeline integrity management system. Currently a large number of subsea pipelines around the globe have already exceeded their design lives; nevertheless, they are still being operated safely, effectively and with diligent consideration towards Environmental, Health and Safety regulations, as well as international standards and best practices. In addition, many older flowlines have no permanent pigging facilities due to various design and operational limitations. For the unpiggable pipeline, the vast majority of the oil and gas operators use different inspection and monitoring techniques to provide essential integrity management data such as product chemistry, cathodic protection, electrical resistance probes and coupons, etc. However, translating such essential integrity management data into meaningful information to make crucial integrity-based decisions can be challenging.

marine hose subsea pipeline pipeline integrity management

1. Introduction

Globally, a significant number of offshore pipeline systems are operated beyond their nominal design lives. With today’s state-of-the-art integrity management processes, this is being done in a safe and efficient manner with careful consideration for Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) regulations, international codes and standards, and operator integrity management standards. In addition, many aging pipeline systems have no permanent pigging facilities, otherwise classified as “unpiggable”, which introduces integrity management challenges, particularly for subsea pipelines.
Different operators have presented some challenges of pigging from pipeline integrity management of unpiggable pipelines, dead legs and pipe sections [1][2]. The physical integrity of the pipeline system is typically assessed principally by three methods:
  • Inspection (including ILI, monitoring, and surveillance) if the pipeline is piggable.
  • Pressure testing (unpiggable pipeline).
  • Direct assessment (unpiggable pipeline). Pipelines that cannot be pigged are the most likely candidates for integrity assessment by direct assessment.
  • Other integrity assessment methods (i.e., Visual Inspection).

Subsea pipeline integrity is defined by DNV-ST-F101 [3] (as “the ability of the submarine pipeline system to operate safely and withstand the loads imposed during the pipeline life cycle”. Other relevant codes and standards describe pipeline integrity and integrity management framework from different perspectives, and indeed pipeline operators around the world have developed their own-pipeline integrity management definitions and practices. In light of that, the Pipeline Integrity Management System (PIMS) is defined as a collection of preventative measures that work together to retain the integrity of the pipeline system.
A number of recent studies on subsea pipelines and risers have addressed guidelines for their integrity management to ensure their safe operation in line with industry best practices [4][5][6]. For example, Trojette et al. [7] presented an oil operator’s integrity approach operating in the UAE, called the Zakum Development Company (ZADCO)’s approach. Due to the gas fields producing past their intended lifespan, the integrity evaluation in ageing exploration and production infrastructures, such as flowlines, collection and gathering systems, is quickly growing to be a source of concern [8][9]. Ragbu et al. [10] conducted an integrity assessment for a gas production pipeline with internal corrosion in a mature field. Rincón and González [11] presented a pipeline life extension using Integrity Management Practices with some case studies.
Pipeline integrity may be severely impacted by the gradual decrease in production flow rate over time which can amplify internal corrosion issues [12][13][14]. Oxidation, bacterial activity, and localised corrosion, including those cause by deposits, are all factors for concern of pipeline integrity. The challenge in managing the integrity of pipelines, flowlines, and gathering systems, is to accurately predict the rate of internal corrosion, to identify the size, and location of the potential corrosion threat and perform the required assessments to understand the fitness for service (FFS) status. A FFS assessment is a currently methodology used to determine a pipeline’s capacity to operate with known defects, and to facilitate any necessary corrective action for maintaining safe pipeline operation while maximising the pipeline’s life cycle performance [15][16][17][18][19][20][21], however, there are other industry developments and philosophies on subsea pipeline integrity management currently taken into consideration as industry best practice [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Therefore, there is benefit in presenting an operator’s perspective on this subject area which is important in developing industry guidelines.
Oil and gas is a crucial component of global energy demand and will continue to play an important role contributing to rising energy needs globally, as well as facilitating emerging and developing technologies as part of the future energy transition. While fossil fuels continue to have a high demand, the importance of having safe and sustainable operations in the oil and gas industry have never been more important [34][35][36][37][38]. Subsea pipelines, due to their strong track-record and otherwise necessary function in subsea gathering systems, will continue to be relied on heavily to realize energy production from oil and gas reserves. It is because of their importance that there is a need to understand the research state-of-the-art with respect to their integrity management. Where there is a substantial quantity of research published each year, there is a there is a risk that knowledge gaps develop amongst operators, and those companies on which they rely.

The purpose of this research is to present an operator’s perspective on the review of subsea pipeline integrity management systems. This research also presents a holistic approach for implementing the necessary integrity management tools which have been successfully executed to facilitate the safe and sustainable operation and maintenance of the pipelines. The research also provides a review of mature pipeline integrity management and underlines the practical steps and systems required to maintain the condition of aging assets. This research aims to present a comprehensive understanding of pipeline integrity management, including those which are being operated towards or beyond their original design life, and those that do not include the facilities for performing pigging and typical in-line inspection activities.

