This document was downloaded from the Penspen Integrity Virtual Library

For further information, contact Penspen Integrity:

Penspen Integrity
Units 7-8 Telephone: +44 (0)191 238 2200
St. Peter's Wharf Fax: +44 (0)191 275 9786
Newcastle upon Tyne Email: [email protected]
NE6 1TZ Website: www.penspenintegrity.com
United Kingdom
 Pipeline Integrity Reviews - A
Holistic Approach
Phil Hopkins

Andrew Palmer & Associates, UK

P t off Penspen
Part P Ltd
email [email protected]

Paper presented at:

Pipeline
Pi li PiPigging,
i IIntegrity
t it A Assessmentt and
dRRepair
i
APA
Conference. February 2001, Houston.
© Penspen Ltd
Presentation Structure
 Background to paper
 Change
 Safety of Ageing Pipelines
 Move to Risk Management
 Pipeline Integrity Reviews and Their Benefits
 Conducting g a Pipeline
p Integrity
g y Review (PIR)
( )
 Fitness for purpose
 Risk analysis
 Wh should
Who h ld conduct
d t a PIR
 Pipeline Management Systems
 Ten key considerations for all pipeline
engineers when considering your pipeline’s
Background
Background
he USA pipeline industry is about to commence integrity
anagement programs, encouraged by regulations. The core of
ese programs will be detailed reviews of pipeline integrity
ndrew Palmer & Associates have been conducting integrity reviews
aseline assessments) for clients worldwide:
 UK - uprating
p g of 25 year
y old system
y
 Asia - assess safety & rerating of 40 year old pipeline
 Africa - third party commercial reasons
 General - pipeline management systems
e’ve learnt that:
 Not sufficient just to look at ‘integrity’
 Not sufficient to focus on the pipeline alone
 You must look at the whole pipeline system, as all aspects contribute
to safety - a ‘holistic’ approach.
 You must have a pipeline management system
e’d like to share our experiences/expertise with you, as you start
Background
ou will be needing to thoroughly review your integrity in USA
ou may call this review a ‘baseline’ assessment, and
ou may call the overall framework ‘integrity
integrity management’
management and
ou may call you integrity assessments or the procedure for
btaining a plan to reduce risk ‘direct assessment’,
utt all
ll thi
this is
i accommodated
d t d in
i the
th Pi
Pipeline
li IIntegrity
t it Review.
R i
he major difference is that the Pipeline Integrity Review is
xplicitly...

HOLISTIC
Change
Change in our world… the family.
The whole world is changing, not just the pipeline
business. Consider the effects of technology on our
amily:
Central Heating - we no longer need to sit
together for warmth
Microwave cookers - we no longer have to sit
together for eating
Electronic games - we no longer have to sit
together to play
Cell phones - we no longer have to be
together at all!
Change in people….

e are
ng.
very morning I
k in the mirror,
mirror
I think I look
ter. Sadly, I’m
ling myself….
onsider how
mour is
nging for
nging…
mple in a
mb squad….
Change in pipeline construction… little change.
LD NEW
Change in pipeline testing….
We have seen major changes in
testing our lines.
From limited gas testing, to
high level water testing (1960s)
to
low resolution smart pig
inspection (1970s) to
high
hi h resolution
l ti smartt pig
i
inspection (1980s)
Pipeline Safety
Pipeline safety… recent USA failures

Images taken
ffrom OPS
O S
website:
ops.gov.com
Pipeline safety… not confined to USA

taken
ers
e
Pipeline failures… why?
US EUROPEAN CANADA US EUROPEAN HUNGARIAN
CAUSES
GAS GAS GAS OIL OIL OIL & GAS

