Proactive Maintainance in Sub-Sea Gas and Oil Systems - Coursework Example

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET Electronic or manual submission UNIT ENS2170 PRINCIPLES OF INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE CODE TITLE NAME OF STUDENT RAMAN MOHIT FAMILY NAME FIRST NAME STUDENT ID NO. 10341846       NAME OF LECTURER Dr YASIR AL-ABDELI DUE DATE 22-05-15 Topic of assignment PROACTIVE MAINTAINACE IN SUB-SEA GAS AND OIL SYSTEMS Group or tutorial (if applicable) 21 Course ENGINEERING Campus JO I certify that the attached assignment is my own work and that any material drawn from other sources has been acknowledged. This work has not previously been submitted for assessment in any other unit or course. Copyright in assignments remains my property. I grant permission to the University to make copies of assignments for assessment, review and/or record keeping purposes. I note that the University reserves the right to check my assignment for plagiarism. Should the reproduction of all or part of an assignment be required by the University for any purpose other than those mentioned above, appropriate authorisation will be sought from me on the relevant form. OFFICE USE ONLY If handing in an assignment in a paper or other physical form, sign here to indicate that you have read this form, filled it in completely and that you certify as above. Signature Date 19-05-15 OR, if submitting this paper electronically as per instructions for the unit, place an ‘X’ in the box below to indicate that you have read this form and filled it in completely and that you certify as above. Please include this page in/with your submission. Any electronic responses to this submission will be sent to your ECU email address. Agreement Date       PROACTIVE MAINTAINACE IN SUB-SEA GAS AND OIL SYSTEMS Mohit RAMAN (10341846), Abdulrahman AKBAR (10327893), Roberto LOPEZ (10326067), Harold KWEE (10345933), Menglong LI (10278828) mraman@our.ecu.edu.au, afakbar@our.ecu.edu.au, rlopezsa@our.ecu.edu.au, hkwee@our.ecu.edu.au, mlli@our.ecu.edu.au School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia GROUP 21 Abstract Poor or inadequate maintenance of sub-sea systems can lead to significant detriments. It could be due to sudden breakdowns or failures that in turn may result in; deaths of workers, losses of massive investments and environmental pollution. Such losses are usually very expensive to the concerned authorities. Similar high-risk sectors include the aerospace industry and nuclear energy production sector. These industries have learned with great consequences about the importance of strict maintenance practices. The Chernobyl disaster and most recently Fukushima disaster in Ukraine and Japan respectively, have led to the development of stringent maintenance and safety policies. In order to operate safely, sub-sea systems involved in the extraction of oil and gas ought to put in place similar strict security policies. They say prevention is better than cure. Thus, maintenance practices are vital if the system is to operate with minimal losses and maximum profits (Pistole, Li & Rizzo, 2013). In that regard, proactive maintenance that does not only get based on traditional methods but also focuses on fundamental changes and utilizes technology is paramount. Traditional methods are expensive and adversely affects the profitability of the enterprise (Tsang, 1998). Proactive maintenance can get justified by the fact that the cost of maintenance is minimal compared to the losses that result from the failure of vital systems. The aim of this review, therefore, is to provide evidence that proof that breakdowns of critical systems in the sub-sea sector should get avoided at all costs. The prima facie way of achieving this is to pay keen attention to preventive maintenance and round-the-clock monitoring of systems (Mobley, 2004). With the recent advancements in technology, the above dual approach has shifted to condition based monitoring. Figure 1: Example of Sub-sea System (Bai & Bai, 2012) It is achievable now that real time data can easily get generated. The above strategies, coupled with strategic management aimed at ensuring maximum gains from the system while minimizing downtime resulting from breakdowns. Introduction The term sub-sea means central inland waters. Oil and gas subsea systems, therefore, refer to operations that take place offshore. These systems provide challenges to most maintenance departments due to the extreme locations of parts. Techniques that utilizes advanced technology have emerged as the preferred maintenance methods. The methods are both predictive and proactive in nature. The review will only focus on the use of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) and In-Line pipe inspection as the examination techniques. Among the currently preferred technologies are the use of ultrasonic and acoustic wave techniques. A Strain gauge type sensor networks will also get a review of the document. (Tore, Jorge, & Rajesh, 2013). Condition based monitoring by use of strain gauges mainly focused on metallic foil type and fiber optic gauges. Due to its real-time capabilities, condition