2. Industry Guidance on Pipeline Integrity Management

The Pipeline Integrity Management System (PIMS) is intended to highlight the industry practices supplemented by “Industry Best Practice” and thereby assist to certain oil and gas operator to prevent loss of technical integrity, and maximize system availability. The purpose of the PIMS is:
  • To promote high standards and continuous improvement.
  • To ensure safe and reliable delivery of the products to their customers, without adverse effects on employees, the public, customers, the environment, and incident free operation.
  • To ensure that all reasonably practicable steps are taken to prevent loss of technical integrity.
  • To establish adequate controls over relevant business activities with the aim of achieving incident-free working conditions.
  • To ensure any future legislative compliance.
At the same time, incorporation of risk management within other corporate integrated management systems, i.e., internal control or systems to be followed in terms of identification of the stakeholders, management roles and responsibilities, etc., was being achieved. It was therefore recognized that the pipeline industry’s best practice follows:
  • Implementation and (ISO, OSHAS, etc.) certification of integrated management systems, in particular the adoption of risk management and subsequent risk-based inspection and maintenance regimes.
This approach (risk-based integrity management) has been adopted in occidental countries by major oil and gas operators, predominantly as a result of national legislation, and is presently being implemented within regions of pipeline operation on a global basis.
The DNV-ST-F101 [3] standard provides criteria and guidance on concept development, design, construction, operation, and abandonment of Submarine Pipeline Systems. The standard defines subsea pipeline integrity as “the ability of the submarine pipeline system to operate safely and withstand the loads imposed during the pipeline life cycle”. The standard is supported by the recommended practice document DNV RP F116 Integrity Management of Submarine Pipeline Systems [39] which states “Pipeline system integrity is defined as the pipeline system’s structural/containment function. This is the submarine pipeline system’s ability to operate safely and withstand the loads imposed during the pipeline lifecycle. If a system loses this ability, a failure has occurred”. Other relevant codes and standards (e.g., ASME B31.8S, API RP 1160), describe pipeline integrity and the integrity management framework in different perspectives, and indeed, many pipeline operators around the world have developed their own pipeline integrity management standards and practices using these comprehensive industry guidance documents.
The primary aim of the PIMS is to ensure the pipeline systems are suitable for the intended purpose and continued service. A secondary function of the system is to aid compliance with any future government regulations governing the pipeline systems.
A Pipeline Integrity Management System (PIMS) seeks to:
  • Ensure safe and reliable delivery of the products to their customers, without adverse effects on employees, the public, customers, the environment and incident free operation.
  • Ensure that all reasonably practicable steps are taken to prevent loss of technical integrity.
  • Establish adequate controls over relevant business activities with the aim of achieving incident-free working conditions.
  • Ensure any future legislative compliance.
  • Promote high standards and continuous improvement.

Anomalies within the context of PIMS are defects and damage to the pipe that could impact pipeline integrity. Anomalies include, but are not necessarily limited to:
  • External corrosion metal loss.
  • Internal corrosion metal loss and erosion.
  • SCC (Sulphide Corrosion Cracking) colonies.
  • Dents.
  • Gouges.
  • Cracks and crack-like defects (principally in welds).
  • Buckles.
  • Freespans.
  • Sinkage and floatation.
  • Corrosion Under Insulation.
The Anomaly Management System defines:
  • The roles and responsibilities of the Assessment/Inspection Engineers, the Pipeline Integrity Engineers (including Corrosion Engineers), and Operations in the management, administration, and progressing of anomaly resolution
  • How anomaly registers are administered
  • How an anomaly’s severity is assessed
  • How the anomaly is reviewed
  • How remediation of the anomaly is undertaken
  • How the remediation actions are reviewed
  • The reporting and progressing and closing out of activities arising from the resolution of anomalies
Integrity-related actions are required during all stages of the pipeline system life cycle. These stages are:
  • Design.
  • Construction.
  • Commissioning.
  • Operation and Maintenance (including modifications).
  • Decommissioning.
  • Abandonment (Removal/Recovery).
PIMS relies on the interaction between these management systems and their interaction with the Operational and Maintenance activities to maximise pro-active identification of condition degradation and failure modes, thereby assuring integrity of the pipeline system.
During operation a PIMS provides the basis for managing the residual risks and maintenance of the pipeline to provide an efficient operation and verification that the pipeline is fit for continued operation. The PIMS process is not just about the condition of the pipeline and the integrity review it’s also about operations. Operations personnel have a key role in maintaining pipeline integrity as a day-to-day operation such as pigging, etc. Integrity review should look at the effectiveness of these activities. If the pipeline systems have not had any formal assessments for a number of years and the condition is unknown, a baseline survey shall be required.