THIRD PARTY 40.4 28.2 12.6 21.5 47.5 56.5

CORROSION 20.4 15.7 11.6 21.7 27.7 17.6

ATERIAL AND
ONSTRUCTION 12.7 9.5 34.3 11.5 23.4 12.9
DEFECT

RATIONAL ERROR 26.4 46.5 41.5 45.4 4.3 12.9

DENTS/ 1000 M YR 0.26 1.85 2.93 1.33 0.83 4.03

You MUST have an holistic approach to integrity,

integrity to prevent all
these failures, AND
Smart pigging, risk management programmes, correct routeing
Pipeline safety… why are we having ‘more’
failures?
Our pipelines are getting older, and we expect the same/more
performance.
But we still treat them the same…?
This cannot be a decision from an engineer!
USA system oldest in the world
If it’s g
going
g to happen,
pp , it will happen
pp here first….
More buildings/activities around pipelines; increased consequences
We are increasingly treating engineering as a ‘commodity’
Commodities (e.g. sugar) are price-driven, and not perceived as
complicated or having variable quality
This may be true of, e.g. linepipe, in our industry
But it is not true of anything related to safety and environment
Some of our operators have downsized
losing the ‘grey hairs’,
under-strength or under-trained or ‘under-experienced’, and
losing
l i ‘corporate
‘ t memory’, ’ andd engineering
i i objectivity.
bj ti it
Our regulators are under pressure to reduce size… the ‘more for less’
Safety of Ageing Pipelines
ood maintenance and management of ageing pipelines allows them
be operated
p safely y for many yy years. FAILURES NEED NOT HAPPEN!
o rro s io n S p ills /y e a r/1 0 0 0 k m
0 .1 6
0 .1 4
0 .1 2
0 .11
0 .0 8
0 .00 6
0 .0 4
0 .0 2
0 1 -5 6- 11- 16- 21- 26- 31- 36- 41-
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Change in approach to pipeline safety….
Old Style… Reactive… from failure to failure….

Legislation
L i l ti Don’t
and/or Act
lure No update Failure
Pipeline and/or
Failure Plan
Integrity Plan
Review

New
N St
Style…
l P
Proactive…
ti no failure
f il philosophy
hil h

No Pipeline Pipeline No

Management Integrity Plan
ure Failure
System Review
Change to Risk Management
Change to Risk Management - ‘Proactive’
he change to ‘proactive’ safety requires formal identification
nd management of risk. This is an international movement:
 USA Office of Pipeline Safety has a risk demonstration
programme, and see risk management as a potential method of
producing equal or greater levels of safety in a more cost
effective manner that the current regulatory
regime
 UK Pipelines Safety Regulations:
 Goal-setting, not prescriptive
 The Regulations require a ‘major accident prevention document’,
including safety management system
system.
 Canada has non-mandatory ‘Guidelines for Risk Analysis of
Pipelines’ in its pipeline code.
 The European Commission is reviewing ‘major accident’
pipelines, and are likely to require operators to have a ‘major
Pipeline Integrity Reviews
Pipeline Integrity Reviews
IN THE USA YOU WILL HAVE:
‘FINAL RULE’ + API 1160 = INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT
This can be simply represented by:

Pipeline integrity review

Pipeline management system

Integrity management
The Need For Pipeline Integrity Reviews,
and Their Benefits
There are six main reasons why an operator
may need to review the integrity of a pipeline:
 Continuing
C ti i safety,
f t security
it and
d compliance.
li
 Cost effectiveness.
 Poor documentation.
documentation
 Change or extension of use.
 Revalidation.
 Change of ownership or third party access.
The Need For Pipeline Integrity Reviews,
and Their Benefits
The benefits of conducting an integrity review
nclude:
 Compliance with regulations
 Factual demonstration to all stakeholders of pipeline safety
and corporate
p commitment to safety y
 Pipeline health check.
 Confirmation of safe operating limits.
 Independent review of design and operation.
 Identify and justify any requirement for remedial action.
 Identify any weaknesses in management procedures
procedures.
Conducting a Pipeline Integrity Review
A Pipeline integrity review is a review of a pipeline system that,
as a minimum,, includes analysis
y of:

 The pipeline’s design, construction and commissioning,

 Pipeline
p route and hazards ((e.g.
g pproximity
y of housing,
g subsidence
areas or seabed profile),
 Operating history, practices and management,
 Current condition via inspection records,
records failures,
failures downtime,
downtime etc.,
etc
 Practices for inspection and maintenance of the pipelines,
 Hydraulic/compression, including delivery forecasts and expansion
plans,
 Product quality; both current and future quality is considered,
 Safety and environmental procedures and systems,
systems
 The critical parts of the pipeline system (pipelines, SCADA
Pipeline Integrity Review - Execution plan
ITEM DESCRIPTION
1. PIR Objective, Scope and Overview of i. Descriptions, and
Programme. ii. Timetable
i
i. Offi Set
Office S t Up
U (if needed),
d d)
ii. Mobilisation of Review Teams,
iii. Kick-Off Meetings/Documentation Review,
2. Overview of Activities
iv. Data Gathering and Analysis by Discipline (Item 4),
v. Integrity and Risk Review (Item 5),
vi
vi. Reporting with Corrective Actions
Reporting, Actions.
i. Pre-Data Gathering Reviews,
ii. Data Analysis & Report Preparation,
3. Activity Schedule iii. Review Report Submission,
iv. Clarification Meetings on Draft Review Report,
v. Fi l Report
Final R t and
d Corrective
C ti Actions
A ti Report.
R t
i. Process,
ii. Mechanical,
iii. Electrical,
4. Scope of Data Gathering Activities by Discipline
iv. Instrumentation/Control,
(many disciplines may be needed during the
v. Risk and Integrity (Item
( 5)),
review)
vi. Pipeline Engineering,
vii. Cathodic Protection,
viii. Safety and Environment.
5. Pipeline
p Fitness for Purpose
p and Risk Review i. See Section 4.3.4.
i. CVs of Key Personnel,
ii. Organigram,
iii. HSE Plan,
Fitness for Purpose and Risk Review
One part of the Pipeline Integrity Review is the
FFP and Risk Review.
Review This is a major topic of
this conference, so it is worthy of mention.
These reviews will:
 Contribute to the overall expert opinion on the integrity of
pipeline system.
system
 Identify critical sections of the pipeline system (e.g. in
terms of security of supply).
 Assess the remnant life of the pipeline, and its ability to
withstand either its existing duty, or change of duty.
 Provide a review of the risks associated with the p
pipeline
p in
both its current and future condition.
Fitness for Purpose and Risk Review

 The ‘fitness for purpose’ review will usually focus on any

defects (e.g. corrosion) or damage (e.g. dents)
recorded/anticipated in the pipeline, as these will be the results
of the major hazards to the pipeline (e.g. mechanical damage, or
deteriorating coating).
) This review will help us determine the
PROBABILITY (LIKELIHOOD) of a failure; however, this review
does not take account of the CONSEQUENCES of any failure.
 The ‘risk’ review will take account consequences, as:
 RISK = PROBABILITY OF FAILURE x CONSEQUENCES OF
FAILURE
 But don’t forget, we also need to take account ‘GAIN’. We
balance our risk with our gain. This is controversial and usually
avoided in p
public,, but ESSENTIAL.
 Why? Because it is often the operator who gains by increasing
risks, and the public who loses.
Fitness for purpose assessment of defects
ness for Purpose - defect assessment.
is is a mature subject and you can assess existing defects, you can
uate future defect occurrence and growth using these methods.
u can also determine when to repair defects, which pig to use, how
n, and whether you need to hydrotest or not.
1.0
tend my
rse if you 0.9

t to
t find
fi d 0.8
efect depth)

more! 0.7

0.6
normalised de

DESIGN PRESSURE (72 percent SMYS)

0.5
C
0.4

0.3
0 3
B
d/t (n

HYDROTEST PRESSURE (100 percent SMYS)

0.2
PIG INSPECTION LEVELS
0.1
A
Risk Assessments
isk Assessment is essential, and you have many risk
ssessments methods and packages to choose from.
from
ere’s one:
Pipeline
Internal Corrosion
I f
Information
ti
External Corrosion Risk to Life
Fatigue Damage to Property
Stress Corrosion Cracking
Loss of Service
Mechanical Dam age
Cost of Failure
Loss of Ground Support
Third Party Intervention
Environmental Effects

Probability of Failure Relative Risk Consequences of Failure

PRIORITY RATING
Results of a risk assessment
esults from part of a Qualitative Risk Assessment
80 Section 1
Main Pipe Sections - Current Operating Pressure
Section 2
Section 3
70 Section 4
Section 5

60

50

40

30

20

10
Some Decisions made in a PIR

Outcome of FFP and Risk Assessment may

include recommendations for:

 Smart pigging,
pigging
 Hydrotesting,
 Critical point inspection,
 Cathodic protection testing,
 Repair
p methods,
 Other rehabilitation methods.

Note that the results of the risk review are important

important, but the
most important feature of the risk review is the PROCESS we
Who should conducting a PIR?

The review should be conducted by an

organisation that can offer the following skills:
 Independence
 Design,
Design construction and commissioning of
above and below ground plant (or offshore and
subsea plant if appropriate),
 Operation, inspection and maintenance of
pipeline systems,
 Communications and instrumentation,
instrumentation
 Defect assessment, repair and rehabilitation,
 Risk and safety assessments,
 Management consultancy,
A Pipeline Integrity Review Report
The integrity review report should include:
 An overall view of pipeline system condition:
 Wellheads / above ground installations
 Pipeline
 Cathodic protection
 Controls
 Associated facilities
 Operation and Maintenance
 Recommendations on:
 Modification and Repair
 Inspection
 Future operation
 An appraisal of management system and procedures
Pipeline Management System*
Pipeline Management System

Pipeline integrity review

Pipeline
Pi li managementt system
t

Integrity management
Management System - Generic
Policy Policy
p
development

O
Organising
i i Organisational
development

Planning and
Auditing
Implementing
Developing
techniques of
Measuring planning,
P f
Performance measuring and
reviewing
Pipeline Integrity/Risk Management System
Integrity or Risk
Policy
Management Policy
p
development

O
Organising
i i Organisational
development

Planning and
Auditing
Implementing
Developing
techniques of
Measuring planning,
P f
Performance measuring and
reviewing
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

Changing
g g to a safer pipeline….
pp
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 1
1. Change Requires New
nking

‘The significant problems

we face, cannot be
solved at the same level
of thinking we were when
we created them’.
Einstein 1879-1955
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 2
2. Change Will be Resisted

‘There
There is nothing more difficult to
plan, more doubtful of success,
nor more dangerous to manage
than the creation of a new
system.

For the initiator has the enmity of

all who would profit by
preservation of the old
i tit ti
institutions, and
d merelyl lluke
k
Machiavelli 1469-1527
warm defenders in those who
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 3.
3 Corporate Culture

In pipeline operation
operation, our maintenance costs are minor
ompared to our corporate overhead.
It is a fact that large organisations operating pipelines will
ut costs on maintaining their pipelines, but let junior
xecutives travel over the world in business class, or waste
me on meetings that all participants know are a waste of
me.
Th
These companies i are both
b th outt off date,
d t nott serving
i their
th i
usiness goals, and creating imbalances between the
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 4.
4 Selecting the lowest bid
n’t let you Contract/Finance Department select pipeline contracts or
ces. Why not?
a trained monkey can select the smallest of three objects
an engineer can select the safest and best
e have advice against selecting the lowest bid from Ruskin, 1819-
0:
‘It is unwise to pay too much but it is worse to pay too little. When
you pay too much you lose a little money… that is all. When you pay
too little
li l you sometimes
i lose
l everything
hi because
b the
h thing
hi you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and
getting a lot
lot… it cannot be done
done. If you deal with the lowest bidder it
is well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 4.
4 Selecting the lowest bid
nt.)

‘Low bidders and “can-do” type of guys

kill people’
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 55. Do not do the ‘minimum’

minimum
ected or required
des. Regulations, etc., are minimum requirements
m to do more than your peers - it makes sense...
If you do only one thing more than your peers,
peers his/her
pipeline will probably fail first
You’ll learn from their experience, and act accordingly,
so it doesn’t happen to you
They will then copy your practices, but
You will then move one step ahead again…
again
And then their pipeline will fail before yours again!
 Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 6
6. Think Holistic Solutions

ipeline Integrity Management must consider

aspects of our pipeline system as it is an
egrated
d process, where
h all
ll elements
l affect
ff
ety.’
We must apply holistic solutions
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 7.
7 ‘Calculations
Calculations are not
gineering’
hey do convey the thought process and design intent.
he quality, etc. of calculations indicates the level of care and
gence; calculations substantiate,
substantiate
t do not substitute for judgement.

he use of canned calculations and design approaches without

erstanding their application & limitations, is beneath an
i
ineer’s
’ standard
t d d off care.’’
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 8
8. Management

Smart pigging, risk management programmes,

rrect routeing etc., will help you achieve high
egrity…
but onlyyg
good management
g will GUARANTEE
egrity
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 9
9. Murphy’s
Murphy s Law

MURPHY'S UNIVERSAL LAW:

If anything
thi can go wrong, it will.
ill
MURPHY'S COROLLARIES:
No.
N 1 - Left
L f to themselves,
h l things
hi tend
d to go ffrom b
bad
d to
worse.
No. 2 - It is impossible
p to make anything
y g foolproof
p
because fools are so ingenious.
MURPHY'S CONSTANT:
Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value.
Ten Key Considerations for Engineers when
Considering
g your
y Pipeline’s
p Integrity
g y & Safety
y

ey Consideration 10
10. Don’t
Don t Get it Wrong!

are in a litigious
y today… we
utnumbered…
t get it wrong!!!!!
is USA data…
ers in USA now
mber engineers
cientists
ned….
CONCLUSIONS
Integrity Reviews can be conducted on pipelines in a
ystematic manner. They
y y provide:
 Pipeline ‘health’ check,
 Independent review of design and operation,
 Confirmation of existing safety and safe operating limits,
 Confirmation of compliance, and ability to be
uprated/reused/sold, etc.,
 Opportunity to undertake remedial action before operational
or design discrepancies develop,
 Confirmation of future safety and security of supply to all
stakeholders.
You must adopt a ‘holistic’ approach, taking account of all the
ngineering associated with the pipeline system
The resulting integrity plan must be adopted within a
ABOUT THE LECTURE & LECTURER
lecture, and associated paper, was presented at:
The Pipeline Pigging, Integrity Assessment and Repair Conference. February
2001 Houston.
2001, H Conference
C f Proceedings
P di from
f Clarion
Cl i Press,
P Houston,
H Tx.
T
hil Hopkins is a Director of Penspen Ltd., UK, the international pipeline
eering company, and was previously Managing Director of Andrew Palmer and
ciates UK,
ciates, UK a company of specialist pipeline engineers.
engineers
has over 20 years experience in all aspects of pipeline engineering, integrity and
gement consultancy and has presented many keynote papers and lectures at
national conferences
conferences.
technical and management training courses and lectures are presented all over
orld; additionally he presents lectures and courses on ‘Change’*, for all levels of
from Executives to Administration.
u require this lecture (in 1,2 or 3 hour format) or any of his training courses,
ct either:
 Dr Phil Hopkins, Penspen APA, 4, Amethyst Road, Newcastle Business Park,
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7YL, UK,
Tel 44 (0) 191 273 2430, Fax 44 (0) 191 273 2405, email [email protected]