based monitoring is preferred over other methods. Early warning systems are necessary if disasters are to be averted. Maintenance Solutions ROV Inspection Remotely operated vehicles are small submersible robots operated remotely from a command point mostly on ships close to the offshore facility. ROV’s usually gets equipped with high-tech sensors, cameras and robotic arms used to perform operations that are otherwise dangerous to humans. They are more thorough in inspection compared to humans hence can detect tiny cracks and minute damages that ordinarily gets missed during routine inspections. Figure 2: A Remotely Operated Vehicle (Bai & Bai, 2012) Some ROV’s such as the Neptune System by AGR group utilizes Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) to conduct volumetric weld inspections. Neptune system also uses compression wave transducers to provide graphic colour mapping (Kennedy & Terde, 2008). The advanced technology is handy in keeping track of crack growth and pipe corrosion. ROV’s can also be used to conduct a seabed inspection for debris that could pose a danger to underwater installations e.g. ice-bergs. The general health of sub-sea systems can thus be monitored visually as a form of preventative maintenance (Kennedy & Terde, 2008). ROV’s are the most versatile of the support equipment in that not only can it perform inspections but also can be used to repair damaged parts With the depletion of oil and gas resources, sub-sea systems are continually being pushed deeper and further offshore and, as a result, ROV’s and similar equipment have become even more important. In-Line Inspection (Pigging) It refers to the use of cylindrical devices that fed into a pipeline system to ascertain its operational conditions (Palmer & King, 2004). The ‘pig’ can analyze the interior of a pipe network using magnetic flux leakages and ultrasonic techniques (McGee, 2012). Pigging has many merits compared to other methods due to its real-time data reliance. This method operates by making use of the internal pipe pressure for movement inside the tube. The movement is monitored, and areas that need attention can be used accordingly (Bai, 2001). Figure 3: 'Pig' samples ("Contact Resources", 2014) Unlike ROV’s, pigging is only limited to inspection. Despite this limitation, in-line inspection is still preferred due to the quality of data it produces. Condition Based Monitoring Real-time data in high-risk systems provides the best preventive solution and us vital in avoiding dire consequences. Ben-Daya (2009) in his book, suggested that effective condition monitoring enables planning of maintenance practices while ensuring that unnecessary preventative tasks get avoided. Ideally, breakdowns would be prevented if condition based monitoring were Wide-spread. However, currently this method is applied only to high-risk systems. In sub-sea systems, real-time data assists in monitoring of corrosion status of pipes, water temperature and pressure and the level of fatigue in structures. Strain Gauges It is a method of examining detect elastic movements of structures. Strain gauges are of two types: 1. Metallic foil gauge. It is a traditional strain gauge method that gets made of a metallic conductor that varies its resistance to strain. The voltage produced by the strain gauge due to stress caused by the movement of structures will then be proportional to be the amount of change (Beckwith, Lienhard, & Marangoni, 2007). It enables the monitoring of small changes in movement. Figure 4: Metallic Foil Strain Gauge (Johnson, 2009) 2. Fibre optic gauge. The application of fibre optic gauge is similar to that of metallic foil gauge. The fundamental difference is the technology used. It solely relies on the fibre’s ability to transmit light. When the fibre is stretch due to movement, its light transmitting capabilities is altered. This change can be analyzed to determine both the location and magnitude of the strain (Hunt, 2008). Figure 5: Fibre Optic Strain Gauge (HammerSchmidt, 2014) The new technology has also enhanced fast real-time data transmission to offshore technicians and engineers. It enables them to carry out timely data analysis and make informed decisions (Dalbro, 2008) Fibre optic has advantages over traditional  Method; 1. It is immune to electromagnetic waves.  This interference mostly affects the  Metallic foil strain gauges. 2. Fiber optic sensors need not gets insulated from sea water ingress. 3. Unlike metallic foils, they do not  Require a lot of power and amplification. 4. Fibre optic gauges can transmit signals  Over longer distances making it more applicable to deep offshore activities. There is a greater importance in having several preventative and predictive methods compared to depending on only one. It has proven several times that traditional methods are vital in case of failure of the most high-tech equipment. A good example of merged multiple technologies is the Langled pipeline inspection project. In that project, ILI methods were used to inspect an 1176km long submerged pipeline via magnetic flux leakage sensors. (Brockhaus, Lindner, Steivoorte, Hennerkes, & Djapic –Oosterkamp, 2010). Maintenance Planning and Scheduling In order to avoid getting back to reactive maintenance practices, the maintenance department ought to plan and schedule tasks. It is done according to how critical each of them is while subsequently minimizing wear and tear on production equipment. (Mobley, 2014). In order to achieve its tasks properly, the maintenance department ought to be accorded all the necessary funds it requires. Proactive maintenance such as predictive maintenance through condition based monitoring. Both methods are the principle tools to achieve high levels of production. Case Studies This review will focus on three case studies that resulted in catastrophic losses both to human live and investments. An important fact to note is that of the three case studies, very little would need to have been done to avert the disasters that ensued. The oil platforms examined include; BP’s Deep Water Horizon, the Alexander I. Kielland and The Piper Alpha. Deep-water Horizon The relevance of this case study is to highlight eminent breakdowns in sub-sea petroleum extraction. In doing so, one can understand why high levels of reliability of subsea maintenance are necessary. Deepwater Horizon was an exploration platform located in the Gulf of Mexico roughly 400km from Houston Texas. A disaster occurred on 20th April 2010 whereby a kick-back failure occurred. Petroleum was forced up the drill string under pressure and upon reaching the surface exploded violently. The blow-out preventer failed to work properly resulting in oil spewing forth uncontrollably. It resulted in the deaths of 11 people and several others injured. The disaster also led to massive losses to the tune of 560 million USD and considerable environmental pollution. Mascarelli (2010), estimated that 470 million litres of crude oil got lost into the sea in a span of 87 days. A poor maintenance culture has received suggestions as one of the many contributory factors.  Regardless of all the factors, Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 goes to show that there are some engineering systems where failure is not an option. Stringent maintenance measures must be adhered to if disasters of that scale are to get avoided in the future. The Alexander L. Kielland. The Alexander L. Kielland was an accommodation rig in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, located approximately 320km from Dundee. On 27th March 1980, the rig capsized into the sea during a North Sea storm. There were 127 personnel on board and all perished. The platform also got lost into the sea. Figure 6: The Alexander L. Kielland disaster ("Exponent Engineering and Scientific consulting", 2010) Investigations have revealed that the ultimate cause of failure stemmed from a single support strut on one of the support pillars. The strut failed due to crack caused by cyclic fatigue loading. Poor fabrication also got blamed for the structural defect. The rig had been designed such that the failure of one tabular column would compromise the entire leg support assembly (Almar-Ness, et al., 1984). Figure 7: The Support system of the Alexander L. Kielland rig ("Wikipedia, Alexander L. Kielland", 2015) In this case, if a rigorous, preventive and predictive program were in place the imminent failure of the strut would get identified and solved. Piper Alpha Disaster Piper Alpha was a drilling, production and accommodation rig located in the British sector of the North Sea, 193km North-East from Aberdeen. The Piper Alpha disaster of July 6th, 1988 has become synonymous with a worst case scenario in terms of oil platforms disasters. The magnitude of the catastrophe has gone down as a significant event in human history. In fact, some analysts have concluded that the North Sea is never the same after the Piper Alpha disaster. The cause got attributed to a confluence of design flaws, human error and pure bad luck. These factors had nothing to do with preventative and predictive maintenance methods. Paé- Cornell (1993) attributed these cause to a disjoint of the maintenance regime from an efficient organization structure. Figure 8: The Piper Alpha disaster (“Offshore Drilling Accidents", 2006). On the fateful night, one of the condensate pumps aboard the Piper Alpha was off for re-certification. While the pipe of line A was redundant, condensate pump on line B remained active. On line B, hydrates were forming at a high rate because the anti-freeze system had failed. It caused line B to shut down automatically. A technician sent to assess the situation failed to notice any problem and reported everything as ok. The night crew further did not realize the extent in which pipe A was out of order due to unavailability of its work permit. Gas at 1100 psi then shot out of the valve and almost immediately caused an explosion (Kaasen, 1991). The condensate pump on line B that was operational failed, and the rig lost primary power. The explosion caused the deaths of 167 people out of the 226 on board. Piper Alpha disaster was a failure of procedure, planning and failure of management. Conclusion From the three case studies, it is evident that the failure of subsea engineering systems is hugely disastrous. Every maintenance department ought to apply proactive methods of disaster management as opposed to reactive measures. For instance, Piper Alpha would never have happened if strict maintenance practices got adhered. They could have just employed a more efficient means of organizing work orders that would allow cross-referencing of work permits for pumps. Subsea engineering operations must at least ensure preventative maintenance programs are in place. Inspection methods such as the use of ROV’s and In-Line control technique may be used to monitor the health of subsea installations and allow proper action to be taken. There are several proactive maintenance tools. However, these tools are insignificant if adequate planning and scheduling of maintenance operations are disregarded. Management must not regard support as a fund consuming endeavor, but a value adding service. In essence, maintenance services increase production and maximizes profits. It is important to note that maintenance is not only a matter of corporate importance, but also that of environment protection and safeguarding of resources for future generations. References. Almar-Naess, A., Haagensen, P. J., Lian, B., Moan, T., & Simonsen, T. (1984). Investigation of the Alexander L. Kielland Failure—Metallurgical and Fracture Analysis. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 106(1), 24-31. doi: 10.1115/1.3231014 Bai, Yong. (2001). Elsevier Ocean Engineering Series: Pipelines and Risers: Elsevier Science. Bai, Yong, & Bai, Qiang. (2012). Subsea engineering handbook. Waltham, MA: Gulf Professional Publishing. Ben-Daya, M. (2009). Handbook of maintenance management and engineering. London: Springer. Brockhaus, Stephan, Lindner, Hubert, Steinvoorte, Tom, Hennerkes, Holger, & Djapic-Oosterkamp, Ljiljana. (2010). Record Inspection of the World's Longest Subsea Gas Pipeline (Vol. 237, pp. 86). Dallas: Oildom Publishing Company of Texas, Inc. Dalbro, M., Eikeland, E., Veld, A. J., Gjessing, S., Lande, T. S., Riis, H. K., & Sorasen, O. (2008, 2008). Wireless Sensor Networks for Off-shore Oil and Gas Installations. Exponent Engineering and Scientific Consulting. (2010). Retrieved 19/05/14, 2014, from http://www.exponent.com/kielland_platform/ Hammerschmidt, Christoph. (2014). Strain gauge is based on optical fibre. From http://global.ofweek.com/news/Strain-gauge-is-based-on-optical-fibre-8327 Hunt, James. (2008). A new way to monitor using fibreoptics. Sensor Review, 28(3), 199-204. doi: 10.1108/02602280810882544 Johnson, Curtis D. (2009). Metal Strain Gauges. Retrieved 19/05/14, 2014, from http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/ph/p/id/144 Kaasen, Knut. (1991). Post Piper Alpha: some reflections on offshore safety regimes from a Norwegian perspective. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 9(1-4), 281. Kelly, Anthony M. Sc. (2006). Strategic maintenance planning (Vol. 1). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Kennedy, Matthew, & Terdre, Nick. (2008). New depth-independent, high resolution subsea pipeline inspection tool released (Vol. 68, pp. 164). Tulsa: PennWell Corporation. Mascarelli, Amanda. (2010). Deepwater Horizon: After the oil. Nature, 467(7311), 22-24. doi: 10.1038/467022a McGee, Michael. (2012). Re-thinking the possible in in-line inspection (Vol. 72, pp. 125). Tulsa: PennWell Corporation. Mobley, R. Keith. (2004). Maintenance fundamentals. Boston: Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann. Mobley, R. Keith. (2014). Maintenance engineering handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Offshore Drilling Accidents. (2006). Oil Rig Disasters. From http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/pipera.htm Paé-Cornell, M. E. (1993). Learning from the Piper Alpha accident: A postmortem analysis of technical and organizational factors. Insurance Mathematics and Economics, 13(2), 165-165. doi: 10.1016/0167-6687(93)90921-B Palmer, Andrew C., & King, Roger A. (2004). Subsea pipeline engineering. Tulsa, Okla: PennWell. Pistone, E., Li, K., & Rizzo, P. (2013). Noncontact monitoring of immersed plates by means of laser-induced ultrasounds. Structural Health Monitoring, 12(5-6), 549-565. doi: 10.1177/1475921713506767 Sassoon, D. (2010). Did deepwater methane hydrates cause the BP Gulf explosion? Gaurdian Environment Network. Retrieved 19/05/2014, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/20/deepwater-methane-hydrates-bp-gulf Tore, Markeset, Jorge, Moreno-Trejo, & Rajesh, Kumar. (2013). Maintenance of subsea petroleum production systems: a case study (Vol. 19, pp. 128-143). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing, Limited. Tsang, Albert, H. C. (1998). A strategic approach to managing maintenance performance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 4(2), 87-94. doi: 10.1108/13552519810213581 Wikipedia Alexander L. Kielland (platform). (2014). from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_L._Kielland_(platform) Acknowledgements. Group Contribution Table Mohit Raman 100% Abdulrahman Akbar 100% Roberto Lopez 100% Menglong Li 100% Harold Kwee 100% Faisal Alanazi 0% Read More