References

  1. Dutta, R.; Al Suwaidi, I.M. Corrosion management challenges of non-piggable pipelines, sections & dead legs. In Proceedings of the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 9–12 November 2015.
  2. Van Os, M.T.; Achterbosch, G.G.J.; Stallenberg, G.A.J.; Van Mastrigt, P.; Horstink, H.; Dam, A.M. A structural reliability based assessment of non-piggable pipelines. In Proceedings of the CORROSION 2005, Houston, TX, USA, 3–7 April 2005; Available online: https://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-abstract/CORR05/All-CORR05/NACE-05151/115200 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  3. DNV-ST-F101; Offshore Standard: Submarine Pipeline Systems. Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2021.
  4. Reda, A.; Rawlinson, A.; Sultan, I.A.; Elgazzar, M.A.; Howard, I.M. Guidelines for safe cable crossing over a pipeline. Appl. Ocean. Res. 2020, 102, 102284.
  5. Amaechi, C.V.; Reda, A.; Ja’e, I.A.; Wang, C.; An, C. Guidelines on composite flexible risers: Monitoring techniques and design approaches. Energies 2022, 15, 4982.
  6. Amaechi, C.V.; Reda, A.; Kgosiemang, I.M.; Ja’e, I.A.; Oyetunji, A.K.; Olukolajo, M.A.; Igwe, I.B. Guidelines on asset management of offshore facilities for monitoring, sustainable maintenance, and safety practices. Sensors 2022, 22, 7270.
  7. Trojette, M.Z.; Al Hammadi, M.; Al Alawi, F. Subsea pipelines integrity management–ZADCO approach. In Proceedings of the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 10–13 November 2014.
  8. Rao, A.R.; Rao, S.S.; Sharma, T.; Krishna, K.R. Asset integrity management in onshore & offshore-enhancing reliability at KGD6. In Proceedings of the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, 28–30 March 2012.
  9. Gabetta, G.; Morrea, S.; Travaglia, F.; Cioffi, P.; Monaco, S. Integrity management of pipelines transporting hydrocarbons: An integrated approach. In Proceedings of the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 9–12 November 2015.
  10. Raghu, D.; Pots, B.F.; Amacker, D.; Nguyen, M.H.T. Integrity assessment and management of a gas production line with internal corrosion in a mature field. In Proceedings of the CORROSION 2006, San Diego, CA, USA, 12–16 March 2006; Available online: https://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-abstract/CORR06/All-CORR06/NACE-06173/118133 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  11. Rincón, P.; González, F. Case studies of successful pipeline life extension using integrity management practices. In Proceedings of the CORROSION 2007, Nashville, TN, USA, 11–15 March 2007; Available online: https://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-abstract/CORR07/All-CORR07/NACE-07141/118490 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  12. Al-Shamari, A.; Al-Sulaiman, S.; Al-Mithin, A.; Jarragh, A.; Prakash, S.S. Corrosion monitoring for Kuwait’s pipeline network system. In Proceedings of the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 10–13 March 2013.
  13. Marsh, J.; Duncan, P.C. Pipeline internal corrosion assessment, fitness for purpose and future life prediction. In Proceedings of the CORROSION 2010, San Antonio, TX, USA, 14–18 March 2010; Available online: https://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-abstract/CORR10/All-CORR10/NACE-10053/126707 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  14. Okata, S.; Ogbulie, S.U.; George, T. How corrosion management system enhances pipeline integrity in oil and gas exploitation and production company in the Niger Delta of Nigeria Sylvanus Okata and Smart Ogbulie. In Proceedings of the CORROSION 2003, San Diego, CA, USA, 16–20 March 2003; Available online: https://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-abstract/CORR03/All-CORR03/NACE-03165/114110 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  15. Goodfellow, R. Development of an equipment integrity management system for the long lake Sagd commercial facility. In Proceedings of the CORROSION 2008, New Orleans, LA, USA, 16–20 March 2008; Available online: https://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-abstract/CORR08/All-CORR08/NACE-08672/119147 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  16. Hayes, J. Lessons for effective integrity management from the San Bruno pipeline rupture. Process. Saf. Prog. 2015, 34, 202–206.
  17. Goodfellow, R.; Jonsson, K. Chapter 1: Pipeline integrity management systems (PIMS). In Oil and Gas Pipelines; Winston Revie, R., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
  18. Leewis, K.G. Chapter 41: Integrity management of pipeline facilities. In Oil and Gas Pipelines; Winston Revie, R., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
  19. CCPS. Chapter 9: Equipment-specific integrity management. In Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems; American Institute of Chemical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  20. Mora, R.; Hopkins, P.; Cote, E.; Shie, T. Chapter 3: Elements of a pipeline integrity management system (PIMS). In Pipeline Integrity Management Systems: A Practical Approach; ASME Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
  21. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Pipeline Integrity and Risk Management, 1st ed.; Gulf Professional Publishing; Elsevier Publisher Inc.: Oxford, UK, 2014.
