Pipeline Integrity Management
05.29
The 360° view
In the early 1990s asset
integrity management was addressed by increasing inspection programmes. In the
late 1990s, increasingly sophisticated IT tools were developed, and today a
complex mix of strategies, IT solutions and inspections are often employed.
This can potentially lead to client dissatisfaction, since from an operator’s
point of view ‘it costs a lot, it’s complicated and we’re not sure we really
need it’.
Bureau Veritas attended a
conference where an operator presented on the issues involved in implementing a
highly sophisticated integrity management system. In particular the issue of
anticipating difficulties related to methodologies, data, management of change,
etc. In response, Bureau Veritas explained the difficulties of taking on such a
wide scope at once. The operator immediately replied: “Guys, you have the 360°
view, we don’t. You should teach us all that and warn us!”
No revolution but simply common
sense
There are many different
definitions of pipeline integrity management (PIM), including those listed
within API 1160 and ASME B31.8S.
As a simple and
understood-by-all definition, the following is proposed: “a system to ensure
that a pipeline network is safe, reliable, sustainable and optimised.”
Bureau Veritas’ PIM step-by-step
approach is comprised of the following six stages:
Policy and strategy: where are
you now, where do you want to go and what should you put in place to reach your
target?
Methodology: do you want/need to
use a risk-based, threat-based or consequence-based approach or something else?
Data: start thinking about data
collection and modelling only once the policy and strategy, and methodology
have been identified.
Systems and tools: once policy
and strategy have been defined, methodology has been selected and data
gathered, select the most appropriate tool to use (simple or sophisticated
software).
Study and analysis: the tools
will enable an assessment of the pipeline network and definition of your
inspection plans.
Inspection and expertise: after
implementing the inspection plans, specific expertise should be used to analyse
the inspection results. The knowledge gained will then be used during the regular
PIM review.
Company policy and methodology
is key
As a first step, it is important
to properly define the roots of the PIM approach chosen. Local constraints,
in-house specific requirements, international guidelines and adequacy will help
set up the basis of the methodology to be developed.
The most appropriate approach
will be found by referencing the local regulatory body’s policy
(safety/inspections-oriented or risk/threat mitigation-oriented) along with
common practices and existing procedures, the assets’ typology and age, the
existing international best practices, and the level of in-house expertise.
Several approaches may be considered, such as qualitative versus quantitative,
threat-based versus damage-based, and probabilistic versus deterministic.
The identification of expected
results (primary target) should be properly specified: restricted impact on the
environment, corrosion-related failure prevention, inspection strategy, and
means of mitigation. This will ensure that the PIM is set up in-line with the
project targets.
The PIM methodology can then be
chosen and tailored to the specific case.
A PIM approach that may be
suitable for one operator may not be acceptable for another operator. Only once the methodology is
developed and understood by all project stakeholders can the data and tool
issues be properly addressed.
Data and tools: you don’t need a
video game
Data management is a crucial
task within the PIM process. It should provide a complete system capable of
delivering the right data in the right shape, at the right place and for the
right purpose. This requires very organised and step-wise work.
By defining the PIM strategy,
key performance indicators can be identified and data requirements can be
defined. This refers to the format, accuracy, and frequency requirements of the
data. It is also beneficial to think mid-term about PIM requirements, for
example, consider the tools that will be used and any modifications that might
be planned to the asset.
Finally, it is advised that data
quality control/quality assurance is performed to obtain the ‘green light’
before processing data into the PIM process.
The same applies to the tools to
be used. While there is a temptation to use a very ‘high tech’ tool, the most
important consideration is for an easy-to-use tool that will monitor the health
of the pipeline network and point out pipeline segments which require
mitigation or inspection due to their threat or risk levels.
Depending on the pipeline’s
length, a Microsoft Excel macro could be sufficient. However, an automated and
integrated tool is necessary for longer pipelines or complicated networks.
Study and analysis: from
integrity assessment to inspection plans
Now with an operational and
clear pipeline database along with a PIM tool, the chosen PIM methodology can
be implemented. The PIM tool will enable the first integrity assessment to be
carried out – ‘first’ because PIM is a continuous loop where previous results
are used to improve the following assessments. Following this, a ‘pipeline
prioritisation’ can be obtained, which will form the basis to analyse and
understand the pipeline network’s condition. Frrom here, the PIM can be
expanded to include a mitigation plan plus inspection plan.
Here an important question
arises: what actions should be performed in order to reduce the threat/risk
level on the pipeline? Should the inspection frequency be increased, a
mitigation action applied, or both? The decision should rely on the inspection
and mitigation policies defined in the first step of the PIM process.
Inspection and expertise: method
qualification and trustworthy results
Undoubtedly, one of the most
visible steps of the PIM process is the inspection itself. There are many
inspection techniques for pipelines but the most widely used are magnetic-flux
leakage and ultrasonic testing. The in-line inspection provider should be
selected very carefully, evaluating their qualification by referring to the
specific requirements of the project.
The most critical part of this
process is the analysis of results and the expertise required to obtain crucial
information on the actual condition of the pipeline.
An effective PIM should be
comparable to a high-quality management system.
This article started by
outlining that a PIM is a system allowing operators to ensure that their
pipeline networks operate in a safe, reliable, sustainable and optimised way.
If neglected and unused, even
the most expensive and ‘high tech’ PIM solution will fail to be beneficial. A
PIM needs to be accepted and embedded into the company’s processes.
Therefore, as a conclusion,
Bureau Veritas would advise operators to keep in mind that a PIM, like a
quality management system, is a continuous process. Therefore it is important
to break down the PIM plan into manageable steps.
Acknowledgements
The author and co-authors of
this article would like to express their gratitude to their customers, in
particular TOTAL (Worldwide), CuuLong Joint Operating Company (CLJOC – Vietnam)
and KazTransOil (KTO – Kazakhstan) who have fed Bureau Veritas’s thoughts about
PIM and asset integrity management (AIM) in general. Not only have those
successful and friendly collaborations inspired Bureau Veritas to develop its
AIM ‘step-by-step approach’ but have also allowed a deeper knowledge of AIM
which, we trust, will be useful to other pipeline operators.
Sumber:
http://pipelinesinternational.com/news/a_step-bystep_approach_to_pipeline_integrity_management/077277/
0 komentar