Among the currently preferred technologies are the use of ultrasonic and acoustic wave techniques. A Strain gauge type sensor networks will also get a review of the document. (Tore, Jorge, & Rajesh, 2013). Condition based monitoring by use of strain gauges mainly focused on metallic foil type and fiber optic gauges. Due to its real-time capabilities, condition based monitoring is preferred over other methods. Early warning systems are necessary if disasters are to be averted. Maintenance Solutions ROV Inspection Remotely operated vehicles are small submersible robots operated remotely from a command point mostly on ships close to the offshore facility.

ROV’s usually gets equipped with high-tech sensors, cameras and robotic arms used to perform operations that are otherwise dangerous to humans. They are more thorough in inspection compared to humans hence can detect tiny cracks and minute damages that ordinarily gets missed during routine inspections. Figure 2: A Remotely Operated Vehicle (Bai & Bai, 2012) Some ROV’s such as the Neptune System by AGR group utilizes Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) to conduct volumetric weld inspections.

Neptune system also uses compression wave transducers to provide graphic colour mapping (Kennedy & Terde, 2008). The advanced technology is handy in keeping track of crack growth and pipe corrosion. ROV’s can also be used to conduct a seabed inspection for debris that could pose a danger to underwater installations e.g. ice-bergs. The general health of sub-sea systems can thus be monitored visually as a form of preventative maintenance (Kennedy & Terde, 2008). ROV’s are the most versatile of the support equipment in that not only can it perform inspections but also can be used to repair damaged parts With the depletion of oil and gas resources, sub-sea systems are continually being pushed deeper and further offshore and, as a result, ROV’s and similar equipment have become even more important.

In-Line Inspection (Pigging) It refers to the use of cylindrical devices that fed into a pipeline system to ascertain its operational conditions (Palmer & King, 2004). The ‘pig’ can analyze the interior of a pipe network using magnetic flux leakages and ultrasonic techniques (McGee, 2012). Pigging has many merits compared to other methods due to its real-time data reliance. This method operates by making use of the internal pipe pressure for movement inside the tube. The movement is monitored, and areas that need attention can be used accordingly (Bai, 2001).

Figure 3: 'Pig' samples ("Contact Resources", 2014) Unlike ROV’s, pigging is only limited to inspection. Despite this limitation, in-line inspection is still preferred due to the quality of data it produces. Condition Based Monitoring Real-time data in high-risk systems provides the best preventive solution and us vital in avoiding dire consequences. Ben-Daya (2009) in his book, suggested that effective condition monitoring enables planning of maintenance practices while ensuring that unnecessary preventative tasks get avoided.

Ideally, breakdowns would be prevented if condition based monitoring were Wide-spread. However, currently this method is applied only to high-risk systems. In sub-sea systems, real-time data assists in monitoring of corrosion status of pipes, water temperature and pressure and the level of fatigue in structures. Strain Gauges It is a method of examining detect elastic movements of structures. Strain gauges are of two types: 1. Metallic foil gauge. It is a traditional strain gauge method that gets made of a metallic conductor that varies its resistance to strain.

The voltage produced by the strain gauge due to stress caused by the movement of structures will then be proportional to be the amount of change (Beckwith, Lienhard, & Marangoni, 2007). It enables the monitoring of small changes in movement. Figure 4: Metallic Foil Strain Gauge (Johnson, 2009) 2. Fibre optic gauge. The application of fibre optic gauge is similar to that of metallic foil gauge.

Read More