  22. Health and Safety Executive. Guidance on Risk Assessment for Offshore Installations; Offshore information sheet No. 3/2006; HSE: London, UK, 2006. Available online: https://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/sheet32006.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  23. Health and Safety Executive. Guidance of Management of Ageing and Thorough Reviews of Ageing Installations; Offshore information sheet No. 4/2009; HSE: London, UK, 2009. Available online: http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/infosheets/is4-2009.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  24. Health and Safety Executive. Managing Health and Safety in Construction: Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Guidance on Regulations; Series L153; Health and Safety Executive: London, UK, 2015; pp. 1–90. Available online: https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l153.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  25. Health and Safety Executive. Guidance for the Topic Assessment of the Major Accident Hazard Aspects of Safety Cases; HSE: London, UK, 2006; Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.419.1267&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  26. Oil & Gas UK. Guidelines on the Management of Ageing and Life Extension of Offshore Structures—Issue 1 April 2012; Oil & Gas UK (OGUK): London, UK, 2014; Available online: https://oeuk.org.uk/product/guidelines-on-the-management-of-ageing-and-life-extension-of-offshore-structures-issue-1/ (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  27. Oil & Gas UK. Guidelines on the Management of Ageing and Life Extension for UKCS Oil and Gas Installations—Issue 1 April 2012; Oil & Gas UK (OGUK): London, UK, 2012; Available online: https://oeuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/OGUK-Guidelines-on-the-Management-of-Ageing-and-Life-Extension-for-UKCS-Oil-and-Gas-Installations-Issue-1-1.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  28. Energy Institute. A Framework for Monitoring the Management of Ageing Effects on Safety Critical Elements; EI research report, 1st ed.; Energy Institute: London, UK, 2009; Available online: https://publishing.energyinst.org/__data/assets/file/0011/10280/Pages-from-Monitoring-the-management-of-ageing-effects-on-safety-critical-elements-Nov-2009.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  29. Energy Institute. Performance Standards for Structural Safety Critical Elements, 1st ed.; Energy Institute: London, UK, 2022; Available online: https://publishing.energyinst.org/topics/asset-integrity/performance-standards-for-structural-safety-critical-elements (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  30. Energy Institute. Guidelines for Management of Safety Critical Elements (SCEs), 3rd ed.; Energy Institute: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://publishing.energyinst.org/__data/assets/file/0012/690789/Pages-from-web-versionGuidelines-for-management-of-safety-critical-elements_LM2.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  31. Energy Institute. Guidelines for the Management of Safety Critical Elements, 2nd ed.; Energy Institute: London, UK, 2007; Available online: https://pdfcoffee.com/safety-critical-elements-managament-pdf-free.html (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  32. Energy Institute. Guidelines for the Identification and Management of Environmental Barriers, 2nd ed.; Energy Institute: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://publishing.energyinst.org/topics/environment/guidelines-for-the-identification-and-management-of-environmental-barriers (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  33. Energy Institute. Guidelines on the Corrosion Management of Offshore Oil and Gas Production Facilities: Addressing Asset Ageing and Life Extension (ALE), 1st ed.; Energy Institute: London, UK, 2017; Available online: https://publishing.energyinst.org/__data/assets/file/0009/305874/Sample-pages-Guidelines-corrosion-management-ALE.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  34. Sundby, T.; Anfinsen, K.A. Development of pipeline regulations in the Norwegian petroleum industry and examples of follow up. In Proceedings of the 2014 10th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada, 29 September–3 October 2014.
  35. Sundby, T.; Anfinsen, K.A. Pipeline regulations in the Norwegian petroleum industry: Experiences, follow-up and statistical summaries of incidents. In Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June 2017.
  36. British Petroleum. BP Statistical Review of World Energy-2022, 71st ed.; BP PLC: London, UK, 2022; Available online: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2022-full-report.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  37. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2021 (WEO-2021); International Energy Agency (IEA), Directorate of Sustainability, Technology and Outlooks: Paris, France, 2021; Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4ed140c1-c3f3-4fd9-acae-789a4e14a23c/WorldEnergyOutlook2021.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  38. Zhang, K.; Wang, Z.; Chen, G.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Y.; Yao, C.; Wang, J.; Yao, J. Training effective deep reinforcement learning agents for real-time life-cycle production optimization. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109766.
  39. DNV-RP-F116; Integrity management of submarine pipeline systems. Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2021.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Engineering, Petroleum; Engineering, Mechanical
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Chiemela Victor Amaechi
,
Grant Hosie
,
Ahmed Reda
View Times: 412
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 10 Jan 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback